IPCC estimates of sea level rise corroborated, but large ice sheets might endure.
Richard A. Lovett
New Zealand’s mountain ranges could lose up to 85% of their glaciers by 2100. In the most comprehensive study of mountain glaciers and small ice caps to date, a team of US and Canadian scientists has projected that most of the world’s smaller glaciers will be gone by 2100.
New Zealand's mountain ranges could lose up to 85% of their glaciers by 2100. Rob Brown/Minden Pictures/FLPA
The finding confirms that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the scientific group assessing climate risk — was correct in estimating that by that date, complete or partial melting of smaller glaciers will contribute about the same amount to sea-level rise as meltwater from the giant ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. The study also confirms that the IPCC was wrong in stating that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.
[…]
Radić and coauthor Regine Hock of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks conducted their study by modelling the effect of climate change on every mapped mountain glacier or ice cap, using a middle-of-the-road IPCC scenario for future emissions of greenhouse gases. They then extrapolated the results to account for the fact that while Earth’s total glaciated areas are well mapped, many sections have yet to be divided into individual glaciers.
The projected contribution of each glacier’s partial or complete melting to sea level rise ranges from 8.7 cm to 16 cm, depending on the model. The IPCC’s estimates for sea level rise by 2100 ranged from 7 to 17 centimetres in its 2007 fourth assessment report.
Glaciologist Ted Scambos of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado says it is reassuring that the IPCC and the new study have independently reached the same conclusion. “Both could be wrong, but it gives more confidence that both are approximately right,” he says.
Ok… They used an IPCC emissions scenario. Presumably they used a climate sensitivity which conforms to the so-called consensus (~3.0°C per doubling of pre-industrial CO2). With the IPCC assumptions, they confirmed the IPCC’s projected sea level rise projections as well as predicting the demise of “small glaciers.”
Why is it a headline? They used the IPCC assumptions to model the IPCC results.
I wonder if they incorporated this little item into their model…
Glacier Mass Balance, Cogley 2009. Via NOAA Climate Indicators
It appears that glacier mass balance has been on the increase since 2003… What’s up with that?
The Greenland and Antarctic ice caps have been relatively permanent features throughout the Quaternary (possibly since the Oligocene). If these ice masses melted, it would be a big deal. On the other hand, small glaciers and year-round Arctic sea ice have not been permanent features. They are relatively recent and probably rare features of the Holocene. The geological evidence indicates that the presence these small ice masses is anomalous.
The “small glaciers” of Glacier National Park, Montana may have not existed during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (HCO). The geological evidence suggests that they formed about 7,000 years ago as the Earth’s climate began to cool after the HCO.
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. Glaciers were present within current Glacier National Park boundaries as early as 7,000 years ago but may have survived an early Holocene warm period (Carrara, 1989), making them much older. 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. (Key, 2002) The extent and mass of these glaciers, as well as glaciers around the globe, has clearly decreased during the 20th century in response to warmer temperatures.
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.
“Mapping of lateral and terminal moraines” clearly demonstrates that the maximum extent of the glaciers was reached during the Little Ice Age (LIA). If “in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly,” how can the current reduced extent be an anomaly? Is there some ideal extent? Something between the LIA maximum and the current extent?
The glaciers of Mt Ranier National Park may date back to the last Pleistocene glaciation, but they also exhibit a similar variability to those of Glacier National Park…
The size of glaciers on Mount Rainier has fluctuated significantly in the past. For example, during the last ice age, from about 25,000 to about 15,000 years ago, glaciers covered most of the area now within the boundaries of Mount Rainier National Park and extended to the perimeter of the present Puget Sound Basin.
Geologists can determine the former extent of glaciers on Mount Rainier by mapping the outline of glacial deposits and by noting the position of trimlines, the distinct boundaries between older and younger forests or between forests and pioneering vegetation. Geologists determine the age of some of the deposits by noting the age of the oldest trees and lichens growing on them and the degree of weatherring on boulders. Between the 14th century and AD 1850, many of the glaciers on Mount Rainier advanced to their farthest went down-valley since the last ice age. Many advances of this sort occurred worldwide during this time period known to geologists as the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the Nisqually Glacier advanced to a position 650 feet to 800 feet down-valley from the site of the Glacier Bridge, Tahoma and South Tahoma Glaciers merged at the base of Glacier Island, and the terminus of Emmons Glacier reached within 1.2 miles of the White River Campground.
Retreat of the Little Ice Age glaciers was slow until about 1920 when retreat became more rapid. Between the height of the Little Ice Age and 1950, Mount Rainier’s glaciers lost about one-quarter of their length. Beginning in 1950 and continuing through the early 1980’s, however, many of the major glaciers advanced in response to relatively cooler temperatures of the mid-century. The Carbon, Cowlitz, Emmons, and Nisqually Glaciers advanced during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s as a result of high snowfalls during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Since the early-1980’s and through 1992, however, many glaciers have been thinning and retreating and some advances have slowed, perhaps in response to drier conditions that have prevailed at Mount Rainier since 1977.
The Mt. Ranier glaciers also seem to have reached their maximum Holocene extent during the Little Ice Age.
Guess what other ice feature appears to have also reached its maximum Holocene extent during the Little Ice Age?
Fig. 7 from McKay et al., 2008.
McKay et al., 2008 demonstrated that the modern Arctic sea ice cover is anomalously high and the Arctic summer sea surface temperature is anomalously low relative to the rest of the Holocene…
Modern sea-ice cover in the study area, expressed here as the number of months/year with >50% coverage, averages 10.6 ±1.2 months/year… Present day SST and SSS in August are 1.1 ± 2.4 8C and 28.5 ±1.3, respectively… In the Holocene record of core HLY0501-05, sea-ice cover has ranged between 5.5 and 9 months/year, summer SSS has varied between 22 and 30, and summer SST has ranged from 3 to 7.5 8C (Fig. 7).
If we take the HacCRUT3 instrumental temperature record for the Northern Hemisphere and tack it on to a recent Northern Hemisphere climate reconstruction (Ljungqvist, 2009) and then scale the GISP2 climate reconstruction (Alley, 2004) to fit the instrumental record and reconstruction, we can see that the modern climate is actually rather cool relative to the rest of the Holocene…
Some may take issue with tying the GISP2 reconstruction into a hemispheric data set… But there aren’t any published Northern Hemisphere multi-proxy reconstructions that go back more than a couple of thousand years. There is a Wikipedia global reconstruction that I think was an attempt to minimise the Holocene Climatic Optimum…
The Wiki-reconstruction does attenuate the HCO a bit; but it still shows that the modern climate is down right cold in comparison to the rest of the Holocene.
‘complete or partial melting of smaller glaciers ‘
I guess this is offset by the growing smaller glaciers in New Zealand and elsewhere.
Kind of pathetic if they think people will panic over this.
BradProp1
March 19, 2012 4:22 pm
We now have predictions confirming predictions? Whatever happened to facts? Maybe if these scientists start spiking our water with “stupid pills” this kind of BS will take hold!
The projected contribution of each glacier’s partial or complete melting to sea level rise ranges from 8.7 cm to 16 cm, depending on the model. The IPCC’s estimates for sea level rise by 2100 ranged from 7 to 17 centimetres in its 2007 fourth assessment report.
Let’s see. There are about 15,000 Himalayan glaciers. Each glacier contributes (min) 8.7 cm, 15,000 * 8.7 /100 = 1,305 metres sea level rise. But all the ice on Earth could melt and it would only add about 70 metres. Where did the other 1,235 metres of water come from? Why should we believe this bunch are competent to calculate their way out of a wet paper bag?
Beth Cooper
March 19, 2012 4:46 pm
Don’tcha jest luuv the smell of incestuous climate studies (modelling,)
in the morning?
As I said in a recent comment on a model-based sea level rise prediction by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
NONSENSE! LOOK AT REAL DATA IF YOU WANT TO PREDEICT REAL EVENTS!
Gail Combs
March 19, 2012 5:00 pm
BradProp1 says:
March 19, 2012 at 4:22 pm
We now have predictions confirming predictions? Whatever happened to facts? Maybe if these scientists start spiking our water with “stupid pills” this kind of BS will take hold!
____________________________
The “Stupid pill” is called ritalin and they use it wholesale on the school kids in the USA and Canada. I wish I could use a sarc tag but unfortunately it is true. …There are nearly 6 million children in the United States between the ages of 6 and 18 taking mind-altering drugs prescribed for alleged mental illnesses… http://www.ritalindeath.com/Doping-Kids.htm http://www.scn.org/~bk269/r-ball.html
School Shootings Linked to Psychotropic Drugs Such as Prozac, Ritalin, Luvox, and Paxil: http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2000-05-16-School-Shootings-Psychotropic-Drugs.htm http://www.uhuh.com/education/drugskill.htm
Tez
March 19, 2012 5:19 pm
Hmmmmm, global warming makes New Zealand colder and their glaciers are growing.
15 May 09 – The New Zealand Herald (page A12) announced that “The Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers are still growing, despite global warming, apparently because of weather patterns bringing more cool wet conditions to New Zealand.
So when Lovett wrote “New Zealand’s mountain ranges could lose up to 85% of their glaciers by 2100. In the most comprehensive study of mountain glaciers and small ice caps to date…” he should have added that this was despite the fact that they were getting bigger.
Philip Bradley
March 19, 2012 5:33 pm
Take a look at this graphic of Mount Ranier glaciers http://www.glaciers.pdx.edu/Projects/LearnAboutGlaciers/MRNP/Chg30b.html
Click on 1896. This compares glacier extent between 1896 and 1994. The latest data available in this graphic.
You will see all the retreat is in the south, and to a lesser extent east and west facing glaciers.
The 2 north facing glaciers haven’t retreated to any significant extent. In fact the largest north facing glacier seems to have advanced a little since 1896.
This is clearly an increased solar isolation effect, and not due to GHG AGW (which operates thru atmospheric warming), which would affect glaciers equally irrespective of their aspect.
AlexS
March 19, 2012 5:36 pm
Almost 100 years prediction. Hahah! Do this ****** know what type of technology will exist in 2100?
Shooter
March 19, 2012 5:54 pm
How many studies are like this? They all say the same thing: The glaciers are melting! But they’ve been proven wrong again and again. Besides, they aren’t even sure of their own results!
Thanks for the debunk.
mfo
March 19, 2012 6:01 pm
“The study also confirms that the IPCC was wrong in stating that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.”
Dr Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC and Director-General of The Earth and Resources Institute will no doubt be looking to include such predictions in AR5, due in 2014. On a TERI website, in response to the question ‘What is Climate Change?”, is the following:
“Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030.” http://know.climateofconcern.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=article&id=70
Louis
March 19, 2012 6:26 pm
LazyTeenager says:
“So inceasing temperatures has 2 effects.
1. Increased melting at the edges. The snow line moves to higher altitudes.
2. Increased humidity leading to greater snow deposition.
So warming in its early stages can increase the mass of ice, but reduce the area of ice coverage. Eventually sometime in the future the area for low lying glaciers will become zero.”
—–
That’s a pretty neat trick to reduce the area of ice but still increase ice mass. Does this come from actual observations or from modeling? But assuming you’re right and you can pack a greater volume of ice into a smaller area, wouldn’t that lower sea levels, not raise them? And why does this only happen in the “early stages” of warming? If the melting ice causes greater snowfall, and if more snow creates more ice mass to melt as temperatures increase, and if the melt increases humidity resulting in more snowfall, why couldn’t that cycle continue for some time? I’m just trying to understand your reasoning.
Would the inverse also be true? Does cooling reduce ice melt, humidity, and snowfall, reducing ice mass overall and causing oceans to rise?
treegyn1
March 19, 2012 6:35 pm
majormike1 says:
March 19, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Just taking what is presented in this glacier melt report, sea level rise by 2100 will be in the range of 3 to 7 inches. That ain’t much, especially when compared to earlier IPCC estimates of up to five feet, and Gore and Hansen estimates of twenty or more feet. A maximum of 7 inches is very close to the measured rise of the twentieth century, and of course is far below the average of over two feet per century since the end of the last Ice Age.
Speaking of James Hansen….
I scored 2 tickets to a lecture by James Hansen tomorrow night (Mar 20) @ur momisugly Willamette Univ in Salem, OR. I follow WUWT daily but, as a forester, would prefer to get a couple of great questions to ask (if I get the chance) from good, skeptical climate scientists. So, I’m soliciting short, to-the-point questions to ask that would publicly humiliate this charlatan.
In advance, thanks for your help.
Larry Miller
Salem, OR
Brendan
March 19, 2012 6:55 pm
I find it strange that they would use that photo. That is my local Mountain, Mount Taranaki, and it has no glaciers. And to my knowledge hasn’t had any for recorded history. The photo itself looks like it has been taken from the smaller mountain ranges to the north, and the fact that there is snow on the ground is unusual, so it must have been a very cold winter to get snow there. The Mountain itself is ~90% snow free in the summer and even the winter snow fall is patchy at best, to the detriment of the local ski club. But snow seems to be becoming more common in my home region. We had the biggest snow anyone can remember last year with a couple of inches settling on the ground, this is only the third time it has snowed in my 30 years, and the first time the snow has actually settled. We have also had some strange summers in the last 5 years; it snowed on the mountain on Christmas day in 2006, a third of the way through our summer and most unusual.
cgh
March 19, 2012 7:05 pm
I have to confess I find the views of the global warmers curiously perverse and self-contradictory. Imagine for a moment that their claim of the disappearance of small glaciers is true. The effect on the surrounding environment is minimal, because most runoff comes from snowpacks not from glacier melt.
But here’s the thing. Desertification is generally looked upon as an adverse development. But there are two kinds of deserts, hot and cold. Even in the worst of hot deserts, some life can be supported. But a cold desert, an ice field, supports no life whatsoever. Since melting glaciers represents a reversal of desertification, one would think that simply in terms of environmental diversity this would be regarded as beneficial, just as reversal of desertification of hot deserts is regarded as beneficial.
Philip Bradley
March 19, 2012 7:15 pm
LazyTeenager says:
“So inceasing temperatures has 2 effects.
1. Increased melting at the edges. The snow line moves to higher altitudes.
2. Increased humidity leading to greater snow deposition.
So warming in its early stages can increase the mass of ice, but reduce the area of ice coverage. Eventually sometime in the future the area for low lying glaciers will become zero.”
This is the standard explanation for why glacier mass lose isn’t the more or less linear decline predicted by GHG AGW theory.
I’ve never seen any actual measurements to support this contention.
As I pointed out above, the differential ‘melting’ of north and south facing glaciers casts serious doubt on increasing temperatures (on a global basis) as the cause of retreating glaciers.
FYI sublimation is a significant factor in glacier ice loss. For most of the world’s ice (almost all in Antarctica) sublimation is the only cause of ice loss.
A study showing changes in temperate zone glacier sublimation rates would be very interesting, but as it would be a study to show that GHG AGW isn’t the cause of glacier retreat, I don’t expect to see such a study any time soon.
Nothing wrong with the work. Still a bit shy on history geological history that is.
Dr. Killpatient
March 19, 2012 8:19 pm
OK…I may be missing something, but it sounds like they just used an estimate to confirm an estimate.
Do they really want to sound that silly?
John F. Hultquist
March 19, 2012 9:36 pm
treegyn1 says:
March 19, 2012 at 6:35 pm
A couple of questions:
1. What is meant by climate sensitivity and is there a numerical calculation that will tell us what it is?
2. The current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is said to be below 400 ppm. At what future date might we expect it to be 800 (a doubling) and are there any estimates other than direct extension of the past 50 years or so?
Note, the above are not meant to humiliate anyone. They are reasonable questions that require appropriate answers if the US and other developed nations are to rapidly and radically remake themselves in a green utopian image. If anyone is willing to publicly state their answers to these questions it will be possible to see if they have been smoking something, just blowing smoke, or both.
Goldie
March 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Well here’s my predictions: If as the IPCC thinks global temperatures rise by 3 degrees then generally it will be warmer than today. Otherwise, not.
I too have a PhD so I’m well qualified to make these predictions.
Christopher Hanley
March 19, 2012 10:53 pm
Steven Mosher (3:52 pm) quoting:
“….according to observed temperature records, Greenland underwent a 33% larger warming in 1919.1932 than the warming in 1994.2007 [Box et al., 2009], and recent decadal average temperature is similar to that of the 1930s.1940s [Chylek et al., 2006; Box et al., 2009]. A deviation of the Greenland temperature from the global average temperature trend is likely caused by regional climate variability…”.
We only have the word of Hansen and Jones to rely on for that conclusion.
That Wikipedia Holocene Reconstruction (which for those interested in such things is not peer reviewed) has always puzzled me. How can the average — the heavy black line — of only eight wildly disparate and no doubt carefully selected proxy reconstructions (it’s the Wikipedia after all) represent anything valid or worthwhile?
johanna
March 20, 2012 12:03 am
Let’s get down to brass tacks. What is a big glacier and what is a small one? What distinguishes them, and how are the differences measured? How many of each, and where, are they in the world? What are they all doing in terms of growth or shrinkage?
WUWT readers will not be surprised to find that none of those fundamental questions are addressed in this latest addition to the huge recycling bin called ‘junk science’. It is about as meaningful as me doing a ‘study’ of dandelion population increases or decreases in my lawn, and linking it to CAGW.
For the record, the dandelions seem to be increasing. QED.
‘complete or partial melting of smaller glaciers ‘
I guess this is offset by the growing smaller glaciers in New Zealand and elsewhere.
Kind of pathetic if they think people will panic over this.
We now have predictions confirming predictions? Whatever happened to facts? Maybe if these scientists start spiking our water with “stupid pills” this kind of BS will take hold!
Let’s see. There are about 15,000 Himalayan glaciers. Each glacier contributes (min) 8.7 cm, 15,000 * 8.7 /100 = 1,305 metres sea level rise. But all the ice on Earth could melt and it would only add about 70 metres. Where did the other 1,235 metres of water come from? Why should we believe this bunch are competent to calculate their way out of a wet paper bag?
Don’tcha jest luuv the smell of incestuous climate studies (modelling,)
in the morning?
As I said in a recent comment on a model-based sea level rise prediction by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
NONSENSE! LOOK AT REAL DATA IF YOU WANT TO PREDEICT REAL EVENTS!
BradProp1 says:
March 19, 2012 at 4:22 pm
We now have predictions confirming predictions? Whatever happened to facts? Maybe if these scientists start spiking our water with “stupid pills” this kind of BS will take hold!
____________________________
The “Stupid pill” is called ritalin and they use it wholesale on the school kids in the USA and Canada. I wish I could use a sarc tag but unfortunately it is true.
…There are nearly 6 million children in the United States between the ages of 6 and 18 taking mind-altering drugs prescribed for alleged mental illnesses…
http://www.ritalindeath.com/Doping-Kids.htm
http://www.scn.org/~bk269/r-ball.html
School Shootings Linked to Psychotropic Drugs Such as Prozac, Ritalin, Luvox, and Paxil: http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2000-05-16-School-Shootings-Psychotropic-Drugs.htm
http://www.uhuh.com/education/drugskill.htm
Hmmmmm, global warming makes New Zealand colder and their glaciers are growing.
15 May 09 – The New Zealand Herald (page A12) announced that “The Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers are still growing, despite global warming, apparently because of weather patterns bringing more cool wet conditions to New Zealand.
So when Lovett wrote “New Zealand’s mountain ranges could lose up to 85% of their glaciers by 2100. In the most comprehensive study of mountain glaciers and small ice caps to date…” he should have added that this was despite the fact that they were getting bigger.
Take a look at this graphic of Mount Ranier glaciers
http://www.glaciers.pdx.edu/Projects/LearnAboutGlaciers/MRNP/Chg30b.html
Click on 1896. This compares glacier extent between 1896 and 1994. The latest data available in this graphic.
You will see all the retreat is in the south, and to a lesser extent east and west facing glaciers.
The 2 north facing glaciers haven’t retreated to any significant extent. In fact the largest north facing glacier seems to have advanced a little since 1896.
This is clearly an increased solar isolation effect, and not due to GHG AGW (which operates thru atmospheric warming), which would affect glaciers equally irrespective of their aspect.
Almost 100 years prediction. Hahah! Do this ****** know what type of technology will exist in 2100?
How many studies are like this? They all say the same thing: The glaciers are melting! But they’ve been proven wrong again and again. Besides, they aren’t even sure of their own results!
Thanks for the debunk.
“The study also confirms that the IPCC was wrong in stating that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.”
Dr Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC and Director-General of The Earth and Resources Institute will no doubt be looking to include such predictions in AR5, due in 2014. On a TERI website, in response to the question ‘What is Climate Change?”, is the following:
“Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030.”
http://know.climateofconcern.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=article&id=70
LazyTeenager says:
“So inceasing temperatures has 2 effects.
1. Increased melting at the edges. The snow line moves to higher altitudes.
2. Increased humidity leading to greater snow deposition.
So warming in its early stages can increase the mass of ice, but reduce the area of ice coverage. Eventually sometime in the future the area for low lying glaciers will become zero.”
—–
That’s a pretty neat trick to reduce the area of ice but still increase ice mass. Does this come from actual observations or from modeling? But assuming you’re right and you can pack a greater volume of ice into a smaller area, wouldn’t that lower sea levels, not raise them? And why does this only happen in the “early stages” of warming? If the melting ice causes greater snowfall, and if more snow creates more ice mass to melt as temperatures increase, and if the melt increases humidity resulting in more snowfall, why couldn’t that cycle continue for some time? I’m just trying to understand your reasoning.
Would the inverse also be true? Does cooling reduce ice melt, humidity, and snowfall, reducing ice mass overall and causing oceans to rise?
majormike1 says:
March 19, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Just taking what is presented in this glacier melt report, sea level rise by 2100 will be in the range of 3 to 7 inches. That ain’t much, especially when compared to earlier IPCC estimates of up to five feet, and Gore and Hansen estimates of twenty or more feet. A maximum of 7 inches is very close to the measured rise of the twentieth century, and of course is far below the average of over two feet per century since the end of the last Ice Age.
Speaking of James Hansen….
I scored 2 tickets to a lecture by James Hansen tomorrow night (Mar 20) @ur momisugly Willamette Univ in Salem, OR. I follow WUWT daily but, as a forester, would prefer to get a couple of great questions to ask (if I get the chance) from good, skeptical climate scientists. So, I’m soliciting short, to-the-point questions to ask that would publicly humiliate this charlatan.
In advance, thanks for your help.
Larry Miller
Salem, OR
I find it strange that they would use that photo. That is my local Mountain, Mount Taranaki, and it has no glaciers. And to my knowledge hasn’t had any for recorded history. The photo itself looks like it has been taken from the smaller mountain ranges to the north, and the fact that there is snow on the ground is unusual, so it must have been a very cold winter to get snow there. The Mountain itself is ~90% snow free in the summer and even the winter snow fall is patchy at best, to the detriment of the local ski club. But snow seems to be becoming more common in my home region. We had the biggest snow anyone can remember last year with a couple of inches settling on the ground, this is only the third time it has snowed in my 30 years, and the first time the snow has actually settled. We have also had some strange summers in the last 5 years; it snowed on the mountain on Christmas day in 2006, a third of the way through our summer and most unusual.
I have to confess I find the views of the global warmers curiously perverse and self-contradictory. Imagine for a moment that their claim of the disappearance of small glaciers is true. The effect on the surrounding environment is minimal, because most runoff comes from snowpacks not from glacier melt.
But here’s the thing. Desertification is generally looked upon as an adverse development. But there are two kinds of deserts, hot and cold. Even in the worst of hot deserts, some life can be supported. But a cold desert, an ice field, supports no life whatsoever. Since melting glaciers represents a reversal of desertification, one would think that simply in terms of environmental diversity this would be regarded as beneficial, just as reversal of desertification of hot deserts is regarded as beneficial.
LazyTeenager says:
“So inceasing temperatures has 2 effects.
1. Increased melting at the edges. The snow line moves to higher altitudes.
2. Increased humidity leading to greater snow deposition.
So warming in its early stages can increase the mass of ice, but reduce the area of ice coverage. Eventually sometime in the future the area for low lying glaciers will become zero.”
This is the standard explanation for why glacier mass lose isn’t the more or less linear decline predicted by GHG AGW theory.
I’ve never seen any actual measurements to support this contention.
As I pointed out above, the differential ‘melting’ of north and south facing glaciers casts serious doubt on increasing temperatures (on a global basis) as the cause of retreating glaciers.
FYI sublimation is a significant factor in glacier ice loss. For most of the world’s ice (almost all in Antarctica) sublimation is the only cause of ice loss.
A study showing changes in temperate zone glacier sublimation rates would be very interesting, but as it would be a study to show that GHG AGW isn’t the cause of glacier retreat, I don’t expect to see such a study any time soon.
Nothing wrong with the work. Still a bit shy on history geological history that is.
OK…I may be missing something, but it sounds like they just used an estimate to confirm an estimate.
Do they really want to sound that silly?
treegyn1 says:
March 19, 2012 at 6:35 pm
A couple of questions:
1. What is meant by climate sensitivity and is there a numerical calculation that will tell us what it is?
2. The current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is said to be below 400 ppm. At what future date might we expect it to be 800 (a doubling) and are there any estimates other than direct extension of the past 50 years or so?
Note, the above are not meant to humiliate anyone. They are reasonable questions that require appropriate answers if the US and other developed nations are to rapidly and radically remake themselves in a green utopian image. If anyone is willing to publicly state their answers to these questions it will be possible to see if they have been smoking something, just blowing smoke, or both.
Well here’s my predictions: If as the IPCC thinks global temperatures rise by 3 degrees then generally it will be warmer than today. Otherwise, not.
I too have a PhD so I’m well qualified to make these predictions.
Steven Mosher (3:52 pm) quoting:
“….according to observed temperature records, Greenland underwent a 33% larger warming in 1919.1932 than the warming in 1994.2007 [Box et al., 2009], and recent decadal average temperature is similar to that of the 1930s.1940s [Chylek et al., 2006; Box et al., 2009]. A deviation of the Greenland temperature from the global average temperature trend is likely caused by regional climate variability…”.
We only have the word of Hansen and Jones to rely on for that conclusion.
That Wikipedia Holocene Reconstruction (which for those interested in such things is not peer reviewed) has always puzzled me. How can the average — the heavy black line — of only eight wildly disparate and no doubt carefully selected proxy reconstructions (it’s the Wikipedia after all) represent anything valid or worthwhile?
Let’s get down to brass tacks. What is a big glacier and what is a small one? What distinguishes them, and how are the differences measured? How many of each, and where, are they in the world? What are they all doing in terms of growth or shrinkage?
WUWT readers will not be surprised to find that none of those fundamental questions are addressed in this latest addition to the huge recycling bin called ‘junk science’. It is about as meaningful as me doing a ‘study’ of dandelion population increases or decreases in my lawn, and linking it to CAGW.
For the record, the dandelions seem to be increasing. QED.
The southernmost glacier in Europe is in Italy, not too far from Rome, is it melting?
http://www.caputfrigoris.it/calderone.htm
…, it burns!
Bobuk says:
March 19, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Sorry wrong photo.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/swissglacier.jpg
####################
Argentière Glacier is not located in Switzerland, but in France