One of the pet peeves of anthropogenic global warming skeptics is how the media and climate change alarmists like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore only address events supporting that which they conflate and abuse data to prove.
A perfect example is the discussion concerning receding glaciers, as these folks will either ignore when such recession began, or the other possible environmental issues that many scientists believe to be responsible.
Maybe even worse, the media alarmists will always ignore information that might throw a monkey wrench into the position they’re trying to advance.
With that in mind, it seems a metaphysical certitude American press outlets will ignore reports of glacial expansion around the globe, most hypocritically as one such growing ice mass is actually right here in the U.S. as reported by Washington’s News Tribune (h/t NB member dscott, emphasis added throughout):
Crater Glacier is like no other glacier in the world. It’s the only glacier with lava extruding through it and forming a dome. And while most glaciers are receding, Crater Glacier is advancing three feet per day and forming a collar around the growing dome.
A glacier that’s growing? How can that be? According to Al Gore and the supposed consensus of scientists claiming the global warming debate to be over, glaciers everywhere are receding.
Not so:
Crater Glacier started forming shortly after St. Helens blew its top on May 18, 1980. The glacier is fed by snow and falling rock and ice from the crater rim. The glacier is about 40 percent rock and 60 percent ice, USGS geologist Willie Scott said.
Originally, the glacier filled the void between the crater walls and the lava dome that formed from 1980 to 1986. Peter Frenzen, Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument’s scientist, says the crater’s architecture is perfect for nurturing the glacier.
[…]
What happened next surprised the scientists.
Cooling rock on the outside of the dome insulated the glacier from the lava, and only about 10 percent of the glacier melted, said Carolyn Driedger, a USGS hydrologist. Instead, the dome, growing by a pickup truckload of lava every two seconds, split the glacier into two moraines – deposits of glacial rock and soil – pressing each against the crater walls. The pinching forced the glacier arms to double in depth and increase their speed.
[…]
At its current rate of growth, the dome will rebuild St. Helens to its pre-1980 glory in 180 years.
Hmmm. Scientists can be surprised by nature? Aren’t climate models perfect in predicting future events?
Appears not, for glaciers are also expanding on Mont Blanc in France and Switzerland as reported by World Climate Report (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says in their recent 2007 Summary for Policymakers “Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise.” Someone in Europe missed the memo on this subject as a recent article has appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research entitled “Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate change.” To say the least, we at World Climate Report were interested in what the authors had to say.
The research was conducted by six scientists from leading agencies and departments in France and Switzerland that deal with hydrology and glaciology. Before you see the title of the article and immediately suspect some conspiracy funded by European coal companies, be aware that the research was funded by Observatoire des Sciences de l’Univers de Grenoble (OSUG), the European Programs ALPCLIM and CARBOSOL, and by the city of Chamonix Mont-Blanc. Given the title of the article, we wonder if the six scientists will ever be funded again by any European agencies.
Doubtful. Fortunately, these scientists – apparently new heretical departures from the supposed consensus – have thrown caution to the wind so to speak:
The Vincent et al. team collected a variety of datasets that could help them understand how the high elevation glaciers of Mont Blanc were impacted by variations and trends in climate. Among other findings, they found that the mass balance of the glaciers is strongly controlled by precipitation, not temperature. The team used accurate survey maps from 1905 to compare to maps they generated with modern GPS measurements, and by subtracting the two surfaces, they could determine changes in the ice fields during the 20th century (see the two figures below).
Fascinating. So, something other than temperature is responsible for the growth of glaciers on Mont Blanc and Mount St. Helens. Doesn’t it logically follow that something other than temperature might be responsible for the recession of glaciers elsewhere? Or, does that require too much logic?
Regardless of the answers, the article continued:
Vincent et al. state “The most striking features of these figures are the small thickness changes observed over the 20th century. For both areas, thickness variations do not exceed ±15 m. The average changes are +2.6 m at Dôme du Goûter and -0.3 m at Mont Blanc. Considering the uncertainty interval, i.e., ±5 m, it can be concluded that no significant thickness change is detectable over most of these areas”. Putting all their findings together regarding the surface mass balance (SMB) of these two glaciers, they state “All these results suggest that the SMB at Dôme du Goûter and Mont Blanc did not experience any significant changes over the 20th century.” The first sentence of their conclusions section states “Geodetic measurements carried out in 1905 and 2005 on the highest ice fields of the Mont Blanc range indicate small thickness changes and show that these very high-elevation glaciated areas have not been significantly affected by climate change over the last 100 years.” Later in the conclusions section, they write “In any case, this study reveals that the very high-elevation ice fields in the Mont Blanc area have not been affected by the climate warming. The 20th century climate warming affected the atmospheric temperature in the Alps by +1°C. However this change did not significantly affect the ice deformation rate in the high-altitude ice fields since the ice temperature remains far below the melting point and therefore keeping the glacier frozen to its bed.”
Hmmm. So, the Alps have seen a one degree rise in temperature in the past 100 years. Yet, some glaciers are expanding rather than receding?
Somebody better call Al Gore for an explanation. And, while you’re at it, contact Katie, Charlie, and Brian to let them know that not all glaciers on the planet are receding. I’m sure they’ll want to share this information with their viewers.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
...it's "global/warming/
June 28, 2007 - 10:58 ET by TruthMonger...it's "global/warming/cooling/whatever/war for oil/let's ban talk radio - and it's all Bush's fault says Dr. Gore...can't wait to discuss this all YET AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But thanks Noel - appreciate the updates - just want to kill someone over this non-issue GWBS is all:)! Like sarcasmo says Paris Hilton is much more relavent at priority level #40,751...
And yes i think we can certainly call the the House of Faud a dictatorship...
...it's "global/warming/
June 30, 2007 - 02:52 ET by Dave R...it's "global/warming/cooling/whatever/war for oil/let's ban talk radio - and it's all Bush's fault says Dr. Gore...can't wait to discuss this all YET AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMAO!
Help Fred Thompson defeat the RINOs, along with the Hitllary/Obama axis, & win the White House in '08.
glaciers in the eastern Karakoram Range growing also
June 28, 2007 - 11:08 ET by Gary HallNoel, in the land of world's largest glaciers, there's a bit of old "growing" news also. In the eastern Karakoram Range (Afghanistan or Pakistan?) here are two side by side photos, 1993 and 2006 respectively, showing an increase in the size of these two glaciers. Interestingly, the 2006 picture was snapped (from space) about two weeks later in the season than the 1993 picture - no tricky stuff here. gary
You can't win this one, Noel.
June 28, 2007 - 11:21 ET by GalvanicYou can't win this one, Noel. Evidence such as this is why the GWers are now using the term Climate Change. It attributes all change -- warming, cooling, glaciers melting/glaciers growing, hurricanes/lack of hurricanes --- to man's production of GHGs.
Take, for example, the 2006 hurricance season, in which contrary to predictions of a heavier than average season, the US saw NO HURRICANES TOUCH OUR SHORES. The GWers, who have warned us of more frequent and more powerful storms due to GW/Climate Change, merely cite the 2006 season as proof of anthropogenic climate change.
So, contrary to what we might think is obvious, the evidence you offered is merely proof of anthropogenic climate change. ;-)
So the daily weather report w
June 28, 2007 - 11:34 ET by Chris NormanSo the daily weather report will now be called The Daily Climate Change Report?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Here's your five-day Climate
June 28, 2007 - 11:44 ET by CapitalismRulesHere's your five-day Climate Change forcast. Looks like it's going to be another scorcher because of a new factory opening in Jackson, Mississippi, no wait, Algore just planted two new trees, sorry looks like that will cause the temp to fall by three degrees. More rain caused by CO2 emissions from Detroit in the Upper Peninula, but reports of GreenPeace changing their lightbulbs might give way to sunshine later in the day. back to you Chris.
NO, NO, NO!!! Do not give t
June 28, 2007 - 13:11 ET by Sick-n-TiredNO, NO, NO!!! Do not give them that!! We need to hold them to their original 'hypothesis'. They can claim global warming, they can't claim 'climate change'. If they wrangle that, then they have a lock on any phenom, weather/climate wise, to push their socialistic agenda.
Don't give them an inch, they will stretch it around the world!
Chamonix caught my eye. That
June 28, 2007 - 11:42 ET by danboChamonix caught my eye. That was one of the places that they resorted to exorcism to hault advancing glaciers. In 1825 Le Bois Village was evacuated. But the glacier started retreating in 1826, most of it melting by 1873.
All those SUV's used in the 1800's.
The inconvenient truth.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Dan
June 28, 2007 - 11:55 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
I LOVE that! :-) ns
NoelThe recent discussions by
June 28, 2007 - 12:45 ET by danboNoel
The recent discussions by the Union Of Concerned Scientists, and we shouldn't trust anyone who gets money from Exxon. Well it got me checking. Looked up one of them. Helen Caldicott (apparently nominated for a peace prize. Which should tell us something.)
Found this quote in her writing. "I have heard talk of Russian expansionism, and I investigated that thoroughly. I found that, according to the Pentagon, America has 200 major bases in 45 nations in the world and 20 major ports; the Soviet Union has none. "
Did i miss something in the former East Germany, Hungary, Poland....? Was I hallucinating?
She's very concerned about people dying due to another bomb by the evil US. As was dropped on the poor people of Japan. Goes into great detail.
I wonder if she's as concerned with those who died the old fashioned way. As at Nanking. Where people were buried alive. Where people were buried up to their thighs and used for bayonet practice, where people were lined up, had their heads cut off; to see which Japanese officer could cause the blood to squirt highest. Even infants.
Sorry if these people look less like scientist and more like insane activist.
I'm sure she won't read this. I'm sure she's sitting in the dark. And not using her computer. As everytime we turn on a light switch we cause a brain dead baby. I'm sure doesn't want to cause that.
Source
Sorry for my tangent. But I think I'll trust Exxon more than the ICS.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Glacier Growth
June 28, 2007 - 11:43 ET by Mike From CanmoreNoel!! I can't believe you posted this!!. I just got back from Glacier Bay in Alaska and did you know the glaciers retreated 47 miles!!!! . . . Forgot to mention, that was from mid 1700's to 1870's. All that carbon we were emitting back then. (tongue in cheek). Also, several are continuing to grow. They were gorgeous. I was very disappointed to not have seen some calving, which is of course a result of growing , not receding glaciers. Don't know why Al shows calving glaciers in his movie. Dramatic pics sell better than boring reality, I guess. Cheers
No, no, no. Don't you see?
June 28, 2007 - 12:13 ET by Jinx McHueNo, no, no. Don't you see? Global warming is causing the glaciers to grow just like it causes colder temps and more snow in the winter. Global warming also causes those brief springtime plunges in temps back to winter levels. Everything proves global warming. Nothing falsifies it.
Isn't climate change simply
June 28, 2007 - 12:25 ET by wiwfIsn't climate change simply called weather by normal people? The climate is changing everyday in terms of temperature, precipitation, sunlight. Last time I checked, that's weather...
Growing glaciers...will media
June 28, 2007 - 12:30 ET by mattmGrowing glaciers...will media care?
Sure. To them growing glaciers and shrinking glaciers are both evidence APGW...
I wonder what would happen if
June 28, 2007 - 16:33 ET by JohnMI wonder what would happen if we asked AGW proponents:
"What evidence would you need to see in order to accept that AGW is NOT occurring?"
This springs from my having a vague feeling that we've got to stop trying to prove a negative... and put the burden on them.
Ah, JohnM, that's precisely w
June 28, 2007 - 16:45 ET by dscottAh, JohnM, that's precisely why liberals play this game. They never want to answer any questions, just make assertions which they demand you prove to the contrary. So in the meantime, all the while you are digging up the answer, they are correct until you PROVE otherwise. This is why the facts are irrelevant to them, it's the seriousness of the charge that is at issue, nothing else. (Nifong used the same tactic on the Duke LaCrosse boys) If you have ever been in a civil hearing such as a divorce court, you will understand where and how this tactic was perfected. You will notice that many of these "the debate is over" people are lawyers by background.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
A Cold Day in France
June 28, 2007 - 20:16 ET by nkviking75It figures that glaciers are growing in France. I always thought it would be a cold day when France elected a pro-American president.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Another example how these p
June 29, 2007 - 11:39 ET by acadia1755Another example how these people are mentally bankcrupt.
NGA
: When you were in the Arctic it was very cold, an anomaly in the
trend toward rising temperatures. Do you find it ironic that you had to
abandon the expedition because of frostbite, in such frigid conditions?
Arnesen:
It's not a surprise that it's so cold. It's as cold as it used to be in
the old days—minus 60 degrees Celsius [minus 140 Fahrenheit]. That's
cold. I think the thickness of the ice is what shows global warming,
and that's enormously thinner year-by-year.
enormously thinner = Oxymoron
Conclusion? Ice Thickness is not related to COLD?
http://www.nationalg...