Flame » in reply to Why is a period of dramatic glacier shrinkage that extends over the last hundred years not significant?

The whole thread (19 posts)

• Another glacier story - TB - 6/14/2007 10:18:32 PM
  • Wouldn't glaciers melt faster as they lose mass? - Lee - 6/15/2007 1:20:20 AM
    • re: Wouldn't glaciers melt faster as they lose mass? - gbaikie - 6/15/2007 6:18:50 AM
    • re: Wouldn't glaciers melt faster as they lose mass? - Marcia - 6/15/2007 3:15:40 AM
      • re: Wouldn't glaciers melt faster as they lose mass? - gbaikie - 6/15/2007 5:28:54 AM
      • re: Wouldn't glaciers melt faster as they lose mass? - btw. - Marcia - 6/15/2007 3:20:23 AM
  • re: Another glacier story - Bowser - 6/14/2007 10:53:43 PM
    • I agree with you. - TB - 6/15/2007 3:52:44 AM
      • It's been happening for well over a 100 years. - Lee - 6/15/2007 11:50:28 PM
      • Why is a period of dramatic glacier shrinkage that extends over the last hundred years not significant? - alcaray - 6/15/2007 5:32:06 AM
        • re: Why - TB - 6/15/2007 6:18:33 AM
          • And? - alcaray - 6/15/2007 6:58:25 AM
            • "Large Scale Dumping" - TB - 6/15/2007 7:40:56 AM
              • Your study does not cover non-fossile sources. (n/t) - alcaray - 6/15/2007 5:36:39 PM
                • Like what? - TB - 6/15/2007 6:11:49 PM
                  • Clear-cutting forests by Western civ began somewhat before the period in discussion... - alcaray - 6/15/2007 8:07:42 PM
                    • Forests - TB - 6/15/2007 9:50:15 PM
                      • Just imagine what Western forest fires were like over 100 years ago. - Lee - 6/16/2007 12:00:00 AM
                        • Actually, maybe not that bad. - TB - 6/16/2007 12:12:44 AM