Mount Shasta glaciers keep growing, despite warming
Published Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. -- Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing.
Reaching more than 14,000 feet above sea level, Mount Shasta is one of the state's tallest peaks, dominating the landscape of high plains and conifer forests in far Northern California. Nearby Indian tribes referred to its glaciers as the footsteps made by the creator when he descended to Earth. Hikers flock to Shasta's peak every summer to scale them.
With glaciers retreating in the Sierra Nevada, the Rocky Mountains and elsewhere in the Cascades, Mount Shasta — the southernmost volcano in the Cascade range — is actually benefiting from changing weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean.
"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta's glaciers. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean."
Climate change has cut the number of glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park from 150 to 26 since 1850, and some scientists project there will be none left within a generation. Lonnie Thompson, a glacier expert at Ohio State University, has projected the storied snows at Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro might disappear by 2015.
Climate change has cut the number of glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park from 150 to 26 since 1850, and some scientists project there will be none left within 25 to 30 years. Lonnie Thompson, a glacier expert at Ohio State University, has projected the storied snows at Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro might disappear by 2015.
But for Shasta, about 270 miles north of San Francisco, scientists say a warming Pacific Ocean means more moist air. On the mountain, precipitation falls as snow, adding to the glaciers enough to overcome a 1.8 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature in the last century, scientists say.
"It's a bit of an anomaly that they are growing, but it's not to be unexpected," said Ed Josberger, a glaciologist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma, Wash.
By comparison, the glaciers in the Sierra Nevada, more than 500 miles south of Mount Shasta, are exposed to warmer summer temperatures and are retreating.
The Sierra's 498 ice formations — glaciers and ice fields — have shrunk by about half their size over the past 100 years, said Andrew Fountain, a geology professor at Portland State University. He inventoried glaciers in the continental U.S. as part of a federal initiative.
He said Shasta's seven glaciers are the only ones scientists have identified as getting larger.
Glaciologists say most glaciers in Alaska and Canada are retreating, too, but there are too many to study them all.
Although Mount Shasta's glaciers are growing, researchers say the 4.7 billion cubic feet of ice on its flanks could be gone by 2100. For the glaciers to remain their current size, Shasta would have to receive 20 percent more snowfall for every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, Tulaczyk said.
The Shasta glaciers have been advancing since the end of a drought in the early 20th century. The mountain's smallest glaciers — named Konwakiton, Watkins and Mud Creek — have more than doubled in length since 1950.
Hikers seeking to cross Shasta's glaciers — marked with crevasses as deep as 100 feet — say they are much larger than the boundaries drawn on geological maps.
"I noticed I was traveling down farther than the maps were showing it," said Eric White, a U.S. Forest Service ranger who has climbed Shasta for 23 years.
Four glaciers at Washington's Mount Rainier are staying about the same size. Those glaciers — shielded from the sun on the mountain's north and east sides — have received just enough snow to keep them from shrinking.
The added ice on Mount Shasta might be good for the state's water supplies. Hydrologists believe the glaciers feed springs and aquifers, though they say it's unclear precisely how the water travels underground.
Until recently, the same phenomenon that is benefiting Shasta's glaciers was feeding glacier growth in southern Norway and Sweden, the New Zealand Alps and northern Pakistan, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In each area, scientists say, more snowfall temporarily offset warming temperatures in the 1990s and early 2000s. But rising temperatures since then have begun to shrink the ice.
Climate change is causing roughly 90 percent of the world's mountain glaciers to shrink, said Thompson, the Ohio State glacier expert.
"Best that we keep our eye on the big picture," Thompson said in an e-mail about Shasta's unique position. "The picture points unfortunately (to) massive loss of ice on land, which has huge implications for future sea level rise."
Global forecasts show temperatures warming from 2 degrees to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century if no major efforts are undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At that rate, California's snowpack and its remaining glaciers are among the most vulnerable of its natural resources.
Even without global warming, another threat to Shasta's glaciers could come far more quickly: a volcanic eruption could melt them, creating mud flows that could bury the surrounding small communities.
Over the last 4,000 years, Shasta has erupted about every 250 to 300 years, and did so most recently about 200 years ago, said William Hirt, a geology instructor at the College of the Siskiyous.
___
On the Net:
Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/recreation/nra/index.shtml
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
This is a very strange article, on so many levels.
Shasta's glaciers are growing which only reinforces the global warming advocates that say that glaciers are shrinking. Huh? But they are still worried that global warming will shrink the Shasta glaciers, if the volcano doesn't erupt first and change the whole equation. Well, call me gullible.
Glaciers in Montana have been shrinking since 1850. Well, what did the cowboys and indians do to cause glacial retreat? Either they were leaving some heavy carbon footprints back in 1850, or somebody is exaggerating today.
The glaciers in the Sierras have shrunk by half in 100 years. I was in the Sierras in the 1960s, and there wasn't much encroachment of civilization yet. Back in 1908, there couldn't have been much human activity there. Again, who was leaving that heavy carbon footprint?
"Glaciologists say most glaciers in Alaska and Canada are retreating too, but there are too many to study them all." What? So they just make a guess? That's not science. That's a crap shoot.
As usual, we are left with a pile of hypothesizing conjecture formulated to scare the begeezes out of the reading public. Political agenda disguised as serious reporting.
They are just educating people as a prulude to GLOBAL WARMING TAXES...
Glacierles:
This article really isn't that strange.
Glaciers are a pretty simple system. They collect snow and they melt (or calve) ice. The amount of snow accumulation and the amount of melt (ablation) determines if the glacier is growing or shrinking. If there is more accumulation than ablation, the glacier is gonna grow. If there is less accumulation than ablation, it will shrink.
As the article mentions, Mt. Shasta is getting a lot more snow dumped on it (accumulation). So much snow that it offsets the increased ablation from warmer temperatures, and the glacier grows. There is more accumulation than ablation.
Glaciers aren't just static chunks of ice sitting there looking pretty.
I'm not gonna touch your anthropogenic comments other than say that pollution is a global issue, not just a local issue. There are areas of Alaska far more remote than the Montana or California of the 60's but they all get smog from China and other areas.
As for your crap shoot comment: As you know, Alaska and Canada are huge. There are a lot of glaciers and scientists simply don't have the funding and resources to study them all (although I'm sure they'd love to). To examine glacial trends on a global scale, they have to use a representative sample, a very basic concept in science and statistics, and not really a crap shoot.
Walt---
Sorry, not knowing the word "anthropogenic", I looked it up and it is not in my dictionary. Please define.
Has a scientific representative sample ever led to a wrong conclusion?
You sound like an educated man. What would have caused glacial retreat 100 years ago? 150 years ago? I fully understand what calving is, and that glaciers are not paintings. But when I read this article, it says to me that this glacial retreat connected to global warming began in the 19th Century. I am skeptical, with the limited amounts of technology in use back then. (insert flatulence joke here.)
Layman terms, please.
anthropogenic |ˌanθrəpōˈjenik|
adjective
(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity : anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide.
Yep, I remember climbing across glaciers on Mount St. Helens back in the late '60s. Strange how fast they disappeared.....
g'les says "Shasta's glaciers are growing which only reinforces the global warming advocates that say that glaciers are shrinking."
No, 90% of the world's glaciers are retreating and this reinforces the global warming advocates.
g'les says "Glaciers in Montana have been shrinking since 1850. Well, what did the cowboys and indians do to cause glacial retreat? Either they were leaving some heavy carbon footprints back in 1850, or somebody is exaggerating today."
This is a global phenomenon. The Industrial Revolution was a period in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (that's 1700's & 1800's). Major pollution on a global scale started in this time frame.
g'les says "The glaciers in the Sierras have shrunk by half in 100 years. I was in the Sierras in the 1960s, and there wasn't much encroachment of civilization yet."
Again, this is a global phenomenon.
g'les asks "Has a scientific representative sample ever led to a wrong conclusion?"
Sure, I suppose it has. However, statistically speaking, if we examine a scientifically valid sample the results can generally be applied to a larger picture.
As an example, the same thing is done with any drug that passes through the FDA and/or clinical trials. Some number of people are tested; say X percent has a negative reaction. As long as the sample is random, we can (and DO) assume that nearly X percent of the general population will have the same negative reaction.
This is a VALID AND ACCEPTED scientific method, not a "crap shoot".
The glaciers of Mt. Shasta are growing because changing weather patterns are resulting in more snowfall in that region, so glacial expansion due to snow accumulation exceeds glacial retreat due to melting. A warming climate can result in more snowfall, because warmer air (but still cold) can hold more moisture.
newsreader---
Thank you for your thoughtful answers.
Here's a thought for you. Just because, as a layman, I question what I consider a badly written news article doesn't mean I am trying to insult your chosen field, science. So loosen up.
Yes, I am a nonbeliever in what I read about global warming. I am skeptical. You, with your scientific background, must think me an idiot. But you know what? I have seen scientists make miscalculations in my life. They, you, are not infallible.
Usually, science is to be trusted. Not always. For example, you mention FDA approvals. How about some of the psychotropic drugs approved over the years to drug children? Did the drugged killers that were at Columbine, and many other school tragedies, fall within the statistical parameters?
All the uproar about global warming - I really wonder what people would be saying if the glaciers were growing as fast as they are allegedly shrinking.
Would all the greenies be any happier about that? Where is the middle ground where everybody would be happy? To much ice, to much sunshine, not enough ice etc etc. Global warming - Global cooling,it has to be one or the other it cant possibly be a continuous cycle that we have no control over can it?
Give me a break!
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Mark Twain
yup, glaciers are as much a result of precipitation and weather patterns as they are temperature and elevation. changing weather patterns can definately be a sign of something such as global warming. however, it would seem the earth has been warming since BEFORE human kind possessed its current technological level that is being blamed for the warming.
it seems obvious that the latter day campaign against global warming is by a faction of our species that is seemingly against growth and economic development at the expense of members of their own species. they would seem to want the planet to remain unchanged. they then find the needed statistics to back up their arguments, and project unrealistic dire consequences if we don't as a whole stop what we are doing.
when i was in college we looked at the results of a study in which too many rats were crammed into a cage that was way to small. plenty of food and water was provided for all so they wanted for nothing. however, due to the extreme over crowding of their too many numbers in a too small of a space their sexual habits changed which in turn produced far fewer young. i wonder if the human population on this planet has reached a point where a unconcious genetic trigger has been pulled and the latter day popularity of environmentalism and zero growth (even contraction) economics has come into play. it is real obvious if we proceed on this path to leave much smaller carbon footprints on this planet then a large number of us humans are going to disappear..... and i might suggest they won't go quietly.
@alaskaflower,
especially in 1980 when Mount St. Helens exploded. The eruption has reduced the elevation of its summit from nearly 9,700 feet to 8,400 feet and replaced it with a mile-wide horseshoe-shaped crater.
The folks in upstate New York sure are grateful that the glaciers that carved out the finger lakes retreated those thousands of years ago. Musta had a lotta cars, trucks and powerplants back then.
Those glaciers never do anything you say!
What? Oh, warming!
Yeah, yeah. I know I said I wouldn't post.
I'm weak.
This will sound familiar to most of you. It's recycled.
The question that you're all trying to answer is this:
"Is the rate of current change anthropomorphic or not?"
I don't know the answer. The geologic record shows changes. The pollen record shows changes. The ice core samples show change. How much, if any, of the current upward swing, is a result of human activity? (or, is it anthropogenic, in other words...) How much is a result of a relatively long cold period?
One cannot examine local weather events (such as the melting of a glacier) on a generational timeframe (100 years ago) and apply those to the planet-wide changes. Math and science, people, not feelings and emotions.
No matter the answer, this planet will recover. It may come at the extinction of human beings, but the planet will recover.
As has already been pointed out by others, science by "CONSENSUS" is not science at all; It is an artifice, a tool for politicians to hone in their continual quest to part the citizenry from its money so that they, who are the parasites of society feigning concern and desire to help their fellow humans, can control wealth that they are far too incompetent to EARN (yet they often MARRY the "right folks to get their money grubbing paws on money..." Eg. Al Gore & John McCain....).
The current politically contrived specter of impending doom, "Global Warming" actually should be more accurately called alleged man made global warming. Unfortunately for the pick-pocket politicians who in the 1970's were crying out about the then allegedly impending coming "Ice Age" they have to try and contrive arguments to " 'SPLAIN" the decreases in temperatures and the increase in ice coverage in various global locations. Facts turn out to be bloody inconvenient when the "pick-pocket politicians" are trying to brain wash the global population into volunteering to simply hand over their wealth for the benefit of the parasites.
If it were not so very ridiculous and such a theft from the population it would be laughable.
I love global warming
If glaciers are retreating...its global warming!
If glaciers are expanding...its global warming!
If hurricanes are happening...its climate change!
If hurricanes aren't happening...its climate change!
Remember the year a few years back when we had so many hurricanes they were running outta names...and it was predicted that the next year would be even worse...and it wasn't...
Hasn't NASA recanted and said that 1930-something is the warmest year on record? Isn't there evidence now that oceans are actually cooling? Lemmie guess....gotta be climate change anyway...\
What about Mars' surface also warming up - lemmie guess...the mars rovers we sent up are causing the change!!!
Ever just think that maybe the sun heated up a little bit and mankind isn't all that evil?
Now tell me it isn't a faith-based religion
I for one have never cared if they are melting and never will care. What good are glaciers anyway? Are the just another thing to waste money on studying them.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.