Alaska’s Changing Glaciers: A Guide to the Historic Photo Pairs

Reading Alaska’s glacier photographs

Alaska’s glacier landscapes become easier to understand when photographs from the same viewpoint are placed side by side. This collection brings together historical images and later photographs associated with USGS geologist Bruce Molnia. Its later images date mainly from 2003–2008: they document those years, rather than the appearance of every glacier today.

The original collection credited The Weather Channel, drawing on historical glacier photography. That attribution and the original images remain with this article. The descriptions below follow the locations and periods recorded in that collection, while correcting spelling and separating measurements made over different intervals. The photographs are records of landscape change, with more to examine than the position of a white line.

1. Muir Inlet: 1895 and 2005

The west shoreline of Muir Inlet in Glacier Bay provides the first comparison. In the 1895 photograph, a substantial glacier face rises above the water and the surrounding slopes have little visible vegetation. The 2005 photograph shows a profoundly different setting, with vegetation covering much of the formerly bare ground.

The absence of the glacier from this viewpoint should not be read as the disappearance of all ice in the region. The comparison concerns a particular terminus and field of view. Follow the matching mountain outlines to locate the scene, then compare the water, slopes and shoreline separately.

2. Plateau Glacier: 1961 and 2003

The September 1961 view across Wachusett Inlet shows the lower reaches of Plateau Glacier in the Saint Elias Mountains. Its terminus then included a calving front and land-based margins. The original description included submerged ice in its thickness estimate, an important distinction from the height visible above water.

By 2003 the main glacier had retreated out of the photograph. The source identifies a small remnant on the Bruce Hills and substantial retreat of a tributary. The correct place name is Plateau Glacier; the earlier article’s “Plateu” spelling obscured the name readers would need to find further information.

3. Bear Glacier: early 1920s and 2005

These photographs were taken from a ridge in Bulldog Cove near Bear Glacier Point in the Kenai Mountains. The earlier image came from a postcard labelled with the Harding glaciers and Resurrection Bay. Its approximate date should remain approximate.

In the later view, the broad lower lobe is no longer visible from the same position. Icebergs occupy the lake in the former glacier basin. They are a reminder that a glacier can remain active farther away while the place where the photographer stands has changed dramatically.

4. Northwestern Glacier: an undated early view and 2005

The first Harris Bay shoreline photograph was originally assigned a range between the 1920s and 1940s. Small icebergs cover the rocky foreground. The later photograph was taken on August 12, 2005, when open water occupied the foreground and the terminus lay beyond the view.

Because the older date is uncertain, an exact elapsed time would be misleading. The collection’s approximate retreat distance describes the interval between these views; it is not a present-day distance from every point on Harris Bay.

5. Northwestern Glacier: 1909 and 2004

A second pair begins with a 1909 view from a cobble beach on the west side of Harris Bay. The original description recorded an ice front a little over 160 feet high, with no visible vegetation in the photograph.

The August 2004 view looks across ice-free water toward a glacier that has retreated beyond the frame. This more precisely dated pair complements the earlier one. Comparing both makes the value of a fixed viewpoint clear: a photograph taken closer to the new terminus could conceal much of the intervening retreat.

6. Pedersen Glacier: an early calving front and 2005

The older photograph, dated broadly to the 1920s–1940s in the collection, shows Pedersen Glacier calving into a lake. Its broken ice front contrasts with the low, vegetated landscape in the August 10, 2005 image.

Sediment has occupied much of the former water area, and grasses, shrubs and aquatic plants have become established. The pair therefore records several linked changes: the glacier margin moved, the lake changed, and vegetation colonised exposed ground. It is not simply a before-and-after picture of ice.

7. Pedersen Glacier: the 1909 shoreline view

U. S. Grant photographed the northern part of the Pedersen terminus from the west shoreline of Aialik Bay on July 23, 1909. The foreground water belonged to an ice-margin lake or lagoon beside the bay.

The later view shows sediment and vegetation occupying much of that space. The earlier article labelled it 2005 but called the interval 94 years; those statements do not agree. A 1909–2005 interval is 96 years. The conflicting interval should not be used as a basis for calculating a rate of change.

8. Reid Glacier: 1899 and 2003

The 1899 Reid Glacier photograph shows a tidewater terminus and a lightly snow-covered foreground without trees. By 2003, the glacier had retreated farther into the inlet, while dense vegetation occupied the nearer hillside.

Conifers and deciduous trees were noted in the original description of the later image. Look at the lower slopes on both sides of the water as well as the terminus. The vegetation provides another record of how the exposed landscape changed across the 104-year interval.

9. Muir Inlet: 1890 and 2005

This pair returns to Muir Inlet with an older photograph dated 1890. The original captions supplied the location and dates but little additional measurement. Those limits matter: a precise retreat distance should not be assigned merely because another Muir pair elsewhere in the collection gives one.

Use the fixed mountain features to compare the scene and treat the dates as the documented endpoints. Several photographs of the same inlet can be useful without being interchangeable measurements.

10. Muir Inlet: 1896 and 2005

The 1896–2005 pair offers another historical viewpoint on Glacier Bay’s changing ice. Its value lies in the visible relationship between water, ice and terrain across the two dates.

The repeated Muir entries are retained because they belong to the original photographic collection. They should be read as complementary views, rather than separate glaciers or independent claims about the entire Alaskan ice cover. A glacier’s name alone does not tell us where the camera stood.

11. Yale Glacier: 1937 and 2006

The June 1937 photograph shows Yale Glacier’s tidewater terminus in Prince William Sound. Snow covers much of its lower surface, apart from debris-covered margins. The later photograph documents retreat and a narrower tidewater front.

The source describes nearly four miles of retreat over 69 years, mostly after 1957, and substantial thinning in places. These are historical interval measurements. They should not be converted into a uniform annual retreat rate, since the description itself indicates that change was uneven over time.

12. Muir Inlet: tourists among icebergs

In the photograph dated to the 1880s or 1890s, visitors stand among grounded icebergs while the glacier rises in the background. Human figures help communicate the size of the ice, although they do not provide a precise survey scale.

By 2005 the glacier was out of view, and cobbles and pebbles covered the foreground beach. The original account explains these as material left after finer sediment had been removed. This pair connects the history of visiting Glacier Bay with changes to the shore itself.

13. Muir Glacier: 1950 and 2004

The August 1950 photograph belongs to a longer sequence that also included a 1941 image. The original text compared retreat and thinning between 1941 and 1950 before moving to the August 31, 2004 view.

These intervals need to stay separate. The two dates displayed here, 1950 and 2004, are 54 years apart. The later scene also shows vegetation on White Thunder Ridge. Mixing the earlier nine-year comparison with the later pair would produce a misleading account of the timing.

14. Carroll Glacier: 1906 and 2004

Charles Will Wright’s August 1906 photograph shows Carroll Glacier at the head of Queen Inlet. In June 2004, the terminus was much thinner, farther back and covered in debris, while sediment had changed the inlet head.

Carroll is the spelling used here in place of the earlier “Carrol.” Debris-covered ice can be difficult to distinguish from surrounding rock in a small photograph. The visual disappearance of bright white ice therefore does not, by itself, locate every remaining part of a glacier.

15. Upper Muir Inlet: 1976 and 2003

The 1976 photograph shows a calving front spanning the fjord in upper Muir Inlet. By 2003, the main glacier had retreated beyond the view and vegetation was beginning to appear.

Two small cirque glaciers visible high in the scene should not automatically be described as detached pieces of Muir Glacier. The original account already expressed uncertainty about a connection. Keeping that distinction avoids turning a plausible visual impression into an unsupported history of glacier flow.

16. McCarty Glacier: the eastern terminus view

The July 1909 scene was taken several miles inside McCarty Fjord and shows the east side of the terminus. Little vegetation is visible on the upper slopes. The August 2004 photograph shows a much more distant glacier and established vegetation around the bay.

Alder, willow and spruce were identified in the original description. They add detail to the change in colour between the photographs: the darker slopes are not simply a consequence of using colour photography instead of black and white.

17. McCarty Glacier: July 31, 1909 and August 10, 2004

This second McCarty pair preserves another early viewpoint and its later repeat. Both photographs belong in the collection even though they concern the same glacier and broadly the same period as the previous pair.

Compare the matching landforms before interpreting the ice. The original captions provide firm dates but fewer descriptive details here, so the neighbouring pair’s exact measurements should not be assigned to this viewpoint without checking the underlying photographic record.

18. Muir and Adams glaciers: 1899 and 2003

Grove Karl Gilbert’s 1899 photograph was taken from the shore near Muir Point, looking toward the confluence of Muir and Adams glaciers. No vegetation was recorded in that early view.

The 2003 image places the viewer in a very different landscape, with the ice fronts outside the frame and extensive vegetation established. This pair is particularly useful for understanding confluences: where two glaciers once met, later photographs may show separated ice and exposed land instead.

19. Yalik Glacier: 1909 and 2004

The older Nuka Passage photograph shows the northern part of Yalik Glacier’s gently sloping terminus. The August 2004 view records retreat, thinning and the development of a lake in front of the glacier.

The source notes grasses, shrubs and trees along the shore south of the ice. As with Bear and Pedersen, the new water body is an important part of the story. Changes at the terminus can reorganise drainage and the appearance of the surrounding basin.

20. East Fork Teklanika Glacier: 1919 and 2004

This Denali comparison moves away from the coastal fjords. The June 1919 photograph was taken near a valley glacier along the East Fork of the Teklanika River, with small tundra plants visible.

The August 2004 repeat shows continued thinning and retreat. The earlier article supplied an average retreat figure without clearly defining its measurement period. It should not be presented as a current annual rate. This inland example broadens the collection beyond tidewater glacier fronts.

21. Northwestern Glacier: the changing Harris Bay shore

A further early Harris Bay photograph shows sea ice and pieces of broken ice beside the shore. Its uncertain date falls within the same broad early-twentieth-century range used elsewhere in the collection.

By August 2005, sedimentation and uplift had enlarged the shore area and a vegetated wetland occupied part of the scene. Seasonal sea ice also differs from glacier ice, so the two should not be counted as the same feature when comparing the foregrounds.

22. Toboggan Glacier: 1905 and 2008

The August 1905 view in the Chugach National Forest shows a thinning glacier surrounded by bare bedrock. By August 2008, the thin tongue at the terminus was no longer visible, and the hanging tributaries had also retreated.

The name is Toboggan Glacier, correcting the inconsistent spelling in the earlier text. Exposed rock around a glacier can help reveal its former extent, but a photograph alone does not establish when every part of that surface became ice-free.

23. Muir Inlet: the winter 1895 view

The final pair returns to a winter photograph from 1895 and Molnia’s repeat from 2005, an interval of 110 years. A large glacier fills the early view; the later image shows it completely outside the frame.

Ending with Muir Inlet brings the collection back to its opening location. The shared landscape is recognisable through its durable landforms, while the ice and shoreline have changed. Those fixed features are what make the comparison persuasive and readable.

What repeat photography can tell us

A well-matched pair can document changes in glacier position, surface height, vegetation and water bodies. It becomes more useful when the date, camera position and photographer are retained. A photograph labelled simply “then and now” loses much of that scientific and historical value.

The National Park Service explains that matching viewpoints can be difficult, especially from boats: tide, sea state, deck height and camera position can affect alignment. Its Kenai Fjords collection also includes glaciers with different patterns of change. Regional interpretation therefore needs more than one dramatic pair.

For this gallery, begin with the stated years, identify the same ridge or shoreline in both images, and then examine ice, water and vegetation in turn. The result is a richer reading of Alaska’s landscape than treating every photograph as a single measurement or a picture of present conditions.