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
JonesII (06:13:51) :
Yet again you show your lack of physical knowledge. You are, of course, basicilly correct ie warmth – evaporation, cold – freezing but you forgot very cold = no cloud = sunshine = sublimation. You also did not mention latent heat of evaporation, etc
BillD “the lake warming is mainly associated with less night time cooling (warmer nights), as might be expected if increased CO2 was acting as a green house gas.”
I thought warmer evenings (and days no warmer than usual) is ther perfect UHI signature. All the extra concrete and ashphalt gives of their heat at night after being warmed by the sun during the day.
Goverment and academia in the Pacific Northwest like to lecture/alarm the public on AGW caused glacier retreating.
Like so many other non- linked observations this is supposed to be evidence of AGW.
They rarely mention, or pass off as meaningless, the period of glacier expansion. Roughly 1950-1975.
It appears we may now be headed into another similar period.
Glacier me this.
http://www.mountaineers.org/NWMJ/07/071_Glaciers.html
Glacier Advance in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s
The 20th century’s second substantial climate change began in the mid-1940s, when conditions again became cooler and precipitation increased.
The Coleman Glacier on Mount Baker was noted to be advancing in 1948 and in short order all of the mountain’s major glaciers were advancing as well, by 480m on average. In 1950, Richard Hubley of the University of Washington initiated an aerial photographic survey of glaciers in Washington to document changes, and this was continued through the 1970s.
All the major Rainier glaciers advanced during this period. A wave of ice was noted moving toward the terminus of Nisqually Glacier in the 1940s, prompting it to begin advancing ten years later. Thomas Nylen recently determined from photographs that the Nisqually had advanced 700 to 800m by 1979. During the advance of this heavily debris-covered glacier, visitors watched young vegetation being buried by the advancing terminus.
Photography shows that approximately half the North Cascade glaciers advanced between 1950 and 1979. Among the 11 Glacier Peak glaciers that advanced, terminal moraines were 300m further downslope on average.
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/north%20cascade%20glacier%20retreat.htm
Chocolate Glacier advanced from 1950-1979 some 400 m.
North Guardian Glacier is a type 1 glacier that advanced 160 m between 1950 and 1979.
Dusty Glacier is a type 1 glacier on the right in both images. The glacier advanced 280 m from 1950-1979.
Ermine Glacier at left (Post) in 1955 was advancing. This type 1 glacier advanced 170 m from 1950-1979.
Ptarmigan Glacier advanced during the 1960’s
Kennedy Glacier is a Type 1 glacier that advanced 330 m between 1950 and 1979
Suiattle Glacier retreated more than any other Glacier Peak glacier after the Little Ice Age, but stopped retreating by 1955 and advanced slightly during the 1970’s
Eldorado Glacier covers the expansive slope on the east side of Eldorado Peak. The glacier is thin and on steep smooth granitic rock. The badly crevassed lower section of the glacier advanced during the 1950-1975 period
Ladder Creek Glacier is a type 1 glacier that advanced 105 m from 1950 to 1979
Lower Curtis Glacier is an avalanche fed glacier on the south side of Mount Shuskan. It advanced from 1950 to 1980.
Deming Glacier (Post 1979) advanced dramatically during the 1950’s
Easton Glacier was the slowest Mount Baker to begin to advance after 1946, beginning its advance in 1955.
Boulder Glacier was noted to be advancing by William Long in 1954. The glacier advanced m more than any other on Mount Baker by 1975
Park Glacier advanced vigorously from 1950-1975.
Coleman Glacier in 1979 (Post) and in 2008. In 1979 the glacier had just completed its advance begun in 1948. The Roosevelt Glacier on left almost merged with it and The Coleman stretched across the Glacier Creek in the valley bottom.
Squak Glacier at left in 1990 had completed a vigorous advance and had retreated just 35 m from its 1970’s advance position
A curious last paragraph that speaks of 12% decrease in precipitation over the last 30 years.
I wonder (just my contrarian nature, you know) whether this 30 years has any relationship to the interrelationships of the AMO, AO and NAO.
BillD (04:40:38) says:
‘For people who wonder whether Swiss temperatures have warmed during the past 50 years, one can consult the long term, raw and unhomgenized (sic) record of monthly temperatures readings in Lake Zurich.’
The following data sets are for Zurich from the NASA GISS. The first link is for localised max temp data (close enough to the raw data), the second is homogenized (adjusted) max temp data. Note the difference with earlier years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.646066600003.1.1/station.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.646066600003.2.1/station.txt
The graphs are at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=646066600003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
(for localised) and
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=646066600003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
(for homogenized).
Which one is correct? How much warming can you really see at the ‘raw data’? Why adjust earlier temps down by so much?
“Why adjust earlier temps down by so much?”
Because you have to adjust both ends – earlier down – later up
to show a rapid incline.
My bone on contention has always been with the earlier data adjusted colder.
It’s harder to adjust recent temps and not get caught, obviously.
Ric Werme
There is (was? – its been some years) a small hotel at the east end of the town of Gletsch with a photo from about 1860 of the Rhone Gletscher just outside of town, down in the valley, probably 300 meters below where the face is now. Another reason for faster melting in the 1940s is that the glacier face was at considerably lower altitude. You are right. Altitude data should be included.
““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.”
This is the kind of unsubstanciated statement and convaluted reasoning all scientific PR releases must have in their reports to maintain their government funding, especially when their actual results didn’t support the global warming mantra. What they proved was that the glaciers in question melted faster in the 40’s than they are now and that these particular glaciers(out of the over 140,000 in the world, of which only 340 or so are measured over any long term period) are still melting. The whole last paragraph above constitutes an unproven theory at best and doesn’t make any sense with the rest of the press release, other than as global warming propaganda.
Some of the technical discussion here may have merit. The point re glacial retreat is old news. Early in 2009 (if I remember rightly) the BBC told of the speed of melting glaciers. So what? I thought. The figure given was about one-tenth that given for the 1940s in a book of genuine scholarship that has long deserved republication: Times of Feast, Times of Famine, by Emmanuel La Roy Ladurie published in English in 1972 (one waited far too long to see it mentioned in Plimer’s Heaven + Earth). It’s a bit dated on some matters (Maunder for instance) but is otherwise outstanding.
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.
But it ebbs and flows in 30-year cycles, probably with a bit of a lag. There was a lot of warming from 1975 – 1998. We may be in for a bit of cooling, at least for a while. Plus, the “natural recovery” from the Little Ice Age could end at any moment (or not). (This is not to say that Man in general or CO2 in particular has no effect at all.)
The biggest parameter concerning glaciers (both high and low levels) is precipitation and evaporation. Many places in the Alps remain below freezing year round. The lack of summer time precipitation is due to either changes in the AMO and NAO. Recent archeloglical finds in the Alps uncovered relics going back to the Roman Empire before the time of Christ. They also found relics from Medeval pilgrims. These relics were for centuries covered by tonnes of ice. It is likely that long term positive AMOs and High NAOs from AD900 through AD1300 kept summer storm tracks bottled up in the high latitudes.
Other glaciers, such as those in the Himalayas and Andes are strongly correlated with changes in ENSO. It’s like the temps above 18000AGL go above freezing. Precipitation is the key.
So they have 100 years of data and on that basis are drawing conclusions about glacial longevity? Seems to me that changes in glaciation probably occur over at least centuries…there is a reason we use the adjective “glacial” to imply very slow-moving. (Except for those sudden surges–I think we have a new epithet for Robin: “Galloping glaciers, Batman!”)
Stephen Richards
I think we have several things going on.
First is that a specific micro climate is being measured at a specific location.
These tend to move over the years often to an airport,then so an entirely different micro climate is being measured. (you get a very good indication of this at the Adelaide readings which moved to a known warmer location 10 years ago-although temperatures have continued to decline).
Secondly you hae a specfic UHI facvtor-very understated in most cases
Thirdly you have raw data that is adjusted-often in a perplexing manner. (See Chiefio)
So taking all those elements into account plus actual observations and records I think it is doubtful if temperatures everywhere are still rising.
tonyb
Ian George,
GISS gets their data from NCDC which has already ADJUSTED it. GISS then DEadjusts some of NCDC’s adjustments.
In other words. GISS data is WORTHLESS!!!!!
It is worth noting that the cause of the high melt rates on several swiss glaciers has been better quantified in the Huss and others paper, however, the high melt rates of these glaciers in this interval has been acknowledged in peer reviewed publications from 30 years ago. Note figure 2 and 3 from the link below. Indicating the trend of high melting and mass loss in this interval. The original sources for the chart is noted as Kaser (1978).
http://www.interpraevent.at/palm-cms/upload_files/Publikationen/Tagungsbeitraege/1996_1_65.pdf
Also note the Swiss Glacier Commission which has published annual reports for a long time, has a chart indicating the same trend for Silvretta Glacier
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/massbalance.html
This does not belie that the current trend is seeing prolonged exceptional melt that is causing intervention in some cases.
http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/stubai-glaciers-protective-blanket/
A few years ago, my daughter and I drove the Icefields Parkway in Alberta Canada. This is a highway from Jasper National Park to Banff National Park (and as an aside, the most beautiful drive in North America). Approximately half way along this drive, one passes the Columbia Icefields – there are a number of glaciers here but the one that is featured with a visitors’ centre and snow cats that will drive you up the mountain is the 4 mile long Athabasca glacier. The glacier is receding and there are markers at various points that show where it was located in years past. While I was there, I got into a discussion with some folks there and they were bemoaning the effects of ‘glowbull warmongering’ and how the ice recession demonstrated this so clearly. Shortly thereafter, we were in the visitor’s centre where they show pictures from years gone by…. I quickly pointed out to these folks that the movement of ice up the mountain was essentially consistent and had been since the first recorded visit to the area in (and going on memory here) approximately 1850. Glowbull warmongering? I doubt it unless you want to believe that GW has been happening virtually consistently since at least 1850…. http://www.explorerockies.com/columbia-icefield/
Come on, you bloggers. This is supposed to be a scientific blog and yet about an eyeball half of the above posts are speculation often dressed up as fact.
You have to keep your thoughts pure if you wish to contrast evidence-driven science against belief-driven science.
All that I get from this thread is that many bloggers have only vague ideas about the causes of glacial movement. We have no glaciers in Australia, I am not at all expert, so I make no scientific comment. Simply, I lament that I have not learned new science containing a lot of value.
If you are speculating and looking for feedback, please say as much.
Geoff Sherrington,
I agree, and I’m not a glacier expert either. So let’s cut to the chase: is anyone here claiming that a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary cause, or even a minor cause, of glacier retreat?
Answer yes to either one, and you’ll be asked to quantify it. Otherwise it’s speculation.
Geoff, I don’t regard this as a scientific blog primarily. It is mainly a blog to air views contrary to the science or to try to find flaws in science (usually without success). That is why it is refreshing to see an article on a scientific paper – not just that it is a scientific paper but also because the observations and findings enunciated by the paper support rather than conflict with global warming (unsurprisingly).
It may be a random one-off quirk for WUWT, but it could also signal a shift in this blog to be a bit more open to science itself.
The silliness of some of the responding posts indicate to me that many visitors came to this site expecting something else and are a bit confused about how to comment on this article.
Sou (18:57:21):
WUWT “…is mainly a blog to air views contrary to [climate] science or to try to find flaws in science…”
That’s a pretty accurate definition of a scientific skeptic.
Science is never settled. Questioning is always warranted. The problem comes in when those who purport to know the answers refuse to divulge those answers to the public that paid for them.
However, your implication that comments here “conflict with global warming” qualifies you for a George Orwell doublespeak award. I don’t recall ever reading a comment here that claims there is zero global warming. Or zero climate change, for that matter. Both occur constantly, and both are natural. The canard appears when global warming is definitively attributed to human emissions. That has yet to be empirically established.
And it’s getting harder, not easier, to verify what’s actually going on with the climate. Those claiming to be privy to how the climate works have stated, in writing, that they would destroy their data before they would turn it over in response to a legitimate FOIA request.
Could it be that your assumption that WUWT is not ‘open to science’ is a random one-off quirk of your own, and that you’re simply projecting?
And of course, there are other blogs so heavily science oriented [eg: CA] that it’s hard for the average person to keep up. Is that why you’re here instead? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Sou
I absolutely agree with you. I am sure it is a complete coincidence that the climategate emails show that the CRU was discussing ways to adjust out the “warm blip” in the 1940s, and that there was an inexplicably high melt rate in the 1940s that required a novel explanation other than temperature.
We unwashed will never understand these kinds of subtleties because we are too stupid.
Geoff Sherrington (18:32:55) :
Come on, you bloggers. This is supposed to be a scientific blog and yet about an eyeball half of the above posts are speculation often dressed up as fact.
You have to keep your thoughts pure if you wish to contrast evidence-driven science against belief-driven science.
—…—…
“Keep OUR thoughts pure?”
What? Who are you to decide what any group engaged in factual discussions and criticisms of the scientific process may – or may not – “think” about any given subject?
Science is driven by facts and analysis: Your “pure faith (in AGW theories)” is the “religious side” of this discussion that prohibits analysis, hides data, exaggerates what little trends are actually present,and threatens skeptics.
And after a little research it appears that Steven Frost, Robert Soros, and Aimee Gardens are the same troll.
Was the snipped comment something about “the planet exploding like a kitten in a microwave”?
REPLY: [ Don’t know. Different shift, different moderator. -mod ]
Another case of cold weather supposedly triggered by warming. And the article reads more like a fund raiser than journalism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/peru-mountain-farmers-winter-cold
“In a world growing ever hotter, Huancavelica is an anomaly. These communities, living at the edge of what is possible, face extinction because of increasingly cold conditions in their own microclimate, which may have been altered by the rapid melting of the glaciers.”
TonyB (04:54:44) : Don;t forget this early one from Anthony, Tony.
“Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt”
You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.