Skip to content

Mountains · Snow · The natural world

Google Translate

Choose your language

MenuExplore Snow

Alaska Glaciers Then and Now: 23 Historic Photo Pairs, Glacier Bay to Kenai

Share this story
FacebookWhatsApp
More
TelegramXEmail

In 1895 a photographer on the shore of Muir Inlet looked out at a wall of ice rising from the sea. When USGS geologist Bruce Molnia returned to the same spot in 2005, he found a green hillside and open water. These 23 then-and-now photo pairs, from Glacier Bay to Kenai Fjords, Prince William Sound and Denali, show more than a century of change in Alaska’s glaciers.

Muir Glacier filling Muir Inlet, Glacier Bay, in 1895
Muir Glacier & Inlet in (1895)
West shore of Muir Inlet in 2005, vegetated and free of glacier ice
Muir Glacier & Inlet in (2005)

Repeat photography of Alaska’s glaciers

The method is simple and powerful. Find a historical glacier photograph, locate the exact spot where the camera stood, and shoot the same view again. Mountains and ridgelines stay put, so they anchor the comparison while ice, water and plants change around them.

Many of the original images were taken by early US Geological Survey scientists. Grove Karl Gilbert photographed Glacier Bay in 1899 as a member of the Harriman Alaska Expedition, Charles Will Wright worked there in 1906, and in the summer of 1909 USGS surveyors U. S. Grant and D. F. Higgins photographed the glaciers of the Kenai coast. In 2003–2008 Bruce Molnia relocated their camera positions and repeated the shots; the pairs were later featured by The Weather Channel.

Matching an old view takes patience. The National Park Service notes that boat-based photo points are hard to repeat because currents, wind, tides and the height of a boat’s deck all shift the camera. Grant even named Northwestern Glacier after his alma mater, Northwestern University.

Glacier Bay: Muir, Reid, Plateau and Carroll glaciers

When George Vancouver’s expedition passed in 1794, Glacier Bay was almost entirely filled by one great tidewater glacier. By John Muir’s visit in 1879 the ice had retreated about 77 km up the bay, and by 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier stood about 105 km from the mouth, the fastest glacier retreat ever documented. Muir Glacier itself, named after the naturalist, pulled back nearly 32 km between 1892 and about 1980. It was still calving icebergs from an ice wall about 200 feet tall in the mid-1980s; today it ends on land.

Muir Inlet, 1895 and 2005

The opening pair looks along the west shore of Muir Inlet. In 1895 a massive glacier face rises above the water and the slopes are bare. By 2005 the glacier is gone from view and shrubs and trees cover the ground the ice once scoured.

Plateau Glacier, 1961 and 2003

In September 1961 Plateau Glacier reached Wachusett Inlet with a calving front and land-based margins. By 2003 the main glacier had retreated out of the frame entirely, leaving only a small remnant on the Bruce Hills and a much-shrunken tributary.

Plateau Glacier terminus across Wachusett Inlet in September 1961
Plateau Glacier (1961)
Wachusett Inlet in 2003 after Plateau Glacier retreated from view
Plateau Glacier (2003)

Reid Glacier, 1899 and 2003

G. K. Gilbert’s 1899 image shows Reid Glacier as a tidewater terminus with a treeless, lightly snowy foreground; Reid Inlet was once filled with ice. In 2003 the glacier sits farther up the inlet and conifers and deciduous trees crowd the near hillside, 104 years of new forest.

Reid Glacier tidewater terminus in Glacier Bay, 1899
Reid Glacier (1899)
Reid Inlet in 2003 with the glacier farther back and vegetated slopes
Reid Glacier (2003)

Muir Inlet, 1890 and 1896, repeated in 2005

Two more views of Muir Inlet, from 1890 and 1896, show the glacier filling the valley. The 2005 repeats from the same viewpoints reveal open water reaching far up the inlet and exposed lower slopes.

Muir Glacier and Muir Inlet photographed in 1890
Muir Glacier and Inlet (1890)
Muir Inlet in 2005, repeat of the 1890 viewpoint
Muir Glacier and Inlet (2005)
Muir Glacier and Muir Inlet photographed in 1896
Muir Glacier and Inlet (1896)
Muir Inlet in 2005, repeat of the 1896 viewpoint
Muir Glacier and Inlet (2005)

Tourists among the icebergs

Glacier Bay was already a tourist destination in the 1880s and 1890s, when steamships brought passengers to see Muir Glacier. Here visitors stand among grounded icebergs with the ice face behind them. In 2005 the same beach is a spread of cobbles and pebbles, coarse material left after the finer glacial sediment washed away.

Visitors among grounded icebergs below Muir Glacier, 1880s–1890s
Muir Glacier and Inlet (1880s- 1890s)
Cobble beach at Muir Inlet in 2005 with the glacier out of view
Muir Glacier and Inlet (2005)

Muir Glacier, 1950 and 2004

The August 1950 photograph belongs to a survey series begun by glaciologist William O. Field. Between 1941 and 1950 alone, Muir Glacier retreated almost two miles. The 31 August 2004 repeat shows the ice long gone and vegetation spreading across White Thunder Ridge.

Muir Glacier in August 1950, photograph in a long survey series
Muir Glacier and Inlet (1950)
Muir Inlet in August 2004 with vegetation on White Thunder Ridge
Muir Glacier and Inlet (2004)

Carroll Glacier, 1906 and 2004

Charles Will Wright photographed Carroll Glacier at the head of Queen Inlet in August 1906. By June 2004 the terminus was much thinner, farther back and blanketed with rock debris, and sediment had filled in the head of the inlet.

Carroll Glacier at the head of Queen Inlet, Charles Will Wright, August 1906
Carroll Glacier (1906)
Thinner, debris-covered Carroll Glacier terminus in June 2004
Carroll Glacier (2004)

Upper Muir Inlet, 1976 and 2003

Even recent decades show dramatic change. In 1976 a calving front still spanned the fjord in upper Muir Inlet. By 2003 the glacier had retreated beyond the view, two small cirque glaciers clung high on the walls and the first plants were taking hold.

Muir Glacier calving front spanning upper Muir Inlet in 1976
Muir Inlet (1976)
Upper Muir Inlet in 2003 after the glacier retreated beyond view
Muir Inlet (2003)

Muir and Adams glaciers, 1899 and 2003

Gilbert stood near Muir Point in 1899 and looked toward the confluence where Muir and Adams glaciers merged, with no vegetation in sight. In 2003 both ice fronts are out of the frame and the landscape is green.

Confluence of Muir and Adams glaciers near Muir Point, G. K. Gilbert, 1899
Muir and Adams Glaciers (1899)
View from near Muir Point in 2003, ice gone and slopes vegetated
Muir and Adams Glaciers (2003)

Muir Inlet in winter, 1895 and 2005

The last Glacier Bay pair spans 110 years. In the winter of 1895 a huge glacier fills the view; in Molnia’s 2005 repeat it lies completely outside the frame.

Winter view of Muir Glacier filling Muir Inlet in 1895
Muir Inlet (1895)
Muir Inlet in 2005, 110 years after the winter 1895 photograph
Muir Inlet (2005)

Kenai Fjords: Bear, Northwestern, Pedersen, McCarty and Yalik glaciers

Kenai Fjords National Park, on the Kenai Peninsula south of Anchorage, protects 2,711 square kilometres of coast and the Harding Icefield, one of the largest ice fields in the United States, which feeds more than 30 glaciers. The park’s repeat-photography collection now holds 265 photographs of 40 glaciers, and staff aim to reshoot the sets every few years.

Bear Glacier, early 1920s and 2005

Bear Glacier is the longest glacier in the park. The early view, taken from a ridge in Bulldog Cove near Bear Glacier Point, comes from a postcard labelled with the Harding glaciers and Resurrection Bay. In 2005 the broad lower lobe has vanished from this viewpoint and icebergs float in a lake that now fills the basin, separated from the ocean by a narrow beach.

Bear Glacier from Bulldog Cove ridge on an early 1920s postcard
Bear Glacier (1920s)
Bear Glacier basin in 2005, a lake with icebergs from the same ridge
Bear Glacier (2005)

Northwestern Glacier and Harris Bay

Northwestern Glacier has retreated at least 6 miles (about 10 km) since 1909, one of the most striking retreats on the Kenai coast. Three pairs from the shores of Harris Bay show it. In the first, from the 1920s to 1940s, small icebergs litter a rocky foreground; on 12 August 2005 open water fills the view and the terminus lies far beyond it.

Northwestern Glacier from Harris Bay shore, 1920s–1940s, icebergs in foreground
Northwestern Glacier (1920s - 1940s)
Harris Bay in August 2005, open water where Northwestern Glacier once stood
Northwestern Glacier (2005)

The 1909 view from a cobble beach on the west side of Harris Bay shows an ice front more than 160 feet (about 50 metres) high and no vegetation. The August 2004 repeat looks across ice-free water toward a glacier that has left the frame.

Northwestern Glacier ice front from a Harris Bay cobble beach in 1909
Northwestern Glacier (1909)
Harris Bay from the same cobble beach in August 2004, ice-free water
Northwestern Glacier (2004)

A third early view shows sea ice and broken ice along the shore. By August 2005, sediment and land uplift had enlarged the shoreline and a vegetated wetland covered part of the scene.

Harris Bay shore with sea ice and broken ice, early 20th century
Northwestern Glacier (1920s - 1940s)
Harris Bay shore in August 2005 with a vegetated wetland
Northwestern Glacier (2005)

Pedersen Glacier, Aialik Bay

Pedersen Glacier has retreated roughly 3 miles toward its source on the Harding Icefield. In a photograph from the 1920s to 1940s it calves into a lake; by 10 August 2005 sediment has filled much of that water and grasses, shrubs and aquatic plants have moved in.

Pedersen Glacier calving into a lake, 1920s–1940s photograph
Pedersen Glacier (1920s- 1940s)
Pedersen Glacier area in August 2005, sediment and vegetation replacing the lake
Pedersen Glacier (2005)

U. S. Grant photographed the northern part of the Pedersen terminus from the west shore of Aialik Bay on 23 July 1909, with an ice-margin lagoon in the foreground. Ninety-six years later, sediment and plants occupy much of that lagoon.

Pedersen Glacier terminus from Aialik Bay shoreline, U. S. Grant, July 1909
Pedersen Glacier (1909)
Pedersen Glacier viewpoint on Aialik Bay in 2005, plants covering the old lagoon
Pedersen Glacier (2005)

McCarty Glacier, 1909 and 2004

The July 1909 scene was taken several miles inside McCarty Fjord and shows the east side of the terminus above bare upper slopes. In August 2004 the glacier is far in the distance and alder, willow and spruce grow around the bay. A second viewpoint, photographed on 31 July 1909 and again on 10 August 2004, shows the same transformation from another angle.

East side of McCarty Glacier terminus inside McCarty Fjord, July 1909
McCarty Glacier (1909)
McCarty Fjord in August 2004 with a distant glacier and green slopes
McCarty Glacier (2004)
McCarty Glacier from a second viewpoint on 31 July 1909
McCarty Glacier (1909)
McCarty Fjord from the second viewpoint on 10 August 2004
McCarty Glacier (2004)

Yalik Glacier, 1909 and 2004

From Nuka Passage in 1909, the northern part of Yalik Glacier ends in a gently sloping terminus. By August 2004 it had retreated and thinned, a lake had formed in front of it, and grasses, shrubs and trees lined the shore to the south.

Yalik Glacier terminus from Nuka Passage in 1909
Yalik Glacier (1909)
Yalik Glacier in August 2004 with a lake in front of the ice
Yalik Glacier (2004)

Prince William Sound and the Chugach: Yale and Toboggan glaciers

Yale Glacier, 1937 and 2006

In June 1937 Yale Glacier met the sea in Prince William Sound, its lower surface snow-covered apart from debris along the margins. Over the next 69 years it retreated nearly four miles, mostly after 1957, and thinned substantially, leaving the narrower tidewater front seen in 2006.

Yale Glacier tidewater terminus in Prince William Sound, June 1937
Yale Glacier and Inlet (1937)
Yale Glacier in 2006 with a retreated, narrower tidewater front
Yale Glacier and Inlet (2006)

Toboggan Glacier, 1905 and 2008

The August 1905 photograph in what is now Chugach National Forest shows Toboggan Glacier already thinning, surrounded by bare bedrock. By August 2008 its thin lower tongue had disappeared and the hanging tributary glaciers above it had retreated too.

Toboggan Glacier and bare bedrock, Chugach National Forest, August 1905
Toboggan Glacier (1905)
Toboggan Glacier valley in August 2008 with the lower tongue gone
Toboggan Glacier (2008)

Denali: the East Fork Teklanika glacier

The only inland pair comes from Denali National Park. In June 1919 a photographer stood near a valley glacier on the East Fork of the Teklanika River, with small tundra plants in the foreground. The August 2004 repeat shows the ice markedly thinner and shorter.

Valley glacier on the East Fork Teklanika River, Denali, June 1919
Denali National Park (1919)
East Fork Teklanika glacier in Denali in August 2004, thinner and shorter
Denali National Park (2004)

Seeing Alaska’s glaciers for yourself

  • Glacier Bay National Park: no roads reach the park. About 80% of visitors arrive by cruise ship; others fly or take the Alaska Marine Highway ferry from Juneau to Gustavus, just outside the park. Bartlett Cove has the visitor centre, a lodge and trails.
  • Kenai Fjords National Park: Seward lies about 210 km south of Anchorage on the Seward Highway. Boat tours leave Seward through Resurrection Bay to the tidewater glaciers, often with sightings of Steller sea lions, puffins, humpbacks and orcas, and Exit Glacier is reachable by road.
  • Exploring the record online: the National Park Service glacier comparisons with sliders let you drag between historical and modern views.

Read more about Alaska’s ice in Mendenhall’s changing landscape, and learn the difference between glaciers and polar ice in the difference between land ice and sea ice.

Sources

Share this story
FacebookWhatsApp
More
TelegramXEmail

108 comments

  1. Or maybe it's just that the old pictures are taken in broad winter while the others were taken during spring or summer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sure the dead of winter was prime tourist time at the turn of the century.

      Delete
    2. Glaciers don't disappear in the summer.

      Delete
    3. ...Not sure if herping or just really derp.

      Delete
    4. No, if these pictures were taken in the winter, there would be no open water and no bare ground.

      I watched Childs glacier and Sheridan Glacier in steady retreat over ten years, living in Cordova AK. Childs shriveled to half its height between 1998 and 2008, and Sheridan retreated so far upriver in the same time period that where once you could see it just by standing on the bridge, you needed binoculars to see it in 2008.

      I can't imagine either have grown at all in the last six years.

      Delete
    5. "maybe it's just that the old pictures are taken in broad winter while the others were taken during spring or summer"

      Jesus Christ but that is one of the dumbest fucking things I have ever heard. Do you even know what a glacier is?

      Delete
    6. "Broad Winter"? Maybe you should just stick to looking at the pretty pictures and leave the discussion about climate change to those of us that passed geology class.

      Delete
    7. hey he could be talking about the lack of vegitation the photos keep pointing out

      Delete
    8. The lack of vegetation are things like trees. Pretty sure you can still see trees in the winter. ><

      Delete
    9. Are you seriously trying to claim that glaciers, hundreds of feet thick, retreated several miles in summer and returned in winter?

      Delete
    10. That first commenter must be a congressman.

      Delete
  2. Glaciers aren't a result of one season's snowfall.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What are you all talking about, are you kidding? This is a direct result of climate change, whether man made or not, are you blind, or just dense?

    ReplyDelete
  4. More room for fishing!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am waiting for the world to tilt on it axis so we can see where the new ones will form! It's just life happening...geezzz people. It will continue after your dead to the same as it happened before you came.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. To think that what we have witnessed in our miniscule time here is "normal" and should never change is awfully conceited of us. And exactly how is increased vegetation a bad thing, especially considering the need to feed an ever increasing global population?

      Delete
    2. The updated pics are not taken at the same time of year and some are not the same area or point of view as originals. Yes glacial ice melts, yes with more or less snowfall it affects the glaciers. Up north where these glaciers are, they are totally different than the tide water glaciers in Southeast Ak. The glaciers around Petersburg are closely watched and have actually grown in the past decade. Stop whining about them and instead go and actually see for yourselves. Get the facts yourself and 2nd or 3rd person opinions.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, cause glaciers recede during the summer. My god, how fucking stupid can someone be?

      Delete
    4. All photographs taken from the same point with meticulous care. If you can't see that then you have extraordinarily poor observation skills. Yes they can be taken in different seasons, but you know of course that glaciers were there winter and summer back in the 20s. Like hell you're from AK.

      Delete
    5. Okay, so the thing here I see is this, the glaciers in water melted faster than those on land, that can be attributed to rising water temperatures not climate change or air temperatures. Also, if you take into account that the climate cycles with mild winters and heavy winters in subseqant orders back too back, it can contribute to such stong changes. Like right now Alaska has had 2 or 3 years of very mild winters, the melting and receding of glaciers is imminent. However, they are over do for a few heavy winters like they had back in 2012 (I think) which will definitely show growth in glaciers, not to the extant to what was mind you.

      Also, glaciers do grow and recied based on the seasons, that IS how it works. More snow during winter more glacier growth. No to little snow during summer means melting and receding or glaciers. That's how they operate.

      Delete
  6. Btw, I was born and raised 37yrs in S.E. AK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. how can you not see they're from the same point of view???...for an alaskan, you're an embarassment!...

      Delete
    2. They are taken from nearly the exact same location. Most of the old photos have time of year attributed to them, most in summer.

      Delete
    3. Global warming makes this snowy landscape less beautiful.

      Delete
  7. Apparently Gaia is replacing all the rainforest losses with her own vegetation. Despite all the global warming caused by the sun, she is replenishing herself quite well thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'd like to see before and after pictures of Portage Glacier on Turnagain Arm.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you Andreas! .The results of the rising sea levels are already being seen in Miami, especially South Beach.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The hoax is that man caused it and that man can stop it. Some people are just easily fooled as is evidenced by the above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Global warming is precisely a phenomenon caused by human activity--there's no way to wiggle out of our responsibility for this. Whether we can slow down, stop or even reverse the event is another question.

      Delete
    2. Your an idiot if you think man can alter the planet like this.

      Delete
    3. Clearly your the idiot here. Why do you think it's so hard? Want a faster example? Drop a couple Megaton nukes on Yellowstone park and then try to tell us you can't change the planet halfwit.

      Delete
    4. considering algae alone has been able to alter earth's climate and atmospheric composition on multiple occasions in the past (ie: great oxidation event responsible for mass extinctions of nearly all life on the planet), yes, humans certainly can

      Delete
  11. Is it just me or water look higher in the older pics. And for the geology type, uplift, is that the land springing back after the weight is gone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a certain amount of isostatic rebound after the glacial load is removed. The Scandinavian area is still rebounding after the last ice sheet retreat.

      Delete
  12. The first country who doesnt care about climate change is usa, but im happy that florida, new york and california will be the first places under water.

    ReplyDelete
  13. These pictures are compelling. Clearly, the glaciers in North America are shrinking and have been for some time. Likewise, much of the USA used to have glaciers that have melted. It's reall no debate: there is climate change. The debate is whether it is human caused. My perspective is the climate of Earth is not static. It shows signs of change over it's history prior to the use of fossil fuels and factories. We need to be responsible but not think more highly of ourselves than we ought. We really aren't sovereign over our planet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, and the fact that the current pace of climate change is MANY times faster than anything the planet has -ever- seen is totally irrelevant, even though the dates and rates of change line up pretty damn close with the pace and scale of human industrial advancement.

      If you understand the scale of our planet's history compared with that of our species, and then look at the rate and timing of these changes. there is no possible way you can claim, with a straight face, that it's a coincidence. Even ignoring almost all the data and just focusing on the broad strokes, it would be by far the most unlikely coincidence in the history of our planet.

      Delete
    2. This is over the course of a century. The earth has been around for 45,000,000 centuries. Has -ever- there been a climate change so dramatic in any of those 45,000,000 centuries compared to what we're seeing today? The only time it ever has been is if there was something extraordinary causing such change.

      And that change quite simply is us. There is no other explanation.

      Delete
    3. Hmmm, That is 4,500,000,000 years, as in 4.5 billion years before present. And, as to major climatic changes, there have been great ones in the geologic past, but geologists rarely count in decades, or a few hundred years. Major climatic changes in geologic history usually took a very long time. But, there were the impact phenomena, and the arrival of man.

      Delete
    4. The most logical and well stated post on here.

      Delete
  14. listen, the govt knows ,and they will tell you,,,that if you walk too heavy and too many people on edge of an island it will tip and dump you into the water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it is hard to believe... but when the gov't says these things (islands tipping over) you can be sure as the sun that they are telling the truth because governments would NEVER do anything to cause consternation to a nation...
      We are truly living in the twilight zone... anyone with half their marbles can see that !

      Delete
  15. As soon as you talk to a religious person about climate change, the conversation becomes insane. Dogma blinds people to the reality before their very eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The entire US was covered in ice at one point. Thats why we now have the great lakes. This stuff has been melting for eons and will continue to do so until we get slapped upside the head with another comet or yellowstone blows creating another iceage. It's not rocket science for crying out loud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, not even all of Canada was covered. And the ice stopped at about halfway through Ohio because there were mountains in the way. Glacial ice has never covered all of the US.

      Delete
    2. Correct, It did not cover all of the US but it wasn't stopped my any mountains-there haven't been any in Ohio is millions of years since before any ice ages. The ice just finally reached a point where the temperature had warmed up sufficiently that it ran out of steam. West of the Mississippi the Missouri River marks the southern terminus of the ice sheets and East of the Mississippi the ice stopped about 100 or so north of the Ohio River. Even north of the terminus though there were "driftless areas" where ice went around hilly spots and didn't cover everything.

      But to the point of this website, humans are quickly changing the environment and warming the planet to the point that we will have great difficulty surviving as a species and it's insane to pretend otherwise.

      Delete
    3. There are definitely mountains in Ohio. There is a 1600 ft above sea level peak in the middle of Lancaster for Pete's sake. It's right on the edge of the Appalachian Mountains.

      Delete
  17. I was shocked to see how..much the New Zealand glaciers
    Had receded. Do you have any old pics of Frans Joseph and the othet one on the south island. Thanks for this great article

    ReplyDelete
  18. climate change happens ,the earth is constantly morphing.and yes this type of rapid change over the centuries has probably happened before.but people were not around to see it so we do not know for sure.saying that people do effect climate with all our pollution. can we reverse it ? no. the only real way for people to reverse it is for the human population to die off.sounds stupid does it not,but is a fact the earth is overpopulated.another thing is have you ever melted an icecube?it first starts melting slowly but the more mass it losses the faster it appears to melt.the same with the glaciers they reach a tipping point and appear to melt faster .I highly doubt that man in all his brilliance can reverse that.a 1000 years from now who can say it might go back the other way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Locally, man's (meaning mankind) activities MAY affect weather, in example, stronger storms, drought in a local area, but, I am VERY skeptical that it can AFFECT or EFFECT the CLIMATE as it is currently "sold" by the likes of those in power. THAT is a political ploy and sales job to get the Federal Representatives elected so they can make TAX SLAVES out of all of us. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. The Atmosphere, earthquakes and even large storms are more controlled/affected by Sun Spots and Solar Flares.

      Delete
  19. Pictures and perspectives aside: We need to take better care of our planet, period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you should realize that not all "facts" are truly FACTS. Out solar system, atmosphere all the way down to the way our bodies work to take in nutrition and excrete waste is based on + and - ions. Even lightening and thunder is based on this and it is an attempt to "balance". NO ONE ever talks about our use of ELECTRICITY as a possible cause......Why do solar discharges AFFECT (as in FRY) out electric grid? What attracts these to the Power centers of our GRID? Research how the climate and strength of storms have changed since the massive use of ELECTRICITY and the Electromagnetic field of the EARTH changes since as well as the WEATHER, Climate, etc. Who decided to blame this on CO2 use? Why not our massive, worldwide use of Electricity? What happens when you put thousands of satellites over our atmosphere and beam electric signals back to earth through our atmosphere? The earth is a gigantic Electromagnet......what impact does the slowing of the molten iron core of earth have? What causes the "slowing of the currents in the core of earth"? Why is it slowing? Come on folks, study your science. NEVER trust your politicians who want your vote and use blame and fear to get it.

      Delete
  20. As the late George Carlin said..........."The planet will be fine, Saying we need to save the planet is ridiculous. We just arent going to be here."

    ReplyDelete
  21. We should all be dead from the Bird Flu Pandemic by now.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The real debate shouldn't be whether humans are causing global climate change. It should be how our quality of life is going to change once the local glaciers are totally melted. Where does your water come from? Add in pollution from any number of industrial sectors and the current population levels and die off numbers have the potential to destabilize the economy more than the bankers.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 100 years from now when your grandchildren stop hearing about "climate change" because it has become "land change", and our country begins to experience underwater coastlines, you would believe it. If you weren't already dead. If it can't hurt the future to take a chance on saving it, why wouldn't you try, whether you believe or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you buy insurance for your house, if the annual premium was more than the value of your house???
      That is why, the risk is so tiny, and the insurance costs are ridiculously high

      Sea rising at 7 inches a century, for the last 200+ years, and temps have been flat for 18+ years, me not worried.

      Delete
  24. Je to krásné! Tolik nové zeleně místo špinavého ledu.....

    ReplyDelete
  25. Climate science or no climate science, we desperately need to clean up the planet and stop burning fossil fuels which are causing massive pollution and huge health problems throughout the world. Apart from anything else, these are non-renewable resources that once burnt are gone forever. And soon we will have wars between nations fighting to get these resources from the Arctic and Antarctic. Just so we can keep on polluting?How crazy is that? We need to get our act together to stop massive consumption and make a concerted effort to clean up the earth's air and oceans, regardless of whether climate change is caused by humans or not.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just think, in another hundred years it could look just like it did 100 years ago. AGAIN! AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN. WE can't do anything about any of it, nor have WE caused any of it. How on earth did these same things happen time and time again before humans even walked the planet!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Reading some of the comments here made me realize 2 things:

    1) We are doomed

    2) It's a good thing

    ReplyDelete
  28. Alot of the pictures look like you are comparing a summer picture to the same area in winter time in the next picture. Very deceiving to say the least. Also black and white photos compared to a color photo will look vastly different even if taken of the same subject at the same time. These prove nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Take a gander at Revelation 16:8-9. It's going to get MUCH hotter, and soon, guys...
    Every living thing in the sea dies too...(Rev. 16:3) It's already starting.
    Numbers are down on a massive scale worldwide. Habitat is dying.
    We are rapidly approaching the terminus of this age.
    There's only one answer and only one way out...or UP, as the case may be...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. really, there are more people on the earth today, than ever before, Ive heard and heard your story for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years, frankly it will take a lot more than a little bit of heat to get rid of many people. they thrive in the heat, not the cold, just look at where everyone lives, near the equator, because its warm there...

      Delete
  30. Holy cow Bat man...who has time for all of this? Not I replies the Batman! So,on with life I go!

    ReplyDelete
  31. If you look at the maps of Glacier Bay, you will see the vast majority of the retreat was from about 1780 (when Capt Cooke) to the early 1900's, hundreds of KM, in recent times, the retreat is much slower and some glaciers are actually increasing in size. I was there less than a year ago, ask the park rangers for a map, and ask them if some glaciers are growing...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Yet the Hubbard Glacier continues to grow at astronomical rates. And the Bering Glacier. And the Juneau Ice Field. And McGinnis and Taku.... Yep, according to the National Parks Service, there are 616 "officially named" glaciers in Alaska - and the Alaskan Almanac estimates that the state probably has has 100,000 glaciers. So, if you only list the glaciers that are retreating, are you really reporting the facts? More important, isn't retreating and expanding what glaciers are suppose to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Hubbard Glacier advances and retreats, so does the Taku, but most of the glaciers are receding rapidly. The Juneau Ice Field is the source of many glaciers, and all but two are receding. Glaciers that begin high in the mountains still accumulate enough snow/ice to be more or less stable, but they are not making any permanent advances.

      Delete
    2. Having lived in Juneau for over 30 years I can tell you that is not true. Don't believe everything you read. The Mendenhall glacier (and many others) are a mere fraction of what they once were.

      Delete
  33. killing myself right now. no really im going to to do it? nobody cares? I thought we were talking about things nobody cared about or could change? ohh

    ReplyDelete
  34. Not a denialist, but this really does have a touch of alarmism. Especially when several of the photos admit that the glaciers were already retreating even in the early 1900s. Haven't you people ever heard of the Ice Age? The Earth's been warming for over 10,000 years now. I sincerely hope your concern over man-made climate change isn't resting on "Oh noes, Alaskan glaciers have all gonez away!!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The warming is accelerating, and the ice is melting faster than ever before. I have only been in Alaska for 35 years, but I have seen glaciers recede over a mile.

      Delete
  35. Perhaps I'm talking through my hat ... I'm aware of climate chanes around the world. And the poles retreating or melting glaciers. I wonder if this had any effect. If I'm not mistaken a few or several years ago there was a tetonic shift of the Earth's crust causing the poles to shift or causing the Earth's axis to change a bit. How much? I do not recall. I wonder though if it be enough to contribute to the melting off of the glaciers? If it shift, it might be exposing more of the glaciers to warmer areas a little bit, no?

    ReplyDelete
  36. If you believe that global warming is such a threat I suggest that you shut off you computer, sell your car, call the power company and have your lights disconnected. Take the money from the car go buy a tent and move down to the river.

    ReplyDelete
  37. No matter what we label it most of us fail to admit that each of us contribute to the destruction of this planet. So many simple changes will make a huge difference, drive less, own smaller cars or none at all, eat less, live in smaller houses, use less paper, buy less stuff. The list goes on but moist folks just won't admit they are a big part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Am I the only one who thought the after pictures looked better? Looked like a life supporting environment? A healthy ecosupportive system. An improvement for sure. I guess you see what you want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Imagine what it looks like now in 2015 as these comparisons were made back in 2005. Anyone want to argue that climate change does not exist ?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Of course they will continue to deny Climate change, after all, they're morons. They suffer from Cognitive Dissonance Disorder. They refuse to believe Science facts, Even if proven by hundreds of renowned Scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Changes that are very far from the place filled with snow to the unseen.

      Delete
  42. Everything has changed because of the global warming created by the whole world. This condition is very alarming.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I am very sad to see the state of global warming that is being carried out by humans in this world uncontrollably.

    ReplyDelete
  44. JAMIN55 permission to read the contents of this article.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This is such an interesting way to document the changes taking place across Alaska’s glaciers. Comparing historic photographs with more recent images makes those long-term changes much easier to understand visually. I especially appreciate how glacier photography can preserve a record of landscapes that continue to evolve over time and give readers a stronger connection to the history of these places.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  47. These glacier comparisons are fascinating, especially how landscapes change over time. Similar attention to detail matters in energy-efficient property windows, while double-glazed windows can improve comfort and insulation in modern properties.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The comparison of Alaska’s glacier photographs is a great reminder of how landscapes can change significantly over time. In a similar way, location and long-term environmental changes are important factors when evaluating real estate, especially in regions where natural surroundings are a major part of the property’s appeal. For anyone researching property opportunities in northern Iran, comparing locations and their surrounding landscapes can be useful when considering northern Iran real estate.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Interesting comparison showing how landscapes can change over time. It also highlights the value of tracking physical changes carefully. For a different kind of personal transformation, body shaping and beauty salon services can support fitness and self-care.

    ReplyDelete
  50. شركة شفط بيارات بالدمام توفر خدمات متخصصة لشفط البيارات والتعامل مع محتوياتها باستخدام معدات مناسبة

    ReplyDelete
  51. This is a fascinating way to explore how Alaska’s glaciers have changed over time. Comparing historic and modern photographs makes the subject especially easy to understand and highlights the value of climate change research.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This is a fascinating look at how Alaska’s landscapes have changed over time. The historic photo comparisons make the topic especially engaging and provide a striking perspective on Alaska’s changing glaciers.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Alaska’s Changing Glaciers: A Guide to the Historic Photo Pairs explores the dramatic changes in Alaska’s glaciers by comparing historic photographs with more recent views of the same landscapes. It offers an informative look at glacial history, environmental change, and the importance of documenting these natural features over time. For useful digital programs and software resources, Full Programlar İndir can also be a helpful source.

    ReplyDelete
  54. This sounds like a fascinating visual guide showing how Alaska’s glaciers have changed over time. Historic photo comparisons can make environmental changes much easier to understand and appreciate. For readers who also explore useful digital resources, yasir252 enscape may be worth checking out.

    ReplyDelete
  55. شركة تنظيف بالدمام تقدم خدمات للعناية بالمنازل والمنشآت وتنظيف المساحات المختلفة وفق احتياجات المكان

    ReplyDelete
  56. This is a fascinating way to explore changes in Alaska’s glaciers. Historic photo pairs can make long-term environmental changes much easier to understand because the visual comparison provides a clear sense of how landscapes have transformed over time. I also appreciate guides that bring together useful information and visual references in one place. For readers who regularly save educational resources or large reference files, IDM download manager tips can be helpful for managing downloads more efficiently. Full IDM also focuses on practical guides and useful information for everyday IDM users.

    ReplyDelete
  57. “Alaska’s Changing Glaciers: A Guide to the Historic Photo Pairs” offers a fascinating visual look at how glaciers have transformed over time. Comparing historical and modern images makes glacier change much easier to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  58. A Guide to the Historic Photo Pairs sounds like a fascinating way to explore history through images, especially by comparing photographs from different periods and seeing how places and people have changed. Guides like this make historical stories feel much more tangible and engaging. For saving historical photos, articles, and other visual resources, IDM download manager can be a useful tool.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Alaska’s glaciers are fascinating examples of how our natural world changes over time. Comparing historic photographs with modern views is a powerful way to understand the impact of climate change and appreciate the importance of protecting these incredible landscapes. I really enjoyed this topic because Alaska’s Changing Glaciers offers a meaningful look at history, nature, and environmental change. Thank you for sharing this informative guide!

    ReplyDelete
  60. This is a fascinating way to explore history through photography! Comparing historic photo pairs really helps us appreciate how places, people, and everyday life have changed over time. For anyone interested in organizing and preserving digital memories, photo editing software can be a useful tool.

    ReplyDelete
  61. This is a fascinating topic that highlights how much Alaska’s glaciers have changed over time. Comparing historic photographs with modern images is a powerful way to understand the effects of climate change and the importance of protecting our natural environment. I’d love to learn more about glacier retreat and its impact on the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This post explores Alaska’s changing glaciers through historic photo pairs, allowing readers to compare past and present landscapes and understand the visible effects of climate change. It’s a fascinating resource for anyone interested in environmental science, photography, and glacial history. A valuable source of glacier change research .

    ReplyDelete
  63. This is a fascinating look at how Alaska’s glaciers have changed over time through historic photo comparisons. These images help readers understand the visible effects of climate change and the importance of protecting our natural environment. A great resource for anyone interested in glacier photography and environmental conservation.

    ReplyDelete
  64. This is a fascinating look at how Alaska’s glaciers have changed over time. Comparing historic photographs with modern images is a powerful way to understand the effects of climate change and the importance of protecting our natural environment. I also share informative content on my website about climate change and environmental awareness.

    ReplyDelete