Glaciers disappearing from Glacier National Park

[Meister]

The mountains of Glacier National Park began forming 170 million years ago when ancient rocks were forced eastward up and over much younger rock strata. Known as the Lewis Overthrust, these sedimentary rocks are considered to have some of the finest fossilized examples of extremely early life found anywhere on Earth. The current shapes of the Lewis and Livingston mountain ranges and positioning and size of the lakes show the telltale evidence of massive glacial action, which carved U-shaped valleys and left behind moraines which impounded water creating lakes. Of the estimated 150 glaciers which existed in the park in the mid-19th century, only 25 active glaciers remained by 2010.[3] Scientists studying the glaciers in the park have estimated that all the glaciers may disappear by 2030 if the current climate patterns persist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

They've been melting for the last 8,000 years...nothing new here.

 

[code1211]

What a dumb **** you are, Dive. The glacial melt provides the water for agriculture at the end of the season. If the glaciers are vastly diminished, or gone, there is plenty of water at the beginning of the season, and little to none once the seasonal snows are melted off. Perhaps if you had a clue as to how glacier work, you would be capable of understanding the concern.

HowStuffWorks "How Glaciers Work"

Glaciers (North America) – Summary

<snip>
Also reporting from Canada, Clague et al. (2004) documented glacier and vegetation changes at high elevations in the upper Bowser River basin in the northern Coast Mountains of British Columbia, based on studies of the distributions of glacial moraines and trimlines, tree-ring data, cores from two small lakes that were sampled for a variety of analyses (magnetic susceptibility, pollen, diatoms, chironomids, carbon and nitrogen content, 210Pb, 137Cs, 14C), similar analyses of materials obtained from pits and cores from a nearby fen, and by accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating of plant fossils, including wood fragments, tree bark, twigs and conifer needles and cones. All this evidence suggested a glacial advance that began about 3000 years ago and may have lasted for hundreds of years, which would have placed it within the unnamed cold period that preceded the Roman Warm Period. There was also evidence for a second minor phase of activity that began about 1300 years ago but was of short duration, which would have placed it within the Dark Ages Cold Period. Finally, the third and most extensive Neoglacial interval began shortly after AD 1200, following the Medieval Warm Period, and ended in the late 1800s, which was, of course, the Little Ice Age, during which time Clague et al. say that “glaciers achieved their greatest extent of the past 3000 years and probably the last 10,000 years.”

These data clearly depict the regular alternation between non-CO2-forcecd multi-century cold and warm periods that is the trademark of the millennial-scale oscillation of climate that reverberates throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike. That a significant, but by no means unprecedented, warming followed the most recent cold phase of this cycle is in no way unusual, particularly since the Little Ice Age was likely the coldest period of the last 10,000 years. The significant warming of the 20th century would have occurred within the same timeframe and been just as strong even if the atmosphere’s CO2 content had remained constant at pre-industrial levels; it was simply the next scheduled phase of this ever-recurring natural climatic oscillation.

<snip>

The first illuminating aspect of this glacial history is that the post-Little Ice Age retreat of the Jackson and Agassiz glaciers began just after 1830, in harmony with the findings of a number of other studies from various parts of the world (Vincent and Vallon, 1997; Vincent, 2001, 2002; Moore et al., 2002; Yoo and D’Odorico, 2002; Gonzalez-Rouco et al. 2003; Jomelli and Pech, 2004), including the entire Northern Hemisphere (Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Esper et al., 2002), which finding stands in stark contrast to what is suggested by the IPCC-endorsed “hockeystick” temperature history of Mann et al. (1998, 1999), which does not portray any Northern Hemispheric warming until around 1910. The second illuminating aspect of the glacial record is that the vast bulk of the glacial retreat in Glacier National Park occurred between 1830 and 1942, over which time the air’s CO2 concentration rose by only 27 ppm, which is less than a third of the total CO2 increase experienced since the start of glacial recession. Then, from the mid-1940s through the 1970s, when the air’s CO2 concentration rose by another 27 ppm, Pederson et al. report that “retreat rates slowed substantially, and several modest advances were documented.”

<snip>

Clearly, and contrary to the strident claims of climate alarmists, something other than the historic rise in the air’s CO2 content has been responsible for the disappearing ice fields of Glacier National Park. It should also be clear to all that the historical behavior of North America’s glaciers provides no evidence whatsoever for unprecedented or unnatural CO2-induced global warming over any part of the 20th century.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 Nonscience.

 

[JWBooth]

CO2 Nonscience.

Nonsense, CO2 Nonsense is the correct phrase.

 

[theHawk]

The mountains of Glacier National Park began forming 170 million years ago when ancient rocks were forced eastward up and over much younger rock strata. Known as the Lewis Overthrust, these sedimentary rocks are considered to have some of the finest fossilized examples of extremely early life found anywhere on Earth. The current shapes of the Lewis and Livingston mountain ranges and positioning and size of the lakes show the telltale evidence of massive glacial action, which carved U-shaped valleys and left behind moraines which impounded water creating lakes. Of the estimated 150 glaciers which existed in the park in the mid-19th century, only 25 active glaciers remained by 2010.[3] Scientists studying the glaciers in the park have estimated that all the glaciers may disappear by 2030 if the current climate patterns persist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)

Gee who woulda thunk glaciers would be dissappearing since the last Ice Age ended over 12,000 years ago.

 

[mdn2000]

I think I have at least until spring, to save that last piece of ice for my Bacardi and Coke.

How much CO2 is released from the Coke in my drink, soon the government must pass a law forcing all drinks to be flat, non-carbonated.

 

[Chris]

CANCUN, Mexico &#8212; Glaciers are melting fastest in southern South America and Alaska and communities urgently need to adapt to the meltdown, according to a UN report released Tuesday.

Many low-lying glaciers may disappear over the coming decades, with the northwest United States, southwest Canada and the Arctic also affected, according to the report compiled by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and scientists, presented at UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico.

Most glaciers -- which are formed by accumulations of snow and ice -- started shrinking around 150 years ago, but the rate of ice loss has increased significantly since the 1980s, the report said.

AFP: Glaciers melting fastest in South America, Alaska: UN

 

[Meister]

CANCUN, Mexico — Glaciers are melting fastest in southern South America and Alaska and communities urgently need to adapt to the meltdown, according to a UN report released Tuesday.

Many low-lying glaciers may disappear over the coming decades, with the northwest United States, southwest Canada and the Arctic also affected, according to the report compiled by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and scientists, presented at UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico.

Most glaciers -- which are formed by accumulations of snow and ice -- started shrinking around 150 years ago, but the rate of ice loss has increased significantly since the 1980s, the report said.

AFP: Glaciers melting fastest in South America, Alaska: UN

Of course, the UN has no dog in the fight.

 

[DiveCon]

CANCUN, Mexico — Glaciers are melting fastest in southern South America and Alaska and communities urgently need to adapt to the meltdown, according to a UN report released Tuesday.

Many low-lying glaciers may disappear over the coming decades, with the northwest United States, southwest Canada and the Arctic also affected, according to the report compiled by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and scientists, presented at UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico.

Most glaciers -- which are formed by accumulations of snow and ice -- started shrinking around 150 years ago, but the rate of ice loss has increased significantly since the 1980s, the report said.

AFP: Glaciers melting fastest in South America, Alaska: UN

Of course, the UN has no dog in the fight.

as the glaciers get smaller i would expect the rate of melt would increase exponentially'

 

[westwall]

CANCUN, Mexico — Glaciers are melting fastest in southern South America and Alaska and communities urgently need to adapt to the meltdown, according to a UN report released Tuesday.

Many low-lying glaciers may disappear over the coming decades, with the northwest United States, southwest Canada and the Arctic also affected, according to the report compiled by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and scientists, presented at UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico.

Most glaciers -- which are formed by accumulations of snow and ice -- started shrinking around 150 years ago, but the rate of ice loss has increased significantly since the 1980s, the report said.

AFP: Glaciers melting fastest in South America, Alaska: UN

Of course, the UN has no dog in the fight.

as the glaciers get smaller i would expect the rate of melt would increase exponentially'

That is how ice works after all. Not that the alarmists have ever bothered to figure that out.

 

[DiveCon]

Of course, the UN has no dog in the fight.

as the glaciers get smaller i would expect the rate of melt would increase exponentially'

That is how ice works after all. Not that the alarmists have ever bothered to figure that out.

you mean actual science?

how DARE you
LOL

 

[Obamerican]

ROME, Italy (CNN) -- Melting glaciers in the Alps may prompt Italy and Switzerland to redraw their borders near the Matterhorn, according to parliamentary draft legislation being readied in Rome.

Franco Narducci of Italy's opposition Democratic Party is preparing a bill to redefine the frontier with neighboring Switzerland, his office said Wednesday.

Narducci is a member of the foreign affairs panel in Italy's lower Chamber of Deputies. Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has authorized the bill.

Switzerland also has cooperated with Italy on the matter.

The Italian Military Geographic Institute says climate change is responsible for the Alpine glaciers melting.

"This draft law is born out the necessity to revise and verify the frontiers given the changes in climate and atmosphere," Narducci said. "The 1941 convention between Italy and Switzerland established as criteria [for border revisions] the ridge [crest] of the glaciers. Following the withdrawal of the glaciers in the Alps, a new criterion has been proposed so that the new border coincides with the rock."

Melting glaciers force Italy, Swiss to redraw border - CNN.com

The border has been changed before. Get over it.

 

[mdn2000]

It is time to stop kidding, this is serious, we need to save the glaciers, we need to stop global warming, the only way possible is to have a counter source to heat, I propose using dry ice, we can have dry ice factories everywhere, we could put dry ice on glaciers, we can put dry ice in the ocean, dry ice is very cold and will release that coldness into the atmosphere.

The only thing that can save us from CO2 is dry ice, which happens to be pure CO2.

It is only those who have no understanding of radiation that believe a molecule of dry ice can be excited and radiate heat, I know of not one experiment that demonstrates CO2's ability to absorb and retain and radiate heat.

If CO2 could radiate heat, why is CO2 not a source of energy????

 

[IanC]

It is time to stop kidding, this is serious, we need to save the glaciers, we need to stop global warming, the only way possible is to have a counter source to heat, I propose using dry ice, we can have dry ice factories everywhere, we could put dry ice on glaciers, we can put dry ice in the ocean, dry ice is very cold and will release that coldness into the atmosphere.

The only thing that can save us from CO2 is dry ice, which happens to be pure CO2.

It is only those who have no understanding of radiation that believe a molecule of dry ice can be excited and radiate heat, I know of not one experiment that demonstrates CO2's ability to absorb and retain and radiate heat.

If CO2 could radiate heat, why is CO2 not a source of energy????

the problem with you is that we can't really tell if you are kidding or not. kinda like that kid in high school who said they could sing really well even though the dogs were howling in pain.

 

[mdn2000]

It is time to stop kidding, this is serious, we need to save the glaciers, we need to stop global warming, the only way possible is to have a counter source to heat, I propose using dry ice, we can have dry ice factories everywhere, we could put dry ice on glaciers, we can put dry ice in the ocean, dry ice is very cold and will release that coldness into the atmosphere.

The only thing that can save us from CO2 is dry ice, which happens to be pure CO2.

It is only those who have no understanding of radiation that believe a molecule of dry ice can be excited and radiate heat, I know of not one experiment that demonstrates CO2's ability to absorb and retain and radiate heat.

If CO2 could radiate heat, why is CO2 not a source of energy????

the problem with you is that we can't really tell if you are kidding or not. kinda like that kid in high school who said they could sing really well even though the dogs were howling in pain.

Different techniques work for different people, some people will hear facts and understand, others will not, so at times I state fact, other times I try absurdity.

CO2, it is impossible for CO2 to contribute any heat or retain any heat, its that simple yet people think fancy graphs and democrat-scientist who never left school provide fact when all they do is obfuscate facts with complex figures nobody could ever understand.

Dry ice is pure CO2, You cannot make Dry Ice by freezing CO2, its the change in pressure that makes liquid CO2 into a frozen solid. Of course you must cool CO2 gas to make liquid CO2, once you have liquid CO2 its not frozen to make dry ice.

Have you ever deliberately exposed yourself to a very high dose of radiation, I have, in a way very few people today could ever replicate, what is the relevance, an understanding of radiation, which the experts state excites CO2 in the air and thus causes warming. So I have a bit of knowledge of high doses of radiation and what they do to the body.

I exposed myself to 1.8 rem of radiation in 6 minutes, the NRC at the time allowed only 2.5 rem per three months, I forget the total yearly allowed dose.

1.8 rem in 6 minutes, I had dosimeters all over my body, even on my gonads.

I had to be trained or educated on radiation prior to being exposed to radiation.

Being curious I have studied radiation outside of universities and schools.

To describe CO2 as absorbing radiation and giving off heat as a result, or after being struck with radiation and thus giving off heat is pure imagination.

Facts are facts, if CO2 was so great and absorbing and giving off heat we would use it as an insulating gas.

If CO2 absorbed heat we would not use it to make dry ice.

Radiation is so tiny it can pass through your body without touching a single cell, so there are three parts of CO2 per million parts of everything else in the atmosphere and I am to believe its absorbing radiation making the earth hot.

It is not possible and its a giant scam.

Common sense and experience in life many times provides facts that democrat-scientist just dont understand.

I knew a man much smarter than me when I was studying telecommunication technology, he got straight A's, we learned basic electronics, radio fundamentals, ground radio repair, cryptographic equipment repair, we learned calculus, trigonometry, algebra, yet at the end when we graduated the straight A student went out and bought a ca radio, he came to us and asked if anyone knew how to hook up the radio in his car.

The smartest guy in class could not hook up a radio.

Now I have democrat-scientist who never left school telling me CO2 that has always been a part of the atmosphere is making the earth to hot to support life.

That just a 2 degree increase in temperature will destroy the world, yet the earth from winter to summer increases by over 80 degrees.

So howl in pain, the message is as simple as dry ice, you can even do your own experiment, just remember CO2 can displace oxygen so if you play with dry ice to see how hot you can make it, do it outside with plenty of ventilation. I say this because if you believe the earth is being destroyed by dry ice, I mean CO2, you could very will be ignorant enough to kill yourself playing with dry ice.

Just ask why CO2 is not used in windows to absorb heat and release the heat into a house, if its the most dangerous gas because of this property why is not used as an insulating gas.

 

[IanC]

thanks for keeping the mystery intact. its more interesting that way

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is time to stop kidding, this is serious, we need to save the glaciers, we need to stop global warming, the only way possible is to have a counter source to heat, I propose using dry ice, we can have dry ice factories everywhere, we could put dry ice on glaciers, we can put dry ice in the ocean, dry ice is very cold and will release that coldness into the atmosphere.

The only thing that can save us from CO2 is dry ice, which happens to be pure CO2.

It is only those who have no understanding of radiation that believe a molecule of dry ice can be excited and radiate heat, I know of not one experiment that demonstrates CO2's ability to absorb and retain and radiate heat.

If CO2 could radiate heat, why is CO2 not a source of energy????

^^^ Global arming Post of the Century!!! ^^^

 

[Old Rocks]

It is time to stop kidding, this is serious, we need to save the glaciers, we need to stop global warming, the only way possible is to have a counter source to heat, I propose using dry ice, we can have dry ice factories everywhere, we could put dry ice on glaciers, we can put dry ice in the ocean, dry ice is very cold and will release that coldness into the atmosphere.

The only thing that can save us from CO2 is dry ice, which happens to be pure CO2.

It is only those who have no understanding of radiation that believe a molecule of dry ice can be excited and radiate heat, I know of not one experiment that demonstrates CO2's ability to absorb and retain and radiate heat.

If CO2 could radiate heat, why is CO2 not a source of energy????

By golly, mdn, I have to give you credit, you are an equal scientist to Si and Westwall. Such an incisive description of what CO2 is.

 

[mdn2000]

It is time to stop kidding, this is serious, we need to save the glaciers, we need to stop global warming, the only way possible is to have a counter source to heat, I propose using dry ice, we can have dry ice factories everywhere, we could put dry ice on glaciers, we can put dry ice in the ocean, dry ice is very cold and will release that coldness into the atmosphere.

The only thing that can save us from CO2 is dry ice, which happens to be pure CO2.

It is only those who have no understanding of radiation that believe a molecule of dry ice can be excited and radiate heat, I know of not one experiment that demonstrates CO2's ability to absorb and retain and radiate heat.

If CO2 could radiate heat, why is CO2 not a source of energy????

By golly, mdn, I have to give you credit, you are an equal scientist to Si and Westwall. Such an incisive description of what CO2 is.

Yes I am, thank you very much OLD ROCK.

People should not let the Democrat-Scientist who never left school confuse yourselves.

A brain is a wonderful thing, if you morons spent less time "googling, cutting, and pasting" you might find you can think, how do I explain thinking to a person who does not think. I guess I make a wiki page, pay google for my wiki page to be found, then I challenge the morons, who will then go out and find the answer, an answer I place on the web and pay to found.

 

[Old Rocks]

More on the glaciers in Glacier National Park from the USGS

USGS Oregon Water Science Center

USGS Repeat Photography Project Documents Retreating Glaciers in Glacier National Park
Glacier National Park&#8217;s namesake glaciers have receded rapidly since the park&#8217;s establishment in 1910, primarily due to long-term changes in regional and global climate. In the last century, the 5 warmest years have occurred in the last 8 years - in this order: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004 (NASA). These changes include warming, particularly of daily minimum temperatures, and persistent droughts. This warming is ongoing and the loss of the Park&#8217;s glaciers continues, with the park&#8217;s glaciers predicted to disappear by 2030.



Climate change research in Glacier National Park, Montana entails many methods of documenting the landscape change, including the decline of the park&#8217;s namesake glaciers. While less quantitative than other high-tech methods of recording glacial mass, depth, and rate of retreat, repeat photography has become a valuable tool for communicating effects of global warming. With evidence of worldwide glacial recession and modeled predictions that all of the park&#8217;s glaciers will melt by the year 2030, USGS scientists have begun the task of documenting glacial decline through photography. The striking images created by pairing historic images with contemporary photos has given &#8220;global warming&#8221; a face and made &#8220;climate change&#8221; a relevant issue to viewers