Glacial Armageddon! 2/3 to vanish by 2100!

Guest “Lions and Tigers and Bears!” by David Middleton

Study: Two-thirds of glaciers on track to disappear by 2100
January 5, 2023

The world’s glaciers are shrinking and disappearing faster than scientists thought, with two-thirds of them projected to melt out of existence by the end of the century at current climate change trends, according to a new study.


The study in Thursday’s journal Science examined all of the globe’s 215,000 land-based glaciers — not counting those on ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica — in a more comprehensive way than past studies. Scientists then used computer simulations to calculate, using different levels of warming, how many glaciers would disappear, how many trillions of tons of ice would melt, and how much it would contribute to sea level rise.



Yes… I know… I should have stopped reading after “Seth Borenstein”… That said, I took the time to dig up the “new study” (Rounce et al., 2023) and found that the paper wasn’t awful… However…

AAcc”It’s only a model.”

And it appears to be more advocacy than science. The paper is linked to this “perspective” article:

Acting now will reduce glacier loss
Many of the world’s glaciers will disappear, but quick action will make a difference


As global mean temperature rises in pace with increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the future of the world’s glaciers looks bleak. Rates of glacier mass loss have increased over the past two decades (1), a trend that will continue even if emissions are capped (24). Despite their small size relative to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, these dwindling ice stores are important. They currently contribute as much to sea level as the ice sheets (3), their disappearance means water insecurity for millions, and their retreat increases glacier hazard frequency, such as glacier outburst floods and landslides (2). Although most countries have agreed to pursue temperature limits within 1.5°C above preindustrial levels (5), these targets are unmet (6). On page 78 of this issue, Rounce et al. (7) present a model of the fate of all 215,547 glaciers under different climate scenarios. Their findings emphasize the need to act now to prevent substantial glacier loss.


If I was cynical, I would say that Rounce et al was written for the sole purpose of science-ing up another pathetic plea to ban the use of fossil fuels.

According to the study, the world currently has 215,547 alpine/valley glaciers. While I seriously doubt that detailed mass balance studies have been carried out on all 215,547, the number sounds reasonable. The 2/3’s of glaciers (144,416 or ~44% of total ice mass) hypothetically destined to vanish will do so under the nearly physically impossible RCP8.5 scenario. Even if we undiscovered fire tomorrow (RCP2.6), half of the glaciers (107,774) would still be toast by the turn of the century. Returning to the Stone Age in order to save 36,443 smallish glaciers doesn’t sound like a good deal to me… But I make my living finding oil and gas… And I’m a geologist… So, I’m doubly biased. Be that as it may… Scale and context seem to be missing from the assertion that “two-thirds of glaciers on track to disappear by 2100.” Even if they “disappear,” will this be significant relative to what glaciers were already doing in the Quaternary Period?

The subject paper forecasts what might happen to glaciers over the period from 2015 to 2100. Presumably, every thing that has happened or will happen to all things climate since 1950 were or will be due to fossil fuel consumption and the resultant emissions of so-called greenhouse gases. While the evidence of an anthropogenic climate change fingerprint since 1950 is equivocal, at best, predictions about the distant future are about as useful as mammary glands on a bull. When I make a prediction at work, it’s generally tested by drilling a well within a year or two of the prediction. If I make a prediction about the results of a well, that won’t reach the objective until 2100, I won’t be around to see if my prediction was at least in the ballpark.

However, we can provide some scale and context to the glacier issue by looking at what they were doing before the alleged anthropogenic fingerprint allegedly emerged from the climatic noise level.

Most of the remainder of this post was sourced from WUWT posts I previously authored.

The cool thing about “new” CAGW studies, is that they’ve usually already been debunked on WUWT. What does it mean to “debunk” something?


to show that something is less important, less good, or less true than it has been made to appear

Cambridge Dictionary

Debunking doesn’t require that something be demonstrated to be false. It only requires demonstrating that it is less, usually far less, important (or significant) than asserted.

What were glaciers doing before SUV’s?

Glacier mass balance is a way to measure changes in the cryosphere. A glacier with a negative mass balance is losing more ice than it gains annually. A glacier with a positive mas balance is gaining more ice than it loses annually.

Total global glacier mass balance has been negative since the end of Neoglaciation in the mid-1800’s. When glaciers and ice sheets have negative mass balances, some of the meltwater eventually finds its way to the ocean and sea level rises. Over most of the past 150 years, more glaciers have been retreating (negative mass balance) than advancing (positive mass balance).

Another way to measure glacial advance and retreat is by changes in glacier length. Oerlemans’ 2005 climate reconstruction was derived from changes in global stacked glacier length. The following graph overlays atmospheric CO2 and northern hemisphere temperatures on Oerlemans’ stacked glacier length plot. The glacial length is relative to 1950.

Figure 1. 45% of the ice loss occurred before 1900, when atmospheric CO2 was still below 300 ppm. By 1950, 75% of the ice loss had occurred. Only 25% of the ice loss has occurred since humans allegedly became the primary drivers of climate change. At the time of “The Ice Age Cometh” (1975), 90% of the ice loss had already occurred.

In the extremely unlikely event that the climate models are right, 90% of the ice loss occurred before an anthropogenic fingerprint could be discerned.

Figure 2. Modified after IPCC AR4 and the March 1, 1975 cover of Science News.

What were the glaciers doing before the Model T?

Figure 3. Kaufman et al, 2020) CPS reconstruction with historical climate periods and Neoglaciation (Grosjean et al., 2007)

Could it possibly be true that most the the magnificent glaciers, about which Seth Borenstein waxed so eloquently, had already largely disappeared before the word “climatologist” had even been coined?

Figure 4. CPS with historical climate periods and Neoglaciation (Grosjean et al., 2007), Early Holocene ice extent map (Dyke et al., 2003) and Alps tree line altitude (Bohleber et al., 2021). (WUWT)

Glaciers are always advancing or retreating… The may move at a glacial pace, but they do move. People living in a world with advancing glaciers are not likely to thrive as well as they would in a world of retreating glaciers.

I wonder if Mr. Borenstein is aware of the fact that the “temperature rise since pre-industrial times” began at a time when Earth was colder and more ice-covered than at any point since the end of the Pleistocene Epoch.

Little Ice Age


During the height of the Little Ice Age , it was in general about one degree Celsius colder than at present. The Baltic Sea froze over, as did most of the rivers in Europe. Winters were bitterly cold and prolonged, reducing the growing season by several weeks. These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and in some regions population decline.

The prices of grain increased and wine became difficult to produce in many areas and commercial vineyards vanished in England. Fishing in northern Europe was also badly affected as cod migrated south to find warmer water. Storminess and flooding increased and in mountainous regions the treeline and snowline dropped. In addition glaciers advanced in the Alps and Northern Europe, overrunning towns and farms in the process.

Iceland was one of the hardest hit areas. Sea ice, which today is far to the north, came down around Iceland. In some years, it was difficult to bring a ship ashore anywhere along the coast. Grain became impossible to grow and even hay crops failed. Volcanic eruptions made life even harder. Iceland lost half of its population during the Little Ice Age.

Tax records in Scandinavia show many farms were destroyed by advancing ice of glaciers and by melt water streams. Travellers in Scotland reported permanent snow cover over the Cairngorm Mountains in Scotland at an altitude of about 1200 metres. In the Alps, the glaciers advanced and threatened to bulldozed towns. Ice-dammed lakes burst periodically, destroying hundreds of buildings and killing many people. As late as 1930 the French Government commissioned a report to investigate the threat of the glaciers. They could not have foreseen that human induced global warming was to deal more effective with this problem than any committee ever could.

Environmental History Resources

“Many farms were destroyed by advancing ice of glaciers and by melt water streams”… “Ice-dammed lakes burst periodically, destroying hundreds of buildings and killing many people”… Sounds like an actual climate crisis to me.

History of Glaciers in Glacier National Park
The history of glaciation within current Glacier National Park boundaries spans centuries of glacial growth and recession, carving the features we see today. Glaciers were present within current Glacier National Park boundaries as early as 7,000 years ago but may have survived an early Holocene warm period (Carrara, 1989), making them much older. These modest glaciers varied in size, tracking climatic changes, but did not grow to their Holocene maximum size until the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) around A.D. 1850. While they may not have formed in their entirety during the LIA, their maximum perimeters can be documented through mapping of lateral and terminal moraines. (Key, 2002) The extent and mass of these glaciers, as well as glaciers around the globe, has clearly decreased during the 20th century in response to warmer temperatures.

Climate reconstructions representative of the Glacier National Park region extend back multiple centuries and show numerous long-duration drought and wet periods that influenced the mass balance of glaciers (Pederson et al. 2004). Of particular note was an 80-year period (~1770-1840) of cool, wet summers and above-average winter snowfall that led to a rapid growth of glaciers just prior to the end of the LIA. Thus, in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly of sorts. In fact, the large extent of ice coverage removed most of the evidence of earlier glacier positions by overriding terminal and lateral moraines.

Tree-ring based climate records and historic photographs indicate the initiation of frontal recession and ice mass thinning between A.D. 1860 and 1880. The alignment of decadal-scale climate anomalies over the early 20th century produced a period of glacial recession somewhat analogous to conditions experienced over the past few decades. The coupling of hot, dry summers with substantial decreases in winter snowpack (~30% of normal) produced dramatic recession rates as high as 100 m/yr from A.D. 1917-1941 (Pederson et al. 2004). These multidecadal episodes have substantially impacted the mass balance of glaciers since A.D. 1900.


The glaciers of Glacier National Park reached their maximum Holocene extent about 150 years ago and may not have existed at all prior to 7,000 years ago.

Most alpine and valley glaciers formed after the Holocene Climatic Optimum and generally advanced until the early to mid 1800’s. This period is known as Neoglaciation. Since the end of Neoglaciation most alpine and valley glaciers have been retreating. Neoglaciation ended long-before CO2 levels had risen much above 280 ppm.

While vanishing glaciers sound awful, advancing glaciers are a lot worse.

Figure 5. Science News March 1, 1975 “The ice age cometh?”


Bohleber, P., Schwikowski, M., Stocker-Waldhuber, M. et al. New glacier evidence for ice-free summits during the life of the Tyrolean Iceman. Sci Rep 10, 20513 (2020).

Dyke, A.S., Moore, A. and L. Robertson. [computer file]. Deglaciation of North America. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 1547. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, 2003.

Grosjean, Martin, Suter, Peter, Trachsel, Mathias & Wanner, Heinz. (2007). “Ice‐borne prehistoric finds in the Swiss Alps reflect Holocene glacier fluctuations”. Journal of Quaternary Science. 22. 203 – 207. 10.1002/jqs.1111.

Kaufman, D., McKay, N., Routson, C. et al. Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach. Sci Data 7, 201 (2020).

MacFarling-Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins (2006). “Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP“. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14810, doi:10.1029/2006GL026152.

Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005.  “Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data”. Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.

Oerlemans, J. “Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records”. Science (80-. ). 2005, 308, 675–677, doi:10.1126/science.1107046.

Rounce, David R., Regine Hock, Fabien Maussion, Romain Hugonnet, William Kochtitzky, Matthias Huss, Etienne Berthier et al. “Global glacier change in the 21st century: Every increase in temperature matters.” Science 379, no. 6627 (2023): 78-83.

5 25 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
January 11, 2023 6:16 am

“…their [glaciers] disappearance means water insecurity for millions,”

It will still rain and snow, and the river will still flow in the valley where the glacier was. The claim of water insecurity is simply not true.

Last edited 27 days ago by Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
January 11, 2023 9:58 am

Store the water behind a dam, instead of in the form of ICE, and you can control the flow and usage, and even generate electricity for when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Really green!!

Then when the glaciers come back, they will just push the dams down the valleys as they advance.

Reply to  Drake
January 15, 2023 6:34 pm

when the glaciers come back, they will just push the dams down the valleys”

Are you claiming that newly forming glaciers destroy dams by pushing?
Or perhaps, that glaciers weigh more than liquid water?

January 11, 2023 6:24 am

Has anyone considered the possibility that 2/3 of existing glaciers will be swallowed up by the other 1/3 by 2100?

Bryan A
Reply to  MaroonedMaroon
January 11, 2023 10:13 am

They could also be recovered by a new Laurentide ice sheet and vanish that way for another 100,000 years. That too is in the future.

Reply to  MaroonedMaroon
January 11, 2023 4:46 pm

Has anyone considered that when the temperate zone glaciers are melted (any year now according to MSM reports) that sea level rise will be significantly reduced ?

Steve Case
January 11, 2023 6:26 am

 “…their [glaciers] disappearance means water insecurity for millions…”

It will still rain and snow, and a river will flow where the glacier was. The claim of water insecurity is simply not true.

Reply to  Steve Case
January 11, 2023 9:07 am

“millions” .. the world population is now over 8 billion, that’s 3 orders of magnitude (i.e. 0.1%)
“millions” would be a disaster like the Three Gorges Dam breaking.

Last edited 27 days ago by Neo
Bryan A
Reply to  Neo
January 11, 2023 10:14 am

Given what Xi really is, Three Gorges would kill Millions, it would kill Minions

Michael in Dublin
January 11, 2023 6:39 am

Those predicting the demise of the world have been doing so since our earliest recorded records – millennia ago. Not a single prediction has come true but we are being told that we can believe the latest round of predictions which have kind of shifted the date to 3023 or perhaps 4023 or even 5023. This does not matter but we need to really worry now and be proactive to prevent this. 😉

Bill Powers
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 11, 2023 8:49 am

Actually Michael the bureaucrats like to keep the end of days predictions in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 years. That way it is close enough to be real in a humans and their children’s lifetime and far enough out to allow for doomsday adjustments and think up excuses for necessary extensions to the apocalypse.

This is why they sacked ALGORE as official spokesman. The failed political moron who got a “Gentleman’s C” in Earth Science, his only college science course, was out in the fawning media predicting the end of the world as we know it in 20 years with his “The debate is over, the science is settled” Scientific Method denial, 22 years ago. The problem was, 80% of the world population would live long enough to realize that there was absolutely no truth, let alone science, backing his “Chicken Little” screeching. DOH!

So the UN IPCC huddled up to reset the Horror show. This was their strategy. Okay first over of business, quietly disappear dumbo with his silly hockey stick. Second order of business, change the lexicon from, non-weather conflatable, “Global Warming” to “Climate Change.” Third order of business, conflate everything bad in the world, up to an including human physical disorders, to the new nomenclature. Fourth order of business. reset all doomsday prediction to a minimum of 50 years out with predetermined sciency sounding excuses for the reasons to extend out the end of days.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 11, 2023 8:50 pm

It is the disasters that aren’t predicted that are the real problem.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
January 11, 2023 11:29 pm

” Not a single prediction has come true “

So what? The scary predictions will continue anyway.

Most people love a scary story. Just like they did when they were children

Although the coming climate crisis story is getting boring

I’d prefer a new boogeyman: A coming invasion of aliens from space (rather than from Mexico) and I hope they land in Washington DC and demand “take us to your leader”. And then they’ll meet Jumpin’ Joe Biden. They’ll never visit this planet again !

In 1997 I predicted the climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder. That prediction was RIGHT. And I expect a Nobel Prize someday.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 12, 2023 9:45 pm

Somebody told me it was frightening how much topsoil we are losing each year, but I told that story around the campfire and nobody got scared.”

  • Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
January 11, 2023 6:49 am

Their abstract starts with an unfounded and speculative conclusion: As global mean temperature rises in pace with increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the future of the world’s glaciers looks bleak. “

“temperature limits within 1.5” A completely meaningless idea, I get different temperature zones in my enclosed garden, which is obviously warmer than the street outside… and we get our [record] temperatures from the weather station next to the taxi way at Heathrow Airport.

“Heathrow – with its large black asphalt runways and airport buildings – naturally absorbs more heat. The airport is based in London, which is also very built-up, and so the urban heat island also affects surrounding areas.”

” present a model of the fate of all 215,547 glaciers under different climate scenarios.”

All hopelessly wrong.

Was this really peer reviewed?

Last edited 27 days ago by strativarius
Richard Greene
Reply to  strativarius
January 11, 2023 7:25 am

Peer reviewed = pal reviewed

Study that blames CO2 for trouble = automatic peer review rubber stamp

January 11, 2023 6:58 am

I remember in the 1990s being told all these glaciers would be gone in 20 years, strange how they’re still here 30 years later…

Richard Greene
Reply to  ScienceABC123
January 11, 2023 9:20 am

The Climate Howlers are disappointed about the glaciers melting too slowly. They have decided to paint the leading edges of glaciers brown so in photographs from the air it looks like the glaciers are receding faster.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 1:02 pm

If you visit the toe of a melting glacier in late summer, it is already nearly black and somewhat like walking on gravel. I recommend the experience.

Richard Greene
Reply to  John Hultquist
January 11, 2023 11:30 pm

Are you deliberately trying to ruin my lame joke?

Reply to  ScienceABC123
January 11, 2023 5:07 pm

coming and going. Perhaps you blinked at the wrong time.

Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 7:03 am

This article was so good it inspired me to write a climate rap for my climate science and energy blog. And I don’t do much writing after 43 years of writing a financial newsletter. (I can hear the groans and monas)

I’ve never been interested in glaciers but this was an interesting article (mainly the author’s section). My property in Michigan was once under a huge glacier, and that would have been a problem if I’d lived here 20,000 years ago, because I can’t ice skate. No balance. So I am personally happy that glaciers have been melting for a long time — who needs glaciers anyway? 

I suppose Antarctica is an important glacier, to keep sea level rise steady? Antarctica is not melting from more CO2 in the air and never will. Worldwide, glaciers cover about 10% of the Earth’s land area, and Antarctica accounts for about 85% of this total cover. By volume, Antarctica contains 90% of the world’s glacier ice – enough ice to raise world sea level by almost 60 meters if it were all to melt, which it will not do from more CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is one serious mistake in a recent article on glaciers (see link below), with this statement:  “The cool thing about “new” CAGW studies, is that they’ve usually already been debunked on WUWT.”

In fact, very few CAGW “studies” can be debunked. That is the primary problem for Climate Realists trying to refute climate scaremongering (aka CAGW). The first problem is there are few real studies. Studies require data. What we call studies often do not contain data relevant to the time period being predicted. Because many “studies” are nothing more than wild guess predictions of the future climate. There are no data for the future climate. There are no data for the future. There are just speculative predictions and hand waving.

It is a fact that climate predictions in the past century have been almost entirely wrong — a few predictions may seem “accurate”, only by chance. We know that extrapolating the past 30 to 50 year climate trends does NOT work as a prediction of the next 30 to 50 year climate trend.

The bottom line is predictions of the future climate are not studies. They are very likely to be wrong, based on past prediction inaccuracy. Wrong predictions are not science, even if made by real scientists. Unfortunately, it is impossible to debunk predictions without waiting a long time before you can definitively say: “YOU WERE WRONG $@#&$”

And that’s the magic of the climate change religion — it consists of wild guess, always wrong, scary predictions of climate doom — not climate reality. A continuing series of always wrong predictions since the 1979 Charney Report made the first official wild guess of ECS. 

The Climate Howlers throw mud on the wall and we Climate Realists can’t clean it off fast enough. We Climate Realists are also hindered by some AGW deniers among us, who are unable to differentiate between AGW (pleasant and harmless) and CAGW (a fantasy). Some deny the greenhouse effect and some claim CO2 has no greenhouse effect. That does not help our cause of refuting CAGW. It hurts our cause. The Climate Howlers, on the other hand, are like the Star Trek Borg — mind numbed robots who speak like trained parrots that have “memorized” all the government climate and energy talking points, whether real or imaginary. Mainly imaginary.

We Climate Realists have one BIG advantage: The Climate Howlers blather on and on about the future climate. But they do not control the climate.

And their scary climate predictions have had a growing gap versus climate reality. I have to hope that someday most people will begin to recognize the scary climate predictions as, to use a scientific term, a tall steaming pile of farm animal digestive waste products.

I’ve been trying to refute climate scaremongering for 25 years — the past eight years with this climate science and energhy blog. I can only hope some minds have been changed with the 370,568 page views so far.

Don’t fear the future climate.
Celebrate the current climate.
It does not get much better than this on our planet.
Today’s climate is the best climate for humans, animals, and especially plants, since the Holocene Climate Optimum period ended 5,000 years ago. 

Don’t let the pesky, bellowing leftists ruin the climate for you! They’ve already ruined everything else they’ve touched. And they are working on ruining electric grids now. We have politicians and bureaucrats redesigning electric grids. What could go wrong with that? How about everything.

Richard Greene
Ye Editor
Bingham Farms, Michigan
Where we LOVE global warming

Honest global warming chart Blog (

Last edited 27 days ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 9:11 am

Dick says:”…some claim CO2 has no greenhouse effect.”

Could you explain exactly your claim as to how CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

Richard Greene
Reply to  mkelly
January 11, 2023 9:23 am

CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Discovered in the late 1800s
More greenhouse gases increase the greenhouse effect
It was in all the newspapers for over 100 years!

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 9:53 am

Thanks for the reply, but this hardly fits the idea of “exactly” how you think CO2 causes a greenhouse effect.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 11:01 am

Newspapers have had lots of total nonsense for over 100 years !

And they aren’t about to stop !

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
January 11, 2023 11:33 pm

To kelly and 2000
If you both think there is no greenhouse effect and CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, then you are science deniers and I can’t help you. Please join the Climate Howlers and get away from our Climate Realist team. You are not helping us.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 12, 2023 2:42 pm

CO2 is not causing warming. Unaware there were teams you could join,

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 15, 2023 7:32 pm

“you both think there is no greenhouse effect and CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”

You are the conflating two distinct claims as if they are interlocked/dependent with each other

The reason CO₂ is considered a GHG (green house gas), because it was badly described when they found CO₂ interacts with a very few extremely specific long wave infrared frequencies.

CO₂’s infrared interactivity is too small to cause a “greenhouse effect” in the open atmosphere.

Glassed in areas contain & constrain atmosphere allowing the gases to heat up.
Which most greenhouses are able to easily counteract by opening vents. Those greenhouses that fear open vents will allow viruses and insect vermin to enter a greenhouse install a swamp cooler that both cools the greenhouse and keeps humidity high.

CO₂’s miniscule warming at 420 ppm has already achieved most of the warming CO₂ can achieve.

Future incremental increases of CO₂ ppm will produce rapid logarithmic declining amounts of additional warming from a few infrared wavelengths due to CO₂’s.

H₂O convection in the atmosphere moves heat into the upper atmosphere.H₂O is a GHG blue whale in the atmosphere compared to CO₂ swamping any GHG effect of CO₂.H₂O interacts over a very large spectrum of radiation wavelengths.H₂O interacts with radiation wavelengths in all three physical states.

Last edited 22 days ago by ATheoK
John Hultquist
Reply to  mkelly
January 11, 2023 1:09 pm

Dr. Roy S. has a post on the “greenhouse effect™”
In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect « Roy Spencer, PhD (

Reply to  John Hultquist
January 11, 2023 2:35 pm

Thanks John. But I am interested in Dick’s exact thinking on how CO2 causes greenhouse effect. He throws around the denier word so he should be able to tell me how exactly it happens.

Richard Greene
Reply to  mkelly
January 11, 2023 11:36 pm

CO2 molecules impede the upwelling flow of infrared energy, of specific wavelengths, impeding Earth’s ability to cool itself by sending upwelling energy to the infinite heat sink of outer space.

You are capable of learning about the greenhouse effect online, but it appears that you prefer to remain ignorant, or are just stubborn, and offensive.

Reply to  John Hultquist
January 13, 2023 1:54 pm

Dr. Spencer’s article was written by someone (presumably himself, but you never can tell these days) who has at best a fairly primitive grasp of the difference between energy and power, and essentially no understanding of how radiation works. I guess that’s about par for the course for a meteorologist, these days, though. Maybe he should get a theoretical physicist to review what he wrote. I notice he closed the comments on that article! Haha…

This paragraph, for example, is essentially false:
“Secondly, the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction.”

The reason that idea seems unphysical to many people is that it is unphysical. But the way he wrote “emit infrared energy toward a warmer layer” tells you that he has no idea how energy and power are related to each other, or how radiation can indeed transfer energy, but only while increasing entropy, in accord with the 2nd law, i.e. from hotter to colder. Radiation is energy, i.e. the potential to do work, but it is not power, i.e. work in the process of being done – except in the appropriate circumstances! The presence of radiation does not mean the temperature is going up…

He is also trying to use the observation that the law of increasing entropy allows local violations, temporarily, as long as the universal progression is an increase. However, what he does not comprehend at all is that “local” here means on the scale of a few molecules, for a few femtoseconds. Not half an atmosphere, for hours, days, or centuries. That is an abysmal misunderstanding of entropy.

He thinks of photons as tiny bullets, an idea which is at least a century out of date:

“In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave.”

The wave function theory of electromagnetic radiation tells you that that’s exactly what photons do. Not because they’re checking the temperature, per se, but they do need to find a suitable receiver (matching electron energy gap) before “leaving” the emitter. Very much like sticking a finger out to see what’s going on, as it turns out.

He also has no idea how the gravito-thermal effect works, and apparently thinks that a nitrogen atmosphere at rest in a gravitational field would not exhibit a thermal gradient to match its corresponding inverse potential energy gradient.

So I wouldn’t be trying to learn my climate physics from him, if I were you. Start with a solid grounding in theoretical physics, and then work your way up to climate science from there – that would be my advice. Otherwise you’re just going to twist yourself into knots trying to defend nonsensical statements like Dr. Spencer’s.

Reply to  mkelly
January 11, 2023 3:27 pm

By slowing down the rate at which IR energy can escape from the atmosphere.

Reply to  MarkW
January 11, 2023 9:40 pm

But what happens to the concentration of a gas in an un-confined space when energy is added to it?

Richard Greene
Reply to  Mike
January 11, 2023 11:37 pm

The energy is reflected, not added.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 11, 2023 8:20 pm

I suppose Antarctica is an important glacier”. Yes, it is. Because if it melted, the Earth would be unbalanced and turn over. Then everybody in the Northern Hemisphere would fall off unless they could hold on to buildings that are rooted in bedrock.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Hivemind
January 11, 2023 11:39 pm

Antarctica has not mlted and will not melt from more CO2 in the atmosphere. Perhaps you didn’t notice that for the past 50 years?

Your jokes are worse than mine. And 48.6% of my jokes are not even recognized as jokes, and 1.4% get me slapped in the face when told to a women.

Frank from NoVA
January 11, 2023 7:31 am

David, good article. You’ve been missed around here of late.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 11, 2023 9:42 am

Drill baby, drill.

Reply to  Brad-DXT
January 11, 2023 3:28 pm

Spring is around the corner.

Grill baby, grill

Reply to  MarkW
January 12, 2023 7:55 am

If David keeps drilling, I’ll keep grilling.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 11, 2023 2:37 pm

It’s more important for you to find more oil, we’re gonna need lots more. There are enough authors here on WUWT to keep the site going, but not if the lights go out. Drill, Davy, drill!!

Richard Greene
Reply to  David Middleton
January 11, 2023 11:43 pm

These articles are more important than work
You should write them at work.
Tell your boss I said so
Don’t tell him I retired at age 51.
because the wife retired at age 51 first,
and she seemed so happy !

I don’t meet any unhappy retired people
But lots of working stiffs complain about their jobs
When you retire, every day is like a Saturday
I’ve been retired for 18 years so far.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 12, 2023 3:53 am

I always say to people, who are due to retire:

On your first morning, when you wake up, say “the rest of my life belongs to me”.

Reply to  bobpjones
January 15, 2023 7:45 pm

Not if he is married.

January 11, 2023 7:54 am

By 2100 all 3/3 of me will vanish, I’m not bothered about it, and I suppose glaciers aren’t, so feeling is mutual.

Brian Pratt
January 11, 2023 8:04 am

The catastrophic melting glaciers trumpeters have been quiet out here on the bald prairie of late, but they will be back. In fact for both the North and South Saskatchewan Rivers, average annual component from melting alpine glaciers in the Rocky Mountains is 4%. Steve Case is quite correct.

Peta of Newark
January 11, 2023 8:21 am

Even less dignity than The Emperor – and are a million miles away from knowing it.

There really is something ‘mental’ going on here

January 11, 2023 8:24 am

Change the key topic wording to budgets or leadership and it would be more accurate…

California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a leaner budget Tuesday that would cut spending on climate change and transportation programs in response to a projected $22.5 billion budget shortfall. 

Mr. Newsom intends to cover the shortfall with a patchwork of funding delays, spending reductions to programs and spending shifts. He also proposed trimming the state’s transportation and climate budgets.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 11, 2023 9:04 am

All branches of CA government constitute a progressive rubber stamp. Let’s see where their real priorities lie.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 11, 2023 3:06 pm

Money rules, even for idiots like Newsom.

Hoyt Clagwell
January 11, 2023 8:31 am

“ up another pathetic plea to ban the use of fossil fuels.”

This is what the whole concept of climate change has always been about. Every scare story and alarm bell was always just an attempt to ban fossil fuels out of an irrational hatred for the greatest gift this planet has ever given us. In the 70s when they claimed we were headed into another ice age as an excuse to ban fossil fuels. They bailed out of that idea when it became clear they had nothing to back up their assertion so they had to think of another con to get people to believe fossil fuels were evil and needed to be abandoned.
If it were possible to calculate the cost in dollars of irrational thinking every year it would run into tens of trillions of dollars.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
January 11, 2023 11:45 pm

2023 leftist slogan, I predict:

” Fossil fuels will kill your dog ! “

abolition man
January 11, 2023 8:39 am

Great article, David!
When describing the disappearance of some glaciers, we would be wise to point out that, yeah, a few of them might vanish, but they’ll be back real soon, and they’ll be bringing their big brothers! It’s like worrying about a trace atmospheric gas that is the foundation of every major life form we know of; it just doesn’t make much sense!
What would the Lord High Nihilist of the Church of Climastrology do to prevent the future death of nearly ALL Life on Earth? Right now the answer seems to be to “keep ‘em stupid and drive ‘em crazy!” So all we have to do is remove the psychopaths and sociopaths ruining our government and education systems, re-educate those still capable of higher learning about the realities of being in an ongoing Ice Age, and then set about getting up out of the gravity well so that we have other options besides Planet One! Seems simple enough!

Gary Pearse
January 11, 2023 8:42 am

Geological processes tend to take time. Consensus climate is in a big hurry. Here’s the ‘tell’. The biggest worry of climateers is the present new decade of cooling (Gavin Schmidt: “Models are running away too hot and we don’t know why”).

The almost two decades of “The Dreaded Pause” was ended in 2015 by an el Nino, not a turnaround. And since, the new pause threatens to rejoin the Dreaded, which took out a goodly number of climate scientists permanently with a psychological illness that was dubbed “Climate Blues”.

Naturally, the ill scientists rationalized it was because they were in the forefront seeing the horrors of climate change and no one was listening to them (hell, everyone was listening to them!). No my dears, the illness was garden variety denial. You spend 10years as a student of climate and say you’re 20yrs into your career during which warming has stopped! Moreover, you’ve weathered Climategate and predictions of anomalies that turned out to be 300% overestimated.

Now, if you look up Climate Blues they’ve buried the original references in a new definition related to present day scaring of children.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 11, 2023 9:32 am

Someone should tell Gavin we do know why the models are running hot, namely, the alarmists have fully attributed the warming phase of a long-term climate cycle to the coincidental rise in CO2 emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and have programmed their models accordingly. Unfortunately for the alarmists, their forecasts are going to get worse since we’re on the downside of the Holocene Climate Optimum. Unfortunately for the rest of us, however, is that the alarmists’ narrative is extremely useful to the Left, who are effectively running the show at this time.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
January 11, 2023 12:17 pm

I believe Gavin knows why. His confession is really a hedging of bets. He was moved to make a statement. It wouldn’t do for NASA to go silently with prayers into a 35yr cooling period.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 15, 2023 7:51 pm

Plus his GFS models are getting bad reviews from practicing independent meteorologists.

At this point Gavin is grasping at straws that neither weather nor climate models have improved during Gavin’s time in NOAA.

January 11, 2023 9:14 am

Without knowing the “freeze line” for each glacier it is difficult to make any decision on each glacier. Any glacier that has a terminus below freeze line will naturally shrink. Nothing to do with man.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  mkelly
January 11, 2023 12:25 pm

The estimates should consider

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 11, 2023 12:33 pm

the lapse rate of 0.67C per 100m rise suggests that if the temp rose, say 2 more degrees C, the glaciers would melt up roughly 300m in altitude from where they are now

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 15, 2023 8:12 pm


Are you referring to the 3°F temperature decline per 1,000 feet of altitude increase? Roughly 1°F per 328 feet.

A) Land temperature datasets depend upon UHI for their alleged temperature increases.
i) James Hansen did his worst to strip their databases of higher altitude and UHI unaffected rural locations. Mostly because those locations did not show global warming influences.

John Hultquist
Reply to  mkelly
January 11, 2023 1:14 pm

Ablation zone – Wikipedia

note: “equilibrium line altitude (ELA) or snow line.”

Reply to  John Hultquist
January 13, 2023 9:44 am

Here’s an indication of the progress in the Alps since 2017;topic=3866.0;attach=361373;image

January 11, 2023 10:04 am

10,875 years ago there were maybe a dozen glaciers on North America (but really big). Now there are hundreds. We are gaining glaciers. The precise wording of the alarmists should be “glacial extent” or similar. Their problem of course is the more precise the wording the easier to debunk. My daughter just sent us pictures of her 2yo twins playing in the snow. You know, the stuff they weren’t supposed to know ever existed.

Reply to  Giving_Cat
January 13, 2023 9:25 am

You daughter lives in London?

January 11, 2023 10:06 am

You just have to laugh at the cognitive dissonance that proclaims receding glaciers exposing ancient forests is proof of unprecedented warming.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Giving_Cat
January 11, 2023 1:18 pm

 Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Treeline
by Harvey Nichols

Reply to  John Hultquist
January 11, 2023 5:22 pm

This comment mentioning forests seems about as good a place as any I am likely to find as an appropriate place to insert a story tip. Is there any truth to the data claim made, regardless of the article’s interpretation of the data? It doesn’t seem to fit anything else I’ve read.

story tip

Reply to  AndyHce
January 15, 2023 8:38 pm

The story is false.

Trees lost to drought and wildfires are not returning”

Not only do trees regrow after wildfires, many trees require fire to prepare seeds for germination, e.g., redwood, sequoia, pine, ponderosa pine, etc.

If a tree is lost to a drought, it was likely growing in the wrong place. Areas that frequently suffer drought tend to have drought resistant species growing there. Droughts weed out the invasive trees.

Reply to  John Hultquist
January 15, 2023 8:28 pm

From John Hultquist’s link:

Arctic treeline.JPG
January 11, 2023 10:59 am

Ignoring the fact that many glaciers didn’t even exist for most of the Holocene.

Only the extreme cold of the LIA brought them into existence.

January 11, 2023 11:03 am

Anything based on climate models is meaningless crystal balls gazing. !

Ron Long
January 11, 2023 12:17 pm

Good article, David. The glaciers most comments are talking about are localized valley glaciers, sometimes with a capping ice field. The only ones that count are the continental glaciers, referred to in the article as “ice sheets”. There are three of these continental glaciers that count, the smallest the one in southern Argentina/Chile, the second largest covering Greenland (Greenland is not a continent, but the glacier accumulation is the same), and the biggee is Antarctica. I like to utilize easily identifiable measure of natural things, here’s one that won’t go away: THE GLACIER GIRL. In WWII a squadron of Lockheed P-38 Lightenings was forced to land on a glacier in the middle of Greenland. Some years ago the abandoned airplanes were discovered by seismic search, and one extracted by inclined tunnel. The glacier Girl, and still her friends, were/are buried 80 meters down inn ice. Since WWII Greenland has gained a thickness of at least 80 meters of continental glacial ice. Call me when the others are visible, and forget about those wild tales about ice at the margins, polar bears notwithstanding, it’s not important. Comment: my father was final assembly supervisor for Lockheed P-38 Lightening number 1. A bright, young, Engineer named Kelly Johnson solved a lot of the adapting design to reality problems encountered.

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Middleton
January 11, 2023 2:56 pm

The SR-71 held, how many records for how many years?
Designed and built using slide rules.
A PS It was supposed to be called to “RS-71” (Reconnaissance/Surveillance rather than the other way around) but Johnson messed up the name.
Remind you of anybody? 😎

Ron Long
Reply to  David Middleton
January 11, 2023 5:37 pm

While examining a Yuba gold dredge near Beale Air Force Base, in northern California, we saw an SR-71 Blackbird turning onto the active runway for takeoff. We stopped, got out and stood at the perimeter fence, about 400 meters from the Blackbird. When it took off the roar was incredible, and your entire body vibrated with the roaring. Awesome! (never mind the black exhaust smoke)

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Middleton
January 12, 2023 6:57 am

The YF-12 actually was an interceptor version that was not put into production. I think a prototype is in the USAF museum in Dayton Ohio.
(And, yes, the F-104 also came out of The Skunk Works under Kelly Johnson.)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ron Long
January 11, 2023 2:48 pm

If I’m not mistaken (I admit I sometimes am), a WW2 B-29 was recovered from a glacier.
They tried to restore it on the ice. When they fired it up to fly it out, it caught fire and was lost.
Point being, glaciers were increasing and receding long before “CAGW” came along.

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Middleton
January 12, 2023 7:03 am

That may have happened with those also but the one I was thinking of was a B-29. (It’s last mission when it went down was in 1947.)

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Middleton
January 13, 2023 12:31 pm

I’m sure that I’m not the only one that comments from memory and forgets some of the details.
Again from memory regarding the B-29, one damaged B-29 landed in Russia during WW2. The crew thought “Russia’s our Ally!”
Russia didn’t declare war on Japan until after the A-bomb was dropped
The crew was released but the plane interned.
After WW2 but at the beginning of the Cold War the Russians but on one of their military displays. US diplomats were shocked to see “B-29s” flying overhead.
They all had a plate of sheet metal on the tailfin.
The plane that had landed on an “Allied” airfield had had a sheet of plate sheet metal rivetted on to repair some flak damage.
Russia just copied it bolt for bolt.

January 11, 2023 12:46 pm

As global mean temperature rises 

I only needed to read the heading and the first few words to know this is garbage.

Warming is not global and the current temperature trends and snow accumulation are signs that the present interglacial is near termination.

The place warming the most is the Greenland plateau in winter when there is no sunlight. That can only occur due to increased advection from warmer ocean water surrounding the island transporting moist air. The end result is more snow and Greenland is gaining elevation at 17cm a year and will have 100% permanent ice cover by the end of the century.

The other tell tale is that there is a steady increase in snow cover across the northern land masses. At this stage the snow melt is outpacing the snow fall but the NH warming cycle is only 1000 years into the 11,000 year warm up. And temperature has only been rising for a few hundred years.

Iceland is also gaining more permanent ice cover due to its proximity to warm water that feeds moist advection when there is little sunlight and surface temperature is less than 0C.

January 11, 2023 4:50 pm

The same thing happened here where I live:

“The Arapaho Peak advance is local evidence for the Little Ice Age (the popular name for a period of cooling in the northern hemisphere lasting approximately from the 14th to the mid-19th centuries). Most of the glaciers and perennial ice patches in Colorado today are the tattered remnants of these small Little Ice Age glaciers.”

January 11, 2023 8:04 pm

You should have stopped after “computer simulations“.

Clyde Spencer
January 11, 2023 9:04 pm

… their disappearance means water insecurity for millions, …

What these alarmists don’t consider is the other side of the coin. If warming were to stop, there would be reduced meltwater available. If serious cooling were to set in, there would be a significant reduction in meltwater, leading to — water insecurity for millions!

Michael Ketterer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 12, 2023 1:20 am

At least for the areas depending on melt water, Clyde’s statements are totally wrong. Melt water is needed during dry season. Due to the sun there is always melt during dry season [except high polar regions].

Last edited 26 days ago by Michael Ketterer
January 12, 2023 2:14 am

Excellent bringing all this together David.

I presented a paper at a UK Geol Soc. online meeting in 2021. I worked up the glacial retreat data. There is a later paper Leclercq & Oerlemans 2011 on temp reconstruction based on a database of 471 glacier records. It shows what you show, but they claim faster retreat rates post-1950s.

I have two issues with their method:
(a) there only 18 glaciers with long records going back to at least 1800 so they end up with a lot of short records in the latter half of the C20th and
(b) They use an inverse modelling technique to temperature which requires the data to be interpolated.

For my paper I took only the 18 glaciers with long records, standardised them and then summed them. The resultant record shows retreat from about 1820 and 3 distinct retreat periods of about 30 years which I call warm periods or WP.

WP0 is about 1860 – 1890
WP1 is about 1935 – 1965
WP2 is about 1985 – Present

Note that due to lag the temp forcing will occur about 15 – 20 years earlier than the actual retreat due to lag.

Slide is attached for interest

Last edited 26 days ago by ThinkingScientist
Dave Andrews
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
January 12, 2023 7:37 am

That’s strange because I recently came across a paper by Leclerq, Oerlemans et al which said

“Despite increasing global temperatures in the 20th C. this retreat is strongest in the period 1921 – 60 rather than the latest period 1961 – 2000”

‘A data set of worldwide glacier length fluctuations’ PW Leclerq, J Oerlemans, HJ Basagic, I Busheva, AJ Cook, and R le Bris. The Cryosphere, 659 672, 2014

Have they changed their view from the earlier paper?

Last edited 26 days ago by Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dave Andrews
January 12, 2023 8:33 am

Different paper, and you are correct they seemed to have changed slightly. The reconstruction I cited from memory is not 2014 but is actually 2011:

PW Leclerq, J Oerlemans 2011 Global and hemispheric temperature reconstruction from glacier length fluctuations

where they say:

“In addition, the rate of temperature increase over the period 1980–2000 is the highest of the period 1600–2000.”

However in my work, with standardised retreat rates using only the longest 18 records the fastest rate of retreat is actually in the C19th and the early C20th, the late C20th recent period of retreat is actually slightly slower, although they are all so similar as to be virtually indistinguishable.

Last edited 26 days ago by ThinkingScientist
Reply to  David Middleton
January 12, 2023 11:03 am

Thanks David. My Oil&Gas background is mainly forward and inverse modelling in seismic inversion. So I don’t like the way they are doing the inversion for temperature from glacial retreat data because it requires a continuous, regularly sampled dataset because it’s a cumulative over time. That requires a data interpolation which is arbitrary.

So instead I looked at the basic equations and simply posed it as a forward modelling problem instead. Because the temperature vs retreat equations are quite simple, linear and are arbitrarily scaled you can actually put anomaly temps in or even RCP forcing profiles. The other advantage of forward modelling the response is that you can use a least squares fit to measure and compare different input temp profiles.

So I forward modelled HadCRUT4, CMIP5 model output temps and CMIP6 input forcings and compared to the retreat data. The match of all of them is poor, they undershoot the glacier retreat in the mid-C20th and unsurprisingly overshoot in the latter part of the C20th. Interestingly you can improve HadCRUT4 fit if you linearly remove some of the trend post 1960 (not a result I am showing here).

So I also added in a trivial temperature model comprised of a linear temperature trend of +0.133 degC/decade from 1817 (ie almost the same rate of warming as UAH) plus a sinewave with amplitude of +/-0.6 degC and a period of 69 years. Its least squares fit is way better than any of the climate stuff from 1900 and it still fits all the way back. So a trivial linear trend + sinewave explains the glacial retreat back as far as 1817 better than any climate model or HadCRUT4 data.

Slide showing the forward model of the retreat data (coloured curves), the long 18 glacier record composite as the orange dots and the stats of the fits are attached.

Last edited 26 days ago by ThinkingScientist
January 12, 2023 3:44 am
Michael Ketterer
Reply to  galileo62
January 12, 2023 7:38 am

Look at this

comment image

Reply to  Michael Ketterer
January 13, 2023 6:31 pm

And it had already dropped to 216 acres by 2005 so presumably significantly less by now?

Tom Abbott
January 12, 2023 4:59 am

From the article: “As global mean temperature rises in pace with increasing greenhouse gas emissions,”

Except that is not happening. Currently, CO2 is increasing and global temperatures are cooling.

Their (climate alarmists) basic premise is wrong.

Last edited 26 days ago by Tom Abbott
Gunga Din
January 12, 2023 7:21 am

The “Ice Age Cometh” guys in 1975 must have been right.
The two “Blizzard of ’78” weather events confirm it!
The cold has just been in a really long pause.
Just wait another 50 years. You’ll see!
(Now where did I put that sarc tag…) 😎

Ulric Lyons
January 12, 2023 10:05 am

Continental glaciers should advance during the next cold AMO phase.

January 12, 2023 1:58 pm

“What were glaciers doing before SUV’s?”
We could always ask that trans-glacier traveler Otzi the Iceman.

Reply to  conservativeeducator
January 12, 2023 3:31 pm

I always wonder why he crawled under that glacier. Seems like a lot of work and freezing too.

January 13, 2023 9:33 pm

I’m a Calgary geologist (retired). Took glaciology in college (UWO). Hiked extensively in Rockies. Athabasca, Saskatchewan, Goat, Richardson and Frenchman and Goat Glaciers. Wapta and Columbia Icefields.

They aren’t glaciers

They are stagnant ice blocks. Remnants of glaciers that melted to <100m thin and stopped flowing. Which defines what a glacier is.

I am not being pedantic. The alarmists want us to think global warming has killed the glaciers. You can't kill what was already dead.

The glaciers stopped being glaciers in the early to mid 1800s. At the end of the Little Ice Age … that occurred before anthropogenic – or natural – CO2 began a significant, atmospheric rise. They have been melting away since then ….. because that is what happens when less snow falls on them during the winter than melts in the summer!

If the alarmists want to "save" the glaciers, they'll first have to revive them. Which is to bring back the conditions of the LIA, when cold temperatures killed millions around the globe.

Ignorant virtue signallers see melting stagnant ice blocks and see my Jeep
killing glaciers.

BTW if you want to see the LIA advance, go to Goat "Glacier" in Kananaskis and notice the smaller lateral marines INSIDE the older lateral moraine plus the remnant small terminal moraine. Or do the same at the front end if the Saskatchewan "Glacier". Also, catastrophic end LIA glacial pond release at the front of tge Saskatchewan "Glacier" and a side valley of Landslide Lake in Yoho.

Also check the 3,000 year old tree sturmps explored as the Saskatchewan stagnant ice block retreats .Yup. Never been this warm in 3,000 years.

And here's something: the loss of "glaciers" like the Saskatchewan "glacier" or Himalayan or Andean glaciers is supposed to end freshwater flow down stream, where you find the major rivers: have you seen how small the exglacial meltwater is near the "glacial" front? Pitiful!

The rivers that start out at a current glacial source are fed by rainfall and ground seepage – rainfall discharge – downslope of the ice mass. The South Saskatchewan River is not derived from Glaciers. Ill bet the same about the Himalayan rivers. That's historical, 12,000 years ago. It's winter snow and summer rainfall now.

But that's inconvenient. Like the decline and death of hustorical numbers of polar bears at Churchill, when American troops and others were shooting them at the garbage dumps there and at other DEW line military base through the 70s. And for what the numbers are now? the Inuit won't allow population counts in their parts because eco-activsts want to shut all hunting down and will twist the numbers to use them corruptly for their purposes.

Abd … it goes on.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights