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.
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.