Those who legitimately question the case for man - made global warming (AGW) do not question
whether glacier retreat is evidence of global warming.
Whether a glacier retreats or advances each year largely depends on its mass balance — the difference between how much snow it receives and the amount of its ice that melts away.
Not exact matches
The scientific community is now debating
whether irreversible
retreat has already started at some
glaciers draining the West Antarctic ice sheet.
Finally, Oerlemans's work doesn't address
whether or not the worldwide
glacier retreat is part of a «natural» phenomenon.
[Response: As I noted in the post, «Oerlemans's work doesn't address
whether or not the worldwide
glacier retreat is part of a «natural» phenomenon.»
With the exception of
glaciers that terminate in the ocean, and
glaciers in the polar regions or at extreme high altitudes where the temperature is always below freezing, essentially just two things determine
whether a
glacier is advancing or
retreating: how much snow falls in the winter, and how warm it is during the summer.
I'd like to see someone study
whether the 150 - year history of alpine glacial
retreat tracks more closely with reduction of mature forest near
glaciers than it does with atmospheric CO2 levels.
It appears then that
glacier or ice shelf thinning is the key preconditioning factor for collapse,
retreat and acceleration,
whether you are in Antarctica of Greenland.
The fraction of known
glaciers which actually have enough data to even estimate
whether they are advancing or
retreating is tiny.
Nobody's arguing about
whether glaciers are
retreating, or
whether there is warming since the second half of the 20th century.