A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews finds that alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana retreated up to 6 times faster during the 1930’s and 1940’s than over the past 40 years.
The “Multi-proxy study of sediment cores retrieved from lakes below modern glaciers supports the first detailed Neoglacial chronology for Glacier National Park (GNP)” and shows “maximum reconstructed retreat rates [in] 1930” of about 125 meters per year, compared to near zero in ~1975 and about 20 meters/year at the end of the record in ~2005. The authors report, “Results indicate that alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park advanced and retreated numerous times during the Holocene after the onset of Neoglaciation 6,500 years before the present” and “Retreat from the Little Ice Age maximum was the most dramatic episode of ice retreat in at least the last 1000 years.”
Abstract:
A lacustrine-based Neoglacial record for Glacier National Park, Montana, USA
15 October 2012
Jeffrey S. Munroe | Thomas A. Crocker | Alena M. Giesche | Lukas E. Rahlson | Logan T. Duran | Matthew F. Bigl | Benjamin J.C. Laabs
Multi-proxy study of sediment cores retrieved from lakes below modern glaciers supports the first detailed Neoglacial chronology for Glacier National Park (GNP), Montana. Analysis focused on sedimentary properties sensitive to the extent and activity of upstream glacier ice, including: water, organic matter, carbonate, and biogenic silica content; bulk density; mass accumulation rate; phosphorus fractionation; magnetic susceptibility; L*a*b* color values; and grain size distribution. Results indicate that alpine glaciers in GNP advanced and retreated numerous times during the Holocene after the onset of Neoglaciation ca 6500 BP.
The two oldest phases of glacier expansion were synchronous with the well-documented Garibaldi (5600–6900 BP) and Tiedemann-Peyto (1900–3700 BP) phases in western Canada. Younger phases correspond with the First Millennium Advance in western Canada, as well as glacier with advances in the Sierra Nevada. The culminating Little Ice Age (LIA) advance was the most recent and extensive of a series of advance/retreat cycles over the past millennium. Retreat from the LIA maximum was the most dramatic episode of ice retreat in at least the last 1000 years.
h/t to The Hockey Schtick
Nick says:
September 27, 2012 at 6:59 am
Glacier retreat has slowed because the bulk of the ice is gone and the remnants now obviously occupy the highest parts of their accumulation areas. …. Only seven of these have accumulation zones capable of sustaining them for the next three decades. The Agassiz Glacier,one of those feeding a lake in the study, is now about 20% of its LIA area and has lost over 90% of its LIA volume.
Interesting. Here in the Eastern Sierra Nevada, the line of equilibrium has been above the crest for 100 years, yet numerous glaciers survive. All of these glaciers originate only from the LIA, or Neoglacial as they now call it.
In spite of the LOE being above the current crest, several large new snow fields remain from the penultimate winter…in spite of one winter drought and one warm summer since said winter. Very interesting to sit on the porch and watch the next glacial develop 😉
i used to live in a small montana town at the southern end of the flathead valley which is about 60 miles south of glacier park. i could see the glaciers above missoula and st. ignatius from my bedroom window. the local folks considered a patch of snow to be a glacier if it didn’t melt away in the summer. some of the smaller glaciers were only about a city block square, and came and went pretty regularly. in the mid 80’s i went back to bury my father and noticed that the glaciers were retreating more than usual. but did not think much of it. about 5 years ago i made a vacation trip up there and holy smoke, most of them were gone. where there was white all the way down the mountain to the tree line then there was only small white patches up near the crowns.
the weather in the high mountains of montana seems to run in eight year cycles. one year of drought, several years of “average” snowfall and then a very wet year. (famers tend to keep track of this pretty carefully.)
also it seemed that when we had lots of snow (36″ standing in the back yard) it was relatively warm, which is in the neighborhood of 35-40 degrees below zero F in that area. really cold winters were only about 6″ of snow remaining on the level and approaching -65 degrees F. the worlds record in some odd catagory was something like -67 F at the Summit station on the Great Northern railway which is on the southern boundry of Glacier park, this “record” stood until about 10 years ago…..
the park system used to have a very extensive web page dealing with snowfall, runoff, plowing roads…….. it used to be a really big deal to punch the roads through the snow before the first of june. the day before was called “show me day” and celebrated approapriately.
i used to have a picture of a rotary snowplow plowing snow 15 feet deep in the summit lodge parking lot of the going to the sun highway taken on the 28th of may one year in the early sixties.
C
A new serious blog about Polar Bears by a zoologist not a propagandist:
http://polarbearscience.com/
The funny thing is if you look at the temp data there has not been a great warming for the past century in MT.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html
Thanks for posting the link to the article, Corey. It does seem from reading it that the higher retreat rate for the 1930s was reported for one glacier (Agassiz). The authors state that “…[retreat] rates then increased dramatically to maximum values in excess of 100 m/yr ca AD 1930, as the glacier
retreated up a series of ledges that dip steeply down-valley.” It does seem plausible that, all other factors considered equal, retreat rates would be expected to decrease as glaciers shrink to smaller and smaller patches at higher and higher elevations; I suspect that topography also plays a role here. USGS previously reported that the Agassiz has shrunk into “favored locations [that] were protected from solar radiation.” The USGS report also cites retreat rates similar to what is reported in the article discussed above. I suspect this is why a previous comment said (or implied) that retreat rates for a given glacier are not necessarily a perfect proxy for temperature.
http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/SattelliteAtlas_Key_02.pdf
TomRude says:
September 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm
A new serious blog about Polar Bears by a zoologist not a propagandist:
http://polarbearscience.com/
One thing i like about that site is this quote from the blog owner
“Just because you don’t have access to a university library should not mean you can’t get to the science. Don’t take my word for anything – if you have doubts about what the research papers say, go to the source. Just ask!”
There are lots of crimatologists who should take that to heart
It’s worse than we thought. Global Warming is causing glaciers to retreat slower than in the past. Oh no!!!!
In a report on Long-Duration Drought Variability focused on Glacier National Park in Montana, USA, Pederson et al 2006, the shrinkage of Sperry Glacier was detailed. Of the retreat from 1850 to 2003, a full 81% had occurred by 1945. (Readers of WUWT will be aware the post-war emissions of CO2 had not begun by 1945.)
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/wkgrps/ecosys_resp/postings/pdf/pederson_etal2006.pdf
USGS previously reported that the Agassiz has shrunk into “favored locations [that] were protected from solar radiation.”
Which should not matter if increasing atmospheric temperatures are causing glacier retreat. It will matter if increased solar insolation is the cause of the retreat.
In other location – the Himalayas, the Cascades – north facing glaciers are not retreating and in many cases have advanced from the 1970s. I was unable to find any examples in Glacier National Park.
Glacier retreat in the Glacier Bay, Alaska, had begun in the 1760s and was almost complete in the 1910s:
http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-391/
Living as I do, in Chicago, this is a real threat.
It has been confirmed by ground truths, no models needed.
It will happen again, no matter how many windmills are built.
Guilt taxes will not prevent it.
Short sighted policy/politics are only scare tactics, when the certain future will eventually look like this again:
http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/maps-data-pub/publications/geonotes/graphics/wisc-glaciers.gif
Yet, I’m supposed to be worried about warmth ?
The authors report, “Results indicate that alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park advanced and retreated numerous times during the Holocene after the onset of Neoglaciation 6,500 years before the present”
So it was WARMER prior to the “Neoglaciation” that started when it cooled in 4500 BC? And we didn’t have a tipping point? And the world didn’t end? And the polar bears ate people and seals and didn’t die?
So at worst we are returning to what it was like when Civilization first began to thrive and the great civilizations of antiquity rose?
I think I’m missing the scary part…. maybe I need to go to Climate “Science” re-education camp…
dave38 says:
September 27, 2012 at 2:08 pm
” There are lots of crimatologists who should take that to heart”
Crimatologists! How descriptive. Congrats Dave38, coining a new one.
rb
—-
So just what are these glaciers retreating from? Mann? The Gorbull? Or little green guys/gals from Mars? Warm is good,cold kills.It will be a much better planet when all the ice is gone.
Edit:
Correction to prior comment yesterday:
The first one of the appinsys links on temperature versus solar activity correlation
is to be http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence_files/image023.gif
(instead of twice linking image024.gif instead by accident)
Mike Bromley wrote: “The thing is, the supporters [of AGW] wield glacier retreat as PROOF of AGW. So retreats out of lock-step with the meme are illustrations of its flawed position.”
Why illustrate the flawed position of the alarmists with a misleading post based on old data from a single glacier? The alarmists have hundreds of counter-examples and it is widely known that the glaciers in Glacier National Park have been disappearing rapidly. IMO, it is self-defeating to pretend otherwise. The flawed position of the alarmists can be addressed with evidence that glaciers advanced and retreated long before man began burning large amounts of fossil fuel. The cited paper (which I did read) provides such evidence, but the Hockey Schtick and WUWT ignored that evidence while making misleading claims about the slowing retreat of “glaciers in Montana”. The flawed position of the alarmists can also be addressed with evidence that the current world-wide retreat of most (but not all) glaciers began long before the IPCC claims man influenced global climate. My comment made both of these points and criticized both sides for trying to mislead us.
Your comment suggests that you believe in addressing the distortions made by one side with the distortions made by your side. That’s politics. WUWT claims to be a science blog, a field which aspires to higher standards. IMO, the politicization of climate science needs to be answered with good science (wherever that may lead).
Another stone in the AGW cupcake. How inedible does it have to get, and how many teeth have to get broken, before the batch is thrown out?
A few years ago I stumbled across a USGS website, which has since been taken down, about the decline in Glacier National Park glaciers. Basically, it said that all but two glaciers/ice fields had been declining for over a century. The two static areas were on the north side of the mountains. My take was that increasing air temperatures were not the culprit or else all of the glaciers would have been affected equally. Rather, the amount of insolation is probably responsible for the differential melting. That is to say, cloudiness has probably changed over the last century. Thus, the south-facing glaciers are exposed to more frequent heating from direct sunlight while those on the shadow side are not impacted. I think that this hypothesis deserves being investigated. It may also explain why only some glaciers in the Himalayas and Andes are shrinking.