• On CHOW: His burger will EAT your burger
July 16, 2009 10:00 AM PDT

Climate change taking toll on Glacier National Park

by Daniel Terdiman

Rapid climate change is resulting in the disappearance of the glaciers at Glacier National Park, in Montana. Scientists estimate the last glacier in the park could be gone by 2030. There were at least 150 of them identified in 1850.

(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET)

Note: All information in this story, unless otherwise noted, is from the National Park Service's pamphlets on and in-park signs about climate change and Glacier National Park.

GLACIER NATIONAL PARK, Mont.--The small graphics on a single sign, deep inside this incredible natural treasure says just about all you need to know about the drastic effects of rapid and intense climate change on the park and what's inside it.

"With warmer temperatures and changes to the water cycle, Glacier National Park will be glacier-free by 2030," the sign reads. "These changes will also have consequences for park vegetation, which will migrate up the mountains with temperature and moisture gradients."

I had come, on Road Trip 2009, to this incredible national park in northern Montana, just below the Canadian border, to see its beauty and grandeur. But I quickly realized what the real story is: in a place like this, the effects of climate change can be seen, right before every visitor's eyes.

"In the last 100 years, global average temperature has increased by 1.5 degrees Farenheit, with accelerated warming over the last two to three decades," a National Park Service brochure on climate change at Glacier National Park begins. "Scientists project that by 2100, the Earth's surface could warm by as much as 10 degrees. While this may not seem like much, it could bring major changes to our water cycle and to many...species that are adapted to the current climate. High latitude and high altitude environments, such as those found in Glacier National Park, are especially vulnerable."

In the mid-1800s, the park was known to feature about 150 glaciers. As the 1960s wound down, warming trends had already reduced that number to around 50. And today, on the heels of the six hottest years in recorded history, there are just 26 glaciers still standing in the park, and the same pattern is being seen globally.

"While Earth's climate has undergone cooling and warming cycles in the past, the rate and magnitude of the change we are witnessing today has not occurred since human civilization began," the brochure reads. "If the current rate of warming persists, scientists predict the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be completely gone by 2030."

"Water towers of the world"

The rapid retreat of the glaciers may seem like bad news for visitors hoping to see the giant ice rivers at Glacier National Park. But there's more to glaciers than just beauty. They also play a crucial role in the ecosystem, and their disappearance may have widespread consequences.

"More than 50 percent of the world's fresh water supply comes from runoff in mountain environments," the so-called "Water Towers of the World," the brochure reads. "Alpine glaciers are an important contributor to mountain streamflow. Globally, glacial meltwater provides one-fourth of the water in mountain streams."

This National Park Service graphic explains the drastic effects of climate change on Glacier National Park.

(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET)

Thus, glaciers are obviously a major player in the healthy maintenance of aquatic and riparian ecosystems. "They also provide fresh drinking water for downstream populations and dilute pollutants that are generated mostly in lowland areas," the brochure explains. "As climate warms and glaciers melt, mountain systems, and the downstream communities they serve, are losing an important source of fresh water."

Global warming also means changes in the timing of regular weather patterns. Because temperatures are warmer, that means there's less snow, and more rain. And that means earlier snowmelt and earlier spring runoff. The National Park Service estimates that spring runoff in the Pacific Northwest now occurs two weeks earlier than in the past, and that, over time, will likely mean an increase in flooding. It also means less water later in the year, and the eventual drying out of many rivers, something that would have far-reaching effects on the ecosystem.

Wildlife in trouble

Inside Glacier National Park, there are all kinds of wild animals: grizzly bears, mountain goats, big-horned sheep, white-tailed deer and many more, not to mention the abundant plant species.

But with changes in the aquatic ecosystem, all that wildlife and plant life is in danger. Those species dependent on the ecosystem will have to adapt to changes in the climate and the ecosystem, or they will face peril. "Of major concern is the potential loss of alpine and subalpine environments that provide prime habitat for plants such as Jones' columbine and White Mountain avens, animals like big-horn sheep and mountain goats, and winter hibernation space for bears. Species living (in Glacier National Park) cannot migrate to higher ground."

As a result, what visitors may be able to see--animals and plants native to environments like Glacier National Park--may soon change forever. Scientists are working on management plans for how to deal with the changes, but some effects may be irreversible.

There may be controversy about whether climate change and global warming are real. But to see it in action, all one has to do is drive the Going-to-the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park, and what you don't see speaks volumes: dozens of glaciers that used to dominate. Today, it is still a wondrous beauty. But the days before some of the park's treasures are gone for good may not be far off.

Over the last two weeks, Geek Gestalt has been on Road Trip 2009. After driving more than 12,000 miles in the Pacific Northwest, the Southwest and the Southeast over the last three years, I'm now writing about and photographing the best in technology, science, military, nature, aviation and more in Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota and Colorado. If you have a suggestion for someplace to visit, drop me a line. And in the meantime, join the Road Trip 2009 Facebook page and follow my Twitter feed.

Daniel Terdiman is a staff writer at CNET News covering games, Net culture, and everything in between. E-mail Daniel.
Recent posts from Geek Gestalt
Q&A: Bringing back Mickey Mouse's dark side
Bad PDF formatting reveals Google Voice numbers
How the venerable PS2 made it to 9 years old
The tech behind U2's record-smashing tour
Piloting a lunar rover
NASA iPhone app full of surprises for space geeks
PS3: No longer the next-gen console punching bag
U2 concert to be streamed live from Rose Bowl
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (50 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by rmva July 16, 2009 10:16 AM PDT
New name: The National Park formerly known as Glacier.
Reply to this comment
by markosph July 16, 2009 1:15 PM PDT
Or < in honor of Prince...
by hpew July 24, 2009 11:17 AM PDT
soon to be known as High Desert National Park
by evilbughead July 16, 2009 10:19 AM PDT
so with this statement Note: All information in this story, unless otherwise noted, is from the National Park Service's pamphlets on and in-park signs about climate change and Glacier National Park. you are saying that this is all Government Propaganda. Because as far I can remember "Climate Change" happened oh.... 4 times a years. And I think it has been that way since the begining of man , but hey I'm not a member of these so called Elites who tell us this shiate is real and a danger to our planet. But yet we have over 30000 yup that's right over thirty thousand scientists that say climate change "original phrase was Global Warming" is a FARCE, HOAX, a BIG F"N SCAM to tax and enslave the population. Smart Grid? more like Prison Grid to me PLease people stop drinking the cool aid and do your own research. Call your senator and STOP the "Cap and Trade". Trust the other alternative will not be pleasant for you me and your children. Remember the Government is NOT your friend. For those of you who want more info try sites like infowars.com or globalresearch.ca
Reply to this comment
by smalley417 July 16, 2009 10:30 AM PDT
when anyone replys with this kind of veracity, it seems that they too have drunk the "cool aid" as evilbughead kindly misspelled.
by monkeyfun14 July 16, 2009 10:52 AM PDT
You own stock in a oil company right?
by getwired July 16, 2009 11:18 AM PDT
<sarcasm>Yes. You are right. Alex Jones is the voice of reason.</sarcasm>
by NotForNuthin July 16, 2009 12:16 PM PDT
I WAS drinking the "cool aid" but it's just not the same without ice
by Crusader8284 July 16, 2009 1:26 PM PDT
Evilbughead,
The climate has varied quite a lot over thousands if not millions of years. Ever heard of the "little ice age"? They use to make wine in Ireland and Scotland until around 1650 A.D. when the climate changed so that it got very cold in what is now Europe. Greenland got it's name because it used to be green, not covered with ice!. Suddenly it was snowing in July in France(called Gaul in those days) So there was a major famine and increase in disease(black plague) because the tribes in Ireland and clans in Scotland and every population in Europe and Britannia could not grow the crops they were used to. They had to switch to making alcohol from grains instead of grapes. (beer and whiskey instead of wine. The beginnings of Irish and Scotch whiskey) The Thames river used to freeze over in the winter so that shops were set up right in the middle of the river and people ice skated on it. The "little ice age" lasted until around 1850. Now we have a swing in the other direction. It is a scientific and observable fact that ocean levels have risen. I live near the Atlantic shoreline in Virginia. I was a lifeguard in the 70's there. If the government had not added sand to the beaches every year, the ocean would come right up to the boardwalk. Then there would be no beach for the tourists, severely hampering our tourist revenue. So in conclusion, climate changes drastically from man made influences and natural consequences.like a major volcanic eruption in the South Pacific that caused the "little ice age". Read up on that!
Peace,
Jonathan
Norfolk, VA
by ddesy July 17, 2009 5:35 AM PDT
That infowars.com is one of the biggest scams there are, as are the shortwave stations spouting the same stuff.
by hpew July 24, 2009 11:22 AM PDT
It's time for Arch-Conservatives, Libertarians and other anarchist, to stop viewing our (more-a-less) duly elected Government as an agency of a foreign power.
by jgalt09 July 16, 2009 10:36 AM PDT
Those who believe CO2 is responsible for melting glaciers need to look at some opposing thoughts. A good place to start is here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/
Reply to this comment
by ikramerica--2008 July 16, 2009 11:53 AM PDT
Glaciers grow and shrink. Glaciers were growing in the northern hemisphere in the 1800s, so was the earth cooling? Whole towns in the Swiss and Italian Alps were destroyed by glacier growth at that time, and then they began to recede, BEFORE the rise of CO2, BEFORE there could be any impact from so called man made climate change.

CLIMATES CHANGE. Most of New England was under water at one point. Man didn't alter that. There are glacial valleys all over the rockies that haven't seen glaciers for centuries. Man didn't do that.

The pride of man is to believe that their actions have lasting impact, when we are but a fleeting blip in the history of the earth. Worry about real pollution, worry about famine, worry about urban decay, but CO2 is not something to waste money on.
by martin1212 July 16, 2009 2:52 PM PDT
ikram of course climate changes naturally. That does not mean humans do not influence it as well, that is really poor logic. Also, if you really had a scientific perspective you would speak in terms of probabilities, as in the IPCC reports. Statements of absolute certainty like yours do not belong in the realm of science but in that of religion, so can be safely ignored.
by galeso July 17, 2009 4:33 PM PDT
Of course, the glaciers are all melting now and all O'bama wants to do is slow down the acceleration a tad. We need to stop all production of CO2 and remove CO2 from the air, not reduce the production of CO2. We can not wait 7 years, we need to replace O'bama with someone who can change the direction to negative CO2 growth.

Or else we must start painting roofs & roads white to reflect the heat back into space.
by biffhenerson July 16, 2009 10:42 AM PDT
Climate changes everyday. Significant climate change trends happen over longer periods of time. The glaciers used to cover North America. Now they don't. They left long before American's with SUVs showed up. In fact, it sounds like the last remaining glaciers continue to leave. That has been the trend for millions of years. That's life. People are foolish to think that humans have any impact on ANY change occuring on ANY planet. People and their toys are but a small small spec on the huge rock named Earth. Simply stated, Climate Change (formerly known as Global Warming until things started cooling) is just a ploy to separate you from your money. Not unlike any snake oil salesman from the past, one thing remains the same over centuries. A fool and his money are soon parted.
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight July 16, 2009 11:22 AM PDT
Global warming is a fact. Stop there. Fact means observable, measurable and thus not refutable. Your only valid point of argument is over the cause, how bad it may get, how long before it cools, and what if anything we can or should do about it.

You do raise one good question. Would we have lost the glaciers anyway without the rise in CO2? Don't know.
by ikramerica--2008 July 16, 2009 11:58 AM PDT
The earth has not warmed for 10 years. FACT. So "global warming" is a BUZZWORD. Which is why it's been not so subtly changed to "Climate Change" because that doesn't require any proof of prolonged warming.

You want FACTS? The models used to predict all of this DON'T WORK. FACT. They are not even useful for looking at the past, as if you put in the inputs from the 1980s, they don't predict the 1990s. FACT. The amount of CO2 in the air, using the "accepted" models would predict a higher temperature than we are seeing and have seen for 10 years. FACT.

There are hundreds of well respected, renowned scientists around the world who don't agree with your FACT. But it's easy to ignore them if you want to believe in what you want to believe.

Climate Change legislation is about socialism and government control. It will do nothing to help anything, but will cost us quite a deal, and transfer control of many facets of our lives to a central authority. Nations like India and China are not going to "play ball" for two reasons. 1. They know it's a sham and will damage their economies. 2. They already have more central control of their countries and don't need this sham to take that control in the first place (especially China).
by rucknrun July 16, 2009 1:29 PM PDT
Global warming is not necessarily fact. There is a reason they talk about Climate Change now instead of Global Warming.
by Renegade Knight July 16, 2009 2:06 PM PDT
@rucknrun

Global Warming is a fact. It's been measured. Now a politician may want to change the meaning of "Global Warming" to be something other than the observed fact and now call it climate change. Fine. It doesn't change the fact that average temperatures have been rising across the globe. Hence the name global warming.

Debate is built up from the facts.
by biffhenerson July 20, 2009 2:46 PM PDT
I guess that the globe was warming if there were glaciers 500 million years ago and now there are not as many. There is no doubt it has nothing to do with humans. There is no doubt that there is nothing that humans can to to change the rate of warming/cooling. Nothing. We and our toys and our gasses are nothing more than a speck on this massive rock.
by nomadicgoogler July 16, 2009 10:51 AM PDT
?I think we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate about whether it?s caused by mankind or whether it?s caused naturally, but it?s a worthy debate. It?s a debate, actually, that I?m in the process of solving?? George W. Bush

Haha :)
Reply to this comment
by gertruded July 16, 2009 10:57 AM PDT
Who cares if all them glasers melt, those in the oil industry are making record profits, don't you know. We have seeded the corporite medea with enough propiganda so that even on sites such as this, some comments parrot our nonsense. We, the oil industry are in control, and don't you forget about it. Wippy Yea, $4 dollar gasoline gain next year.

But remember, the glacier and polar ice are like ice cubes in a drink, once gone, temperatures will rise very rapidly.
Reply to this comment
by cdtphilpot July 16, 2009 11:16 AM PDT
Yeah climates change but it's not unnatural. My ancestors had vineyards in N. Ireland during the late 1300's and records kept by my family talk about warmer weather and this was before cars, and industry. So cnet please do us a kind favor and stop spreading the propaganda.
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight July 16, 2009 2:08 PM PDT
So your point is there is such a thing as Global Cooling in addition to the Global Warming? That wouldn't change that it's Global Warming now.

Now if you want to debate how long a cycle is, how much impact man has had on this one, there is room for debate. Your point though doesn't at all change anything about the facts.
by getwired July 16, 2009 11:17 AM PDT
Glacier is a truly magical place - it always has been. From the time I was a child, it was one of my favorite places to visit (growing up in Montana). I'm taking my kids there next week, in fact - they've never seen it, and I want them to see it before it is no longer the same.

Whether it is truly attributable to human (in)action or not, the current climatological changes are continuing the devolution of what was once Glacier National Park's key features. Whether you want to attribute it to people or normal global cycles is your call. However, the disappearance of the glaciers themselves is undeniable - and I believe most likely, irreversible, no matter what we do.

That said, thank you, Daniel for writing this article. Perhaps it will convince some that they can make a difference, and burning fossil fuels isn't the most expedient way to ensure that our planet is hospitable for us and for generations to come, and for the other creatures that don't get a say in how climate might be positively helped.
Reply to this comment
by sciontcya July 16, 2009 11:25 AM PDT
I'm from Montana, and those have been retreating since I was a kid and only a few thousand years before that...
God, what a disaster the algore lickers have created.
Get smart - treat the planet well.
Clean up our collective act.
Recycle.
Build nukes.
But for the love of god and ice, don't blame this on cars.
Reply to this comment
by ddesy July 17, 2009 5:38 AM PDT
So you imply that humans cannot have accelerated the process? Choosing to ignore the possibility is not a viable answer.
by mjconver July 16, 2009 11:42 AM PDT
Why does everybody continue to get so uptight about global warming?

Just buy land in Central Canada, your grandchildren will thank you.
Reply to this comment
by ikramerica--2008 July 16, 2009 12:01 PM PDT
True. It's like the Ozone Hole thing (did we solve that? no, but it's not important). The fear mongering was huge at the time, but the reality was that even if it got worse and worse, it would be like living 50-100 miles further south than where you used to live (in the Northern Hemisphere). Hardly the end of the world. I don't believe cancer rates are any higher in DC than they are in New York, for example...
by bwillner July 16, 2009 1:34 PM PDT
We did address the "Ozone Hole thing" by banning CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals. The ozone layer is no longer thinning, and is expected to fully recover over the next 50 years. All this is well known, measured, and established.
by Renegade Knight July 16, 2009 2:12 PM PDT
Now we have an intelligent question.

Rising sea levels will flood out major populated areas. They need to move somwhere.
Deserts will grow. Food crops will be impacted. At best agriculture will adapt, at worst less land will be arid.
Some models predict more varied wheather with more extremes. More floods, more heatwaves, more cold snaps, more and bigger hurricanes, and more death and destruction as a result.

The next intelligent questions are:
Can we model this better to better know the impacts?
Can we actually do anything?
Should we do anything? (Growing tomatoes in the hinterlands of russia may be a good thing after all)
by mikenekia July 16, 2009 12:34 PM PDT
This is like the tobacco issue - a lot of people still think smoking is bad for you, even though it's been proven that lung cancer and heart disease existed long before the tobacco companies. Go figure.
Reply to this comment
by mangcamej July 16, 2009 12:45 PM PDT
HAHAHAHAHA. "Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer." HAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAH. Good one, you moron. Death existed before guns too. Doesn't mean a gun can't kill ya. Liver disease existed before alcohol and can occur in people who've never had a drink. Doesn't mean that alcohol has no effect on your liver.
by gertruded July 16, 2009 2:13 PM PDT
For some you have to label sarcasm. The success of the oil companies in deceiving people is breathtaking if the ahti warming comments to this article are typical, only in America.
by sciontcya July 16, 2009 2:29 PM PDT
@ gurertruded:

Yeah, only in America people are free to think freely.
You OTOH, drink the KoolAid algore and his ilk have fed you via IV.
by martin1212 July 16, 2009 2:57 PM PDT
@mikenekia, great post, but a bit too subtle for some here. :-)
by Vegaman_Dan July 16, 2009 2:14 PM PDT
PICK YOUR DISASTER OF THE MOMENT:

Depending upon what your news source is, or whatever is the popular opinion of the science field that panders to the media, you can find two things prominent:

GLOBAL WARMING: The earth has been heating up over the last few decades due to all the greenhouse gases trapping heat and altering weather patterns. Glaciers are retreating and the polar ice caps are melting.

NEW ICE AGE COMING: The earth has been cooling down over the last few decades due to all the greenhouse gases / pollution blocking the amount of sunlight the planet is receiving, and this is affecting weather patterns, causing hurricanes to be more intense with longer seasons. Glaciers are encroaching upon civilization and the polar ice caps are slowly taking over the regions.

It all depends on what sort of agenda of the day whomever is reporting is has. Don't like global warming? Wait a few days and you'll be hearing about the planet going into another ice age. Don't like ice? A few days after that will be more global warming.

I wish everyone would get on the same page here so I know if I'm supposed to wear a parka or swim trunks tomorrow morning.
Reply to this comment
by martin1212 July 16, 2009 3:01 PM PDT
The earth is cooled due to pollution (I've never heard a claim that greenhouse gases cause cooling, don't know where you got that from) and warmed due to greenhouse gases, so both effects exist. The effects do work in opposite directions, but it's pretty clear from the temperature records that warming is winning during recent decades.
by Vegaman_Dan July 17, 2009 11:20 AM PDT
The problem I have is with the 'experts' who seem to not even take into consideration that the other effects are happening. They all seem to have tunnel vision and ignore everything except their theory.

The media loves it because you can always get a sensationalistic headline either way.

Here's the simple truth based on the reports: Global Warming is causing an Ice Age. :)
by libertyforall1776 July 16, 2009 2:22 PM PDT
The tide comes in, and the tide goes out -- anyone expecting things to stay the same must have an IV of some serious drugs...
Reply to this comment
by Smithwahl July 16, 2009 3:48 PM PDT
Cnet,
I come to you for news not for you to give your political opinion. It does not matter what side of the argument I am on. Report the news and don?t participate in the politics.
Reply to this comment
by Kevin443 July 16, 2009 4:16 PM PDT
The glaciers which carved out Glacier National Park, and for which it is named, melted thousands of years ago. And then re-formed. They are now melting again. Things like cycles within the sun and earth wobble are likely causes. CO2 is not.
Reply to this comment
by martin1212 July 16, 2009 5:06 PM PDT
The earth wobbles on a cycle of around 100,000 years. The warming we are talking about is that which has happened over the past few decades. So that explanation fails pretty spectacularly. But of course it's still a better explanation that it possibly being caused by a known greenhouse gas, right? Maybe space aliens would be the next to blame?
by Kevin443 July 17, 2009 1:42 PM PDT
And the sun argument?
by ddesy July 17, 2009 5:42 AM PDT
Funny how every time there is anything about global warming (a.k.a. climate change) the naysayers come out in droves. I guess it is too inconvenient to think that their precious luxuries might contribute at all to the process. The people who want to try to reduce the human element aren't the ones out to profit, but rather the ones who want to keep everything the same.
Reply to this comment
by CMatrix July 17, 2009 9:11 AM PDT
Ever hear of divide and conquer? Corporate psychopaths use it to maintain their power and ascend higher. Coincidentally oil companies use this same technique:

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil?s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Reply to this comment
by kaykhanittha July 17, 2009 11:07 AM PDT
Hello,

Do you know where to find different chinese medecine as Snake wine ? I already bought this one:
http://www.asiansnakewine.com

But I am now looking for different types of natural medecine (for example with LIZARD inside the bottle).
Thanks for help.

(by the way I found your website on Google when looking for Snake wine bottles)
Reply to this comment
by teddy ursa July 17, 2009 2:58 PM PDT
Used to live there; always fought with Ranger Bob, who was a real jerk, didn't want bears hanging out in the picnic areas, scaring the tourists and messing about in the trash. Had to leave the park when it started getting hot and couldn't afford A/C; flies were getting bad, too. Glad there's no global warming, though, otherwise we'd all be in big trouble.
Reply to this comment
by hpew July 24, 2009 11:37 AM PDT
The best way so stop "Global Warming" apparently is POPULATION (BIRTH) CONTROL. There is apparently a direct link between population and global atmospheric temperature (from a lecture on University of California TV)

And YES, EVERY REAL climatologist - that means not on Big Oil payroll - AGREES it has been happening since the start of the "Industrial Revolution" of the 19th century; with a sharp increase in the last several decades.
Reply to this comment
(50 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next

FAQ: Buying the right Windows 7 upgrade

Readers still have lots of questions on just which version of the software they need to buy in order to upgrade their PC. CNET News tries to offer some answers.

N.Y. lawsuit details Intel's 'largesse' toward Dell

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's federal antitrust case filed Wednesday alleges a longstanding symbiotic relationship between Intel and Dell.

About Geek Gestalt

Daniel Terdiman, uniquely positioned to take you into the middle of another side of technology, chronicles his explorations of the "fun beat," from cultural phenomena such as Burning Man to cutting-edge aircraft to game conventions.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Geek Gestalt topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right