The Whatcom Excavator
  • Home
    • About Us
    • Who's Planning Our Lives?
    • Diminishing Property Rights
    • NGO's & Public-Private Partners
    • Agenda 21
    • Buzzwords
    • Deep Thought
    • Best Available Science
    • Best Available Humor >
      • Humor Archive
  • The DREDGE
    • Gotta See This
    • How To Dredge
  • Bulldozed
    • Eco-Activism and County Policy
    • CELDF - "Democracy"
    • ALERT: Community Energy Challenge
  • Pig Trough
    • ReSources
    • Sustainable Connections
    • BALLE
    • ICLEI
    • Whatcom County Community Network
    • Big Wheels Award
  • Contact Us

Letter to Editors - Some Cold Hard Truth About Our Local Glaciers

11/24/2013

18 Comments

 
Picture^ Click ^

WE Editors, science-types, are constantly amazed at the sheer volume of panicky and convoluted narrative about climate and water that passes for "news" in the local press. WE are not alone. For the cold, hard truth about our local climate and glaciers, read on.

Letter to Editors@WhatcomExcavator.org
November 24, 2013

     On Wednesday, Nov. 20, Michelle Koppes gave a talk to the Bellingham City Club, which was featured in the Bellingham Herald (“Bellingham audience told glaciers, oysters show climate change impacts”) and on the city’s TV program. Koppes claimed that

(1)    The climate is warming and “it’s not just happening here, it’s happening all over the world.”   Human emissions of CO2 are causing global warming and warming is “expected to get worse as average temperatures keep trend up in the decades ahead. And the uptrend is expected to accelerate in the 21st century.”
(2)    “here and almost everywhere else in the  world, the mountain snow accumulations that feed the glaciers are dwindling.”
(3)    “The amount of water stored in mountain snow is down 45 to 60 percent since 1950.”
(4)    “shrinkage of Cascade glaciers seems to be accelerating”….”glaciers on Mt. Baker…..have lost 20 percent of their volume since 1990.“

     Are these assertions by Koppes valid and supported by credible data? What supporting evidence did she present as proof of her contentions? Let’s look at each of her claims.

     (1)  What evidence did Koppes cite that the climate is warming here and all over the world?  The answer is simple—none at all.  She simply states that the climate is warming, despite indisputable data to the contrary.  But there is abundant data concerning this issue. As shown by temperature measurements from both land stations and satellites, NO global warming has occurred for the past 17 years! Figure 1 shows that global cooling has actually occurred during the last decade.
Picture
Figure 1. Global temperature for the past decade has cooled, not warmed.

Even the chairman of the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has publicly admitted that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. So why did Koppes tell the City Club that the global climate and the climate here is warming at an accelerating rate? Can she really be unaware of the uncontested fact that data shows no global warming in the past 17 years when virtually all other scientists know about it.?

That’s the global situation—what about the U.S.? NOAA data shows that from 1998 to 2013, 46 of the 48 mainland states cooled at an average rate -14.7°F per century and winter temperatures have cooled at rates of 1-8.7°F per decade (Fig. 2), i.e, the climate isn’t warming, it’s cooling!
Picture
Figure 2. Winter temperatures in the north central have cooled by more than 8°F per decade and the rest of the US has cooled at rates of 1.3 to 5.8 °F.
     What about local temperature trends? NOAA data show that Washington winters have cooled at a rate of -13°F per century, spring temperatures have cooled at a rate of -7.8°F per century, and summers have cooled at a rate of 0.5°F per century.

What about local temperatures here? Figure 3 shows that average annual temperatures for the western Cascades over the past 15 years have cooled by more than a degree and a half!
Picture
Figure 3. Average annual temperatures for the western Cascades for the past 15 years show cooling of more than a degree and a half.
So where did Koppes get the idea that the climate is warming at an accelerating rate?  Apparently she is still quoting obsolete IPCC computer model temperatures that have been proven to be wrong (too warm) by a full degree F and are totally worthless.  Even the IPCC admits that their computer modeled temperatures were badly wrong. The bottom line here is that the ‘accelerated warming’ cited by Koppes is NOT happening and she ignores the actual measured temperature record that is accepted by even the IPCC!
Picture
Figure 4. Reality check—theoretical (computer modeled) temperature relative to actual, measured temperature (from UAH and RSS satellites). Computer models of the temperature in 2012 were wrong by one full degree (F), (which is as much as the total amount of warming during the past century), showing that the IPCC computer model temperatures are a hopeless failure.


     (2)  Koppes claims that “here and almost everywhere else in the world, the mountain snow accumulations that feed the glaciers are dwindling.” Data is available (Fig. 5) and it shows that five of the six snowiest years in the Northern Hemisphere have occurred since 2003 (NOAA).
Picture
Figure 5. Snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere.
     (3)  Koppes claims that “The amount of water stored in mountain snow is down 45 to 60 percent since 1950.” The snowpack in Washington goes up and down from year to year, but the snow-water equivalent in Washington in the past 25 years has been growing, not declining as claimed by Koppes (Fig. 6). How she could claim a 45 to 60 percent decrease in snow-water equivalent is amazing.
Picture
Figure 6. Mean snow water equivalent in the Cascades since 1975.
     (4)  “...shrinkage of Cascade glaciers seems to be accelerating”… Glaciers advance and retreat as climate warms and cools.  Koppes seems to be unaware of many published papers showing that Mt. Baker glaciers advanced almost to their Little Ice Age (1300 to 1915 AD) positions during the 1880 to 1915 cold period, then retreated strongly upvalley during the 1915 to 1945 warm period (WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN CO2!). This is important because it shows that Mt. Baker glaciers retreated upvalley well before CO2 began to increase significantly from 1945 on, i.e., CO2 cannot be the cause of this glacier retreat.  The climate turned cooler again from 1945 to 1977 and the glaciers readvanced about twice as far downvalley as they had retreated during the 1915 to 1945 recession, all during the time of maximum CO2 emissions (after 1945)!  This is even more important, because it shows that for ~30 years (~1945-1977) during the sharpest increase in human CO2 emissions, glaciers on Mt. Baker advanced strongly, just the opposite of what they should have done if CO2 causes warming. In 1978, the climate warmed again and the glaciers have again retreated upvalley. Thus, Koppe’s contentions that Cascade glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate totally ignores the strong glacier advance from 1945 to 1980 when CO2 was soaring. 

     Koppes claims that "glaciers on Mt. Baker…..have lost 20 percent of their volume since 1990."  This one is mind-boggling!  Fig. 7 shows the amount of retreat of the Coleman glacier terminus from 1993 to 2011 and the total length of the glacier. Keeping in mind that glaciers thicken rapidly upvalley from their terminus, the total amount of ice loss since 1990 can’t be more than a few percent. Other glaciers show the same relationship. How any competent glaciologist could come to such a conclusion is hard to imagine.
Picture
Figure 7. Diminished length of the Coleman glacier from 1993 to 2011(red enclosed area). Looking at Figure 7, it is hard to imagine how any competent glaciologists could conclude that.
CONCLUSIONS

Considering all of these easily confirmed facts that Koppes omitted, her conclusions are badly flawed (some are outright falsehoods) and her contentions are not scientifically defensible.


                                                           Dr. Don Easterbrook, PhD
18 Comments
Kris Halterman link
11/25/2013 12:11:48 am

My sentiments exactly. With all of the national media admitting that the mean temperatures are lowering and the glaciers are growing; how is it that "Vanishing Ice" misses all of this? Thank you Dr. Easterbrook for setting the record straight once more.

Reply
Jack Petree
11/25/2013 02:19:02 am

But Don, you just don't understand... It's not about science...It's about how good it makes you feel.

Reply
Critical Focus
11/25/2013 05:33:37 am

In my opinion, most people want to see themselves as rational, therefore they find reasons to maintain that their beliefs are accurate. Similarly, most people, despite the facts, don’t want to accept anything that conflicts with their belief system. Sadly, ideology trumps facts.

While I am concerned about the specific topic and implications of Ms. Koppes presentation, I am far more concerned about the bigger picture – the growing, perverse lack of critical thinking by too many people. A lack of critical thinking skills is a big part of the problems we face as a nation.

How many of the people listening to Ms. Koppes presentation were asking these kinds of questions:

• Can I imagine any evidence that would prove her claims false? What kind of evidence might that be?

• Did she offer sound arguments in support of her claims?

• Did she leave any evidence out? Has all the available evidence been considered?

• Did she attempt to evaluate the evidence in support of her claims honestly without fooling herself or the listener?

• Is the evidence she proffered capable of verifying the claims she made?

Had listeners asked these kinds of questions, i.e. done their own critical thinking, most would have left the presentation realizing that Ms. Koppes claims were scientifically unfounded.

Reply
Lyndenite25
11/25/2013 07:58:52 am

That newspaper article started out like a report about the presentation, but it sure left the station when it threw in a bunch of policy spin, about Schwartz consulting with Hutchings at City of Bellingham. Why would Bellingham Public Works be consulted or KNOW what's true about glaciers, climate and oysters? (to the extent anybody should take such wild leaps) The facts do matter at the end of the day. The “he said” “she said” routine doesn’t absolve the Herald from making yet another unfounded pronouncement to shape public opinion. Shame on the Fish Wrap!

Start demanding validity about tripe that's dished out as "a given." Verify, verify, verify. Every hypothesis has to be testable to be valid, meaning "there must be hope of deciding whether claims are true or false based on real experience."

Mt. Baker is getting hammered with early snow again this year, that's a fact. Open your eyes people.

Reply
Ben Cartright
11/25/2013 08:43:13 am

Pelto and Brown (2012) estimated the glacial loss on baker as 12 to 20 percent for the period 1990 to 2010. (abstract can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.9453/abstract).

Reply
Lyndenite25
11/25/2013 05:39:58 pm

Okay - have you got a better link - something publicly available without an account? I'd like to know - did Pelto and Brown actually go up there and measure the glaciers or was this a modeling exercise? Also - what constitutes "glacial loss"? Was it loss of mass or something else? How did they measure that (ice, snow, length, depth?)

Reply
Ben Cartright
11/26/2013 12:39:55 am

http://issuu.com/mspelto/docs/mount_baker_glaciers

Pelto has been going up there and measuring hundreds of locations on multiple glaciers in the North Cascade range for 30 years.

Sam Crawford
11/26/2013 03:40:12 am

It's available online here:

http://www.easternsnow.org/proceedings/2011/pelto_and_brown.pdf

Sam Crawford
11/26/2013 03:41:43 am

... and here's some more explanation and pictures of their data collection efforts:

http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/mount-baker-glacier-mass-balance/

childofww2
11/25/2013 09:28:21 am

It is such a shame that so much public policy is based on unfounded fact and that ultimately we the people and taxpayers get stuck with the bill for what is just so much ideology. Dr.Esterbrook is a gem - we are lucky to have his intellect in our community..

Reply
Don Easterbrook link
11/25/2013 10:54:14 pm

I've been doing similar photo analyses on the Coleman, Easton, Deming, Boulder, and Squak glaciers only going back farther in time. Pelto looked only at the most recent retreat during the 1978-1998 warm period during which the glaciers have retreated. I've documented the glacier termini positions going back to (1) the Little Ice maximum (about 1500 AD), (2) the terminal position at the end of the strong 1880-1915 glacier advance (way down valley), (3) the strong glacier retreat during the warm period from 1915 to ~1945, (4) the strong advance during the 1945-1980 cold period during which the termini reclaimed much of the ice lost during the previous warm period, and (5) recent glacier retreat during the 1978-1998 warm period (still going on). My results concerning this last retreat phase (post 1980) are similar to Pelto's, but my work extends much farther back in time.
The glacier data speaks for itself--yes Mt. Baker glaciers have retreated since 1980 (during the most recent warm period), but Koppes ignores the earlier advances and retreats (all of which are perfectly natural, before CO2 began to rise), and treats the latest advance as if it has only occurred because CO2 had risen and will continue forever. The main point of my rebuttal was that her conclusion is totally illogical because if you look at the earlier glacier advances and retreats, what is apparent is that the glacier retreat from 1915 to 1945 took place BEFORE CO2 had risen and thus could not have been CAUSED by increased CO2. Even more significant, is that the strong glacier readvance from 1945 to 1980 occurred during the sharp rise in CO2 during the same time period, just the opposite of what Koppes contend, i.e., if CO2 is the causes warming, then glaciers shouldn't be advancing when CO2 emissions rise! These are the main points I made in my rebuttal and are not at all affected by the Pelto data for the most recent warm period. That's not the issue.
Koppes treats the recent glacier retreat as though the glaciers had never retreated until CO2 emissions rose and totally ignores the 1915-1945 retreat that occurred with no increase in CO2 and the 1945-1980 readvance that occurred while CO2 was soaring. She assumes that the most recent warming will continue forever, rather than fluctuate between warm and cool phases as has happened for at least 500 years and undoubtedly longer.
Here are some thing to keep in mind:
1. Glacier retreat during a time of increased CO2 does NOT prove that the retreat was caused by CO2. Just because two things happen during the same time period doesn’t prove that one is the cause of the other. Consider the rooster that crows every morning just before sunrise—the rooster crows, the sun comes up. But the sun will still rise even after a chicken dinner the night before because although the rooster crowed 100% of the time before the sun rose, it was not the cause of the sun rising!
2. Glacier retreat during a time of no increase in CO2 proves that natural processes can cause glacier retreat without involvement of CO2, i.e., CO2 is insignificant. (Example: the 1915-1945 glacier retreat which occurred before the post-1945 CO2 emission increase).
3. Glacier advance during a time of sharply rising atmospheric CO2 proves that natural processes are far more important than CO2 in causing glacier fluctuation, i.e, CO2 is insignificant relative to natural variation. (Example: the 1945-1980 glacier advance which occurred during sharply increased CO2 emissions).
4. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small (0.039%) and the increase since 1950 is so tiny (0.009%) that it is incapable of causing significant warming.

Reply
Ben Cartright
11/26/2013 01:10:01 pm

"Koppes claims that "glaciers on Mt. Baker…..have lost 20 percent of their volume since 1990." This one is mind-boggling!"
But Don it was a correct and your post claimed otherwise. Kind of surprised you did not know this since you have studied Mount Baker glaciers. Glad to see that Mount Baker and glaciers still can surprise even the experts.

Reply
Critical Focus
11/26/2013 08:46:38 am

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has just released results of a survey of its own members. Here’s what their survey found:

- Nearly half the responding members, experts in meteorology and atmospheric science, do NOT believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming.

- Shown here, the AMS survey also ranked the order, greater to lesser, of what factor was the strongest predictor of meteorologists’ views about global warming:

o Their perception of scientific consensus

o Their political ideology

o Their climate science expertise

o Their perception of organizational (AMS) conflict

I don’t see a whole lot of traditional basing scientific opinion on objective analysis of data, you know, that pesky “scientific method”. Expertise came third after a concern for consensus and their political ideology! I think that’s a travesty.

As a “real” scientist, I’m extremely dismayed to think that anyone calling themselves a scientist, or accepting a paycheck as a scientist, would ever let perception of consensus, political ideology, or perception of organizational conflict have any influence or effect on their scientific work.

It’s really sad that so much in our daily lives has become driven by unfounded, unsubstantiated, unnecessary ideology.

Reply
Don Easterbrook
11/26/2013 07:03:15 pm

Ben
Of course I know the numbers that Pelto and Brown got. But their conclusion was that the average mass balance of Mt. Baker glaciers was -0.5 m/yr. If you apply this to the volume of ice for individual glaciers, you get about -10%, not -20%. What I objected to was the blanket statement by Koppes that “glaciers in the Cascades have lost 20% of their ice since 1990,” which is twice the average that Pelto and Brown determined. Pelto and Brown got more negative mass balances using a method that they describe as “significantly more negative, suggesting that this is not the best approach.”
My take on this is that the -0.5 m/yr is what their data shows and for Koppes to double that number and conclude that glaciers in the Cascades (not just Mt. Baker ) have lost 20% of their volume since 1990 as a result of CO2 emissions and will this continue indefinitely into the future is to me “mind boggling.” I object not only to her exaggeration of the data, but also to her implying that the present negative mass balance is caused by increased atmospheric CO2 and that it will continue forever, totaling ignoring the previous history of glacier fluctuations on Mt. Baker that I have previously published. What do you think—is her statement valid? Are my objections to her exaggeration and implications not reasonable? Do you not agree that the strong glacier retreat from ~1915 to ~1945 before CO2 rose proves that CO2 had nothing to do with that recession, and that the strong glacier advance from ~1945 to 1980 during the beginning of sharp rise in CO2 emissions proves that CO2 is insignificant relative to natural causes? Koppes totally ignored this.
I totally agree with ‘Critical focus’ – “I don’t see a whole lot of traditional basing scientific opinion on objective analysis of data, you know, that pesky “scientific method.” Like him/her, “I’m extremely dismayed to think that anyone calling themselves a scientist, or accepting a paycheck as a scientist, would ever let perception of consensus, political ideology, or perception of organizational conflict have any influence or effect on their scientific work. Expertise came third after a concern for consensus and their political ideology! I think that’s a travesty.” Yet that is exactly what I heard at the Koppes’ City Club talk. My approach is perhaps best summed up by Wentworth (1949)—“Dogma is an impediment to the free exercise of thought. It paralyses the intelligence. Conclusions based upon preconceived ideas are valueless. It is only the open mind that really thinks.”
We can all agree that Mt. Baker glaciers have retreated during the post-1980 warming and let us, by all means, continue to discuss what it means with an open mind.

Reply
Don Easterbrook
11/27/2013 12:46:23 am

Critical focus

Well said! The notion that scientific expertise ranks only third behind ‘scientific consensus’ and political ideology is not only absolutely amazing but truly sad. I never thought I’d see the day when political ideology, so-called consensus, money, and political power would trump the scientific method.
You may have seen Michael Mann’s statement about the scientific method—‘proof’ now only applies to alcoholic beverages and is no longer necessary in science. All you need is a theory and enough people to agree with you.
The saddest thing of all is that ‘science’ has now lost the credibility it once had.

Reply
Ben Cartright
11/27/2013 04:26:03 pm

Don
My only point (has nothing to do with CO2) is regarding the one paragraph regarding Mount Baker ice volume in your post. Koppes stated glaciers on Baker have lost 20 percent of their volume since 1990. You stated that "total amount of ice loss since 1990 can’t be more than a few percent." Pelto and Brown indicate the loss in volume is 15 to 20 percent since 1990. If you were familiar with Pelto's and Brown's work, you ought not have said what you did.

But from my perspective, what bothers me is not the part about Koppes but the concluding statement of the paragraph "How any competent glaciologist could come to such a conclusion is hard to imagine."

You took your enthusiasm to smear Koppes and made an error in fact and further compounded it by disparaging the competence of the glaciologists that provided the data Koppes referenced. They did good work and your statement was simply wrong.

Reply
Don Easterbrook
11/28/2013 12:40:07 am

Ben,
No, I didn’t make an ‘error in fact’—I agree that my remark was intemperate (more on that in a minute), but let’s see if we can’t get the numbers right. Your statement “Pelto and Brown indicate the loss in volume is 15 to 20 percent since 1990” is not correct—I did a text search of the paper for 15-20% (or 15 to 20 percent) and it does not occur anywhere in the paper. Here is what Pelto and Brown say:
“The first three methods all yield mean Ba of _0.50ma_1 to _0.55ma_1, indicating that each provides a reasonable assessment. The fourth method yielded a mean Ba of _0.77ma_1, significantly more negative, suggesting that this is not the best approach.”
“All but one estimate converge on a loss of _0.5ma_1 for Mount Baker from 1990 to 2010. This equates to an 11-m loss in glacier thickness”
The 20% number that Koppes stated as a flat-out fact (and the number you stated) is apparently based on their 4th method, which they consider “not the best approach.” Pelto and Brown give a range of values as 12-20%, where the lower number is presumably based on the -0.5 m/yr value of direct observations and the upper limit is presumably based on the method they consider “not the best approach.” Is this not correct? Why would anyone ignore the preferred, directly observed value and state only the upper limit based on a method that they clearly consider to be “not the best approach?”
In order to calculate loss of glacier volume (whatever the number), you must know the glacier volume. Until we get adequate measurements of glacier thickness, determination of glacier volume must be a crude estimate. One of my grad students, Joel Harper, and I went up on the Easton glacier and made the first ice thickness measurements, but I haven’t seen any others. So converting mass balance numbers to glacier volume depends on the total ice volume that you assume. Pelto and Brown assume a mean ice thickness of 50–75 m, which I consider to be a low estimate. The importance of this is that if you assume a greater ice thickness, as I do (granted it’s only an assumption), you get a larger total ice volume and the percentage loss in glacier volume is less. Applying Pelto and Brown’s preferred mass balance number (-0.5 m/yr) to a larger total assumed ice volume forms the basis for my statement of "total amount of ice loss since 1990 can’t be more than a few percent." The point here is that with only crude estimates of ice volume to work and using the Pelto and Brown best number for mass balance, (-0.5 m/yr), the only thing you can say for sure is that for Koppes to state unequivocally that glaciers have lost 20% of their volume is irresponsible.
So much for the data. Let’s look at your statement: “You took your enthusiasm to smear Koppes and made an error in fact and further compounded it by disparaging the competence of the glaciologists that provided the data Koppes referenced. They did good work and your statement was simply wrong.” What I said was "How any competent glaciologist could come to such a conclusion is hard to imagine." This is a generic statement, i.e. it does not refer to anyone by name and by virtue of the fact that Pelto and Brown did not conclude that Mt. Baker had lost 20% (period) of its ice volume, excludes them. It refers to Koppes only by implication. It is indeed hard for me to imagine how Koppes could tell an audience of several hundred people flat out that Mt. Baker had lost 20% of its volume as though it was an unequivocal fact. However, having said that, was my remark intemperate? Yes, it was. I was fed up with all the bad information put out by Koppes, but that remark was not necessary and I should not have made it.
Incidentally, I applaud Pelto’s work on Mt. Baker, despite the nasty things he says about me and his refusal to cite or acknowledge any of my work there.

Reply
Comrade X
12/3/2013 11:59:42 pm

The man made global warming cult does not require facts but merely faith to be a true believer as all religions do!

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    WE Dredge!
    Picture
    Posting Rules:
    This forum is moderated.  Please make an effort to substantiate claims that support opinion.  Gratuitous profanity and ad-hominem attacks will not be accepted.  You can create a "nickname" if you'd like, and you don't have to reveal your e-mail address.   Feel free to share information and your honest thoughts.

    Categories

    All
    Agenda 21
    Best Available Science
    Big Government
    Eco Activism
    Ethics
    Freedom
    Planning
    Property Rights
    Science
    Small Business
    Social Engineering
    Taxes
    Welcome

    Archives

    January 2022
    September 2020
    August 2020
    April 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011


    Automatic Updates

    Do you want to be notified when new content is added to this newsfeed? Most browsers allow you to subscribe to our Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. Click on the RSS link below, and follow the instructions.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.