The World's Glaciers

[knocker]

Cortaderal Glacier Retreat, Chile

 

Cortaderal Glacier is in central Chile on the south slope of Paloma a stratovolcano. The glacier feeds the Cortaderal River which joins the Cachapoal River. Pacific Hydro has opened a new hydropower plant at Chacayes that is fed by this and other glaciers. It is a 111 MW run of river project with water taken out at a small dam run through a canal a small reservoir and back into the river. There is an older Coya Hydropower Plant a short distance downstream. Pacific Hydro plans to add several more plants in the area.  Continued glacier retreat in the regions will lead to further glacier runoff declines during the melt season.

[keithlucky]

Hymalayan Karakoram Glaciers advancing http://t.co/MX9i6xl1Mb

Edited November 12, 2014 by keithlucky

[Essan]

Hymalayan Karakoram Glaciers advancing http://t.co/MX9i6xl1Mb

Not exactly advancing, but since glacial advance/retreat is often dependent on precipitation, the Karakorum have managed to buck the trend

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141022123537.htm

[keithlucky]

Not exactly advancing, but since glacial advance/retreat is often dependent on precipitation, the Karakorum have managed to buck the trend

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141022123537.htm

And so we have an interesting case of non-global warming that has been giving new life to old glaciers of the Karakoram, as well as actually giving birth to a few additional ones.

[knocker]

And so we have an interesting case of non-global warming that has been giving new life to old glaciers of the Karakoram, as well as actually giving birth to a few additional ones.

 

As was posted on here 22/10/14 post #114

Edited November 12, 2014 by knocker

[keithlucky]

As was posted on here 22/10/14 post #114

More details Knocker with 65 stated as advancing.

[Essan]

And so we have an interesting case of non-global warming that has been giving new life to old glaciers of the Karakoram, as well as actually giving birth to a few additional ones.

No, just a case of one region that has not as yet felt the effects of global warming, due to the unique climate it experiences

[Gray-Wolf]

Now what do 'exceptions' tend to do.......

 

Glaciers do appear to be a battle ground area of our world with higher atmospheric moisture content obviously impacting levels of accumulation at the source? That said the impacts of higher temps on lower elevation ablation rates appear to generally exceed the excess accumulation at higher levels across the majority of the worlds glaciers?

[knocker]

Worldwide retreat of glaciers confirmed in unprecedented detail

 

A new book from the international GLIMS (Global Land Ice Measurements from Space) initiative, an international collaboration including the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado Boulder, provides the most comprehensive report to date on global glacier changes.

 

While the shrinking of glaciers on all continents is already known from ground observations of individual glaciers, by using repeated satellite observations GLIMS has firmly established that glaciers are shrinking globally. Although some glaciers are maintaining their size, most glaciers are dwindling. The foremost cause of the worldwide reductions in glaciers is global warming, the team writes.

 

http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/glimsbook

[knocker]

Sovereign Glacier Retreat, Talkeetna Mountains, Alaska

[4wd]

http://cmiae.org/national-park-feature-article/glaciers-lichens-and-the-history-of-the-earth/

 

 

On her second visit to Glacier National Park in 1894, Mary Vaux (pronounced “voxâ€) was aghast at how the Illecillewaet Glacier had retreated since her previous visit seven years earlier. The lowest edge of the Great Glacier, as it was also known then, was clearly withdrawing upslope. We now know that most of the world’s glaciers were in retreat then, as they are now

[4wd]

http://www.nps.gov/kefj/naturescience/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf

 

 

 

With the warming trend of the 1800s,
Exit Glacier began to retreat from its
1815 maximum. Very slowly, the glacier
retreated 230 feet (70 m) from 1815 to
1889, averaging about 3.1 ft/year (1 m/yr)
(see Table 1). The glacier then retreated
much more rapidly between 1889-1899,
interspersed with periods of stagnation,
which are marked by linear moraines
(1889, 1891, 1894 and 1899). During this
time, the glacier retreated 1680 ft (512 m),
about 168 ft/yr (51 m/yr).
The next fifteen years was a period of a
slow but steady retreat, as the glacier
retreated only 42 ft/yr (13 m/yr). In the
years between 1914 and 1917, Exit Glacier
experienced its most rapid retreat. In just 3
years, the glacier retreated 908 ft (277 m)
or almost a foot per day. From 1917 to
1973, Exit Glacier continued to retreat with
periods of slow to moderate retreat. There
were five periods of retreat, with the ice
melting fastest between 1961 and 1968 (115
ft/yr or 35 m/yr)

Edited November 29, 2014 by 4wd

[Gray-Wolf]

Such a shame we do not have the figures from 1999 to today? I wonder how its current retreat rates compare esp. to the anomalous 1914 to 17?

[knocker]

This film shows timelapses from Kronebreen in Spitsbergen, Svalbard. 7 cameras were set up in May 2014 to monitor the fast-flowing tidewater glacier Kronebreen.

[knocker]

Cloud Peak Glacier Retreat, Wyoming

[knocker]

Sinclair Glacier Retreat, Alaska

[knocker]

China's glaciers shrink by a fifth since the 1950s

Experts warn of domino effect on water supply as comprehensive study into China's glacial ice shows average of 244 sq km goes every year

 

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1662844/chinas-glaciers-shrink-fifth-1950s

[knocker]

Deglaciation of the Caucasus Mountains, Russia/Georgia, in the 21st century observed with ASTER satellite imagery and aerial photography

 

Abstract. Changes in the map area of 498 glaciers located on the Main Caucasus ridge (MCR) and on Mt. Elbrus in the Greater Caucasus Mountains (Russia and Georgia) were assessed using multispectral ASTER and panchromatic Landsat imagery with 15 m spatial resolution in 1999/2001 and 2010/2012. Changes in recession rates of glacier snouts between 1987–2001 and 2001–2010 were investigated using aerial photography and ASTER imagery for a sub-sample of 44 glaciers. In total, glacier area decreased by 4.7 ± 2.1% or 19.2 ± 8.7 km² from 407.3 ± 5.4 km² to 388.1 ± 5.2 km². Glaciers located in the central and western MCR lost 13.4 ± 7.3 km² (4.7 ± 2.5%) in total or 8.5 km² (5.0 ± 2.4%) and 4.9 km² (4.1 ± 2.7%) respectively. Glaciers on Mt. Elbrus, although located at higher elevations, lost 5.8 ± 1.4 km² (4.9 ± 1.2%) of their total area. The recession rates of valley glacier termini increased between 1987–2000/01 and 2000/01–2010 (2000 for the western MCR and 2001 for the central MCR and Mt.~Elbrus) from 3.8 ± 0.8, 3.2 ± 0.9 and 8.3 ± 0.8 m yr^−1 to 11.9 ± 1.1, 8.7 ± 1.1 and 14.1 ± 1.1 m yr^−1 in the central and western MCR and on Mt. Elbrus respectively. The highest rate of increase in glacier termini retreat was registered on the southern slope of the central MCR where it has tripled. A positive trend in summer temperatures forced glacier recession, and strong positive temperature anomalies in 1998, 2006, and 2010 contributed to the enhanced loss of ice. An increase in accumulation season precipitation observed in the northern MCR since the mid-1980s has not compensated for the effects of summer warming while the negative precipitation anomalies, observed on the southern slope of the central MCR in the 1990s, resulted in stronger glacier wastage.

 

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/2367/2014/tc-8-2367-2014.pdf

[4wd]

[knocker]

Just to add to the above. The video is introduced thus.

 

 

The video outlines why the timing and mechanisms of glacier retreats is evidence of natural climate change.

 

In case you are wondering who the glaciologist is it's Jim Steele. Well he isn't actually a glaciologist but a so-called environmentalist who doubles up as a well known climate change denier. I use the word correctly. He has written frequent blogs for WUWT. I don;t have a problem with any objective scientific analysis about glaciers but the thread could do without climate denier twoddle,

Edited December 17, 2014 by knocker

[keithlucky]

Suprising in Grenland melt dynamics Glaciers melted rapidly between 1900 and 1930 http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2014/AGUgreenland.html#sthash.LOU3RnlK.8p8jmIi1.dpuf

[4wd]

Just to add to the above. The video is introduced thus.

 

 

In case you are wondering who the glaciologist is it's Jim Steele. Well he isn't actually a glaciologist but a so-called environmentalist who doubles up as a well known climate change denier. I use the word correctly. He has written frequent blogs for WUWT. I don;t have a problem with any objective scientific analysis about glaciers but the thread could do without climate denier twoddle,

So what's wrong with it, other  than you looked up the narrator and he's on the naughty list or something.

Are you actually disputing the main point that many glaciers retreated far more in the early 20th Century?

It must be so easy to only see what you want, when you can apparently brush aside all contrary evidence with the silly name calling technique.

There really is no hope with this poisonous mindset simmering in the background.

The toxic climate change industry wants banning from weather sites like this, as the main proponents are majorly destructive elements with theie continuous stream of propaganda and invective.

[BornFromTheVoid]

So what's wrong with it, other  than you looked up the narrator and he's on the naughty list or something.

Are you actually disputing the main point that many glaciers retreated far more in the early 20th Century?

It must be so easy to only see what you want, when you can apparently brush aside all contrary evidence with the silly name calling technique.

There really is no hope with this poisonous mindset simmering in the background.

The toxic climate change industry wants banning from weather sites like this, as the main proponents are majorly destructive elements with theie continuous stream of propaganda and invective.

 

You, complaining about name calling and dismissing things that don't suit you, now that's rich!

 

If all ice loss is so clearly and obviously natural, why not try write up a paper and get it published? Or could it be that it's much easier to spread pseudoscience by using non representative cherry picked data and lies to make unfounded claims via youtube videos?

Any one of us could make a youtube video arguing in favour or against anything under the sun, it doesn't mean we're right!

[knocker]

So what's wrong with it, other  than you looked up the narrator and he's on the naughty list or something.

Are you actually disputing the main point that many glaciers retreated far more in the early 20th Century?

It must be so easy to only see what you want, when you can apparently brush aside all contrary evidence with the silly name calling technique.

There really is no hope with this poisonous mindset simmering in the background.

The toxic climate change industry wants banning from weather sites like this, as the main proponents are majorly destructive elements with theie continuous stream of propaganda and invective.

 

I didn't have to look him up as I'm quite familiar with his lies. But it's insulting peoples intelligence if you think you can get away with a couple of misleading soundbites on a subject as complex as this.

 

I have a book Global Land Ice Measurements from Space written by a number of experts in the field covering most aspects of glaciology from it's conception. It's 900 pages long and so far they have 122,000 glaciers, about half of the world's total, in their data base. A very brief excert from the summary.

 

The great range of processes and variables affecting glaciers make the task of understanding glacier behavior a bewildering one. There are many causes for the variability, foremost among which is Eanh·s changing climate. What has happened to glaciers and ice sheets in the past century (Leclercq and Oerlemans 2011, Gardner eta!. 2013) probably presages greater changes as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere and the world's land ice is driven to more rapid responses to "catch up" with accrued climate change (Schneeberger 2003). The 21st century will likely see the inexorable retreat of almost all glaciers, often at faster rates than those of the 20th century. Satellite monitoring-supported by field-based surface observations and geophysical studies of glacier interiors and substrates. and quantitative analysis of changes affecting glaciers and ice sheets (Kargel et a!. 2005, Raup et a!. 2007, Raup and Kargel 2012)-will grow in importance as more communities and infrastructure are impacted.

 

Let us emphasize once again that the vast majority of the world's glaciers are melting and losing mass. This is best attributed to global warming. Among current explanations for global warming, there is a strong observational and theoretical body of

evidence singling out the clearest culprit: anthropogenic greenhouse gases. There are many additional causes of warming. Moreover, many glacier systems are now so far out of equilibrium that-irrespective of further global warming or even cooling-there

will be inevitable spectacular disruptions, particularly in the growth of glacier lakes and the breakup of ice shelves. Further global warming will only speed up these changes and cause them to propagate into areas not yet as affected by global warmmg.

 

GLIMS glacier data base.

http://glims.colorado.edu:8080/glacierdata/

Edited December 17, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Suprising in Grenland melt dynamics Glaciers melted rapidly between 1900 and 1930 http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2014/AGUgreenland.html#sthash.LOU3RnlK.8p8jmIi1.dpuf

 

Why the hell do folk pretend to not understand what occurred prior to the dimmed period??? We know temps, across the far north, reversed from their 1,000yrs of cooling into warming by the end of the 1800's so why would that not drive the first period of augmented warming???

 

Why, to those people, does it not serve as a warning as what we are to expect once the current period of dimming/negative naturals ends?

 

When we look at the doubling times in ice loss across Greenland over the noughties and into the twenty teens does this not send alarm bells a clattering? NASA tells us we are losing up to 50% of our warming potential to the 'dimming' that Asia energy expansion has forced so what will those 'doubling rates look like once dimming is reduced and naturals are agasin positive ( whilst albedo flip ramps up)???