Hey, guys, thanks for bailing me out. I was reverting a long string of vandalism and I also, without noticing it, reverted across some vandal's deletion. The upshot of this was that I lost a whole pile of stuff. Whilst trying to fix the huge mess I'd made, other editors rushed right in and fixed it up before I could shake a stick at it. This is a very well-maintained page by the look of your speed and accuracy. Thanks again and keep up the good work. — Dave 14:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Most obvious was: "alarming", which has no place in an encylopedia. Joncnunn 15:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Glaciers are a "water source" only when they are melting. Otherwise, the only actual source of water is from partial or complete melt of annual snowfall on them. The only small caveate to this is those few non-arctic glaciers large enough to create their own weather and induce additional snowfall from monsoonal moisture.
Expanding glaciers would be water "sinks", depriving rivers, streams and agriculture of runoff from annual snowfall. Expanding glaciers would be worse than no glaciers at all since less than all the annual snowfall would be available to flow downstream.
As with the well-known episodes of global and regional cooling - the Little Ice Age and several "years without summers" such as 1815 - cooling to any degree from longer term levels has been disastrous to human ecosystems and so would it be with expanding glaciers. Local and global weather and climate however have always been in flux from causes unrelated to human activity. So it is unreasonable to expect any amount of glacial ice other than zero to remain constant over long periods and provide a constant source of melt just equaling annual snowfall. This type of seasonal mountain snowcover does a very good job supplying water throughout the year for millions in the American west for example where there are only a few tiny glaciers.
Melting temperate and tropical glaciers therefore represent a temporary bonus to human downstream water uses that will end only in one of two ways: 1) Total glacial loss or another temporary stabilization and runoff at the long term mean, just equaling annual snowfall, or 2) a reversal to glacial readvance and moderate to disastrous shortfalls of runoff to areas dependent on it, in addition to other probable bad effects of a cooling climate. And the historic evidence is that such reversals are generally much more frequent and sharper than any in the last 10,000 years of relative stability. In other words, enjoy the glacial melt while it lasts.
I hope that "warming alarmists" will choose to answer this objection to the conclusions within and not just delete it. I'll be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.199.68.239 ( talk) 21:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
An editor added the below new section. Between the waves of vandalism, and the rather overbold change to all the references, it's a little hard to pick out exactly who added this. There are some good concepts in the below, but it needs some substantial improvement, and also some discussion here, before it goes back in.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite the obvious shrinking of glaciers, there are quite a few that are growing. Such is the case of Hubbard Glacier, and 7 other glaciers in Alaska, that are not only not ablating, but are growing in size. The Hubbard previously retreated about 38 miles between 1130 A.D. and late in the 19th century, but is now currently advancing in such a rate it periodically closes off its outlet, the Russell Fiord, and turns it into a lake. (source: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 001-03 January 2003, by D.C. Trabant, R.S. March, and D.S. Thomas)
Another instance of glacier proliferation is, surprisingly, the glacier on mount St. Helens. The 13 different glaciers that made up icecap that covered this volcano prior to its eruption totally melted and/or evaporated during the 1980 disaster. Nonetheless, snow is once again accumulating and compacting near the north edge of the remaining crater, with crevasses visible in some areas wich give testimony to the ice's movement. (source: Johnston and Coldwater Ridge visitors center)
Also in North America, California's Mount Shasta's glaciers are growing. The Whitney Glacier, for example, is galloping forward at the rate of four inches per day. Aerial images indicate Whitney has expanded by about 30 percent in the last 50 years. (Tulaczyk and Howat)
On the other side of the globe, in New Zealand, the story is similar with the Franz Josef glacier. The ice mass, which is steeper than most, advances at a surprising 3 meters per day. (source: C. de Freitas, School of Geography and Environmental Science at Auckland University, N.Z.)
These and many other examples of glaciers wich are apparently oblivious to supposed global warming have led many scientists to disbarr the theory of global warming complete or partially, at the very least. These (citation needed) conclude that climate change is more likeley to be regional other than at a global level. Nonetheless, many of these regional changes can be directly traced to human activities such as deforestation or alterations of rivers and other bodies of water.
Basically, you are talking about a relative few glaciers that are growing. The Franz Josef glacier is mentioned in the article and the reason for a few glaciers "growing" in New Zealand is explained and referenced. Mount St Helens glaciers were essentially eliminated in 1980 and once the mountain calmed down by 1986, a favorable situation was gained by the cliff sheltered caldera which was sheltered on the south side of the summit, allowing a glacier to develope and expand to a point of mass balance equilibrium, that is until 2004 when the volcano became active again. Much of the creavssing since is due to the uplift of the newer volcanic dome that originated right under the glacier. I just tried to google Mount Shasta and Whitney about glaciers and all I found was a few general references such as [1]. Again, the article wasn't written to support an a priori belief system...we did try to find proof that there was overall glacier advance since 1850, and overall, worldwide, there wasn't.-- MONGO 18:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Why after getting an article just so to be featured status cant it be locked for 24 hours, to avoid the hysteria that seems to occur. We have noted a number of advancing glaciers from Alaska, Norway and New Zealand. Given the literally 2000 observed retreating glaciers in Alaska most unmentioned mentioning even one of the seven advancing glaciers is giving it more than its share of room. I am not convinced that the data on Mount Shasta glaciers is good. I had a chance to review the article before publication and the pictures they provided did not bear out the picture told. The same group did use pictures to show the retreat in the Sierra Nevada. Peltoms 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
We discussed de Freitas on 20 February on this page. To quote from that discussion, "he was an editor of Climate Research a minor journal that subsequently disavowed his editorial work (publishing a flawed paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas) amid three resignations from its editorial board." -- Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
... doesn't the first sentence contain a peacock term? SP-KP 22:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
This article has been vandalized quite a bit over the last 24 hours. I have taken the intermediate step of semi-protecting it per policy. -- Jay( Reply) 00:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking of adding these images with something close to the following commet in the article...if anybody is still out there, feel free to comment of course. Collin says, before you add the Grinell Glacier photos, do the work to overlay the photos. They are not taken from the same location or angle and I believe they are misleading in their implication. Review Google Earth imagery over time and see for yourself. Utilizing the history feature in Google Earth, you can stand on the same location at Mount Gould Angel see the changes in the lake below is an alarming amount of ice in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Repeat photography such as the images shown below of Grinnell Glacier located in Glacier National Park (US), provide basic observable evidence of glacier retreat.
|
-- MONGO 09:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC) The pictures look good. I think you do not need the 1998 image. I also suggest that for some of the repeat photographs of the same glacier. That they can go to the glacier page. Certainly there are too many to include them all here. I know Grinnell is the poster child. Peltoms 15:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Just thought 1998 was helpful since we discuss how the rate of retreat has accelerated and the changes in the 7 years between 1998 and 2005 are rather large. Interesting that the ice shelf known as the Salamander, located above Grinnell Glacier has shown almost no change at all.-- MONGO 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Also...I added these images to Grinnell Glacier and also to Glacier National Park (US)...however, I was asked to remove the 1998 image and place them to the right...a style I do not like as one must scroll up and down the page now to see them all.-- MONGO 04:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made this (and several similar) stacked images that show alarming retreat of glaciers around the world over this rather short interval. Note the large increase in the size of the three terminal lakes, the retreat of the white ice (ice free of moraine cover) and, more subtly, the increase in height of the moraine walls due to ice thinning. Two of these glaciers are in Connelley's picture in the current article. Worth adding somewhere?
It will be interesting when the 1975 Geocover mosaic is available and can easily be added (but unfortunately the 1975 pre-MSS imagery may look rather different). -- Glen Fergus 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This one.
The view is from the bottom left in my image, from the Mueller Hut track across the Mueller glacier terminal and up the Hooker Valley.
Animated gif should work fine in most browsers??
[Some might also be interested in this 2003 image of the Puncak Jaya glaciers, or what is left of them. The view angle is similar to the USGS shots, but a little more distant. The purple in the foreground is the Freeport Copper Mine pit. Unfortunately made with Google Earth (from PD Landsat 7 imagery), so has copyright issues.]
-- Glen Fergus 06:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a recent (2005) astronaut pic morphed into an approximate repeat of the USGS Puncak Jaya photos using the World Wind DTM.
Not much left there.
-- Glen Fergus 09:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Scary...I'll live to see many famous glaciers simply disappear. Lovely copper mine though...surely the environmental constrants there would be unacceptable in most western countries, no offense to Indonesia, but some big western company is probably running the show there anyway. I mean, look at the disturbed terrain, that thing must be huge.-- MONGO 09:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the larger of the glaciers, does that appear to be the Meren or the Carstensz Glacier? Looks like the northwall firn is almost completely gone.-- MONGO 09:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If the world's oceans were to rise 70 m, what kind of local impact on sea level would that have? I've understood that it is not directly equal to local rise of 70 m. For example just a 0,5 meter rise would submerge many coastal areas, which are located at higher than 0,5 meters. Teemu Ruskeepää 08:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
A story on NPR this morning indicates that anthropogenic dust causes premature melting of the previous winter's snow pack. This may have implications for the mass balance of glaciers; has anyone looked into this factor in that context? [4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The impact of more dust on glaciers has long been noted as a problem in the Alps when south winds carry material from the Sahara. In this case it is referring to an increase in dust events in the last two years in Colorado. Do not carried away that it is significant yet. Peltoms 02:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I was at a conference where one of the researchers on this project presented a paper last week. It is clear that this is a trend that seems reasonable but is not showing up other than this year being very dusty. Peltoms 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/morteratsch/comparison/index-en.html has some nice pix. Not sure where to add the link so leaving it here. William M. Connolley 19:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I added material on the Morteratsch Glacier. There is a better photographic record than they have online, at least thus far, can't wait to see it. The National Snow and Ice Data Center published some new pairs todays as well from Alaska. http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/special_collection.html The web page is rough, but if you click submit the whole group comes up. I will email them about using one good Alaskan pair for the article if you think it wise. Peltoms 00:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The intro makes some of the issues readable, but I got somewhat lost in the rest, as there seems to be a very unclear discussion of the different effects. As far as I could gather, there seems to be consensus that the glaciers' retreat from 1850 to present is a combination of two effects: 1) the end of the little ice age; and 2) anthropogenic global warming. Obviously which is responsible for what is a contentious issue as part of the overall global-warming debate, but reading through the article I wasn't able to get much of a picture of what scientific consensus on this is. Which is responsible for how much in what periods, for example? Was the retreat from 1850 to 1880 primarily caused by the end of the little ice age, or did anthropogenic global warming start that early? If it started later, when? The 1930s; the 1980s? Etc. -- Delirium 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Are purpose in this article was to accurately document glacier retreat, and not as spend time on the causes in each case. A case can be made in each area as to what is driving retreat, but it would take more room than we have here to argue this. Your question is also answered in that many glaciers were advancing in the 1970's. Thus, the retreat cannot be attributed to Little Ice Age adjustment. Peltoms
This is supposed to be a formal encyclopedia,but this article,like all the "climate change" articles is heavily opinionated.Only to a global warming alarmist is the melting of glaciers something that "threatens the water supply" There is way too much opinion in these things.It quotes a bunch of people saying that yes,global warming is real,and yes,you need to do exactly this as a result.Im gonna start deleting these articles if someone doesnt fix these soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.22.84.93 ( talk) 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
As a previous commenter mentioned this article does not try to attribute the glacier retreat as much as they hoped. This suggests we stuck to the facts too much. The article could document in much more nauseating detail the extensive glacier retreat. Peltoms
Roger A. Pielke, a well know climatologist, has refuted much of the information in this article using peer-reviewed articles. He has demonstrated that glaciers in many of these regions have not changed or grown larger. His arguments must be integrated into this article. Please see this link for more detailed information:[ [5]]-- Alpha0r 17:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked over the Pielke article as suggested and found nothing of merit. There is one mention of the Siachen Glacier not retreating nor advancing. An example from atop Mount Blanc that wow they are not shrinking. Norway and New Zealand are noted in the wikipedia article as having advancing glaciers, though in both cases retreating glaciers are much more common and noted. In Alaska the Hubbard Glacier which has not advanced appreciably since 1975 is noted. We must note that the number of retreating glaciers discussed in the wikipedia article is small compared to what could be listed particularly in Alaska, Patagonia and the Himalaya. If every single non-retreating glacier is mentioned the article would be a bit longer, but if we listed every retreating glacier it would take a massive volume indeed. I would add that Pielke is not a glaciologist and hardly expert in this area. Peltoms
Pielke does not actually refute what is documented in the article just criticises it and offers a few examples that for Siachen, Hubbard and Mount Blanc do not indicate any advance of a terminus recently. The examples from Norway and New Zealand we already document here. I have update the Norway numbers for 2006. Along with Swiss and Italian. Peltoms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peltoms ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
On a separate issue, should the article be left alone or should some of the numbers be updated to reflect the percentage of retreating glaciers in the Alps etc from 2006 per se. Peltoms
I have time to update the data this month, and we will see about all of the reference checking. I will leave the edit checking to the rest of you. Having caught R.Pielke's attention the article must indeed be significant. Peltoms
Is the length of the article a problem? Updating the page will make it longer. If it is too long, I suggest we remove the section on ice Greenland and Antarctica and focus only on alpine glaciers and have a separate and more expansive ice sheet page. New Zealand now updated too. Peltoms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peltoms ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Very informative article. The tiny bit I miss is proper update (very few data and evidence beyond 2005). I wonder where glaciers' reatreat is now. A featured article deserves it. 77.38.44.85 ( talk) 12:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I like the harvard referencing overall, but it is cumbersome for me to work with. The main benefit I can see to using it is that it minimizes the space taken up in article text as compared to the other style I traditionally use. I am thinking about changing the style to one I am more familiar with...namely the style shown in footnotes...comments?-- MONGO 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am torn on the issue of converting to a more standard ref system. The refs used here are, I beleive somewhat unique, but are within the WP:MOS and are accurate. But the article may need to be updated with new info and at that time, perhpas making a ref switch might be in order. One thing that is nice about the harvard style is the body of the text isn't consumed by reference material as is found in other articles. So it is kind of a toss up. Part of me feels that the way the standard refs take up so much space in the editing window is also a hindrance to newer editors, who come to edit a page and are baffled by the templated citations embedded within the article.-- MONGO 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What do people think of a new section on tidewater glacier cycles, or alternatively a separate article on tidewater glaciers? No such article currently exists (the link in this article just goes to the main glacier article). I've seen a fair amount of confusion where people point to advancing tidewater glaciers as a refutation to the idea that glaciers are generally retreating. I think it could use more explanation than the one sentence reference to tidewater glacier cycles currently found in this article. Brian A Schmidt 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Brian your suggestion fell on listening ears and there is now a tidewater glacier cycle article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peltoms ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
under the sub-heading of oceania,the paragraph still discusses the situation in south america before moving on to oceania in the next paragraph,maybe someone can restore it Shanbhag.rohan 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has a reference in the top section that following the mini ice age, a global warming took place causing glaciers to retreat between 1850 and 1950, which is correct. However, the next reference to temperature is misleading as it states that "Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred." It is correct that there was a slight cooling from 1950 to 1980, but this period was still warmer than the most part of the period of 1850 - 1950, due to the extraordinary warming place from 1910 to 1945. The reference becomes misleading, because reality is that even the colder climate preceeding the period of 1950 - 1980 caused glaciers to retreat on a global scale. Referencing the relative temperature changes correctly will improve the overall understanding that yes; glaciers are retreating at an alarming speed, but even in a 'best case' scenario (the period from 1850 - 1910, where burning of fossil fuels was not a factor) the glaciers are invariably retreating, as they have since the last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwchr ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your comment; my last sentence was only meant to be true from a high-level perspective. The point is, however, that glaciers were retreating globally prior to any increase in carbon-dioxide levels, and the temperature reference in the article gives the impression that 1950-1980 was 'cool' compared to a warmer 1850-1950 period, which is simply incorrect. The article should reflect temperature levels correctly. Thanks for the comment though! Johnwchr ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed content just now. [8] It is not supported by the source which says, "A 2007 report by the IPCC predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century .... The group said an additional 3.9- to 7.8-inch increase in sea levels was possible". 3.3 to 5 feet would be added by total W. Antarctic melt, but it isn't clear that this is the conclusion of the recently reported research or that it is well accepted by the scientific community. [9] I was unable to find scientific journal or SCAR articles related to this. Perhaps they have not yet been published. In any case, this paragraph is a summary of the content of the relevant section of Sea level rise and new content should be added and discussed there. On that last point, that article says, "Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of the next century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm." This article says, "sea level rise of not more than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) is expected through the 21st century, with an average annual rise of 0.004 m (0.013 ft) per year. Thermal expansion of the world's oceans will contribute, independent of glacial melt, enough to double those figures." That seems more or less consistent with that article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit by Peltoms ( talk) here (see toward end of edit) removed the piece of information on Antarctic peninsula glaciers, including ref to the Pritchard study that identified acceleration of around 300 glaciers. This is arguably the only part of Antarctica where glaciers (on land) are actually responding to global warming. I understand the need to keep things concise but a lot of info has been added on individual ice shelves. The ref was left in the reference list though. Any thoughts? Polargeo ( talk) 08:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Polargeo This page as constructed is about glacier retreat not glacier response to global warming. This article has been successful in part because of this narrow focus. I think the emphasis should stay there and not become too enmeshed in glacier dynamics. The acceleration of glaciers is quite important, probably more so than a simple retreat measurement of some glacier, but I would suggest it belongs on the page devoted to the Antarctic Ice Sheet. For similar reasons we should not go into the details on the calving acceleration of Greenland Ice Sheet glaciers except where terminus retreat is evident. Nor should we get involved in the sea level discussion. Peltoms ( talk) 11:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
To streamline the article and bring it up to date with templates, I will adding the measurement conversion templates over the next few days. Discussion on these templates can be found here.-- MONGO 12:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Add Category:Climate crisis, since loss of ice leads to loss of annual Water flow. 99.155.154.220 ( talk) 09:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think some major revision is in order to the ASIA section to balance the article. I don't think the WWF PDF referenced is a RS; at the very least, the new information should be added to provide balance.
The following source under the ASIA section is questionable:
Rai, Guring, et alia Sandeep Chamling Rai, Trishna Gurung, et alia. "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China" (pdf). WWF Nepal Program. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf. Retrieved March 2005.
This is not a peer reviewed document, according to the BBC: "...a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers...Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing." Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'
For more on the issue, also see "No Sign Yet of Himalayan Meltdown, Indian Report Finds" by Bagla in Science, 13 November 2009: 924-925. Some excerpts:
"Several Western experts who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced analysis—even if it clashes with IPCC's take on the Himalayas."
"The bottom line is that IPCC's Himalaya assessment got it "horribly wrong," asserts John "Jack" Shroder, a Himalayan glacier specialist at the University of Nebraska, Omaha. "They were too quick to jump to conclusions on too little data." IPCC also erred in its forecast of the impact of glacier melting on water supply, claims Donald Alford, a Montana-based hydrologist who recently completed a water study for the World Bank. "Our data indicate the Ganges results primarily from monsoon rainfall, and until the monsoon fails completely, there will be a Ganges river, very similar to the present river." Glacier melt contributes 3% to 4% of the Ganges's annual flow, says Kireet Kumar."
Certainly this last statement by Kireet Kumar, a RS, conflicts with the unsourced assertion in the Asia section that "...the Gangotri Glacier...is a significant source of water for the Ganges River...".
--
Schonchin (
talk)
06:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from former ICSI president V M Kotlyakov in the report "Variations of snow and ice in the past and present on a global and regional scale" [10] [11]
The degradation of the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising ocean level already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic rise of the ocean thereafter caused by the deglaciation-derived runoff (see Table 11 ). This period will last from 200 to 300 years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates— its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes.
It may be a good idea to mention these facts somewhere in the article seeing how many have gotten the wrong idea its 2035 instead of the actual 2350.
P.S, the source seems to be down atm due to heavy serverload
Edit: Added a mirror source of the same report.
-- Sevenix ( talk) 12:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In the article, there are a number of references to New Zealand glacier mass loss and an implied connection to climate temperature. A major influence on New Zealand glacier mass is the direction of the prevailing winds relative to the Southern Alps - see for instance the paper in the International Journal of Climatology - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/12431/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0. When the winds are largely easterly, the eastern glaciers grow and the western glaciers shrink, and vice versa for westerly winds. This connection between wind direction and glacier size has been well known for several decades in New Zealand - there are other scientific papers on the subject.
There is no mention in this article of wind as a major factor in the mass gain or loss of the eastern and western glaciers of New Zealand. I propose that the article be ammended to include wind impact information.
Cadae ( talk) 10:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Every glacier has its own sensitivity wind, relative humidity, avalanches, el nino, la nina, Arctic Oscillation etc. I do not believe we have time in this article to explore the why for each glacier. The strength of this article is it simply describes the terminus behavior which happens to be dominantly retreat. Peltoms ( talk) 13:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
A picture is worth a thousnd words, and maybe I missed it, yet I did not see any links to then & now photos. Could someone link to these sites which have lots of them? Maybe even put more in the main article?
4.246.205.116 ( talk) 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this be included in the alpine glacier section? Strong Alpine glacier melt in the 1940s due to enhanced solar radiation -- mark nutley ( talk) 10:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not see that it should be included in any detail. The article discusses a likely cause of enhanced melting, it does not comment on glacial retreat. The glacial retreat data for this interval is already contained in the key diagram for Swiss glaciers. The period of high melt was first published in 1978, so it is not news, only the forcing is news. If we do include it, it is a level of detail we do not have for other sections. We can certainly contrast the retreat rate decadally for Switerzerland. I have considerable new data for Norway, New Zealand and Himalaya to add soon. Peltoms ( talk) 13:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Mark I will do so, and finish the references on the Asia section over the next 24 hours. How does the following sound for the Gangotri--- In 2005 the Tehri Dam was finished on the Bhagirathi River, it is a 2400 mw facility that began producing hydropower in 2006. The headwaters of the Bhagirathi River is the Gangotri and Khatling Glacier, Garhwal Himalaya. Gangotri Glacier has retreated 1 km in the last 30 years, and with an area of 286 km2 provides up to 190 m3/second (Singh et. al., 2006). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peltoms ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
One problem I am having is the long url's for abstracts through the official source for abstracts for many journals, that is science direct. The url is so long and meaningless I cannot see including it, and yet I want to provide an online look at the abstract at least. Peltoms ( talk) 02:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- TS 13:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I took out MN's addition. It doesn't belong here. Furthermore, attempting to spread the controversy here with no attempt to discuss inclusion in talk is unhelpfully disruptive William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Kim if as you say It is quite appropriate to infer that deglaciation will continue and that this is one of the symptoms to expect from global warming then the fact that the IPCC got it wrong should be in. You can`t cite them as an authority for glacial melt when they get their reports from the WWF can you? This is not about overplaying the error about glacial melt, it is about letting readers know there was a mistake made. @ Tony, are you saying the IPCC is a minority points of view? The grounds for a mention of this is hardly spurious, it is highly relevant to the article. -- mark nutley ( talk) 11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
As the individual has contributed most of the material here. I have not relied even once on the IPCC report for information. This article has accurately as it turns out not emphasized the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. There are only two sources that are relied upon peer review, and direct field reports from the monitoring agencies. Peltoms ( talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I strongly urge anyone who hasn't read it to look at http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf which is very instructive.
The chart on p 13 is especially good (note source: Cogley). p 40 will also be of interest William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Over the last days I have been cleaning up a good dozen articles that used (or often abused) the old referencing template "ref harv". As of this writing there are exactly four left in all of article space, and this is one of them. [12] I see that in September 2007 there was already a discussion about this, with the outcome being, essentially, that a change was generally desirable but not a pressing need. (My interpretation.)
I propose changing the referencing style to cite.php. I am aware that this is a featured article (although it doesn't really have the page view statistics of one), so I will do this carefully and in a single editing session, to minimise the time that the article will have two citation styles in parallel. (For many other articles I did it in a single session edit, but with the large number of citations here that doesn't seem practicable.)
Hans
Adler
22:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The following references were present in the article but were not actually cited. I am moving them here just in case they are still useful:
Cited references
- BAS Pritchard, Hamish (June 5, 2007). "Hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers accelerating as climate warms". British Antarctic Survey.
- Independent Connor, Steve (June 6, 2007). "In Antarctica, proof that action on climate change is more urgent than ever". The Independent.
- CICaER Center for International Climate and Environmental Research. "Major changes in Norway's glaciers". Retrieved May 10, 2005.
- Hall Dorothy Hall. "Receding Glacier in Iceland". EO Newsroom: New Images. Retrieved February 18, 2006.
- Kaser G.Kaser and H. Osmaston (2002). "Tropical Glaciers". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521633338.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
( help); Unknown parameter|book=
ignored ( help)- NSIDC2 National Snow and Ice Data Center. "Is Global Sea Level Rising?". Retrieved March 14, 2005.
- Pedersen Fran Pedersen. "Surging Glaciers". Surging Glaciers. Retrieved July 13, 1978.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
( help)
- Hans Adler 12:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
These are currently in the lede and the general idea is a good point, but are obviously not taken from the same vantage. There are probably better twinned pictures that could go here. - LlywelynII ( talk) 15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"Studied by glaciologists, the temporal coincidence of glacier retreat with the measured increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is often cited as an evidentiary underpinning of global warming."
This needs a citation.
According to recent scientific papers and information on the NASA website, the major cause of receding glaciers is not global warming but rather Black Carbon aerosols (common soot). Since Black Carbon aerosols are also one of the causes of global warming, the temporal correlation is to be expected.
This article needs to be updated to incorporate this new information.
Tyrerj ( talk) 21:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Reinstate " ... of the world's oceans, may impact existing fisheries upon which humans depend as well." With some of your editing Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin you are verging on Wikipedia:Tendentious editing concerns. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Effects of global warming for "significant global warming has led to". Effects of global warming certainly must be in this article. 99.181.148.116 ( talk) 10:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikilink climate. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 17:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics ( IUGG) being unlinked ... no comment given? Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850&diff=436527993&oldid=436456908 by Special:Contributions/MONGO. 99.190.85.197 ( talk) 06:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Add wikilink for American Geophysical Union. 99.19.43.126 ( talk) 08:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikilink University of Alaska Fairbanks. 99.181.133.22 ( talk) 02:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The graphs on the page don't support this text William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Aim of the visualization is to summarize the main effects of the glaciers retreat and show how the different effects are connected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frasnati ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a good deal of uncited text, and this article probably needs a tune-up to avoid a Featured article review. MONGO are you able to bring this to standard? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
User:MONGO: Are you happy with taking this to FAR? I was just trying to amend an ugly external jump in the Asia section, when I clicked on the link (1) to see if my assumption that it was the source for the paragraph was correct, and (2) to determine what was meant by the final sentence, which is written in unidiomatic English. By doing so I discovered that the source reads:
and the article reads:
So, that's one thing that needs sorting. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
MONGO, DrKiernan, Wsiegmund, (and others who helped bring this article to featured status): are you still willing to bring this up to standards? If not, I'll bring it to FAR at some point. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 16:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
In the section for Tropical glaciers, I deleted the sentence that stated that all tropical glaciers are found on isolated peaks because this is not true for the northern ranges of the Andes which feature many glacialized zones that are not isolated from other mountain peaks. Also, I made a minor edit to the sentence explaining where ice is found in the tropics. Previously, it read "Ecuadorian Andes," however, glaciers are found in the other countries of the tropical Andes as well, so I changed the text to reflect that. Nacutler ( talk) 19:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose that due to their importance and many distinct properties Tropical Glaciers should have a dedicated page. Does anyone object to this? I can take it on as a project and open it up to further review before I create the article. Any thoughts? MONGO? Nacutler ( talk) 03:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
While I have been slow in updating this article, I will have more time to dedicate to this in less than a month and should make major progress after that.-- MONGO 22:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Given the size, Antarctica should be probably moved to the article page Antarctic glacier retreat. prokaryotes ( talk) 02:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
"A report by the research center said the retreat of the Mengke Glacier and two others in the Qilian range accelerated gradually in the 1990s, then tripled their speed in the 2000s. In the last decade, the glaciers have been disappearing at a faster rate than at any time since 1960." [16] -- Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=245&ArticleID=3042When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Good Morning. I am doing a evaluation of the article for my Ethics in Society Class. Please do not hesitate to add any information or helpful suggestions to help make everyone's experience of Wikipedia a better one. Thank you and be safe.
Link to evaluation page { /info/en/?search=User:Markees_Whitfield/Evaluate_an_Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markees Whitfield ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Glacial retreat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#Glacial retreat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Glacier retreat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#Glacier retreat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 03:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
– Per WP:COMMONNAME. The current name is arbitrary and not commonly used. Glacier retreat could refer to the general movement of glaciers not necessarily caused by the current global warming, which is covered in glacial motion and glacier mass balance. However, the primary topic is this article, just like climate change refers to the current global warming (compared to the general climate variability and change). In current literature, glacier retreat refers to the current phenomenon cause by current global warming (see google scholar results). Vpab15 ( talk) 16:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Global warming is expected to significantly affect the runoff regime of mountainous catchments. Vpab15 ( talk) 16:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
References
It seems to boil down to two approaches:
The latter approach seems to comport more closely with Wikipedia policy and that is more enlightening to readers.
Since the so-called Little Ice Age is merely a regional phenomenon, it is a red herring in this discussion. —
RCraig09 (
talk)
17:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
[T]his article was not to make a statement about Anthropogenic global warming. I cannot see why that would be a problem when the evidence is irrefutable. See Climate_change#cite_note-7:
global warming has led to widespread shrinking of the cryosphere, with mass loss from ice sheets and glaciers (very high confidence)Vpab15 ( talk) 08:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Let's spend time on the name most likely to gain consensus. Please reply. — RCraig09 ( talk) 16:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, guys, thanks for bailing me out. I was reverting a long string of vandalism and I also, without noticing it, reverted across some vandal's deletion. The upshot of this was that I lost a whole pile of stuff. Whilst trying to fix the huge mess I'd made, other editors rushed right in and fixed it up before I could shake a stick at it. This is a very well-maintained page by the look of your speed and accuracy. Thanks again and keep up the good work. — Dave 14:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Most obvious was: "alarming", which has no place in an encylopedia. Joncnunn 15:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Glaciers are a "water source" only when they are melting. Otherwise, the only actual source of water is from partial or complete melt of annual snowfall on them. The only small caveate to this is those few non-arctic glaciers large enough to create their own weather and induce additional snowfall from monsoonal moisture.
Expanding glaciers would be water "sinks", depriving rivers, streams and agriculture of runoff from annual snowfall. Expanding glaciers would be worse than no glaciers at all since less than all the annual snowfall would be available to flow downstream.
As with the well-known episodes of global and regional cooling - the Little Ice Age and several "years without summers" such as 1815 - cooling to any degree from longer term levels has been disastrous to human ecosystems and so would it be with expanding glaciers. Local and global weather and climate however have always been in flux from causes unrelated to human activity. So it is unreasonable to expect any amount of glacial ice other than zero to remain constant over long periods and provide a constant source of melt just equaling annual snowfall. This type of seasonal mountain snowcover does a very good job supplying water throughout the year for millions in the American west for example where there are only a few tiny glaciers.
Melting temperate and tropical glaciers therefore represent a temporary bonus to human downstream water uses that will end only in one of two ways: 1) Total glacial loss or another temporary stabilization and runoff at the long term mean, just equaling annual snowfall, or 2) a reversal to glacial readvance and moderate to disastrous shortfalls of runoff to areas dependent on it, in addition to other probable bad effects of a cooling climate. And the historic evidence is that such reversals are generally much more frequent and sharper than any in the last 10,000 years of relative stability. In other words, enjoy the glacial melt while it lasts.
I hope that "warming alarmists" will choose to answer this objection to the conclusions within and not just delete it. I'll be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.199.68.239 ( talk) 21:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
An editor added the below new section. Between the waves of vandalism, and the rather overbold change to all the references, it's a little hard to pick out exactly who added this. There are some good concepts in the below, but it needs some substantial improvement, and also some discussion here, before it goes back in.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite the obvious shrinking of glaciers, there are quite a few that are growing. Such is the case of Hubbard Glacier, and 7 other glaciers in Alaska, that are not only not ablating, but are growing in size. The Hubbard previously retreated about 38 miles between 1130 A.D. and late in the 19th century, but is now currently advancing in such a rate it periodically closes off its outlet, the Russell Fiord, and turns it into a lake. (source: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 001-03 January 2003, by D.C. Trabant, R.S. March, and D.S. Thomas)
Another instance of glacier proliferation is, surprisingly, the glacier on mount St. Helens. The 13 different glaciers that made up icecap that covered this volcano prior to its eruption totally melted and/or evaporated during the 1980 disaster. Nonetheless, snow is once again accumulating and compacting near the north edge of the remaining crater, with crevasses visible in some areas wich give testimony to the ice's movement. (source: Johnston and Coldwater Ridge visitors center)
Also in North America, California's Mount Shasta's glaciers are growing. The Whitney Glacier, for example, is galloping forward at the rate of four inches per day. Aerial images indicate Whitney has expanded by about 30 percent in the last 50 years. (Tulaczyk and Howat)
On the other side of the globe, in New Zealand, the story is similar with the Franz Josef glacier. The ice mass, which is steeper than most, advances at a surprising 3 meters per day. (source: C. de Freitas, School of Geography and Environmental Science at Auckland University, N.Z.)
These and many other examples of glaciers wich are apparently oblivious to supposed global warming have led many scientists to disbarr the theory of global warming complete or partially, at the very least. These (citation needed) conclude that climate change is more likeley to be regional other than at a global level. Nonetheless, many of these regional changes can be directly traced to human activities such as deforestation or alterations of rivers and other bodies of water.
Basically, you are talking about a relative few glaciers that are growing. The Franz Josef glacier is mentioned in the article and the reason for a few glaciers "growing" in New Zealand is explained and referenced. Mount St Helens glaciers were essentially eliminated in 1980 and once the mountain calmed down by 1986, a favorable situation was gained by the cliff sheltered caldera which was sheltered on the south side of the summit, allowing a glacier to develope and expand to a point of mass balance equilibrium, that is until 2004 when the volcano became active again. Much of the creavssing since is due to the uplift of the newer volcanic dome that originated right under the glacier. I just tried to google Mount Shasta and Whitney about glaciers and all I found was a few general references such as [1]. Again, the article wasn't written to support an a priori belief system...we did try to find proof that there was overall glacier advance since 1850, and overall, worldwide, there wasn't.-- MONGO 18:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Why after getting an article just so to be featured status cant it be locked for 24 hours, to avoid the hysteria that seems to occur. We have noted a number of advancing glaciers from Alaska, Norway and New Zealand. Given the literally 2000 observed retreating glaciers in Alaska most unmentioned mentioning even one of the seven advancing glaciers is giving it more than its share of room. I am not convinced that the data on Mount Shasta glaciers is good. I had a chance to review the article before publication and the pictures they provided did not bear out the picture told. The same group did use pictures to show the retreat in the Sierra Nevada. Peltoms 21:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
We discussed de Freitas on 20 February on this page. To quote from that discussion, "he was an editor of Climate Research a minor journal that subsequently disavowed his editorial work (publishing a flawed paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas) amid three resignations from its editorial board." -- Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
... doesn't the first sentence contain a peacock term? SP-KP 22:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
This article has been vandalized quite a bit over the last 24 hours. I have taken the intermediate step of semi-protecting it per policy. -- Jay( Reply) 00:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking of adding these images with something close to the following commet in the article...if anybody is still out there, feel free to comment of course. Collin says, before you add the Grinell Glacier photos, do the work to overlay the photos. They are not taken from the same location or angle and I believe they are misleading in their implication. Review Google Earth imagery over time and see for yourself. Utilizing the history feature in Google Earth, you can stand on the same location at Mount Gould Angel see the changes in the lake below is an alarming amount of ice in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Repeat photography such as the images shown below of Grinnell Glacier located in Glacier National Park (US), provide basic observable evidence of glacier retreat.
|
-- MONGO 09:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC) The pictures look good. I think you do not need the 1998 image. I also suggest that for some of the repeat photographs of the same glacier. That they can go to the glacier page. Certainly there are too many to include them all here. I know Grinnell is the poster child. Peltoms 15:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Just thought 1998 was helpful since we discuss how the rate of retreat has accelerated and the changes in the 7 years between 1998 and 2005 are rather large. Interesting that the ice shelf known as the Salamander, located above Grinnell Glacier has shown almost no change at all.-- MONGO 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Also...I added these images to Grinnell Glacier and also to Glacier National Park (US)...however, I was asked to remove the 1998 image and place them to the right...a style I do not like as one must scroll up and down the page now to see them all.-- MONGO 04:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made this (and several similar) stacked images that show alarming retreat of glaciers around the world over this rather short interval. Note the large increase in the size of the three terminal lakes, the retreat of the white ice (ice free of moraine cover) and, more subtly, the increase in height of the moraine walls due to ice thinning. Two of these glaciers are in Connelley's picture in the current article. Worth adding somewhere?
It will be interesting when the 1975 Geocover mosaic is available and can easily be added (but unfortunately the 1975 pre-MSS imagery may look rather different). -- Glen Fergus 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This one.
The view is from the bottom left in my image, from the Mueller Hut track across the Mueller glacier terminal and up the Hooker Valley.
Animated gif should work fine in most browsers??
[Some might also be interested in this 2003 image of the Puncak Jaya glaciers, or what is left of them. The view angle is similar to the USGS shots, but a little more distant. The purple in the foreground is the Freeport Copper Mine pit. Unfortunately made with Google Earth (from PD Landsat 7 imagery), so has copyright issues.]
-- Glen Fergus 06:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a recent (2005) astronaut pic morphed into an approximate repeat of the USGS Puncak Jaya photos using the World Wind DTM.
Not much left there.
-- Glen Fergus 09:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Scary...I'll live to see many famous glaciers simply disappear. Lovely copper mine though...surely the environmental constrants there would be unacceptable in most western countries, no offense to Indonesia, but some big western company is probably running the show there anyway. I mean, look at the disturbed terrain, that thing must be huge.-- MONGO 09:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the larger of the glaciers, does that appear to be the Meren or the Carstensz Glacier? Looks like the northwall firn is almost completely gone.-- MONGO 09:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If the world's oceans were to rise 70 m, what kind of local impact on sea level would that have? I've understood that it is not directly equal to local rise of 70 m. For example just a 0,5 meter rise would submerge many coastal areas, which are located at higher than 0,5 meters. Teemu Ruskeepää 08:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
A story on NPR this morning indicates that anthropogenic dust causes premature melting of the previous winter's snow pack. This may have implications for the mass balance of glaciers; has anyone looked into this factor in that context? [4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The impact of more dust on glaciers has long been noted as a problem in the Alps when south winds carry material from the Sahara. In this case it is referring to an increase in dust events in the last two years in Colorado. Do not carried away that it is significant yet. Peltoms 02:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I was at a conference where one of the researchers on this project presented a paper last week. It is clear that this is a trend that seems reasonable but is not showing up other than this year being very dusty. Peltoms 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/morteratsch/comparison/index-en.html has some nice pix. Not sure where to add the link so leaving it here. William M. Connolley 19:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I added material on the Morteratsch Glacier. There is a better photographic record than they have online, at least thus far, can't wait to see it. The National Snow and Ice Data Center published some new pairs todays as well from Alaska. http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/special_collection.html The web page is rough, but if you click submit the whole group comes up. I will email them about using one good Alaskan pair for the article if you think it wise. Peltoms 00:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The intro makes some of the issues readable, but I got somewhat lost in the rest, as there seems to be a very unclear discussion of the different effects. As far as I could gather, there seems to be consensus that the glaciers' retreat from 1850 to present is a combination of two effects: 1) the end of the little ice age; and 2) anthropogenic global warming. Obviously which is responsible for what is a contentious issue as part of the overall global-warming debate, but reading through the article I wasn't able to get much of a picture of what scientific consensus on this is. Which is responsible for how much in what periods, for example? Was the retreat from 1850 to 1880 primarily caused by the end of the little ice age, or did anthropogenic global warming start that early? If it started later, when? The 1930s; the 1980s? Etc. -- Delirium 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Are purpose in this article was to accurately document glacier retreat, and not as spend time on the causes in each case. A case can be made in each area as to what is driving retreat, but it would take more room than we have here to argue this. Your question is also answered in that many glaciers were advancing in the 1970's. Thus, the retreat cannot be attributed to Little Ice Age adjustment. Peltoms
This is supposed to be a formal encyclopedia,but this article,like all the "climate change" articles is heavily opinionated.Only to a global warming alarmist is the melting of glaciers something that "threatens the water supply" There is way too much opinion in these things.It quotes a bunch of people saying that yes,global warming is real,and yes,you need to do exactly this as a result.Im gonna start deleting these articles if someone doesnt fix these soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.22.84.93 ( talk) 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
As a previous commenter mentioned this article does not try to attribute the glacier retreat as much as they hoped. This suggests we stuck to the facts too much. The article could document in much more nauseating detail the extensive glacier retreat. Peltoms
Roger A. Pielke, a well know climatologist, has refuted much of the information in this article using peer-reviewed articles. He has demonstrated that glaciers in many of these regions have not changed or grown larger. His arguments must be integrated into this article. Please see this link for more detailed information:[ [5]]-- Alpha0r 17:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked over the Pielke article as suggested and found nothing of merit. There is one mention of the Siachen Glacier not retreating nor advancing. An example from atop Mount Blanc that wow they are not shrinking. Norway and New Zealand are noted in the wikipedia article as having advancing glaciers, though in both cases retreating glaciers are much more common and noted. In Alaska the Hubbard Glacier which has not advanced appreciably since 1975 is noted. We must note that the number of retreating glaciers discussed in the wikipedia article is small compared to what could be listed particularly in Alaska, Patagonia and the Himalaya. If every single non-retreating glacier is mentioned the article would be a bit longer, but if we listed every retreating glacier it would take a massive volume indeed. I would add that Pielke is not a glaciologist and hardly expert in this area. Peltoms
Pielke does not actually refute what is documented in the article just criticises it and offers a few examples that for Siachen, Hubbard and Mount Blanc do not indicate any advance of a terminus recently. The examples from Norway and New Zealand we already document here. I have update the Norway numbers for 2006. Along with Swiss and Italian. Peltoms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peltoms ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
On a separate issue, should the article be left alone or should some of the numbers be updated to reflect the percentage of retreating glaciers in the Alps etc from 2006 per se. Peltoms
I have time to update the data this month, and we will see about all of the reference checking. I will leave the edit checking to the rest of you. Having caught R.Pielke's attention the article must indeed be significant. Peltoms
Is the length of the article a problem? Updating the page will make it longer. If it is too long, I suggest we remove the section on ice Greenland and Antarctica and focus only on alpine glaciers and have a separate and more expansive ice sheet page. New Zealand now updated too. Peltoms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peltoms ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Very informative article. The tiny bit I miss is proper update (very few data and evidence beyond 2005). I wonder where glaciers' reatreat is now. A featured article deserves it. 77.38.44.85 ( talk) 12:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I like the harvard referencing overall, but it is cumbersome for me to work with. The main benefit I can see to using it is that it minimizes the space taken up in article text as compared to the other style I traditionally use. I am thinking about changing the style to one I am more familiar with...namely the style shown in footnotes...comments?-- MONGO 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am torn on the issue of converting to a more standard ref system. The refs used here are, I beleive somewhat unique, but are within the WP:MOS and are accurate. But the article may need to be updated with new info and at that time, perhpas making a ref switch might be in order. One thing that is nice about the harvard style is the body of the text isn't consumed by reference material as is found in other articles. So it is kind of a toss up. Part of me feels that the way the standard refs take up so much space in the editing window is also a hindrance to newer editors, who come to edit a page and are baffled by the templated citations embedded within the article.-- MONGO 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What do people think of a new section on tidewater glacier cycles, or alternatively a separate article on tidewater glaciers? No such article currently exists (the link in this article just goes to the main glacier article). I've seen a fair amount of confusion where people point to advancing tidewater glaciers as a refutation to the idea that glaciers are generally retreating. I think it could use more explanation than the one sentence reference to tidewater glacier cycles currently found in this article. Brian A Schmidt 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Brian your suggestion fell on listening ears and there is now a tidewater glacier cycle article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peltoms ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
under the sub-heading of oceania,the paragraph still discusses the situation in south america before moving on to oceania in the next paragraph,maybe someone can restore it Shanbhag.rohan 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has a reference in the top section that following the mini ice age, a global warming took place causing glaciers to retreat between 1850 and 1950, which is correct. However, the next reference to temperature is misleading as it states that "Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred." It is correct that there was a slight cooling from 1950 to 1980, but this period was still warmer than the most part of the period of 1850 - 1950, due to the extraordinary warming place from 1910 to 1945. The reference becomes misleading, because reality is that even the colder climate preceeding the period of 1950 - 1980 caused glaciers to retreat on a global scale. Referencing the relative temperature changes correctly will improve the overall understanding that yes; glaciers are retreating at an alarming speed, but even in a 'best case' scenario (the period from 1850 - 1910, where burning of fossil fuels was not a factor) the glaciers are invariably retreating, as they have since the last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwchr ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your comment; my last sentence was only meant to be true from a high-level perspective. The point is, however, that glaciers were retreating globally prior to any increase in carbon-dioxide levels, and the temperature reference in the article gives the impression that 1950-1980 was 'cool' compared to a warmer 1850-1950 period, which is simply incorrect. The article should reflect temperature levels correctly. Thanks for the comment though! Johnwchr ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed content just now. [8] It is not supported by the source which says, "A 2007 report by the IPCC predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century .... The group said an additional 3.9- to 7.8-inch increase in sea levels was possible". 3.3 to 5 feet would be added by total W. Antarctic melt, but it isn't clear that this is the conclusion of the recently reported research or that it is well accepted by the scientific community. [9] I was unable to find scientific journal or SCAR articles related to this. Perhaps they have not yet been published. In any case, this paragraph is a summary of the content of the relevant section of Sea level rise and new content should be added and discussed there. On that last point, that article says, "Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of the next century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm." This article says, "sea level rise of not more than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) is expected through the 21st century, with an average annual rise of 0.004 m (0.013 ft) per year. Thermal expansion of the world's oceans will contribute, independent of glacial melt, enough to double those figures." That seems more or less consistent with that article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit by Peltoms ( talk) here (see toward end of edit) removed the piece of information on Antarctic peninsula glaciers, including ref to the Pritchard study that identified acceleration of around 300 glaciers. This is arguably the only part of Antarctica where glaciers (on land) are actually responding to global warming. I understand the need to keep things concise but a lot of info has been added on individual ice shelves. The ref was left in the reference list though. Any thoughts? Polargeo ( talk) 08:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Polargeo This page as constructed is about glacier retreat not glacier response to global warming. This article has been successful in part because of this narrow focus. I think the emphasis should stay there and not become too enmeshed in glacier dynamics. The acceleration of glaciers is quite important, probably more so than a simple retreat measurement of some glacier, but I would suggest it belongs on the page devoted to the Antarctic Ice Sheet. For similar reasons we should not go into the details on the calving acceleration of Greenland Ice Sheet glaciers except where terminus retreat is evident. Nor should we get involved in the sea level discussion. Peltoms ( talk) 11:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
To streamline the article and bring it up to date with templates, I will adding the measurement conversion templates over the next few days. Discussion on these templates can be found here.-- MONGO 12:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Add Category:Climate crisis, since loss of ice leads to loss of annual Water flow. 99.155.154.220 ( talk) 09:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think some major revision is in order to the ASIA section to balance the article. I don't think the WWF PDF referenced is a RS; at the very least, the new information should be added to provide balance.
The following source under the ASIA section is questionable:
Rai, Guring, et alia Sandeep Chamling Rai, Trishna Gurung, et alia. "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China" (pdf). WWF Nepal Program. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf. Retrieved March 2005.
This is not a peer reviewed document, according to the BBC: "...a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers...Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing." Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'
For more on the issue, also see "No Sign Yet of Himalayan Meltdown, Indian Report Finds" by Bagla in Science, 13 November 2009: 924-925. Some excerpts:
"Several Western experts who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced analysis—even if it clashes with IPCC's take on the Himalayas."
"The bottom line is that IPCC's Himalaya assessment got it "horribly wrong," asserts John "Jack" Shroder, a Himalayan glacier specialist at the University of Nebraska, Omaha. "They were too quick to jump to conclusions on too little data." IPCC also erred in its forecast of the impact of glacier melting on water supply, claims Donald Alford, a Montana-based hydrologist who recently completed a water study for the World Bank. "Our data indicate the Ganges results primarily from monsoon rainfall, and until the monsoon fails completely, there will be a Ganges river, very similar to the present river." Glacier melt contributes 3% to 4% of the Ganges's annual flow, says Kireet Kumar."
Certainly this last statement by Kireet Kumar, a RS, conflicts with the unsourced assertion in the Asia section that "...the Gangotri Glacier...is a significant source of water for the Ganges River...".
--
Schonchin (
talk)
06:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from former ICSI president V M Kotlyakov in the report "Variations of snow and ice in the past and present on a global and regional scale" [10] [11]
The degradation of the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising ocean level already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic rise of the ocean thereafter caused by the deglaciation-derived runoff (see Table 11 ). This period will last from 200 to 300 years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates— its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes.
It may be a good idea to mention these facts somewhere in the article seeing how many have gotten the wrong idea its 2035 instead of the actual 2350.
P.S, the source seems to be down atm due to heavy serverload
Edit: Added a mirror source of the same report.
-- Sevenix ( talk) 12:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In the article, there are a number of references to New Zealand glacier mass loss and an implied connection to climate temperature. A major influence on New Zealand glacier mass is the direction of the prevailing winds relative to the Southern Alps - see for instance the paper in the International Journal of Climatology - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/12431/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0. When the winds are largely easterly, the eastern glaciers grow and the western glaciers shrink, and vice versa for westerly winds. This connection between wind direction and glacier size has been well known for several decades in New Zealand - there are other scientific papers on the subject.
There is no mention in this article of wind as a major factor in the mass gain or loss of the eastern and western glaciers of New Zealand. I propose that the article be ammended to include wind impact information.
Cadae ( talk) 10:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Every glacier has its own sensitivity wind, relative humidity, avalanches, el nino, la nina, Arctic Oscillation etc. I do not believe we have time in this article to explore the why for each glacier. The strength of this article is it simply describes the terminus behavior which happens to be dominantly retreat. Peltoms ( talk) 13:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
A picture is worth a thousnd words, and maybe I missed it, yet I did not see any links to then & now photos. Could someone link to these sites which have lots of them? Maybe even put more in the main article?
4.246.205.116 ( talk) 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this be included in the alpine glacier section? Strong Alpine glacier melt in the 1940s due to enhanced solar radiation -- mark nutley ( talk) 10:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not see that it should be included in any detail. The article discusses a likely cause of enhanced melting, it does not comment on glacial retreat. The glacial retreat data for this interval is already contained in the key diagram for Swiss glaciers. The period of high melt was first published in 1978, so it is not news, only the forcing is news. If we do include it, it is a level of detail we do not have for other sections. We can certainly contrast the retreat rate decadally for Switerzerland. I have considerable new data for Norway, New Zealand and Himalaya to add soon. Peltoms ( talk) 13:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Mark I will do so, and finish the references on the Asia section over the next 24 hours. How does the following sound for the Gangotri--- In 2005 the Tehri Dam was finished on the Bhagirathi River, it is a 2400 mw facility that began producing hydropower in 2006. The headwaters of the Bhagirathi River is the Gangotri and Khatling Glacier, Garhwal Himalaya. Gangotri Glacier has retreated 1 km in the last 30 years, and with an area of 286 km2 provides up to 190 m3/second (Singh et. al., 2006). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peltoms ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
One problem I am having is the long url's for abstracts through the official source for abstracts for many journals, that is science direct. The url is so long and meaningless I cannot see including it, and yet I want to provide an online look at the abstract at least. Peltoms ( talk) 02:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- TS 13:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I took out MN's addition. It doesn't belong here. Furthermore, attempting to spread the controversy here with no attempt to discuss inclusion in talk is unhelpfully disruptive William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Kim if as you say It is quite appropriate to infer that deglaciation will continue and that this is one of the symptoms to expect from global warming then the fact that the IPCC got it wrong should be in. You can`t cite them as an authority for glacial melt when they get their reports from the WWF can you? This is not about overplaying the error about glacial melt, it is about letting readers know there was a mistake made. @ Tony, are you saying the IPCC is a minority points of view? The grounds for a mention of this is hardly spurious, it is highly relevant to the article. -- mark nutley ( talk) 11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
As the individual has contributed most of the material here. I have not relied even once on the IPCC report for information. This article has accurately as it turns out not emphasized the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. There are only two sources that are relied upon peer review, and direct field reports from the monitoring agencies. Peltoms ( talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I strongly urge anyone who hasn't read it to look at http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf which is very instructive.
The chart on p 13 is especially good (note source: Cogley). p 40 will also be of interest William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Over the last days I have been cleaning up a good dozen articles that used (or often abused) the old referencing template "ref harv". As of this writing there are exactly four left in all of article space, and this is one of them. [12] I see that in September 2007 there was already a discussion about this, with the outcome being, essentially, that a change was generally desirable but not a pressing need. (My interpretation.)
I propose changing the referencing style to cite.php. I am aware that this is a featured article (although it doesn't really have the page view statistics of one), so I will do this carefully and in a single editing session, to minimise the time that the article will have two citation styles in parallel. (For many other articles I did it in a single session edit, but with the large number of citations here that doesn't seem practicable.)
Hans
Adler
22:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The following references were present in the article but were not actually cited. I am moving them here just in case they are still useful:
Cited references
- BAS Pritchard, Hamish (June 5, 2007). "Hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers accelerating as climate warms". British Antarctic Survey.
- Independent Connor, Steve (June 6, 2007). "In Antarctica, proof that action on climate change is more urgent than ever". The Independent.
- CICaER Center for International Climate and Environmental Research. "Major changes in Norway's glaciers". Retrieved May 10, 2005.
- Hall Dorothy Hall. "Receding Glacier in Iceland". EO Newsroom: New Images. Retrieved February 18, 2006.
- Kaser G.Kaser and H. Osmaston (2002). "Tropical Glaciers". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521633338.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
( help); Unknown parameter|book=
ignored ( help)- NSIDC2 National Snow and Ice Data Center. "Is Global Sea Level Rising?". Retrieved March 14, 2005.
- Pedersen Fran Pedersen. "Surging Glaciers". Surging Glaciers. Retrieved July 13, 1978.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
( help)
- Hans Adler 12:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
These are currently in the lede and the general idea is a good point, but are obviously not taken from the same vantage. There are probably better twinned pictures that could go here. - LlywelynII ( talk) 15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"Studied by glaciologists, the temporal coincidence of glacier retreat with the measured increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is often cited as an evidentiary underpinning of global warming."
This needs a citation.
According to recent scientific papers and information on the NASA website, the major cause of receding glaciers is not global warming but rather Black Carbon aerosols (common soot). Since Black Carbon aerosols are also one of the causes of global warming, the temporal correlation is to be expected.
This article needs to be updated to incorporate this new information.
Tyrerj ( talk) 21:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Reinstate " ... of the world's oceans, may impact existing fisheries upon which humans depend as well." With some of your editing Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin you are verging on Wikipedia:Tendentious editing concerns. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Effects of global warming for "significant global warming has led to". Effects of global warming certainly must be in this article. 99.181.148.116 ( talk) 10:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikilink climate. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 17:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics ( IUGG) being unlinked ... no comment given? Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850&diff=436527993&oldid=436456908 by Special:Contributions/MONGO. 99.190.85.197 ( talk) 06:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Add wikilink for American Geophysical Union. 99.19.43.126 ( talk) 08:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikilink University of Alaska Fairbanks. 99.181.133.22 ( talk) 02:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The graphs on the page don't support this text William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Aim of the visualization is to summarize the main effects of the glaciers retreat and show how the different effects are connected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frasnati ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a good deal of uncited text, and this article probably needs a tune-up to avoid a Featured article review. MONGO are you able to bring this to standard? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
User:MONGO: Are you happy with taking this to FAR? I was just trying to amend an ugly external jump in the Asia section, when I clicked on the link (1) to see if my assumption that it was the source for the paragraph was correct, and (2) to determine what was meant by the final sentence, which is written in unidiomatic English. By doing so I discovered that the source reads:
and the article reads:
So, that's one thing that needs sorting. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
MONGO, DrKiernan, Wsiegmund, (and others who helped bring this article to featured status): are you still willing to bring this up to standards? If not, I'll bring it to FAR at some point. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 16:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
In the section for Tropical glaciers, I deleted the sentence that stated that all tropical glaciers are found on isolated peaks because this is not true for the northern ranges of the Andes which feature many glacialized zones that are not isolated from other mountain peaks. Also, I made a minor edit to the sentence explaining where ice is found in the tropics. Previously, it read "Ecuadorian Andes," however, glaciers are found in the other countries of the tropical Andes as well, so I changed the text to reflect that. Nacutler ( talk) 19:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose that due to their importance and many distinct properties Tropical Glaciers should have a dedicated page. Does anyone object to this? I can take it on as a project and open it up to further review before I create the article. Any thoughts? MONGO? Nacutler ( talk) 03:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
While I have been slow in updating this article, I will have more time to dedicate to this in less than a month and should make major progress after that.-- MONGO 22:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Given the size, Antarctica should be probably moved to the article page Antarctic glacier retreat. prokaryotes ( talk) 02:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
"A report by the research center said the retreat of the Mengke Glacier and two others in the Qilian range accelerated gradually in the 1990s, then tripled their speed in the 2000s. In the last decade, the glaciers have been disappearing at a faster rate than at any time since 1960." [16] -- Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=245&ArticleID=3042When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Good Morning. I am doing a evaluation of the article for my Ethics in Society Class. Please do not hesitate to add any information or helpful suggestions to help make everyone's experience of Wikipedia a better one. Thank you and be safe.
Link to evaluation page { /info/en/?search=User:Markees_Whitfield/Evaluate_an_Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markees Whitfield ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Glacial retreat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#Glacial retreat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Glacier retreat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#Glacier retreat until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 03:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
– Per WP:COMMONNAME. The current name is arbitrary and not commonly used. Glacier retreat could refer to the general movement of glaciers not necessarily caused by the current global warming, which is covered in glacial motion and glacier mass balance. However, the primary topic is this article, just like climate change refers to the current global warming (compared to the general climate variability and change). In current literature, glacier retreat refers to the current phenomenon cause by current global warming (see google scholar results). Vpab15 ( talk) 16:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Global warming is expected to significantly affect the runoff regime of mountainous catchments. Vpab15 ( talk) 16:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
References
It seems to boil down to two approaches:
The latter approach seems to comport more closely with Wikipedia policy and that is more enlightening to readers.
Since the so-called Little Ice Age is merely a regional phenomenon, it is a red herring in this discussion. —
RCraig09 (
talk)
17:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
[T]his article was not to make a statement about Anthropogenic global warming. I cannot see why that would be a problem when the evidence is irrefutable. See Climate_change#cite_note-7:
global warming has led to widespread shrinking of the cryosphere, with mass loss from ice sheets and glaciers (very high confidence)Vpab15 ( talk) 08:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Let's spend time on the name most likely to gain consensus. Please reply. — RCraig09 ( talk) 16:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)