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.
My curiosity is how much does the volcanic action (we are talking about glaciers on volcanoes) have to do with the warming of the material in the volcano and the melting of the glaciers? There is more than just the simple temperature vs. precipitation involved with glaciers on volcanoes. The Cascade volcanoes are very active.
Reblogged this on 54°40′ Or Fight!.
Regarding sublimation in the PNW, as we clamber over the rough rocky scree at the terminus of our glaciers, we can hear the meltwater loudly gurgling through the loose rocks underneath our feet, but we can’t see that meltwater. So even when a visible stream isn’t evident on a photo, there still can be one and in the PNW typically such streams are present.
A PNW rule of thumb is, glacial streams emerge from under the rocks at just about the same place that the mountain soil becomes deep enough for wild blueberries to grow. So when we stop hearing water running under our boots, that’s when we start keeping an eye out for bears.
@ur momisugly A physicist…
You say:”…we can hear the meltwater loudly gurgling through the loose rocks underneath our feet…”
I say…I totally agree…I have also found that half eaten rotting salmon carcasses laying 20 feet above high water mark…is when we start keeping an eye out for bears too…even during winter steelhead season…because here is a little secret…all bears don’t hibernate
…and if anyone wants to peer review a picture of my hand next to a very fresh bear track in January let me know…or the one where I slipped on a half eaten rotting salmon, fell on my butt and slimed my entire back and then puked my guts out because I stunk so bad…it was a great day!
A physicist says:
January 11, 2012 at 8:51 am
Because the evident fact is, our glaciers are melting d*mn fast.
Yes, according to what the study site says, it looks to me like El Nino/ENSO has done it again!
However, the study’s altitude legend locating the 10 ~”regional, April 1 measured ablation temperature dependent” low altitude coastal Pacific Northwest glaciers just off the main body of Washington State also makes it look like a large amount of the “region” is now located at about “6000 m” elevation!
A physicist says
has to grapple with the strong science of the North Cascade Glacier Climate Project
So Nichols College, a small east coast private college that specializes in ‘business degrees’ has something called the ‘North Cascade Glacier Climate Change Project’.
It sounds like an excuse for a ‘paid vacation’ to me as the National Park Service monitors the glaciers as a matter of ‘park management’.
http://www.nps.gov/noca/naturescience/glacial-mass-balance1.htm
“Girma says:
January 11, 2012 at 5:07 am
Here is how your Figure 1 looks like:
http://bit.ly/pxXK4j
Which shows the two global coolings and the two global warmings, including the most recent warming.”
==========================================================
Yeah, but you can’t do that. You must use the raw data, not the means. If you do, then the variance it much larger. Sorry.
Thanks for this information. I will be following from now on. I am working on a master’s in environmental science and just started a Policy class with a professor who’s doctoral work was on climate change it should be interesting. But this will be good fodder for the gun as it were. Thanks!
“”””” Larry in Texas says:
January 12, 2012 at 2:16 am
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! “””””
Yes Larry, I am not dismissive of the Kilimanjaro sublimation model; just suggesting another reson for Mt Adams to out retreat its neighbors.
I have climbed Mt Adams in mid summer, and on that hike, I made the serious misteak of taking my boots off and stepping out into the moraine lake at the end of one of those glaciers, which had many floating ice chunks in it. Bad move; hell no, a really bad move. My legs instantly went totally numb and unsupportive, and I fell back on my arse. Luckily, I landed on the rock I had just stupidly stepped off, rather than in the lake. My climbing chums likely could have dragged me out in the latter case; but I don’t know that my heart would have survived the shock, if I had gone full body into that icy water.
So that water was pretty close to zero C, even though the nearby air Temperature and rocks were toasty in the summer sun.
Did I say, it is traditional to have moraine lakes at the bottom end of glaciers, rather than the top end, so presumably the glacier Temperature was actually colder at higher altitudes, and we were only about half way up the mountain (1963).
Now Mt Adams is somewhat Eastwards, as the Cascade volcanos goes. Well it is just behind White Salmon, WA, which is across the Columbia from Hood River OR, which is the river wind surfing capital of the world. Spokane is towards the north of Mt Adams, and is somewhat of a deserty area, much like Bend OR. so a low humidity sublimation mode is a pretty good likelihood.
I’ve been on both the Fox, and Franz Joseph glaciers of the Southern Alps in New Zealand. These are a bit unusual, in that they basically come down to sea level. Well no the terminus is way up the valley from ancient times, but not much altitude. I believe they wax and wane, but also follow the escape from ice age scenario.
If I was back in shool, I would try to find a more meaningful (and interesting) subject to do “research” on, than to find out whether some particular patch of ice somewhere was currently melting or freezing. That’s only marginally better than getting a degree in “education”.
When I was working on an (unfinished) Masters in Physics, I designed and built the electronics for, and the entire project for a Tissue Equivalent Neutron Monitor, to monitor ambient neutrons, from thermal (really bad s***) to 14 MeV for safety monitoring in an accelerator lab that was doing double scattering of beams of polarized protons and neutrons, from 600kV accelerated Deuteron-heavy ice collisions. Second part of the project , was to design a very high efficiency Stilbene Scintillation counter (Photo-multiplier) for 14 MeV neutrons to replace proportional (sub-Geiger threshold) gas counters, for the above experiments. The Scintillation counter was about 10^4 times as efficient in detecting fast neutrons, than the gas counters, so accelerator operating times could be reduced. Unfortunately my stilbene crystal also detected gamma rays, which the gas countered were completely blind to, so I had to discriminate on every pulse between what was a neutron, and what was a gamma ray, using clever electronics, and the basic physics of the scintillation process. It could sort out alpha particles as well. The detector was built and functioned, but never put into a practical device, as I ran out of money, and had to go to work.
Somehow that seems more meaty than watching ice melt.
@george E. Smith
A fantastic read! On so many levels, for me at least. As I carefully redd your first paragraph I thought…”George lives by me. Nope, tourist but serious climber…from the UK, likely…”
As I continue to read…”I want to blurt out a few things…like oh…New Zealand, maybe…”
But in the end I realized I should make the time later in the day…after the sun goes down…it’s a sunny 35 degrees F, the water out side is about the same temp as your lake, and I do believe in solar power…I just don’t believe in paying for it! (I had better right that one down, lol…write away)
http://www.highestlake.com/highest-lake-usa.html
I have a lot of info to add to your comment, but only 3 hours of sun. So “I shall return…” later tonight I hope and comment further. Or perhaps some other way, I dont want to hijack the thread, but it does seem to have calmed down a bit.
I grew up fishing, hiking, hunting, climbing and living in Washington, and sometimes I pay attention to stuff…when I first heard this…”“It had two l’s, which is how she thought she was supposed to spell Hillary,” Mrs. Clinton said at the time, after meeting Sir Edmund. “So when I was born, she called me Hillary, and she always told me it’s because of Sir Edmund Hillary.” I immediately knew she was lying cause as a kid I loved looking at the Sir Edmund display and I knew the dates he climbed Rainier. Clinton lied.
Oh, I also have the unpublished family photos of the highest lake in the USA…with people swimming in it during the 1973 National Geographic exploration led by Bill Lokey.
But I am out of time for now.
It’s funny, though, how each new “cool” period is a lot warmer than the previous one… I also cannot understand the argument that since there are natural climate variations, CO2 cannot influence climate. Isn’t that just like saying “you have a monthly salary, therefore you cannot have won the lottery”? To me, this article is just a bag of … well, hot air.
Well Andrew, that Hillary quote of Mrs Clinton is a true gaff; she stated in public she was named after him.
Ed Hillary climbed Mt Everest in March of 1953, after Hillary Clinton was born. Prior to that he was an entirely unknown bee keeper in New Zealand; what a pick for the Rodham parents to choose to name their daughter after. Actually Ed Hillary the bee keeper was fairly well known and respected in New Zealand alpine circles for his climbing skills, which is what brought him to the attention of Colonel John Hunt in setting up the expedition. He married the daughter of the New Zealand Alpine Club President, so he wasn’t quite a nobody.
The news of the climb brought sadness to New Zealanders.
I remember it well, because I had just helped my mother install new carpetting on the floor in her living room, from which all the furniture had been removed. So we had tossed some matresses down on the newly installed carpet and were spending the night listening to the radio broadcast from London of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth the Second (wee hours of the morning in Kiwiland).
And then they broke into the broadcast to give us the terrible news, that only one New Zealander had climbed Mt Everest, even though there were two of them on the 1953 expedition The other chap I believe was George Lowe, who was one of the expedition photographers, and never intended for any summit attempt.
Sadly, Sir Edmund Hillary never climbed Mt Everest, but his son did, and of course bee keeper Ed Hillary did. He was knighted twice, first was a KBE for the Everest climb., and later on he was elevated to a Knight of The Garter, the highest order of Knighthood in Britain (Winston Churchill was one). I think only 20 may coexist. That rare distinction was because of his extensive humanitarian efforts on behalf of the people of Nepal, building schools, and I think hospitals up there in cloudland. He is clearly the most revered of NZ’s sons. His mad dash across Antarctica (first crossing) was both lauded, and also somewhat criticised. Ah well that’s Kiwis for you, damn near as brash as the Aussies.
Anders L. says:
January 12, 2012 at 2:47 pm
…I also cannot understand the argument that since there are natural climate variations, CO2 cannot influence climate.
Anders, that’s not “the argument”. CO2 cannot drive the climate because CO2 = CAGW “Climate Science” cannot derive even one relevant correct empirical prediction based on the hypothesis that it does drive the climate. And as an additional but not necessary feature of its “science” which also helps to prove Climate Science’s failure as judged by the principles of real science, Climate Science cannot “explain” even the climate’s most recent past.
Therefore, “mainstream” CO2 = CAGW “science” has proven itself that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are essentially irrelevant to both explaining and predicting “climate”, and as compared with natural variations, which are still holding sway. With the proviso, of course, that CO2 = CAGW “Climate Science” is intentionally not practicing real science to begin with and therefore hasn’t proven anything – but with the note that other climate mechanisms based upon natural forces, and upon even purely “empirical” models and the practice of real science already do a better job of it.
And the invocation of CO2 concentrations is unnecessary especially since there is nothing demonstrably [new] in climate that even needs an added overall factor such as CO2 concentrations to explain it. [Although other Anthropogenic factors such as land use and carbon soot are certainly not out of the question as possibly significant factors more locally and maybe even more generally at some point.]
Anders, “mainstream” Climate Science is nothing but a gigantic Propaganda Op., which you are at least falling prey to yourself by using such weaselly vague terms as are involved in your idea that real scientists would claim that CO2 “cannot [possibly] influence climate”. But just who is it who would affirm the applicability of that condition as a component of the usual definition of a truly “empirical” statement – one defining what is empirically/observably/factually possible in the real world? No one, except perhaps the kind of people in Climate Science who have even manipulated the term “climate change” itself to now come to mean that the “climate” can’t “change” unless humans do it: according to them, the term “climate change” itself now means, “CO2 = CAGW”!
The thing to realize is that Climate Science’s alleged or implied “hypotheses” are not really empirical statements at all about the real, factual world which real science deals with instead. In Climate Science’s world of purely unhinged propaganda verbiage and propaganda’s related “methods”, nothing whatsoever can challenge or falsify Climate Science’s merely apparent statements of fact. Its world simply won’t allow it. But its world makes no sense.
Regarding Esterbook’s Fig. #6: Not at all sure why he is using this ‘C3’ chart for a glacier story, but the chart was created for this ‘C3’ article during May 2011 – http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/07/latest-global-temperature-data-confirms-that-unequivocal-global-cooling-is-accelerating.html
Besides removing the ‘C3’ watermark from the chart image, Esterbook also removed both the CO2 plot line from the chart and the text explanation box that the original ‘C3’ chart included.
@ur momisugly C3 Editor
In your link is proposed a cooling of -0.67°C per century assumed the trend of May 2011 remains constant. Easterbrook instead concludes a cooling of -4°C per century regarding the same graph. I would say Easterbrook failed, your opinion?
Just saw a cbc news report about a researcher at the University of Northern British Columbia mention how the glaciers are melting from man caused warming. He had some nice time lapse video showing a glacier flowing by. Now is that not what a healthy glacier does, flow. It was just a short news clip so not covering all his information by any means. He mentioned being a skeptic until he started studying glaciers. Guess he figured out skeptics are not actually in the money.
In the short clip it mentioned BC’s source of Hydro power will be threatened if the glaciers melt. Well after 35 years of uneducated keen observation as a power system operator in BC our reservoir water levels depended on snow melt and rain. Some but very little from glacier melt.
The following is from a local newspaper this week:
“Fountain presented his findings during an inaugural conference in Trout Lake late last year entitled ‘Mount Adams in a Warming Climate’.
“The event was co-sponsored by the Yakama Indian Nation, the U. S. Forest Service and private groups.”
Search on the phrase: inaugural conference in Trout Lake
The source is the Associated Press; many MSM outlets picked it up.
Here is the
”inaugural confeence” First paragraph is below this link.
http://skamanianewsportal.blogspot.com/2011/11/conference-on-mt-adams-in-warming.html
“On November 11, 2011, the Friends of Mt. Adams hosted their first, annual science-based conference on “Mt. Adams in a Warming Climate,” in Trout Lake, Washington. They partnered with the Friends of the White Salmon River, the Gifford Pinchot Task Force, The U.S. Forest Service (Gifford Pinchot National Forest), and the Yakama Nation.
The 2010/11 northern hemisphere winter was especially nasty, so was the winter before. Both set many thousands of new records for coldest daily temperatures, lowest maximum daily temperatures and record snow and rain. The same happened in much of the southern hemisphere. But all we heard from the media was “global warming” while people and animals were freezing to death in places such had never been reported to happen.
I went on a trip in late July 2011 that took me through parts of Colorado and Utah. I saw snow on many mountain peaks where in a normal year it would all be gone months earlier. Several ski resorts (in places where they can stay open as long as they have enough snow, unlike Bogus Basin and some others on federal land) had their latest closing dates ever in 2011.
Galane;
But this year, not so much! Very anomalous; my 2-year trend line definitively showed the glaciers would be on the march by now.
Error bars? We don’t need no steenkin’ error bars!
>;p