Back in 1925 Glacier Bay National Monument was established, in part, to protect "a number of tidewater glaciers ... in a magnificent setting of lofty peaks ..."
Well, as these photos of Muir Glacier in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve show, some of those glaciers are slip-sliding away.
Such photographic evidence makes it hard to argue against climate change. About the only thing that can be argued is the role, if any, that humans are playing in altering the world's climate.
That said, glaciers have been coming and going in this Alaskan landscape for a long, long, long time:
Ice has been a major force in the Glacier Bay region for at least the last seven million years. The glaciers seen here today are remnants of a general ice advance – the Little Ice Age – that began about 4,000 years ago. True to its name, this advance in no way approached the extent of continental glaciation during Pleistocene times known as the Wisconsin Ice Age. The Little Ice Age reached its maximum extent here about 1750, when general melting began. The advance or retreat of a glacier snout reflects many factors: snowfall rate, topography, and climate trends. Today, glacial retreat continues on the bay's east and southwest sides, but on the west side several glaciers are advancing.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
I cannot fathom why someone would be interested in parks and have no clue about climate change. Smartin271 mentions that the photos have differences, yes they do, how nice to notice. But seeing the differences and saying it is climate change is deemed to be reactionary. What do you people think all that carbon is doing? When your septic tank overflows, do you say, oh it has plenty of room, don't be reactionary? Why fight this? What will it hurt to be more gentle on the planet?
Follow the money? Yes, the people who don't want to spend more to be cleaner, follow the oil companies money.
"All that carbon" is being absorbed by the seas and flora as it always has. Flora loves CO2...and today there is more forestland in the U.S. than there ever has been in recorded history. No "deforestation" here, BTW.
Take a biology course. Some scientists now believe we are entering a cooling phase...so now what do we do? Do you have an answer to that? I guess just the opposite of what the enviros say we need to do! Burn more carbon!!
I actually had an Al Gore "peace prize" party a few years ago when he "won." We fired up the barbie in the back yard and a friend who works at the tire store brought some old tires. We set 'em ablaze just after sunset so that no one would complain...pretty funni. Lots of smoke, but thank God the winds were blowin' away from us!
re:
Good thing the wind blew all that smoke out over the ocean, where the CO2 would be quickly absorbed...
Sorry Richard Smith, I should have been more clear in my concerns. I gave too much credit, apparently.
The differences I was concerned with had to do with relative distance from comparable spots, for instance, and the time of year in which each photograph was taken. Or, iwas that not too concerning to be brought up as a "problem?"
Sandi,
Wow, take a biology course? I am a biologist. The carbon is being taken up by the seas, and becoming acidic to the detriment of sea life. Burn some tires? Wow you are one sick individual to celebrate like that.
Smartin271,
The pictures seem to be taken at the same exact location from what i can tell, it is just that the glacier is hight up than the water. I do not believe the time of year would make much difference.
Sorry Sandi, but I've taught more Bios classes than you'll ever take. Plants love CO2? There's some accuracy in that statement. Plants tolerate CO2 is a better way of making that statement. There's also a bit more accuracy in the statement that with the slash-and-burn deforestation that's been eating away those carbon-sucking flora to which you refer, the earth's ability to filter excess production of CO2 has been reduced. By what percentage this reduction can be measured can be bandied about by various E&E friends of mine, but the overall statistic will be that we (i.e., the Earth) are less able to handle the excesses that we were in years (centuries) past. And for what it's worth, simply placing carbon dioxide in the presence of water doesn't make it magically disappear, not by a long shot. Not quite sure if that's really what you meant, but I hope not. Or I'll have to have a long what-for with your chemistry instructor.
Maybe for once and for all time, we can call this what it really is.........it's NOT the consumer that's the real issue in this equation. Consumers only utilize the tools that they are given. If all the people in the US immediately began to live their lives without automobiles, electricity, natural gas, etc. this issue wouldn't simply vanish. Those behind this mess are those who refuse to change the fuel sources that mankind uses, or who claim it's too expensive to change, or that no market exists for "green" fuel technology. I wonder how fast our suppliers mindset would be altered if by chance their incomes were challenged by a sudden unexpected depletion of natural resources?
Richard Smith......sorry, they're not. It's not even close frankly. Try again?
First of all, I'm not sure how I managed to claim your name while posting to you. Sorry about that as I'm sure I probably addressed the response to you in the wrong place.
Secondly, I do not believe it is from the same vantage point at all, but thank you for looking into it anyway. For consideration, I would recommend just looking at the mountain peak farthest away in each photograph, to the top right edge of each image. If indeed taken from the same vantage point, then the older image has been cropped considerably, at the least.
Lastly, the difference between the seasons could account for the vegetation as well. That should not be so casually dismissed, if indeed the scientific method is at all important.