I don’t quite recall where that phrase comes from: perhaps a tag line from my surrealist days in school. But speaking of the Ice Age, there was an article in the NYTimes Science Section headlined The Big Melt Accelerates. It provides more grist for my mill on the topic of the Times’ incredible bias and sloppiness in its supposedly “for the record” coverage of climate science.
The article covers the topic of glacial recession worldwide, i.e., the shrinking of glaciers. Not the “melting” of glaciers: glaciers are always melting. Whether they grow or shrink depends on how much ice and snow are being dumped on their upland regions. Mass-balance, that sort of thing.
Of course, the point of the article is that glaciers are shrinking everywhere (although they do note that some are not, and some are even growing.) The two images shown above are featured prominently at the headline, and the message is clear. In 1941, plenty of glacial ice; 2004, the glacier is visible only in the distance. Global warming, dumbbell! Clear evidence to confound those anti-science deniers!
The images show the Muir Glacier in Alaska, and it has indeed been receding for many years. In fact, it has been receding since it reached its maximum extent in…1780. It’s quite well documented. In the map below, you can see that in the late 18th century, long before the industrial revolution got going bigtime, it reached the end Glacier Bay (see the red circle at the bottom of the map.) After 160 years, it retreated to where the red circle near the top of the map is. And in the intervening sixty years, it has continued its retreat. Clearly, the bulk of the recession was not caused by the industrial revolution and its discharge of C02 into the atmosphere – it was hardly a major force then. It doesn’t seem to have accelerated its backward movement in the 20th century either.
Why did this glacier retreat? The Little Ice Age, which saw glaciers growing all over the northern hemisphere - to the point that there are engravings showing European villages being engulfed and destroyed by ice! – ended in the very late 18th century. Things started to get warmer after that…
This bit of scientific context doesn’t prove or disprove anything much other than that the NYTimes is extremely sloppy in its reporting. The governing attitude seems to be, “We know the issue is settled. Let’s get the message out.” Fellow bloggers, e.g. Troutsky, who otherwise are sympathetic to my views expressed in this blog, seem to think my doubts are the result of clever indoctrination by the radical right-wing. But this sort of graphic legerdemain and purposeful misdirection is, to me, reminiscent of the GWB years, and the WMD buildup to the Iraq invasion, which the NYTimes swallowed whole. Not nearly so serious and destructive, but structurally, the same sort of trash.
I wrote to the author of this piece, asking him if it wasn’t “a tad bit misleading” to use those photos. His reply was, “Short unsatisfying answer: I don’t choose the photos.” I guess that’s life as a journalist. But then he went on, “That being said…,” it’s part of a widespread and well documented trend over the “last several decades.” Last several decades? I know he understood my point, so is he just evading the entire question?