Glaciers disappearing from Kilimanjaro

[David Wolfson]

Mike, since you're a climate scientist and advertise yourself as such (and I'm not) I'll direct this at you. You set yourself up to maintain a higher standard of scientific argument than many others.

This thread revolves around one of the apparent speculative conclusions of one scientific paper that GW was the most likely cause for the phenomenon actually investigated in the paper -- namely that the Kilimanjaro glaciers are disappearing [levity alert] like ice cubes off an Arizona sidewalk in July. This sort of speculative conclusion is SOP in academic papers, I think, and is scientific-ese for, "This needs further investigation...." The writers acknowledge that data immediately on and around Kili is sparse. But they also note two important facts: similar glacier retreat is happening just about everywhere; and the low-Omega zonal flow near the equator tends to lessen the significance of local effects, i.e. land vs. ocean.

The rebuttals argue correctly that there's not much direct evidence as to whether higher temperatures are responsible, and that sublimation is the main process. So far so good, but then they fall of the track by making an equally speculative and scientifically more dubious claim that land use is the cause of the other ways the ice could be disappearing -- less precipitation, more solar insolation, lower RH, lower ice albedo due to pollution, and/or more wind. IMHO all of these other possible causalities can more plausibly relate to global climate change than human deforestation around the base of Kili.

As I suggested in another post (and the authors of the subject paper I think note the underlying scientific point in passing), once begun the process of desertification is self-reinforcing and hard to reverse. All things equal the significantly higher albedo of de-vegetated areas facilitates surface cooling and lowers the lapse rate of the atmospheric column. This doesn't necessarily argue strongly against GW in the tropics because meridional total moisture (and hence, total heat content) may very well actually increase.

The point is, it is you, Mike, who are asserting a local causality, and it is you who need to prove the assertion with local data. FWIW.

[ed.] You're correct, Mike. I remembered incorrectly your blog comment as characterizing yourself as a climate scientist, as opposed to an atmospheric scientist.

[Mike Smith]

Originally Posted by David Wolfson

The point is, it is you, Mike, who are asserting a local causality, and it is you who need to prove the assertion with local data. FWIW.

What other casuality could it be? The glacier only "senses" atmospheric and geologic conditions its immediate vicinity. Do you really believe the glacier somehow senses the temperature and changes in albedo in, say, Tucson?

The article I cited talked about albedo differences as a result of local land use near the glacier. This is logical: In order for local land use to be affecting the glacier, the albedo of the glacier or the land immediately next to the glacier would have to change. Some contend that is the case, "There wasn’t organized farming near Kilimanjaro until the last century. Farming preparation clears trees, trees evapotranspirate mositure. Less trees, less moisture." Plus, if the cleared trees were burned, the soot can darken an ice surface, causing a much faster rate of melt: http://global-warming.accuweather.co...n_western.html

If it is contended that temperatures are causing the glacier to melt at an accelerated rate, then we need temperature data (conventional weather station or satellite) from the immediate vicinity of the glacier for the years in question and a comparison of those temperatures to the long term norm in order to verify that claim.

As I have said, several times, I don't know what is causing the glacier to receed. I am open to any explanation. But, the data need to be pertinent to the hypothesis. So far, nothing.

And, for the record, I call myself an "atmospheric scientist." I don't believe I have ever used the phrase "climate scientist."

ADDED THOUGHT: While I appreciate that there is a place for speculative findings in scientific papers, the journal is not where the speculation ends a great percent of the time. The 2000's, so far, seem to be a period of "science by press release" -- a researcher publishes one of these "speculative" conclusions, the university or lab public relations department picks it up, and -- bingo -- it is in every newspaper in the country stated as scientific fact. This is a bad thing for both science and from the perspective of educating the public. Thus, my emphasis on DATA and PROOF.

[Bill Tabor]

I heard there was a recent study by MIT or NASA that basically said experimental evidence shows that increasing CO2 is not holding more heat in the atmosphere that rather they are finding more radiation is instead escaping into space. Additionally apparently increased solar activity is evidenced as the reason for increased global warming. Also word is the Earth had been in a cooling period for the last 15 years. Anyone heard of this recent evidence / study. I saw it mentioned on tv - perhaps Glenn Beck was the source? Anyway I think this is a similar article http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7...-MIT-Scientist anyone heard of this? What are your thoughts?

[Damon Poole]

Here's what Roy Spencer has to say - http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...ural-response/. This is a fascinating study using satellite observations compared to IPCC model simulations.

Originally Posted by Bill Tabor

I heard there was a recent study by MIT or NASA that basically said experimental evidence shows that increasing CO2 is not holding more heat in the atmosphere that rather they are finding more radiation is instead escaping into space. Additionally apparently increased solar activity is evidenced as the reason for increased global warming. Also word is the Earth had been in a cooling period for the last 15 years. Anyone heard of this recent evidence / study. I saw it mentioned on tv - perhaps Glenn Beck was the source? Anyway I think this is a similar article http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7...-MIT-Scientist anyone heard of this? What are your thoughts?

[Jason Harris]

I went ahead and emailed Dr. Lonnie Thompson a few days ago (author of the study we've mainly been discussing "professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University" according to the cnn original post), and he wrote back right away and just now got confirmed he's fine with posting his response here:

--
Dear Jason: Glaciologist have long known that ice and particularly
glaciers in the tropics can and do melt at temperatures well below
freezing. It is not the air temperature but the ice/air interface
temperature that is so important .
Quality meteorological data in this region is simply absent and again
this is why we did not attribute the loss of the ice in our 2002
Science paper to a particular cause. Though global climate change
will in fact potentially change both temperature and precipitation boht
very important. The best compliation of temperatures in tropical
Africa are found in the IPCC 2007 report for tropical Africa which
shows a similar rise over the last 100 years as seen for all other continents.
That being said the unique aspect of the tropics is the uniformity of
temperatures in the mid to upper troposphere where these glaciers are
located. Figure 2 top panel from Sobel and Bretherton illustrate
this fact. This is all seen in the way heat moves up into the
atmosphere during an El Nino and within months is uniform in the
tropics including over Kilimanjaro. All glaciers in the tropics are
retreating and the balance of evidence points to rising temperatures
something that Taylor et all pointed to in their studies in the
Ruwenzori Mountains in Africa (GRL, 2006)
The warming in the mid to upper tropical atmosphere comes from the
latent heat release at the elevation of these glaciers due to the
rising arm of the Hadley Cell. (Figure 3 Webster, 2004 Figure
1-6a. Seidel et al. Nature 2007
report on a widening of the tropical belt already documented and IPCC
2007 show enhanced warming in the tropics due in part to
intensification of the Hadley circulation in a warmer
world. Moreover this is consistent with the observed isotopic
enrichment seen in tropical ice cores that are still fortunate enough
to be accumulating in today's world (Thompson et al. 2006
PNAS). Thus, I expect the loss of ice on these tropical mountain
tops will accelerate going forward and certainly the Oct. 15, 2007
photos attest to that at least in the short term.

Thanks for your interest in our research, while I agree glaciers
integrate and respond to most key climatological variables such as
temperature, precipitation, cloudiness, humidity and radiation at the
end of the day it really does not matter what we think or can publish
but only what is. What is will become very clear to all in the very
near future which is unfortunate for the glaciers of Kilimanjaro. In
fact, as a glaciologist I really hope I am wrong!

Best wishes,


Lonnie
---
10:13 AM 11/16/2009, you wrote:
>Dear Dr. Thompson,
>
>I participate in some discussions involving climate change with
>meteorologists and weather enthusiasts, and one objection
>raised to conclusions about Mt. Kilmanajaro glacier melt is that the
>published studies don't include the following
>information:
>"What were the temperatures, and their departure from normal, in the
>immediate vicinity of the glacier?"
>Can you provide this information? It would be much appreciated!
>
>all the best,
>
>Jason
>

[Damon Poole]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...fyeMgD9C441LG0
Could it be we have a smoking gun here? Sure seems like it. Truth has a way of coming out.

[Jason Harris]

Not sure how emails taken out of context somehow disprove the glaciology study on Mt. K or have relevance to the totality of the data on these issues. Meanwhile, both West and now East South Pole sheets are melting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ice-sheet-nasa

Satellite data from the whole of Antarctica show the region is now losing around 190bn tonnes of ice a year. Uncertainties in the measurements mean the true ice loss could be between 113bn and 267bn tonnes.

http://Satellite data from the whole of Antarctica show the region is now losing around 190bn tonnes of ice a year. Uncertainties in the measurements mean the true ice loss could be between 113bn and 267bn tonnes. "If the current trend continues or gets worse, Antarctica could become the largest contributor to sea level rises in the world. It could start to lose more ice than Greenland within a few years," said Jianli Chen, of the University of Texas at Austin. Chen's team used data from the Nasa mission to see how Earth's gravitational pull varied month to month between April 2002 and January 2009. Measurements taken over the south pole reflect changes in the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets. The survey confirmed the West Antarctic ice sheet is melting rapidly with the loss of around 132bn tonnes of ice a year, but revealed unexpected melting in the larger East Antarctic ice sheet.

"If the current trend continues or gets worse, Antarctica could become the largest contributor to sea level rises in the world. It could start to lose more ice than Greenland within a few years," said Jianli Chen, of the University of Texas at Austin.

Chen's team used data from the Nasa mission to see how Earth's gravitational pull varied month to month between April 2002 and January 2009. Measurements taken over the south pole reflect changes in the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets.

The survey confirmed the West Antarctic ice sheet is melting rapidly with the loss of around 132bn tonnes of ice a year, but revealed unexpected melting in the larger East Antarctic ice sheet.

[Damon Poole]

The hacked e-mails cast doubt as to the motives of the scientists who overhype the whole AGW theory. These e-mails show scientists deliberately trying to hide data that didn't support AGW to mislead the media and public. As far as the melting glaciers, they've done that and recovered cyclically through geologic time and will continue to do so. All I see in the guardian article is more hype without much data. The tropics have almost direct incoming solar radiation and insolation which is more responsible for glacial melt than AGW.

Originally Posted by Jason Harris

Not sure how emails taken out of context somehow disprove the glaciology study on Mt. K or have relevance to the totality of the data on these issues. Meanwhile, both West and now East South Pole sheets are melting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ice-sheet-nasa

[Jason Harris]

How can you reasonably continue to make the spurious solar argument when
we're at a solar minimum?
--
have almost direct incoming solar radiation and insolation which is more responsible for glacial melt than AGW.
---
Maybe you missed this earlier from NASA, or maybe that's covered in the emails too?

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...larminimum.htm

[Robert Dewey]

We once had a glacier here in MI about 14,000 years ago. It melted and formed the Great Lakes. I suspect GW was also at play. Those damn Flintstones and their non-conservationist ways!

</half-hearted post>