By Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
The recent Portland State University study of glaciers on Mt. Adams by is a good example of bad science, i.e., how a dogmatic bias and selectively leaving out contrary factual data can lead to bad conclusions. As an exercise in critical thinking, I used to have my graduate students take a paper like this apart, piece by piece, to show any scientific errors. Here is an analysis of bad assumptions and errors in the Mt. Adams study.
First, what are the basic contentions in this study?
- Washington’s gradually warming temperatures have caused Mount Adams [glaciers] to shrink by nearly half since 1904.
- The Mt. Adams glaciers are receding faster than those of nearby sister volcanoes.
- The glacier recession is another sign of gradually warming temperatures.
- The study lends urgency to an earlier federal report that shows the water content of Cascade Mountain snowpacks could dwindle by as much as 50 percent by the 2070s.
Let’s take a careful look at each of these. Have the Mt. Adams glaciers indeed shrunk by nearly half since 1904? How do we prove such a statement? The best way is to have photographic evidence of where the glacier termini were in 1904 and where they are now. For the moment, let’s assume they have shrunk significantly since 1904. But the rest of the conclusion (gradually warming temperatures have caused them to shrink) isn’t a logical consequence of smaller glaciers. Two important aspects of this question are (1) has the climate gradually warmed over the past 100 years and (2) what were the glaciers doing before 1904?
The answer to the question, has the climate gradually warmed over the past 100 years, is no, the climate has not gradually warmed—it has oscillated back and forth between warm and cool periods four times during the past century (Figure 1), and the glaciers have fluctuated back and forth with the climate changes. The inference that the Mt. Adams glaciers began to retreat near the turn of the past century and have gradually shrunk because of gradual warming due to increased CO2 is false.
The answer to the question, what were the glaciers doing immediately prior to 1904 is that they were strongly advancing during the 1880 to 1915 cool period, and many reached terminal positions close to their maximum extent during the Little Ice Age (1300 AD to this century) (Figure 2). Most of the subsequent retreat of the glaciers occurred during the following warm period from 1915 to 1945, well before CO2 began to rise sharply after 1945.
Let’s look at the second contention–Mt. Adams glaciers are receding faster than those of nearby sister volcanoes. The advance and retreat of glaciers on two of those sister volcanoes, Mt. Baker and Mt. Rainier, has been well documented (Figure 4) (see references in Easterbrook 2011 and 2010).
Glaciers on Mt. Rainier and Mt. Baker advanced strongly during the 1880 to 1915 cool period, retreated strongly during the 1915 to 1945 warm period, advanced again during the 1945 to 1977 cool period, and retreated during the 1978 to 1998 warm period. The contention that Mt. Adams glaciers are retreating faster than those on nearby volcanoes and that they have been retreating gradually since 1904 is false. Glaciers on Mt. Adams have not been gradually retreating and are ‘not retreating faster than the others’–all of these volcanoes have fluctuated strongly back and forth during each period of warming and cooling.
The third contention of the study, that glacier recession is another sign of gradually warming temperatures is only partially true. Although climatic warming does indeed cause glacier recession, the inference that gradual warming has caused gradual glacier retreat since 1904 is not true. The glaciers have clearly been periodically advancing as well as retreating.
The fourth contention of the study, that the study lends urgency to an earlier federal report that shows the water content of Cascade Mountain snowpacks could dwindle by as much as 50 percent by the 2070s is totally unfounded. It assumes (1) that gradual climatic warming dating back to 1904 will continue at a constant rate until 2070, (2) that the supposed warming is continuous, (3) that the climate will continue to warm, and (4) that it is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. The first assumption of gradual warming since 1904 has been shown above to be incorrect—there have been warming and cooling periods that have caused glaciers not only to retreat, but also to advance during this time. The assumption that the climate is presently warming is also not true–in fact, the climate has been cooling slightly since 2000, not warming, so projecting continuous gradual warming into the future is not warranted.
The assumption that CO2 is causing climatic warming is also not true. Much of the glacial retreat was caused by climatic warming that occurred from 1915 to 1945, well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise sharply, so this warming cannot be attributed to rising CO2. In addition, the glacier re-advance from 1945 to 1977 was caused by climatic cooling during the same time that CO2 was rising most rapidly, just the opposite of what should have happened if CO2 caused climatic warming.
So what credence can be given to the contention that Cascade Mountain snowpacks could dwindle by as much as 50 percent by the 2070s? Temperatures in the Pacific NW have been cooling over the past decade, not warming (Figure 5, 6) and the snowpack in 2010 was about 70-200% above normal. In the late summer of 2011, some areas normally snow-free were still covered with 30 feet of snow. Thus, the conclusion of Cascade snowpacks declining by 50% by the 2070s is not credible.
Figure 6. The trend of global temperature since 2001 has been cooling at a rate of -4.0°C (-7°F) per century. Computer models had predicted a 1°F rise in temperature during this same period—that did not happen, showing that the computer models are invalid.
Summary
- Rather than glacial retreat since 1904 due to gradual warming, glaciers have advanced and retreated four times in the past century.
- Glacier termini advanced from 1945 to 1977 during the time of most sharply rising atmospheric CO2,. showing that rising CO2 does not cause climatic warming.
- Glacier recession on Mt. Adams does not prove a gradually warming temperature.
- No climatic warming has occurred during the past decade. Instead a cooling trend of -7° F per century has occurred.
- Cooling during the past decade is not consistent with a claim of 50% reduction of Cascade snowpack caused by climatic warming.
- The 1904 position of glacier termini resulted from strong cooling from 1880 to 1915. Comparing the position of recent minimal glacier termini following 20 years of warming from 1978 to 1998 with 1904 maximum glacier termini gives an exaggerated view of glacier recession.
- Because glaciers on Mt. Rainier and Mt. Baker advanced and retreated four times in the past century, there is no basis for assuming that glaciers on Mt. Adams are retreating faster than those on nearby volcanoes.
References
Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2011, Evidence-based climate science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming: Elsevier Inc., 416 p.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global climate changes: The Past is the Key to the Future: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p.3-51.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, A walk through geologic time from Mt. Baker to Bellingham Bay, WA: Chuckanut Editions, Bellingham, WA, 329 p.
==============================================================
Addendum:
Something’s odd here. I tried to find the paper, and found references to AP news articles like this one:
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/01/glaciers_shrinking_on_mount_ad.html
From that article:
In the first comprehensive study of its kind, a Portland State University study has found Mount Adams’ 12 glaciers have shrunk by nearly half since 1904 and are receding faster than those of nearby sister volcanoes Mount Hood and Mount Rainier.
The link in that AP story on OregonLive.com is to a paper, Sitts Et Al 2010 …and it’s a dead link. (It was dead at about midnight last night, it has since been restored)
Found it here: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3955/046.084.0407
And… no mention of a 2012 study in Portland State University news:
Its like AP recycled old news from a 2010 paper or something. The closest thing I could find was this on PSU news site from December:
http://www.pdx.edu/news/node/16390
I’m thinking perhaps the reaction in the NW press is to a presentation by Fountain, and not a new paper. If readers can find a more recent 2011/2012 paper that I’ve missed, please leave links in comments. – Anthony
=============================================================
UPDATE: Don Easterbrook responds to comments, I’ve elevated his response here:
Easterbrook writes: A couple of points of clarification—
1. We’ve been warming up from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but not at a continuous rate. The figure of the series of moraines in front of the Deming glacier was meant to point out that glaciers have been see-sawing back and forth for centuries but present glaciers are well upvalley from their Little Ice Age maximums as we ‘thaw out’ from the colder climate. Thus, the idea that glaciers have gradually retreated in response to gradual warming the past century and that it will continue until the 2070s is nonsense. Yes, it’s warmer now than during the Little Ice Age, but because CO2 could not have been a factor hundreds of years ago, the warming must be due to natural causes.
2. I agree that projecting a temperature history of one decade 2070 would be ridiculous (actually we can use a much longer historic record to project to 2070). The point here is that the 1978 to 1998 warming trend is over and cannot be projected indefinitely into the 2070s. The cooling experienced over the past decade began with the switch of the eastern Pacific Ocean from its warm mode to its cool mode in 1999. This mode switch, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has happened four times during the past century and every time the global climate has remained warm or cool for three decades (depending on whether the mode switch was to a warmer or cooler mode). We have been entrenched in a cool PDO mode for the past decade and temperatures have cooled slightly. What we know from this is that we have several more decades of cooling to go before the Pacific switches back into its warm mode. Thus, predicting 50% reduction in Cascade snowpack in the 2070s due to global warming is ridiculous.
3. The main point of my comments is that you can’t look at glacier termini in 1904 after 30 years of cooling and glacier expansion, compare it with present termini after 20 years of warming, and extrapolate that as ‘gradual warming’ over the past century as a continuous process that didn’t begin until CO2 began to rise.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, of course, sound the alarma! ! !
The glaciers are “melting” at mountains where the trees are a advancing.
What do they want, really?
Mild winters and less energy used or colder winter more energy used?
Growing forests and more fresh water and less CO2 in the air or advancing glaciers and and less renewables to burn and a bunch of thirsty folks?
Greener deserts or advancing deserts by a drier colder climate?
One less growing season or one extra?
But I digressed from the real issue since the deranged environmentalists just want the environment to adapt to the their need instead of the human need for adaptation to it’s surrounding.
The environmental socialists are like children: Oh no, now the water is too warm, BUUUH, fix it. Oh no, now the water is too cold, BUUUH, mommy you’re evil!!!
A physicist says:
January 11, 2012 at 7:53 am
“A Physicist says: Anthony, by far the most comprehensive, up-to-date source for data relating to PNW glaciers is the 25-year North Cascade Glacier Climate Project.”
Anthony replies: That’s fine but it isn’t the impetus for the blitz of news articles I’m seeking.
“A Physicist says:That’s fine too, but strong skepticism always focuses on strong science, while weak skepticism always focuses on weak science. Regrettably, there is no shortage of weak science and weak skepticism — on that everyone on the WUWT forum can agree.”
Couldn’t agree more, with that “no shortage of weak science” observation! For more examples of ‘weak science’ and error riddled ‘calculations’, see ‘A Physicist’ posts on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/10/theres-a-reason-the-modern-age-moved-on-from-windmills/ .A plethora of responses to his increasingly flawed and acerbic posts there provide clear illustration of his classic ‘weak science’. If any Iowa farmers relied on those multiply misleading and error riddled calculations, they’d lose the family farm in a New York minute. Fortunately, most Iowa farmers are considerably better at basic math… and common sense.
The author of those pathetically bad calculations should be too embarrassed to return to these pages without first humbly acknowledging his errors and with even greater humility, vowing to achieve more accurate and less misleading results. Alas, to the great detriment of real science and the profound embarrassment of real physicists, humility… like honesty and integrity, are seldom found in the science and communications from believers of the ‘man made global warming’ meme.
Folks, when Anthony calls the Fountain study “a good example of bad science”, he doesn’t mean “a good example of typical science.”
When we look at the most complete available studies of glacier mass here in the NW, we can plainly see a substantial and accelerating rate of mass loss over the last 25 years.
The point being, that what we need is more and better science, for the common-sense reason that the best science we have, tells us this melting trend may well be pretty darn serious. Because a whole lot of folks depend on the snow that falls in those mountains.
It seems to me that two opposite points-of-view, that we should focus our understanding upon the weakest science, or that what we need is less science, both may qualify as skepticism, but they are not any kind of rational skepticism, eh?
REPLY: You can’t even get the attribution right, that’s Don Easterbrook’s essay and title – Anthony
A half physicist
January 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm
You need to learn the difference between science and propaganda.
crosspatch says:
January 11, 2012 at 9:58 am
……………….
Your post on another blog has been noted by:
Washington, District of Columbia, United States
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (204.87.16.4) [Label IP Address]
Referring URL: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/17710
Visit Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
The Jorge Montt glacier of Patagonia has been advancing at record pace lately, with the rate being governed primarily by the bathymetric properties of the fjord under the ice–the deeper it is, the greater the thermal circulation. As it melts it reveals remnants of a forest that was covered during the LIA (see http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/7/3131/2011/cpd-7-3131-2011.pdf
–Section 3.5).
The Frias glacier in Patagonia shows an inverse correlation between advance and temperature (http://www.glaciares.org.ar/upload/MasiokasEtAlGPC085.pdf), the increased precipitation overwhelming increased melting in warm periods.
The Chaqaltaya glacier in Bolivia preserved a 50 foot ice cave as late as 1970, which has since disappeared. It was only a few hundred feet higher than the snow line, which boasted the worst skiing in the world. Dust from the dirt road built to gain access to the ski slope certainly hastened its demise. –AGF
Mauri, could you please update the NCGCP pages and graphs to show us the actual size of the glaciers you studied? Without this information, it is impossible for a layman to verify your claim of “significant” glacier loss.
If it’s there and I just missed it, my apologies.
That link is fixed now (I hope) … for which, thank you Anthony.
Ordinary citizens in the local Mountaineers club have been hiking these North Cascades glaciers for the past 105 years, and the Mountaineers hope to still be hiking the North Cascades glaciers in another 105 years. At a fundamental level, sustaining that hope is an important part of what the science is all about.
Well, that could be a little scary for AJ these days considering how politicized our Dept. of Energy has become and the fact that he contracts to the US Government. Or maybe they are trying to figure out why the climate response has been so steadily diverging from the AR4 model projections and are looking at other possibilities. AR5 looks to be worse, by the way, as apparently those models have dialed in even greater CO2 sensitivity while climate continues to diverge in behavior from atmospheric CO2 levels.
I am amused by the “net effect” arguments flying around; it would be impossible for Don not to acknowledge that the net effect is negative, given the start and end points.
To use those banking analogies, the article fails to mention that deposits have been made as well as withdrawls during the term. You’d fail accounting and/or be in trouble with the tax department if you wrote the kind of report that is being analyzed. That is totally Don’s point.
Excuse me, make that RECEDING at record pace! –AGF
“Taliesyn says:
January 11, 2012 at 12:07 pm
If Mt. Adams is loosing it’s glaciers faster than other Cascade volcanoes, especially considering that the nearby Crater Glacier on Mt Saint Helens is growing, may indicate a non-atmospheric cause… remember, these are VOLCANOES. Has anyone correlated the ground temperature under the glaciers? Is there a growing magma chamber under Mt Adams?”
It may seem obvious but… do people really think that glaciers on top of Volcanoes are permanent
geological features that are supposed to last forever or more to the point, were always there at all ?
Sometimes I wonder.
Having spent a lot of time around the area, I wonder if the deforestation is preventing moisture/snow accumulation? It could well be another Mnt Kilimanjaro situation?
It appears to me that in the HadCRUT3 plot, the slope line drawn for the 1999-2012 stretch is about right for 1998-2012 inclusive. For 1999-2012 HadCRUT3, the linear trend appears to me roughly level slightly upsloping, but only slightly. One could say the linear trend is close to level. The big El Nino spike ended before 1998 did.
Otherwise, the slopes appear roughly correct to me. However, for the 1880 to 1915 cooling period, it looks to me that it was warmest around 1879 and coolest around 1914. Also, since this is divided into periods with linear trends, I would call these “warming” and “cooling” periods as opposed to “warm” and “cool” ones. I would not call 1999-2012, the warmest of these periods, a “cool” one. I would call it “cooling” if that period includes the 1998 spike, otherwise I would say “warming largely levels off”.
As for falsifying the claim of “gradually” increasing temperature since 1904: As I see it, the report being criticized should have said that the temperature increased but unsteadily, with temporary stoppages and reversals of the longer term trend of gradual temperature increase.
As you show, HadCRUT3 has a noticeable periodic component with a period around 60-64 years.
Also, your map showing the retreat of the Demiong Glacier does not show it to be doing so in an oscillatory fashion, but more continuously and somewhat accelerating after 1890, especially after 1977. Although you show 2 other glaciers advancing from the late 1950’s to around 1980 – good work!
As for one volcano thawing out twice as fast as two others – I think it ios proper to consider the trend on all 3 of them, as well as on other glacier-bearing mountains worldwide. Basing a report on the fastest-thawing one in a neighborhood having 3 glacier-bearing ones risks accusations of cherrypicking, if indeed the reported one is thawing faster and/or more steadily than the trend among its neighbors.
Anthony(or Jim Carson – I’m not sure who to address this too),
Is the photo Adams or St Helens? Looks like the latter to me.
@timg56
Neither, that is Mr Baker, I mean Mt Baker. Note the Deming glacier, which was named after a legendary tavern that once served huge steaks on paper plate…so the legend goes…
Oops…the pic in the Jim/Anthony comment…that is Adams…ironically that is the view you would see if you were looking at it from Rainier. Lots more glaciers on Rainier, but very similar shape.
“”””” OPB News – 1 day ago
New research shows that glaciers on Mount Adams are shrinking at a faster rate than those on neighboring peaks. Over the past century the glaciers have …
Disappearing glaciers in the Pacific Northwest: Science run amuck “””””
Not really; obviously the evidence indicates the phenomenon has NOTHING whatsoever to do with local or state, or usa or global climate, since the nearby baseline peaks aren’t receding glacier wise as fast.
Suggestion. Go look up some of those volcano papers; the post Mt St Helens ones, that suggested that Mt Adams may be the next one in the cascades to blow its top.
When a phenomenon occurs inside a guard ring that shields the site from peripheral influences; then one should look INSIDE the guard ring for a cause; not OUTSIDE.
Just remember you read it here first; Mt Adams is getting ready to blow, and the rising magma under it, is slowly melting back the glaciers.
@timg56
Anthony put the picture up, and I wouldn’t know either mountain from a molehill, but if that’s St. Helens, the crater is much smaller than I would have thought.
For all those whining about the temp trend, I’ve just compiled the true decadal temp anomaly! And boy howdy, its a shocker! It took me a while, and I had to borrow some methodologies from CU sea level research group, but I think I’ve finally got a handle on this climatology stuff! I’ll probably be busy with publishing and whatnot, but I just thought I’d give the good people here @ur momisugly WUWT the preview! I was inspired by the conversation here an the previous one about the windmills. And even SkS! The true trend is ~ -90°C/century!
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/the-true-decadal-temp-trend/
Oops, correction -9°C
mkelly says:
January 11, 2012 at 11:41 am
“Paul remember “Iceman” the mumified 5000 yr old guy found under a retreating glacier in Italian or Swiss Alps depending on who you listen to. They find all kinds of things under them.”
Yeah like when the glaciers a hundred miles north of Mt Adams they found Seattle. Further south about 25 miles the glaciers dumped a bunch of gravel. So a bunch of concerned ‘green’ American companies decided it would be a great idea to help ‘clean up the mess’…so then some other eco friendly companies decided to partner with the local politicians and do their best to make the place look pretty. They got the best experts in the world to solve the problems.
I don’t think this ‘green’ project cost the taxpayers much…certainly not as much as Solyndra…thats just bad Karma or something…I think Tesla might be part of it too…I can’t always misremember stuff.
Oh…the Links…
http://www.chambersbaygolf.com/chambersbay.asp?id=232&page=7996
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/chambers-bay-host-2015-us-open
It seems that quite a few posters have not picked up on the point mentioned that glacier increases and decreases do not correlate with CO2 levels. We all know that the climate has been warming since the LIA and that, also, most of the world’s glaciers have been receding along with the overall temperature increase.
Edit note, re point #1:
“have caused Mount Adams to shrink by nearly half since 1904.”
Doubt it!
“have caused Mount Adams’ glaciers to shrink by nearly half since 1904.
[Fixed. Thank you, Robt]
There’s a giant elephant in this room, and although it’s been mentioned in passing a few times, we all seem to be steadfastly refusing to look it in the eye… er, trunk.
The long, long term gradual warming temperature trend IS a continuation of the recovery from the LIA. But why? Clearly, CO2 has nothing to do with it, easily demonstrated by extrapolating the trendlines backward… you’d have to start with negative CO2 levels for it to be any kind of contributing factor.
So why DID the LIA happen, and what changed to cause this long term gradual warming, and WHY ARE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS GETTING BIG $$$ TO RESEARCH CLIMATE if they refuse to even research the one most important aspect? Understanding what is causing the gradual warming we are observing, the long-term trend behind the clearly visible oscillations, SHOULD BE the only thing Climate Science even remotely cares about.
Instead, “mainstream” climate science completely ignores the glaringly obvious to chase rainbows and unicorns (aka CO2) and be pretend-activists. It’s pathetic, actually, and is probably the main reason I have absolutely ZERO respect for the majority of people calling themselves Climate Scientists.
Science wants to know, to understand, to quantify and qualify. The Team wants to score cheap, useless points while defending a hypothesis that is repeatedly proven, not just wrong, but devastatingly wrong. CO2 is not a factor. So why are so few people asking: WHAT IS?
@ur momisugly Doug Cotton
You said: “Unless and until someone can produce EMPIRICAL proof that thermal energy can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer one by radiation, then…” and “Bear in mind…”
I says: I always love a good challenge, bare in mind, I was a Pol Sci student where Professor Eastbrook teaches…and I bearly past my logic class…probably because I could beerly get up some mornings for class, but I digress…
Since philosophers have pondered for ages questions about Bears. I believe it was Sir Keanu Reeves, in his epic role as “Ted”, asked Socrates something about Bears defecating in the woods…I think…but the more I know the less I understand.
But I did hypothesize earlier in this thread that mule dung on the glacier might play a roll. At night, it gets colder…the poop freezes. I don’t have empirical proof you request but I am thinking maybe, because the poop is more dense than the ice…(don’t nobody go confusing glacier ice 1,000 from the surface with the slushy stuff was glasading on, when I was going down on Mt Adams…good thing I can outsmart Freud huh txmichael…with all due respect to Mr. Adams…I just know that I know nothing.
But back to my challenges, which is staying focused…so the sun comes up, the air warms, the crystalline structure of the ice allows its temp to rise above the temp of the frozen poop. So the sun warms the poop, but it is still colder than the slushy ice. Debris on snow causes funny melting pattern. I first observed this hiking up Mt Rainier in the summer of 1980…the snow was really dirty for some reason…I even have some old pictures…on paper…a Kodak moment…Think Progress…who needs those old memories with my day…digital is so much better!
Oh…I am not sure about green house gases and back-radiation and stuff…but mules emit methane and so does poop during anaerobic decay I think so maybe…maybe not.
At the very least I had fun hiking around the mountains…and learned few very painful lessons about how thinner atmosphere allows more ultra violet rays to radiate off the snow onto my face…
George E. Smith; says:
January 11, 2012 at 3:54 pm
George, you said the exact same thing I was thinking as I began to get into this post. Especially since it doesn’t look like the other glaciers are retreating as much as what Mt. Adams is indicating. That said, I also think the possibility of sublimation, similar to Mt. Kiliminjaro, is still valid. But I will keep my eyes on the news over the next couple of years to see if Mt. Adams blows its top. Geologists, be on the alert!