Responding to the CO2 Coalition's "Fact #11" on Mountain Glacier Melting

CO2 Coalition's "Fact #11" (together with "Fact #12") claim that a "tipping point" occurred in 1800 that caused mountain glaciers to melt (and sea levels to rise), and since this "tipping point" occurred before major increases in CO2, both the glacial melting and sea level rise "are directly the result of the natural warming that began in the late 17th-century." They assert that glacial retreat (and sea level rise) "continues at about the same rate today as it was 150 years ago." The graph they use to support this claim was taken from Oerlemans 2005[1] with their own annotations.

The paper they reference is pretty interesting, though there is absolutely no claim in the paper of any "tipping point" in 1800, and the "190-year trend of glacier shortening" is an annotation of CO2 Coalition, not a claim of the paper.
The actual graph from the paper shows no "tipping point" but a gradual acceleration of glacier shortening following 1850. The paper goes beyond this to reconstruct global temperatures from changes in glacial length. The resulting graph in the paper looks distinctively "hockey stick" shaped with relatively flat temperatures from 1700 to 1850, gradual warming from 1850 to 1910 and rapid warming following 1910 with a "pause" following World War II corresponding to "global dimming" due to increased aerosol pollution following WWII.
I find it interesting that CO2 Coalition hid the fact that the paper they cited used glacial length as further support for the "hockey stick." The paper concludes, 
It should be stressed that the temperature reconstruction presented here is fully independent of other sources (proxy or instrumental). It thus provides complementary evidence on the magnitude of the current global warming, on the time that this warming started, and on the fact that in the lower troposphere the warming appears to be independent of elevation. 
The supplementary material actually includes a graph comparing the reconstruction from glacial retreat with Mann's proxy reconstruction. This paper actually shows slightly more warming than is reconstructed by Mann et al.
And of course the accelerated rates of glacial shortening following 1910 directly contradicts CO2 Coalition's claim that glacial shortening "continues at about the same rate today as it was 150 years ago."
Another paper[2] publish in 2021 conducted an inventory of the mass balance of the various forms of ice in the cryosphere. The above chart shows an acceleration of mass loss from mountain glaciers. The paper represents this visually in the graph below. Certainly we can say that there is an acceleration of mass loss in mountain glaciers and all grounded ice.
The data flatly contradicts the claims of the CO2 Coalition, and that includes evidence from the paper they cited to support their claim in this "fact."


References:

[1] Oerlemans J (2005) Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records. Science 29 Apr 2005: Vol. 308, Issue 5722, pp. 675–677 DOI: 10.1126/science.1107046

[2] Slater, T., Lawrence, I. R., Otosaka, I. N., Shepherd, A., Gourmelen, N., Jakob, L., Tepes, P., Gilbert, L., and Nienow, P.: Review article: Earth's ice imbalance, The Cryosphere, 15, 233–246, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-233-2021, 2021.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Marketing of Alt-Data at Temperature.Global

Image
Temperature.Global (12-month running average, sort of) A few years ago, I started seeing people post links to a new dataset for global temperatures at a website called temperature.global. There are at least four unique features of this dataset. First, the website claims to update global temperature in near real time. Second, every year in the dataset averages below "normal." Third, there is absolutely no transparency regarding their methodology (those who administer it are anonymous, most of the data is hidden, and much of their methodology is unclear). And fourth, what is disclosed about their methodology reveals that what they are calculating is not the Earth's surface temperature. Description of Temperature.Global If you go to the temperature.global website, it becomes almost immediately apparent that this website has little concern for transparency. The website is hosted by Parler (the alternative social network), which if nothing else is pretty odd. There are no name
Read more

Are Scientists and Journalists Conspiring to Retract Papers?

Image
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr has published two posts recently having to do with extreme weather and the IPCC. In the first post , he expresses frustration over an apparently inevitable retraction of a paper on extreme weather. The paper is Alimonti et al 2022 (A22) published in The European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP)[1]. I became aware of this paper about a year ago; it was not a good paper and was not particularly influential; it received almost no attention except for a brief period of time when the usual blogs promoted it, and then after SkyNews in Australia publicized this study as demonstrating there is no climate emergency. In the second post , Pielke summarized what he believes the IPCC's position is on extreme weather, and here he refers again to this previous paper. He declares that he believes that popular and scientific treatments of extreme weather have become far mor extreme than the position taken by the IPCC. According to him, "with the exception perhaps of only extr
Read more

Tropical Cyclone Trends

Image
In a previous post , I covered the distinction between detection and attribution. These are normally considered sequentially. First you detect a signal above natural variability, then you examine if some portion of that signal can be attributed to human activity. The previous post shows that the two are statistically independent from each other, so there is no need to limit attribution studies to signals that are detectable above natural variability. This distinction and clarification I think is important in discussions of tropical cyclone trends. While trends are clear since 1980, the longer term record (since ~1850-1900) is less clear due to selection biases arising from our increasing ability to detect tropical cyclones. This makes detection difficult long term, but that doesn't necessarily mean that scientists can't also examine ways in which human activity is affecting tropical cyclone trends. Detection in the Satellite Record (Since 1980) The satellite record provides us
Read more