Mount Shasta's glaciers- proxy for what?

On the other hand, global warming was primarily responsible for nudity. However, unless you enjoy jumping into nearly frozen lakes (and a few do), this too shall come to pass.

My first encounter with Mt. Shasta was in the 70s. The snow and ice was impressive and it was so cool that some thought we were slipping into a mini-ice age. In the late 90s, most of the snow and ice was gone. It was “the warmest in history.” Since 2000, the white stuff has been accumulating and temps have been cooling. Is that so difficult to understand? How can anyone suggest that the conditions of the 90s were due to global warming and the cooler conditions since 1998 were due to global warming as well. Can they have it both ways? Apparently so.

Pamela Gray (23:19:16) : On the other hand, global warming was primarily responsible for nudity.
If one overlays the Old Testament time line on the Holocene Interglacial sea level record as interpreted by Fairbridge an interesting correlation appears. About the time the “first couple” had a bite of the nasty fruit, there was a distinct cooling trend developing. (This around 4000 BC.) Perhaps that part of the story in which they were “ashamed” and resorted to covering up the private parts had more to do with global cooling than any shame at being nekkid.

Pamela,
About 30 years ago I worked as a wilderness ranger one summer at a 12,000 foot lake deep in a wilderness area in New Mexico. The lake was partially frozen until mid-July and was the only place to bathe. I got used to taking some very quick baths, and only when the sun was shining brightly and the wind calm.

If Mount Shasta’s growing glaciers do not disprove global warming, then they do not prove it either – in growth or decline. But nobody bothers to point that out in the article. AGW is assumed and even advocated for politically. Another typical article.

The lastest sunspot appears to be dying off. But a new speck is visible, see bottom left quadrant of the sun.

Propaganda wins. This isn’t a story based on facts. This is merely one more step in the long march. Global warming and environmental policy are, like elections, ultimately determined by the MSM propaganda machine. Cold is warm. Warm is cold. Whatever. They don’t care. All that matters is that the story must move the political snowball further to the left. Everything else is just “mere details”.

Why is it just more rainfall? What about the regional cooling that shows up on the HCN sites in the region like Cedarville, CA?
As I recall, they’ve even UHI adjusted the temps from these remote sites because the temps didn’t meet ‘expectations’.

Isn’t Mount Shasta supposed to be some kind of mystic power source for the planet? Maybe it’s one of the first places to receive the President-Elect’s healing vibes (“… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”)
On a more serious note, I found the following paragraph in Wikipedia about the Franz Josef glacier in New Zealand’s South Island, which has also advanced in recent years:
“The glacier is currently 12 km long and terminates 19 km from the Tasman Sea. Fed by a 20 sqm large snowfield[5] at high altitude, it exhibits a cyclic pattern of advance and retreat, driven by differences between the volume of meltwater at the foot of the glacier and volume of snowfall feeding the névé. Due to strong snowfall it is one of the few glaciers in New Zealand which is still growing as of 2007, while others, mostly on the eastern side of the Southern Alps, have been shrinking heavily, a process attributed to global warming.”
So there you have it – if glaciers shrink, it’s global warming, if they advance, it’s just a local quirk of the weather or global warming in another form.
And that’s the magic of the doubled headed coin that is global warming. Flip the coin and it always comes up – global warming. Magic!

There is a nude beach along the Columbia River that grew in nudity and shrank in clothes, gaining ground during the 70’s and 80’s. This summer, as I drove by, I thought I saw a couple of goose bumps peaking out through the brush but that was it. There were no cars in the parking lot. The hot springs in Oregon and Idaho also took it in the shorts…so to speak.

In the 1970’s I worked in MacKenzie Mtns of Canada’s NWT and St. Elias Mtns of Yukon Territory. This was a time of climate cooling, but there was abundant evidence of glacier wasting.
Glaciers can be proxies of both temperature and precipitation. They can be indicators of local and/or regional climate variation. An yes, when properly evaluated, they can provide evidence of global climate variation.
The alarmists have abused this topic for some time and will likely continue to cherry pick those examples that favor their agenda. Unfortunately most folks (especially the press) have neither the training nor expertise to see the bias.
Keep up the good work Anthony. By providing examples such as Shasta, you allow discussion and help educate folks who are willing to be educated.

Dave Bilhaus, there is no need to be rude.
Our author is merely expressing his frustration that “everything is due to climate change” and the obvious problems with their knowledge (saying that glaciers are melting, which they almost never do, subliming directly like snow or laundry on a Siberian clothesline). However, the primary source of frustration is that both growing and shrinking glaciers are considered proof of climate change, leading to a non-falsifiable hypothesis. I’m certain that you understand the problems with scientific inquiry that that entails.

“…and that sublimation, not melting, is the primary agent in glacier shrinkage.”
Sublimation is also explains the transformation of climate science into the specious science of AGW.
“The number of humans on Earth is large and growing,” he said, “but the planet is not getting any bigger.”
I beg to differ. Earth is doused with up to 40 tons of dihydrogen monoxide and interplanetary dust and meteorites daily, although the space provided by the growth is not adequate to compensate for the space requirements of additional humans. Global warming will also cause a thermal expansion of the Earth, although again not adequate to accommodate additional humans.
Another esteemed scientist, Dr. Paul Ehrlich, warned of the dangers of over-population. We humans need not be concerned about the future, there is always a well-meaning scientist who will inform us of our destiny.
“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death.” (Population Bomb 1968)”
Dr. Ehrlich did not know that the growing season would be extended by AGW, resulting in more food for the teeming masses.
“I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” (1969)
I don’t know if any of you Brits are betting people, but be advised you are living on borrowed time.
“Actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people…” – Quoted by the Associated Press, April 6, 1990
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Quoted by R. Emmett Tyrrell in The American Spectator, September 6, 1992
“We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.” – Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet (1990)
If Dr. Ehrlich was a younger man, he may well have had a run at being president of the USofA.

“If you don’t like history, change it!”
Via Icecap:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NASATEMPS.pdf
Toggle between the two graphs to see Hansen’s handiwork.

A hack friend of mine says “hackery” is an honourable profession … nothing wrong with being an honest hack, he says. A “useless hack” … now that’s sumpt’n else.

P Folkens;
“Perhaps that part of the story in which they were “ashamed” and resorted to covering up the private parts had more to do with global cooling than any shame at being nekkid.”
Do you mean….’SHRINKAGE”!

Interesting post and responses; a note is posted bringing light to an intriguing natural phenomenon. I just wish there were more reply-posts delving into reasons why this might be; scientific-based discussion of the physical-natural reasons why this might be; perhaps jsut a little less of the “faction”-based opinion?
As for myself, it is easily concievable that a single causal factor can manifest in multiple, even contradictory responses (depending on spatial-temporal scale). It’s a very complex natural world out there.
As I understand the reasoning regarding Mt. Shasta specifically, since it pushes 14,000 feet, it is a localized topographic anomoly that provides for a temperature-orographic regime not shared by the surrounding landscape. Increased temperatures in (and over) the Pacific have increased the water vapor load transported eastward. Mt. Shasta, being the high-elevation “sore thumb” catches the increased precip, and since it is so, high, it is not as affected by the local increase of ~1.8 degrees occurring over the last 100 years or so. This does not occurr furthern north in the Cascades because a greater proportion of the rainfall comes in the Spring, Summer and Fall months, so more falls as rain instead of snow.
This explanation seems completely plausible, no? People too often expect single cause-and-effect in the natural world. As a biologist at least, I know in nature that single cause-single effect phenomena are exceptions, not the rule.
REPLY: That’s an interesting view of the issue. I would add that we also have had a change in the synoptic scale weather patterns, with the jet stream often oscillating North-South within +/- 100 miles of Mt. Shasta, which is also a contributor. We have not seen as many deep southerly excursions of the jet stream as we used to, hence the drought issues for California. – Anthony

Every time I hear your new president make one of his speaches this goes through my head
http://www.bobthebuilder.com/ca/english/bob_the_builder_official_canadian_website_homepage.asp

This is awful, just heard that Michael Crichton just died.

Anthony;
You need to move to the mid west. I’m convinced that you have waaay to many
functioning brain cells to remain in Chico. Or anywhere on the left coast for that matter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_en_ot/obit_crichton
Michael Crichton died yesterday. It is a very sad day.

Bill Illis,
That’s why I don’t like people on our side using anecdotes. It’s just not science. Michael Crichton would never tolerate it. It’s grasping at straws.

Pierre Gosselin (09:00:15) :
“Never mind the glaciers.
I predict that in one week, November 12, Arctic sea ice will reach its highest level in 7 years. A cold air mass has just moved over the Barent’s Sea, which has up to now been ice free for the most part. ”
Ive been watching that too. 🙂 But we wont be hearing about it unless they tell us the ice is thin, one year ice and will probably melt quickly:)
Im holding out some hope for our new pres tho.. his trends seem to indicate that he says what you want to hear and goes his own way after he wins. We shall see his true views soon enough:)

Jumped the gun and didn’t read previous posts… You can delete my above post.

Any tree ring studies from Shasta?
I’ve been on that mountain a lot and there are some gnarly trees on some select slops that might impart some info.

I just loved that quote from Dr. Tulaczyk.
“Mount Shasta is just a local system and does not really tell us much about global warming,” Tulaczyk said in an e-mail. “Everybody should know from their own experience that weather and climate are highly variable in space and time. It is absolutely incorrect to use Mount Shasta as some kind of proof that there is no global warming.”
What if I just paraphrase that a little.
Mount -KILIMANJARO- is just a local system and does not really tell us much about global warming,” Tulaczyk said in an e-mail. “Everybody should know from their own experience that weather and climate are highly variable in space and time. It is absolutely incorrect to use Mount -KILIMANJARO- as some kind of proof that there is — global warming.”

http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/eos_observ/pdf/Sep_Oct08.pdf
A direct quote: Funk and colleagues used a computer model from the National Center for Atmospheric Research to confirm their findings. The combination of evidence from models and historical data strongly suggest that human-caused warming of the Indian Ocean leads to an increase of rainfall over the ocean, which in turn adds energy to the atmosphere. Models showed that the added energy could indeed create a weather pattern that reduces the flow of moisture onshore and brings dry air down over the African continents resulting in reduced rainfall.
Did they forget about the MJO??
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap12/mjo.html
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/mjoupdate.pdf
What line of that last paragraph do you think the press will pick up on>>??

Phillip_B.
I respectfully disagree. The temperature of air at high altitude is proportional to air density (decreased atmospheric pressure), since most warming occurs from solar energy absorbed by the ground being radiated back up into the air. The less “air” per volume, the less the heat-capacity. The less heat capacity, the lower temperature. Therefor, it as important that air reaching Shasta has already been over land for an hour or two, than it is that Shasta is more than 4,000 feet higher than any surrounding land surface (and over 10,400 feet higher than surrounding valleys).
With increasing elevation, temperatures will diminish by 0.6 to 1.0 degree C for every meter-gain in altitude (depending on moisture content). So, figuring that Shasta is as much as 3,200 meters above the surrounding plains (and ~1,220 meters higher than highest nearby mountains), temperatures would be between 19.2 to 32 degrees C cooler at the top than the surrounding plains, and 7.3 to 12.2 degrees C cooler than the nearest tall mountains, regardless of how long air has been over land to the west.
At that altitude, precipitation in the winter months will fall as snow, so 1.8 degree warming will not affect snowfall up that high.
The argument stands.
Respectfully,
John D.
REPLY: John I’m going to have to point out that while temperature in fall, winter, and spring months does often produce snow on Mt. Shasta, there is no guarantee that the temperature conditions may be right for producing snow in any given storm. It all depends on the source air mass. For example, a “Pineapple Express” type event would likely produce warm wet snow, or maybe only rain depending on the temperature of the air mass and how it reacts to the Orographic lifting effect of the mountain. Under a specific set of atmospheric parcel conditions, including pressure, temperature, humidity, and the presence of ice crystal nucleii, a 1.8 degree difference for the could in fact determine the type of precipitation that occurs and the elevation at which it occurs.
In fact, the snow formation on Shasta may often occur at elevations higher that the mountain itself, depending on the atmospheric situation. It may be above freezing, say 35F on the slope and snow could still be formed by orographic lifting/cooling processes and manage to “stick” to the slopes as it falls from above.
Given that glaciers are a better proxy for precipitation than temperature, the observation that we are getting snowpack additions to the glaciers means that we are getting more snow events at those elevations. I attribute this mostly to synoptic scale weather pattern changes, which are mostly ocean influenced.
As you point out, nature is never simple, and the connection to increased snow on Shasta might very well begin with circulation changes in the Sea of Japan or any other place west of California. Since we can’t trace the path of water molecules from evaporation to precipitation, one can’t really say with certainty. Likewise, we can’t say with certainty that global warming is in fact the cause of the additional transport of water from source “X” to the mountain top in the form of snow.
– Anthony

NCDC has October temperatures in the database. Looks like it just showed up this afternoon. The narrative on the main page is still September, though.
Note that is USHCNv2 data. Looks like October 2008 came in (not sure if NCDC does their own adjustments to USHCNv2) 54.48F which is considerably cooler than last October’s 57.33F

I meant to say that it is NOT as important that air has been over land for for an hour or two before reaching Shasta than it is that Shasta is 4,000 to 10,400 feet higher than surrounding land surfaces…! A detail, but important nonetheless!
Thanks!
John D.

global ice back to normal. At this rate NH ice will be likely above anomaly for 2008-09 and antarctica is already. See cryosphere today

Dr. Slawek Tulaczyk said in an e-mail. “Everybody should know from their own experience that weather and climate are highly variable in space and time. It is absolutely incorrect to use Mount Shasta as some kind of proof that there is no global warming.”
“The 14,000-foot volcano’s glacier growth isn’t a reliable canary in a mineshaft when it comes to global warming woes.”
Dr. Tulaczyk, please define global climate.
Dr. Tulaczyk, please define global warming. Is it the uniform elevation of temperatures over the globe due to the anthropogenic CO2 contribution to the atmospheric concentration, even though satellite surveys show that CO2 is not uniformly distributed over the globe? Are environmentally compromised weather stations reliable “canaries-in-a-mineshaft” when it comes to global warming woes?
Dr. Tulaczyk, you say “…that weather and climate are highly variable in space and time.”
I have been limited by my thinking that climate is local or regional, but not global. Another misunderstanding that I have is that weather is a component of climate. Certain climates seem to have certain types of weather, with seasonal variations, of course.
For clarification I consult the IPCC AGW bible:
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather”, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.
“Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.” – Robert A. Heinlein
That clears it up for me: Climate is “average weather” and the two are interchangeable, depending on one’s expectation. I am a bit anxious about what those relevant quantities might be, however.
I admit, I am confuted by the specious science of AGW.

Philip_B (15:10:35) :
The Fox and Franz Joseph Glaciers – on the west side of the Cook Range – had receded 1000 feet when I visited the South Island in your summer (December) of 1974. The Tasman Glacier – on the east side – was unchanged.

Thanks again Anthony for the link to “synoptic-level” and additional clarification on top of Ol’-Shasta.
Very interesting, and yes, quite complicated!
As my old entomology professor used to say, “relax John, nature will always have more imagination than you”..I actually take comfort in that.
John D.

The Blues and Wallowas held onto their snow and ice this summer till it started to snow again this September. That means the glaciers we have will likely start growing again. So far the weather systems we have been getting have been filled with moisture and cold air, dumping snow everywhere in the higher mountains (and now on the lower slopes). By the way, if anyone is interested, take a look at the canyons in the Wallowas facing the Wallowa Valley. The moraine around Wallowa Lake is not the only moraine that is visible. There is another terminal moraine, meaning the glacier melted in place after forming the moraine. Can you spot it?
http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?map.x=295&map.y=198&minlon=-122.11&maxlon=-116.45&minlat=43.57&maxlat=47.67&mapwidth=354&site=pdt

The global warming kooks are phonier than a three dollar bill. Selective science, junk science,propaganda… thier goofiness never ends.

John D.
since most warming occurs from solar energy absorbed by the ground being radiated back up into the air
I’ll assume you didn’t set out to mislead by using ‘warming’ in a different way to the context of the discussion where ‘warming’ means ‘global warming’, ie the increase in temperature over time.
Otherwise nothing you say contradicts my point that Mt Shasta cannot be warming (in the global warming sense) significantly less than lower elevations because the physical mechanism you describe would preclude it.
GHG warming is an atmospheric effect. Warming at the Earth’s surface by sunlight has nothing to do with AGW. Which was my point about a local effect causing any observed difference. Afterwards, I thought ‘a local near ground level effect’ would have been clearer.
By way of explanation. Local near ground level warming would be mixed into a much larger volume of air as it rose up Mt Shasta and hence would have little to no efect at the summit. This of course would not be the case with global warming which is throughout the troposphere and mixing would have no effect on the amount of warming between Mt Shasta and surrounding areas.

Yes Philip..again though it’s the density of air, that diminishes with altitude, that determines heat capacity, and the ability of air to be warmed by radiative warming from the earth surface. And it is this diminished density, and rapid cooling as air is “forced upslope” that results in diminished water holding capacity and localized precipitation (orographic affect).
My point is that altitude is such a strong factor in determining how much heat a given volume of air can hold (along with composition, e.g., water, co2 content, etc.), that if an area where most of the surface is below 8, 000 feet elevation has warmed generally say 1-2 degrees, and that area has a volcanic knob sticking up to 14,000 feet, then a general regional increase of 1-2 degrees will not diminish snowfall above say…8,000 feet on that volcanic cone because the local elevation on the 8,000 to 14,000 foot surfaces will still be below freezing in the winter. So if there is regional warming…it will be more pronounced at lower surfaces than at higher elevations, relative to the freezing point.
Again, I’m not saying that Shasta isn’t warming too (afterall there is nothing magical about that peak!), I’m just saying that the further one goes up a 14,000 foot peak, the less likely a 1-2 degree regional rise in temperature will put you over 32 degrees in the winter. So if there is a general increase in the content of water vapor, and a 14,000-foot peak that remains below 32 degrees in the winter, than you’ll get more snow, even in context of a regional increase of 1-2 degrees.
Again, I think this is quite sound reasoning, no?
Best regards.

Sublimation may well be the primary cause of shrinkage in high arctic glaciers, but only because they are in the deep freeze all the time and so there is no melting. That’s definitely not the case with Mount Shasta though, which is exposed to the scorching summertime sun at a temperate latitude — in that case, ice loss from melting would massively outweigh the loss from sublimation — it’s just common sense, really.

Glacier Peak, WA is another Cascades volcano with, what appears to me, growing glaciers. About five years ago while hiking near the volcano it looked as though the glaciers had shrunk significantly based on old photos showing a heavily-glaciated peak. I didn’t see Glacier Peak again until a few weeks ago, and what a difference. The mountain is completely covered again, and the glaciers looked like they’ve grown significantly. I don’t have any data other than my direct observations.

A couple months ago, the Anchorage Daily News reported that ice packs throughout Alaska and the Yukon were 20 feet deeper in Aug 2008 than in Aug 2007.
Which seems to make the Mt. Shasta thing a little less local.