April 7, 2010 in Outdoors, Region

2 more glaciers gone from Glacier National Park

Associated Press

Tags:climate changeGlacier National Parkglaciersoutdoors

Associated Press photo

In this February 2005 file photo, Jon Crandall of Coram, Mont., paddles his canoe across Lake McDonald in Glacier National Park, Mont. Scientists said April 7, 2010, that Glacier National Park has lost two more of its namesake moving icefields to climate change, which is shrinking the rivers of ice until they grind to a halt.
(Full-size photo)

BILLINGS, Mont. — Glacier National Park has lost two more of its namesake moving icefields to climate change, which is shrinking the rivers of ice until they grind to a halt, the U.S. Geological Survey said Wednesday.

Warmer temperatures have reduced the number of named glaciers in the northwestern Montana park to 25, said Dan Fagre, an ecologist with the agency.

He warned the rest of the glaciers may be gone by the end of the decade.

“When we’re measuring glacier margins, by the time we go home the glacier is already smaller than what we’ve measured,” Fagre said.

The latest two to fall below the 25-acre threshold were Miche Wabun and Shepard. Each had shrunk by roughly 55 percent since the mid-1960s. The largest remaining glacier in the park is Harrison Glacier, at about 465 acres.

On a local scale, fewer glaciers means less water in streams for fish and a higher risk for forest fires. More broadly, Fagre said the fate of the glaciers offers a climate barometer, indicating dramatic changes to some ecosystems already under way.

While the meltoff shows the climate is changing, it does not show exactly what is causing temperatures to rise.

In alpine regions around the world, glacier melting has accelerated in recent decades as temperatures increased. Most scientists tie that warming directly to higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Some glaciers, such as in the Himalayas, could hold out for centuries in a warmer world. But more than 90 percent of glaciers worldwide are in retreat, with major losses already seen across much of Alaska, the Alps, the Andes and numerous other ranges, according to researchers in the United States and Europe.

In some areas of the Alps, ski resorts set atop glaciers have taken drastic measures to stave off the decline, such as draping glaciers in plastic sheeting to keep them cooler.

It could prove a losing battle: Scientists working for the United Nations say the last period of widespread glacial growth was more than three decades ago, lasting only for a few years.

Since about 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended, the trend has been steadily downward.

The area of the Rocky Mountains now within Glacier National Park once boasted about 150 glaciers, of which 37 were eventually named.

Fagre said a handful of the park’s largest glaciers could survive past 2020 or even 2030, but by that point the ecosystem would already be irreversibly altered.

Fagre said geological evidence points to the continual presence of glaciers in the area since at least 5000 B.C.

“They’ve been on this landscape continually for 7,000 years, and we’re looking at them disappear in a couple of decades,” he said.

A glacier needs to be 25 acres to qualify for the title. If it shrinks more, it does not always stop moving right away. A smaller mass of ice on a steep slope would continue to grind its way through the mountains, but eventually could disappear completely.

Smaller glaciers and warmer temperatures could lower stream flows, which in turn prompt fishing restrictions and hobble whitewater rafting businesses, said Denny Gignoux, who runs an outfitting business in West Glacier. Tourism is a $1 billion-a-year industry in the area.

“What happens when all these threats increase?” Gignoux asked. “We’re losing a draw to Glacier.”

A report released Wednesday by two environmental groups highlighted the threat to tourism of fewer glaciers. The study by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and Natural Resources Defense Council included an analysis of weather records that showed Glacier was 2 degrees hotter on average from 2000 to 2009, compared with 1950 to 1979.

34 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

eagleproducer on April 07 at 10:08 a.m.
I remember watching the film “Do the Right Thing” back in the late 80’s and there is a scene where three layabouts are sitting against a tenement building having a conversation about their lowly plights. One character remarks about the searing heat, and how he’s planning on buying a boat because “all the ice gonna melt and you ni**ers are all gonna drown.” He’s derided by the other two as a kook, a paranoid crazy man, who doesn’t have “two dimes to rub together, where you gonna get a boat?”
It appears Spike Lee is not only a great filmmaker, but also a seer. He not only predicts the rapid melting of icecaps and glaciers, he accurately depicts that it is the poor and dark skinned who will be most adversely affected.
Another_Perspective on April 07 at 10:41 a.m.
Most the climate change can be attributed to the hot air that politicians emit. Its so bad in the City Council chambers that they have to turn on the airconditioning even in the winter. On the other hand if Snyder didn’t blow off so much hot air, his head would probably explode.
misjustice on April 07 at 10:48 a.m.
Spoketucky, it is ALWAYS the poor and people that we deem as “less than” that are impacted the most. The continent of Africa, especially those countries that don’t have anything that developed nations want to take, will be hardest hit; a continent that already can not feed itself will face escalating death rates due to malnutrition and starvation in locations where global climate change render growing food impossible.
I recognize that your comments and mine will be attacked by the greed is good crowd and the climate change deniers…but I offer my commentary anyways.
What for us is a loss of a park feature is for others an ominous sign of pending doom.
gmorton on April 07 at 11:01 a.m.
Where did you get that temp figure? The increase in average summer temps of the 7 GHCN stations surrounding the park 1880-2010 is 1.62F.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJunAugA188020090900701AR42572773005x42572775004x42572776002x42572776003x42572779000x42572779002x42572779003x
empyrius on April 07 at 11:16 a.m.
Give them heck misjustice!
The truth is the mightiest weapon of all Lady Justice!
soccermomsusie on April 07 at 11:20 a.m.
Glaciers melting? Sounds like another socialist attempt at getting us to buy into Globalwarmingatescandal. Everybody loves a glacier until they fall into a crevasse. Crevasse is a French word for “I hate freedom.”
HEAR OUR VOICE!
wyoboy on April 07 at 11:35 a.m.
So what
Climate change is well documented in the geologic record for millions of years.
It warms up and it cools down.
New animals and plants appear and old one die off and become extinct.
Man made efforts to modify the climate are a waste of time and money.
theskyisfalling on April 07 at 11:43 a.m.
…yet the ice caps and glaciers around the planet have increased in size, and global times on average have fallen in the last 9 years… Let’s face it folks, climate “changes” over time - average temps have been both higher and lower over the last million years or so… Many studies in the last 5 years (latest out of MIT) shows that carbon increases and decreases actually FOLLOW (not lead or cause) temperature changes.
All of this fear mongering is an obvious political ploy - an as Barnum said, there is “a sucker born every minute”. Do a little reading of some real science, at the source and not form politically motivated outlets like Moveon.org, the news (any station), etc.
MrNatural on April 07 at 12:30 p.m.
caught you meltin’
at the glacier floor
I’ll miss you, baby,
please don’t melt some more
Ooh, ooh, the damage done.
I manufacture up
The CO2
this global warming
comes from me and you
Gone, gone, the damage done.
I warm the planet
because I drive a car
I know that some
of you don’t go that far
Ice-water
to keep from running out.
I’ve seen the weather
and the damage done
A little part of it in everyone
But every glaciers
like a settin’ sun.
soccermomsusie on April 07 at 12:33 p.m.
Isn’t one of those bottled waters made from a glacier? Maybe this will make bottled water a little cheaper.
If it really is getting warmer, cheaper bottled water would be nice and refreshing.
My nephew said that, when he was small, he watched a Bill Nye the Science Guy episode where they showed how global warming worked and that made him a believer. My nephew is now a socialist. I blame Professor Nye for part of his indoctrination. Geeky egghead commie. Labcoat elitist!
HEAR OUR VOICE!
misjustice on April 07 at 12:38 p.m.
Mr. Natural, the Bard of the SR Blogs…is that Neil Young (my favorite Canadian) that you are channeling???
YOU ROCK!!! ; )
empyrius on April 07 at 1:05 p.m.
You really have to do something about those voices you keep speaking about soccermom; doesn’t socialist Medicare help you out for those Prescriptions? Har har har har.
Good one Mr. Natural!
While I am certainly against yearly motor emissions test, and all other governmental bureaucratic infestations; let me make someting clear: us human beings affect the world we live on!
For example:
Up here on the NW side of town there is a road by the river people drive on (which happens to have a water plant that cleans water that has been polluted by human beings!), people jog on, people walk their dogs on, people picnic on, etc.. Often there are broken beer bottles, pop cans, and even the occasional carcass of an animal hunters shove off the bed of their truck, and assorted other such human-made pollution. Now these are just “natural” by-products of human activity you say, and I will not argue that point with you.
So we do agree upon the fact that a broken beer bottle on the river’s shore, that a child accidently steps on, is a man-made tragedy: we do agree on this right?!? So, if there were no human beings on this world, well, there would be no children obviously, but there also would not be broken beer bottles either: so human beings do affect our environment!
Now, let us then take that example and conduct a thought experiment.
Say five hundred million cars, that run on gasoline, are driven every day by human beings …, o, forget it … Here, try this one, use your bathroom for a month and don’t flush your toilet: I bet the environment of your house changes . . .
Here is a rather informative piece at Wki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Peace
MrNatural on April 07 at 1:29 p.m.
Awe shucks folks…t’ weren’t nuthin’ but thanks
Absolutely Neil Young misjustice…matter of fact I’m listening to the song After the Garden right now.
But cereal folks…
George Carlin once said: Save the Planet!?!…the planet doesn’t need savin…we do. The Planet will shake us like a case of fleas and just keep spinning…
force_vector on April 07 at 1:40 p.m.
At what point I wonder, did the climate system of the Earth begin to care about socioeconomic and racial data as it conspired to harm people? If any group takes the brunt of a changing climate more than the others, it will have been due to geography with respect to changing hadley cells and ocean temperatures at the corresponding lat and long of those affected.
Also, glaciers do not “grind to a halt”. Glaciers are always advancing downslope under their own weight, a process which is gravity driven. When a glacier is retreating, that means that the rate of melt is greater than the down-slope vector of motion the glacier is undergoing at any given time (both factors can change rapidly).
Once again, the comments regarding climate fall into two groups: 1.) the Spoketucky and Misjustice crowd who apparently don’t understand what Einstein meant when he said “the most important thing to know is what you don’t know” and 2.) The soccermomsusie crowd who provides rebuttal to the ignorance that is both devoid of facts as well as any thought process beyond childish sarcasm.
You guys are truly unbelievable.
misjustice on April 07 at 2:19 p.m.
Save us, oh pompous one, from our ignorance…
force_vector on April 07 at 2:31 p.m.
If by pompous you mean holding opinions based on science, then guilty as charged. But please, continue to argue a point for which you have no knowledge of, or even a collection of random data big enough to pretend that your point is anything more than what amounts to the true definition of pomposity which is to hold an opinion for which you elevate by off-topic commentary to mask your on-topic ignorance of science.
MrNatural on April 07 at 2:46 p.m.
Yes I subscribe to everything you know is wrong…it’s cheap and it’s easy…but just for conservation and conversation sake wouldn’t it be wise to pursue clean energy?…wouldn’t it be wise to even speculate that the rampant burning that occurs on this ball might have a detrimental effect?… wouldn’t clean and renewable sources of energy be a worthwhile goal?…or am I just oblivious to the rationale of idiomatic conservative contraries.
I’ve contemplated climate change and speculated on the eons of time and what allegedly occurred on this planet climate-wise…I could take comfort in the fact that we as humans are truly not wise enough to grasp climate change and yet I aspire to giving it my best shot…and I’ve been swayed by those who are dedicated to pursuing this “science” that climate change is real and that burning of fossil fuels is raising CO2 levels and that this will affect climate on our finite little world…
I have lived here before
The days of ice
And of course this is why
I’m so concerned
And I come back to find
The stars misplaced
And the smell of a world
That is burned
A smell of a world
That is burned….Jimi Hendrix
MrNatural on April 07 at 2:50 p.m.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
misjustice on April 07 at 2:58 p.m.
“Analysis of the impacts of climate change suggests that agro-ecological systems are the most vulnerable sectors. Agriculture in low latitude developing countries is expected to be especially vulnerable because climates of many of these countries are already too hot. Further warming is consequently expected to reduce crop productivity adversely. These effects are exacerbated by the fact that agriculture and agro-ecological systems are especially prominent in the economies of African countries and the systems tend to be less capital and technology intensive. Predictions of impacts across regions consequently suggest large changes in the agricultural systems of low latitude (mostly, developing) countries.”
http://www.ceepa.co.za/Climate_Change/index.html
For you, Mr. Pompous… ; )
force_vector on April 07 at 3:20 p.m.
I already stated, Misjustice, that changes in local climate due to global (system) variations would be dictated by lat and long coordinates as they relate to the location of hadley cells. Did I not? It was your implication that citizens of these areas have been deemed “less than” and are therefore subject to experiencing climactic changes on a scale larger than they would otherwise that I took issue with. So following your logic, the Earth itself has deemed these people “less than” as well, evidenced by purposefully and selectively responding to solar and milankovitch drivers by targeting them more than others.
Mr. Natural, I’m glad you’ve spent time “pondering the eons”. Perhaps you should also ponder differential equations, physics, geology and chemistry as well. When you have done so, you will realize that our contribution to CO2 is negligible, and incapable of producing the types of temperature increases some claim. It is simply not possible. Furthermore, as I have stated previously, even if we were to burn all of the fossil fuels that could be reached in the subsurface, it still wouldn’t be enough to bring about the increase in temperature so many are claiming would and/or will occur. Those fossil fuels are only there becuase in the geologic record were times when the Earth was much warmer than today. As a result, there was increased vegetation and organic material, as the world was also wetter. That material was then burried under stratigraphy, and compacted and/or heated up to the point that hydrocarbon chains formed. However, the vegeation was a reaction to, not the cause of the initial warming that made their presence possible. The partial cause is now locked away in limestone and dolomitic rocks all over the world (carbonate rocks), and unavailable for future release by humans. The other cause is happily spinning away one AU from Earth, and couldn’t care less what we do or don’t do.
Mr. Pompous
BigE on April 07 at 3:23 p.m.
Everything has changed, we have overpopulated and over consumed our planet. I really doesn’t matter to all of you, you will be gone soon enough. No more future, this is perhaps the biggest concern, how do the young people feel ? One thing I do know, according to the young people I know they are all numbing themselves through, booze, pot and pills, same thing we did in 70’s but at least we had the hope of living to be old.
MrNatural on April 07 at 3:31 p.m.
WOW! force-vector
I guess everything you know isn’t wrong…or is it?
Megan_B on April 07 at 3:46 p.m.
So.
There are LIMITED RESOURCES.
There is an EVER-GROWING POPULATION.
What’s wrong with transferring on clean, renewable energy?
FACT: Price is king.
As long as the limited resources are cheaper, people will continue to use them. So our focus needs to be on making clean energy cheaper and more efficient, and limited resources taxed so they are more expensive. (collected taxes go to subsidize the renewable energy so it is even cheaper…)
Voila! I just solved the energy crisis. ;-P
force_vector on April 07 at 4:12 p.m.
Megan- The developement of renewable energy sources is definitely an important step for all of us. The benefits to our air quality and our national stability would certainly be enormous if we can make it work. Of course, we aren’t there yet from a technological perspective, but kudos to those doing research to bring us closer. However, what we don’t need to do is give the “sky is falling” crowd more power under false-pretenses that have nothing to do with the actual benefits of “green energy”. The sky is falling people seemingly without knowing are asking the government to do what they can’t stand the oil companies doing: making money at the economic expense of others. Regulation based upon false-fear will lead to increased costs based on false-fear which will lead to less capital available to actually fully develop the technologies required to eliminate the need for fossil fuels. So in the end, a few will get very rich through gov’t contracts and regulatory loop holes, while everyone else will suffer, including the cause for which they claim to be fighting for. Isn’t our world great? Neither side of this dipolar scheme is looking out for you or I, and the sooner people realize that, the sooner we can get down to the business of making meaningful changes.
Mr. Natural- if I am wrong, please let me know where.
misjustice on April 07 at 4:34 p.m.
“Koch Industries has “become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition,” spending over $48.5 million since 1997 to fund the climate denial machine, according to an extensive report today by Greenpeace.
The Greenpeace report reveals how Koch Industries and the foundations under its control spent far more than even ExxonMobil in recent years to fund industry front groups opposed to clean energy and climate policies. Koch spent over half the total amount -nearly $25 million - funding climate denier groups from 2005 to 2008, a period in which Exxon only spent $8.9 million.
Greenpeace’s attempt to lift the veil of secrecy inherent to a private company like Koch Industries is no easy task. Because it remains privately owned, Koch faces few of the disclosure requirements designed to increase transparency among publicly-traded companies.
That intentional secrecy allows Koch Industries, the second-largest privately-held company in the United States, to fly largely below the public’s radar. Few Americans have likely heard of Koch, even though it operates crude oil refineries and pipelines across North America and owns such well-known consumer brands as Dixie cups, Brawny and Quilted Northern paper products, Stainmaster carpet, CoolMax and Lycra.
The company’s founder, Fred Koch, who once earned $5 million building oil refineries in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin’s reign, was a co-founder of the libertarian John Birch Society. Charles G. and David H. Koch, two of Fred’s four sons, each now own 42% of the company’s stock. According to 2009 Forbes rankings, the Koch brothers are tied for the 19th richest person in the world, and for ninth richest American, each worth between $14 and $16 billion, more than George Soros or the founders of Google.
The Koch brothers use three foundations to spread Koch Industries’ influence, including support for roughly 40 organizations that doubt or downplay climate change or otherwise oppose policy solutions to build a clean energy future. Greenpeace also notes that Koch Industries has been the largest oil and gas industry contributor to electoral campaigns since the 2006 election cycle, and its done its fair share of lobbying as well. During the 2008 elections, Koch Industries contributed over $1.8 million, 88% to Republican candidates. Koch’s political action committee (PAC) also spent more than $2.5 million on contributions to federal candidates for that period, more than any other oil-and-gas sector PAC.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-industries-extensive-funding-climate-denial-industry-unmasked
These few paragraphs explain why those of us that want to move beyond coal and oil for our energy needs and are concerned about the impacts from global climate change, don’t stand a chance of having our views taken seriously…MONEY!
misjustice on April 07 at 4:37 p.m.
And Koch has a little something in its coffers for the teagaggers, too!
“Koch Industries has bankrolled Americans for Prosperity to the tune of over $5 million since 2005. AFP – known primarily for its role in organizing the tea party movement in the U.S.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-industries-extensive-funding-climate-denial-industry-unmasked
gmorton on April 07 at 9:24 p.m.
misjustice wrote,
“Koch Industries has “become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition,” spending over $48.5 million since 1997 to fund the climate denial machine… ”
LOL. And in the meantime, since 1989 the US government alone has spent $79 *billion* promoting climate alarmism and subsidizing “green” boondoggles. European gummints have blown tens of billions more. And Greenpeace itself has an annual budget of $360 million; WWF well over $100 million – much of it taxpayer money.
And you’re whining about Koch’s $48.5M?
deltaelk on April 07 at 9:47 p.m.
thank god their are people like: soccermomsusie,wyoboy, theskyisfalling and force_vector. Mr. Natural? you must not work in a place that requires drug tests, because you would never pass my friend.
empyrius on April 07 at 9:59 p.m.
Appropriately enough your “god” is not capitalized.
Har har har har
deltaelk on April 07 at 10:18 p.m.
empyrius aka Mr. Wizard…….thanks a bunch for your wisdom. I bet you got a picture of Al Gore above your bed dont you?
empyrius on April 07 at 11:41 p.m.
Mr. Wizard??? Please dude, I am Empyrius, and I present myself with no other name, well, except Craig Jones, in the cyber world or in the real world.
But if you really do not think human beings affect this world we live on maybe you should google “Exxon-Valdez”, “Chernobyl”, “Nagasaki”, “Panama Canal”, “Grand Coulee Dam” etc… .
Or, better yet, if you have an airtight garage, stick a hose into your car’s muffler and run it into a car door window and roll that window up leaving just enough space for that hose to pump the exhause into your car while you are in it: try this experiment for a night and then we can talk about it tomorrow!
deltaelk on April 08 at 12:02 a.m.
I see you took time off from painting your bedroom ceiling to make another stupid comment.
eagleproducer on April 14 at 9:56 a.m.
deltaelk: I find Empyrius’ last post an excellent analogy except that when you go to your car tonight to try it take a block of ice with you and turn the heat up full blast. Get back to us soon with the results!
deltaelk on April 14 at 5:17 p.m.
I dont think anybody ever denied the fact that there might be global warming, probably is, because it certainly has happened in the past. Its just funny that people are stupid and gullible enough to listen to the impending doom of man, and it causes. Its called panic, you morons. Oh yeah, and good luck finding a replacement for diesel.