In the context of this story, perhaps we're making a bit too much of the exact vantage point, time of year, or other factors in the two photos.

If we look at the photos in broad rather than specific terms, there's no doubt there's been a dramatic reduction in the area covered by the glacier.
Whether it's winter or summer, the surface of the main body of a glacier isn't open water - and there's a lot more open water visible in the later photo.

I've never disputed the issue of climate change. I was merely trying to protect the integrity of the evidence given, though, and I still maintain it was manipulated. If one truly believes in an issue, then no subterfuge should be necessary.

While I'm at it, I do wish to clarify that Richard did provide the dates of the photographs and that a comparable seasonal benchmark was established.

Stephen -

Thanks for your comments. Integrity of the evidence is always a valid area of concern for any topic, and worthy of discussion.

Interesting notion, that of "more usable land". But usable in what manner? The atmospheric variances that currently exist on the planet and the direct interaction that they impose on the existing land masses are a direct result of not only the proximity and topography of land masses in relation to the seas but in the specific temperatures of the sea water in a given region. On a small scale, I'm sure you're all aware of the concept of the El Nino / La Nina phenomenon that occur periodically in the Pacific region, and how climatologists relate the relatively small warming and cooling patterns associated with each phenomenon to our weather in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly here in North America. Space dictates that the permutations that might arise from an overall warming trend in the oceans of a little as 2 degrees C (about 5 degrees F for the metricly challenged) cannot be given their due in this post, but some of what is generally agreed to be the end products of such a shift in the sea temps would be the following: stronger surface winds; larger, more tightly compacted and far more vicious tempests, increased frequency of "severe" storms.

Now for some additional background information. The existing pattern or roadmap that our storm systems follow is a direct cause / effect relationship with not only water temperatures, but more specifically WHERE those water temperatures occur at any given time during the year. The position of the warmer waters serves to direct the formation and general path of the storms, along with other factors such as the jet stream and other layers of aloft winds. As those warm waters drift, as they seasonally do, storms are directed as to where they will encounter and impact along our western coastline. Then, their reformation or intensity are subject to other wind patterns and water temperatures, most notably those conditions existing along the Gulf Coast, and those beneficial rains that allow the Great Plains to function as the Bread Basket of the World are largely a product of favorable conditions in the southern and along the southeast coasts.

As for your supposition of longer growing seasons in the Plains? Not likely at all. A general warming trend in the Pacific is bound to shift storm patterns, which currently are optimal for the growing season in the center of the nation. Storms being redirected into Canada would most likely not reap the benefit of Gulf moisture without a tremendous increase in the south /southeasterly winds, which at the required velocity would rip the top soil from heart of the nation just as a similar situation did in the 30's. On the other hand, a seasonal shift to the south and the rains enter Mexico, a country that doesn't possess the quality of soil to retain the vast influx of mew moisture, and would most likely be subject to massive flooding and erosion. That coupled with the relatively narrow land mass that is Central America would encourage storms to reform before they even begin to degenerate as they currently do over the much larger land mass that is the US. That scenario doesn't bode too well for the Caribbean nations and other points east. A longer growing season? More likely, a season without conditions for growth, as the abatement of storms also would sound the eventual death knell of the Great Lakes and much of the Mississippi, Missouri, Colorado and Ohio watersheds. Not much to irrigate your crops with, eh?

Additionally, if as they estimate, the melting polar caps would add as much as 200' to the existing sea levels, another rather significant chunk of "usable" lands would be eliminated from the equation along ALL of our coastlines, in all nations around the globe. And maybe most unfortunately for us all, there goes our planet's last reserves of fresh water, unceremoniously dumped in the salinity of the seas.

But maybe it won't happen. Maybe the overall climate change is less drastic than we think. Maybe by switching to alternative fuel sources enough damage can be reversed to make amends for how greedy and blindly stupid our business managers have been. Maybe we, people of all nations, creeds, socio-economic backgrounds, will all come to our collective senses and act for the good of mankind. Maybe the world will indeed implode in 2012. And maybe a black man from Kenya and a White man from Kansas will have a son that will grow up to become President of the United States of America.

I'm sitting here on the 21st. of January in Livingston Mt. looking forward to another clear day in the fifties. So it has been for the past couple of weeks. There is no snow in the valley, and it is getting pretty thin on the surrounding mountains. Yesterday I was out tilling soil in my garden (not that I plan on planting for four more months, but it was that nice out). I realize that this is all meaningless, just as the fact that Ancorage Alaska had the third coldest summer on record is meaningless. This is the weather, not the climate. The weather is what is happening today, this week or this year. The climate is what the overall trend is over many years. There is little doubt that the overall climate is warming. A couple of degrees is all that it takes to cause glaciers to disappear, bark beatles to run rampant, forests to vanish, arctic sea ice to melt and polar bears and other species to become extinct. As John Muir said, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." Who knows what species is "hitched" to us in such a way that when it goes, we also go?
We can argue the cause of climate change until we are blue in the face. The majority of responsible scientists seem to believe that the industrial activities of man at least are a contributing factor. Even many formerly objecting voices are beginning to lean that way. It is also possible to locate responsible scientists who disagree, as well as thousands of dissenting opinions of less than reliable sources.
The point is that it really doesn't matter. If it is man caused, even in part, we might be able to reverse it. If not, then our fate may already be sealed. The good news is that most of the things we are being asked to do to combat climate change can do nothing but benefit us, both in the short term and the long; and we might, just might, be able to save the planet as a bonus. Winterizing our homes does nothing but make us more comfortable and save us money; as does switching to energy saving (and long lasting) light bulbs. Developing wind and solar energy, and moving toward hybrid, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles does nothing but get us out of the back pockets of oil producing nations; and frees us from an addiction to a fuel source that is rapidly disappearing. Clean coal technology does nothing except create jobs for Americans and reduce air pollution. When companies "go green" experience has shown us that they do nothing but increase their profits.
If we can save the planet as well, this is win, win. But even if we can't and we are all doomed in a hundred or five hundred years (or even if the planet is in no peril at all), these things still make sense. Even if climate change does not exist, we should all be backing the war against it; if for no other reason than our pocket books and the nation's economic health and security.

Hanson's data had to be revised and the warmest year was substantially changed. His latest data used the wrong month and than declared that he had no confidence on temperature data that came from Russia. There is substantial number of scientists who dispute the hypothesis that global warming or climate change is man made.

There is not enough time to go into the entire dispute, but Gore’s carbon actually followed the climate by 800 years. Check out Viscount Monkton data and challenge to debate Al Gore on this subject.

The planets climate has changed a lot over millions of years. This year cold spell may have more to do with the very low sunspot activity this year. Low sunspot activity has correlated in the past with cold years like the little Ice Age of the 1500-1600 I believe.

As Lone Hiker states that El Nina and El Nino cycles have a lot to do with weather. Also the cold wells in the oceans that are thermal sinks and affect the warm currents have a lot of effect.

Carbon probably less than water vapor, which has greater concentrations. However conservation by more efficient systems and CF bulbs that last longer but have more mercury have beneficial effects. Certain areas of the globe seem to be changing, warm areas melting glaciers in the Alps and increase sea ice in others.

I doubt that there is any real dispute that the glacier depicted had substantially retreated. My point about more useable land is that when the glaciers retreated in northern Europe more arable land was available to grow crops and that enable civilization to rise and flourish. The average temperature in Roman times seem to be higher than currently and then the long cold years of the Dark ages seemed to be a cold period. So humans seem to thrive in warmer climates periods than cold periods.

Wind power on the coast in oceans like the Delaware project that has constant wind seems to be a good idea. I am not sure if it is economically competitive without subsidies compared to fossil fuel. I am not happy about large swaths of the middle of the country with huge windmills. I believe that is costly and despoils the landscape. I would prefer smaller nuclear power plants for electricity, which is clean and takes up a smaller footprint.

Personally I prefer the beautiful valley and water in the second photo to the bleak snowfield in the first. I would be able to enjoy the valley more than if it was still a glacier filled.

There are still many glaciers and Ice Mountains for those who enjoy climbing and hiking glaciers.

This debate reminds me of the ongoing flame war about concealed carry in the parks. Not only is the argument getting nowhere, but I think this is an especially bad forum for the debate. There are big, ongoing debates about whether the climate is changing, whether this change is caused or exacerbated by humans, and to what extent that change is harmful or beneficial.

Two photographs of a glacier do not constitute evidence in this debate, any more than would two sample temperatures, taken roughly at midday, in the same area, 60 years apart. Retreating or advancing glaciers are not naked-eye evidence of climate change, per se, because glaciers are the products of systems that are far more complex than mere temperature. If glaciation trends constitute a single data point, or perhaps a small series of data points, their relevance to the debate is still dependent on many other factors.

Regardless of this point, the ongoing, multi-faceted global warming debate will not be settled on National Parks Traveler. Neither will the ongoing, multi-faceted debate over the place of firearms in society. If these debates are ever settled, it will not be here. This is Kurt's house, and if he wants to raise these topics, that's his prerogative. Clearly, topics of high controversy drive traffic, and that's perfectly reasonable.

But I worry about the role of the National Park Service in the greater climate change debate. I worry that what should be a non-political organization is taking on a partisan role (whether single-issue, or broad-based). The NPS's Visitor's Bill of Rights promises visitors the right "to be treated with courtesy and consideration," and "to receive accurate and balanced information."

That promise of accurate and balanced information is a tricky one, particularly in this case. Shall we tell visitors accurately that the sky is blue, or should we balance that with the possibility that the sky is green? To some people, climate change is as real and settled as the color of the sky, and anyone who says otherwise is some combination of ignorant, corrupt, and evil. To others, climate change is real, but not anthropogenic. To a third group, climate change is a complete fraud. Shall we bow to the first group, which is undoubtedly the most vocal, and treat anthropogenic climate change as fact?

I think the NPS should move slowly on this point. There is no need to lead public opinion or public policy. No matter what anyone says, the science of climate prediction is not settled. (That statement invariably draws sputtering hysteria. If any reader is tempted, please, spare me.) If the NPS should take up the climate change drum too loudly, it risks alienating some of its supporters, both in political life and among the greater population.