The Neoglacial Record of Montana's Glacier National Park

Written by CO2 Science.

Grinnell glacier, Glacier National Park, Monta...

Grinnell glacier, Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Following the end of the earth's most recent ice age, the planet entered into an interglacial period of time known as the Holocene, the warmest portion of which - the Holocene Climatic Optimum - prevailed from about 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P. Thereafter, the earth began to cool again; and glaciers began to reform and grow, as the planet experienced the Neoglacial period of "renewed glaciation." And it is this period of time on which Munroe et al. (2012) focus their attention in a recently published study of the glaciers of Montana's Glacier National Park (GNP), where there has been a reduction in the area of glaciers in excess of 36% since approximately 1850 (Key et al., 2002), about which they write that "such dramatic glacier retreat is frequently highlighted as a signal of global warming (e.g. Apenzeller, 2007)," but while noting that "in reality very little is known about fluctuations of glaciers in GNP before the Little Ice Age."

In a study designed to provide more information regarding this important topic, the seven U.S. scientists developed what they describe as "the first detailed Neoglacial chronology for Glacier National Park." This they did via analyses of "sedimentary properties sensitive to the extent and activity of upstream glacier ice, including: water, organic matter, carbonate, and biogenic silica content; bulk density; mass accumulation rate; phosphorus fractionation; magnetic susceptibility; L*a*b* color values; and grain size distributions."

So what did they discover? First of all, Munroe et al. say that all but one of the records they developed contain evidence for glacier advances during the last millennium, corresponding with the Little Ice Age," which latter period they describe as "the most extensive event" of the entire Neoglacial, and which they further note is "strongly expressed globally," citing Davis et al. (2009). But even more impressive is their finding that the Little Ice Age maximum advance was the most recent in a series of advance/retreat cycles during the past several millennia, and that retreat from the Little Ice Age maximum "was the most dramatic episode of ice retreat in at least the last 1000 years."

So what was responsible for both the birth and demise of the very coldest interval of the entire Neoglacial period? Climate alarmists like to think that the Little Ice Age's demise was brought about by CO2-induced global warming. But if that were the case, one has to ask: what brought the planet into the Little Ice Age? Munroe et al. adhere to the theory that both the birth and the death of the Little Ice Age were promoted by one and the same phenomenon: solar irradiance variability. This idea has been described by Denton and Karlen (1973) and Koch et al. (2007); and Munroe et al. say that it has been "solidified by identification of a link between ice-rafted debris (IRD) in the North Atlantic, and solar irradiance as tracked by the production of atmospheric cosmogenic nuclides (Bond et al., 2001)." And they add that "the IRD variability features a quasi-periodic cycle of ~1500 years, and has been connected to glacier fluctuations in Europe (Holzhauser et al., 2005; Matthews et al., 2005; Nussbaumer et al., 2011)," which also helps to explain the occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period that preceded the Little Ice Age, the prior Dark Ages Cold Period, the still earlier Roman Warm Period, and so forth, over which oscillating global temperature history the air's CO2 content has varied hardly at all, and nothing like what has occurred since the inception of the Industrial Revolution, from the start of which the atmosphere's CO2 content has risen by some 40%, while global air temperature is no higher now than it was during the peak warmth of the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.

Clearly, atmospheric CO2 variability has had but a miniscule impact on earth's temperature throughout the entire Holocene; and it is having next to no impact on it now.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

References
Appenzeller, T. 2007. The big thaw. National Geographic June: 56-71.

Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S., Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294: 2130-2136.

Davis, P.T., Menounos, B. and Osborn, G. 2009. Holocene and latest Pleistocene Alpine glacier fluctuations: a global perspective. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 1021-2033.

Denton, G.H. and Karlen, W. 1973. Holocene climatic variations -- their pattern and possible cause. Quaternary Research 3: 155-205.

Key, C.H., Fagre, D.B. and Menicke, R.R. 2002. Glacier retreat in Glacier National Park, Montana. In: Krimmel, R.M. (Ed.). Glaciers of the Western United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA, pp. J329-J381.

Koch, J., Osborn, G.D. and Clague, J.J. 2007. Pre-'Little Ice Age' glacier fluctuations in Garibaldi Provincial Park, Coast Mountains, British Columbia, Canada. The Holocene 17: 1069-1078.

Matthews, J.A., Berrisford, M.S., Quentin Dresser, P., Nesje, A., Olaf Dahl, S., Elizabeth Bjune, A., Bakke, J., John, H., Birks, B. and Lie, O. 2005. Holocene glacier history of Bjornbreen and climatic reconstruction in central Jotunheimen, Norway, based on proximal glaciofluvial stream-bank mires. Quaternary Science Reviews 24: 67-90.

Munroe, J.S., Crocker, T.A., Giesche, A.M., Rahlson, L.E., Duran, L.T., Bigl, M.F. and Laabs, B.J.C. 2012. A lacustrine-based Neoglacial record for Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. Quaternary Science Reviews 53: 39-54.

Nussbaumer, S.U., Steinhilber, F., Trachsel, M., Breitenmoser, P., Beer, J., Blass, A., Grosjean, M., Hafner, A., Holzhauser, H. and Wanner H. 2011. Alpine climate during the Holocene: a comparison between records of glaciers, lake sediments and solar activity. Journal of Quaternary Science 26: 703-713.

Source

Comments  

 
Gator
# Gator 02-12-2013 10:48
"First of all, Munroe et al. say that all but one of the records they developed contain evidence for glacier advances during the last millennium, corresponding with the Little Ice Age," which latter period they describe as "the most extensive event" of the entire Neoglacial, and which they further note is "strongly expressed globally," citing Davis et al. (2009)."

Gee, it appears the massive glaciers of yore were outliers, anomalies. And what we see today is 'normal', for the Holocene.

What was all the excitement about again?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 02-13-2013 02:34
www.google.co.uk/.../ And this is what they are talking about doing, if they are talking about doing it then it is already happening, look in the sky it is exactly what so called 'conspiracy theorists' are identifying.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 02-13-2013 02:42
www.google.co.uk/.../ usual suspects.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Paul Homewood
# Paul Homewood 02-13-2013 05:54
Plenty of other studies here that confirm the same picture.

notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/tag/holocene/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 02-13-2013 05:59
Thankyou Paul, like your articles on the site, Anne
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Boxorox
# Boxorox 02-13-2013 09:54
Investigation of alpine glaciers worldwide reveal that their general behavior (expansion and demise) is usually more a function of moisture supply (precipitation) than it is about prevailing temperatures. Alpine glaciers advance when the ice forms at high altitudes which forces their tongues to flow down the slopes to lower altitudes where the ice encounters air that is above the freezing point. A low-moisture condition in sub-freezing conditions near the summits can result in glacial demise due to sublimation. This is what is very plain to see on Kilimanjaro. But this is very useful evidence which can be twisted by those who want the world to believe that warmer temperatures are the main cause of these actions.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Jeff M.
# Jeff M. 02-22-2013 11:35
On behalf of my co-authors, I wish to express my appreciation for those who are reading this paper presenting results of our work in Glacier National Park. The summary above is accurate in that our results indicate multiple episodes of glacier expansion and contraction during the Neoglaciation. However, we clearly note that the glacier advance during the Little Ice Age was the greatest in the last several millennia, and explicitly state that retreat following this advance was the most dramatic event in at least the last 1000 years. Although variations in solar forcing are the most likely explanation for cyclical pulses of Neoglacial activity, the close correlation between unprecedented post-Little Ice Age ice retreat, and the equally unprecedented rise in greenhouse gas concentrations over the same period, is inescapable. Furthermore, solar forcing weakened in the late 20th century. Without warming driven by greenhouse gases, global-average temperature would have declined and mountain glaciers may have started advancing ca. 30-40 years ago. Although our study was not designed to test causality between greenhouse gases and observed ice retreat in Glacier National Park, it is clear that recent changes here are extraordinary when considered over longer timescales. When combined with observations of accelerating changes in glaciers all over the world, it is untenable to conclude from our paper that greenhouse gas concentrations have no bearing on glacier behavior.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 02-23-2013 10:01
Hey Jeff! Clearly there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, or how we got here. As we all know, there was an expansion of glaciers during the little ice age, and this is the cause of the "massive" loss of ice since. The LIA was an outlier.

It is especially disturbing to see this CO2 alarmism coming from the Geology department, where we kno better. I expect this nonsense from those unfamiliar with our geologic past, those who think climates are somehow "normal". Clearly there is better correlation between solar and ocean forcings, and temperatures.

There has never been a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. What we are seeing is well within the range of natural variability.

Ice melts. Why are you crying wolf?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 02-22-2013 14:07
Jeff, again 'follow the money' 40 years is nothing, 1000 years is nothing, you cannot possibly know exactly when ice should form or ice should melt. We are talking of ice forming and melting over millions of years, consider what 1000 years, 40 years is in that grand scheme of things. Do you need funding? or, more accurately, please tell us who is funding you now because you know CO2 follows warming, don't you?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Boxorox
# Boxorox 02-22-2013 14:15
"Clearly, atmospheric CO2 variability has had but a miniscule impact on earth's temperature throughout the entire Holocene; and it is having next to no impact on it now."

Jeff M - It baffles me and smacks of back-pedaling when you issue the plea in your comment that "it is untenable to conclude from our paper that greenhouse gas concentrations have no bearing on glacier behavior." The concluding statement at the end of the reference, cited above, comes across as a take-no-prisoners stance that greenhouse gases are not to blame variability in Holocene climate.

It is well known that glacial behavior depends on many factors which are not directly related to ambient temperatures in the local atmosphere. Moisture availability, particularly during relatively warm periods of the year, are determining factors in glacial expansion and demise. Even Lonnie Thompson made this conclusion, then snaps his yap shut when he realized that his verdict had driven another nail in AGW coffin.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 02-24-2013 02:59
Is Jeff M going to respond? I would be very interested to read what he has to say. Also how do we know that he is one of the authors, his full name would be a help.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Boxorox
# Boxorox 02-25-2013 08:39
Hey anne - That's a really good question. I have been skeptical about Jeff M's true role in this study and his claimed co-authorship of the paper. If he did indeed take part in that effort, I must conclude that he conceals his identity here because he has departed from the position of his colleagues.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 02-25-2013 14:02
Hi Boxorox, you're right, either that or he is worried about losing funding.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh