No glaciers on Kilimanjaro by 2050
By Paul Homewood
Glaciers across the globe – including the last ones in Africa – will be unavoidably lost by 2050 due to climate change, the UN says in a report.
Glaciers in a third of UN World Heritage sites will melt within three decades, a UNESCO report found.
Mount Kilimanjaro’s last glaciers will vanish as will glaciers in the Alps and Yosemite National Park in the US.
They will melt regardless of the world’s actions to combat climate change, the authors say.
The report, which makes projections based on satellite data, comes as world leaders prepare to meet in Egypt for next week’s COP27 climate change conference.
About 18,600 glaciers have been identified across 50 UN World Heritage sites. They represent almost 10% of the Earth’s glacierised area and include renowned tourist spots and places sacred to local populations.
The retreat and disappearance of glaciers was "among the most dramatic evidence that Earth’s climate is warming", the report said.
"We hope we might be wrong, but this is the hard science," said UNESCO project officer Tales Carvalho Resende, one of the authors. "Glaciers are one of the valuable indicators of climate change, because they’re visible. This is something we can really see happening."
"What is quite unprecedented in the historical record is how quickly this is happening," said Beata Csatho, a glaciologist from the University of Buffalo, who was not involved in the research.
"In the middle of the 1900s, glaciers were quite stable," she said. "Then there is this incredibly fast retreat."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63489041
Well, we’ve all heard of previous claims about Kilimanjaro which have not materialised. And just because glaciers are melting does not mean the Earth’s climate is warming.
Suppose you take an ice cube out of the freezer and leave it in the kitchen. If you come back an hour later, half of it has melted. If you come back an hour after that, it has all melted. Does that mean that the temperature in the kitchen has increased in that second hour?
All melting glaciers tell you is that the Earth’s climate is warmer than when they were at their maximum. (This ignores the effect of precipitation changes)
We are all familiar with the massive expansion of glaciers around the world during the Little Ice Age, in Europe, North America, South America and New Zealand.
But I was intrigued by this comment:
“In the middle of the 1900s, glaciers were quite stable. Then there is this incredibly fast retreat."
Why choose the mid 1900s? Let’s see what HH Lamb wrote in 1982:
Climate, History and The Modern World – HH Lamb
There is a wealth of evidence that many glaciers were retreating faster than now in the late 19th and early 20thC. But as Lamb points out, this retreat largely stopped during the period of global cooling between 1940 and 1980.
It is fraudulent not to mention the role of the Little Ice Age in all of this, nor to mention that glaciers have been retreating for the last couple of hundred years.
But this is UNESCO we are talking about, which rather says it all!
Comments are closed.
Anything coming out of the UN just before a COP is bound to be fake alarmism and pure propaganda. That the BBC repeats it confirm that it is fake news.
Yep the media is full of silly climate scare stories at the moment.
Very true what you say. This Kilimanjaro tale pops its head up every COP then strangely goes away.
Oh good grief, not that garbage again…
They never give up, do they?
Strictly speaking, if I recall a lecture by a PhD Botanist from Kew Gardens correctly, glaciers just don’t melt, they evaporate. Wind action has to be taken into consideration as well, even if it is a very cold wind.
The process is called ‘Sublimation’
And the Climate Scientists naturally followed through from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Thanks for the reminder. And roger, that’s a good ‘un. LOL as da yoofs say. 🙂
The problem is that the great mass of people, having no scientific knowledge at all, will take it as gospel. Which is exactly why the eco loons keep on repeating themselves; ad infinitum et ad nauseam
Re. ‘This ignores the effect of precipitation changes’ — there has been a change…
From a 2009 journal article (see the abstract):
‘During the last 120 years, annual precipitation on Mount Kilimanjaro (Tanzania) has decreased by 600–1200 mm (Hemp, 2005a).’
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227936220_Climate_change_and_its_impact_on_the_forests_of_Kilimanjaro
See also Figure 2: Annual precipitation (at 3 local sites, one of them on the mountain).
“They will melt regardless of the world’s actions to combat climate change, the authors say.” Simples: if you’re so sure of the facts that you claim will be catastrophic – not to mention, expensive for the
WorldWest’s population – put your money where your mouth is and stand beside your predictions with your future – and your children’s future. After all, that is what Joe Public is being asked to do based on your predictions (sorry, projections, of course).Let’s face it, the people at the top of ENRON went to prison.
Of course, when it comes to Kilimanjaro there’s always sublimation. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/25/yet-another-inconvenient-story-ignored-by-the-msm/
https://web.archive.org/web/20160214051639/http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/fieldwork2.html
USGS: The glacier that filled Glacier Bay during the Little Ice Age began its retreat from the mouth of the bay more than 200 years ago and has exposed a magnificent fjord system about 100 km long. The massive glacier retreated past Sitakaday Narrows ~190 years ago, retreated past Whidbey Passage ~160 years ago, and reached the upper end of the main bay by 1860 (~140 years ago).
Glacier Park in Montana has been predicted to be ice free soon since 1923.
It survived past 1948, 2002, 2020 but newer predictions say it won’t last past 2030 or perhaps 2034.
From H.H.Lamb
The lower Grindelwald glacier reached a maximum in 1820/22, then after little retreat reached a new maximum in 1855/56. It then retreated rapidly (about a kilometre) in 1860 to 1880.
The Mer de Glace (Mt. Blanc) reached a maximum in 1821. It was reported as melting in 1838, but expanded again to a (slightly less peak) maximum in 1852/53, followed by a retreat (roughly 900 metres) in 1867 to 1878
Sept. 3 2021
The conviction that global warming is melting ice in the polar regions has once again led climate warriors into danger and the need for rescue. The MS Malmo, a Swedish-registered ship, was just rescued after being trapped in ice, and its passengers airlifted to safety.
Arctic tours ship MS MALMO with 16 passengers on board got stuck in ice on Sep 3 off Longyearbyen, Svalbard Archipelago, halfway between Norway and North Pole. The ship is on Arctic tour with Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with Climate Change and melting Arctic ice.
Samuel Pepys 21st jan 1661
It is strange what weather we have had all this winter; no cold at all; but the ways are dusty, and the flyes fly up and down, and the rose-bushes are full of leaves, such a time of the year as was never known in this world before here.
Then there is the fact that the climate models have all failed with regard to the thermohaline and grossly overpredict warming against altitude. I would be more worried if they were measuring the changes rather than predicting them.
‘…all failed..’ – But you’ll never hear the MSM say that. CC to them is treated the same way as the ‘attack’ on Pelosi’s husband (what’s the alternative to ‘beard’?): nothing to see, move along.
I have actually analysed the glacier data and spent some considerable time forward modelling it for a virtual poster session at a climate change conference for GeolSoc.
The full published glacier record collated in 2011 contains length recrods for 471 glaciers. Of these just 18 have records that consistently reach back prior to 1800. I compiled a stacked length record by regressing the 18 glacier datasets to standardise them. The result is shown in the linked graph with a 15 year median filter applied. There is retreat commencing somewhere between 1920 and 1850 and 3 distinct cycles superimposed on a linear trend of about 170 years. Remember there is a 20 – 30+ year lag typically between warming onset and glacial retreat in these large glaciers.
https://postimg.cc/7fYSsLfW
The second graph shows the standardised peak retreat rates for the 18 glaciers in a 30 year centered periods, with an average for the three periods. The rates of retreat are similar in all 3 but if any period is the slowest, its the most recent:
https://postimg.cc/4YjtxbwD
Finally you can forward model glacier retreat easily using any temperature or pseudo-temperature time series as input. I used RCP8.5 forcing, CMIP6 model mean and HadCRUT4. They all perform very badly in reproducing the glacier retreat curve. A trivial linear trend model plus sinewave outperforms them easily. The linear trend model starts warming in 1817 with a slope of 0.133 degC/decade. UAH has a slope of 0.14 degC/decade for comparison. The sinewave has a period of 69 years and these two factors are optimised to fit:
https://postimg.cc/R6ZMr2K4
Understood, brilliant, but for the dimwits in society like me you have to explain the charts in a simpler way and what shows what …. ..
But the alarmists told me the snows on kilamonjaro would all be gone by 2015. How could there possibly be a glacier there now? -)
Classic deflection: “We hope we might be wrong, but this is the hard science”
If the science is ‘hard’ then it will be right. E=MC^2 is ‘hard science’s but to greenies they can oppose that with: we hope we might be wrong. And if they were right atomic energy would not have happened.
Whenever this issue pops up, it always makes me wonder if there’s a bit of double-counting going on.
To my limited understanding, a given amount of heat can melt ice or it can heat the atmosphere or it can do a bit of both. Do the projections for rising temps allow for the heat lost to melting ice?
Some time ago there was a post on WUWT (I think) where a physics prof from somewhere like MIT pointed out that drawing the heat required to melt all of the Greenland ice from the atmosphere would cool the globe by at least 6 degrees and trigger an ice age (I don’t recall the timescale).
Maybe someone who understands how the climate models work could shed some light?
“Maybe someone who understands how the climate models work …”
Simple answer is, they don’t.
Computer games – er, sorry – models based on physical processes such as radiative physics, thermodynamics and Navier-Stokes equations are not capable of predicting future climate.
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.
Anyone who claims that a purported computer game – sorry – climate simulation of an effectively infinitely large open-ended non-linear feedback-driven (where we don’t know all the feedbacks, and even the ones we do know, we are unsure of the signs of some critical ones) chaotic system – hence subject to inter alia extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, strange attractors and bifurcation – is capable of making meaningful predictions over any significant time period is either a charlatan or a computer salesman.
Ironically, the first person to point this out was Edward Lorenz – a climate scientist.
Lorenz’s early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study that impacted not just the field of mathematics but virtually every branch of science–biological, physical and social. In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Some scientists have since asserted that the 20th century will be remembered for three scientific revolutions–relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos.
http://news.mit.edu/2008/obit-lorenz-0416
You can add as much computing power as you like, the result is purely to produce the wrong answer faster. But for some climate “scientists” I suppose it pays the mortgage…
Quite agree with your synopsis but I’m afraid it doesn’t answer my question: “Do the projections for rising temps allow for the heat lost to melting ice?”
We are constantly bombarded with propaganda along the lines of “temperatures are going to rocket and huge amounts of ice will melt, etc”. It’s my impression that the cooling effect of the ice melting is overlooked.
It will require 334kJ to melt one kg of ice at 0 deg C to water at the same temperature, so 334 mJ to melt one tonne.
The mass of the ice cap is 2,850,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
So it will take 9.519e+23 mJ to melt the Greenland icecap.
The daily average insolation for the Earth is approximately 21.6 MJ/m2, so it should be possible to work out how many day’s insolation would be necessary to melt the Greenland icecap.
(If anyone would like to check my arithmetic, feel free!)