The photo below I took this weekend on my way back from a station survey in the remote northestern corner of California. It shows Mount Shasta getting it’s first significant snow of this precipitation season here in California.
Our local progressive weekly recently did a story on Mount Shasta’s glaciers, which have been growing. This isn’t news, but what is news, is the conclusion that was drawn from the growth. Apparently the growth is now being viewed as a sign of “global warming” or “climate change” if you prefer. So now we have glaciers that shrink, glaciers that grow, and these both signal climate change. Thank goodness that has been cleared up.
Unfortunately, the writer and the USGS person both seem to be oblivious to the fact that glaciers are a much better proxy for precipitation than temperature, and that sublimation, not melting, is the primary agent in glacier shrinkage.
North State ice age
Global warming melts glaciers elsewhere, but not at Mount Shasta
By Christy Lochrie
This article was published on 10.09.08. Chico News and Review, here is an excerpt:
First, the good news: Mount Shasta’s seven glaciers are on the grow. The largest, Whitney Glacier, has averaged a 60-foot-a-year growth spree for the past 50 years, according to Dr. Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz.Now, the bad news: The 14,000-foot volcano’s glacier growth isn’t a reliable canary in a mineshaft when it comes to global warming woes.
“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.”
So what’s up with this volcanic mountain—home to lenticular clouds and, lore says, outer-space lumarians—some 130 miles north of Chico?
Why, while other glaciers are melting like sun-struck snowmen, are North State glaciers plumping?
And what does it mean in the scheme of global warming issues, even as vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin denies that emissions or other man-created factors are to blame for temperature upticks?
Ed Josberger, a researcher for the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma, Wash., says North State glacier growth is proof of global warming, even if, on the surface, it strikes a counterintuitive chord. Shifts in weather patterns are likely to heat some places while chilling others.
“In terms of climate change,” he said, “there’s going to be winners and losers.”
Mount Shasta glaciers have grown, in part, because they’re high enough to escape some (about 2 degrees) of the Earth’s warming trends, and the shifting weather patterns have dumped more Pacific Ocean-generated precipitation onto the mountain, explains Andrew Fountain, a geology professor at Portland State University.
Fountain likens a glacier to a bank account: It grows when there are more deposits (winter precipitation) than withdrawals (summer melt). In most of the world, sped by temperature upticks, glaciers are drawing down as melt exceeds wintertime snow and ice.
“If air temperatures continue to increase in this century, the warming will overtake the glaciers,” Fountain said.
When asked if glacier melt is cause for alarm, both Tulaczyk and Fountain say no, but add that the melt is cause for concern.
Read the entire story on the News and Review here
“Aliens Cause Global Warming”
by Michael Crichton – Caltech Michelin Lecture – January 17, 2003
http://brinnonprosperity.org/crichton2.html
According to Dr. Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz.Now, the bad news: The 14,000-foot volcano’s glacier growth isn’t a reliable canary in a mineshaft when it comes to global warming woes. “Mount Shasta is just a local system and does not really tell us much about global warming,”
I wonder if he had the same observation when Mt. Kilimanjaro was the poster child for AGW? Just askin?
Re: New Zealand glaciers.
New Zealand glaciers can be categorized into short and long response to climate change. Short being 10 years or less and long being around one years response.
Short response glaciers flow west and most of them are advancing. Slow response glaciers flow east and all are retreating.
John D It is not possible for Mt Shasta to have ‘avoided’ the local temperature rise. For the simple reason the air over it was a few hours earlier over the surrounding land. The air over Shasta would have of course cooled due to the lapse rate, but that is a physical process completely unaffected by global warming.
You, like the person in the article, are claiming something that is physically impossible.
If there is a difference between measured temperatures around Shasta and at the top of the mountain, it must be due to local factors, likely irrigation.
Which tells us the world’s climate (or at least the South island of New Zealand’s) has warmed over the last 100 years and cooled over the last 10 years.
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.
That should have read,
and long being around one hundred years response
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.”
Anthony,
When will you post the global data for October temp?
thanks,
Steve
REPLY: When it becomes available. neither UAH nor RSS has posted October yet, and GISS/Hadley are usually many days out. – Anthony
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>>??
What this article demonstrates is that being a scientist is in no way indicative of a person’s analytical ability:
“Ed Josberger, a researcher for the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma, Wash., says North State glacier growth is PROOF of global warming, even if, on the surface, it strikes a counterintuitive chord. Shifts in weather patterns are likely to heat some places while chilling others.” (emphasis added)
This statement lacks any semblance of reasoning. Assume, for example, that global warming theory predicts that warming temperatures shift precipitation and temperature patterns such that some local regions get cooler and/or wetter while others get warmer and/or hotter. A subsequent observation that Mt. Shasta’s glaciers are growing is, however, not EVIDENCE of the truth of the underlying theory. It just means that the observation is not necessarily inconsistent with that theory. After all, it is not unreasonable to expect that Mt. Shasta’s glaciers might grow in the event that the theory of global warming is wrong, either in it’s prediction that warmer temperatures cause local cooling regions, or in it’s prediction that the earth on average is getting measurably warmer in response to CO2 emissions.
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
It’s all over the world. This global warming will be the death of us … or lemmings.
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
BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
I used to watch him on the BBC circa 1970. He was great.
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.
In 3 years time the new policies of the US President will have solved the global warming crisis as the world will have visibly cooled for all to see – however the policies will need to be kept on board and enhanced to ensure that the dreaded threat of AGW does not return…
Al hail the saviour…
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
OT
Ok, polar bears didn’t work out so well so let try lemmings.
Climate pushing lemmings to cliff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7711709.stm
Yet another steaming pile of …..
Crichton was unique.
I recently revisited the IQ Squared (IQ2) Global Warming Debate, which took place July, 2007
He began by criticizing those who swear by the “consensus”, saying that in the past the consensus has been wrong. Referring to the embattled few who held to the notion of plate techtonics contrary to a hostile majority, he argued that a small body of probing and questioning sceptics could be right, and ultimately change the scientific discourse.
http://freedomchannel.blogspot.com/2007/07/iq-squared-global-warming-debate.html
Teamed with Philip Stott and Richard Lindzen, who politely argued the science, Crichton’s tone was more indignant as he characterized the global warming movement as a scandalous policy morass created by hypocritical people who would ultimately do a terrible injustice to societies around the world.
Echoing Bjorn Lomborg’s pragmatic altruism, he warned that trillion-dollar plans of AGW-ers to sequester carbon will squander scarce resources that should be spent helping desperate people in undeveloped countries many of whom lack the most basic needs – of clean drinking water, adequate food, fuel for cooking and heating, and electricity.
Re: “techtonics” This was the accepted spelling before it underwent a shift to “tectonics”.
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.
“” Patrick Henry (23:26:59) :
The interior of Greenland and Antarctica never get above freezing, but they could be persuaded to melt if scientists keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again. “”
So how does that work; and specifically, what nonsense is it that you believe can be induced to get the interiors of Antarctica and Greenland to melt.
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.
As to how much local climate anecdotal changes get reported as global warming; the MMGWers have an agenda against carbon; and the only thing they can see carbon causing despite the lack of ANY evidence to that effect, is the mythical global warming via the Arhennius CO2 thesis; which to me is now thoroughly discredited; since all the vidence is that CO2 changes are caused by surface temperature changes and not vice versa.
The MMGWers claim water vapor is only important as a feedback mechanism, since clearly the important CO2 line is nearly saturated, so that 20 times more CO2 can only make a small addition to IR interception.
But they don’t have any actual evidence that such a feedback actually happens. I’m very familiar with feedback systems and feedback theory (Electronics), and it is well understood that feedback systems with time delays built in between the cause (input signal) and the effect (output signal part of which is fed back to the input) result in limit cycle oscillations.
So just what climate data records do we have containing CO2 and temperature vartiations; where clearly there is a delay between the data sets that result in limit cycle (extreme to extreme) oscillations.
I’ve never seen any calculation of supposed climate feedback loops that even compute the time response of such systems; which leads me to conclude that the purported feedback mechanisms either do not exist, or are totally negated by other effects.
Surely water vapor is perfectly capable on its own of producing any amount of feedback that might occur triggered by CO2 or methane or some other GHG.
I believe that water vapor leads to a positive feedback warming process, that keeps us from being a solid ice ball; but I’m equally convinced that clouds lead to a negative feedback cooling process, and which one dominates depends on the fractional cloud cover and optical density.
George
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 AAAS put out a Policy Alert today (Guy Fawkes Day) and in commneting on the coming change in administration; they called for a Science Csar; a Presidential Cabinet Post advising the President on Science.
Now I’ve study a whole lot of science in many fields, in the 50 years I have been practicing it; and there is no way, I would want to advise ANY President on the whole of Science that may be of government policy interest to any President.
I believe the National Academy of Sciences, is supposed to have such a fubction already, and such a multi discipline group is far more apporpriate than a cabinet post .
How would you like it if Michael Mann or James Hansen were suddenly appointed Secretary of science; that would make advising any President on science just orders of magnitude worse than the process is now.