Glaciers disappearing from Kilimanjaro

[MatthewCarman]

Here is the thread that had the poll on global warming and who changed their minds about it. Out of 75 people who voted only 6 had changed their minds with the majority of people not convinced. You can try all you want but very few people are going to switch sides in a debate like this.

http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13945&highlight=Poll

There is several more threads about global warming and even global cooling if you do a search.

 

[David Wolfson]

Damon, I've never had the impression that reputable science suggests that what's going on is simple. And AFA planting trees to reduce CO2 substantially, if it really pencils out in practice (which I'm afraid it doesn't), that would be just fine with the "regulators", I'm sure. The models suggest we're going to have big trouble just keeping anywhere near the biomass we have. Some runs show most of the Amazon rainforest as toast by the end of the century, for example. Ironically the higher albedo of deforestation cools those areas, but dries them as well, and it's darn hard to reverse the process once it gets going.

Reputable scientists are trying their best to account for all the complex factors you mention, and the weight of evidence for the seriousness of AGW substantially forced by CO2 emissions keeps piling up. Sure there are times when the Earth has been much hotter as far as they can tell, and times when it has most likely been basically an ice ball. Neither condition is where we want to go IMHO.

 

[Damon Poole]

That's the problem, David. Too much reliance on unperfected climate models based on data sets which can be manipulated to say what either side wants them to say. If computer models were perfect, we would not have daily forecast discussions issued several times a day detailing problems with forecast model initialization and other solution and parameterization problems. If we have problems with daily forecast models, why are we so bound and determined to accept potentially flawed model simulations of alleged climate conditions 50 to 100 years in advance on their face value? Sorry, but I don't buy CO2 enhanced or induced AGW, no matter how many times the models are run. Not by a long shot.

Damon, I've never had the impression that reputable science suggests that what's going on is simple. And AFA planting trees to reduce CO2 substantially, if it really pencils out in practice (which I'm afraid it doesn't), that would be just fine with the "regulators", I'm sure. The models suggest we're going to have big trouble just keeping anywhere near the biomass we have. Some runs show most of the Amazon rainforest as toast by the end of the century, for example. Ironically the higher albedo of deforestation cools those areas, but dries them as well, and it's darn hard to reverse the process once it gets going.

Reputable scientists are trying their best to account for all the complex factors you mention, and the weight of evidence for the seriousness of AGW substantially forced by CO2 emissions keeps piling up. Sure there are times when the Earth has been much hotter as far as they can tell, and times when it has most likely been basically an ice ball. Neither condition is where we want to go IMHO.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Damon,

I'm not sure how well-read you are on climate models, though I assume you have a relatively thorough understanding of them considering the tone of your post and how strongly you seem to be refuting them. For anyone else, though, who is interested in climate modeling (short-comings, design, forecasts, etc), I recommend reading the Climate Models and Their Evaluation from Working Group 1 of the 4th Assessment Report from the IPCC. It has some good discussion regarding what data are used, what processes are modeled, and so forth. Enjoy the reading!

 

[Mike Smith]

Eight more comments, no one has posted temperatures for Kilimanjaro for the years in question and whether those temperatures significantly deviated from normal.

The scientific method states that it is incumbent on the person making a hypothesis to prove it with reproducible evidence. The hypothesis, early in this thread, was made that Kilimanjaro was shrinking due to global warming. Since, obviously, Kilimanjaro's glacier responds to local conditions (I doubt the glacier "feels" the temperature in Norman, for example) I suggested that the people advancing that hypothesis provide evidence to support it. So far, none.

The article (via Watts) suggests that land use is what is causing the glacier to shrink.

I don't know the answer but to convince me (and, it can be done), one would have to post actual scientific evidence rather than attacking people and sources.

I posted more on this yesterday (comment #10) at: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/hper-partisanship-cartharsis-and-non.html .

 

[Robert Dewey]

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).

Sublimation uses heat energy (which isn't necessarily the same as temperature and is available at >0K) and can occur readily even at extremely low / arid temperatures. Also, sublimation consumes the most amount of heat energy, meaning it takes the most heat energy out of the air (vs. melting and evaporation)... hence cooling it.

An effect of heat absorption (although much weaker than heat absorption from sublimation) can be seen with the melting process in some snowstorms. You'll sometimes see areas with a SFC-850mb T of 1-2C cool to 0C as snow melts through the layer (provided there is no WAA or CAA occuring). The layer then balances out at 0C; becoming isothermal.

 

[Jason Harris]

Did anyone ever link to the pdf of the study? Here's that
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/30/0906029106.full.pdf+html?sid=92dde9ea-9e56-473a-b84c-3fe09d1750ab

note:

--

For example, Kilimanjaro’s NIF [Northern Ice Field]
has persisted for at least 11,700 years, and ��4,200 years ago a
widespread drought lasting ��300 years was insufficient to remove
the NIF, where the drought is recorded by a 30-mm-thick dust layer.
Finally, the upper 65 cm of the NIF core 3 contains clear evidence
of surface melting that does not appear elsewhere in the 49-m core
containing the 11,700 year histor y. Hence, the climatological con-
ditions currently driving the loss of Kilimanjaro’s ice fields are
clearly unique within an 11,700-year perspective. These obser va-
tions suggest that warmer near-sur face conditions obser ved in the
region, coupled with obser ved vertical amplification of temperature
in lower latitudes (23–25), are playing an important role.

Footnotes 10, 15, 16 reference climatological studies on the temps in East Africa, so that's where you can go for further data. Page 4 discusses that are limits on observations but that East Africa in general has exhibited a warming trend for 1901-2000.

Also, the CS Monitor which has a link to that pdf has the "layman's" version, mentions other studies, and includes the hypothesis that additional local factors driving the warming, such as deforestation:

But what about the actions of folks at the base of the mountain? Might deforestation — clearing trees for farmland — have led to changes in temperatures and precipitation patterns that have at least contributed to, if not driven, changes at the summit?

After all, researchers have found that since 1971, temperatures at the base of Mt. Kilimanjaro have been rising faster than global warming alone would account for.

“We have no way of knowing how much of that, if any, is transmitted to the summit ice fields” some 15,000 feet above the base, Thompson acknowledges. You can download a full copy of the study, as a pdf, here.

So if the impact on the summit remains unclear, that same can’t be said for the base. If Kilimanjaro becomes iconic, perhaps it deserves that status as much for the impact of human land-use changes on local and regional climate, as for the broader trend of long-term global warming.

Indeed, an increasing number of studies are suggesting that the intensity of long-term effects from global warming locally can be affected by land-use practices in the area.

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/03/is-global-warming-melting-the-ice-on-mt-kilimanjaro/

 

[Mike Smith]

I looked at the study. While they comment on temperatures they don't provide any data. It is apparently "trust us."

The glacier only "senses" temperatures in the immediate area of the glacier and the authors don't even specifically comment on that as you accurately state:

Page 4 discusses that are limits on observations but that East Africa in general has exhibited a warming trend for 1901-2000.

But no one attributes the earth's warming from 1900 to 1945 to human influence and "East Africa in general" is not the immediate vicinity of the glacier.

In post #1 of this thread, John wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html

85% decrease in the mass of the glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro from 1912 to 2007, and a 26% decrease just from 2000 to 2007.

If you look at the study, it does not even comment on temperatures after 2000.

I'm just amazed at how many jump on the global warming bandwagon (with snarky comments), and find fault with the land use hypothesis, without the slightest shred of data that indicate above normal temperatures have occurred in the immediate vicinity of the glacier.

It may be that warmer temperatures are the cause. It may be that land use is the cause, I don't know. But, until I see data, and that data demonstrates that temperatures have been significantly warmer than usual, it is nothing but an unproven hypothesis.

Stop the name-calling, provide good scientific data and analysis, and the credibility of your position will skyrocket.

 

[Jason Harris]

Did you look at the studies mentioned in the footnotes? A quick search on footnote 10 does reveal that includes temp. readings:

Daily records for 71 stations for the period 1939-92 were used.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1488035
How about approaching the authors of the various related studies directly if you don't trust their data?
And the pdf is available here for footnote 10:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=013&issue=16&page=2876&ct=1

The conclusion is nuanced--far from sweeping.

Further investigations are required in order to attri-
bute the causes of some of the obser ved daytime/night-
time temperature trends over eastern Africa. Such stud-
ies should include the examination of urbanization and
any other biases in the climatological data that were
used in the stud

Or try looking up footnote 11 source "Dramatic change in local climate patterns in the Amboseli basin, Kenya"--you can download that pdf as well and see again temp data, so why distort the studies?

Records of temperature and rainfall were obtained on a
daily basis at our ¢eld camp. From 1971 to 1991, the
��Correspondence: E -mail: [email protected]

See, you can email Altman at Princeton directly, maybe get a list of the exact data set records.
--
I think someone mentioned cows earlier, and they are mentioned as a problem in Tanzania as well:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200902090821.html

 

[Mike Smith]

Jason,

With all due respect, you have it backwards. It is not my job to make the authors' scientific case, it is their job. Or, since you and others are proponents of their case, it is -- frankly -- your job.

That said, here is what one of your links says:

This study investigated recent trends in the mean surface minimum and maximum air temperatures over eastern Africa by use of both graphical and statistical techniques. Daily records for 71 stations for the period 1939-92 were used.

Why do we need 71 stations in eastern Africa? We need one station near the glacier. The original paper, the topic of this thread, talks about changes in the glacier through 2007. The data "study" cited above ends in '92.

How many times do I have to state the elementary scientific question: What were the temperatures, and their departure from normal, in the immediate vicinity of the glacier?

 

[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]

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.com/2009/01/the_impact_of_soot_on_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-...relevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist anyone heard of this? What are your thoughts?

 

[Damon Poole]

What about the PDO and Cloud Feedback?

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

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-...relevant-in-climate-debate-says-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
>