The shrinking Lyell Glacier/NPS photos.
Is it time to start a pool over when the Lyell Glacier in Yosemite National Park is no longer classified as a glacier? Or when it vanishes from the landscape? Those are good questions to ask, as the glacier, the second largest in the Sierra Nevada according to the National Park Service, is continuing to shrink.
The National Park Service's Climate Change Response team says the glacier "has thinned rapidly over just the last few years. Note (in the accompanying photo) the newly exposed bedrock on the east (left) side; it's estimated the glacier may now be only 15-20 feet thick. Currently the glacier is losing on average about three feet of thickness each year. How much longer until it's gone?"
It was back in February 2013 when word came that the Lyell Glacier had stagnated, or ceased its downhill movement, while the adjacent Maclure Glacier was still moving at its historical rate, about one inch per day.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Suprised all the tea partiers that hijack every thread on this site haven't said a peep about this. I guess, when science and evidence is presented to them, it's best to stay buried with your head in the sand.
I climbed Mt. Lyell way back in the sixties while hiking the John Muir Trail. It was the first glacier I traveled on and began a lifelong fascination with these rivers of ice. Except for the special circumstance of Crater Glacier at Mt. Saint Helens, glaciers here in our Northwest parks are also in rapid retreat:
http://www.nps.gov/olym/naturescience/glaciers.htm
http://www.glaciers.pdx.edu/Projects/LearnAboutGlaciers/MRNP/Atlas10.html
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/bill.htm
I'd advise staying out of any betting pool on the disappearance date. It might not be that definite when a glacier is 'gone'. Many north-thru-east-facing talus slopes high in our western mountains have ice cores and there is a whole range of transitional geomorphic features:
http://www.uibk.ac.at/projects/rockglacier/rockglacier_intro.html
The funny part Gary is that you believe that two hand selected pictures is "science" or "evidence". What exactly are they "science" of "evidence" of? You think the California drought may have any role?
I can show you two pictures of the mountains near me. One more recent than the other with far more snow and ice. What does that prove? Like these pictures - nothing.
EC, next time I want advice from a realtor on climate science... well, never mind, I don't want advice from a realtor on climate science. Stick to what you know, and that's exchanging a properties titles, which requires ZERO scientific knowledge. You obviously are clueless when it comes to climate science, and sound like a fool when you attempt to discuss it. The NPS has built up a library of evidence in regards to a warming planet and its effects on the numerous ecosystems that the NPS manages. Just because you have your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge any of the research means aboslutely nothing to me, or anyone else that has seen the effects and has studied subjects on climate change.
Get a clue, although I don't think you have the self-awareness to recognize your own fallacies. So you'll continue to make yourself look more and more clueless on this subject day in and day out.
Gary what are your climate science credentials?
This should be interesting. LOL
A portion of my career requires me to do research on a variety of subjects in biology, ecology, and climate science so that I can create educational films. Am I a climate scientist? Nope, not at all. Do, I collaborate with scientists when developing scripts on numerous park related topics? Yes, very much so. And I back up my work with visceral evidence. One of my films on the smokies documented the spruce-fir forests and how human pollution and climate change was effecting the ecosystem. It was very much backed by years of scientific research. SO LOL all you want. I used to do similar things when I worked in engineering. I've been collaborating and working with scientists and engineers for about 20 years now. So LOL LOL ...
In other words, you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night. You are no more a qualified to evaluate the science than anyone else on this board, and probably less- as evidenced by your swallowing these two pictures as "science" and "evidence". Thanks for the laugh.
Ill just continue to document the evidence. Thats the power of media.. While you sit reading teaparty blogs trying to trump up false propaganda to suit your "head in the sand" approach at life, there are guys like me actually out in the field documenting the changes with each storm and severe weather event.. Phenology and weather are two subjects that I find fascinating.
Please do that. Document where the scientist showed that climate change was exclusively the reason for the glacial recession and how they definatively linked it to human activity.
Of which there has been no increase despite predictions to the contrary. Who is burying their head in the sand?
I will ask once again Gary, if increases in human generated CO2 cause global warming, why have we not had global warming for nearly two decades despite massive increases in CO2 emissions? The models fail. The "science" fails.
Don't worry, next year one of the films that i'm producing will very much document climate change at least in the Smokies. I have enough film evidence collected thanks to a few massive deluges, tornadoes, hurricanes, and derecho's that occurred all in the past couple years.
And here's some evidence that contradicts your "failing science" and disagrees with your assessment that you must have pulled from here.
And for the record, 2014, barring some catastrophic cooling event will more than likely also be put in the top 10 warmest years on record list.
Produce it - along with the evidence about the glacier melt.
The chasing ice team is already producing enough visual evidence on glacial melt off in greenland, iceland, montana, and the arctic. Guess, you've never seen it? It's excellent work.
Where's your visual evidence to showcase this isn't occuring, EC? Got any other than it once snowed behind your house?
Oh the old change the subject trick.
Document that the Lyell glacier is receeding because of warming - as opposed to say lack of precipitation and then show me the documentation that CO2 increases are causing that warming. --- Oh, that's right, you can't because the temperatures weren't warming over the period covered by those pictures.
Once again you dodged the question - if CO2 causes global warming and CO2 has increased dramatically over the last two decades, why haven't temperatures followed suit?
Ummm wouldn't it be stated that if this is the hottest year on record in California that it means the surface temperature is also some of the highest the state has seen? I also already posted a link showcasing that the top 10 warmest years on record were all since 1998. So, once again, i-got-my-science-from-a-crackerjackbox boy, you continue to showcase you should stick to real estate and shilling titles instead of trying to debate this topic, because you obviously are oblivious to reason, data and evidence.
If glaciers are rapidly retreating in places like Alaska, Greenland, and Montana, wouldn't it be safe to assume that if the chasing ice team put a camera system on the lyell glacier, they would see the same sort of retreat over a few years? Ohh my hypothesis is YES they would. Maybe the Yosemite NPS should do just that...
Yeah, thanks for the laughs Gary. The real science has shown no global warming for over 18 years. And that is a undesputed fact. I'll provide the data if you desire.
If these "scientists" you collaborate with agree with AGW then they are not real scientists, thanks for playing.Has anyone jumped back to the earlier story? Here's a key snippet from that one from last year:
What's going on with the Lyell Glacier apparently did not happen overnight.
Sure beachdump, whatever you say. Maybe it's going to take more than the NPS moving the lighthouse at CHNS from the rising tide to convince you. Although, to anyone with more than two working neurons that would be some compelling evidence showcasing evidence of rising sea levels...
Nor does it correlate with CO2 emissions.
No - because the "record" is a minscule fraction of the earth's history.
And once again you run from the question. If CO2 causes global warming, why has there not been a rise in global temperatures over the last (nearly) two decades despite massive increases in CO2?
Well, perhaps a better way to put it, EC, is that rising CO2 emissions did not drive the melting, for as the glacier has continued to melt the CO2 emissions into the atmopshere have continued to rise.
We'll have a story tomorrow that will delve into this much more deeply that you'll find fascinating.
EC, the evidence is there.
The human primate is pulling stored carbon out of the ground and burning it and displacing it into the atmosphere. That has an accumulative affect. I did not run from the question. I have already shown that 10 of the warmest years on record are all from 1998 and beyond. So there has very much been a rise in global surface temperatures. PROVE THAT THERE HASNT been a rise in global temperatures, when data collected from weather stations from around the planet have proven that it has. PROVE IT EC! You just say it as if it has weight behind it, when you provide no evidence. That's just empty words. Prove it with some weight behind it. Until you do, I just see you as an empty talking head.
So Gary - to get this on record, your claim is that global temperatures have continued to rise over the last two decades?
I don't have to claim it. I just have to look at the data, which I can pull from a variety of sources to see that as fact.
That makes sense to me. Remember - correlation does not equal causation. In fact, there are studies that suggest that CO2 (concentration) rises historically have trailed rather than led temperature rises.
OK Gary - provide us your sources that say global temperatures have risen over the last two decades. I am sure the IPCC and NOAA would be very interested. Its their agenda and they don't even claim that.
Really? Got any other rhetoric that needs a little debunking?
I honestly feel like i'm playing in that reality tv show "are you smarter than a 1st grader?".
Your evidence that global temperatures have risen over the last two decades is that 2013 tied for 7th for the highest temperature? LOL
I thought your Lyell glarcier claims were funny. This is just hilarious.
No, 2013 was tied for the 4th warmest year on record. It's pretty evident, that you have the reading comprehension capabilities of a 1st grader.
Download high resolution versions.
10 Warmest Years on Record Globally
It’s official: 2013 is tied with 2003 as the fourth warmest year for Planet Earth since modern record-keeping began more than 130 years ago. The mean global temperature rose 1.12°F above the 20th century average. That means the 10 warmest years on record have all happened since 1998, with 2010 still on top as the warmest of all. The only year in the entire 20th century that was warmer than 2013, and the only one remaining in the top 10, was 1998. This also marks the 37th straight year where the global temperature was above the long term average.
From your link:
NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880
Who is comprehending at a 1st grade level? You can't even comprehend your own links. And seventh or third, it still doesn't dispute the glaring evidence that the trend in global temperature has been flat over the last 18 years.
PLAIN ENGLISH!
With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record.
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which analyzes global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated report Tuesday on temperatures around the globe in 2013. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience temperatures warmer than those measured several decades ago. (WOULDN'T THAT BE EVIDENCE THAT TEMPERATURES ARE NOT FLAT, BUT WARMING, EC?...DUH. Reading comprehsion!!!!)
The average temperature in 2013 was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 degrees Celsius), which is 1.1 °F (0.6 °C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) since 1880, according to the new analysis. Exact rankings for individual years are sensitive to data inputs and analysis methods.
You're wasting your time and effort, Gary.
God herself could lay the word on some folks and they'd still argue. Shades of Noah!
ec, how long can you tread water?
I agree Lee, these guys lack functioning neurons. It's pointless, and wasting my time. Although, the only good thing about it is I end up finding more interesting articles when I search through these sites. So regardless, their blatant ignorance, indirectly adds to my research and knowledge. At least some purpose is gained from the futile efforts of attempting to pull their heads up from out of the sand.
No, it says from "several decades ago". It does not address the last two decades where temperatures have been flat. Why over the last two decades, with massive increases in CO2, have temperatures been flat? Temperatures rise and fall but CO2 emissions appear to have little if anything to do with it.
Keep dancing because I know you don't have an answer.
Longer than it will take you to come up with the name of someone that claims humans don't have an impact on earth or an example of Congress designating a park unit over the objection of the NPS.
My gosh, you are brain dead. Ok, I realize that i'm not dealing with a person that obviously paid ANY attention in math, or basic artithmetic so i'll attempt to point it out.
2014-20 = 1994.
1994 would be from 2 decades ago. Since 1994, 10 of the warmest years on record were during those 20 years. So, I guess, if you want to split hairs, then YES, if we want to dance around that the temperatures over the last 20 years are all trying to displace each other as the warmest years on record since the 1880s, then you MIGHT have a point. At that point, what's another "warmest year on record" trend when that just happened last year? So passe, right? A point that only proves the planet is getting warmer. And amazingly CO2 temeperatures continue to rise in conjunction. But hey... once again, we are back to just me posting the same thing over and over because you fail to understand basic concepts. This place continues to be the most infuriating web blog on the webisphere, and it's because of you.
Not fails to understand basic concepts. Refuses to understand.
Don't take him seriously. He enjoys goading people. I think it's called trolling the internet.
Trying to respond is about as effective as trying to respond to a two-year old's line of logic during a temper tantrum.
Stand back, take a deep breath and let the other readers of this site judge for themselves.
The only thing he's succeeding in doing is shutting down most of the good, thoughtful comments that once were common here. Let's not let him do that.
Try the IGNORE button.
A recent article about the fire at Flight 93 Memorial was hijacked and shut down. I know this is probably unrelated to global warming and glaciers, but here's a link to an interesting article from Firehouse Magazine about the park service's struggle to protect objects in its many collections.
Because the original article was trolled to death, I'll post it here:
http://www.firehouse.com/news/11748466/flight-9-memorial-fire-shows-stru...
Be sure to read the nauseatingly politcal double-speak by Rep. Shuster near the end of the article.
And ten of the non warmest years were during those 20 years even thought CO2 emissions went up every year. Even the major proponents of AGW ( IPCC, NOAA) have admitted that the trend has been flat over the last 18 years. Has your consulting with scientist in the Smokys provided you contrary evidence?
No Lee - I fully understand your inabiltiy to back up your accusations/claims. You can't because there is no factual basis.
Lee - are you arguing that there is nowhere in the NPS where artifacts are safe?
Non warmest years? Huh? You're just babbling, what is a non-warmest year? There are 37 years in a row where the global mean temperatures have exceeded the mean aveage. Once again, prove your BELIEFS with data. Until you have data and evidence, I will side with Lee that all you are doing is just trying to irritate me. That's all you seem to be good at on this board. Irritating people, and just trolling. You seem to serve no other purpose. Adding data and intelligence to this blog? Well that never occurs with you. It's just mindless empty rhetoric.. I've already provided you enough data. You obviously are infalliable to reason, so it's pointless going further with you. Like Lee said, this forum would be so much better WITHOUT you here. And I agree. When you are here 24/7, I feel like its pointless having a meaningful discussion because you fail to grasp even the most basic concepts, and you hijack the thead and just turn it into garbage. Meaningful debate does not occur much on this forum, and it's because of all the clowns that troll here. And it's quite evidence you have zero experience in the field or on many of these topics, so your input is rather pointless, 9 times out of 10. Maybe I need to waste my time going to realestateshills.com and rant on their blog 24/7 about real estate topics. But then i'd really be wasting my life, and would be just like you.
Gary, the lighthouse at CHNSRA was moved because erosion not rising sea levels. Using actual measurements, not fabricated you alarmists use, the sea level rise currently is at ~0.466mm per year(that's like 2" per 100 years), its not significant factor.
Gary is a real AGW climate scientist, he learned it on the interweb.
Uh, a year that isn't warmest. Is that a hard concept to understand?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-st...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climat...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/global-warming-temperature-very-close-ze...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/08/report-no-global-warming-for-215-months/
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-1...
Thats a start
At least he's stopped the silly argument that he isn't a teabagger.
That's because you are probably one of those anti-science deniers beach with your hands in the development pockets. Regardless, you reap what you sow. Only idiots would buy beachfront property in today's world..
Ah Rick - we can always count on you for your personal attacks. You have nothing else to offer.
The vast majority of climate and other scientists have done their work. Your mind is made up. No amount of arguing with you or the other deniers will do a bit of good. I contribute on positive threads, not on threads of sysyphus.
Yes they have. And they haven't concluded that AGW is fact. But there are those like you that woud like to manfucture the belief they have. Even if you have to make false claims of perversion to do so.
Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/):
Pages