From ETH Zurich: The stupefying pace of glacier melt in the 1940s
The most recent studies by researchers at ETH Zurich show that in the 1940s Swiss glaciers were melting at an even-faster pace than at present. This is despite the fact that the temperatures in the 20th century were lower than in this century. Researchers see the main reason for this as the lower level of aerosol pollution in the atmosphere.
In Switzerland, the increase in snow in wintertime and the glacier melt in summertime have been measured at measurement points at around 3,000 metres above sea level – on the Clariden Firn, the Great Aletsch glacier and the Silvretta glacier – without interruption for almost 100 years. As part of his doctoral work, Matthias Huss used this unique range of measurements to examine how climate change in the last century affected the glaciers. The work was carried out under the supervision of Martin Funk, professor and head of the Department for Glaciology at the Laboratory for Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology (‘VAW’) at ETH Zurich, who is also co-author of the study.
A glaciologist on the way to work on the Silvretta glacier (Image: Matthias Huss / ETH Zurich) (more pictures)
Solar radiation as the decisive factor
In its work, the research team took into account the solar radiation measured on the Earth’s surface in Davos since 1934. Studies over the past two decades have shown that solar radiation varies substantially due to aerosols and clouds, and this is assumed to influence climate fluctuations. Recent years have seen the emergence of the terms ‘global dimming’ and ‘global brightening’ to describe these phenomena of reduced and increased solar radiation respectively. These two effects are currently the subject of more and more scientific research, in particular by ETH Zurich, as experts feel that they should be taken into account in the climate models (see ETH Life dated July 9, 2009)
The new study, published in the journal ‘Geophysical Research Letters’, confirms this requirement. This is because, taking into account the data recorded for the level of solar radiation, the scientists made a surprising discovery: in the 1940s and in the summer of 1947 especially, the glaciers lost the most ice since measurements commenced in 1914. This is in spite of the fact that temperatures were lower than in the past two decades. “The surprising thing is that this paradox can be explained relatively easily with radiation”, says Huss, who was recently appointed to the post of senior lecturer at the Department of Geosciences at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland.
On the basis of their calculations, the researchers have concluded that the high level of short-wave radiation in the summer months is responsible for the fast pace of glacier melt. In the 1940s, the level was 8% higher than the long-term average and 18 Watts per square metres above the levels of the past ten years. Calculated over the entire decade of the 1940s, this resulted in 4% more snow and ice melt compared with the past ten years.
Furthermore, the below-average melt rates at the measurement points during periods in which the glacier snouts were even advancing correlate with a phase of global dimming, between the 1950s and the 1980s.
Less snow fall and longer melt periods
The researchers arrived at their findings by calculating the daily melt rates with the aid of climate data and a temperature index model, based on the half-yearly measurements on the glaciers since 1914. These results were then compared with the long-term measurements of solar radiation in Davos.
Huss points out that the strong glacier melt in the 1940s puts into question the assumption that the rate of glacier decline in recent years “has never been seen before”. “Nevertheless”, says the glaciologist, “this should not lead people to conclude that the current period of global warming is not really as big of a problem for the glaciers as previously assumed”. This is because it is not only the pace at which the Alpine glaciers are currently melting that is unusual, but the fact that this sharp decline has been unabated for 25 years now. Another aspect to consider – and this is evidenced by the researchers’ findings – is that temperature-based opposing mechanisms came into play around 30 years ago. These have led to a 12% decrease in the amount of precipitation that falls as snow as a percentage of total precipitation, accompanied by an increase of around one month in the length of the melt period ever since this time. Scientists warn that these effects could soon be matched by the lower level of solar radiation we have today compared with the 1940s.
Reference
Huss M, Funk M & Ohmura A: Strong Alpine glacier melt in the 1940s due to enhanced solar radiation. Geophysical Research Letters (2009), 36, L23501, doi:10.1029/2009GL040789
OT Anthony, have you seen this from Bishop Hill?
Bishop Hill A climategate snippet on urban heat islands
Jan 3, 2010
Climate While reading the Climategate emails, I chanced upon a message to Phil Jones from a Chinese researcher, Yan ZhongWei inquiring if the great man would like to be a co-author on a forthcoming paper.
Hi, Phil,
Attached please find a draft paper about site-changes and urbanization at Beijing. It may be regarded as an extension of our early work (Yan et al 2001 AAS) and therefore I would be happy to ask you to join as a co-author.
Regarding your recent paper about UHI effect in China (no doubt upon a large-scale warming in the region), I hope the Beijing case may serve as a helpful rather than a contradictory (as it may appear so) reference.
The urbanization-bias at BJ was considerable but could hardly be quantified. I suspect it was somehow overestimated by a recent work (Ren et al 2007). Please feel free to comment and revise.
I’ll check and complete the reference list, while you may also add in new references
Cheers
Zhongwei
Well if the paper appeared contradictory, showing a substantial UHI, then I wanted to know about it. This appears to be it. Here’s the abstract:
During 1977-1981 the Beijing (BJ) meteorological station was at a suburban location. In 1981 it was moved to a more urban location, but in 1997 it was subsequently moved back to the same suburban location. The daily BJ temperature series, together with those from 18 nearby stations, form a unique database for studying how site-change and possible urbanisation influences affect climate changes at a local scale. The site-change-induced biases were quantified, between 0.43 and 0.95°C, based on comparisons between multi-year-mean seasonal temperature anomalies at BJ and the mean of those from a cluster of nearby stations. The annual mean urban-suburban difference was 0.81°C around 1981 and 0.69°C around 1997, indicating a growing urbanisation effect in the suburban compared to the downtown area. The linear warming trend in the adjusted (for site moves only) BJ temperature series during 1977-2006 was 0.78 °C/decade. Comparing with several rural and less-urban sites, we suggest that the BJ records include an urbanisation-related warming bias between 0.20 and 0.54°C/decade, likely about 0.30°C/decade, for the recent few decades. The climatic warming at BJ between 1977 and 2006 is likely, therefore, to be about 0.48°C/decade. Caveats for using these estimates were discussed.
2 comments
From the story: “This is in spite of the fact that temperatures were lower than in the past two decades.”
I wonder — are these temperatures as measured at the glaciers or are they referring to temperatures measured in the cities of Switzerland and thus hopelessly contaminated by urban heat island effects, air conditioners near by etc. If the latter, perhaps the temperatures at the glaciers were actually warmer in the previous period.
@Espen;
The rate of warming from 1910 – 1940 and the rate of warming fro 1975 – 1998 are virtually identical:
http://www.theclimateconspiracy.com/?p=123
The difference is on the order of 1.0’C per 4,000 years. Combining that data, with the famous NOAA graph: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
Sure makes it sounds like you’re on the right track!
For a little context:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/climategate_and_just_like_that_the_warmings_gone/
Look in the climategate emails for “warm blip”, and judge for yourself if one of the basic premises of this paper, that it was “cooler in the 1940s” is valid post Climategate.
The Great Gods of Global Warming have failed us once again. At least here in Germany. Is it for the american prophet is the wrong prophet? Is it for he is called like the cold of the dead? Get Steven Frost to explain it to us skeptics! Say, Steven, where is your global warming when we need it most? Is it hiding in the oceans, in the trees, in the core of the ice, is it on a mountain in Hawaii?
Just kidding 😉
This is a great story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240273/Wreckage-plane-taken-Antarctica-1912-finally-years-searching.html
Global Warming turned me into a newt!!!!
it got better.
Those disappearing sea lions have been found – along the coast nr Oregon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8438215.stm
I will pray for you
Faith based science?
Science used to thrive on scepticism.
Re: comet :
LASCO2
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/c2/20100103/20100103_1106_c2_1024.jpg
So their homogenised temperature model ‘proves’ temperatures were higher in the 90s than the 40s.
Data proves that the glaciers melted faster in the forties.
So in the 40s the sun’s radiation delivered more ice-melting energy without raising air temperatures….
The whole premise here is a crock of ctm-bane!!
State changes are isothermal. So they have that out.
Gail Combs (04:02:07) :
“It would be interesting to survey the “pro-AGW” papers published since 1990 and figure out how many have that type of meaningless blurb tacked on so the paper would be published.”
I’ve noticed the same thing. In some cases I’ve seen it in papers which are full of sound science and have next to nothing to do with global warming.
One example that springs to mind was a well done paper about the differences in water’s density at temperatures near freezing, comparing fresh water to brackish water and then to salt water. This had a remote connection with thermohaline circulation, I suppose, but the actual paper was not about thermohaline circulation or melting at the poles or any such vast and topical subject. It was just about the density of water, pure and simple. However, after an elegant article, there was that obligatory paragraph you speak of. In my mind I did not see it so much as a ploy to seek funding, as a sort of politically correct genuflection, like bowing to a king.
I wonder if some scientists put those paragraphs on going wink-wink nudge-nudge to each other, and also write them in a manner where they can be snipped out of the paper, when the political climate changes, without effecting the body of the work.
If Man can cause the earth to warm, how come we can’t do it during the winter, when we burn exponentially more fuel to keep our houses warm?
Why would our evil CO2 production not make our winters warmer? Why should it be cold at all if we are creating a greenhouse?
By definition a greenhouse has consistent temps throughout the year.
In case you haven’t noticed, it’s freezing across most of the northern hemisphere.
Where is this global “warming?”
I’ve suspected for some time that reduction of air pollution in the developed world starting in the 70s has been a contributor to artificially increasing the trend line of warming since then. On a larger time scale this of course is just moving in time when the warming was going to happen (in other words, I’m NOT suggesting that we shouldn’t have cleaned up the air). But it is still an important point to consider, because it might make the ’70s to now trend higher than it otherwise would have been which can lead to artificially overstated assumptions about the future trend.
The print edition of today’s New York Times said that the national average temperatures in 2009 ranked as the 26th warmest since 1895. Some of those warmer 25 years may have been when those glaciers were melting.
This cold snap appears to be over the whole northern hemisphere. This is China today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8438235.stm
As I mentioned recently, this ‘global’ (northern hemisphere) event is caused by the northern jetstreams moving into lower latitudes. This leaves a great region of slack pressure systems in the north, and a disconnect between the tropics and the northern hemisphere. There are no intense low pressure systems to bring us warmer tropical air from Mexico.
It matters not how much TSI the tropics receive from the Sun, if that energy is not transported to the norther latitudes. So – Lief please note – Solar TSI is largely irrelevant for this weather/climatic set-up.
If this sort of pattern establishes itself in the summer too, summers may be marginally hotter but much drier. Active low pressures normally bring cooler and wetter weather to Western Europe.
.
I’m thinking in terms of Jupiter here. Jupiter has bands of weather that are totally disconnected from each other. There is no particular reason why the terrestrial jetstreams should wave and so allow low pressure systems to migrate from the tropics to the northern latitudes. If we have a Jovian weather pattern for a while, the northern latitudes would get quite cold each winter.
.
Since anything that contradicts the dogma of CAGW is heresy, scientists must throw in those phrases to keep from being burned at the academic stake.
Gail Combs (04:02:07):
It would be interesting to survey the “pro-AGW” papers published since 1990 and figure out how many have that type of meaningless blurb tacked on so the paper would be published.
“Know ye the mark of the Beast.”
Ralph (02:13:14-sorry to be critical but you spelled “prophet” wrong,it is P-r-o-i-f-t.
Allan M (03:19:45) :
“A significant number of glaciers in Svalbard from time to time advance with extraordinary high velocity, up to several kilometers during 3-6 years.”
Svalbard temperatures have been rather volatile with one of the largest anomalies.
Source: British Met Office
NUUK –Greenland
For benefit of the reader from NUUK –Vestgronland (New Year greetings) I have incorporated chart for NUUK.
Temperatures changes are normalised in respect of values for 1990.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Nuuk-Svalbard.gif
In this chart west coast is for Nuuk, east for Tasiilaq.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sth_Greenland.gif
>>> Jimbo (04:12:29) :
Thanks, Jimbo. A very good article from the Mail on Sunday.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240082/It-gigantic-supercomputer-1-500-staff-170m-year-budget-So-does-Met-Office-wrong.html
Also the Sunday Times satirist, Rod Liddle, had a very funny piece mocking the ‘climate change monkeys’ and their inability to predict the coldest winter ‘since mammoths stalked the Lincolnshire wolds’.
You know a political ship is sinking, when the cartoonists and satirists start putting the boot in.
.
That is pretty obvious in USA record as well. When you see NOAA raw data, the difference between 1940 and today is about 0.1 C or less. A large part of so called “unprecedented global warming” since 1975 was fabricated by various sorts of “adjustments”.
Good data, decent analysis, bad interpretation and summary, and worse conclusion. Not enough was done in correlating data with all known variables, and getting the most current data on the variables. This is sloppy writing and appears to be related to an administrative push to get an article in print so they can justify the next round of grant applications. I’ve seen it and experienced it. Wouldn’t be surprised if resurrected articles are forthcoming. Re-working data is a money-making endeavor. If you can get at least 10 articles out of one set of data, you and your project will be re-funded. But it is a bad incentive to write articles. And the first one is usually the worst one. It is done quickly and with little thought of accuracy because, “it don’t matter”. If researchers were confined to one in-print article per data set, I think they would be more inclined to get it right.
@Jimbo
IPCC was wrong, in reality 2350 was the right year in question ,.)
Ivan (07:52:42) :
“That is pretty obvious in USA record as well. When you see NOAA raw data, the difference between 1940 and today is about 0.1 C or less. A large part of so called “unprecedented global warming” since 1975 was fabricated by various sorts of “adjustments”.”
I wonder how many recent scientific studies have been badly screwed up because they rely on “adjusted” and “homogenized” temperature data from CRU et al. That is the real crime done by these propagandists. There maybe a large body of science out there that will have to be redone because the temperature sets the scientist used were bogus.