"The first picture was taken from a position a considerable distance to the left of the second picture. The profiles of the nearer and further mountains make this obvious. If anything, it makes the retreat of the glacier seem more pronounced.

None of these photos is anything more than the equivalent of anecdotal evidence, without real positions and times, without photos taken in intermediate years (especially dealing with snowfall), and other important background information. I could play this game with almost ANY scene, by just selecting my "before" and "after" pictures carefully.

From my own experience, a picture taken of a field in Minnesota with no snow on a given date in 1980 and another picture showing the same field piled under eight foot drifts on the same date in 2003 would not be that hard to arrange. That's called weather. "

Good points. There is alot of unknowns to do with that first set of pictures- that's why I said I would like to get the real facts behind it. It *could be* that the later picture is taken during the summer. And it's *possible* that what looks somewhat like a glacier in the first picture is actually mostly a lake during the winter.
That the picture was taken from *at least* a slightly different [and/or inconsequencely different position] is without doubt. What also is without doubt is that the Upsala Glacier is huge and that the picture was only a small part of it.
BUT even if the picture was an accurate depiction of reality, what it would indicate is that the warm period was occuring a hundred year ago [which is true, but sort of messes with humans causing this warming] because glacier especial big ones hold their coldness, therefore are not a good indicator of very recent temperatures.