'Glaciers have always grown and receded'

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

Posted by Coby Beck (Guest Contributor) at 9:16 AM on 01 Nov 2006

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: A few glaciers receding today is not proof of global warming. Glaciers have grown and receded differently in many times and places.

Answer: Firstly, it is more than "a few glaciers" that are receding; it is a pervasive, sustained, and accelerating global trend. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) maintains a chart of global glacier mass balance, and for as far back as their data allows us to look, all but a few years have shown a loss in ice volume of subpolar and mountain glaciers. Further, annual losses are increasing.

But no one claims that melting glaciers are proof of global warming. Proof is a mathematical concept. In climate science one needs to look at the balance of evidence. The above data is just one piece of evidence that is consistent with global warming.

So what do we find if we look to the other aspects of the cryosphere? It turns out what we find is lots more evidence indicative of world-wide and sustained temperature increases:

Sea ice in the arctic is reaching new record declines as the year 2006 continues the pattern of sharply decreasing Arctic sea ice.
Recent measurements by NASA have found that Greenland's massive ice sheet has been losing nearly 100 gigatons of ice annually in recent years.
Glaciers in Greenland are receding and calving at record rates.
Ancient permafrost is also thawing (which represents its own dangers).

And of course, this is all consistent with all the other evidence of warming out there. Clearly we are dealing with much more than a few receding glaciers.

For story: 'Glaciers have always grown and receded'
14 Comments | Post a Comment

Can anyone answer this Question?

I have read both Micheal Crichton's book State of Fear as well as many websites refuting the book and the data contained therin. For the most part the arguements keep coming back to a few key points that the book got wrong or over exagerated but he mentions one thing about glaciers which I havn't seen addressed anywhere else. He claimes that of the 160,000 glaciers worldwide, only 67,000 have even been catalogued and less than 200 have ever been studied in detail. I don't remember the exact number, but somewhere around 79 have ice mass records going back five years or more. I would be interested to know if anyone has seen any evidence for or against this claim because if it is true, it would seem that it is a point well made...we don't really have enough information at hand to quantify what is happening to the glaciers worldwide. How many are melting and at what rate compared to how many are growing and at what rate. Undoubtably glaciers are receding in many parts of the globe and it stands to reason that with higher global temperature, the overall trend would be glacial melt, but I am curious anyway.

On a different note, I ran across This website pertaining to glacial melt. This is the kind of research report I like (one that objectively gives evidence for both sides of the issue without taking a stand on which one is right (it is just a report of science after all, not written by the scientists themselves)). I normally play the role of the skeptic, but maybe(?) the skeptics can no longer use swiss glaciers as evidence against AGW now...we now have contradicting evidence, so more research is in order.

by jobobtwc at 7:45 PM on 18 Nov 2006

updated link

Coby,
It took me a while to find the correct page for your "NSIDC" link. Maybe you should update it with this adress:

http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html

by jobobtwc at 7:51 PM on 18 Nov 2006

re: both comments

Hi jobobtwc,

Thanks, that link is the one I usually use, I will see about getting it into the article.

Your 79 number may well be correct, the glacier mass balance page says there are only 40 going back to the 60's.

This is in fact a large enough sample to be extremely confident of the results, especially because sample sites can be chosen to ensure ideal regional representation for accurate global coverage. Think about pollsters who call a few thousand people to arrive at accurate conclusions about populations of many millions.

When someone like Crichton who pretends to be a scientist, (anyway, he is surely well educated) makes a criticism like that he is praying on others ignorance and is being intellectually dishonest, IMO. Like Bob Carter and "global warming stopped in 1998"

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

by Coby Beck at 12:00 AM on 19 Nov 2006

Extremely Confident

Yea, I noticed that only 40 glaciers have data going back to the sixties when I read that arcticle too. While 40 is a large enough sample to demonstrate a statistically significant correlation, it doesn't break the large sample size barrier by much, so it is not enough to be "extremely confident" about anything. The confidence also depends on the samples being a random distribution (i.e. not just the ones that were easiest to acess from existing weather stations for example). 79 would be a much better number to use depending on how far back the records go. I don't know what the distribution of glaciers looks like (i.e. elevation, location etc.) because that web site didn't go into that kind of detail. I'm not trying to say the glaciers aren't melting...I think the are...I was just hoping someone else could quantify that with more references because I like to be as thorough as possible in my own research.

In Crichton's defense, I cited him as the source for my numbers, but I didn't actually quote him in context. If memory serves, the arguement was not that the glaciers are not melting, it was that it is highly publisised as fact that they are melting when it is reasonable to say that there are a lot of unknowns. It is a dynamic arguement in which one character is trying to convince another not to jump to conclusions too rapidly and the numbers were used to support that concept. In this light, I would say that Crichton is not so much praying on people's ignorance and being intellectually dishonest rather he is encouraging education and the abolition of ignorance so that an informed decision can be made. Along these same lines, I have never heard or read anything from Crichton it which he states that AGW is not occuring; his main beef seems to be the political turn science has taken. It would seem to be that his motive in throwing out antithesis arguements is to bring doubt into the politics so that science can remain objective. For those who are interested, he gave a lecture on the subject which doesn't go into specific issues and isn't veiled novel form. If you really want to know what Crichton thinks I suggest you spend ten minuets here.

by jobobtwc at 9:02 PM on 19 Nov 2006

1 lie + 1 lie != Truth

Are you kidding me?

You wrote:

But no one claims that melting glaciers are proof of global warming. Proof is a mathematical concept. In climate science one needs to look at the balance of evidence. The above data is just one piece of evidence that is consistent with global warming.

This is my exact criticism of Al Gore and the rest of Grist. You are hereby admitting, that yes, this detail of information doesn't by itself confirm unique anthropogenic global warming, but I also have a bunch of other tidbits which do not confirm it, but taken all together, it's insurmountable evidence.

Here's something you may have learned in grade school: Two lies don't make a truth.

by jabailo at 11:51 AM on 01 Mar 2007

What's that?

Are you upbraiding Grist, or science in general? Scientists create hypotheses, gather evidence, and eventually create theories to explain large pieces of disparate evidence. The creation of theories, in turn, fuels more hypotheses, data collection, and refutation or support for the theory. And so it goes. It's not about lies, it's about creating the best explanation for the evidence available. The evidence currently available indicates that global warming is real and that it is anthropogenic. There is a very real chance that this theory is not true. But until you can actually start formulating an alternative theory to explain what is occurring, a few anomalous findings or cold days in NYC do not dispute the theory.

The theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution ... these are all theories that explain large, complex phenomena. Though they are all linked to famous men, they are not dogma. They are not "proven" by one thing (say, a document that is irrefutable). They arose out of thousands of careful tests. What you seem to want, Jabailo, is the Bible of Global Warming and a God to come down and say "This is So." Unfortunately (or fortunately, for the sake of struggling with mysteries), science doesn't work this way. It is a process of discovery.

by blueberrymuffin at 3:53 PM on 01 Mar 2007

What Evidence?

I don't see the evidence? I see scientific studies from Svensmark and Andrill -- which you refuse to address and then a bunch of policy makers saying things without having produced a single solid scientific paper on the subject.

Go ahead, look up "manmade|anthropogenic global warming" on Scholar.Google.com. Pick out 10 articles that absolutely prove that the 3% of CO2 generated by man is responsible for all of Global Heating and post them here. When I did the search all I saw were a lot of articles from 10 years ago that were highly speculative.

The thing is, none of the primary axioms of Global Heating have been proven at all. All you Gristers do is down shout that fact and create even larger web pages.

by jabailo at 10:43 AM on 02 Mar 2007

Tip of the Iceberg

The number of glaciers referenced above is the tip of the iceberg of the number observed. Terminus fluctuations reported to the World Glacier Monitoring Service numbered 546 for the 1995-2000 period. Terminus behavior reflects mass balance change. Positive mass balance indicates surplus snowfall over ablation, and leads to advance. Negative balances result from excess melt and lead to retreat. The retreat is like jettisoning debt for a glacier. If it cannot jettison enough debt through time via retreat it will disappear. In the North Cascades of Washington we observe mass balance on ten glaciers each year and terminus behavior of 47, all 47 have either been retreating or disappeared. We have also noted that of the 756 glaciers in the North Cascades noted by the USGS based on maps from the 1955-1965 period, 53 have disappeared. I could go from nation to nation noting the number of glacier observed by myself and fellow glaciologists it is extensive indeed.

mspelto

by mspelto at 3:43 PM on 14 Apr 2007

Two Lies Don't Make a Truth?

Are you kidding?

If an observation does not fully support a theory, that does not make it a lie.

The argument is that glacial retreat is part of a growing body of evidence that collectively has made human caused global warming a census opinion among climatologists (I believe I can affirm that based on the support among academies of science world-wide).

There is as yet a non-zero chance that all (or a significant number) of the observations of separate phenomena which support the conclusion the climate is getting warmer could somehow be found to be in error, but that chance is vanishingly small. It is also possible a non-human cause for climate change may be found, but we'd better hope not. If it's human caused, we can do something about it. Thankfully, that chance is shrinking faster than the glaciers.

Looking at collections of individually inconclusive but mutually supporting (and, eventually, overwhelming) data is the process by which theories in science are normally established. To equate it (in sneering tones) to two lies equaling a right is to reveal complete ignorance of the methods of science and a degree of illogic that suggests you have not learned the basics of reason. (You appear to think it has something to do with disputing facts and sneering)

Blow the dust off your old logic book or buy a new one. A person who doesn't know how to think should not wander into this maze.

by Micawber at 4:50 PM on 17 Jun 2007
[ Parent ]

Glacier data since 1960 proves what exactly?

This is a refutation? Honest, openminded newshound here, who is starting to become more and more vociferously anti-global warming because of the religious fervor with which the pro's attack the subject in contravention to proper scientific debate.

by colbyaw at 10:46 PM on 25 Jul 2007

If only... If only

Oh if only the artic circle would melt. The new Arctic ocean would become the ocean of world trade, and the United States, Canada and Russia would be the undisputed military and economic rulers of the planet. There could be world peace for a thousand yeras. I'm pretty sceptical of the certainty displayed by climatologists, but I sure do hope their predictions about the north pole come true. That would be the best thing to happen to this country, ever. I hope I'm just joking, but if this global warming thing doesn't end up doing them in we should seriously consider setting off a hydrogen bomb or two inside those glaciers.

by rcglinsk at 12:23 PM on 24 Mar 2008

gem

Another J. Bailo gem. As I mentioned in my comment to you on another thread: Read the IPCC. It was put together by a whole bunch of scientists for the benefit of more informed policy making. In assembling this synthesis, analysis, and summary of the work of hundreds of scientists, they actually cite (in fancy academic style, with the little parenthesis and the "et al." and such) a huge number of specific studies.

So do your homework. Open up one of these IPCC reports and look for one of those citations. They're all over the place. Then you will have your "solid scientific paper." You'll actually have hundreds of them.

On top of that, asking for evidence to "absolutely prove" a scientific theory like this shows a profound lack of understanding for what science is.

Innocent curiosity and informed argument are always welcome. Willful ignorance is not. Please make an effort to learn more and then come back to the discussion.

by jbullfrog at 5:41 PM on 24 Apr 2008
[ Parent ]

Eric the Red

Please tell me how I can explain how Eric the Red's family and generations after managed to live in Greenland??

by dryhole100 at 5:14 PM on 26 Jun 2008

Gem from jbullfrog

Hey jbullfrog. I'm new to this learning thread but your writ is demeaning and surely not even a remote argument about facts. Suggest you stick to your supporting arguments otherwise change ya name to bsbullfrog.. Seems one should endeavor the be as near the asymptote as possible.
And by the by, as for all of those scientist you present they are not always right either, hence the absolute must for even contrarian discussion. The following was one of those settled scientific arguments.
"Even considering the improvements possible... the gas turbine could hardly be considered a feasible application to airplanes because of the difficulty of complying with the stringent weight requirements."
US National Academy of Sciences, 1940 - For those not so informed those are the Jet turbine engines used on today's aircraft. Hmm...

by dryhole100 at 6:16 PM on 26 Jun 2008
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.