Sorry, no point to this thread - I just felt that we should cover all bases on this subject. :madgrin:
And the overall glacier balance over the last few decades is this: These measurements are described in Dyurgerov (2002), updated in Dyurgerov and Meier (2005), and archived at the World Glacier Monitoring Service at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
I know that in one of the other threads, someone claimed that the glaciers in NZ are growing - I can state that this is not true because I have first hand knowledge - I visited two of the receding glaciers in 2004 when I was there. I have photos of the Tasman Glacier. MobileMe Gallery
We've been going to the Columbia Ice Field near Banff since 1975. The most prominent glacier near the visitor center has receded almost one mile since we've been visiting the field. We almost always went through Glacier Park on the way there or back and those glaciers are just sad. If I can find and scan the older pics I can make a animated gif of how much they've receded over the years.
Why not show data prior to 1960 Alric? Perhaps because glacial retreat has been steady since the end of the Little Ice Age (long before CO2 could have been a significant factor). Here is the study. Reference figure 2b.
Err, that corresponds very well to the advent of the industrial revolution. Also, you really shouldn't alter the graph from a paper you reference by replacing the title or adding your interpretation. This paper is independent confirmation of the "hockey stick" based on glaciers rather than tree rings. Another reason the old "climategate" and "hockey stick" discussions are irrelevant.
I didn't alter the chart - although it was from another source that provided a larger jpg so I used it - but also provided the original link for reference. Regardless, are you telling me that the contributions of anthropogenic CO2 in the early days of the industrial revolution drove the temperature increases in the mid to late 1800s and ended the Little Ice Age? That's news to me - I've never seen that argued in the scientific literature. I also find it interesting that in figure 3B that you posted it shows temperatures increased 0.6 degrees from 1900 to 1950, when man's CO2 output was very low. And since 1950, when human CO2 output has increased exponentially, we see a temperature increase of less than 0.1 degree. Res ipsa loquitur. Lastly, do you care to explain why glacier decline is not accelerating (as per figure 2b despite the - again - exponential - increase in CO2 during the latter half of the 20th century?
Nor did he accuse you of that, He accused you of retitling the chart, which you explain was done by some other unscrupulous site. "Your" Graph really starts downward after 1850... History of coal mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia One small quote from that may illustrate the situation "Total coal output soared until 1918; before 1890, it doubled every ten years, going from 8.4 million short tons in 1850 to 40 million in 1870, 270 million in 1900, and peaking at 680 million short tons in 1918." I assume this coal was all burned, generating CO2, you may have other theories.
Particulates (black carbon) has a very large effect on the rate of glacial melt - not to mention aerosol emissions taken together would likely explain most of the non-linearity of your chart. I'm sure there's been papers written about it.
Usually the more snowfall an area gets - glaciers expand. if less snowfall - glaciers contract. Dbcassidy
