Responding to the CO2 Coalition's "Fact #32" on Glacier Bay Melting

CO2 Coalition's "Fact #32" tries to make a point from Glacier Bay's glacial history. They feel like since glaciers have retreated in  Glacier Bay since the late 1700s, that this is some how an argument that humans aren't causing the planet to warm. Here's a map with annotations from the CO2 Coalition.

The declarations of what is "natural melting" and "man-made melting" are simply the opinions of CO2 Coalition. The map as published by the USGS looks like this.


The figure's description describes how the southern terminus positions have changed since 1794, but interestingly I can find nothing this description or associated text any reference to the attribution of when the retreat was "natural" and when it transitioned to "man-made." All that appears to be made up by the CO2 Coalition. Here's the description:
Location map of Glacier Bay National Park showing terminus positions and dates of retreat of the Little Ice Age glacier that completely filled the bay somewhat more than 200 yrs ago. The 1794 terminous line near the mouth of the bay is where Capt. George Vancouver and crew observed the massive glacier face during their hunt for the Northwest Passage. The 1879 glacier terminous position was mapped by John Muir during his first of several visits to Glacier Bay. Trapezoid outlines the Whidbey Passage study area. Modified from Seramur et al. (1996).
If there is no attribution on the USGS website, maybe it's in Seramur et al 1996? So I looked it up. The paper is fascinating, but there's no attribution in that paper either. So where is the glacial retreat from Glacier Bay cited as "proof positive of man-made warming?" CO2 Coalition forgot to supply that. Actual evidence shows that many mountain glaciers advanced into the height of the Little Ice Age, and then they began to retreat. CO2 concentrations began to increase due to human activity around 1750, and emission rates have accelerated following 1850 or so, with exponential growth in the 20th century. Temperatures have increased at rates consistent with the increase in CO2, regardless of the specifics of individual glaciers at locations cherry-picked by the CO2 Coalition.


References:

[1] Seramur, Keith C., Powell, R.D., Carlson, P.R., 1996. Evaluation of conditions along the grounding line of temperate marine glaciers: an example from Muir Inlet, Glacier Bay, Alaska. Marine Geology 140, 307-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-3227(97)00026-1

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