This map from the annual Glacier Commission surveys in Italy and Switzerland shows the percentage of advancing glaciers in the Alps. Mid-20th century saw strong retreating trends, but not as extreme as the present; current retreats represent additional reductions of already smaller glaciers. By en:User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters - Own work, Public Domain, link

Melting Reveals Alpine Structures Buried by Glaciers After WW1

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Washington Post forgot to mention the late 1900s glacial advance which covered the WW1 structures with ice in the first place (see above).

Historians found a WWI bunker ‘frozen in time’ in the Alps. Climate change makes it a bittersweet discovery.

By Adela SulimanNovember 13, 2021 at 8:57 a.m. EST

Tucked within an icy mountain lies a meticulously preserved World War I bunker.

Climate change means we can now see it.Complete coverage from the COP26 U.N. climate summit

The intact cavern-cum-barracks contains munitions, books, cigarette holders and animal bones, and it was once teeming with Austro-Hungarian troops. They staked out on Mount Scorluzzo, almost 3,000 meters (about 9,800 feet) above sea level, on the Italian-Swiss border, now part of Italy’s Stelvio National Park territory.

“These places were literally frozen in time,” Giovanni Cadioli, a historian and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Padua in Italy, told The Washington Post.

Now, he added, climate change is playing a “pivotal role” in their discovery, as warming temperatures have led to the melting of glaciers and permafrost, revealing a “time capsule.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/11/13/climate-change-italy-alps-world-war-one/

It is a bit difficult to interpret this find as evidence of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, when glaciers were retreating just as fast in the early 1900s, well before anthropogenic CO2 could possibly have had a significant impact.

To be fair glaciers do not only respond to temperature, changes in land use and snowfall patterns can also have an impact. But the behaviour of the glaciers is not exactly an alarmist hockey stick.

4.7 44 votes
Article Rating
136 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J N
November 16, 2021 6:15 am

In Europe, for instance, if we overlap AMO and number of glaciers retreating, there’s a clear correlation. Causation or not no one knows. However, that correlation is a lot better than with CO2 for sure.

J N
Reply to  J N
November 16, 2021 6:35 am

As David said bellow, this is a huge “inconvenient truth” for alarmists that try to use glaciers for alarmism.

To bed B
Reply to  J N
November 16, 2021 10:44 am

It’s like the canary in the mine turned out to be a pack-a-day smoker

Coach Springer
November 16, 2021 6:17 am

I shared an excerpt from the last glaciology post at WUWT on Facebook. Facebook interjected suggesting looking up recent temperature trends in my area. Can’t make a post without them interfering, but I also take it as an admission that a nerve has been struck. Might there one day be a time where it is considered a badge of honor to be censored by our internet overlords?

Joe
Reply to  Coach Springer
November 16, 2021 6:37 am

This is a good site for temperature trends in Canada. Records go back to early 20th century. Nothing happening in the towns I frequent.
https://www.yourenvironment.ca/

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Joe
November 16, 2021 6:23 pm

I just checked Camrose, Alberta which is near where I live. I see no trend at all for either increasing or decreasing temperatures. Just as I suspected.
.

rd50
Reply to  Joe
November 16, 2021 7:48 pm

Thank you. Good site

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Joe
November 17, 2021 12:46 pm

Yes, thanks for the site.

This has been my “go to” for a while, have to see how close they may (or may not) concur:

https://www.weatherstats.ca/

Ed B(@sailboarder)
Reply to  Joe
November 17, 2021 5:23 pm

Both are lousy. Max temps, but not minimums? EC only goes back 25 years?

is that it for Canadian data

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Ed B
November 19, 2021 1:36 pm

Seems to me that 25 years of data is quite relevant as most define climate in 30 year terms. Since we are talking warming the highs define the threat. Higher lows only make things more comfortable.

2hotel9
Reply to  Coach Springer
November 16, 2021 6:54 am

Coach? Let me help you with that, post this quote on farcebook and let us know how it works out. “If the color of your skin is the only thing that makes your life matter you are a racist.” Little Markeemark gets very cross when people post anything even close to truth or facts about anything at all.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Coach Springer
November 16, 2021 7:11 am

I’m curious to know what form this interjection took.

Did you manage to post the excerpt?

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 16, 2021 6:26 pm

You can search and check Coaches or my timeline and find them. It seems to be impossible to copy and paste them.

Charles Higley(@higley7)
Reply to  Coach Springer
November 16, 2021 10:21 am

Ah, My Facebook and Discus accounts have become nonfunctional as of two weeks ago. The password can be reset but is then denied. They claim to be trying to fix the problem. Yeah, right. I do nothing of import or of opinion or science on Facebook, but would not be surprised as the tentacles of the censuring hydra go far.

H.R.
Reply to  Charles Higley
November 16, 2021 9:40 pm

Hail Hydra!

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Charles Higley
November 17, 2021 2:00 am

Just for giggles, I have decided to start linking WUWT articles and other reality-based work to the Porto 2018 Conference page that I own. Facebook keeps pestering me to post to this site, after all….

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Charles Higley
November 17, 2021 3:56 am

curious I manage to get “inflammatory content” lol posted as comments all over the place
NOT on fkbk cos I wont GO to the filthiest site on the net;-)

Mandobob
Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 17, 2021 7:26 am

Oh no, the worst is twitter and followed very closely by Reddit. Radioactive wastelands.

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Coach Springer
November 16, 2021 6:11 pm

I get that all the time. Click on their link and sneer at their B.S.. The first thing I get is a graph of Alberta temperatures from NOAA. Yes, they don’t even use a Canadian source.
It purportedly shows Alberta average temperatures rising by about 2 degrees.
A big lie right there. It is obviously a graph of data points from some obscure source and is probably only vaguely related to actual average temperatures. An average likely impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy anyway.
Error bars are also noticeably absent as usual. They would likely cover most of that 2 degrees.
As usual a graphic is used to support an assumption or more likely a purposeful misdirection.
Alberta may have warmed but to pretend you can determine how much with any degree of accuracy is preposterous. To pretend that that is any sort of problem for Albertans is even more ridiculous.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Coach Springer
November 17, 2021 7:15 am

Wolfram Alpha is kind of a technical “Ask Jeeves” type site – supposedly able to answer many types of technical, data-heavy questions. wolframalpha.com

You can go there and type in: “average temperature Stelvio Park Italy last 80 years” or any other town.

It will figure out a nearby temperature station, and will draw you a figure, where you can eyeball the trend.

Ed B(@sailboarder)
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
November 17, 2021 5:29 pm

What is its data source for temperature? Adjusted or not? GIGO?

fretslider
November 16, 2021 6:17 am

“These places were literally frozen in time,” Giovanni Cadioli, a historian and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Padua in Italy, told The Washington Post.”

Cooling post World War I? After all that shelling etc etc and the new fossil-fuelled aeroplanes flying everywhere?

“These places were literally roasted in time,” Michael E. Mann, a climate sceantist at State Penn in the US, told The Washington Post.”

That’s more like it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fretslider
November 16, 2021 7:12 am

Why does anyone listen to Michael Mann? Do they like being lied to?

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 16, 2021 8:24 am

As long as you are saying what they want to hear, they love being lied to.

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Editor
November 16, 2021 6:22 am

The 20th Century glacial advance is one heck of “an inconvenient truth”!

Graemethecat
Reply to  David Middleton
November 16, 2021 7:07 am

The Climatistas will merely assert that it was “local” cooling.

Ron Long
Reply to  Graemethecat
November 16, 2021 8:09 am

Right on. “cooling” is weather and “warming” is climate change.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  David Middleton
November 16, 2021 7:21 am

Cooling is warming, David. Ain’t nobody learnt you nuthin!

TonyG
Reply to  David Kamakaris
November 16, 2021 2:01 pm

I thought warming was cooling, David K.?

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  David Middleton
November 16, 2021 9:32 am

So is the glacial advance from 1830 – 1890 (accompanied by sea level rise)! When the temps and AR5 and AR6 forcings are just constant until 1910.

Richard Page
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
November 16, 2021 10:34 am

Yes. WW1 on the Italian front was characterised by both sides digging bunkers and connecting tunnels into the glaciers – the fighting was at short ranges, in high mountainous terrain and bitter cold. The ice may have covered the bunker entrances but I would guess that these bunkers would always have been below the surface of the glacier.

Rah
Reply to  Richard Page
November 17, 2021 2:09 am

How unscientific of you. Ask yourself why you refuse to look up the data and history that is available but instead just guess to suit your bias?

And most of the fighting on the Italian vr. Austrian-Hungarian front was not at short range. Both sides lugged lots of artillery pieces and even some heavy artillery up those mountains in order to dominate the limited avenues of approach and deny the enemy key terrain.

This former SF soldier specializing in Cold weather and Alpine ops has covered some of that ground in the company of Italian Army Alpinies who explained a bit of the history.

Last edited 5 months ago by Rah
ThinkingScientist
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
November 17, 2021 12:49 am

Actually I should have written “retreat” not “advance”!

So is the glacial RETREAT from 1830 – 1890 (accompanied by sea level rise)! When the temps and AR5 and AR6 forcings are just constant until 1910.

Last edited 5 months ago by ThinkingScientist
AndyHce
Reply to  David Middleton
November 16, 2021 12:05 pm

A WUWT post from an academic researcher about two years ago showed that major Cascade Mountain glaciers in the US northwest had retreated considerably further in the early 1950s than they have in this latest warming period. This was documented with park service records on USGS maps and ariel photographs. Obviously those glaciers had to have advanced significantly since the early 1950s before starting today’s retreat.

H.R.
Reply to  AndyHce
November 16, 2021 9:49 pm

Quite logical thinking, Andy.



We can’t have any of that. Cut it out.
😜

griff
Reply to  David Middleton
November 16, 2021 12:09 pm

It is a fact -as is the retreat since, the retreat which has increased since 1990 and further increased since 2011.

It is current and future retreat we ought to be paying attention to, not the behaviour of the past

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
November 16, 2021 12:23 pm

Wrong as usual Griffy. The cyclical growth and retreat of glaciers is hugely significant – the growth of glaciers can be far more catastrophic than their retreat. We need to know about the behaviour of the past as this will have huge consequences for all of us. Never forget we live in a cooling world and extensive glaciation is in our future – to deny that is to deny the entire history and geology of our world. Are you a denier, Griffy?

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  griff
November 16, 2021 1:00 pm

Griff “It is current and future retreat we ought to be paying attention to, not the behaviour of the past”

what, just in case the present and future turn out not to be unprecedented?

I mean, you might as well wave your hands about a bit and say “look…there’s a squirrel” to deflect attention from something that you might find inconvenient.

I have done a lot of work on glacier retreat (and sea level) data. For the long glacier records (ie those that go back to 1800 or earlier) the rates of retreat are statistically indistinguishable between the periods 1830 – 1880, 1910-1945 and 1975-2010.

The obvious fact that there was major glacial retreat from 1830 onwards, 80 years prior to any increasing in forcing or temps according to IPCC AR6 (or AR5 for that matter) seems to have been…overlooked. No surprise they don’t want to talk about it at the IPCC. And nor, it would seem, do you.

Last edited 6 months ago by ThinkingScientist
rbabcock
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
November 16, 2021 1:42 pm

I think you are assuming griff looks at anything other than the latest Guardian fake climate news articles and are severely overestimating his knowledge of anything.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
November 16, 2021 2:54 pm

It is current and future {insert any weather event here} we ought to be paying attention to, not the behaviour of the past

Why is that, griff? Is it because the past disproves your quaint but dangerous CAGW hypothesis, perhaps?

Streetcred
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 16, 2021 8:21 pm

griff doesn’t like wavy lines on his graphs, strictly linear !

Craig from Oz
Reply to  griff
November 16, 2021 9:56 pm

not the behaviour of the past

Not the behaviour of the past?

So those ‘Pre-Industrial Levels(tm)’ we hear so much about? You suggesting we shouldn’t be paying attention to them?

This is the point, Young Griff. The entire Scam revolves around the various key metrics deviating away from the magical ‘perfect’ state of ‘Pre-Industrial’ because anything else will destroy the planet. Apparently.

Can we put you down as a ‘IPCC Cynic’ now? Or are you still terrified Greta may burn you with her lazer vision for playing Dare You on a public forum?

Rah
Reply to  griff
November 17, 2021 1:51 am

LOL! Griff just summed up the fundamental thing a person must believe and practice to be a denier of natural climate change.

TonyG
Reply to  Rah
November 17, 2021 6:45 am

I think that one line is one of the most telling statements griff has ever made.

Nial
Reply to  griff
November 17, 2021 2:56 am

“It is current and future retreat we ought to be paying attention to, not the behaviour of the past”

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 17, 2021 7:58 am

When the past favors your religious views, we must concentrate on the past.
When the past refutes your religious views, the past must be ignored.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 16, 2021 3:42 pm

??? David?

A glacial advance is, er, glacial in speed?
Except, centuries advance all too fast for me…

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Editor
Reply to  ATheoK
November 16, 2021 3:47 pm

+42×1042

Pauleta
November 16, 2021 6:23 am

Climate change taketh it away, climate change broughth it back.

And those who write the articles failed to see the irony of their conclusions.

Duane
November 16, 2021 6:26 am

To a propagandist, there is only the Message, it alone must be promoted, and there are no “on the other hands” or any other information whatsoever that conflicts with the Message. All non-Message information is consigned to the “memory hole” of Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four”.

Michael in Dublin
November 16, 2021 6:29 am

A little bit of history upends the alarmist models. The modelers really need to get out of their academic towers and back into the real world.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
November 16, 2021 8:18 am

Seems they don’t find the way out or the don’t know there is a way 😀

2hotel9
November 16, 2021 6:51 am

Funny, I read this and thought “Lost WW1 bunker?” got out a couple of my history books covering Austro-Hungarian/Italian campaigns and SHAZAM there it was, not lost at all just covered up. People who do not study history are continually shocked to “find” things they claim were “lost”, such as planes under snow/ice in Greenland or Antarctica, or ships sunk around Manhattan Island in the 1700s. Lack of proper education is quite sad, it really is.

fretslider
Reply to  2hotel9
November 16, 2021 7:09 am

The woods around Trento (the Trentino) are full of first world war dugout positions that it’s easy to fall into now that they’ve had a century of being overgrown.

Over the other side were the Austro-Hungarians, I would imagine that side of the alps is similar.

Great for mushroom hunting!

2hotel9
Reply to  fretslider
November 16, 2021 7:18 am

Ian McCollum has several videos about WW1 fortifications that can be toured. And I bet these “journalists” would be shocked to find out there is a road/tunnel/bridge complex in the northern Italian Alps that you can visit. Sections of it are pretty snowy/icy, too.

Richard Page
Reply to  2hotel9
November 16, 2021 12:30 pm

On some stretches of the Italian front, these bunkers were often dug into the glaciers by both the Italians and Austrians. I don’t see either the covering up or uncovering of these structures as being particularly significant – if there were structures dug into the ground underneath a retreating glacier then that might be another matter.

2hotel9
Reply to  Richard Page
November 17, 2021 6:14 am

There is a picture of Italian Alpine troops using a Maxim machinegun in anti-aircraft role, it is mounted on a pedestal made of packed and frozen snow. The Finns used ice fortification to good effect during the Winter War with Russia, and the Russians used same extensively in fighting the Germans.

Read an article a couple of months ago detailing finds being made in Switzerland and Iceland where glaciers have retreated. One of the researchers in Iceland made the point they have to work fast because the ice will cover over fairly quickly as it has in the past. Nothing new under the Sun, just some things have not seen the sun for awhile. 😉

MarkW
Reply to  2hotel9
November 16, 2021 10:30 am

Lost also means unreachable.
If I drop a wrench overboard, I’ve lost it.
However I know exactly where it is, down there on the bottom of the ocean.

2hotel9
Reply to  MarkW
November 17, 2021 6:00 am

That is a distinction I highly doubt any of this current crop of “journalists” or “climate scientists” could grasp without extensive re-education in basic elementary school subjects.

Graemethecat
November 16, 2021 7:05 am

It seems not to have occurred to the journalist who wrote the piece that the climate at the time the bunker was built must have been at least as warm as today.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Graemethecat
November 16, 2021 7:16 am

These kinds of facts seem to completely escape the thinking of the alarmists.

Tree stumps uncovered by recently melting glaciers means those trees grew in a warmer environment that exists today. It’s irrefutable evidence that we are not living in the hottest time in history, as the alarmists claim.

Casey
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 16, 2021 10:35 am

Is there a source that identifies the location of treelines throughout the Holocene and the discovery of tree remains indicating treeline extents? I’ve seen separate studies re Siberia, Scandinavia, Alaska, certain mountain ranges. Is there something that summarizes most of the disparate studies?

Mr.
Reply to  Graemethecat
November 16, 2021 7:28 am

C’mon man!
When you’re like 22 years old now and like writing about something that like happened in like 1914-18 it’s like you know, PREHISTORIC.

Chas
Reply to  Mr.
November 16, 2021 7:45 am

I think that you are correct, the climate scare really demonstrates why young people shouldnt be given a vote 😉

Bob Hunter
Reply to  Graemethecat
November 16, 2021 7:35 am

The Same when Trees were exposed in Alaska Glaciers or lost aircraft in Greenland during WWII. Not only journalists but climate scientists.

Last edited 6 months ago by Bob Hunter
November 16, 2021 7:49 am

The purpose of this story is man is warming earth….everything is melting….man is a bad person…..man must be forced to stop causing warming.

Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 7:56 am

Debunking climate articles published elsewhere is not helping WUWT or the readership.

What I used to like about WUWT was the wide range of original works that were published. Now it seems there is a filter in place and only a limited range of articles are acceptable.

WUWT is making a mistake in believing a narrower focus makes it more acceptable. WUWT will never be acceptable to mainstream media.

WUWT exists because it is controversial. At least it used to be. Even unto itself. Somewhere along the way it started to take itself too seriously, believing that WUWT knows the “true” answer. It doesn’t. No one does.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 9:50 am

I haven’t noticed much change over the years.

I would love to get some of the Hockey Team members over here making their “unprecedented warming” claims, but that’s probably not going to happen. They don’t like an uncensored forum.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 16, 2021 4:09 pm

Agreed!

Apparently, e fox got the same misinformation typically given to new trollops that WUWT only exists to deny something they don’t understand and that the trollop should harp about such silly nonsense.

Voila! An ignorant accusation from e fox.
Instead, it identities them as never actually reading WUWT articles or the comments.

Perversely ignorant, it galls them that WUWT won the “Best” Science information website a number of years in a row.
Swept the Best Science site category is how it is described.

Winning even after the owner/operator of the awards tried to restrict WUWT and other science websites like JoNova and ClimateAudit into weather/climate roles exclusively.
Then dropped the awards completely when fans complained vociferously. (They were taking a lot of pressure behind the scenes from devotional alarmists, mostly because the alarmist websites routinely fared dead last.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 10:11 am

Debunking climate articles published elsewhere is not helping WUWT or the readership.

Could you expand on this opinion? In some instances, it isn’t possible to debunk the articles where they were originally published, such as at The Conversation.

WUWT probably has a wider readership, on both sides of the argument, than some of the quoted articles publishers, and low probability of being censored. What is the downside to debunking them here?

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 10:22 am

Debunking of alarmist propaganda seems useful to me. And probably most of all for newcomers who have only been exposed to that propaganda up until now.

Even in my case, as a confirmed ACW denier, I didn’t know things like that the 1930’s were the warmest in the past 100 years, that the recent floods in Germany were way below previous flood markings on the walls of older buildings. Not to mention the charts from the JMA showing that Tokyo hasn’t gotten on bit warmer in forever.

there is a filter in place and only a limited range of articles are acceptable” I have no data on this, but I sincerely doubt that. I’m guessing if you have “original works” to publish here, that would be quite welcome.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Robert Hanson
November 16, 2021 1:02 pm

I agree. And perhaps in a more “castigat ridendo” mood.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Robert Hanson
November 17, 2021 7:56 pm

Even in my case, as a confirmed ACW denier”

Advanced Camel Worrier?

David Pentland
Reply to  Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 11:03 am

I’m old enough to remember when Roman Catholic mass was in Latin, very few understood it, few questioned it.

The same with the church of AGW. People accept the preisthood’s proclamations about “average global climate”, CO2 “trapping heat” “like a greenhouse” etc. without understanding.

No one knows the “true” future climate, but the average “churchgoer” accepts that we have sinned and must pay penance. Until the Green self flagellation gets too painful, it will continue.

Mike
Reply to  Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 4:11 pm

 At least it used to be. Even unto itself. Somewhere along the way it started to take itself too seriously, believing that WUWT knows the “true” answer.”
Bullshit. WUWT questions and exposes obvious nonsense claims which are based on speculation and hysterical viewpoints – and there is an ever increasing amount. It does not pretend to know the ”true answer” but illuminates the discrepancies of those that claim they do and offers alternative and usually more valid possibilities.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 10:20 pm

Ummm.. no. Sorry Ed, but completely disagree.

‘Elsewhere’ is a big place, and when casually discussing topics with others we are sometimes confronted with claims like “I read about a study that claimed all studies were secretly ghost written by Greta” (or words to that effect).

Had we not been aware of this study we would be forced to, at best, say that “I have not heard of that study so I can’t comment on it beyond that it doesn’t sound very plausible”.

To which our conversation partner would then reply, “See? You think you know about this topic but you don’t. Ha ha ha. Your buy, and see if you can order some fries while you are at the bar.”

By discussing the study here at WUWT, debunking or otherwise, us readers become more aware of some of the other discussions going on in the wider community.

Also, to address some of your other points, not being accepted by MSM is bad? Really?

Spoiler – MSM actively resent any media that isn’t themselves. They are firm believers of the top down transfer of knowledge with the people with the means to publish in the traditional sense (aka – THEM) are the ones who should be filtering knowledge to ensure the great unwashed do not get distracted.

The MSM dislike ‘nu-media’ because a lot of that works on the sideways model where the unwashed discuss issues between themselves and start to reduce or ignore entirely their reliance on the MSM to provide them with ‘facts’.

Saying a nu media blog will never be accepted by the MSM unless it chances its ways is a bit like saying that unless the KKK moves into the 21st century they will never improve their membership rates with African Americans. Nu Media is a RIVAL to MSM.

Chas
November 16, 2021 8:05 am

For a bit of fun; here is Charles Lyell talking about the movements of glacier fronts:
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=AC1bAAAAcAAJ&pg=GBS.PA16&printsec=frontcover
(~page 17)

Graemethecat
Reply to  Chas
November 16, 2021 2:08 pm

Lyell and his contemporaries did not have digital computers or satellites, and were therefore obliged to go out and examine the physical world at first hand, making them vastly better and more astute scientists than today’s clowns.

Chas
Reply to  Graemethecat
November 16, 2021 6:08 pm
Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 8:15 am

In science, peer review is anonymous but authorship is not. Why the distinction? In many sciences, not just climate science, there is a pecking order.

This order favors the established scientist over the newcomers. And this holds for publishing. A Rembrandt is judged valuable as much for the signature as the quality of the pigments.

Yet does this make sense in science? Should not the quality of ideas come from the ideas themselves, not from the name of the author?

As such, would it not make sense that the author of a scientific paper should be as anonymous as the reviewers, lest the name of the authors unduly influence the weight given to a paper?

Especially in today’s cancel culture where any ideas that stray from the culturally approved norms are considered heresy. Where cancelling of one’s career has become a modern day form of witch burning.

By making all scientific papers anonymous all can be valued based on merit, without the social pressure to conform to established doctrine or pecking order.

Ed Fox
Reply to  Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 8:31 am

Rather than sign a scientific paper with a name, sign it with a public key. All correspondence to you can then be encrypted in this key and only you can read it. You can thus prove authorship at any time, but none can trace the paper to you.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 9:57 am

“Yet does this make sense in science? Should not the quality of ideas come from the ideas themselves, not from the name of the author?

As such, would it not make sense that the author of a scientific paper should be as anonymous as the reviewers, lest the name of the authors unduly influence the weight given to a paper?”

That would work for me, as long as the anonymous scientists provided all the data they used to reach their conclusions. We don’t need names in that case. Just the facts.

Too bad we can’t get that from the Hockey Stick Team, The Keepers of the Earth’s Temperature Profile. They say, “Take our word for it, the temperatures are hotter than ever before in human history.”

It doesn’t feel all that hot to me. Take my word for it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 10:23 am

In science, peer review is anonymous but authorship is not.

A distinction needs to be made between reviewers who act as gatekeepers for the publishers, and the actual peers who critique the published research under their names, titles, and affiliations.

Gatekeepers can prevent research from being published. Peers can prevent the claims of the researchers from being accepted.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Ed Fox
November 16, 2021 11:22 am

When I peer-reviewed papers for refereed conferences, the review copies did not have the author’s name, or names in the case of two authors. However, looking at the list of references, I could, occasionally, determine the identity of the author. And no paper ever had more than three authors.

Joseph Zorzin
November 16, 2021 8:32 am

“The Washington Post forgot to mention the late 1900s glacial advance which covered the WW1 structures with ice in the first place”

I recall reading somewhere- not sure where- but many of those structures were built into the ice. One of distant relatives was in the Italian Mountain army- I saw a picture of him – they wore a feather in their hat as part of their uniform. He died in that fighting.

AndyHce
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 16, 2021 12:22 pm

As with secret US bases built under the ice in Greenland during WWII that are now being uncovered as the ice melts away.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  AndyHce
November 16, 2021 10:40 pm

sorry Andy.

Best reference to this claim is from the Guardian. It – using the trusted line of ‘scientists have said’ – that is COULD become exposed (probably around 2090)

Even the Guardian admits the base is currently under 30 or so metres of ice (up from the 8m when it was abandoned.

Be a bit careful with some of these ‘from under the ice’ stories. When trying to find pictures of the bunkers I ended up on a NASA site that happily mentioned in passing the Lost Squadron of WW2 vintage with the casual implication that the aircraft were found when the ice melted.

The truth is that the aircraft went from ‘surface’ level in the 1940s when they force landed to 90m below when they were recovered and far from melting to the surface, the team were forced to dig down into the ice.

The ‘Grand Melt’ is not as simple as Greta wants us to believe… probably cause she never went to school… Just saying…

Sara
November 16, 2021 9:02 am

“To be fair glaciers do not only respond to temperature, changes in land use and snowfall patterns can also have an impact.” – article

Ummmm……. is that because glaciers are made of ice, which is compacted snow, and it’s all frozen water and frozen water melts when things get warm?

Anyone know the answer to that? Anyone? Jack?

Ted
Reply to  Sara
November 16, 2021 10:21 am

I may be misunderstanding the question – it does relate to the fact that glaciers are just compacted snow. The article is pointing out that getting warm isn’t the only reason for glaciers to shrink.

At Kilimanjaro, there is much less ice than there used to be, not because temperatures changed, but because the forests at its base were cut down. The loss of the forests allows higher wind speeds and reduces the humidity; in addition to less snowfall, there was more evaporation.

Regional snowfall patterns can change over time, sometimes colder temperatures also lead to less snow in the winter.

MarkW
Reply to  Sara
November 16, 2021 10:34 am

Ice also sublimates, even when temperatures are below freezing.

Reply to  MarkW
November 16, 2021 5:20 pm

Sublimation is only when the temperatures are below freezing.

Can’t sublimate without the heat

Without the addition of energy (heat) to the process, ice would not sublimate into vapor.

That is where sunlight plays a large role in the natural world.

Water has a physical property called the “heat of vaporization,” which is the amount of heat required to vaporize water. If you want an exact amount of heat, the heat of vaporization of water is 540 calories/gram, or 2,260 kilojoules/kilogram.

That is a lot more energy than is needed to convert water to ice (the latent heat of fusion), which is 80 calories/gram.

And, it is also about five times the energy needed for heating water from the freezing point to the boiling point.

In summary, energy is needed for the sublimation of ice to vapor to occur, and most of the energy is needed in the vaporization phase.

A cubic centimeter (1 gram) of water in ice form requires 80 calories to melt, 100 calories to rise to boiling point, and another 540 calories to vaporize, a total of 720 calories.

Sublimation requires the same energy input, but bypasses the liquid phase.”

Clyde Spencer
November 16, 2021 10:00 am

An article in SciTechDaily shows some recent satellite imagery along with the remark,

In 2014, European scientists reported that a subset of glaciers in Stelvio National Park had lost 40 percent of their surface area from 1954 to 2007, and that melting rates were accelerating. Over the past century, Stelvio Glacier has lost about 100 meters of thickness, …

https://scitechdaily.com/climate-change-reveals-military-history-melting-glaciers-recently-exposed-artifacts-of-war-in-the-alps/

Interestingly, it appears that the glaciers have expanded their area in some regions of the Landsat images, particularly the center of the upper-right quadrant.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 16, 2021 10:36 am

They did admit that it was on a “subset” of the glaciers that were losing mass. They didn’t mention anything about the glaciers that weren’t in this “subset”.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
November 16, 2021 2:27 pm

The critical point is that the way the statement was worded would leave readers thinking that because the rates were “accelerating,” one could expect 40% loss or more for all the glaciers. There was no explicit mention of the fact that some glaciers are apparently growing.

TonyG
November 16, 2021 10:48 am

So we’re going back to the conditions of the early 1900’s and this is bad.
But staying in the conditions we’re in now is bad.

Have you noticed that they never tell you what conditions they would consider GOOD?

Doonman
Reply to  TonyG
November 16, 2021 2:22 pm

Of course they tell you what conditions would be considered good.

1) Stop all use of fossil fuels
2) Install rare earth battery walls everywhere.
3) Cover the earth with solar cells and windmills.
4) Raise the price of all world goods.

And finally, the real reason anybody would consider such nonsense “good” anyway:

Eliminate half of the world’s human population because its not sustainable.

Gerald Hanner
November 16, 2021 10:50 am

Just keep in mind that frozen bunkers had very little growing in them for around 100 years. I have never seen a farm or a vineyard growing on a glacial slope.

n.n
November 16, 2021 11:39 am

Climate drift(s).

griff
November 16, 2021 12:08 pm

‘the melting process has gathered speed since 2011. In the hydrological year 2017-2018 alone, the 1,500 Swiss glaciers lost 2.5% of their total volume 

At this rate, half of the Alpine glaciers are likely to disappear altogether in the next 30 years, says a recent study by the Federal Institute for Technology in Zurich and the Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research. If nothing is done to bring down greenhouse gas emissions, every single glacier in Switzerland and in Europe is likely to melt away by the end of the century, the scientists warn’

Glaciers and the changing landscape in the Alps – SWI swissinfo.ch

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 16, 2021 12:40 pm

Take a cyclical process and predict disaster based on extrapolation of the latest upward swing’s trend. Real CliSciFi there.

bonbon
Reply to  griff
November 16, 2021 12:40 pm

You do know Hannibal invaded Rome with elephants via the Alps? No glacier stopped the convoy.
I’m pretty sure Hannibal had no Hummers? Maybe EV elephantine chariots?

Reply to  bonbon
November 16, 2021 5:40 pm

Hannibal would not get anywhere near as far into the mountains when trying to cross them.
That is how much colder our current climate is.

There has been a lot of searching for the actual passes and paths Hannibal took over the Alps. Apparently, the evidence that would verify which mountain passes were taken are hidden under glaciers.

MFKBouler
Reply to  ATheoK
November 17, 2021 2:37 pm

My crude guess: you haven’t been in the Alps nor did you cross one of the passes between France and Italy.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  bonbon
November 17, 2021 1:29 pm

No Porblem to cross the Montgenevre Pass this year around the time Hanibal was here 2250 years ago:

https://m.webcam-hd.com/montgenevre/front-de-neige

Graemethecat
Reply to  MFKBoulder
November 18, 2021 3:23 am

I’ve just taken a look at your webcam link today (18 Nov), and there’s deep and abundant snow.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Graemethecat
November 18, 2021 5:42 am

Deep? Yes artificial snow from the snow cannons. Just turn the pic and you will see: not more than two inches.

and 4 days ago: there was even green grass to see.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
November 16, 2021 2:34 pm

In the hydrological year 2017-2018 alone, the 1,500 Swiss glaciers lost 2.5% of their total volume 

Can you guarantee that there have been no advances in the ice in recent years? If not, then you are obviously Cherry Picking to extrapolate based on a single year. Are you interested in Truth, or just trying to trick others to adopt your religion?

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 17, 2021 1:31 pm
MFKBouler
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 17, 2021 2:33 pm

In case you can read (and comprehend) the article written in French, you could read that the Swiss glaciers lost in the 10 years 2009 to 2018 one fifth of their volume.

Derg
Reply to  griff
November 16, 2021 3:35 pm

Are you sure you are not Simon?

MarkW
Reply to  Derg
November 17, 2021 8:10 am

Simon spends all his time whining about how other people never present evidence that he’s willing to accept.

Reply to  griff
November 16, 2021 5:33 pm

From giffiepoo’s linked article:

“Modelling the future evolution of glaciers in the European Alps under the EURO-CORDEX RCM ensemble”

Models ain’t reality!

1,500 Swiss glaciers lost 2.5% of their total volume

2.5% in one year? Every glacier likely to melt by the end of the century?
Utter fiction and completely false, giffie.

A) All glaciers are NOT melting. Some are growing. Which if you actually read the comments here, you would have discovered that fact before foolishly accepting the alarmist lies.

B) Apparently those models you worship fail to recognize or consider the cycles inherent in climate. That much of the topic discussion here are about finding WWI history below a glacier.
Nope! giffie worships the alarmist nonsense and rather believes the worst than accept that reality is far more moderate.

May you enjoy your cold winter, giffie.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 17, 2021 8:09 am

Once again, griff assumes that the current rates of warming will not only continue, but drastically accelerate. The only evidence for this belief are the climate models that haven’t successfully modeled anything to date.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
November 17, 2021 8:12 am

griff a little factoid for you.

In 1986 the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska surged at the rate of 10 metres per day across the mouth of the Russell Fjord and in two months had dammed water in the fjord and created a lake.

No doubt if you had been around at the time you would have said that it was incontrovertible evidence of an imminent global cooling disaster.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Dave Andrews
November 17, 2021 1:33 pm

surging glaciers are in most cases a sign of glacier melt in the upper part of the glacier. (glaciology 101)

Last edited 5 months ago by MFKBoulder
bonbon
November 16, 2021 12:28 pm

Before anyone gets the idea Bern is frozen in time :
https://migflug.com/jetflights/hidden-swiss-air-force/
Anyone who has ever lived in Switzerland should check their basement nuclear bomb doors – actually a great place to store victuals, with bicycle oxygen pumps!
Charming stories about quaint Alp WWI emplacements are so silly!
Weather, and glaciers, come and go – the Confederation Helvetique continues for 700 years, and that includes the Little Ice Age (ok, then a smaller Confederation).

Joe E
November 16, 2021 3:28 pm

I guess the question of how these items got there in the first place did not dawn upon the discoverers. So there was no ice some time back when they were placed there? duh

Doug Proctor
November 16, 2021 5:41 pm

Climate change activists have an important advantage over the realists: to them, today is Special. Previous times, geological evidence of even the MWP etc are not relevant: today is Special. Even physics is Special: CO2 warms the world more than ever, because our unnatural “carbon pollution ” is special, both in source and rapidity of production. Glacial ice tells us nothing. We have to believe the IPCC models because computers are a special tool we didn’t have before to predict what was not predictable.

There is no value in historical comparisons. None about physics and chemistry or what we know about CO2. Today’s fossil fuel CO2 is unique and therefore, it’s impact is unique. Special.

Even the activists are Special and their eco-green philosophy is Special. Warnings about other totalitarian, utopian, communtarian (even Marxist) social disasters are irrelevant because the climate “crisis ” is a Special threat and the activists Specially equipped to use the tools of those disasters in a life-improving manner.

Jpatrick
November 16, 2021 7:07 pm

One wonders how bad things must have been before WW1 to cause glacial retreat that would permit construction of such a structure. It seems that the climate got “better” to allow glacial advance, and now it’s “bad” again and the glaciers have retreated to reveal a 100 year old structure.

Amazing how much control we humans have to cause glacial advance and retreat.

Craig from Oz
November 16, 2021 8:11 pm

To misquote…

“Children won’t know what the Austro-Hungarian Empire is.”

(also, sod the climate discussion, I want to look at the bunker 😀 )

Howard Dewhirst
November 17, 2021 2:40 am

IF WE ARE IN THE HOTTEST SUMMER EVER, HOW COME IT STILL HAS NOT MELTED ALL THE ICE THAT FROZE THESE BUNKERS? SURELY IT WAS WARMER THEN, WHEN CUMULATIVE HUMAN EMISSIONS HAD JUST REACHED 12 PPM?

ozspeaksup
November 17, 2021 3:54 am

yeah amazing like frozen tundra trees etc they NEVER stop and think that to BE there buried they were UNburied open land at one time, and those soldiers werent dug into glaciers at that time either
morons too kind a word really

MFKBoulder
November 17, 2021 1:22 pm

The Washington Post forgot to mention the late 1900s glacial advance which covered the WW1 structures with ice in the first place (see above).

Nope: they did not mention this since Eric Worrall spreads here “alternative facts”. The picture he is referring to shows the percentage of galciers advancing. And ot the amount of meters they advanced.

look at the upper part of these austrian data:
Vorstoss: advancing
Rückgang: retreating
mittlere Längenänderung: mean lenth change. There did not happen much in the 70s and 80s.

https://www.alpenverein.at/portal/service/presse/2021/2021_04_09_gletscherbericht-2020.php

there you see that the retreat of 1963 and 1964 compensates all the advances from 1975 to 1984. Not to mention the retreat in the 1930ies anf 1949ies.

Thus: no need to dicuss this in length. Astonishing that in 111 coments nobody saw this flaw in Eric’s statement. AFAIR this is called confirmation bias.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MFKBoulder
November 17, 2021 8:12 pm

All of this is short term myopia. None of it really matters. Hell, the glaciers could disappear altogether, life would go on.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 18, 2021 7:08 am

Who told you that life would not go on without galciers?

o.k. with a smal galcier the Boulder (CO) watershed has some advantage but for a higher price water shortages can be handeled withput this galcier, too.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MFKBoulder
November 18, 2021 12:30 pm

Oh I don’t know, the UN? Scoldilocks? Biden? Obama? The entire corporate media?

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 18, 2021 1:19 pm

Just bring me the quote wher UN did say that life is over as soon as the glaciers are gone.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MFKBoulder
November 24, 2021 8:47 pm

You know what I mean. The entire “glaciers melting, earth overheating, polar bears dying.” It’s all part of the narrative. But they never seem to retract when the narrative isn’t true.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MFKBoulder
November 18, 2021 12:31 pm

o.k. with a smal galcier the Boulder (CO) watershed has some advantage but for a higher price water shortages can be handeled withput this galcier, too.”

And if the glaciers were advancing, water would be even more scarce.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 18, 2021 12:57 pm

Nope: larger area thus larger melt area in summer thus more water when you need it to water your lawn.

it is so easy.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MFKBoulder
November 24, 2021 8:46 pm

And no water at other times, for those who rely on glacier melt, which isn’t me. I don’t water my lawn.

Graemethecat
Reply to  MFKBoulder
November 18, 2021 4:08 am

But you do accept that the climate was at least as warm in 1914 as it is today?

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Graemethecat
November 18, 2021 5:48 am

No why should I accept these alternative facts: in WW I these structures were carved in rock AND Ice. The ice (glacier) is vanishing now so it looks like it is warmer today than during WW I. Just go ahead and look for real scientific documents:

page 15 ff.
Das_Klima_von_Tirol-Suedtirol-Belluno.pdf

The graph from Böhm can be trusted, he never was an alarmist.

Last edited 5 months ago by MFKBoulder
MFKBoulder
Reply to  MFKBoulder
November 18, 2021 7:05 am

 these alternative facts” should be read as ” your alternative facts”

Graemethecat
Reply to  MFKBoulder
November 18, 2021 12:06 pm

Your link doesn’t work.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Graemethecat
November 18, 2021 1:00 pm

Sorry for not checking:

here we go:

http://www.alpenklima.eu/images/Das_Klima_von_Tirol-Suedtirol-Belluno.pdf

google should have worked as well.

Last edited 5 months ago by MFKBoulder
%d bloggers like this: