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

Roy Spencer on Models and Observations

Image
A few days ago, Dr. Roy Spencer wrote a piece for the Heritage Foundation called, " Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models " ( PDF ) essentially arguing that models show too much warming compared to observations, and if we stick to observations, "global warming offers no justification for carbon-based regulation." He claims to frame his argument in terms of answering three questions: Is recent warming of the climate system materially attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, as is usually claimed? Is the rate of observed warming close to what computer climate models—used to guide public policy—show? Has the observed rate of warming been sufficient to justify alarm and extensive regulation of CO2 emissions? We should keep in mind that this is a political document intended to support the political aims of the Heritage Foundation, and Spencer has carefully selected what he says and doesn't say to fit the political agenda of the Heritage Found...
Read more

Patrick Frank Publishes on Errors Again

Image
Recently I came across yet another paper by Patrick Frank[1] attempting to claim that climate scientists have been underestimating uncertainties in climate-related data. In this paper, he takes aim at GMST data, and he argues that  LiG resolution limits, non-linearity, and sensor field calibrations yield GSATA mean ±2σ RMS uncertainties of, 1900–1945, ±1.7 °C; 1946–1980, ±2.1 °C; 1981–2004, ±2.0 °C; and 2005–2010, ±1.6 °C. Finally, the 20th century (1900–1999) GSATA, 0.74 ± 1.94 °C, does not convey any information about rate or magnitude of temperature change. The resulting GMST graph from his calculations is below. Essentially, he's saying that errors associated with liquid in glass thermometers are so large that we can have no confidence in the global warming trend in the major GMST datasets. Of course, the organizations producing these GMST datasets all evaluate the uncertainties associated with their anomaly values, and their estimates are invariably much smaller - about ±0.05°...
Read more