From the University of British Columbia
Seventy per cent of glacier ice in British Columbia and Alberta could disappear by the end of the 21st century, creating major problems for local ecosystems, power supplies, and water quality, according to a new study by University of British Columbia researchers.
The study found that while warming temperatures are threatening glaciers in Western Canada, not all glaciers are retreating at the same rate. The Rocky Mountains, in the drier interior, could lose up to 90 per cent of its glaciers. The wetter coastal mountains in northwestern B.C. are only expected to lose about half of their glacier volume.
“Most of our ice holdouts at the end of the century will be in the northwest corner of the province,” said Garry Clarke, professor emeritus in the Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. “Soon our mountains could look like those in Colorado or California and you don’t see much ice in those landscapes.”
For the study, researchers used observational data, computer models and climate simulations to forecast the fate of individual glaciers.
There are over 17,000 glaciers in B.C. and Alberta and they play an important role in energy production through hydroelectric power. The glaciers also contribute to the water supply and are essential to mining and agriculture. Clarke says while these issues are a concern, increased precipitation due to climate change could help compensate for glacier loss. The greatest impact, he suspects, will be on freshwater ecosystems. During the late summer, glacier melt provides cool, plentiful water to many of the region’s headwaters.
“These glaciers act as a thermostat for freshwater ecosystems,” said Clarke. “Once the glaciers are gone, the streams will be a lot warmer and this will hugely change fresh water habitat. We could see some unpleasant surprises in terms of salmon productivity.”
###
Images of predicted changes to glacier ice are available here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/747qftsva6s4i5b/AAACLm5He2KVlXEwP52dMCNKa?dl=0
Background
Researchers predicted changes in the area and volume of glaciers in western Canada under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their most recent assessment of the state of the climate system. Increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, released from fossil fuel combustion, is the primary factor that will cause increases in surface air temperatures in the decades ahead.
Researchers say the impact of climate change on glacier health may not be evident at first sight. While the surface area covered by the glacier may not be changing, the glaciers are thinning at a rate of about one metre per year.
“Most glaciers are only 100 to 200 metres thick,” said Clarke. “They’re losing volume but this loss we’re seeing right now is a bit hidden.”
This study is a collaboration between UBC, the University of Northern British Columbia, the University of Iceland and the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium.
GIGO as usual from the Alarmists.
“They’re losing volume but this loss we’re seeing right now is a bit hidden.”
Trust us science. You can’t see it, but it’s magical. Like CO2. Unicorn poop and fairies were also seen in the alpine meadows just below the glaciers. Trust us.
My thoughts too, How can CO2 cause ice to melt in the “hidden bits”, if it was going to melt due to a warming atmosphere it would be on the surface. This is the same “science” that told us the “missing heat” disappeared into the ocean depths and would eventually and mysteriously pop back out and atmospheric warming would resume as the computer models predicted. Utter cr@p!
I assume he is referring to the fact that a substantial loss in glacier volume can occur before there is a reduction in surface area. Therefore, the volume ice loss will not be evident by just looking at satellite images of the surface area.
Well – c@rp always offends the grannies a little less.
I have nothing against the fish.
Auto
Notice they say “could” r/t “will”. Makes their statement worthless, imho.
We know it is true because the model tells us so…..chapter 9 vs 21
+1. I think every reference to “settled” science should be quoted as such. Our science lesson for the day is taken from the 19th chapter of the UNIPCC Fifth Assessment Report beginning at the 11th verse &c. It would be so much more appropriate to the dogma.
“””””…..Seventy per cent of glacier ice in British Columbia and Alberta could disappear by the end of the 21st century, creating major problems for local ecosystems, power supplies, and water quality, according to a new study by University of British Columbia researchers……”””””
Pray tell; how do you “study” something that has not even happened and may never happen ??
And I see that they are so sure of their “study”, that they say their “results” …. could … happen.
I can imagine how disappearance of glacier ice “could” create a problem for water “quantity”, but how do you affect the quality of something that no longer exists ??
What if I told the IRS to “study” my tax return, and contemplate how much in additional funds they will need, if I can’t pay it ??
I visited the Columbia Ice Fields back in 1967. Even took a ride on a snow cat up on top of the main glacier, that ran just about all the way down to the road. I forget if that was the Athabasca Glacier or something else.
I would be happier with this kind of “research” paper if they said that their MODEL was going to lose ice by 2100, instead of saying the actual glaciers are going to lose ice.
They are sure of it because it is already happening: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/unprecedented-b-c-glacier-melt-seeps-into-u-s-climate-change-concerns-1.2646742
This has been happening steadily for at least 150 years and probably (one presumes) since the Little Ice Age. My favourite campground is at Illicilliwaet in the Selkirk mountain range. When Glacier House hotel was built there in 1886 http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/lhn-nhs/bc/rogers/natcul/natcul6.aspx guests could take a short walk up to the glacier. By 1931 http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/bc/glacier/natcul/natcul1/glacier.aspx the glacier had retreated far up the mountain and the hotel was closed. The last time I hiked to the glacier was 20 years ago, and the glacier head was very high up indeed.
Even more dramatically, the site of my home town, Vancouver, was until recently (about 12000 years ago) covered by a 3000-ft thick glacier. So yes I think it is quite probable that the glaciers may still be in retreat. Unless of course they are not.
When Glaciers are growing, then water quantity is being reduced. when they are shrinking it is increased, when they are gone it is in-between.
Glacier park Montana glaciers are only 3,000 years old – says the park literature.
It’s not magical, nor even rocket science. They measure the changes in thickness with GPS.
http://www.unbc.ca/releases/climate-change-and-bcs-glaciers
How do those GPS measurements work for the year 2099 Harry … not magical but worse – models all the way down!
Harry do you know anything about GIGO and computers??
Er, yes… but I was responding to the apparent disbelief that the loss of glacier mass from anywhere other than the top could be measured. That models are inherently speculative and prone to error, I agree with.
It’ not Unicorn poop and fairies, it’s more scientific, like dark matter and dark energy!
That photo they took in 2100 sure tells the story.
Yep. The pretty pictures do work miracles. Literally.
Reminds me of the black ozone hole surrounded by blue, yellow and green ozone layers they took over the south pole.
So Gary the anthropogenic 3% of C02 is the only cause, is that correct? Gary, Gary, hello.
? Garry Clarke
Our computer model based on data from a computer model based on data from a computer model…
In the words of the brilliant thinker W.E., “It’s models all the way down.”
Speaking of Tortoises all the way down; and stating the obvious, that the bottom layer of tirtles, have to be standing on something else.
Lets contemplate non gravitational thermo nuclear fusion energy, employing the only other infinite range force; the Coulomb force (which repels).
So to compress the hot plasma, into a forced union, you have to surround it with the Coulomb force to squeeze it in. So this force has to be pushing back on something else outside, and that would have to be other charges and or magnets, which squeeze what is inside them.
As you can see, Coulombic thermo-nuclear fusion , is just charges all the way down; which is the essence of Earnshaw’s theorem, that says, that no such structure is stable.
So thermo nuclear is gravitation driven (which sucks) or else there isn’t any (stable) way to do it.
More here at this link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/how-western-canada-glaciers-will-melt-away-1.3022242
Over the top comments so far. Garry Clarke is a hugely respected scientist. He has stated the historical facts fairly. Then the computer model takes over, or is it the publicity seekers in the university? But there are many natural climatic variability reasons why the apparent historical trend may reverse.
Respected by whom ? Respect is earned and not a pat on the back from fellow travellers. This paper is shit and you know it. It is not science it’s advocacy
Read my comment carefully. Then, perhaps, you might start to understand,
How do you know it’s [trimmed]? It’s paywalled – have you even read it?
Garry Clarke is a hugely respected scientist.
Not “is”… “was” from now on, I presume.
Everyone working with stupid models and predicting the far future, doesn’t deserve to be called a scientist in my eyes.
You are wrong in your final statement. There are many times you have to use models to find answers. The problem is not with using the models, and the problem isn’t truly with the computers OR the models. The problem is you can’t “model” something that you actually don’t know with accuracy and you should NEVER claim the output is something that you can bet the farm on. And there is no reason to categorically state that you are not a scientist if you use models. you CAN state that they are an activist if they state their model output is, as I said, good enough to bet the farm on.
There is not a man alive today and may not be in the next 100 years that can or will be able to claim they “understand” climate. They have theories, they have suppositions, but they do NOT have clear knowledge of what makes the climate tick. It is conjecture. It is playing “what if” until something seems to come close. But in the case of AGW due to carbon dioxide, it is clearly NOT science but something with a political motive. I’ve said before, I’ll say it again, the idea of carbon dioxide being the climate maker is to create a situation so overarching that individual governments are incapable of handling it, thus the need for a “world government” with the clout to make everyone toe the line – accept the elite of course, since they will already have bought the body and soul of whoever is declared “world leader.” And I am sure there are more than one person already trying to position themselves to BE that “world leader.” some people will sell their souls to be able to “rule the world,” but most of them won’t be worth the nickel that is what their soul will sell for.
I wonder whether those “historical facts” extended into telling us how much these glaciers expanded during the LIA?
Or mention the fact that, according to HH Lamb
“Most – and perhaps all – of the glaciers present today in the United States Rockies south of the Canadian border are believed to have formed since 1500 BC.”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/glacial-advance-during-the-little-ice-age/
You’re right – not a lot of people are aware that our glaciers grew to their recent modern size during the LIA. As with warming, most glaciers are responding to the exit from the LIA. The general public needs to hear this much more often. GK
Dave – Gary is hugely respected by who exactly?
Hidden ice melt indeed. Least he appears to be with the program.
Simple. 97% of those not respected here.
trafamadore,
As usual you add nothing worthwhile.
Dave, your respect for the author not withstanding, it is always entertaining to read a peer reviewed alarmist article putatively about the consequences of anthropogenically caused global warming that has at its core, bad mathematics.
“There are over 17,000 glaciers in B.C. and Alberta and they play an important role in energy production through hydroelectric power. The glaciers also contribute to the water supply and are essential to mining and agriculture.”
Consider the weakness of the argument. If the glaciers remained the same net size in both extent and volume there is no net contribution to the local water supply for hydro power, mining or agriculture. If the glaciers were expanding the supply on an annual basis would be reduced by exactly the amount gained, factored of course for sublimation.
If the glaciers were losing mass the water supply volume would decrease with the same caveat.
In short, the major thrust of the paper is hand waving containing nothing material about water supply. This is confirmed by the only claim of substance, the words chosen carefully, which is that the temperature of water in streams would rise slightly if the rain fell and did not pass through the stage of being frozen and then melted to flow downhill. The glacier is at best a reservoir that changes slightly in volume. It is no different from a dam except that it holds ice instead of water.
The alarmism about glaciers is rooted in the outrageous works of George Monbiot – hardly a climate scientist – who claimed multiple times in a series of documentaries on the glaciers of the Himalayas and the Mekong River that if the glaciers were to disappear from Tibet the Mekong river (and other majors rivers in China) would dry up. I recall there are six documentaries exploring this false hypothesis.
Inherent in his ludicrous claims are that ALL water in the Mekong comes from the glaciers, ie that it does not rain in SE Asia or China. It also conflates the idea of glacier size and rainfall, suggesting that if the glaciers were not there it would stop raining in the Himalayas, a notion the author above cleverly exploits. The suggestion implicit in the argument is that the glacier is not maintained in size by rainfall but rather by ‘coldness’. It is a ‘category error’ attributing to the intensive measurement ‘temperature’ the extensive attribute ‘volume’.
An indirect message to a credulous public is that if the glacier melts it will stop raining in the Himalayas and Western Canada.
A second false imputation is that a glacier ‘dries up’ as a result of a change in rainfall in the same way Lake Chad does.
The much respected author above capitalises on this misrepresentation of the prevailing climate during his major arguments about disappearing glaciers. However he reveals that he knows the argument is specious when he admits that the rain will in fact continue claiming that the water will be warmer. He offers no proof that water flowing from the high mountains will be warmer than water melted from a glacier, and that such warmth will cause any loss of water volume available to mining or agriculture of hydro power generating capacity. Even if true it would hold only for a few metres of flow.
In brief the author knows the common argument about disappearing glaciers is false and he tries to come up with a deflection of criticism that glaciers or no glaciers, the precipitation will remain exactly the same, save for a possible general INCREASE in precipitation caused by ‘global warming’.
There is no justification for that claim of an increase save climate models which suppose that the higher temperature at the point of evaporation will not be matched by a higher temperature in the region where precipitation takes place – yet the basis of his water temperature increase is based on just such a ‘background temperature rise’. In short his stream-temperature argument is opposed by his increase in rainfall argument.
His argument for saying rainfall will stop is similarly undermined though he still manages to genuflect to Monbiot’s outrages shown repeatedly on the BBC. I am sure he is respected for his skills, as we all should be. His argument as constructed is however, wanting and the general message is false and unsupported by both the evidence and logical analysis.
great point. expanding glaciers means less melt-water available. shrinking glaciers means more melt-water available. exactly the opposite of what the author predicts.
Crispin a good post, thank you.
“a peer reviewed alarmist article”
I think this sums it up, together with the rest of the AGW drivel. The peers doing the reviewing aren’t motivated to agree with the accuracy of any paper they review, it is solely about compounding the strength of the Belief. This is the problem with peer review, now if they wanted a Peer review that would be accurate why not ask Lord Christopher Monkton?
Agreed, Crispin. As for the water temperature affecting salmon runs, that “may” be correct but salmon have proven to be pretty adaptable even when they become land locked.
http://www.how-to-fish.com/how_to_catch_kokanee.htm
I often have caught Kokanee in surface water approaching 80 degrees F above the thermocline(s) – the lake I usually fish in had two to four layers depending on season and wind. Below 10 metres it was quite cold and at 30 metres – bone chilling. And no glaciers anywhere in the watershed.
“If the glaciers remained the same net size in both extent and volume there is no net contribution to the local water supply for hydro power, mining or agriculture.”
That’s only true if you don’t factor in the time factor of when the water is released. The formation of snowpack causes a portion of the melt to occur during the warmer months, with the generation of power occurring then, when power demand is high for things like air conditioning. That’s very different from time shifting that power generation to the winter months. For reservoirs, snowpack provides free reservoir storage. If that does not exist, then reservoirs must be large enough to accommodate all that snowmelt and keep it until the summer months.
Your argument also ignores the impact of reduced snowpack on river levels, which are crucial for habitat such as salmon runs, which are a major economic contributor in BC. Other areas impacted include tourism, such as rafting, kayaking, and the viability of the forest industry – the melting of the snowpack provides crucial water for mountain forests during the summer months.
Chris, major problem with your argument: in Canada, power demands are highest in the cold winter, not the warm summer.
An another note, Alberta has almost no hydro power. Our province is generaly too flat, and we have an abundance of coal and natural gas.
Jeff in Calgary said:”Chris, major problem with your argument: in Canada, power demands are highest in the cold winter, not the warm summer.
An another note, Alberta has almost no hydro power. Our province is generaly too flat, and we have an abundance of coal and natural gas.”
Jeff, fair point about winter, but the difference is not that much – about 20-25% difference between winter and summer demand: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/141201/dq141201b-eng.htm
Therefore, if summer generation declines significantly due to lack of snowpack, it will still have a large impact. And of course Canada can sell whatever they don’t consume to the US, where there is very high summertime demand.
I agree w your point on Alberta & hydro, being from Seattle, the main focus of my reply was on BC, which does depend heavily on hydro.
My points on salmon runs and water storage still apply, I believe.
Does that include the observation that temperatures are falling in British Columbia, or is that irrelevant information?
“Does that include the observation that temperatures are falling in British Columbia, or is that irrelevant information?”
No, but it’s incorrect information. Average temps in BC have risen and continue to rise rapidly, moreso than most of the rest of southern Canada. If you have other data, please link to it.
https://ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=8C7AB86B-1
At Sir Harry – “moreso than most “
Whenever an article claims a place is warming there is the tag ‘more than elsewhere’, or some such wording. I have never seen the likes of – XXX is warming only half as fast as the global average.
I think this fits with the Lake Wobegon effect and, also, that writers just make stuff up.
SHF Overall you may be right but in detail this is switch the pea.
?dl=0
I have downloaded the detailed data for places across BC from Bella Coola to Prince George to Grand Forks and a few others. I was going to do more but a clear trend developed. It really isn’t getting warmer, it is getting LESS COLD.
There are places were high temperatures have increased, but generally the “AVERAGE” has increased due to less cold lows.
History is not kind to climate alarmists:
The Deadliest Heat Wave in History – July 5-17, 1936. Temperatures exceeding 44°C in Manitoba and Ontario claimed 1,180 Canadians (mostly the elderly and infants) during the longest, deadliest heat wave on record. Four hundred of these deaths were caused by people who drowned seeking refuge from the heat. In fact, the heat was so intense that steel rail lines and bridge girders twisted, sidewalks buckled, crops wilted and fruit baked on trees.
Hottest Day on Record – July 5, 1937. The highest temperature ever recorded in Canada was reached at Midale and Yellowgrass, Saskatchewan when the mercury soared to 45°C.
Greatest Rainfall in One Day – October 6, 1967. A one-day rainfall of 489.2 mm occurred at Ucluelet Brynnor Mines, BC – a Canadian weather record that still stands.
One Cold Year -1972. The only year on record when all weather-reporting stations in Canada reported temperatures below normal on an annual basis.
Greatest Single-Day Snowfall Record – February 11, 1999. Tahtsa Lake, BC, received 145 cm of snow, a new Canadian single-day snowfall record, but well below the world’s record of 192 cm at Silver Lake, Colorado on April 15, 1921
Toronto’s Snowstorm of the Century – January 2-15, 1999. A series of storms stalked the city, dumping nearly a year’s amount of snow in less than two weeks. In all, the city recorded the greatest January snowfall total ever with 118.4 cm and the greatest snow on the ground at any one time with 65 cm. The storms cost the city nearly twice the annual budget in snow removal.
Ice Storm of the Century – January 4-9, 1998. One of the most destructive and disruptive storms in Canadian history hit Eastern Canada causing hardship for 4 million people and costing $3 billion. Losses included millions of trees, 130 transmission towers and 120,000 km of power and telephone lines. Power outages lasted from several hours to four weeks.
Victoria’s Snowstorms of the Century – February 2, 1916 and December 28-29, 1996. Huge snowstorms, 80 years apart, clobbered Canada’s “snow-free” city with more than 55 cm of snow. The December storm dropped 80 cm of snow in 24 hours, 125 cm in five days with cleanup costs exceeding $200 million (including a record insurance payout for BC of $80 million).
http://ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=6A4A3AC5-1
Ten minutes with photoshop and I could reverse that trend !
This is just voodoo science!
Not a lot of “hugely respected scientists” live in BC, from the perspective of Alberta. We call it “la la land” or the land of fruits and nuts.
BC is politically and geographically part of the left coast… California, Oregon, Washington, BC.
What the heck, half of them are draft dodgers from the Vietnam era anyway.
Anyway, as a resident of the “could” affected area and in sight of the Rockies, I know it’s a load of crap. Glaciers here are fine. Even in my lifetime they have advanced and retreated before, it’s what they do.
I live east of the Cascade Crest in WA — aka “The Dry Side”
Not coastal, left or otherwise.
Code Tech – you have to understand that it is the “Law” in BC and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC are required to take “climate change” into consideration in their designs. I have no problem with that but when you read the background information, particularly from the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, they have chosen a “direction: for climate. After some discussion and consideration of the fact that I have been a long retired Life Member of APEGGA (Alberta association), I chose to resign from APEGBC as I really didn’t like the direction they are going. Mind you, they really have no choice given the current LAWS in that province. The committee that developed the APEGBC position paper on Climate Change in BC made several references to ensuring the APEGBC members follow the “LAW”.
I can accept that. We were taught that designs need to comply with expected environmental conditions from day one in university and to make allowances for changes. However, when looking into the details of the documents, they suggest that there is a particular direction the climate is taking and members should take what the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium says into consideration. I think that could lead young members with no memory of climate conditions in BC 100 years ago in the wrong direction. When that eastern Pacific “warm blob” moves, conditions in BC may go in an entirely different direction than the BC government suggests. In engineering design, we need to take climate change in any direction into account along with historical data and trends.
I could be wrong, but in any case, I am no longer a member of APEGBC.
https://www.apeg.bc.ca/getmedia/a39ff60e-80a1-4750-b6a5-9ddc1d75248a/APEGBC-Climate-Change-Position-Paper.pdf.aspx
This is the “Tool” that has been provided to assess future climate in BC in the design process:
http://www.pacificclimate.org/analysis-tools/plan2adapt
APEGBC felt compelled to act due to Government regulation:
“… the Government of British Columbia has made climate change a priority. To this end, it has prescribed maximum GHG emission levels through new legislation such as the Revenue Neutral ‐ Carbon Tax Act, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle Emissions Standards) Act and Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act. It has also enacted new codes and laws around adaptation such as the greening of the BC Building Code. APEGBC members need to have the knowledge to comply with these new codes and laws.”
The above is from “The Report of the Climate Change Task Force”
https://www.apeg.bc.ca/APEGBC/media/APEGBC/Sustainability%20and%20Climate%20Change/APEGBC-Climate-Change-Task-Force-Report.pdf
I have no problem with this Guideline, other than its readability:
https://www.apeg.bc.ca/APEGBC/media/APEGBC/Sustainability%20and%20Climate%20Change/APEGBC-Sustainability-Guidelines.pdf
I wrote a letter of resignation January 29, 2014, but did not actually resign until December, 2014 as there is a specific process required.
January 29, 2014
Having studied climate in one way or another for most of my life, I find the Position Paper on Climate Change by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC and the background papers upon which it is based something of an anathema. For many years I have read about climate for about two hours a day on average. I find myself no longer wanting to be associated with a professional association that is promoting a particular position on climate on the basis of 50 year design periods and a 6.7% membership response to a poorly designed survey on climate. Civil engineering works in particular, may last much longer than 50 years. Even with a design life of only 20 years, those designs can set development in motion that lasts for hundreds of years. Think of Coal Harbour and what it spawned. In my case, 40 years ago, working on the west coast of Vancouver Island (and elsewhere in BC) we looked for geological and physical evidence of past events (not 50 years) and best practices when doing design work. If one took the 50 year period the Association document refers to, one could infer just about anything depending on what start and end points one chooses. Furthermore, it is not now possible to accurately extrapolate future climate given that there are cycles within cycles and extrapolating a sine curve will always lead to serious errors. Maybe we need to rethink 20, 50, 100, and 200 year or greater design periods for precipitation AND drought in our land use by-laws, and maybe we should stop building in flood prone, land slide prone and subsidence prone areas. Perhaps even the many cost/benefit studies on return periods need to be reconsidered. But I doubt we are going to rebuild half of Vancouver, Richmond and Delta and correct the bad planning of the last century or so. The city in the interior of BC where I grew up flooded regularly prior to installation of the dams under the Columbia River Treaty – dams which clearly changed the local climate for miles around and not just the 1 kilometre adjacent to the reservoirs as BC Hydro implies in their Site C assessment. However, in terms of the overall earth climate and water cycle, it was probably insignificant.
What we do know for sure, is climate changes and has for millennia, and will continue for more millennia. Yes man has an impact. Yes GHG’s have an impact. But how much? And yes, that should be considered in the work of members of the Association. Regional project impacts can be significant. No one can argue that the Bennet Dam, Mica Dam, the High Arrow Dam and many others did not change the microclimate, ecosystem and the landscape in the region. For better or worse. That is a judgement call. I have not seen any long term study results for those projects. I have however read multiple impact statements for the Site C dam as well as the public input documents. Regional impacts are a concern. As for the overall climate projections based on the use of GCM’s, you may as well study sheep offal.
Climate is something I learned about starting in my teens and have studied ever since. Climate always changes. Much of what the Position Paper says about engineers being aware of climate is appropriate and most of us have been exposed to “earth sciences” from the start of our studies. However, the “Association” appears to have drunk the Kool-Aid as the position paper talks about warming, increased flood events, increased rain events, increased storm events (but some places may have drought). That MAY be true for individual regions but according to physics a warming climate should moderate storms. It appears that the Association has taken the position of certain “climate alarmists” – that just about all “weather” events can be blamed on climate change.
Further, the strongest green house gas, making up something in the order of 95% of the GHE is water vapour. BC has been increasing water vapour in regional environments by constructing dams on major rivers for longer than I have been alive and I have witnessed significant effects on the microclimates. Are we going to stop all dam projects to reduce GHG emissions? Or continue on as always in accordance with the Climate Change Task Force recommendations 2.2 which seem to generally espouse continuing to do what we have always done and comply with the Code of Ethics ? (Which includes compliance with the laws of the land so their reference to BC’s “carbon” regulations is redundant.)
Of course, it is just my opinion, but it is a strong opinion, and not based on poorly designed short form surveys or unintentionally biased research. I do appreciate CCAG took over a year to come up with their paper and it took another three years for this position paper to come out so I am sure careful consideration was made of all aspects of this issue.
If the position paper had stuck to cautions rather than blatant statements on the projected direction of climate change, I would support it. But it doesn’t. Consequently it appears to be more political statement than anything else.
If you only look at the picture of the Queen on a quarter, you will never know what is on the other side.
I cannot support the position paper as written. I may be wrong, but I must ethically follow my conclusions and conscience. I believe the research you reference is faulty, your position paper follows a particular dogma and is more of a political statement than a factual statement that may be useful in empirical design.
Therefore after due consideration and after reviewing the position paper and referenced information, I request that you remove my name from the registry at the end of this year (2014) hopefully as a Member in Good Standing, as I have already paid this year’s dues.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
wjd_sig.jpg
Wayne Delbeke, P. Eng.
Some of many references that raise questions about the APEGBC Position Paper on Climate Change:
Where is the warming? Don’t engineers rely on empirical evidence? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/28/no-new-continent-hottest-temperature-records-since-1978/#more-102327
OK, just a blog, not science, but lots of scientists, geo-practitioners and engineers visit and comment.
And I would add here: “What warming?” : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/should-we-be-worried/#more-102378
Oh – and why do I doubt the “modelling” done by the PCIC? Because the models they are using have failed over and over again:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png
(from an article discussing Dr Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales and affiliated with PCIC who said: ” “Climate sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect,” said Sherwood. “But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more.”)
The comparison of GCM’s with measured temperatures show how wrong this is, and this is the same University that Dr. Chris Turney is from, now better known as “Professor Turkey of the Ship of Fools” for risking people’s lives on a junket to the Antarctic and getting stuck fast in the ice.
And a couple more references for good measure:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/
(and a host of others say: “It’s the sun, stupid.”) Personally from over 50 years of observation and reading, it is clear no one really knows enough about the earth’s climate to make reliable predictions of future climate although there are lots of ideas that need proofing. It will take another 50 to 100 years to see if they are right.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/28/inconvenient-study-arctic-was-warmer-than-the-present-during-the-medieval-warm-period/#more-102330
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/when-did-global-warming-begin/#more-102114
On Jan 27, 2014, at 10:45 AM, APEGBC wrote:
To ensure receipt of our e-mail, please add apegbc@apeg.bc.ca to your address book.
January 27, 2014
APEGBC Releases Position Paper on Climate Change
APEGBC has published a position paper on climate change as it relates to the professional practice of engineering and geoscience. The position paper, developed by APEGBC’s Climate Change Advisory Group (CCAG) outlines the association’s position on the changing climate in BC, as well as the implications for practicing professionals. APEGBC members play a key role in providing guidance and advice to decision makers on how to respond to climate change, given their technical expertise and commitment to public safety.
APEGBC’s position statement on climate change is as follows:
A. APEGBC recognizes that the climate is changing and it commits to raising awareness about the potential impacts as they relate to professional practice and to providing information and assistance to members in managing implications for their own professional practice.
B. APEGBC members (professional engineers, professional geoscientists, provisional members, licensees, limited licensees, engineers-in-training and geoscientists-in-training) are expected to keep themselves informed about the changing climate, and consider potential impacts on their professional activities.
In addition to existing professional practice guidelines and professional development courses, APEGBC will be developing further tools and resources to assist members in understanding and addressing the potential impacts of a changing climate on their professional practice. Current resources include: Professional Practice Guidelines, CPD courses, and the National Survey of Canada’s Infrastructure Engineers about Climate Change.
The Position Paper on Climate Change was approved by APEGBC Council and developed by APEGBC’s Climate Change Advisory Group (CCAG), following consultation with a number of APEGBC committees. The CCAG is responsible for advising APEGBC Council on matters related to climate change based upon the duties and objects set out in the Engineers and Geoscientists Act.
The Position Paper on Climate Change is available on APEGBC’s website: http://www.apeg.bc.ca/climate-change.
For more information, please contact Tony Chong, P.Eng., Chief Regulatory Officer and Deputy Registrar at ccag@apeg.bc.ca or 604.412.6058.
This e-mail was sent by:
The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC
#200 – 4010 Regent St., Burnaby, BC V5C 6N2
Ph: 604-430-8035 | Toll-free: 1-888-430-8035 | e-mail: apeginfo@apeg.bc.ca
http://www.apeg.bc.ca
Twitter
Thanks Wayne for letter, After reading the release paper bu APEGBC’s letter I thought I was looking at military abbreviations, then I though , I am the CC Army is out in full force. As far as thr graph you showed about Grand Forks I can only add the same observation on average winters are less cold.
Looks like my spellchecker took a break, sorry
If my car continues to accelerate at the current rate I will be the first to exceed the speed of light in a Suzuki. This acceleration is entirely caused by the use of fossil fuels.
Impossible in a Suzuki due to tire warranty. Maximum speed will be less than 0.785 c because of the modified cycloid path length of any point on the tire tread, a fact overlooked by many physicists.
& 97% of psychiatrists !!!
Thanks!
Smiling ear to ear.
“Impossible in a Suzuki due to tire warranty.”
Whew! Thanks for the timely warning Mike. 😉
Just out of curiosity, if you accelerate at a steady 1G (high end street performance numbers), how long would it take to reach c?
I know the answer to this, it’s been thoroughly explored in Science Fiction for decades… just wondering if anyone else knows this…
Newton would do it in 353 days, 9 hours, and 15 minutes, approximately. Einstein would never reach c.
Since the acceleration rate (in the lab/rest frame) decreases with the relativistically increasing mass, it might seem that just integrating the Lorentz factor would give you a good acceleration curve (a quarter sine wave, if I recall), one actually has to integrate the relativistic addition of velocities term (u+v)/(1+uv). I don’t have the resulting formula handy, but it’s something like 1 over beta cubed.
I’ll dig it up and drop it in here in a day or two.
the question is misleading, because of time dilation and length contraction.
At 1 g constant acceleration you can travel to Andromeda galaxy and back in less than 1 human lifetime (reverse acceleration 1/2 way there). However, people on earth will have aged millions of years.
So, from the point of view of people on earth, at 1 g you have traveled about 5 million light years in something like 56 years. Which is about 90,000 times the speed of light.
However, due to length contraction you will never see yourself as exceeding the speed of light. The distance to Andromeda will simply shrink the more you accelerate, from 2.5 million light years to something less than 28 light years.
No “warp drive” is required to space travel. What is required is energy to maintain the constant 1 g acceleration.
So, from the point of view of people on earth, at 1 g you have traveled about 5 million light years in something like 56 years. Which is about 90,000 times the speed of light.
========
correction: from your point of view, once you return to earth, you will have traveled about 5 million in something like 56 years. Which is about 90,000 times the speed of light. But you never exceeded c while on the ship.
What you are seeing is the confusing effect of moving between reference frames. From the point of view of people on earth, you traveled 5 million light years in just over 5 million years, which means you also never exceeded c.
Well, not really. As I mentioned, relativistic acceleration is an ‘addition of velocities’ problem, and that curve starts to flatten much sooner than you’d think. You’d be dead and gone long before the starship reached even mildly useful time dilation, so the various claims about reaching Andromeda within a lifetime are wrong.
I’m happy to see that I’m not the only nerd around… lol
I like the way Mike phrased the answer. We live in a Newtonian frame, therefore our tendency is to do exactly that… use 9.8 m/s/s and add up the seconds to reach 300,000 km/s. It’s when Einstein steps in that it all goes to pot.
We’re used to Newtonian drives, throwing something out the back to move us forward. Who’s to say there isn’t an “Einsteinian” drive possible, that can propel a vehicle without indiscriminately spewing reaction mass behind it?
And that, of course, is the thing that made people invent the idea of wormholes, warp drives, etc.
Here’s a few paragraphs from a novel I wrote. Our narrator is explaining to his kids why they can’t fly to the moon:
The only place I’ve found the ‘addition of velocities’ acceleration rate is in Leslie Marder’s long-out-of-print “Time and the Space Traveller.”
dv/dt = β³ • a,
where β is √(1 – v²/c²), and dv/dt is the rate in the lab/rest frame, and a is the rate aboard the starship. This curve flattens out way before the one you normally find, which actually reaches c.
Sometimes it is necessary to follow the pea. If someone wants to check the energy required to melt that ice in that then look at whether 0.6W per square meter that is 80% reflected by ice is capable of doing that. Most claims like this I have found to violate conservation of energy. It’s pretty hard to melt ice and a christmas light worth of energy per square meter isn’treally up to it. Unfortunately I don’t know the area and volume of ice they want to melt.
“Unfortunately I don’t know the area and volume of ice they want to melt.”
Yes you do! They state:
” the glaciers are thinning at a rate of about one metre per year.”
So you have 1 cubic meter of ice melt for every square meter of surface area. Per Year!
I look forward to your energy calculation, this is going to be fun.
Well, that settles it then. We can all go home now.
/eyeroll
In BC it is rain that warms the climate, not CO2. When we get never-ending rain we get warm winters. When skies are clear we get cold weather and the little rain that does fall, falls as snow.
This last winter we had rain, nearly non-stop flowing onto the coast from Hawaii. Had the winds been from Alaska instead, entirely different story.
ferd sez:
“In BC it is rain that warms the climate, not CO2. When we get never-ending rain we get warm winters. When skies are clear we get cold weather and the little rain that does fall, falls as snow.”
Doesn’t look like the researchers are familiar with that information, ferdberple. Or maybe they are, but there’s no grant money in it, eh? I just couldn’t believe they pulled the ol’ “it’s CO2 and only CO2 wot dunnit” without bothering to even attempt to hedge a little.
Oh wait… I re-read that part of the article, and to be fair, it’s not 100% clear to me if the researchers actually said what I quoted from the article or if it was thrown in there by the PR writer at the University of BC. Maybe I should have rolled just one eye… the good one, not the glass one.
If it warms, the glaciers will melt – I assume everyone realises that is self-evident, with the obvious caveat that this may mean greater precipitation in the form of snow during winter months.
So is it going to warm up? The climate models say “Yes”. Mother nature says “Probably not”, if the evidence of the past 18 years is used.
Glaciers advance and retreat; 18,000 years ago the city of Vancouver may have been under a mile of ice, 8,000 years ago in the early Holocene, when it was warmer than now, there were probably many less glaciers in British Columbia than today.
We are approaching the end of the current interglacial period, when this arrives it is going to get 6-8 degrees C colder. At that time, our descendents will be grateful for every CO2 molecule we pushed out into the atmosphere.
This paper is a classic case of grant addiction, nothing more and nothing less.
The historical sawtooth ice age cycle may have been temporarily broken. Normally Jupiter and Saturn pump the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit but this has not happened yet. We should have been slowly heading back into ice age by now but the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit is still very low and apparently not increasing. Also from looking at the Antarctica ice data it seems planetary temperature for the past 10,000 years has naturally varied within a 3 deg C band. It looks like the ice age pattern has changed because of orbital mechanics.
What specific phenomena is going to cause a 6-8C drop in temperature?
2100-2015 = 85 years
average human life span in Canada 81 years
that means the author of of these claims would have to be -4 right now to be around in 2100 to be reminded about their claims .
Child geniuses have be heard about , but preconception ones !
Now who says climate ‘scientists’ never learn anything , well its clear they learned to make sure that their failure to deliver on the claims will be so far ahead in time they will never be in a position to have to account for it. Its truly is ‘magic ‘ what models can achieve.
Why do AGW proponents keep repeating this lie about glaciers?
If glaciers have in the past supplied the water for hydroelectric power, mining and agriculture it means they were melting and shrinking in the past. So why now claim it is a catastrophe?
The reality is that snow and rain provide the water for hydroelectric power, mining and agriculture. If the glaciers didn’t exist or where completely stable the same amount of water would still be available from the precipitation.
Now I will agree that if temps are warmer more of the precip will be rain, which immediately runs off. Unlike snow which accumulates in the winter and slowly melts in the spring. But the solution to that is to build dams, which can also incorporate hydroelectric generators, and catchments to store the water for use as needed.
made myself laugh..read your comment then pondered every glacier suddenly freezing solid and NO melt.
wow I’d love to be round to hear the crud some warmist then tried to spin on that:-)
The power supply thing got me laughing. Bigots, all of them.
From the same climate reactionaries who predicted the end of Tibetan glaciers by 2035. This Canadian prediction is notable because it will scare rich folks in Vancouver but like any good prophecy is far enough away that no one will actually be around to notice when the prediction fails.
The prediction of catastrophic ice melt cannot fail over time. It will simply be revised based on ‘new’ modelling information. Rinse and repeat as needed. Even when we find in 20 years that glaciers are growing and sea ice is surging, the alarms will be sounding about what happens after the cold spell ends. This is a neverending crusade ladies and gentlemen. Just look at Antarctica as example #1. Sea ice is at all time highs, yet this is ignored by Alarmists in favor of their model analysis of the five acres of lessening snowfield next to McMurdo Station, which if extrapolated to the entire continent and held at steady state will mean the end of all ice down in 800 years (sarc). Simply amazing logic…
+1
I suppose there’s no claw back mechanism to get research funding back for claims which later on prove to be completely specious. Casey “green” Jones and the gravy train roll on.
Pointman
If there was in this case has the authors would be long dead then you could not get it back anyway .
When glaciers did not melt? they are made to melt for water, rivers, lakes and ultimately to the sea. We are losing snow on mountains because the frequency of rain cycle is reduced due to urbanization, deforestation, and deserts formation that are covering the moist soil surface thus obstructing evaporation vital for rain. To revive rain cycle as used to be before CC we must keep land surface moist all the time. So developing net works of water supply system so that water is held in and on land before reaching to the sea is the solution. only excess Water should be drained to the sea.
You have never been to Canada have you? What you speak of my happen in highly populated counries. Here in Canada, urbanization covers about 0% of our landmass (and have approximatly ∞ wilderness). We have responsible rules for logging, resulting in no deforestation.
I just looked it up
Uban land mass
Alberta: 0.46%
BC: 0.37%
Canada: 0.25%
Also Canadian.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-s-degradation-of-pristine-intact-forests-leads-world-1.2757138
horse manure. Canada has vast areas of untouched “pristine” forests. As we log and replant them, they are no longer “untouched”, but they are still forests. CBC is short for “Commie By Choice”. Pravda introduced doublespeak, but the CBC perfected it.
FOR SIR HARRY FLASHMAN
Curious what continent you live on and how much time you have spent outside an urban setting.
Things change. Animals adapt.
As an example – Did you know that studies in Alberta on Elk, Caribou and mountain sheep showed that hikers were more of a threat to rearing grounds than machinery? Animals consider hikers as potential predators. Machinery is generally ignored – not a threat. Quel surprise.
In your referenced article the headline says;
“Canada’s degradation of pristine, intact forests leads world” with a picture of an above ground pipeline, clearly part of a local process and meant to be a misleading visual of the “real” forest. You know just by the visual the writing will be a biased crock.
First, what is the definition of “pristine” and what is meant by “intact”.
These are urban dwellers’ words. In Canada there have been no “pristine, intact” forests for thousands of years. They burn. They have been cut down and used as boats, housing, fuel and even clothing by the local residents for millennia. “Pristine” has just become an “activist” word for anti-development and “I want things my way” or “I don’t like change”.
The “Washington DC think tank” must never have left their air conditioned offices.
They blamed “BIG OIL” for partitioning the forests.
Yes the forests have clear linear demarcations in them. Some are oil and gas lines. But anyone who knows how to zoom in with Google Earth will quickly notice most have the shadow of power transmission towers and often the reflection of the massive lines themselves.
Go look at all the cut lines running northeast from The Lower Mainland (Vancouver, BC) to the various “BIG GREEN” hydro dams in the BC interior – run of the River Nelson to Castlegar, Revelstoke/Mica, Bennett dam and all the others.
The province of BC is cris crossed with power lines providing clean power to industry around the province and to the power hungry lower mainland.
And where do people go to pick blue berries, huckleberrie, saskatoons, wild strawberries, wild raspberries, mushrooms, choke cherries, kini kikik? Where is the best grouse and deer hunting? Where is some of the best birding?
Yet these people from faraway call it a blight on the landscape and a danger to wild life.
Having lived in these spaces for 7 decades, I am amazed at the level of ignorance in these sorts of pieces SHF.
“The study found”. Excuse me? That is not a study. That is a conjecture based on false information.
But they had fun spending the grant money…
‘Researchers say the impact of climate change on glacier health may not be evident at first sight.’
Glacier health? What? Not the size of the glacier? Not the volume of the glacier? Not the advance or retreat of the glacier? Not the area of the glacier? No, it’s health? Wow, does that one word ever give the game away. Gaia, Gaia, Gaia.
” ‘Researchers say the impact of climate change on glacier health may not be evident at first sight.’ ”
Yep, you have to believe it, to see it!
I am a doctor of Glacial Health. (I’m not sure that reads correctly). However I have started a Glacial Health Insurance Fund. Please send your Remittances o …
Glacier health is covered by the universal health care all Canadian glaciers enjoy.
Universal health care is a myth I don’t give a s..t about the universe! Just my wife’s and mine health care, ( health care which as a Canadian I realize is not all that universal!).About the glaciers?? They leave me cold.
‘Researchers say the impact of climate change on glacier health may not be evident at first sight.’
======
only those with second sight can see it.
Meanwhile, Steve Goddard is reporting a trend of increasing snow cover–
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/december-snow-cover-continues-its-60-year-rise/
That’s merely observation, of course. You would think that snow cover will correlate somewhat with “healthy” glaciers but I can’t say for sure without a model.
“…is reporting a trend of increasing snow cover”, hey wait a minute. All of my models are predicting less snow cover. You will have to modify your facts to align with my models. After all, my grant money depends on this.
I have just finished reading John Kehr’s book The Inconvenient Skeptic. Using logic and facts shows us that if most glaciers formed 1500 years ago it must have been warmer during Roman times than today. Check the one in Peru, it is only 1500 years old. We are definitely not as warm now as it was then. I recommend this book to anyone with an open mind.
Hold on now. According to the premise this claim is probably correct. Here is the premise:
“Researchers predicted changes in the area and volume of glaciers in western Canada under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their most recent assessment of the state of the climate system. Increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, released from fossil fuel combustion, is the primary factor that will cause increases in surface air temperatures in the decades ahead.”
However, since we have good evidence that the scenarios used by the IPCC are wrong we probably shouldn’t give the claim too much credence.
Even without warming, the climate is still too warm to maintain most of these glaciers. Interglacial Periods are defined by periods when glaciers retreat, and such retreat conditions last for 10–12,000 years.
CO2 cannot warm the climate in any detectable way. It is junk science to pretend that we have anything to do with the overall CO2 increase or the global warming that has not been occurring for 19 years at the surface with no significant warming in the atmosphere since 1988! As glaciers retreat while there is no warming, as these Canadians have noted—actually cooling actively since 2006—this actually demonstrates that even cooler temperatures are too warm to maintain these glaciers.
So they used some observational data but then went off to model land for the rest of it and used the green house emissions scenarios from the IPCC. Did they use the current scenario where there is a rise in CO2 but no rise in temperature for 20 years? It’s not as if the models have been anything like accurate. So this is another waste of public money.
“Seventy per cent of glacier ice in British Columbia and Alberta could disappear by the end of the 21st century, creating major problems for local ecosystems, power supplies, and water quality.”
Could? Or could not?
Major problems? Or not?
Typical study.
If the same scientist came out with a study showing that glaciers were expanding in Western Canada, this same comments column would be full of self-congratulatory backpatting and “I told you so.” Also with no knowledge or understanding of the facts. Move along folks, no science to see here.
Glacial science is infact trying to coverup inconvenient growing glaciers. The Karakoram glaciers are mostly growing, an inconvenient fact some want to ignore as it gives skeptics evidence CC is wrong.
Himalayan ice can fool climate studies
Science 27 March 2015:
Vol. 347 no. 6229 pp. 1404-1405
DOI: 10.1126/science.347.6229.1404
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6229/1404.summary
The gist of the article are interviews with two glaciologists studying the Karakoram glaciers which appear to be growing and are susceptible to rapid, periodic surges. One of the “scientists” openly suggests that since they don’t understand why they should be growing it confounds global Climate Change models, and thus they should be omitted from Global estimates of Glacial ice mass loss and behavior. How convenient. Ignore the data that doesn’t fit your model.
SHF,
Nice bait.
Ps You once said that you would leave these pages, never to return, yet you reappear with monotonous regularity.
Yeah, I said that but it turned out I couldn’t keep away. They should be happy I keep driving traffic to the page.
His point is absolutely valid. When a paper is published that says there is not a proven link between a rise in temperatures and AGW (such as the, the research is immediately touted here as being rock solid – even when the paper sits behind a paywall. Here is an example: http://www.livescience.com/49052-california-drought-linked-natural-causes.html
And then in the next breath the very same institution/scientists involved (NOAA, NASA, etc) are attacked for being dishonest & money grubbing when they publish papers that support AGW.
Harry – maybe these scientists should also include the fact that glaciers have been receeding since the mid 1700’s. This “study” suggests that this melting is something new. And the picture taken in 2100 is fascinating. Did they take a time machine to take the picture and bring it back? You are correct when you say “no science to see here”.
Nearly all of these ‘studies’ are actually projections. When it is getting colder, they project downwards. When it warms, they project it upwards. They have done this for the last 100 years even though it is quite obvious that we have this cold/warm 30 year and 60 year cycle punctuated by even longer cycles with the most important cycle being the Ice Age/Interglacial cycles.
None are identical but all are similar. This is why we can postulate with near total certainty that the next Ice Age will happen and it is much closer in time to us than any other time in the last 8,000 years.
This is why worries about glacial melting is silly. Canada is ground zero for all Ice Ages, they begin in Canada roughly where the Hudson Bay is. When the Hudson Bay is iced over more and more, this is a danger sign. No Ice Ages began in the mountains along the west coast of North America.
These do grow during Ice Ages but the main glacier of gigantic size is the huge ones that cover much of Canada and a fair chunk of the USA. Canada virtually disappears under glaciers during every Ice Age.
It would be interesting if they could define what is “normal” temperature over the last, say 20,000 years. Would it be 20,000 years ago when the whole area was covered in glaciers ? How about 12.000 years ago when it was warm enough to have those massive glaciers melt? Or 10,000 years ago when the Greenland Ice cores show it was substantially warmer than today? Or, based on the Greenland Ice Core data, what period during the last 10,000 years would they choose for “normal” ?
I was an electrical grid operator in BC for 35 years and can say very little hydro electrical power is sourced from glaciers it is rain and snow melt.
A climate scientist from this same la la land uni stated the poor ski season that resulted from a mild winter in the Vancouver area mountains is proof of ‘climate change’. The local media breathlessly reported his expert statement.
Should I add to their paper that 99.99% of glaciers in those areas are already gone? Around 11000 years ago the sheets were miles thick and covered most of the mountains. This is just the pitiful remnants in the first place we are talking about. What’s more I would wager that these glaciers have been far smaller in the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods. After all, they still haven’t found all the Roman mines in the Alps because some of them are currently covered by glaciers! I know the Romans didn’t try to mine through the glacier.
A regular commenter here on WattsUpWithThat stated not long ago (I’m paraphrasing here)
12,000 years ago the temperature of the Earth rose above that necessary to sustain the Laurentide Ice Sheet. The ice sheet began to retreat, and has continued to retreat since then.
Since these legacy glaciers in Alberta were once part of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, the question to really be asking is what the recent increase in human burning of fossil fuels contributed to ending the Wisconsinan glaciation?
I don’t think the Albertan glaciers are relics of the Laurentide ice sheet. I believe the only remnant of the Laurentide ice sheet is the Barnes ice cap on Baffin island. Funnily enough, despite being in eastern Canada it is thinning at exactly the same rate as the BC/Alberta glaciers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Ice_Cap
“ … the estimated extent of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet approximately 17 thousand years ago.”
Map of neoglacial period – or scroll about half way down
from: https://pleistoceneholoceneglaciationbc.wordpress.com/
Without knowing the freeze line for the glaciers it is not possible to know what is causing them to be reduced in size. If these are low altitude glaciers they will melt period with or without added CO2. Story needs more info.
“The study found that while warming temperatures are threatening glaciers in Western Canada, ”
Incorrect observation. It is not warming in Western Canada so if glaciers are melting, it is because the temperature increase that occurred before the anthropogenic CO2 increase is not compatible with continental glaciers.
temp data from Environment Canada:
It could be that there is more sunshine. But EC won’t tell us. They are down to one reporting station for sunshine data.
?w=1536&h=960
https://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/the-sad-state-of-environment-canadas-sunshine-data/
In many cases, the glaciers in question exist well above the freezing level. That is, the temperature is well below freezing 365. I think the key is not temperature but precipitation patterns. I don’t know if this paper is projecting the ablation zones (zones where glaciers recede) will increase due to the freezing level going up? Or do the researchers project that the Northern Rockies will under go long term drought? At the end of this century, do the researchers project freezing levels to be as high as 10,000 MSL?
I ask this question in light of the fact that tropical mid tropospheric hot spot has failed to materialize. Going back to AR3, the tropical mid tropospheric hot spot was supposed to one of the key signatures of AGW. In that case, it is fair to say that the increase in low level tropospheric temperatures would also be seen in the mid-latitudes. But, none of that has occurred. AR3 was published over a decade ago.
The loss of tropical glaciers was all the rage 10 years ago (see RealClimate) Lonny Jones was at the forefront of this alarm. Things have quieted down since then. One of the major findings about Mt Kilimanjaro, was that land use, and variations in the Walker Circulation had more to do with receding glaciers there than AGW. And this new study appears to shed no new light or break new ground.
I can would be more convinced if they showed a decline with pics from 2000, 1990, 1980. All the computer generated images of imagined loss, don’t really don’t for me.
They say: “could disappear by the end of the 21st century”.
Could also increase in mass if it remains cold with more precipitation. I think they are monitoring the wrong glaciers. The largest non polar tidewater glaciers in the NH and SH are actually increasing.
OK, lets “cherry pick” some glaciers to monitor. How about the largest tidewater glaciers in the NH and SH, not counting Antarctica and Greenland.
The authors are forgetting about Hubbard Glacier in southern Alaska (the largest tidewater glacier in North America). 76 miles in length, 1518 sq. miles – Current status: Advancing.
Taku Glacier of the Juneau Ice field (the largest glacier in that Ice field) is advancing, as opposed to the much smaller Mendenhall Glacier from that same ice field – (Taku Glacier) is advancing. Recognized as the deepest and thickest glacier known in the world, the Taku Glacier is measured at 4,845 feet (1,477 m) thick. The advance is due to a positive mass balance; that is, more snow accumulates than snow and ice melt. Status: advancing.
It looks like the largest glacier of the Patagonian ice field is also advancing. From Wikipedia: “Brüggen Glacier, also known as Pío XI Glacier, is in southern Chile and is the largest western outflow from the Southern Patagonian Ice Field. Now about 66 km (41 mi) in length, it is the longest glacier in the southern hemisphere outside of Antarctica.” – Status: advancing.
The Perito Moreno Glacier, one of the largest glaciers on the Argentina side of the Patagonian ice field (97 sq. miles) – (although not a tidewater glacier, its terminus is in lake Argentina at an altitude of just 150M). – Status: advancing.
See a pattern here – the largest non polar tidewater glaciers are advancing. (Increasing in mass) I would think that is significant too.
So in summary…
“We are benefiting from large amounts of glacial runoff now, but when it’s all gone we won’t.”
“Oh, and it’s all your fault. (Not mine, even though I drive a truck and use electricity generated from coal.)”
Sounds like typical liberal “victim” reasoning.
I quote:
“Researchers predicted changes in the area and volume of glaciers in western Canada under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change … Increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere … is the primary factor that will cause increases in surface air temperatures in the decades ahead.”
Yeah, verily. Remember that IPCC once told us to expect decadal temperature rise of 0.2 degrees in the new century. I classify this paper as another futile attempt to explain away the existence of the hiatus/pause/absence of warming. Anthony Watts used to keep track of them but when their number exceeded fifty he gave up on it. Here is the scientific fallacy the paper depends upon. They make the assumption that the primary factor that causes increase of SAT is increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That is demonstrably false. There has been no increase of global mean temperature for 18 years while at the same time, atmospheric carbon dioxide just kept on increasing. But this is impossible according to the Arrhenius greenhouse theory used by the IPCC. Arrhenius requires that addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will produce the greenhouse effect and this is not happening. If a scientific theory like Arrhenius makes an unequivocally false prediction the theory itself is considered false and belongs in the waste basket of history. The correct greenhouse theory to use is the Miscolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. It tells it like it is: addition of carbon dioxide to air does not warm the air. It came out in 2007 and was promptly blacklisted by the global warming establishment. It differs from the Arrhenius theory in being able to handle more than one GHG at the same time. Arrhenius can handle only one, carbon dioxide. The IPCC requirement that water vapor in the atmosphere should triple the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide alone must be added as an additional hypothesis that has never been scientifically validated. According to MGT, carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere jointly form an optimal absorption window in the infrared. Its optical thickness is 1.87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it will start to absorb in the IR, just as Arrhenius predicts. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will begin to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor keeps the amount of absorption constant and no warming is possible. With that dies the greenhouse theory of global warming. Since the greenhouse warming is assumed to be the cause of AGW the anthropogenic global warming is likewise dead. IPCC was established specifically to study the effect of global warming on humans. Since we have proved that AGW does not exist there is no longer any warming effect influencing humans. Hence, there is no need for IPCC and it should be closed down.
92% of the solar energy that strikes the earth’s surface is absorbed by the oceans, with 2-3% being absorbed by the entirety of land masses. Therefore a conclusion of whether or not warming has stopped cannot be drawn without considering ocean temperatures. I will set aside the fact that land based temperature data does not indicate a pause in warming.
Computer-generated ‘data’ is not real data–it’s some computer modeler’s arbitrary numbers used to paint some predetermined scenario. As shown by comparing computer model predictions of temperature change with what actually happened even in the past decade, model predictions have been a total failure, as recognized by everyone. How is this one any different? How can we check it against past climate changes?
A vast amount of well-documented climate data is available to look into the past to see if glaciers have disappeared in the past during times of similar global warming. It was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) that lasted several hundred years–did glaciers disappear then? No–alpine glaciers receded upvalley but, except for perhaps a few small ones, did not disappear. Mt. Baker, a few kilometers south of British Columbia, has an excellent 14C-dated moraine that shows glaciers retreated somewhat during the MWP but then readvanced strongly during the Little Ice Age. We see the same pattern over and over since the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 years ago. If glaciers didn’t disappear during past times of warming greater than the thawing out since the Little Ice Age, why would they do so in the future?
And remember, computer model predictions are based on the assumption that CO2 is causing global warming since 1945, but much greater global warming has occurred many times in the past without any effect from CO2. And consider how much CO2 is in the atmosphere–it’s only 0.040% and has risen only 0.008% since ‘global warming,’ (supposedly caused by human emissions) began in 1945. And consider that 30 years of global cooling occurred while CO2 emissions were soaring from 1945 to 1975 and that there has been no global warming for the past 18 years even though CO2 continues to rise. Yet all of the computer models used to predict the vanishing of glaciers assume that CO2 will cause the warming they predict.
Clarke’s computer model prediction is no better than all of the other failed computer model predictions. We can relegate it to the world of geofantasy.
BC folks have a hatred for hydroelectricity, logging, oil, gas and mining. I remember they used to come to anti mining rallies on their titanium bicycles. Maybe they consider this on the benefit side of the catastrophe. These are the folks that voted overwhelmingly for cap and trade and got it. It will now be government policy to push this BS and fund studies that show the policy was needed. Oh, I’m sure the prof is highly respected because he’s giving what urban brain bleached BC-ites think they need. Rescuing all these folks when they don’t know they need rescue is going to be 100yr project by lowly respected people who can still think – a bit like my favorite metaphor: saving the Nile crocodile while the croc is trying to bite your head off.
“computer models and climate simulations” Now who can argue with that, authentic frontier gibberish.
I was really worried until I read that this was just the result of another Nintendo computer game. Until they upgrade to the latest X-Box game we cannot trust a word they say.
Unfortunately, unlike me, they draw a salary for playing these silly games.
Yawn. More people trying to cash in on the doomsday funding.
More talk with noting to back it up with. That is typical AGW.
It is the first theory that has the data conform to it, rather then the theory conforming to the data.
While the study is full of unscientific weasel words: might, could, may, etc., the headlines certainly are not:
How Western Canada glaciers will melt away ~ CBCNews
Western Canada to lose 70 per cent of glaciers by 2100 ~ University of British Columbia
Most B.C. glaciers gone by 2010 ~ Vancouver Sun
Climate change attacks: Western Canada to lose 70 percent of glaciers, study says ~ Washington Post
And of course the headlines are all that the alarmists read, remember and cite as proof.
“Scientists raise alarm on glaciers” front page of the Edmonton Journal. Since when is the publication of a scientific study front page news?
Can you imagine the graphics these guys would be presenting if we all lived 15,000 years ago?
Wow. Think of the myriad of insurmountable disasters faced by people in N America when a CONTINENT-sized ice-sheet was melting 10000 yrs ago. Suddenly there were vast stretches of land open where mile-high glaciers once stood.
Wait ….Let me see if I have this right.
If the glaciers melt, there will be less meltwater in the future.
But if the glaciers don’t melt …. wouldn’t that mean no meltwater at all?
OK so I LIVE here in Western Canada ( Vancouver BC) and there are a couple of things worth noting.
1. There’s a paper written by John Clague and Thomas James “History and isostatic effects of the last ice sheet in southern British Columbia” wherein……
The authors state :”By 10,000 yr BP, > (24 years)
Vancouver bc > -1.24 C ( It’s cooling )
British Columbia > – .04 C ( Not warming )
Washngton state> -. .54 C ( It’s cooling }
Now this is from DATA not from models. Ok it’s from Ocean and Land data combined.
So what does that mean for the claims in the above article?
My guess? My guess is it means the author just looked at model outputs.
OOPs Correction below :
,OK so I LIVE here in Western Canada ( Vancouver BC) and there are a couple of things worth noting.
1. There’s a paper written by John Clague and Thomas James “History and isostatic effects of the last ice sheet in southern British Columbia” wherein……
The authors state :
“By 10,000 14C yr BP, -1.24 C ( It’s cooling )
British Columbia > – .04 C ( Not warming )
Washngton state> -. .54 C ( It’s cooling }
Now this is from DATA not from models. Ok it’s from Ocean and Land data combined.
So what does that mean for the claims in the above article?
My guess? My guess is it means the author just looked at model outputs.
Sorry… just cant get the comment to post correctly.
I still think that evidence from 2007 based on the 7,000 year-old tree stumps uncovered by the retreating glaciers in Western Canada is relevant to this conversation.
“Geologist Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster found the deceptively fresh and intact tree stumps beside the retreating glaciers of Garibaldi Provincial Park, about 40 miles (60 km) north of Vancouver, ”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030092705.htm
Climate science: where having land and sea covered with ice is desirable.
If it’s so desirable, how come Yankees keep moving down here?
I’ve been absent for a while so maybe this was already answered, but is this a new thing here? Copy a news release, put “claims” in the headline, then wait for people to comment on a paper that nobody seems to have read? It’s pretty long, five pages with a hundred page appendix so I’m wondering how so many people came to such firm opinions so fast.
Researchers predicted changes in the area and volume of glaciers in western Canada under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their most recent assessment of the state of the climate system.
—-
They base their model on IPCC predictions which historically have been incorrect — every single one of them. Reading five pages isn’t going to change that simple fact, so why bother.
Boy, I bet Gov. Moonbeam Brown would love to have a melting glacier in CA right now.
Build a bunch of cities in a desert, use all of your water growing almonds, and then blame “global warming.”
And they ask me why I drink.
Should be blaming “global stupiding” instead.
Shhhh. If you value your water, don’t give the Gov any ideas. Look up NAWAPA:
http://www.applet-magic.com/NAWAPA.htm
During drought-before-last, NAWAPA Jr. was proposed, an undersea offshore pipeline from Alaska to LA. Hydraulically it penciled out, if you sharpened your pencil down to a little stub.
Five uses of “could” in the claim.
I draw attention to a feature of statistics illustrated by the use of “70%” in this headline:
– Imagine you start with $10 and lose $1 every day.
– on day 1, you lose 10% of your money.
– on day 2 you lose 11% of your money.
– on day 9 you lose 50% of your money.
– on day 10 you lose 100% of your money.
So looking at percentages, this appears to be an accelerating rate of loss, right?
Science by press release. Paper is paywalled, SI is not and is quite revealing. Actual glacier inventories (observation of areal extent and thickness) for 1985, 1999, and 2005. Regionally downscaled CMIP5 to get hindcast and forecast seasonal temperature and precipitation (annual ice mass balance is a function of both seasonally. The model system DID NOT correctly hindcast the glacier changes from 1985 to 1999 or 2005. By subregion the errors were up to 50% randomly high or low. Actual spring, summer, fall temperatures have not increased for decades (check the stations in Canada’s Glacier National Park). Actual declines since 1985 are not more melting, it is less winter snow accumulation (separate glaciology papers, and probably related to the PDO phase) So subregion fudge factors were added, and then the whole mess projected out many decades. Just a total hash. Reviewers should have known that GCMs don’t regionally downscale well, and the failed hindcasts should have been sufficient grounds for rejection.
An oft-repeated bit of history is the 1774 discovery by Captain George Vancouver of what he called “Icy Strait” on the Alaska coast. Vancouver’s Lieutenant sketched a minor embayment terminated by a vertical glacial cliff. In 1879, John Muir, looking for evidence that Yosemite Valley had been carved by a glacier, discovered that the glacial cliff at Icy Strait had receded, leaving a bay 30 miles long. By 1916, “Glacier Bay” was 60 miles long, and the glacier has remained relatively stable ever since.
But that’s not the entire story. Huna Tlinglit natives, along with geologic evidence, tell of a time when Glacier Bay was a wide grassy valley with a river running through it. According to legend, a young woman broke a tribal taboo. In response, the glacier began to advance “faster than a running dog.” The air turned cold, the melt-fed river dwindled, and the tribe had to move. (Huna Tlingit Responses to Rapid Glacial Advance and Retreat in Glacier Bay, Alaska, by Wayne Howell et al)
Long term, there’s no such thing as a stable glacier. And the very worst conditions for life occur when glaciers are advancing.
“In response, the glacier began to advance “faster than a running dog.” The air turned cold, the melt-fed river dwindled, and the tribe had to move.”
This is my point. Who the heck would want their land and sea covered with ice? Glaciers are ice covered land, rendering the land useless.
The story of the Illecillewaet glacier at Roger’s Pass is much the story of glaciers in the Canadian Rockies. When the railroad first went through Roger’s Pass in the 1880’s and the first tourist came along. They found the glacier very thrilling. One particular family there is the first tourist season came back about 10 years later (1890’s) and were struck by how much the glacier had shrunk in those ten years. So they set about to monitor the change and came back every year at least into the 1920’s to document the changing glacier. These are some of the earliest photos and documentation of glacier changes in Canada.
You can see some images at http://www.brocku.ca/virtualmuseum/history/index.html.
So the glaciers have been shrinking since at least 1880 or essentially as we escaped the little ice age.
One can easily conclude that the shrinking of the glaciers is very natural. And natural processes always change.
Interesting, but last I looked the official rate of sea level rise had been slowing, while the top layer of the ocean is heated just a bit with associated thermal expansion. which would strongly hint at rate of glacial melt slowing the last few years.
“Seventy per cent of glacier ice in British Columbia and Alberta could disappear by the end of the 21st century… The Rocky Mountains, in the drier interior, could lose up to 90 per cent of its glaciers. The wetter coastal mountains in northwestern B.C. are only expected to lose about half of their glacier volume.”
At least they provided specific predictions that can be falsified. Unfortunately, by the time their predictions are proven false, none of the authors will still be alive. However, If we enter a period of cooler and wetter climate, and glaciers begin to grow, it will cast significant doubt on their model-inspired predictions without having to wait until the end of the century.
I can document magical ice loss, but it is at a slower pace than the magical rye-and-coke disappearance from my glass.
Could disappear in 85 years. Could…
Claiming a possibility is the worse kind of argument since just about anything is possible other than a circle with square corners. Using probability is not as bad but still pretty stupid. So is it “possibly could”, or “most likely could”. Most likely compared to what? “Could” arguments suffer from the same malaise that psychics who claim to help police in murder investigations, they provide no useful evidence and waste resources.
Alx,
I counted 5 ‘coulds’ in the article. If you multiply the probability of (could x could x could x could x could), you get… (carry the 4… divide by sqrt of blue cheese… plus #cat hairs on the recliner… minus log of bluebirds at the feeder)… you get bupkiss.
I suspect there will be a significant war within 85 years IMO if whats happening in the Middle East and Africa is anything to go by.
But this make me laugh; “Most glaciers are only 100 to 200 metres thick,” said Clarke. “They’re losing volume but this loss we’re seeing right now is a bit hidden.”
If it’s a “bit hidden” how did the study use observational data? It’s either hiden or not if you’ve observed it. Or are they suggesting they “oberved” only a few with volume melting?
‘If all the seas were one sea’ – Mother goose
I cannot help but imagine that the U.S. government contracts with any university research that supports their global warming agenda no matter how poor the science. It’s the shotgun effect. Just keep it coming from all possible angles until the lies become real and then they say “of course”.
Sir Harry Flashman
April 7, 2015 at 9:42 am
It’s not magical, nor even rocket science. They measure the changes in thickness with GPS.
I am unsure how you would measure ice thickness with GPS (global positioning system) Presumably SHF means GPR (ground penetrating radar)
your point is valid
One thing that struck me about the Illecillewaet glacier which is one of best documented long term glacial studies in North America, is the stunning recession of ice from 1887 to 1931(http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/bc/glacier/natcul/natcul1/glacier.aspx). Since then, the retreat has not nearly been as dramatic, and was indeed marked by short periods of advancement. Not really sure what the fuss is all about- just business as usual on planet earth.
Can you imagine the glee of Canadians if their climate warmed considerably? Suddenly there would be reverse snow birds, yankees moving back out of the South to relocate to the temperate north? (written by a Southerner lol)
Who in hell wants glaciers? (Indeed)
The sad thing is, if we really could control climate and we really could turn all that frozen water into fresh water and we really could free all that land from ice and cold to support plants and animals, the numbskulls would be against it without considering that it might possibly be a blessing.
Whatever land the world might possibly lose (very slowly) in current swamps and wetlands, would be more than compensated in usable precipitation and land recovered from cold, ice, and snow.
But the world doesn’t seem to get quite so lucky. Warming also promotes precipitation which grows those glaciers and snow packs as fast as they can melt.
It’s taken a few years but it looks like the Warmist movement has learned its lesson about the short term forecasting that got it into trouble and is moving back to long range forecasting which cannot be disproved.
Use a big lie, repeat it often. Rinse, repeat.