Glaciers disappearing from Kilimanjaro

[Robert Edmonds]

But even you do not know what all effects earth's temperature, you are anyone else. That is exactly my point. And even if someone could say they have identified every component that has anything to do with shaping earth's climate, they could not say with certainty what role each one played. We can do tests and experiments, collect data, and make hypotheses and form theories... but earth's climate is so much more complex than all of that. Data is constantly being collected proving us wrong.

That's like saying we don't fully understand gravity (which we don't). So we can't predict a spacecraft's trajectory to another planet because we might be missing something (like how does quantum mechanics mix with GR). Yet we send spacecraft all the time to other planets.

All the fundamental physics is there in the models today. Except, you're saying we need to put in more things we don't know into the models before we can trust them. While, heck we can't even put all the stuff we do know into a single model (there's not enough processing power). So guess what you make parameterizations. You know the same thing that's done with the models you use for storm chasing, because they can't resolve the convection fully. You seem to trust those models for your forecasts. Except the models used in climate prediction are setup to look for the longterm trends, i.e. not whether it gonna rain in Texarkana during your commute 5 years from now this very day, but whether it will rain in general more or less during the year.

In the end your playing devils advocate with an argument that we should continue doing what we presently do. When you admit, CO2 increases temperatures. The only problem is, if we f*** up, the CO2 doesn't just go away. It will take thousands of years to get rid of it. Not decades like with the CFCs that destroy the ozone layer.

 

[Joshua Nall]

What I find the most interesting about the argument that there is no such thing as global warming is that it is based on the notion that the science must be wrong, yet at the same time there seems to be very little science but a lot of speculation that there is no such thing as a global warming phenomenon.

Public sources estimate that something north of 21 billion tons of CO2 is added to the atmosphere every year due to fossil fuels. Something like half of that can be absorbed by normal biological processes. The rest is just left to float in the wind. I think what brings it home to me is just thinking about mass. My car has a 10 gallon tank. I fill it up once every couple of weeks as I don't drive that much commuting. Unleaded is ~6lbs per gallon so figure 60 lbs per tank. That mass is going somewhere and a great deal of it is out the exhaust pipe. 60 lbs of fuel doesn't seem like much. How much volume does 10 billion plus tons of CO2 represent in terms of volume? I could work it out, but I think we could all agree it is a substantial amount of mass even in the context of the atmosphere.

What is really interesting to me is that there is no debate on whether CO2 can cause warming. The debate seems to be around whether it is actually affects climate change. This to me is like acknowledging that cigarettes can cause cancer but ignoring the causality between increased cancer rates and smoking. The science says one thing but you can pick it apart if you want.

The question I would ask is why even go there? You may be right, but if you find out you were wrong you will be dead wrong climatologically speaking. Anyway, just food for thought...

That is good food there... I enjoyed that post. I'm just going off of what I've read, but several studies indicate cows more of a serious problem than cars. Why isn't there more emphasis on getting rid of cows.

There are numerous things that we breath and consume everyday that are carcinogenic.... that does not mean we need to cut back on breathing and eating... or even try to avoid them to any great degree, because there is no real evidence that says it actually causes cancer in humans... or if it does it's .0001 %... if that. This is how I view AGW. I do, by the way live very simply... My carbon foot print is not 1/100 the size of Al Gores little toe.

"dead wrong"??? I just don't buy it...

 

[Joshua Nall]

That's like saying we don't fully understand gravity (which we don't). So we can't predict a spacecraft's trajectory to another planet because we might be missing something (like how does quantum mechanics mix with GR). Yet we send spacecraft all the time to other planets.

All the fundamental physics is there in the models today. Except, you're saying we need to put in more things we don't know into the models before we can trust them. While, heck we can't even put all the stuff we do know into a single model (there's not enough processing power). So guess what you make parameterizations. You know the same thing that's done with the models you use for storm chasing, because they can't resolve the convection fully. You seem to trust those models for your forecasts. Except the models used in climate prediction are setup to look for the longterm trends, i.e. not whether it gonna rain in Texarkana during your commute 5 years from now this very day, but whether it will rain in general more or less during the year.

In the end your playing devils advocate with an argument that we should continue doing what we presently do. When you admit, CO2 increases temperatures. The only problem is, if we f*** up, the CO2 doesn't just go away. It will take thousands of years to get rid of it. Not decades like with the CFCs that destroy the ozone layer.

I did not go back and read all my posts but I don't think I admitted CO2 increases temperature, to any significant degree anyway. I said that is what the experts say theoretically will happen. And I can't argue with that... maybe if I applied myself to a year of study I could know enough to either fully agree or argue.

I don't think we should continue doing what we are doing... nothing wrong with a little education, I personally do things differently because I want the earth to stay the same as it is now... at least.

I think the global warming/forecast model comparison is apples and oranges. Personally it proves to me that we really don't know what we are doing. I get tickled all the time at folks trying to target an area 3 days out.

How do we know that the current warming trend is due to AGW when in the recent history of the earth we have had warming trends, have been as warm or warmer than we are now? We don't know enough to drastically and by force of law alter peoples lives. What if AGW is only .0001 % of the current warming trend. I know what the real motivation is, but most people don't want to hear it. I wish i could sit and read and converse all day, but I have to go to work, then going out of town for the weekend... enjoyed it.

 

[MatthewCarman]

I was lucky enough to climb to the top of Kilimanjaro in 1999 and saw no shortage of snow and glaciers. I don't contest that the glaciers will soon disappear, they've been shrinking for thousands of years and like an ice cube, it appears to shrink the fastest right at the end. But, when the glaciers disappear there will still be seasonal snow on Kilimanjaro. When the media shows photos of the glaciers they always show them in the dry season when there is no additional snow cover...it adds to the drama. When I was there the entire mountain was capped in white.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but the glacier melt on Kilimanjaro is not a result of warming. It has more to do with a drier climate. It is just not snowing as much as it used to. And the glaciers aren't melting, they are sublimating. I think it was somewhere between -30F and 0F when we were climbing to the top.

You make some good points there. None of the people who believe in global warming has anything to say about that yet and I think it is because they know you are right

 

[Darren Addy]

Judicious edit there, Matthew.

Your comment indicates that you believe that a lack of subsequent comments refuting points in any particular post is a testament to the quality of the points made in that post. Using this same logic, if no one in the elevator says anything when you fart, this indicates that it smelled wonderful.

From a debate standpoint, Mr. Ozanne's post leaves a lot to be desired.

1) The fact that he was there personally and saw no shortage of snow and glaciers is interesting, but irrelevant to the point of the discussion, which is that they are going away (a point he acknowledges in his post, by the way).

2)

"They've been shrinking for thousands of years."

Citation please?

3) The media plays up the story to add drama. Ah yes. The liberal media angle. Even if true, the photo an editor used to illustrate a particular story, report, or study does not negate (or impact in any way, as a matter of fact) the contents of that story, report or study. As such, this "argument" is a red herring.

4)

I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but the glacier melt on Kilimanjaro is not a result of warming. It has more to do with a drier climate. It is just not snowing as much as it used to.

Come again?

5)

And the glaciers aren't melting, they are sublimating. I think it was somewhere between -30F and 0F when we were climbing to the top.

Apparently, we are only concerned with melting (which we all know comes from heat) and sublimating sounds a lot less scary (and fewer of us know what causes that). It is certainly true that glaciers lose mass from three separate processes: melting, evaporation, and sublimation. Let's compare melting to sublimation:
Melting: For water ice to melt to water requires approximately 80 calories of heat energy for each gram converted. Sublimation:The process where ice changes into water vapor without first becoming liquid. This process requires approximately 680 calories of heat energy for each gram of water converted.

So, the purposes of our discussion, let's say that Mr. Ozanne is correct. The glaciers are not melting they are sublimating. That would indicate the presence of 8-1/2 times the amount of heat needed to simply melt the glacier.

People don’t seem to embrace global measures of temperature rise (~0.2ºC/decade) or sea level rise (> 3mm/yr) very strongly. They much prefer more iconic signs – The National Park formerly-known-as-Glacier, No-snows of Kilimanjaro, Frost Fairs on the Thames etc. ...Any single example often has any number of complicating factors, but seen as part of a pattern (Kilimanjaro as an example of the other receding tropical glaciers), they can be useful for making a general point. However, the use of an icon as an example of change runs into difficulty if it is then interpreted to be proof of that change.

The above quote is from a very lucid article entitled "A Barrier to Understanding" which explains that no single example (such as Kilimanjaro) can be considered "proof" of anything. It is a mistake to miss the forest for the trees, yet one cannot get around the fact that the forest is made up of component trees. The article "Tropical Glacier Retreat" is a more complete view of the problem (all tropical glaciers retreating, not just Kilimanjaro). For those interested, you'll find it here.

 

[B Ozanne]

A fairly harsh response, at least it reads that way, for someone just adding a few comments from a place I've been first hand.

I wasn't looking to get in the middle of a heated debate. No citations, just experience, but "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" will be around for a long time after the glaciers are gone.

 

[Mike Smith]

In my post, #7 in this thread, I said,

However, since you opened the door by citing "unusual temperatures", please provide evidence that temperatures in the specific area of the glacier have run far above normal for the 2000-2007 period. Those are the only temperatures pertinent to a discussion about temperatures and that glacier.

Otherwise, this is a better explanation: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/oh-no-not-this-kilimanjaro-rubbish-again/

Here we are 40+ posts later and no one has offered any evidence that temperatures have been warmer than normal in the vicinity of Kilimanjaro -- which are the only temperatures pertinent to faster than normal melting of that glacier during the period specified.

 

[CZandbergen]

Mike,

Direct quote from the article you offered as a better explanation.

"The findings point to the rise in global temperatures as the most likely cause of the ice loss.

Changes in cloudiness and precipitation may have also played a smaller, less important role, especially in recent decades, they added."

Am I missing something?

 

[Mike Smith]

Global temperatures have nothing to do with the glacier at Kilimanjaro. The glacier responds to local conditions, not those thousands of miles away!

Watts links to the original article and to this rebuttal (if you don't want to go to the trouble of reading both): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/17/gore-wrong-on-kilimanjaro-snow-its-the-trees/

 

[Darren Addy]

In my post, #7 in this thread, I said,

Here we are 40+ posts later and no one has offered any evidence that temperatures have been warmer than normal in the vicinity of Kilimanjaro -- which are the only temperatures pertinent to faster than normal melting of that glacier during the period specified.

Glaciers go away from three things: melting, evaporation, and submlimation. All of them are processes requiring heat (as you point out, at the local level). What alternative explanation are you putting forward? Are you suggesting that Al Gore paid his minions to carry off the glacier by the shovelful?

The answer should not have to be typed out for you to accept it as valid. It's been in multiple links that people have provided, including this one:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/tropical-glacier-retreat/

Those of you claiming that it is simply "drier now", "doesn't snow as much as it did", etc. Please provide:
a) data pointing this out
&
b) an explanation of how this could be dismissive of or decoupled from a discussion of climate change.

What causes glaciers to retreat like this? With the exception of glaciers that terminate in the ocean, and glaciers in the polar regions or at extreme high altitudes where the temperature is always below freezing, essentially just two things determine whether a glacier is advancing or retreating: how much snow falls in the winter, and how warm it is during the summer. For typical glaciers in mid latitudes, the role of temperature is generally more important than winter precipitation. This is because a bit of extra heat in summer is a very efficient way to get rid of ice. A 1°C increase in temperature, applied uniformly across a glacier, is enough to melt a vertical meter of ice each year. For typical mid-latitude glaciers, winter snow accumulation is on the order of 1 m/year (ice equivalent — or about 3 m of snow). On balance then, a 1°C rise in summer temperature has roughly the same effect as a year in which no snow accumulates. Put another way, for every degree rise in summer temperature, an extra meter of ice-equivalent would be required to offset the extra loss. (This makes it clear why glaciers in coastal Norway are not as strongly influenced by temperature – at these locations, winter precipitation typically exceeds several ice-equivalent meters per year). To give another, more specific example, at a typical glacier on Mt. Baker, in Washington State, a summer temperature increase of 1°C translates to a ~150 m increase in the altitude of the equilibrium line (the point where annual ice accumulation = annual loss), and a resulting ~2 km retreat of the glacier terminus. The same change, if driven by winter precipitation, would require about a 25% decrease in local precipitation at this site.

In any case, what Oerlemans’s paper does very well is to demonstrate (one more time) what we already knew: global temperatures have risen more than 0.5 degrees C in the last century (up to 1990 — we don’t yet have a compilation of the latest data). As Oerlemans points out, the only way for this to be substantially in error is if there has been worldwide decreases in summertime cloudiness (by 30% or so!), or in winter precipitation (by 25%!). There is no evidence for either of these changes occurring, and if there were, it would be a remarkable discovery in and of itself.

- source

 

[CZandbergen]

Global temperatures have nothing to do with the glacier at Kilimanjaro. The glacier responds to local conditions, not those thousands of miles away!

Watts links to the original article and to this rebuttal (if you don't want to go to the trouble of reading both): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/17/gore-wrong-on-kilimanjaro-snow-its-the-trees/

Read them both and Google'd the author as well. Not impressed by anything I read. I didn't see anything that looked like a scientific process in either piece. really don't care to get into this debate, just can't understand why people want to hang their hat on this stuff.

It is your hat, hang it where you will...

 

[Darren Addy]

You have to admit it is a little humorous to see a debate where one side is citing Scientific American, the U.S. Geological Survey, RealClimate.org, etc. and the other side is countering with wattsupwiththat.com and UK tabloids.

 

[Damon Poole]

A little common sense, Please?!

I'll go one better than all the sites you want to throw out, scientific background. I have a minor in Geography with hours in Weather and Climate, Oceanography, Physical Geography, Astronomy, Physical Geology, Biology, Geographic Information Systems, among others. This background allows me to make the following comments.

First, climate is the statistical average of weather over a given period of time. Whether it's global or local, it's simply a statistical average. Thus, physical climate change is more accurately called weather change. Since weather is an extreme event in itself, so called "normals" are more correctly called averages. Climate and weather records, including averages, are subject to the accuracy of the observations taken, and the instruments used to carry them out. Over the life of a weather station record, this can change multiple times at the drop of a hat if there are changes in either. Although global warmers love to cherry pick graphs using a period of a couple of decades, anyone with a geoscientific background knows you have to consider the entire climatological record when trying to understand the true statistical trends and their meanings. Look at the whole record and cycles of both warming and cooling become clearly evident.

Second, changes in global weather, including warming and cooling are far more complex than the simplified explanations given by the IPCC, Gore, and other so-called experts. Changes in local and global weather, including glaciers, are ultimately caused by the complex interactions of solar activity, the atmosphere, the oceans, and landforms. These are naturally occurring cyclical events that have occurred since Earth became a planet, or since the beginning of geologic time. This has also occurred, and will continue to occur, despite the presence and alleged influence of human beings.

To simply assign a single gas or set of human produced gasses as being solely and completely to blame for alleged Anthropogenic Global Warming, without even trying to understand the other complex geophysical processes taking place, is as patently irresponsible as it is ignorant. Humans do have a minimal impact, through deforestation and changes in land use, but we are a lot less culpable than environmentalists would have most folks believe. If you really want to reduce CO2, plant trees to induce photosynthesis. This would produce another critical life giving gas, oxygen. This would be easier, cheaper, and more effective than all the cuts and technological changes regulators can think of.

 

[MatthewCarman]

You have to admit it is a little humorous to see a debate where one side is citing Scientific American, the U.S. Geological Survey, RealClimate.org, etc. and the other side is countering with wattsupwiththat.com and UK tabloids.

I know this article is from 2008 so it is old but worth the read. Over 650 scientists disagree with you.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb

Ps. Doing a search on this site brought up many threads on global warming and cooling. There was even a poll to see if anyone had really changed their minds. You should do a search as some of those posts are worth a read.

 

[MatthewCarman]

Here is another interesting old thread that talks about the founder of the weather channel and 30,000 scientists suing Al Gore for fruad. What ever came of that?

http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18812&highlight=Global+Warming+poll