By Steven Goddard
Now that Arctic ice area is normal, Antarctic ice area is normal, sea level rise is failing to accelerate, temperatures are below all of Hansen’s scenarios, and the IPCC has proven itself to be untrustworthy – where can the CAGW religion go? Simple … Montana!
Glacier National Park Loses Two More Glaciers Due To Global Warming
According to Dan Fagre if the melting continues at its present rate then towards the end of another decade therewould be no more glaciers left in the Glacier Park. The glaciers of the park have been melting since 1850. The Glacier National Park at the beginning boasted of 150 glaciers of which 37 glaciers were eventually named.
You can’t currently get into much of Glacier National Park because there is too much snow, but if you could you would see something like this.
USPS Photo
Later in the year you would see this :
USPS Photo
Note the steep sided cliffs, formed by glaciers thousands of feet deep. Is it possible that glaciers thousands of feet thick melted since 1850, as the news stories claim? Of course not. The USGS has a good article titled “History of Glaciers in Glacier National Park” :
The history of glaciation within current Glacier National Park boundaries spans centuries of glacial growth and recession, carving the features we see today.
They suggest that the current glaciers mainly formed during the LIA (Little Ice Age)
These modest glaciers varied in size, tracking climatic changes, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) around A.D. 1850. While they may not have formed in their entirety during the LIA, their maximum perimeters can be documented through mapping of lateral and terminal moraines.
The size of the glaciers in 1850 was an anomaly during the Holocene :
Climate reconstructions representative of the Glacier National Park region extend back multiple centuries and show numerous long-duration drought and wet periods that influenced the mass balance of glaciers (Pederson et al. 2004). Of particular note was an 80-year period (~1770-1840) of cool, wet summers and above-average winter snowfall that led to a rapid growth of glaciers just prior to the end of the LIA. Thus, in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly of sorts. In fact, the large extent of ice coverage removed most of the evidence of earlier glacier positions by overriding terminal and lateral moraines.
The current glaciers started to recede long before the invention of the SUV.
Tree-ring based climate records and historic photographs indicate the initiation of frontal recession and ice mass thinning between A.D. 1860 and 1880.
“Dramatic recession” occurred between 1917 and 1941. This was before the invention of the Hummer and the Soccer Mom. Hansen wasn’t even born yet.
The coupling of hot, dry summers with substantial decreases in winter snowpack (~30% of normal) produced dramatic recession rates as high as 100 m/yr from A.D. 1917-1941 (Pederson et al. 2004). These multidecadal episodes have substantially impacted the mass balance of glaciers since A.D. 1900.
Summer temperatures in Montana have not changed for over the past 80 years. Summer is when the snow melts.
NCDC Montana Summer temperatures since 1930
Winter precipitation has not changed in Montana since 1930. Winter is when the snow falls.
NCDC Montana Winter Precipitation
Conclusion: there is little if any evidence tying the changes in Montana glaciers to CO2. Glaciers were a mile deep there during the last ice age, and have been receding and growing in cycles ever since. They may have been completely gone after the MWP and reformed during the LIA. Once again, climate alarmists have chosen a flawed poster child.
This pattern is similar to what was seen at Glacier Bay, Alaska, where most of the glacial melt occurred between 1850 and 1900.
USGS map of glacial retreat at Glacier Bay.
Montana is the location of the latest CAGW pilgrimage, after Copenhagen got snowed out. Where next?
“”” Kate (02:12:57) :
Yes, the glaciers are all melting because the British papers tell me so.
Example, from today’s Independent: Peru glacier collapses, injures 50 “””
Well Kate; you get in the way of one of those things, and you are going to get hurt.
New Year, 2007, I was with my family at both the Fox, and Franz Josef glaciers in New Zealand. Their termini, come down pretty much to sea level, so you can drive to within quite close to the bottom, and there are signs showing how far down the valley they were in the 19th century.
You can get down in the former path of the ice, and walk up to the end of what is there now. On the way, you pass many signs telling you to not go any further, because it is dangerous. You notice that there are huge blocks of broken ice strewn all the way down from the foot of the glacier, stretching from 1/4 to 1/2 a mile from the overhanging end face.
Somehow, you get the idea, that when ice falls off the end, it doesn’t just go “thud”, but it bounces, and careens down the valley towards where all those Darwin awards candidates, are walking up along the stream.
Well we went up there anyway, but first crossed the stream well short of the end of the ice capades, and got up high on the canyon side wall, where even bouncing ice wouldn’t get us.
this let us get within a couple of hundred feet of the massively overhanging end face of the glacier; but well off to the side; protected by the rock walls. While taking photographs of the massive ice cliffs, we noticed, that there were sizeable ice caves in the very end of the ice face, some of them going in several hundred feet, into the cavernous mouth of the ice monster. The outer reaches of those caves were overhung by at least 100 feet, and in some places maybe 200 feet, so the inner reaches of those caves could be 4-500 feet from the top rim of the ice cliff.
Well wouldn’t you know it; there were actually people way inside those caves; having their pictures taken by other idiots, who were standing under the overhanging cliffs.
Well I was hopiing to get some footage of a big squish if one should happen; but sad to say. the ice was well behaved that day, and didn’t feel like stomping the tasty morsels thatw ere stuck in its throat.
Buit I have never heard of a whole glacier collapsing, like happened in Peru.
It would seem that ice is somewhat incompressible, and stuck between the rock walls, there doesn’t seem to be any way I can see, for it all of a sudden to go “splat”.
But I’m sure that if it did, you could get hurt, especially if you are inside it when it does that.
barry (09:42:59) :
There is nothing wrong with my GISS overlay. The 1976 number you object to was from Hansen’s 1988 paper Fig.3, which is the bottom image in the overlay. Hansen has since adjusted the 1976 temperature upwards.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
The next time the ROOS Arctic area graph is updated, it will still be above normal. And the UIUC anomaly is on an upwards trend, almost at zero today.
[Off Topic]
Whenever someone mentions Montana, I think about a particular movie . . .
Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck… maybe even a “recreational vehicle.” And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Captain Ramius: I suppose.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: Well then, in winter I will live in . . . Arizona. Actually, I think I will need two wives.
Captain Ramius: Oh, at least.
The glacial genesis of Yosemite Valley is being played down for some reason. Can’t imagine why. It could not have anything at all to do with the thousands of tourists that visit each year. (/sarc)
According to Wiki, Half Dome is supposed to have been formed much as we see it, and was not carved by a glacier as most believe. The placement of the face just above a glacier carved valley sure looks like short odds to me.
Springtime precipitation in Montana has increased since the 190s.
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/tmp/graph-Apr1213:13:477899475097.gif
“”” barry (09:42:59) :
Steve Goddard (08:04:07) :
Arctic ice area is above normal.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
The ROOS graph you cited is dated 9th April. You made your post 12th April. The Cryosphere graph I linked is current. Your observation was already out of date by the time you posted. Arctic sea ice area is below normal. Check my link above.
GISS vs. Hansen A, B, C
You’ve done something wrong with the overlay. 1976 shows up as about -0.23C on your graph. The actual GISS anomaly for 1976 is about -.17C: it’s warmer. There are discrepancies like that for other years, but that one is the easiest to see.
Hansen ‘88 ran with a climate sensitivity of 4C for a doubling of CO2. That has since been revised down by 25% to 3C. Hansen’s projections from 20 years ago are too high. It would be better to work with more recent models (like the AR4 ensemble from 1990) to see how obs compare to the state of the science. “””
Well it’s nice to have Dr Hansen’s own values for the climate sensitivity.
Going back to the Cambrian about 540 Mya there have been about 4 1/2 halvings of the atmospheric CO2, falling slowly over time from a high of about 7000 ppm, to the recent history low level of 280, when Earth’s temperature was about 14 degrees C.
So taking Hansen’s new and improved value of 3 deg C per doubling (or halving, that means that earth temperature must have fallen by 13 1/2 deg C sicne the Cambrian, so the temperature back then must have been 27.5 deg C.
Well unfortunately, that does not agree with the observations, that say that earth’s temperature back then was only 22 deg C or only 8 deg C above the recent era. So that puts a limit of 1.78 deg C for the climate sensitivity.
Well funny thing is that the temperature was also 22 deg C just 65 Mya at the Tertiary/Cretaceous boundary, when CO2 was only 1000 ppm.
And the last time that atmospheric CO2 was this low; during the late Carboniferous, and early Permian, the earth’s temperature got down to around 12.5 deg C, so it looks like we have a bit more cooling to do yet.
barry, your criticisms of the details aside, I don’t see much to argue with Steve’s point that level of advance of the glaciers in 1850 was not typical and that much of its “recovery” from the Little Ice Age 1850 levels was naturally forced. That seems like the take home message here to me.
Also people have looked at more recent projections (e.g., Lucia). Projections continue to remain high compared to the data.
In 1983, Time Magazine was warning of a new Dustbowl in Montana.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,953940,00.html
ROOS just updated their ice area graph to April 11. Still above normal.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
barry (07:32:46) :
Really, barry, sea levels are rising?
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/WhatGlobalWarming.htm
Darn, I can’t find any evidence of that.
Got any before & after photos that prove sea levels are discernibly rising??
Steve Goddard (09:29:53)–
Putting words in someone’s mouth is the tactics of the left. Don’t do that.
In the 60’s the front range of Montana was dotted with pothole ponds and sloughs. There was one slough that went from Shelby to Kevin. Most are gone. The people that have lived there for 50 years of more know this. No one year makes a trend. No one picture of GNP captures what is happening there.
Your misrepresentations:
1. “Summer temperatures in Montana have not changed for over the past 80 years. ” False. Further you fail to make the winter comparison.
2. “Winter precipitation has not changed in Montana since 1930.” False.
3. “You can’t currently get into much of Glacier National Park because there is too much snow…” Very misleading as they close the road for the winter every year. It is a very narrow dangerous road in the best of conditions.
Don’t make stuff up to support a point. This isn’t about CO2. This is about correctly representing the facts.
Climate change is real, we have never been in stasis. In my opinion, 90% is caused by natural variability factors, and 10% by animal and plant life. Out of that 10% I would assign 5% to humans. Out of that 5% I would attribute 2% to human caused GHG’s. That 2% doesn’t drive the climate supertanker…and the 5% can’t stop it.
rbateman (10:33:44) :
Robert,
The ice area graphs in your document are not correct, because they don’t correct for the pole hole adjustment in 1987.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/WhatGlobalWarming.htm
Please read:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/09/an-error-in-the-pole-hole-assumption/
kwik (04:18:20) :
Yes, you are correct.
I am pretending to believe all the “man-made global warming” articles, just like all our politicians and bureaucrats pretend to believe it, too.
Further to my (10:37:25) comment there is this: http://nris.mt.gov/nrcs/Apr10/snowaterpt04_10.jpg A GNP snow blower picture doesn’t change this reality.
barry (09:42:59) :
I changed the color scheme in the GISS vs Hansen ABC plot to make it more clear. Current GISS is red, and Hansen’s 1988 predictions from fig. 3 (which include his 1988 GISS temperature data ) are in black.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw82wws_605pw244zfr
Craig Moore (10:37:25) :
Pleeeezzzzz …..
Summer temperatures in Montana are about the same as they were in the 1930s. Obviously they change quite a bit year over year, but there is no significant long term trend.
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/montanasummertemperatures.gif
Winter precipitation is similar, no significant long term trend since the 1930s. Spring precipitation has increased since the 1930s.
Were you in Montana during the dry, hot period from 1917 to 1941? How would you have reacted to several decades of 30% snow pack?
Craig Moore (10:37:25) :
Here is an even longer non-trend : Montana summer temperatures from 1917, the date mentioned in the article.
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/tmp/graph-Apr1214:15:055421447753.gif
I went to a presentation about this and the park rep gave the scary story complete with some nice moving graphics of the shrinking glaciers and recovering vegetation (I still have my complimentary CD).
But when I asked him about the Altithermal period he just said that their research didn’t go back that far. So all they are talking about – as many have already pointed out – is the waning of the Little Ice Age… shocking that glaciers would recede during such a period.
Oh well. If you want to see some much, much worse junk science from Montana check out the ‘science’ behind and still driving the wolf introduction there! 2 + 2 = 5, and wolves no have impact on their prey populations. Honest!
Steve
Ok, I see that now. Thanks for making the graph clearer.
Still, you are comparing with a 20-year old projection that is too high as it is based on a higher climate sensitivity than figured today. I’m not sure of the utility here – except to say that Hansen ’88 projected too high.
ROOS have udpated to 11th April. The anomaly is is still above the average but close to normal. But Cryosphere Today was current when you posted (12th), and anomaly is tracking below average. It’s odd you didn’t use the most up to date data when you posted about current conditions.
However, as you must know, this is all a bit academic. Surely by now we must have learned that a few months or days (!) anomaly is meaningless in terms of climate trends. We could point to the UAH temperature of the last couple of months and conclude that the globe is severely warming, but I think we all know that that isn’t valid either WRT climate trends. We keep confusing weather with climate. The long-term (climatic) sea ice trend is distinctly downwards, whether we speak of extent, area or volume. In time the sea area anomaly will be below average again, but no one here will draw any conclusions from that.
In the same way, ROOS sea ice extent, which was the talking point here a few days ago when it was normal, is now below normal. This subject will be dropped until some time in the future when stochastic variability sees it creep towards the average. It seems perfectly clear to me that weather anomalies are being cherry-picked to say something about climate. It’s a totally invalid operation whether the anomalies are up or down. Anomalies that superficially look like going along with global warming will be caveated with the entirely proper qualifier that its just weather, attributed to weather behaviour (AO, ENSO or whatever), and cooling anomalies will be treated as if they’re meaningful WRT climate. You can’t have it both ways.
What would be good is WUWT establishing a statistically valid period for climatology (something like the 30 years per the WMO). Otherwise this obvious double standard will continue to sow confusion. Can you state once and for all what a climatically significant period is? And provide a statistical rationale for doing so?
But if we’re going to talk about short-term phenomena as if its climatically significant, then the globe has been warming since 2006. Go ahead and run a regression on any of the global temp data sets. As long as there are no standards, we can say anything.
barry (11:47:57) :
Climate is cyclical. There is no particularly good reason to believe that a linear fit is meaningful for any extended length of time.
The ROOS graph I linked is always their most current image. They don’t necessarily update it every day.
Glaciers are highly precipitation dependent. Precipitation in snow. When it isn’t snowing, glaciers lose mass due to sublimation. When the losses due to sublimation are greater than precipitation, the glacier loses mass and retreats. When the recitation rate is higher than than the rate of loss due to sublimation, the glacier gains in mass and advances.
Of course, at lower and warmer elevations, there is melt back at the tongue of the glacier, but the retreat of the tongue due to melting simply indicates that the rate of sublimation is equal to or greater than the rate of precipitation.
Just my observation, I am not a glaciologist, but the chemistry seems clear enough to me.
It also seems to me that the warmer the temperature of surface air over the surface of water where the H20 vapor that results in precipitation over the glacier comes from is, the greater the advance (or the less the retreat) of the glacier would be, as the warmer the winds evaporating the source of the precipitation are, the more H2O vapor would be entrained by those winds, and the greater the precipitation rate would be.
Yeah, top tune by the Clash but what does he say right at the end just as it fades out? Never worked it out….
Aye, nev’ buy a liver.
Climate in the west is very variable and always has been. There aren’t many Anasazi living at Chaco Canyon any more.
The saying in Boulder was always “If you don’t like our weather, wait an hour, it’ll change.”
Do the flat graphs at the top mean that Montana has had no UHI effect?
P.S.
A time map similar to the Alaska one would be useful for the Montana glaciers. I don’t suppose anyone knows where one might be lying around?