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?
David Alan Evans (19:15:57)–
A few questions. Go back to Steve’s link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/mt.html
For Data Type: chose Mean Temperature. For Period: chose Summer (Jun-Aug). Hit “submit.” Does the green temperature trend line slope up, down, or flat? Then do the same procedure for Annual. Does the green temperature trend line slope up, down, or flat?
Now look at precipitation. For Data Type: chose Precipitation. For Period chose Winter (dec-Feb). Hit “submit.” Does the red precipitation like slope up, down, or flat? Then do the same procedure for Annual. Does the red precipitation line slope up, down, or flat?
Craig Moore (19:41:31) :
It is very well established that summer temperatures rose after the LIA. The graphs I referenced correspond to a different time period. Is that concept somehow confusing?
Craig,
I have read your comments and Steve’s replies, and I have looked at the sources — although not an exhaustive study. In your first post, I initially thought that you had some valid points, but as the discussion wore on, I have become quite bewildered by your accusations that article is misleading. To be sure, sometimes we would pick different starting points, but I have examined your ncdc link, and I do not see anything misrepresentative about what Steve has done. You claim an increasing green trend line for 1895 to 2009. Yes, it is there, but it is there basically because of the temperature increases that took place before 1920. This is not a discussion about what happened before 1920.
Steve Goddard (20:38:43)–
From your link take the data from the whole of the 20th Century plus up to 2010. It avoids the cherry picking and hockey stick type distortions. Then evaluate the trend line from 1930 to the present for both temperature and precipitation.
Casey (18:27:49) :
Zircon encrusted tweezers? Dental floss tycoons?
Inquirer:
Same here.
The basic point is sound: Glacial advance at the end of the LIA was anomalous, and we’ve returned to a “more normal” condition.
Secondly the positive trend in temperature has no statistical validity if it is not accompanied by an uncertainty. I’d be willing to bet the central value falls within the 95% confidence interval of the estimator (done correctly).
An Inquirer (21:01:56) :
Thanks you for your comments. Sometimes it becomes difficult to stay on topic when a determined poster starts leading the conversation down a rat hole.
Alan Cheetham,
“I have updated the study of western Montana climate with information on mountain snowpack – strong correlation to the PDO.”
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_Montana_USA.htm
Nice work, Alan. I still think you should add a linear trend algorithm to your calculator, tho. Your climate app is about the best on the Net, but t’would be nice if it had that option.
Also, Alan, the stations in the Glacier Park area seem not to have data later than 2005. What’s up with that?
An Inquirer (21:01:56)–
Sorry for the confusion. Leaving out the years before 1930 would be like leaving out the years before 1970. Run the graphs again for an annual period only using 1970 to the present. So the issue becomes what period to measure — 40 years, 80 years, or a 100+ years. Next, relate that data to manifestations of temperature and precipitation trends in Montana’s physical environment such as tree loss to beetle kill, stream flows, lake levels, water tables, frequency and severity of wildfires, etc. This is a story that can’t be summed up with a picture of a GNP snow blower.
Craig,
I didn’t realize that beetles affect glacial cycles.
You seem to have an agenda which has nothing to do with this topic – whether or not recent glacial loss in Montana is due to CO2. You haven’t presented one shred of evidence to the contrary, and are just wasting everybody’s time.
We all know that Montana warmed up in the decades following the end of the LIA. How many times and in how many ways are you going to repeat that fact?
What is interesting is the fact that Montana summer temperatures are no higher than 60-95 years ago, despite large increases in CO2. Your failure to grasp the significance is very telling.
Craig,
I’ve run the temps for the period after 1950 (the reference date mentioned in the AP story) for the 7 stations surrounding the park. See the links above. Also see Alan Cheetham’s page (link above).
So using the June-August mean data from the above NCDC link, and fitting the data to a linear trend through 2009, I started at a variety of years (listed below) and got the following slopes (F/year):
1895: 0.010
1905: 0.011
1915: 0.005
1925: 0.004
1935: 0.012
1945: 0:025
1955: 0.018
1965: 0.031
1975: 0.038
1985: 0.023
1995: 0.024
1996: -0.023
2000: -.164
So everyone can go ahead and pick their starting point as they desire. I particularly like the 2000 starting point myself…looks like we’ll be covered in glaciers by 2050 at that rate 😉
Also, I included the start difference between 1995/1996 pair to show the huge difference that starting point can make for the newer viewers of this kind of data to show how easy it is to cherry pick. Despite the sample size of ~15 years, the slope changes from positive to negative (of nearly equal magnitude) just by changing the start date by a single year (and 1995/1996 only differed by 2 F). Starting in 1992 gives a slope ~6.5x bigger than starting in 1995, but starting in 1983 gives a slope ~4.2 smaller than starting in 1995…go figure.
This just goes to show why statistical significance tests are important. Assuming this data has no uncertainty, I get the entire data set (1895-2009) to just BARELY squeak in as a significant slope (at 95% CI). But lets face it, each point has its own uncertainty that adds to this, making it insignificant.
-Scott
It is much easier to disprove the existence of a long term correlation than it is to prove one.
This is “not* a long term warming trend.
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/tmp/graph-Apr1312:54:191342163085.gif
If someone wanted to prove a correlation between temperature and CO2, they would have to demonstrate that it works through all time periods. To argue against it, all I need to do is show that it doesn’t work through any (reasonable length) time period.
Steve,
I read somewhere that they consider a glacier to “exist” if it is more than 25 acres.
I gather that one of the points of your paper, is that what they are talking about in today’s Glacier Park, are really “toy” glaciers, compared to those that carved those valleys out in the first place; and are a geologically recent addition to the area.
Sing out if I misinterpreted that.
George E. Smith (10:15:09) :
The glaciers in GNP are much smaller than the ones that shaped the valleys. Even at their peak 150 years ago, they weren’t very big.
http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/research/chaney_2005_review2_sm.jpg
In Boulder, there is disagreement about whether or not the small glacier above the city is really a glacier or a snow field. We are definitely
Steve Goddard (09:57:59)–
Using your article link I get this when using annual mean temperature back to 1900: http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/tmp/graph-Apr1313:18:442128295898.gif
Why begin at 1917 and exclude the previous years back to 1900 as you did in your latest “not a long term trend” link?
Craig Moore (10:35:29) :
1917 is listed in the USGS article as the beginning of a hot and dry period with ice disappearing at a faster rate than at present. Again, the point of this article is to demonstrate that there is no evidence of a connection between CO2 and glaciers disappearing. By showing that similar episodes occurred in the past when CO2 is low, I am supporting my case.
We do know that summer temperatures rose for a number of decades after the LIA, but that had nothing to do with CO2.
Now, whenever I see the name “Craig Moore,” I shall forevermore be reminded of that insufferable twit who -in the middle of an otherwise tiresome town hall meeting- kept standing up and exclaiming “Point of order!”
Dude. We get it. Alas, your obsession with this incontrovertibly minor side-issue makes Ralph Nader’s OCD look fracking normal. Or maybe you’re like that kid in Galaxy Quest who obsessed over the difference between what the “official” blueprints said, and what was shown on season “X,” episode “Y.”
Get. A. Fracking. Grip.
Thank you, and thanks for shopping at Kmart (er) WUWT. 🙂
Casey (21:58:19)– “Dude. We get it.”
Actually you have missed it entirely. The biggest knock against AGW has been about faulty process and propaganda. For example, pictures of polar bears on floating icebergs, receding glaciers, or calving ice sheets in Antarctica followed by cherry picked data sets and supporting graphs like the hockey stick. Right or wrong, I thought I saw that same questionable process here in this article. Doesn’t matter that I agree with Steve Goddard’s basic premise regarding causation. I have experienced the effects of a changing Montana climate for many decades. Some of the examples I discuss in previous comments. There are many more. When the charts don’t reflect that experiential reality, I call BS on those charts. Perhaps my stubbornness is a product of my Montana tempering where survival often depends on accepting a dynamic environment as it actually presents itself. Paper presentations and rhetorically arguments often miss that texturing that puts the lines in the faces of survivors.
Now Casey, do you get that, Dude?
Craig Moore (07:21:35) :
Please tell us about your experiences in Montana during the period from 1917-1941, when snow pack was 30% of normal.
Steve, I’ll have to take your word for it.
Montana has captured some data and it is reflected here: http://nris.mt.gov/nrcs/snowater.asp See especially the Surface Water Supply Index. Years 92 thru 4/1 of this year.
Craig,
El Nino winters often bring the storm track south. Arizona and New Mexico have had a lot of snow, while Idaho and Montana have had little.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/snotelanom/basinswe.html
stevengoddard (14:16:54)–
Thank you.
The second photo linked, http://www.nps.gov/imr/pgallerycontent/p/l/20091222103746.jpg, in the article isn’t working anymore, it looks like the site with the image pulled it.
Assuming the image is the same the file name shows up here (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/roundup-47-ice-nein-edition.html) with a picture of a mountain in Montana National Park: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/assets/2010/04/07/20091222103746.jpg.
In any even you’ll want to update your article with an appropriate image.