Guest post by Tom Fuller
How glaciers have responded to the warming of the past 130 years is a complicated story, although many millions of words have been written to try and explain it.
How glaciers have been used to promote fears of a disastrous future is a much simpler story, but it really only gets told in skeptic weblogs. The story competes with a much easier tale, one that is told by the media strategists for environmental organisations and is repeated by politicians and others seeking temporary fame or permanent fortune through shaping our future to meet the challenges of climate change.
As a non-scientist, what I take from the many articles and papers I have read can be summarized as follows: Glaciers advance and retreat in response to a variety of forces, some mechanical, some climatic, some of each regular, some of each unusual. This has been going on as long as there has been ice. I realize that this is so vague as to be useless and vapid, but I want to start from a non-controversial position. It will probably start to get controversial with the next sentence, and will probably not stop after that.
It is my best understanding based on what I have read (and please feel free to correct errors or hints of bias), that at this point in time more glaciers are retreating than are growing, and probably by a significant percentage. However, some of those that are retreating actually began retreating before global warming started. So, many glaciers are retreating, many should be attributed to global warming, but there are many exceptions–it is by no means a universal phenomenon.
There has never been anything like a census, even using satellite photography over the past 30 years, although photographs of 100,000 glaciers are available at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. (I’d love to be proven wrong on that point, as continuous satellite coverage would be really useful.) The Assessment of The Status of The Development of The Standards For the Terrestrial Essential Climate Variables, published in 2009, references the inventory of the 100,000 glaciers, but draws no conclusions on overall status.
It is also my best understanding that those pushing the story of catastrophic global warming have used and misused glacier melt to advance their quest for political agreement to their preferred solutions. They started with the glacier at Kilmanjaro, prominently featured in Al Gore’s move An Inconvenient Truth. However, it turned out that Kilmanjaro’s glacier had been receding long before human contributions to global warming, and it sort of receded to the background.
But glaciers on a mountain make a pretty picture, and Kilmanjaro was replaced by Himalayan glaciers, which are just as pretty, and didn’t seem so controversial. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in their 4th Assessment Report wrote, “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world.
(see Table 10.9)
And, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”
This finding was meat to a hungry press corps, and was featured prominently in print, on television and on the internet. But it was wrong, as most readers here already know. Worse, the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, had been informed it was wrong years before.
But again, as with polar bears, Antarctic ice and pictures of flooded cities, the image and the fear it produced was too important to let go. I’m not speaking of the scientists, although the warmist weblogs keep accusing me of doing so. I’m speaking of slick media strategists working hard to keep an issue alive, donations coming in, lobbyists full of talking points and committee votes on tough issues like Cap and Trade. So although the IPCC finally admitted their report was in error, it still gets spun as a typographical error that doesn’t change the inevitability of glacial disappearance.
The warming we have experienced has caused many glaciers to lose mass–in a few cases, glaciers have disappeared entirely, or are likely to do so soon. But the issue is not as simple as the media have been spoon-fed to believe, at least not according to the articles I have read.
But complexity gets in the way of a scare story, and so the narrative must be simplified–and exaggerated.
As has been the case in each instance of symbols being hijacked for political purposes, a sober and compelling story could have been told. It would have had many qualifications, and would have probably ended with a call for further research and keeping a close eye on the situation. I honestly believe such a story would have resulted in more and more effective action than the sledgehammer horror story approach the activists took.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
How glaciers have been used to promote fears of a disastrous future is a much simpler story, but it really only gets told in skeptic weblogs. The story competes with a much easier tale, one that is told by the media strategists for environmental organisations and is repeated by politicians and others seeking temporary fame or permanent fortune through shaping our future to meet the challenges of climate change.
As a non-scientist, what I take from the many articles and papers I have read can be summarized as follows: Glaciers advance and retreat in response to a variety of forces, some mechanical, some climatic, some of each regular, some of each unusual. This has been going on as long as there has been ice. I realize that this is so vague as to be useless and vapid, but I want to start from a non-controversial position. It will probably start to get controversial with the next sentence, and will probably not stop after that.
It is my best understanding based on what I have read (and please feel free to correct errors or hints of bias), that at this point in time more glaciers are retreating than are growing, and probably by a significant percentage. However, some of those that are retreating actually began retreating before global warming started. So, many glaciers are retreating, many should be attributed to global warming, but there are many exceptions–it is by no means a universal phenomenon. There has never been anything like a census, even using satellite photography over the past 30 years, although photographs of 100,000 glaciers are available at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. (I’d love to be proven wrong on that point, as continuous satellite coverage would be really useful.) The Assessment of The Status of The Development of The Standards For the Terrestrial Essential Climate Variables, published in 2009, references the inventory of the 100,000 glaciers, but draws no conclusions on overall status.
It is also my best understanding that those pushing the story of catastrophic global warming have used and misused glacier melt to advance their quest for political agreement to their preferred solutions. They started with the glacier at Kilmanjaro, prominently featured in Al Gore’s move An Inconvenient Truth. However, it turned out that Kilmanjaro’s glacier had been receding long before human contributions to global warming, and it sort of receded to the background.
But glaciers on a mountain make a pretty picture, and Kilmanjaro was replaced by Himalayan glaciers, which are just as pretty, and didn’t seem so controversial. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in their 4th Assessment Report wrote, “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”
This finding was meat to a hungry press corps, and was featured prominently in print, on television and on the internet. But it was wrong, as most readers here already know. Worse, the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, had been informed it was wrong years before.
But again, as with polar bears, Antarctic ice and pictures of flooded cities, the image and the fear it produced was too important to let go. I’m not speaking of the scientists, although the warmist weblogs keep accusing me of doing so. I’m speaking of slick media strategists working hard to keep an issue alive, donations coming in, lobbyists full of talking points and committee votes on tough issues like Cap and Trade. So although the IPCC finally admitted their report was in error, it still gets spun as a typographical error that doesn’t change the inevitability of glacial disappearance.
The warming we have experienced has caused many glaciers to lose mass–in a few cases, glaciers have disappeared entirely, or are likely to do so soon. But the issue is not as simple as the media have been spoon-fed to believe, at least not according to the articles I have read.
But complexity gets in the way of a scare story, and so the narrative must be simplified–and exaggerated.
As has been the case in each instance of symbols being hijacked for political purposes, a sober and compelling story could have been told. It would have had many qualifications, and would have probably ended with a call for further research and keeping a close eye on the situation. I honestly believe such a story would have resulted in more and more effective action than the sledgehammer horror story approach the activists took.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pamela Gray says:
September 12, 2010 at 7:47 am
You’ll have to travel much further south in Calif. to find greenies to sell Wallowa property to.
Mt. Shasta currently presents itself as a huge cone with white sauce running down like syrup.
It has not been seen like this in a very long time, and as a consequence, the supply of greenies chanting global warming has been receding.
“…the image and the fear it produced was too important to let go. I’m not speaking of the scientists…,”
Well, if the scientists didn’t produce the images and fear-mongering, as you say, they at least sat back and enjoyed the show, and kept mum.
They could have issued corrections if the science was miss-presented by sensationalist reporters and PR people.
Well gosh it is not surprising if indeed more than 50% of the worlds glaciers are retreating,many for more than 100 years.
The Little Ice Age ended just 150 years ago.A climate epoch that FAVORED glacial growth,that went on for several hundred years.
Thus I would not be surprised that many glaciers can be melting back in this current warming trend that started just….. 150 years ago.
Interesting post. I remember that, back in the early 60’s (when I was quite young but already interested in science), I read about the retreating glaciers of Kilimanjaro.
There was a photograph from around 1900 that showed a quite disturbing difference in ~60 years.
It is my best understanding based on what I have read (and please feel free to correct errors or hints of bias), that at this point in time more glaciers are retreating than are growing, and probably by a significant percentage
RONGGGG!!!!
Most glaciers are advancing.
Most glaciers are in Antarctica.
Has this blog become WattsUpWithThomasFuller?
Here is a Science Daily article from yesterday regarding the Collier Glacier in Oregon, it supports much of what you say about the start of the retreat:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100907092346.htm
Its interesting that too that it had a period of rapid decline from 1924 to 1934.
“And, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 ….”
This is why one shouldn’t be taking their “science” from the WWF. The present rate never continues in the real world. The fact that the glaciers referred to are shrinking uphill means that with linear trends in warming, these would slow down. It is the same reason that the glaciers around the periphery of Greenland shrunk back in a huge way during the MWP, permitting grain farming, but the ice cap remained pretty much as it was (ice core records have a relatively continuous record as I understand it). I climbed Kilimanjaro in 1988 and I can tell you it was very cold in the last few thousand feet – we had arctic downfilled sleeping bags at the last camp for the ascent. There was lots of dry cold snow when we arose just after midnight for the last leg. I have no way of comparing what it may have been like before or since but I’m pretty sure at 19,000 feet it isn’t melting. Sublimation and lack of precipitation anyone?
There was a report last year that the Mendenhall Glacier, Juneau Alaska had increased mass at its summit. That may be an isolated event because the glacier has retreated a fair distance from the sea over many years. This is one glacier we would not want to see add mass and begin to move again toward the sea. Check it out on google earth. Look at the land on the southwest shore of the melt water lake. Its been developed with residential subdivisions. Amazing.
I am getting a little full of ‘I’m not a scientist’ science writing. TF does not represent well enough to be a major near-daily contributor.
We are 12,000 years (more or less) past the last “big melt” and there are still 30,000,000 sq km (more or less) ice on the planet surface. Either the current inter-glacial has yet to run its course (ie: more ice is going to melt), or we’re just out of luck (ie: most of the ice that’s going to melt has done so). If you think “global warming” is a problem, I suggest you think seriously of the alternative. A glacial maximum would mean an uninhabitable planet north and south of about latitude 40. For most of the past 500 million years Earth has had less ice than now (most of that time none at all), so the odds are in our favour. However, we are still in an ice age and at risk of another maximum. I find it hard to believe people who complain about being warm. I lived for the better part of a decade in the sub-Arctic. Warm is way better than cold.
Ref: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo_ice/graphics.asp
I wish that the story of the Great Aletsch Glacier got more publicity.
The glaciologist Hanspeter Holzhauser has reconstructed its length back to 1600BC, and his graph is a peach, showing the ‘lapping tongue’ through Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period etc. His methods are an object lesson in scientific talent and rigour: for example, he uses the exposure of historical artifacts (a Roman wall) and radiocarbon dating of trees engulfed by past advances of the tongue.
His graph shows the current length of the glacier to be unexceptional: The Aletsch comes and goes; since 1860 it has been a-going, but it has been this short before.
Versions of his paper “Fluctuation of the Great Aletsch glacier during the last 3500 years” can be found online, but the Word version I have, with its superb colour graph, seems to have been pulled.
Holzhauser has gone on record saying that Global Warming is going to screw up his pet glacier. But if his research budget depends on the Thermageddon threat, well he’s hardly likely to rock the boat is he?!
Tom, I enjoy the reasonableness and moderation of your posts, as well as their subject matter. However, I take issue with your political position, which, in this and other posts, appears to be as some sort of luke-warmism (“CO2AGW is happening, we need to act, the problem is that the issue has been hyped by activists and political/media strategists, they need to do better”).
I suggest your political position is not necessarily a rational one. If CO2AGW were to be undetectable, minimal, mild or uncertain (and presented truthfully as such), it would not support calls for political action. Without exaggeration, hyperbole and deceit, the warmists have no obvious strategy to generate popular support for political measures such as taxes and/or rationing. The case for CO2AGW is a one trick pony. Like a glacier, it can advance, but it cannot retreat.
All the best.
The warming we have experienced has caused many glaciers to lose mass
Not proven. By a long chalk.
The most common way a glacier can lose mass is lack of snow up the top, which is our old friend precipitation – or the lack of it. Without the weight pushing down, the speed slows, and the front retreats.
It’s a bit like a snowball in Hell – it gets further if you throw it hard and fast, than if you just roll it in.
“Porlicue Wombaster” and others may not be aware, but Anthony has an ongoing family situation that he announced on August 31st in a post entitled . The first paragraph of the article reads as follows:
I have a few very important (and personal) announcements to share with the WUWT community because they will impact content and moderation over the next few weeks. Please take a moment to read this.
Tom (and others) are relieving Anthony of some of the load he normally carries on WUWT, so he can attend to a more pressing need. Even though I don’t agree with much of what Tom says, I’m grateful to him for stepping in to support Anthony.
If you disagree with what Tom says, the appropriate way to respond is with facts. Don’t complain that he lacks the appropriate credentials. (We don’t want WUWT to be just like the warmist blogs, do we?) Most importantly, don’t ask Tom to leave. He’s an invited guest, providing an invaluable service to Anthony.
Just what we need–an article about glaciers by a non-scientist. Do you dental work also? How about trying your hand at neurosurgery? I will continue to get my information from the scientists.
REPLY: Question: Did you watch Al Gore’s movie section about glaciers? – Anthony
In my previous post (“September 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm”), I inserted a link to Anthony’s August 31 post (titled “Announcements”) in which he explained that he would be preoccupied for some time with a family issue. Something bad happened and the link disappeared from the posting. Here’s the link as text:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/31/announcements/
Check it out.
Tom, what “more effective action”, apart from “keeping a close eye on the situation”, would you suggest to “meet the challenges of climate change”, i.e. ‘global warming’ which started 130 years ago?
Just asking.
Porlicue Wombaster says:
September 12, 2010 at 2:00 pm
I am getting a little full of ‘I’m not a scientist’ science writing. TF does not represent well enough to be a major near-daily contributor.
That’s because the bulk of the loudspeaker chorus is not coming from scientists per se.
It’s been screeched at us from Agenda-based sources like a broken record, and if Tom Fuller wants to fling a few Raspberries back at ’em, I say more power to him.
Remember that guy with all the fancy knife knuchucking moves in the Indiana Jones movie, and then Indiana whips out a gun and pops him? That’s about how the General Public feels about all the hype & hysteria.
A few years ago, the Jakobshavn glacier (west Greenland) was iconic as the fastest retreating glacier in the world, although it all seems to have gone rather quiet recently.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/26175880@N05/4753025383/" This marked-up NSIDC image shows its retreat at intervals from 1851 through to 2006, from which it can be seen that the rate has been extremely erratic. For instance, in the 37 year period between 1964 and 2001, whilst the NH average temperature according to HADCRUT was in a pronounced warming stage, the rate of retreat was at its very lowest. Thus, there seems to be no correlation with temperature. Topographic (gravitational) considerations suggest that unless precipitation increases a good deal, the rate of retreat may well slow further now that the termination is back at the “throat” in the mountains. Notice the two “ice streams” striations from the SE and NNW, heading towards the “throat” in the ring of mountains near the coast, the island bedrock being somewhat bowl shaped. (below sea level inland )
SORRY TRY AGAIN html tag error
A few years ago, the Jakobshavn glacier (west Greenland) was iconic as the fastest retreating glacier in the world, although it all seems to have gone rather quiet recently.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/26175880@N05/4753025383/" This marked-up NSIDC image shows its retreat at intervals from 1851 through to 2006, from which it can be seen that the rate has been extremely erratic. For instance, in the 37 year period between 1964 and 2001, whilst the NH average temperature according to HADCRUT was in a pronounced warming stage, the rate of retreat was at its very lowest. Thus, there seems to be no correlation with temperature. Topographic (gravitational) considerations suggest that unless precipitation increases a good deal, the rate of retreat may well slow further now that the termination is back at the “throat” in the mountains. Notice the two “ice streams” striations from the SE and NNW, heading towards the “throat” in the ring of mountains near the coast, the island bedrock being somewhat bowl shaped. (below sea level inland )
Sorry, here is the link for my comment above:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26175880@N05/4753025383/
Hi Christopher,
I heartily support a ‘no regrets’ policy of taking action that makes sense no matter what the outcome of the global warming question. This includes a variety of actions, which I may go into in another post. But although you’ll probably like some of what I advocate, you probably won’t like all of what I support, as some of it will involve taxpayer dollars. Just warning you…
‘I realize that this is so vague as to be useless and vapid, but I want to start from a non-controversial position.”
You should rethink this comment. There are many that think posting useless and vapid comments about climate science is very controversial.
REPLY: Question: Did you watch Al Gore’s movie section about glaciers? – Anthony
Yes, Anthony, and Al Gore was rightly lambasted for that film and for many such ‘factual sections’ within in it. What Tom Fuller is doing to this site is to bring the same kind of armchair opinion based on one mans psuedo-scientific analyses and then posting it up as an ‘article’.
I really am not sure what this piece says (similar to the sea level rise piece a few days ago). Its not anything scientific about glaciers, it makes huge assumptions (AGW is happening) and sweeping statements like “at this point in time more glaciers are retreating than are growing, and probably by a significant percentage” but with the admission that “I realize that this is so vague as to be useless and vapid”, badly rehashes old news stories (the IPCC glaciergate) and then ends up with a whine about how activists always hijack symbols like this.
I fully agree with most of the sentiments written, but I also agree with people who say the suns going to rise tomorrow – I just don’t need to read a bad essay about it.