tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post438515480841662528..comments2024-03-28T23:07:35.632-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Seattle Times Glacier DisasterCliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-8299910693161217742015-09-17T22:28:55.756-07:002015-09-17T22:28:55.756-07:00Jeff - You really have no idea what you're tal...Jeff - You really have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to wait till there are millions of Argos instead of thousands, you can do that. But the point of the Argos wad not forecasts, but that they have clearly measured the heat stored there, as you previously denied. 4000 floats is more than adequate to confirm this.Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11283520139228675119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-47813263257477680842015-09-17T16:51:53.814-07:002015-09-17T16:51:53.814-07:00Dean,
1. This is false. There are about 4000 Arg...Dean,<br /><br />1. This is false. There are about 4000 Argo buoys. They float. So they don't always take readings in the same place. The number of data points for 100 km x 100 km x 2000 ft deep grid cells of ocean is very small. In some cases only a handful of data points for 10,000 sq km. That's not any kind of accuracy for prediction. Some locations in the ocean get only a few data points per year. And 8% of the oceans have never even been sampled at all. There is simply nowhere near enough floats or data to form any kind of timely forecast. These are not daily and immediate readings like that of a thermometer at an airport. These are floats that roam the oceans and take readings every 10 days, slowly rising from the depths and recording as they go. Only vague generalizations can be made, not accurate forecasts. We know there is generally more heat off the Eastern Equatorial Pacific this year that we call El Nino, but we cannot say with any real accuracy what this foretells about even the rest of this year. And if you look at the ocean system overall, we see something on the order of .02 or .03 degrees Celsius per decade of warming over all ARGO data readings. The system is remarkably stable. And one would expect just that as water, and especially a lot of it like 2/3s of the earth's area, has a lot of thermal mass. <br /><br />Science is and has always mostly been about boring cautious and in many cases decades or centuries of admitting we don't yet know. Sensational Alarmist claims are definitely not science.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-88599535783127180172015-09-14T16:32:39.220-07:002015-09-14T16:32:39.220-07:00JeffB,
Two things:
1. The heat in the oceans is ...JeffB,<br /><br />Two things:<br /><br />1. The heat in the oceans is not conjecture, it has been reliably measured by the thousands of ARGO floats that go down thousands of meters below the surface. Nor is it mysterious. The process that pulls it down has been described.<br /><br />2. The green envelope in Mears graph is what is mysterious to me. Graphs of the slowdown in surface temperatures usually show it to be well within the <b>range</b> forecast by models. I emphasize the word range because the temperature does fall below the central forecast line, but well within the uncertainty range. I would post one of those here if images were allowed.Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11283520139228675119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-16015410862980565892015-09-14T12:53:14.863-07:002015-09-14T12:53:14.863-07:00Jim Little,
Try this for graph for starters.
C...Jim Little,<br /><br />Try this for graph for starters. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures" rel="nofollow">Carl Mears Study</a><br /><br />Anyone can plainly see that the models overstate and over predict. And that has been going on for 20 years and more. Any prudent and reasonably scientific person would ask themselves why? Why are the models so inaccurate. And if they are inaccurate now, why is everyone so certain that they know what is to come in 2100? Dr. Mears speculates that the missing heat has mysteriously subducted in to the Pacific. But that is also conjecture, and not science. We do not have enough data to know with any accuracy what is going on at all sea levels within the entire Pacific, and even if we did, it would be the same largely chaotic and difficult to model Earth sized system as the atmosphere. <br /><br />It reminds me of doctors in the current pharmaceutical era. Why the certainty in magic pills that will fix all ills? Anyone can read the long list of side effects and questionable efficacy of the trials. <br /><br />Humility and much more science is in order and that is the opposite of Alarmism.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-74819508255721673472015-09-13T15:33:04.032-07:002015-09-13T15:33:04.032-07:00Cliff Mass wrote that people living around the Him...Cliff Mass wrote that people living around the Himalayas get a far higher percentage of their water from glacial melt than people living in Washington state.<br /><br />If the climate turns cold and Himalayan glaciers stop melting, a lot of people are going to get mighty thirsty. nutso fassthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18237694766632767118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-24668984709054586452015-09-13T15:22:38.993-07:002015-09-13T15:22:38.993-07:00John Reinke wrote..."The National Park Servic...John Reinke wrote...<i>"The National Park Service website contains this unambiguous statement..."</i><br /><br />The NPS website also contains another unambiguous claim:<br /><i>"A recent survey of climatologists reveals that 97% of those scientists think that global climate change is occurring presently and that human activity is the primary cause..."</i><br /><i>"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which conducted the survey above..."</i><br /><br />Did an IPCC survey reveal that 97% of climatologists think that global climate change is occurring presently and that human activity is the primary cause?<br /><br />Such blatant disinformation raises doubts about the veracity of other NPS claims.nutso fassthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18237694766632767118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-73762789894342498542015-09-12T23:17:48.178-07:002015-09-12T23:17:48.178-07:00Re Cascade glaciers not shrinking much from the 19...Re Cascade glaciers not shrinking much from the 1950's to now. Here is a link to pictures of one of the best monitored glaciers in the Cascades http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3046/ from 1958 to 2003caveat emptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15318994505715193523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-75184146852137591412015-09-12T10:17:33.034-07:002015-09-12T10:17:33.034-07:00I won't be supporting some "bipartisan re...I won't be supporting some "bipartisan revenue neutral carbon tax." Here's why:<br /><br />1. Even if CO2 emissions are a problem globally, this tax would have negligible impact. It's therefore just one more item in a long series of typical meaningless Seattle "progressive" symbolism. We have way, way too much of that here already.<br /><br />2. It's a back-door income tax, because of the way the money is "returned."<br /><br />3. It violates the WA State constitution's requirement that gasoline taxes be used for roads.<br /><br />4. When it comes to ANY taxes, this state's politicians have repeatedly shown themselves to be dishonest and untrustworthy.Placeholderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02967627809480888708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-21426339705897455432015-09-12T07:02:54.202-07:002015-09-12T07:02:54.202-07:00John... that may be true, but that is too short a ...John... that may be true, but that is too short a period to mean anything. There are plenty of periods of such negative mass balance....including some in the early part of the 20th century....cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-87494310859863423892015-09-11T23:51:11.309-07:002015-09-11T23:51:11.309-07:00The National Park Service website contains this un...The National Park Service website contains this unambiguous statement:<br /><br />"Four glaciers in NOCA have had a negative mass balance over seven consecutive years (2003-2009) (Riedel and Larrabee 2011), showing clear evidence of global warming which translates to changes in stream flows and increased challenges for aquatic life and ecosystems."<br />(Source: http://www.nps.gov/noca/learn/nature/glacial-mass-balance1.htm)<br /><br />Perhaps this statement will have to be revised after your upcoming post on glacier loss.John Reinkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01068251053510171095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-32692164932090285682015-09-11T20:25:39.721-07:002015-09-11T20:25:39.721-07:00Dan,
I am going to do a blog showing that the g...Dan,<br /> I am going to do a blog showing that the glacier loss is far less than some folks think..and I am talking about from roughly 1950 to now. Look at the USGS maps...many of the glacier boundaries are very similar across 60 years....cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-22031948514349992342015-09-11T18:48:17.743-07:002015-09-11T18:48:17.743-07:00I am shocked - by your definition of virtually the...I am shocked - by your definition of virtually the same. Perhaps its your definition of many glaciers. There are some that have not changed much - mostly small high elevation glaciers.<br /><br />To name more than a few: <br /><br />Hinman Glacier on Mount Hinman was once the largest glacier between Mount Rainier and Glacier Peak. In 1958 it covered an area of 1.3 square kilometers. It has since essentially disappeared entirely with no ice movement and an area of ice of less than o.2 Km2.<br /><br />Foss Glacier located on the northeast side of Mount Hinman, retreated 86 m from 1950-1979, 112 m from 1979-1997 and -290 m from 1997-2005. The glacier has lost half of its area since 1992 (Pelto).<br /><br />Lynch Glacier on the north side of Mount Daniels retreated 390 m from 1950-1979. This was likely enhanced by the fact its end was a lake. However, it has since retreated from the lake shore an additional 123 m and is now actually two glaciers.<br /><br />The Columbia Glacier on Monte Cristo is one that has not changed much in area since 1950. The terminus retreated 15 meters from 1950 to 1979 and then 94 meters between 1979 and 2005. This glacier is relatively low in elevation and faces south so it might better match the snowpack trends than others. It is fairly far west and likely has extra orthographic lift and maybe gets some enhanced precipitation via convergence zones.<br /><br />The Inspiration Glacier had a lobe of ice extending into the valley below in 1960. That lobe is now gone and the mass of ice has greatly pulled back.<br /><br />South Cascade Glacier is well known to have shrunk a great deal and continues to do so.<br /><br />Borealis Glacier has nearly reduced in half by area and even more so by volume since 1960. I hiked across the lower half every day for 5 days back in 1990. That hike would now require a swim as the glacier is gone and replaced by a lake. <br /><br />The Forbidden Glacier has nearly disappeared since 1960.<br /><br />The McAllister Glacier was formerly a long valley glacier has retreated up the valley over 1,500 meters since 1990 and will soon be a hanging glacier with no presence in the valley.<br /><br />North Cascades has several glacier images from the 1950s or early 1960s to 2005 including some of and others mentioned above http://www.nps.gov/noca/learn/nature/glacial-mass-balance8.htm <br /><br />Take some time to play around with the interactive map of glaciers in the Olympics http://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/interactive-glacier-map.htm. One of those glaciers - Anderson has completely disappeared. Others have shown dramatic ice loss.<br /><br />Yes, some glaciers have remained the same size, but all the glaciers selected for study by Pelto and North Cascades NP have lost ice since those studies began. Most of the others mentioned above are not part of those studies but aerial imagery back to the 1950s or early 1960s show retreat. Glaciers on the Washington Cascade volcanoes have also declined in ice volume since 1950 with additional decline being the general trend. Google-earth or a little internet research will show those retreats.<br /><br />How much is AGW or natural variability is up to climate people to figure out. Maybe it is not an answerable question. But the ice coverage and volume has been declining since the 1950s and 1960s as best we can tell via old aerials and more recent studies. Dan McShanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17044037213245602667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-68068319407079245602015-09-11T13:06:21.087-07:002015-09-11T13:06:21.087-07:00Dan McShane,
Actually many glaciers have shown ...Dan McShane,<br /> Actually many glaciers have shown no change over the past 60 years. Compare the glaciers in the early 50s to say last year. You will be shocked. Virtually the same...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-4679931669711847962015-09-11T10:19:18.244-07:002015-09-11T10:19:18.244-07:00Cliff: This is slightly off topic, but not really....Cliff: This is slightly off topic, but not really. I wonder if you could work on a blog post about the concept of "Fat Tail of Climate Change Risk." Michael Mann just had an article in Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/the-fat-tail-of-climate-change-risk_b_8116264.html) about it. As I Google around, I see that the Fat Tail idea (skewed risk resulting from tipping point mechanisms, making prediction based on past behaviors uncertain) is buzzing around in lots of places. One article by Weitzman appeared in the Review of Environmental and Economics Policy (http://scholar.harvard.edu/weitzman/publications/fat-tailed-uncertainty-economics-catastrophic-climate-change-0). I value your perspective and opinions and hearing from you on this topic would be helpful.<br />Rick Ellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09882291141664454280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-52202495736852785562015-09-11T09:58:43.861-07:002015-09-11T09:58:43.861-07:00Cliff:
While the snowpack data suggests that &quo...Cliff:<br /><br />While the snowpack data suggests that "there is little reason to expect our glaciers would decline", nearly all glaciers in the North Cascades have shown a clear trend of loss of ice volume throughout that same period. This is also true in the Olympics. A good question for atmospheric/climate scientists to try figure out. There is a data set out there from the work in the North Cascades and to a lesser extent but also important in the Olympics that could use some attentions by some clever atmospheric scientists. The use of snowpack trends fails as a predictor of glacial ice volume stability - other factors are taking place. Dan McShanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17044037213245602667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-22444430605874982712015-09-11T07:43:00.506-07:002015-09-11T07:43:00.506-07:00The Balise Family,
The Marzien etl al paper i...The Balise Family,<br /> The Marzien etl al paper is totally modeling with a lot of assumptions, some of which I think are questionable. It does not including realistic natural variability. More importantly, it does not consider our region--which is a very special case. Because of the eastern Pacific we have not warmed as much as many places...in fact, the eastern Pacific has cooled the last several decades. Our snowpack has not declined. So there is little reason to expect our glaciers would decline like other places...cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-36765248002592435712015-09-11T06:40:42.465-07:002015-09-11T06:40:42.465-07:00I read the referenced Seattle Times article. I co...I read the referenced Seattle Times article. I could agree that it is overly dramatic, but I found no errors in the science. I viewed the word "disastrous" as mainly referring to the mass loss of PNW glaciers in general; not just to water supply or fisheries effects. I do believe that "disastrous" is a fair word to use regarding the glacier loss. For example Marzien et al (2014) give evidence that 69 percent (plus or minus 24 percent) of the global ice mass loss from 1991 to 2010 is due to anthropogenic global warming, which is a huge increase over the longer term (1851-2010) average of 25 percent of mass loss being due to AGW. We can expect that the portion of glacial mass loss due to AGW will continue to increase in the future.<br />I would also like to point out that the majority of glacial area is at lower elevations (since there is relatively little land area at higher elevations), so a loss of lower elevation ice has a proportionally greater effect on ice volume loss.The Balise Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00277340537723498878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-18345007998330101122015-09-10T19:58:18.806-07:002015-09-10T19:58:18.806-07:00To those who say that blog posts like this reduce ...To those who say that blog posts like this reduce Cliff's credibility, I say the opposite. This is exactly the kind of dialog we should be having and which is rarely (if ever) seen in the media.<br /><br />We have Chicken Littles and Deniers. Both are doing the American public a huge disservice and are both working to drive a political issue that will only lead to the usual gridlock and assurance that little will get done. We have very large problems to solve due to AGW, and properly educating the public and making informed, rational public policy is essential to make any real progress. <br /><br />To do that we need responsible information sources, working to hold media and then politicians accountable for meaningful change. And that means guiding them to work on the real problems, defined rationally by scientists and addressed by engineers. <br /><br />One thing the we Americans have become good at since Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. is detecting the smell of hype. Overselling is worse than underselling because people tune you out permanently. Bravo to Cliff for keeping us tuned in. <br /><br />John Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08271037292493818827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-32171257068922913742015-09-10T18:40:47.538-07:002015-09-10T18:40:47.538-07:00@JeffB
Many esteemed institutions agree with IPP...@JeffB <br /><br />Many esteemed institutions agree with IPPC.<br /><br />"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." American Association for the Advancement of Science<br /><br />"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." American Geophysical Union<br /><br />“The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." U.S. National Academy of Sciences <br /><br />"Climate change will affect the Department of Defense's ability to defend the Nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security." Department of Defense’s "Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap” 2014<br /><br />Is there some important information that you and Cliff Mass can share with these institutions to dissuade them from the need to act urgently on global warming?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06542459248898002036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-60857986927856899162015-09-10T17:57:57.248-07:002015-09-10T17:57:57.248-07:00Cliff: At the beginning of your post you stated &q...Cliff: At the beginning of your post you stated "Now I probably should just ignore this story". Your concern "that wrong conclusions could easily be inferred" from the article I suppose is valid, but I have to say comparing the article with your post I would say that the Times article did a far better job and indeed covered many of the same areas you covered. One would have to read your post very carefully to not come to the wrong conclusions due to the style of your writing. <br />In my view you over hyped the glacial ice retreat post little ice age in a manner that inferred (even if that was not your intent) that the was main reason for the retreat of ice. Your use of the Nisqually Glacier retreat image as an example of steady retreat is bringing a very high elevation glacier from outside the study area (North Cascades) and also was not accurate in that the Nisqually did have standstills and advances during the 1950s and 1960s - the retreat of the very well studied Nisqually has not been steady at all.<br />You write excellent posts at a remarkable pace; however, you go a bit sideways whenever you riff off a media article. <br />That said, you could add a lot by adding to the article. For example, the article was clear (to me) that significant retreat has taken place since the 1970s. Global climate change likely has played a role. But I suspect you might be able to add to that what role the PDO has played or look at relationships between negative ice balance years and non global warming climate contribution. Dr. Pelto as well as the smaller study by Riedel and Larrabee have added a remarkable data set that could be utilized by climate scientists from the big school (UW). Dan McShanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17044037213245602667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-66121344037314725002015-09-10T14:34:21.478-07:002015-09-10T14:34:21.478-07:00Great piece Cliff. This is what the Alarmists do ...Great piece Cliff. This is what the Alarmists do not get. The doomsday prophecies of the IPCC, lead by the very poor performing GCMs, all fortell of ominous scenarios. Twenty years ago, those were forecast for today, but it turns out that Alarmism requires actual circumstances that would cause Alarm. The 20 foot sea level rise that Hansen predicted would cover the West Side Highway in Manhattan would definitely be cause for Alarm. But vague and largely unsubstantiated reports of a few degrees rise by 2100 are not cause for Alarm. Adpatation maybe? Cautious research in coming years, of course. But world economy changing Alarm? Hell no. And the past doomsdar stories have not materialized. Thus the more cautious observer who compares the GCM predictions over the past 20 years to observed results wonders if maybe the models are wrong?? So why trust them for the future?<br /><br />And the public is wise to the Chicken Littles. It is always the same story. And that's why the Seattle Times is championing the Alarmism. The IPCC is gearing up for the big Scare Party in Paris don't cha know? So best to send the President to Alaska to inspect glaciers and make anecdotal and entirely unscientific observations to help gin up the scare engine. And why wouldn't a bunch of good Media Stooges like the Seattle Times follow right along? One if gets eyeballs to look at their seldom read stories. And two, it helps sell the message of the President whom they adore.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-1726684319965172062015-09-10T13:48:44.172-07:002015-09-10T13:48:44.172-07:00glacierchange (Mauri Pelto)
Mauri...it is cer...glacierchange (Mauri Pelto)<br /><br /> Mauri...it is certainly correct to note that the glaciers have not continuously declined or grown of the past century or so. I certainly am not claiming that. We have the general warming coming out of the Little Ice Age. We have natural variability (like El Nino/La Nina, PDO, the NPM that produced the warming this year). And we have anthropogenic warming, which will rev up during this century. But the key point is that we need to be VERY careful about claiming too much based on the anomalous situation this year. I can guarantee you that next year will be MUCH better..cliffCliff Mass Weather Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-47124983498991594692015-09-10T12:48:42.215-07:002015-09-10T12:48:42.215-07:00A case in point; "World War Two was a a disas...A case in point; "World War Two was a a disaster" - or was WW II a decided victory over what would have been a disaster of terrible global consequence. If we are going to sacrifice resources and potentially lives to abate this warming trend, or mitigate its effects then let us listen to all voices who have a reasonable view.Gpacharliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07899629492778221889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-50873055368088335732015-09-10T12:47:18.627-07:002015-09-10T12:47:18.627-07:00Cliff, what you seem to be missing is that the los...Cliff, what you seem to be missing is that the loss of glacial ice was fairly extreme this year, and of a greater extent has been seen previously. You don't include this past year on your plots. Given the current trends, it doesn't appear that the PacNW glaciers are going to recover that ice, and years like this will only hasten their demise.<br /><br />So maybe this year in and of itself doesn't rate your definition of "disaster", I think you're being a bit too blase about the way things are heading for the glaciers, and the potential impact on natural and societal systems.AnotherGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04742479230625476510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-41090434783756361302015-09-10T12:36:03.579-07:002015-09-10T12:36:03.579-07:00Professor Mass provides us with a reasoned and rat...Professor Mass provides us with a reasoned and rational approach to climate change. He is in favor of sensible mitigation efforts if they are based on real data which as yet is sorely lacking. Climate change as a societal issue has become a political tool instead of an educated response to a likely real phenomenon. His credentials speak loudly and as a voice of reason we should be thankful for him and hope more join his ranks.Gpacharliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07899629492778221889noreply@blogger.com