To Shrink or not to Shrink, That is the Question.

Preface. Roger Roots is the author who gave us this previous story Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs. ~cr

By Roger Roots J.D., Ph.D.,

The US Geological Survey (USGS) and National Park Service (NPS) have committed massive resources toward promotion of the glacier melt narrative at Glacier National Park (GNP). Various USGS and NPS signs, pamphlets, websites and films have predicted calamitous melting of the Park’s glaciers in the near future. During the winter of 2018-19, while the Park’s facilities were closed to the public, government workers quietly removed signs predicting the Park’s glaciers would all disappear by 2020.

Since 2015 the USGS and NPS have prominently displayed data tables on their websites indicating that GNP’s glaciers have been steadily decreasing each half decade. The data table is frequently referenced in news stories to describe the plight of the glaciers as steadily receding.

Measuring glaciers can be quite difficult. Many glaciers are oddly shaped. Glaciers are not always snow white and can even be brown or soil-colored due to rock or dirt deposits. Calendar dates and temporary weather changes can make huge differences. Fresh snow can easily obscure the contours of glacier boundaries. The USGS reportedly uses satellites or aircraft to photograph glaciers from the air and then calculates acreages from such photos. (For earlier years, USGS apparently calculates such glacier sizes from old photographs. There are many problems regarding this, to say the least.)

But for all the government resources dedicated to the size of glaciers at GNP in recent years, the official table hasn’t been updated since 2015–SIX years ago. (And as I write these words the table is missing from USGS sites.) Last fall I emailed officials at USPS and inquired. A USGS scientist named Caitlyn Florentine responded by claiming “We aim to update glacier margin data sets whenever late-summer, cloud-free, smoke-free satellite imagery covering GNP glaciers is acquired.” “The last few years this has not happened . . . .”

Mountain Goat at Hidden Lake near Logan Pass in Glacier National Park
Mountain Goat at Hidden Lake near Logan Pass in Glacier National Park. By Robert M. RussellOwn work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Just this past weekend Dr. Florentine emailed to let me know that “2021 aerial imagery of glaciers in Glacier National Park was aquired [during the Fall]” “Publication preparation is underway.”

Why is this significant? Because the summer of 2021 was unusually hot and dry across Montana and the Rocky Mountains. Many locations near the National Park experienced heat waves and set records for draught. The data soon to be released will likely show new record lows for Glacier Park’s 35-or-so glaciers. And these new low figures may not accurately reflect the true trajectory of size changes among the GNP glaciers.

Prior to the heat waves of 2021, many observers (including myself) perceived that glacier melt rates had largely stabilized over the past decade. In fact there were several recent winters with record cold and snowfall. A Masters thesis by Melissa Carrie Brett of Portland State University, “Glacier Inventories and Change in Glacier National Park,” found that GNP’s glaciers melted at faster rates prior to the 1970s than in later years–thus contradicting the catastrophic-global-warming-by-manmade-CO2 hypothesis.

BOTTOM LINE: in the very near future, USGS will probably publish data indicating GNP’s glaciers are steadily melting, in line with the climate-change theory; but USGS’ decision to delay measuring in 2019 or 2020 and instead measure the glaciers after the extremely hot summer of 2021 should significantly undermine such a conclusion.

4.4 35 votes
Article Rating
121 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
griff
January 20, 2022 6:25 am

The heat waves of 2021 were of course caused by climate change… and likely to be repeated.

so the glaciers are still retreating due to climate change (as all but the highest ones are worldwide)

Old Goat(@khazi22)
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 6:53 am

There are heatwaves every year. They are far less hot, and far less widespread, and you, as usual, are talking utter nonsense.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Old Goat
January 22, 2022 12:38 am

Far less hot and widespread than what?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 6:55 am

Oy, you are such a git.

Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 7:02 am

Heatwaves are weather and will stay weather.

Dusty
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 7:49 am

I can’t help but laugh at your assertion that climate change is causing the climate to change.

Garboard
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 8:16 am

Is it possible to have any weather event that is not caused by climate change ?

Last edited 4 months ago by Garboard
Rick C
Reply to  Garboard
January 20, 2022 12:26 pm

Yes, if the weather is good – not climate change. If the weather is bad – climate change. See how easy it is to be a climate scientist?

Rational Db8
Reply to  Rick C
January 20, 2022 5:02 pm

Bingo!!! Heads you lose, tails Anthropogenic Climate Change wins.

Ted
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 8:42 am

Was the colder weather in 2019 and 2020 also caused by climate change? Or do you think natural variability only works in one direction?

fretslider
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 8:46 am

“The heat waves of 2021 were of course caused by climate change… and likely to be repeated.”

Dear oh dear. What a wind-up merchant you are, griff.

And always well short of a reference, a link or anything remotely evidential.

I’d say your delusions on the matter are caused by a relatively stable climate.

Aetiuz
Reply to  fretslider
January 20, 2022 1:27 pm

Here’s a link for you: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/heat-wave-index-usa

Oh, wait. That’s the wrong link. It shows the trend in heat waves has been flat for 80 years. That can’t be right. Can it? 🙂

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Aetiuz
January 22, 2022 12:58 am

Here’s another link. Seems the past several decades have seen a fairly steady rise in the area of US with unusually hot summers, with the 9-year average in 2014 topping that of the 1930s..
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/high-summer-temp-usa

And here’s the drought severity index for the SW US
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/drought-severity-index-us?country=~Southwest+US
(Since dry areas are predicted to get drier, and wet areas to get wetter, there is not the same trend across the whole US)

Global precipitation anomaly:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-precipitation-anomaly

…Thanks for the link! It’s fun site to explore.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 9:09 am

Another lies from Griff who doesn’t understand the difference between WEATHER and climate.

The Glacial retreats in Montana started long before CO2 increase began because it was coming out of the LIA time frame which had increased those glaciers to its greatest extent in the first place.

meab
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 20, 2022 4:29 pm

In fact, many mid-continental glaciers (like the glaciers in the Grand Tetons just south of GNP) didn’t exist at all at the end of the Medieval Warm period in 1300 AD – they had completely melted. Of those, the ones we have today regrew from zero during the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850. Some (only some) of the GNP glaciers are older, but all didn’t exist during the Holocene Climate Optimum ~7,000 years ago.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 9:20 am

One can always count on griff to push the company line. No matter how little sense it makes.

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 9:38 am

The heat waves of 2021 were of course caused by climate change

And of course you will continue to believe and repeat that.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 10:49 am

Why don’t you quote your darling UK Met Office?

“For the UK the overall picture of the year as a whole is fairly ‘average’, with temperature and sunshine levels fairly close to the long-term average and rainfall slightly below.”

Ron Long
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 11:38 am

griff, maybe the GNP glaciers retreated to a lower level in December, 2021, but the Sierra Nevada set a new snowfall record, by 4 feet, for December, 2021. Remember Goldilocks? Somewhere glaciers are melting and somewhere snow is in record accumulation and somewhere the December, 2021, is exactly normal?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 12:01 pm

If climate change — defined as the average weather over 30-years — is responsible for heat waves, then shouldn’t every year have ever worsening heat waves? Why was 2021 cooler than 2020, when there were significant declines in anthropogenic CO2?

Have you read this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/06/the-gestalt-of-heat-waves/

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 22, 2022 1:02 am

That makes no sense. Why would there be a steady year-to-year increase if one is talking about 30-year averages?

Alan Millar
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 12:52 pm

Hi Griff

We are in the Holocene inter-glacial.

What happens, generically, during inter-glacials, vis a vis, ice, glaciers and sea levels?

Why would you think these generic processes should not be happening in the middle of an inter-glacial?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Alan Millar
January 21, 2022 7:51 am

Should be A Holocene inter-glacial. This is just the latest one.

Kristi Silber
Reply to  Alan Millar
January 22, 2022 1:35 am

Ummm … you’d see an increase or decrease in average worldwide temps, ice, glaciers and sea levels, depending on where you were in the inter-glacial period…generically speaking.

The generic processes would be happening. The difference now is that they are rapid and due to anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there’s no reason to think there will be a reversal of these changes, and they are already causing economic problems, warfare, migrations, and terrible human suffering.

I got back from Morocco a few weeks ago. While there, I made friends with a nomad on the edge of the Sahara. A few days ago, he told me that 3 of their 10 camels had died of starvation within a week. These are people who are accustomed to occasional drought, but this has been going on for years. It’s affecting huge areas of Africa, and people are dying. It’s easy to sit in our comfortable houses arguing about this stuff on the internet, but millions of people in other parts of the world are experiencing obvious climate change, and suffering because of it.

The data are there, but the deniers refuse to see it. Then there are those who acknowledge it, but refuse to take responsibility if it means even a small sacrifice. It’s sickening.

Panicky
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 1:53 pm

Caused by climate change? Yup, climate has been warming since LIA., I’m with you there.

Paul Blase
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 4:58 pm

What, precisely, was the ideal world temperature prior to, say, 1700 and the start of the industrial revolution. And, how long was the globe actually at that temperature?

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 8:49 pm

You will fit right in the cult of climageddon. Come on in, have some Kool-aid.

Hivemind
Reply to  griff
January 20, 2022 10:44 pm

“heat waves of 2021 were of course caused by climate change…”

My mistake, I though you were being sarcastic. Not just stupid.

Mike Edwards
Reply to  griff
January 21, 2022 2:37 am

the glaciers are still retreating due to climate change”

And yet, the glaciers have mostly still not retreated to their minimum extents for the Holocene – these minimum extents occurred many thousands of years ago, associated with the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

And is there anything bad about the glaciers retreating? Perhaps you think it is good for glaciers to be overrunning farmland and forests and destroying villages, as happened in the 17th and 18th centuries. For me, less ice seems a good thing.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Mike Edwards
January 21, 2022 7:54 am

Ah yes, one of the Biggest Lies They Tell You, the ridiculous notion that a warmer climate is worse for life on Earth, including humanity.

Must be why every previous warm period during the Holocene was referred to as a “Climate OPTIMUM.” You know, because the weather must have been so awful. “Optimum” = awful, doesn’t it? Oh wait!

M.W.Plia
January 20, 2022 6:26 am

What the USGS needs to say is that the data indicating GNP’s glaciers are steadily melting is in line with the centennial/millennial oscillations revealed in numerous ice core studies.

Not going to happen in my lifetime.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  M.W.Plia
January 20, 2022 6:42 am

the data is melting :-}

Derg
Reply to  M.W.Plia
January 20, 2022 8:29 am

Bingo…just like the slow rise in the sea.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Derg
January 20, 2022 12:08 pm

Which is about an order of magnitude slower than tectonic plate movement.

Reply to  M.W.Plia
January 20, 2022 9:42 am

More “Global Warming”…

SAHARA SEES RARE SNOW; THOUSANDS STRANDED ON TURKISH HIGHWAYS; RECORD COLD GRIPS MIDDLE EAST; RECORD SNOW TO CONTINUE IN U.S.; + HUNGA TONGA ERUPTION REVISED UP TO 39KM (128,000FT)…
January 20, 2022 Cap Allon
…such a stratospheric injection of particulates is expected to cool the planet by around 0.3C, lasting a period of 12-18 months.

Last edited 4 months ago by Allan MacRae
Doug
January 20, 2022 6:26 am

New alarmist signs ….Gone by 2030

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Doug
January 20, 2022 9:46 am

It’s great for tourism….all those people coming for their “last chance” to see the glaciers. New signs every decade is a cheap tourism industry subsidy.

Last edited 4 months ago by DMacKenzie
Doonman
Reply to  Doug
January 20, 2022 10:01 am

Remember, all the glaciers were gone in 2020. The Dept of the Interior said so and spent tax money installing signs to “educate” tourists.

Glacier-National-Park-Removes-Signs-2020.jpg
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Doonman
January 20, 2022 12:11 pm

Another errant computer model.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 21, 2022 7:57 am

I think “errant” is redundant there…one can simply assume that.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Doug
January 21, 2022 7:56 am

They should just make the last two numbers cards that can quickly be swapped out, like the old gas station price signs. That way they can keep moving the goal posts and hope nobody notices.

James Bull
January 20, 2022 6:48 am

Oh come on how can you question the ‘experts’ or the ‘science’. They and it have such a good, accurate and honest track record!
You just haven’t noticed you died years ago from Aids(a certain Dr The Science Fouci said it would be airborne and whole families would die if they touched the same items in the home), Bird Flu, Swine Flu and a few other sicknesses that were going to kill us all and of course we were going to freeze, fry, boil and die from starvation as well. Although I’m feeling quite well for all that.
Thank you for pointing this out as I’m sure the data from the past will be adjusted to help with the narrative so having you make a record of how things are will be helpful to point out the corruption.
Must say it looks like a beautiful place and if I ever came to the US it would be on my must visit list.

James Bull

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  James Bull
January 20, 2022 12:13 pm

Bring bear spray if you camp or hike.

Also, you need to learn how to distinguish black bear scat from grizzly bear scat. The grizzly bear scat is larger and contains little metal bells and smells like pepper.

R Taylor
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 20, 2022 12:26 pm

Q: What does the sound of a bell mean to a grizzly bear?
A: Lunch

James Bull
Reply to  R Taylor
January 21, 2022 1:09 am

The joke here is
Q-What’s brown and sounds like a bell?

A-DUNG.

Or

Q-What’s brown steams and comes out of Cowes backwards?

A-The Isle of Wight ferry.

Thank you for you’re helpful information.

James Bull

SMS
January 20, 2022 7:04 am

Glaciers have been melting back for the past 15 thousand years. At what point were they supposed to reach stasis?

Felix
January 20, 2022 7:04 am

*shrug* all they will do is set themselves up to removing the 2022 signs in 2023.

Coach Springer
January 20, 2022 7:18 am

I was there in September 2019. There were some clear days with no smoke. But then the week after I left with summer flowers in bloom at Glacier Park Lodge, East Glacier reported 5 feet of snow. I’m guessing there are satellite photo records available from then to contradict these 2021 photo conclusions. I hope the intrepid Dr. Roots is on it.

If one takes one of the boat tours, a guide may mention how the lakes and valleys were formed by gargantuan glaciers that then completely melted. If you listen closely to them, it is a much bigger cycle than our current worries over these ice formations that amount to parking lot snow piles compared to the natural ebb and flow over millions of years.

Tom Schaefer
Reply to  Coach Springer
January 20, 2022 10:34 am

Maybe that’s what we need to do now: Keep track of the day the snow mountains in a Walmart parking lot in Buffalo New York finally melts, or maybe improve the methodology with a few.

DHR
Reply to  Coach Springer
January 20, 2022 11:05 am

Google Earth Pro shows several clear crisp images of the park each year including 2015 up to just now, January 2022. I think it is reasonable to believe that NOAA simply did not want to look or if they did, did not like the results and binned them.

rhs
Reply to  DHR
January 20, 2022 4:31 pm

It isn’t NOAA that provides pic to Google Earth. They sourthe pics from commercial providers. It used to be strictly Digital Globe but now there are numerous companies doing satellite imagery. If there aren’t updates, then it is either none were provided to them or they didn’t pay for new images.

Fred Hubler
January 20, 2022 7:40 am

The highest temperature ever measured in Montana was 117 F in 1893 and again in 1937.
The highest temperature ever measured in Idaho was 118 F in 1934.
Not even the state of Washington had a new record high last year according to this: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records/all/tmax

Walter
January 20, 2022 7:47 am

So I have a friend who I am trying to get on to the skeptical position for “dangerous global warming.” I showed him this website along with the Heartland Institute and I explained to him how these scientists don’t receive any funding from the fossil fuel industry and they have no conflict of interesting or anything, yet he’s still having trouble trusting this site because he thinks this is some sort of crazy conspiracy aimed at tackling the “real” scientists. What should I do to convince him once and for all that this is all just a bunch of hysteria?

kim
Reply to  Walter
January 20, 2022 8:28 am

Excellent question with no easy answer. I have a few suggestions:

1 the failure of the GCMs to have predictive value useful for policy.
2 the epiphany of several leftists re the false narrative such as Shellenberger & Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the humans.
3 The statements of various politicians admitting the underlying purpose of authoritarian control.
4 Ask him Cuí Bono from the destruction of western industrialism and point out China’s behavior with respect to CO 2 release.
5 Admit mild but net beneficial warming from anthropogenic warming and point out the tremendous benefit of anthropogenic greening
6 Introduce him to Judy @ judithcurry.com
7 Never give up doubting the destructiveness of the false narrative of climate alarmism. Our descendants, struggling to stay warm, will understand how fatally foolish these terribly, wastefully expensive alarums are. Rage, rage against the lying and the fright.

There are many more; these are just a few off the top of my head on this frightfully frigid morning, the shape of things to come, maybe not soon, but surely, and for the rest of humanity’s lives.
=============

Graemethecat
Reply to  kim
January 20, 2022 1:14 pm

Try showing him the photo of the White Larch tree stump in Canada which is more than 100Km North of the current boreal treeline. Point out that this tree died at the end of the Holocene Thermal Optimum 5000 years ago, and ask him to explain why he thinks the World is unprecedently hot today.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 21, 2022 8:03 am

Winner!

nyolci
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 21, 2022 10:27 am

which is more than 100Km North of the current boreal treeline

False. The “current boreal treeline” for this species is exactly there. Is it you who always come up with this bs?

Mike Edwards
Reply to  nyolci
January 21, 2022 3:34 pm

The “current boreal treeline” for this species is exactly there.”

Are you trying to say that they current boreal treeline is as far north as it has ever been during the Holocene? That is not the case, either in North America or in Eurasia. See the following papers:

“Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia”https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589499921233

and

Holocene fire regimes and treeline migration rates in sub-arctic Canada”https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/104846/1/Swindles%20Holocene%20Sub-arctic.pdf

A quote from the second paper:
“by ca. 5,000 cal yr BP, boreal forests had expanded at least 150 km north of current position in North America”

An interesting quote from the first paper:
“the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern.” – this puts the “unprecedented” heatwaves in northern Siberia into a proper historical context.

nyolci
Reply to  Mike Edwards
January 22, 2022 4:15 pm

Are you trying to say that they current boreal treeline is as far north as it has ever been during the Holocene?

No. There’s a canard coming up regularly here, a photo with a tree trunk. Now that picture was taken at the current northernmost extreme of the tree line at a specific place. I was referring to that. And as I remember, Graemethecat is the one who posts that photo. (Though I’m not entirely sure.)

An interesting quote from the first paper:

You read too much into these papers. Of course they don’t contradict climate science. An interesting question though is why you accept these particular reconstructions while you dismiss (I’m pretty sure) others. These papers are just as part of climate science as the others like Mann’s. If you dismiss Mann’s paper, you have to dismiss these as well.

Last edited 4 months ago by nyolci
Mike Edwards
Reply to  nyolci
January 23, 2022 12:53 am

An interesting question though is why you accept these particular reconstructions while you dismiss (I’m pretty sure) others.”

You make a whole series of leaps based on…well, nothing.

The interesting question is why you do that…

nyolci
Reply to  Mike Edwards
January 23, 2022 10:31 am

A non-answer to my question. Again, why do you accept some reconstructions and dismiss others? Please remember these reconstructions do not contradict each other and they form a system (otherwise known as “scientific knowledge”). So you can’t just dismiss one reconstruction and accept another one.

Mike Edwards
Reply to  nyolci
January 24, 2022 2:57 pm

“Again, why do you accept some reconstructions and dismiss others?”

“(I’m pretty sure)”

So which reconstructions have I dismissed? In other words, just what are you talking about?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Walter
January 20, 2022 8:32 am

Get him my ebook Blowing Smoke: essays on energy and climate. The essays are full of illustrations (with references) to the ‘real scientists’ lies and deceptions. A number even highlight proven academic misconduct.

kim
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 20, 2022 8:47 am

Hear, hear.
Read, read.
========

Mr.
Reply to  Walter
January 20, 2022 8:58 am

Get some smarter friends Walter.🐮
Seriously, half the world’s population is too thick to realize that mind-altering drugs are going to, well – alter your mind.
(and not for the better).

So you trying to talk sense & rationality to some people is a pointless pursuit.

Case in point – how could any h0mo sapiens look at the essential physics, resourcing, engineering and economics of grid scale wind & solar power generation, storage and distribution and not conclude it is all an impossible undertaking?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Mr.
January 20, 2022 9:21 am

You can always tell an alarmist, you just can’t tell them much.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mr.
January 20, 2022 12:20 pm

So you trying to talk sense & rationality to some people is a pointless pursuit.

Yes! Read some of the almost 300 comments at SciTechDaily. Most of them are from certifiable members of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.

https://scitechdaily.com/earths-interior-is-cooling-much-faster-than-expected/

MarkW
Reply to  Walter
January 20, 2022 9:26 am

Show him temperature records that extend past the end of the LIA.

Here’s a few

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html
https://holoceneclimate.com/

Robert Wager
Reply to  Walter
January 20, 2022 9:35 am

Have the friend start with “Unsettled” by Dr. Koonin.

Doonman
Reply to  Walter
January 20, 2022 10:11 am

Remind him that machine power is measured in horsepower. Then point out that your lawnmower is 6 horsepower.

Then ask him how many horses he is ready to feed and board in order to do his work.

tygrus
Reply to  Doonman
January 20, 2022 4:43 pm

The measurement of 1 hp was not the maximum power of 1 horse. Most horses can achieve 12 to 15hp.
If you want the backyard grass kept short, better to buy 1 or more sheep.
https://www.carkeys.co.uk/guides/does-one-horsepower-really-equal-the-power-of-one-horse

DHR
Reply to  Walter
January 20, 2022 11:34 am

Walter, you could refer him to actual data. For example, available on the web is sea level data by both NOAA and the UK’s Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level at PSMSL.org. He will find for example,that for long term sea level gauges such as Battery Park in NYC, sea level has been rising at a steady rate since Abraham Lincoln was President. He can also see how much the land surface is rising or falling for many of the PSMSL sites. He could read https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70028069 and learn that on average, sea level has been increasing at a rate of about 1.5 to 2 mm/yr for the past 6,000 years or so. He can look at fire data, drought data, flood data, storm data and on and on and learn that things some claim are going to kill us all “in 10 years” as Leonardo DiCaprio recently shouted as did Al Gore many decades ago, are actually not getting worse. He can refer to climate4you.com and see actual data on many different attributes of climate including temperature data from all the biggies. He can also see on this site the changes that have been made to raw temperature records of all the biggies and see that somehow, NASA seems to believe that only temperature data around the year 1970 are accurate and that nearly all preceding data was to high and needs to be lower while nearly all following data was too low and needs to be raised.

If he does these things, I am sure he will be convinced to become a sceptic on the issue.

Reply to  DHR
January 20, 2022 12:38 pm

That’s an excellent USGS publication…thanks for the link. It’ll no doubt be disappeared from their records soon!

Rick C
Reply to  Walter
January 20, 2022 2:02 pm

Tell him he can find a list of real scientists at desmog.org under ‘climate deniers’. Note that this site is maintained by extremely biased climate alarmists propagandists not scientists.

I ask folks who believe the CAGW hype if they can describe negative effects of climate change they have personally directly observed. They tend to cite things like sea level rise, melting icecaps, declining polar bears, more storms, stronger hurricanes, etc. I point out these are not things they’ve personally observed. What they think is evidence is almost all just media hype. The truth is out there, but you need to dig deep and look closely to find it. WUWT is one of the best places to look for it.

GaryD
January 20, 2022 7:47 am

i visited GNP in late May 2021, prior to the heat wave. FWIW the glaciers I saw looked to be larger than the same ones in shown in photos published in signs around the park and in hand outs.

Pflashgordon
January 20, 2022 7:50 am

Are these words “ the plight of the glaciers” the author’s or from USGS? I find this language absurd, personifying ice, as if it is suffering. I have seen this type language from glaciologists elsewhere. Ice is frozen, inanimate H2O. It has no feelings. Glaciers and ice sheets are not sentient beings. These people have some sort of mental illness.

Mr.
Reply to  Pflashgordon
January 20, 2022 9:05 am

Yes, just like the woman who was surveyed about Joe Biden’s performance, gave him 9 / 10 because “his heart is in the right place”.

(maybe so, but his brain occupies the space where a sphincter normally resides).

MarkW
Reply to  Mr.
January 20, 2022 9:28 am

Most of the Democrats gave him good marks simply for not being Trump.
However other than being “mean”, none of them could actually name anything bad that Trump had done.

BTW, I can’t think of anything Trump ever said that was as “mean” as accusing those who disagree with you with being segregationists who want to bring back jim crow laws.

Last edited 4 months ago by MarkW
Peter W
Reply to  Pflashgordon
January 20, 2022 10:04 am

It is well to keep in mind that the USGS is funded by our government, starting with votes in the House, before you believe what they tell you.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pflashgordon
January 20, 2022 12:24 pm

Are these words “ the plight of the glaciers” …

Perhaps what was meant was the plight of employees at GNP who are concerned about losing their jobs if the glaciers completely melt.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Pflashgordon
January 21, 2022 8:52 am

Not only that, it promotes the utter stupidity of the notion that frozen wastelands are somehow “good.”

MFKBoulder
January 20, 2022 8:27 am

There are measurements of Sperry glacier in Glacier National Park (GNP)
I wonder why Roger Roots is ignoring them (already in former discussions and still today).

comment image

You see that the glacier(s) in GNP are not always shrinking over the last two decades but at least Sperry Glacier is shrinking currently (and the 2021 Mass balance data are not in the graph yet: -2,23 m (approx. 7ft) water equivalent).

So please can you indicate why Roger Roots is ignoring literature on GNPs glaciers?

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  MFKBoulder
January 20, 2022 9:13 am

Nice chart but better if YOU include a link with it.

Meanwhile why did you ignore what the USGS say about these glaciers?

The US Geological Survey (USGS) and National Park Service (NPS) have committed massive resources toward promotion of the glacier melt narrative at Glacier National Park (GNP). Various USGS and NPS signs, pamphlets, websites and films have predicted calamitous melting of the Park’s glaciers in the near future. During the winter of 2018-19, while the Park’s facilities were closed to the public, government workers quietly removed signs predicting the Park’s glaciers would all disappear by 2020.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 20, 2022 9:28 am

‘right-click’ on the chart and ‘open in a new tab’ brings you right to the place where it is stored.

https://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

again: ‘right-click’ on the chart and ‘open in a new tab’ brings you right to the place where it is stored.

is an other source for recent results: search on this site for ‘Sperry’

Did you check when the ‘old’ signs were posted in first place?

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  MFKBoulder
January 20, 2022 10:32 am

I did that right click action all it did was bring up the chart alone in a new page, I am talking about the WEBSITE where that chart or database comes from which you finally posted.

The chart you posted isn’t visible in the link and it is OBVIOUSLY misleading, wonder if you can see it?

===

Second time I post the question, you ignored it once.

Meanwhile why did you ignore what the USGS say about these glaciers?

The US Geological Survey (USGS) and National Park Service (NPS) have committed massive resources toward promotion of the glacier melt narrative at Glacier National Park (GNP). Various USGS and NPS signs, pamphlets, websites and films have predicted calamitous melting of the Park’s glaciers in the near future. During the winter of 2018-19, while the Park’s facilities were closed to the public, government workers quietly removed signs predicting the Park’s glaciers would all disappear by 2020.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 20, 2022 1:39 pm

I did that right click action all it did was bring up the chart alone in a new page, I am talking about the WEBSITE where that chart or database comes from which you finally posted.

No you were not talking about the “website” whatever your understanding of website might be. I Quote:

but better if YOU include a link with it.

The link to the graph is in the right click.

The chart you posted isn’t visible in the link and it is OBVIOUSLY misleading, wonder if you can see it?

My second link was to the most current results of glacier mass balance data. There is a line for Sperry glacier, not the graph. The date for Sperry glacier you can collect from the Glacier change bulletins. the link to the Graph above you find at WGMS Fluctuations of glacier browser. You need to know where Sperry galcier is for this task.

http://wgms.ch/fogbrowser/

===

Second time I post the question, you ignored it once.

Meanwhile why did you ignore what the USGS say about these glaciers?

Your quote is not from the USGS it is Roger Roots.
AFAIK the USGS admitted meanwhile that the old signs (glaciers will be gone by 2020) were the estimate from the first decade of our century and these estimate were wrong. So they learned more and updated / will update the signs. I admit it took them too long.

And yet what Roger Roots is implying with this article (and with those mentioned in the beginning) is not what the glaciers are showing us.

Last edited 4 months ago by MFKBoulder
Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  MFKBoulder
January 20, 2022 5:26 pm

I haven’t once argued about the glaciers themselves and yes it was Roger who wrote it my bad, but he is correct over what the USGS was doing for years was making REPEATED overblown statements which is one of his main points they make dumb predictions that were WAAAAY off doesn’t that build your confidence over their research?

Your second link while showing a bunch of charts in various places still doesn’t show the DATA for them, which is why I keep asking for the parent website that has the data for them. All you do is post the Sperry chart and nothing else and it is just…. he he… ha ha… just 16 years long and doesn’t show much else. It is misleading too which you keep ignoring.

You write this crap since it only goes right back to the FREAKING chart!

The link to the graph is in the right click.

You fail to understand that I am seeking the website that shows the charts and their data for them, all YOU do is propose a circular link which shows just THAT chart and nothing else.

You then posted this link in your first reply:

https://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

You did post the link to the parent website but still fail to show where it is IN that website thus you failed to provide what I asked thus I can’t trust the chart itself as its data is still unseen/unknown.

Your right click argument is nonsense since it is going right back on itself, please don’t continue to be this dumb.

Last edited 4 months ago by Sunsettommy
MFKBoulder
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 21, 2022 12:45 am

You did post the link to the parent website but still fail to show where it is IN that website thus you failed to provide what I asked thus I can’t trust the chart itself as its data is still unseen/unknown.

The graph is the data. there is no difference of the data shown in a table or in a graph or what we have here: a graph where the data are retrieved form the WGMS Database.

The way the data com into this database is described at WGMS with the references to the original literature.

And yes the mass balance date for Sperry are only measured since 2005 – unfortunately. In case you want more information you might take a look on this site:

https://www2.usgs.gov/landresources/lcs/glacierstudies/sperry.asp

There you can find a link to South Cascade Glacier where mass balance data were reported since the 1950ies.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  MFKBoulder
January 21, 2022 7:06 am

Thank you for your civil replies, I was only trying to help the public get more access to the charts DATA for their own reading.

I have long known about the decline of Glacier Peak region for decades, have read your link before and posted a link previously about Mr. Sperry himself who studied it decades ago.

What I object to is the idea that it was a trace molecule that is doing the melting of those glaciers when it was long melting BEFORE CO2 was even rising as it was the exiting of the LIA that was the dominant cause of the centuries long melting.

Look up Glacier Bay and its chart which includes charts HERE in the LINK

Muir Glacier is at the top end from the ocean that lying warmist/alarmists were claiming that it was a trace gas melting it away when it was melting away since the 1880’s AFTER the massive Glacier first melted in the main bay before it.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  MFKBoulder
January 20, 2022 5:37 pm

Here is a far better link to a USGS paper that shows a lot of history the Glacier receding for well over 135 years and shown by photos back to 1894 and measurements back to 1901.

SPERRY GLACIER

LINK

DMacKenzie
January 20, 2022 8:27 am

Aaarggghh! Glacier advance and retreat are a matter of geology, paleontology, and history. Glacier advances causing destruction of alpine buildings in Europe in medieval times are recorded. Obviously their recent retreat is also recorded. The media needs to quit the doomsday sensationalism and just state how long ago they were this “retreated” to give children a more realistic view of geological time. Glaciers just come and go between times they are a mile thick….

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225622933_Extensive_glaciers_in_northwest_North_America_during_Medieval_time

Jeff Alberts
January 20, 2022 8:42 am

Glaciers are always either receding or advancing. Those are the only two choices. Which is better?

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 20, 2022 9:23 am

Nope: Glaciers can be stationary as well. In the surveys glacier length changes between +1m and -1m are considered as stationary.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MFKBoulder
January 20, 2022 9:29 am

They may be considered as stationary, but they clearly are not.

GregK
Reply to  MFKBoulder
January 20, 2022 4:13 pm

Even if a glacier is stationery it is moving.
How so ?
“The front of a glacier is known as the terminus. If it’s a stable glacier, the terminus will always be in the same place. The glacier is still moving, but an equal amount of ice is added to and melted away from the glacier each year”
[ borrowed from How Stuff works].

MFKBoulder
Reply to  GregK
January 21, 2022 12:48 am

Even if a glacier is stationery it is moving.

Yep, this is one part of the definition of glaciers for USGS.

fretslider
January 20, 2022 8:42 am

I fought the narrative and.. the narrative won.

whenever late-summer, cloud-free, smoke-free satellite imagery covering GNP glaciers is acquired.” “The last few years this has not happened . . . .”

Because the data…

Didn’t fit the narrative
Was proved incorrect by computer modelling

Steve Keohane
January 20, 2022 8:49 am

Looking at glaciers growing or not within the context of our lifespan or even a few generations is a joke. The sea level is down six feet in the last few thousand years. If that didn’t turn into glaciers, where did it go?

MarkW
January 20, 2022 9:19 am

“set records for draught”

I’m sure the beer was that good.

To bed B
Reply to  MarkW
January 20, 2022 11:19 am

I think it was for the amount poured during the The Science meeting.

January 20, 2022 10:23 am

This article is about Glacier National Park in northern Montana. In southern Alaska they have the similarly-named Glacier Bay National Park. Here’s a map, showing how the extent of the glaciers has changed:

comment image 

Note the dates. Especially, note the rapid retreat of the glaciers in the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, and the slower retreat of the glaciers since then. I’m no glaciologist, but I doubt that SUVs and electric power plants caused those glaciers to retreat in the 1800s.

Peter W
Reply to  Dave Burton
January 20, 2022 4:21 pm

The airplane was not invented until 1900, and Henry Ford did not start mass-producing the automobile until about 12 years after that. The population of the entire earth in 1900 was a fraction of what it is today. I visited the Alaska Glacier Bay in 2006, and received maps with the same information back then. They certainly demonstrate the ridiculousness of trying to blame the human race for any warming since 1900!

nyolci
Reply to  Peter W
January 21, 2022 10:31 am

The population of the entire earth in 1900 was a fraction of what it is today

The Industrial Revolution started ~50-70 years before, together with the extremely large scale of fossils’ use. So you’re wrong, the factors were already present.

2SoonOld2LateSmart
January 20, 2022 10:33 am

The glaciers were melting, and the hikers were sweating. But it was 80+ F. at the time.
<href=”https://www.flickr.com/photos/olddognewtrick/20524233020/in/photolist-xgLtNZ-xgE4qy-xgLvCR-wBfNoC-xgE8Ss-wBpdbR-xygJca” title=”Onward to the sea – Grinnell Glacier – East Glacier, Montana”>Onward to the sea – Grinnell Glacier – East Glacier, Montana<img src=”https://live.staticflickr.com/5676/20524233020_0836908448.jpg” width=”500″ height=”357″ alt=”Onward to the sea – Grinnell Glacier – East Glacier, Montana”></a>

Last edited 4 months ago by 2SoonOld2LateSmart
Skinmansd
January 20, 2022 10:56 am

The Marxist in every bureaucracy have damaged science to the point where nobody listens to “science” anymore.

Democrats destroy EVERYTHING THEY TOUCH.
.

To bed B
January 20, 2022 11:13 am

Now that is cherry picking. Science is an art of picking up faults, not consensus gut-opinion, and I’m sick of it being called cherry picking.

Clyde Spencer
January 20, 2022 11:55 am

Last fall I emailed officials at USPS

It looks like MS Spell Check has again raised its ugly head.

goldminor
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 20, 2022 3:27 pm

and what was the reply?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  goldminor
January 20, 2022 8:00 pm

There was none! 🙂

Boff Doff
January 20, 2022 12:02 pm

“In fact there were several recent winters with record cold and snowfall.”

Err, doesn’t that mean the glaciers are likely to have grown?

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Boff Doff
January 21, 2022 12:52 am

Winter snow is one of the prerequisites for glaciers to grow. Whereas for glaciers in the mid-latitude mountains more important for glacier growth/shrinkage is the weather during summer. Simplified: no summer snow will melt the glacier.

Clyde Spencer
January 20, 2022 12:33 pm

Back in the late-1990s, I found a remark at the GNP website that a glacier (whose name I forget) on the north side of the mountains had been stable for over 100 years, whereas those on the south-facing slopes were in decline. I few years later, when I tried to find it for citation, it appeared to have been removed.

An obvious interpretation of the claim is that there has been a change in cloudiness, not air temperature.

January 20, 2022 12:55 pm

Silliness. Their web-site used to state that the Glaciers in Glacier National Park were on the order of 3000 years old meaning they weren’t there shortly after the end of the last ice age. Thus, the fact they are melting a bit again is meaningless and contradicts the meme that without humans these newish glaciers wouldn’t be melting

Logic would conclude and confirms that this little blip of warming is still just a minor uptick in our relentless descent into the next full on glaciation.

Aetiuz
January 20, 2022 1:22 pm

“GNP’s glaciers are steadily melting, in line with the climate-change theory.” Are you sure about that? I thought 2020 was “in line with the climate-change theory”. That’s what all the signs said. Did they update the theory somewhere without telling anyone?

I’m sure they’ll say it’s in line with the theory, but they’ll never tell you exactly where in the theory it said that. Because it didn’t say that. There is no prediction in the theory about how fast the glaciers in Glacier National Park will retreat. To the extent there is even any mention of the park in any theory, the wording would be so nebulous as to make any “prediction”, like reading Nostradamus. But I’m sure they’ll still say it’s in line with the theory. After all, there’s a (million) sucker(s) born every minute.

Bruce Cobb
January 20, 2022 1:25 pm

Studies show that climate propaganda will all disappear by 2030. Poof! Gone.

observa
January 20, 2022 2:26 pm

If there is a deep channel underneath this glacier, then it’s possible that may not bode well for the Vanderford Glacier, but that, of course, requires further study
Giant canyon discovered underneath Vanderford Glacier in Antarctica, revealing history behind rising sea levels (msn.com)

The Dooming is the gift that keeps on giving endlessly.

goldminor
January 20, 2022 3:26 pm

Here is something that I now find myself wondering about. Spaceweather.com lists 10/1957 as the current solar max. That makes me wonder if that was the cause of the record setting heatwave back in the summer of 1957 (temps as high as 116 F) which struck NorCal and Southern Oregon. To add a bit more fuel to this idea current daytime temps in NorCal have climbed recently up to 60 F in lockstep with the large increase in sunspot numbers. Then every night temps are dropping below freezing. I can’t help but think that changes in sunspot numbers can dierctly affect surface temps on our planet.

Peter W
Reply to  goldminor
January 20, 2022 4:28 pm

See “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years” by Singer and Avery. They fully confirm a connection between earth’s climate and sunspots, and give the science behind their claim.

Jim Schroeder
January 20, 2022 6:26 pm

There are a number of historic scientific papers and data sets that clearly document the recession of the glaciers in GNP:

1). Grinnell and Sperry Glaciers, Glacier National Park, Montana
A Record of Vanishing Ice, by Arthur Johnson
Geological Survey Professional Paper: Volume 1180 – January 1, 1980 U.S. Government Printing Office
https://play.google.com/store/books/det … AAJ&rdot=1

This paper is a comprehensive history of the recession of Grinnell and Sperry glaciers from the time of their discoveries in the late 1800’s to the mid 1960’s. One of the most interesting set of measurements presented in this paper is the amount of recession of the Grinnell Glacier terminus throughout the years:
1927 to 1937: average recession/year = 31.5 feet
1937 to 1945: average recession/year = 30.4 feet
1945 to 1950: average recession/year = 12.2 feet
1950 to 1960: average recession/year = 8.7 feet
1960 to 1968: average recession/year = 2.4 feet
These measurements, along with many others on both Grinnell and Sperry Glaciers confirm that very rapid melting of the Park’s glaciers was already occurring in the early 1900’s.

2). Recession of glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana
by James L. Dyson
The Journal of Geology, Vol. 49, No. 8 (Nov. – Dec. 1941), pp. 815-824
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 00508/full

This paper studies the recession of not only Grinnell and Sperry glaciers (and several others) in detail, but it also discusses the rapid melting of all of the park’s glaciers during the 1900 to 1940 time period. Some noteworthy findings by Dyson:
– “Results indicate that since the beginning of the century, some of the principal glaciers have been reduced 40-75 per cent in area and more in volume.”
– “Not only the few glaciers listed above, but all those in Glacier National Park, have been undergoing pronounced recession in recent years. Several of the smaller ones ….. have entirely disappeared. Other glaciers, principally Harrison, Kintla, and Blackfoot, which were among the area’s most important years ago, have been reduced to pitiable remnants.”
– “unless a general climatic change occurs within the next ten or fifteen years, it seems quite probable that such thin masses of ice as Jackson and Agassiz glaciers will disappear.”

Remember, this is being written in 1941. It confirms the early 1900’s rapid recession of not only Grinnell Glacier, but also that this rapid melting was occurring to all of the Park’s glaciers at an alarming rate.

3). Decadal-scale climate drivers for glacial dynamics in Glacier National Park, Montana, USA
By Daniel B. Fagre, el. al.
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 12, June 2004

Th1is paper contains a graph of the recession of the trimline (glacier terminus) of Jackson and Agassiz glaciers. This shows how much the trimline had receded on the noted years. This confirms Dyson’s observations of rapid glacier recession before the early 1940’s. Also note the very minor recession of both glaciers between 1942/44 and 1976. Apparently, Dyson’s “general climatic change” did occur as both glaciers are still in existence today!

It is quite clear from these science papers that there was a period of very rapid glacier recession throughout Glacier National Park that began no later than 1900 and lasted until at least the early 1940’s. After studying the data from these various papers, I estimated the average annual rate of surface area loss of the Park’s glaciers during the time of highest melting to be at least 2% per year.
The “consensus” date of when human caused CO2 reached sufficient levels to affect the global climate is about 1950. The question is: has the melting rate of the park’s glaciers continued to increase in response to human caused CO2? Fortunately, we have very good data from the U.S. Geological Survey on the surface area of all the Park’s glaciers to answer this question. This data may be found at:
https://www.usgs.gov/data-tools/area-na … nf-derived

The total surface area of all the named glaciers in the Park are given as follows (conversion of square meter to Acres are my calculation):
1966: 20,761,361.98 sq.m. (5130 Acres)
1998: 15,669,815.67 sq.m. (3872 Acres)
2005: 14,857,608.71 sq.m. (3671 Acres)
2015: 13,630,605.96 sq.m. (3368 Acres)

From this data, I calculated the average annual rate of surface area loss of the Park’s glaciers as follows:
1966-1998: 0.87% per year
1998-2005: 0.75% per year
2005-2015: 0.86% per year

The rate of surface area loss has remained remarkably constant since 1966, during a period of ever increasing CO2 levels. Also the rate of surface loss has been less than half the rate observed prior to the 1940’s, when CO2 levels were much lower than now.

Andy Pattullo
January 20, 2022 8:46 pm

Oh look climate change! No, too slow you missed it. There it is again, Nope you missed it.

Kristi Silber
January 22, 2022 12:37 am

Isn’t the point of taking images in the fall to avoid confounding snowfall with glacial area? When discussing change in climate, which looks at changes over the course of decades, why is it relevant to discuss record snowfall or low temps in certain years? Haven’t skeptics always argued that such record events are “weather” and not “climate”? Besides, if glacial growth was higher and melting was lower in 2019 and 2020, that would still be reflected in glacial extent in 2021.

Neither record snowfall nor periods of low temps is a sign that global warming is not happening. Part of rapid global warming seems to be instability, including anomalous weather events. It’s the average change over time (not only in temperature, but weather anomalies) that are significant.

%d bloggers like this: