From the UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH and the “lets ignore some of these other growing glaciers” department
The World Glacier Monitoring Service, domiciled at the University of Zurich, has compiled worldwide data on glacier changes for more than 120 years. Together with its National Correspondents in more than 30 countries, the international service just published a new comprehensive analysis of global glacier changes in the Journal of Glaciology. In this study, observations of the first decade of the 21st century (2001-2010) were compared to all available earlier data from in-situ, air-borne, and satellite-borne observations as well as to reconstructions from pictorial and written sources.
«The observed glaciers currently lose between half a metre and one metre of its ice thickness every year – this is two to three times more than the corresponding average of the 20th century», explains Michael Zemp, Director of the World Glacier Monitoring Service and lead author of the study. «Exact measurements of this ice loss are reported from a few hundred glaciers only. However, these results are qualitatively confirmed from field and satellite-based observations for tens of thousands of glaciers around the world.»
Global glacier decline
According to the international author team, the current rate of glacier melt is without precedence at global scale, at least for the time period observed and probably also for recorded history, as indicated also in reconstructions from written and illustrated documents. In addition, the study shows that the long-term retreat of glacier tongues is a global phenomenon. Intermittent re?advance periods at regional and decadal scales are normally restricted to a subsample of glaciers and have not come close to achieving the Little Ice Age maximum positions reached between the 16th and 19th century. As such, glacier tongues in Norway have retreated by some kilometres from its maximum extents in the 19th century. The intermittent re-advances of the 1990s were restricted to glaciers in the coastal area and to a few hundred metres.
In addition, the study indicates that the intense ice loss of the past two decades has resulted in a strong imbalance of glaciers in many regions of the world. «These glaciers will suffer further ice loss, even if climate remains stable», explains Michael Zemp.
###
The World Glacier Monitoring Service, with the support of its National Correspondents, compiles the results of worldwide glacier observations in annual calls-for-data. The current database contains more than 5,000 measurements of glacier volume and mass changes since 1850 and more than 42,000 front variations from observations and reconstructions reaching back to the 16th century. The international service is hosted at the Department of Geography of the University of Zurich, is co-financed by the Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss within the framework of GCOS Switzerland, and works under the auspices of several international organizations: http://www.wgms.ch
Literatur:
Zemp, Michael, Frey, H., Gärtner-Roer, I., Nussbaumer, S.U., Hoelzle, M., Paul, F., Haeberli, W., Denzinger, F., Ahlstroem, A.P., Anderson, B., Bajracharya, S., Baroni, C., Braun, L.N., Caceres, B.E., Casassa, G., Cobos, G., Davila, L.R., Delgado Granados, H., Demuth, M.N., Espizua, L., Fischer, A., Fujita, K., Gadek, B., Ghazanfar, A., Hagen, J.O., Holmlund, P., Karimi, N., Li, Z., Pelto, M., Pitte, P., Popovnin, V.V., Portocarrero, C.A., Prinz, R., Sangewar, C.V., Severskiy, I., Sigurdsson, O., Soruco, A., Usubaliev, R., and Vincent, C. (2015): Historically unprecedented global glacier decline in the early 21st century. Journal of Glaciology.
Doi: 10.3189/2015JoG15J017 [URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2015JoG15J017]

As has been pointed out already, Alley’s GISP graph stops at 1855. The temperature of the firn at Summit is currently -29,8 C, which is above MWP, closing in on the Roman Warm Period.
Alley’s GISP2 graph stops at 1905, so of course would be higher recently. The weather now on one day has nothing to do with an ice core and is not comparable.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/greenland_pt1_fig2.JPG
Most places in Greenland are still less than 1 c warmer than back in 1905 (all coastal stations), so still not quite at medieval warming yet. I would expect less warming further away from the coasts and at much higher latitudes.
Yet again Alley’s GISP2 graph stops in 1855 not 1905. Your error is so common that there has been a whole WUWT post devoted to it, I suggest you read it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/
Thanks Phil and climate agnostic, it does appear I have indeed made an error, but this still doesn’t change much. There is no Greenland station data this far back, but Greenland normally has similar warming and cooling tends to Northern Hemisphere temperatures.
The early 20th century was actually the coldest period in the data record.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1902/to:1906/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1853/to:1856
Northern Hemisphere temperatures were warmer around 1855 than 1905, so the difference is even slightly less.
Here are some of the glaciers that have revealed MWP forests:
Mendenhall Glacier:
http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen-forest-tomb#.Ujsn03_iSeZ
Exit Glacier:
http://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
Jorge Montt Glacier:
http://www.clim-past.net/8/403/2012/cp-8-403-2012.pdf
Bering Glacier (p.ix):
https://books.google.com/books?id=TlZG658NZYcC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=dating+glaciers+by+forest+remnants&source=bl&ots=lBo_ZDTd1C&sig=jfPiGmWGUMLizGBrvwJA6TPBUgM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7PZZVZikINiwogShs4CYDg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=dating%20glaciers%20by%20forest%20remnants&f=false
Eight glaciers from Prince William Sound (all with forest remnants):
http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/1999b_Holocene.pdf
A collection of Canadian glaciers:
http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf
Five Patagonian glaciers:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222560014_Little_Ice_Age_fluctuations_of_small_glaciers_in_the_Monte_Fitz_Roy_and_Lago_del_Desierto_areas_south_Patagonian_Andes_Argentina
And Holocene remnants generally (from western Canada), including MWP (Table 2):
http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf
–AGF
And that reveals that the MWP Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today! Case closed.
Actually it doesn’t, since the vast majority of glaciers are not in balance today. In other words, if the temperatures stay at current levels the glaciers will keep retreating for quite a while until they are in balance again.
It takes a while for a forest to grow. Use your noggin. There is no growing forest there now – not yet. If it is warmer today than in the MWP then there would be a growing forest there now – use a little common sense.
Matt G August 5, 2015 at 1:12 pm
“The weather now on one day has nothing to do with an ice core and is not comparable.”
The current temperature at Summit is not a one day reading but a decadal average.
“The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049444/full
Thanks, wondered where you got it from as it is not comparable. Both data sets even though using GISP2 cores are done differently. They have different values for the medieval periods. (Alley ~-30.6 c v Fig 1 -29.7 c)
http://api.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/asset/v1/doi/10.1029%2F2011GL049444/asset/image_n%2Fgrl28620-fig-0001.png?l=Cgg2pVVsCMyItLxk4W57sibmT%2Bj9VDxh9J2U8f%2FfaMSyKSZ61WZIn4Cl7DDuAYJT%2FrPpU9dXI5QN%2BPgI764FJg%3D%3D
Figure 1 has the medieval period period warmer than 29.9 C, shown on 2nd graph. Normally splicing different methods together showing a temperature record have many problems. The observations verse the new methods look very random and poor compared. Not saying the original GISP2 methods were ideal, but should compare apples with apples for any confidence.
What makes it even worse is the data is relied on a inversion adjusted method, which I find should never be used in science unless it has been shown to work for the entire timeline. The inversion method only matches the original GISP2 for parts of it.
If I had said the recent decade or so had no warming and before there had been cooling during the 1980’s to 1990’s would you take me seriously?
Errors -30.5 c, ^warmer than -29.9 c.
This paper was discussed on another website alluding to the possibility that the authors attributed glacier melting to “globally consistent climatic forcing.” For those who read the paper, is there any signal providing evidence of AGW as opposed to natural warming? Apparently, soot is a man-made contribution to glacier melting. But that is not AGW which to my understanding involves warming due to increases in IR absorbing gases and deforestation. Does the paper claim evidence that alleged glacier shrinkage is due to some discernable extent to AGW, not just any warming? I’m curious how the glaciers would know the difference.
“From the above observations, we conclude that the current decadal mean snow temperature in central Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability of the past 4000 years.”
“We define an upper bound of the natural variability over the last 4000 years as the value (−28.7°C) derived from two standard deviations (2.0°C) above the average (−30.7°C) of Greenland temperatures over the period ”
There is no evidence of AGW as opposed to natural warming in this paper. The main assumption is that if temperatures exceed those of the last 4000 years then it”s not due to natural variability. They don’t state why and this part is just pseudoscience.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049444/full
Sorry I mean this one,
Matt, I was referring to the Zemp paper from the University of Zurich. It’s pay-walled and I just wondered if there is some valid evidence in it of glacier melt specifically attributable to fossil fuel vs. natural warming. Come to think of it, how would you attribute how much melting was due to soot vs. warming?
Gentle Tramp: Hi,
There doesn’t seem to be an easy way to reply to all comments. Some times they put in a reply stamp, other times nothing. Thank you for your comments. As you say, I am 150% sold on climate change, but I’m not 150% sold on how to combat it. I have been against biofuel for 10 years. What a boon doggle! The Iowa farmers use more fuel than they produce. The German’s are a bit more efficient, they end up at net zero. I hate dams. My solution has always been to slow down economic growth. The Earth is finite and somehow mankind has to recognize that fact. Our civilization cannot sustain the relentlessly expanding economies, the same path of violent competition, continued depletion of resources, and the growing contribution to greenhouse gases.
I’m very depressed by the thought that the only way that things will change is for humans to change. It’s not likely. The human brain is about 10,000 years behind his ability invent new tools. He will destroy himself before he changes. Too bad, it was a great experiment….
Bob