Well, of course, who ever said otherwise. Don't assume other people are as linguistically challenged as you are, walleyed. You're "special".All over the planet currently most of the glaciers that have been present in substantially their present form since the last period of planetary glaciation are retreating rapidly and some are vanishing completely. Since the end of the last glaciation 10,00 years ago, glaciers have advanced and retreated somewhat many times without disappearing. This is a sign of how sensitive glaciers are to even minor climate changes. Since the beginning of the LIA in the sixteenth century, a number of glaciers seem to have advanced and grown somewhat in size over their average size during most of the holocene. The current rapid worldwide glacial melting however is unprecedented since the beginning of the current interglacial period.
Swiss glacier finely tuned to climate changes
PhysOrg.com
June 6, 2011
(excerpts)
During the last ice age, the Rhone Glacier was the dominant glacier in the Alps, covering a significant part of Switzerland. Over the next 11,500 years or so, the glacier, which forms the headwaters of the Rhone River, has been shrinking and growing again in response to shifts in climate. A team of researchers led by two scientists from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have found a novel method to measure this crucial back-and-forth, by measuring isotopes in hunks of stone chipped out from recently exposed bedrock near the edge of the ice. They found that for most of the Holocene Epoch, dating from the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago to the present, the Rhone Glacier has been smaller than it is today.
In a paper published last month in the journal Geology, the researchers said that their more robust history of the Holocene glacier fluctuations reflects how sensitive glaciers are to small changes in climate. And, they said, the new method they used to measure glacial movement may allow scientists to make more accurate predictions of what will happen as the earth continues to warm.
Co-author Joerg Schaefer, a geochemist and Lamont associate research professor, is concerned the findings could be misinterpreted by skeptics of climate change. They might conclude that, if the glacier is larger than it has been over most of the time during the past several thousand years, then there is little to worry about today.
Which is simply wrong, Schaefer said.
He said the findings show that even though the climate shifts were relatively mild during the Holocene, we find that the glaciers really reacted strongly telling us they are very, very sensitive to even very small [changes]. With the addition of man-made warming, the glaciers will react catastrophically to what we are doing to the climate.
The Swiss Alps record contrasts with the record of glacial movements in the Southern Alps of New Zealand, where the glaciers appear to have been larger than at present for most of the Holocene. That difference offers important clues about the evolution of summer temperatures in mid-latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres, he said.
Some glaciers retreated a bit in the early part of the holocene, about 7 thousand years ago. Finding fossilized trees under some retreating ice now just means that that glacier has been at least that large for the past 7 thousand years.
I like your article but did you even read it? You left out some good parts but just what you quoted says:
"Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum..."
"The pristine condition of the wood, [Dr. Koch] said, can best be explained by the stumps having spent all of the last seven millennia under tens to hundreds of meters of ice."
And the parts of that article you left out:
"There have been many advances and retreats of these glaciers over the past 7,000 years, but no retreats that have pushed them back so far upstream as to expose these trees."
""It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years."
Millenia is thousands of years, not millions.
Yeah, it means that it's warmer now than it has been for at least seven thousand years in some areas of the planet and longer than that in other areas. Or did you overlook this item in the article I quoted: "...the Southern Alps of New Zealand, where the glaciers appear to have been larger than at present for most of the Holocene". What happened to your precious 'Medieval Warm Period' and 'Roman Warm Period' claims? Have you debunked yourself now?So yes the historic minimum puts it right in the middle of the Holocene Maximum. Just like I said and which you denied.
I overlook nothing ol pal. What you are missing (color me not surprised) and which negates you and the whole warmist mantra is it was warmer 7,000 years ago with no CO2 increase. It was warmer back then with no SUV's, no billions of people, no power plants, no anthropogenic sources at all.
It then became colder for thousands of years till it finally began warming again through entirely natural processes.