The link below sums up the situation quite well. The vast majority of glaciers are melting. No ifs not buts it is simply a fact. It also accounts for at least half of the current sea level rise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png

There you go again ant.
The link you gave was an article in a warmist magazine about Tyndall.
All it says is that Tyndall maintained co2 and water vapour maintained the heat within the earths atmosphere.

Nobody disagrees with that.

What I want to know is whether, as you seem to hold, is that Tyndall found and proved AGW, the relative import of co2 and water vapour and whether temp rose ahead of co2 levels or vice versa.

Your link lacks any scientic basis or explanation and is not a link to Tyndall. Like I said I can't find links to Tyndal. Of course there are links to articles (biased) about him.
As usual your links are irrelevant or moronic.

And ant have a good thorough read of that second link you provided about Tyndall before I start quoting from it.

If it were not so contradictary of your point of view I'd laugh. No I am laughing and am now earnestly looking for his views on climate change. If they are as accurate but more detailled Tyndall will be regarded as a denier.

Lol Easter is going to be busy with this quest.

Why CO2 CANNOT DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE. Carbon dioxide poses no threat at all to the planet. While many scientists can tell all about what carbon dioxide emissions are currently doing to the planet and what the alleged outcomes will be in 50 or 100 years time, the reality is that many climate scientists have not studied carefully enough, carbon dioxide its properties.

This is where the whole discussion over climate change has gone wrong. CC scientists can postulate all they like about global warming, but if you don’t understand how carbon dioxide works, then you are not an expert and you know diddly squat about climate change.

When one studies carbon dioxide it becomes apparent that carbon dioxide of itself cannot drive climate change. Despite the increasing levels of CO2 over the past two decades, data shows that global temperatures have gone sideways - and not risen as predicted by consensus science computer modelling (GCM’s).In terms of `greenhouse gases’, of every 85,000 atmospheric molecules, 3,400 are water vapour molecules and 33 are carbon dioxide, of which 32 are naturally occurring. Just ONE molecule is anthropogenic in origin.
Based on these figures, it’s impossible for carbon dioxide to be the major `greenhouse gas’ or to be the dominant influence on climate change.

There are also other factors needed to be considered. Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian physicist has published a paper which clearly shows global warming is not being driven by human CO2 emissions. Excessive amounts of CO2 do not increase global temperatures. Once CO2 reaches 50ppmv its maximum impact on climate has been achieved.

Once CO2 levels rise about 50ppmv (currently it’s 398) its impact is logarithmic, or to put it another way, you would have to raise CO2 to extraordinary levels to get a slight increase in overall temperatures. To raise global temperature by 1C you would need to raise CO2 levels to over 600ppm. Even it mankind burnt all so called `fossil fuels’ tomorrow (which isn’t going to happen), the CO2 level would rise to 550ppm – which is far below the 1,000ppm of the dinosaur era

Warmy you say:

"It also accounts for at least half of the current sea level rise." Consider these 2 papers;

http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.pdf

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf

The Ablain et al and Cazenave et al papers which I link to above have looked at sea level rise and factored in thermosteric and mass measurements [ie from increase in the water content]. The 2008 Cazenave paper looks at the period from 2003-2008 and finds a decomposed [into the steric and mass components] sea level rate of increase of ~2.3mm pa. The 2009 Ablain paper looks at the period from 2005-2008 and finds a rate of increase of ~1.3mm pa.

During the 20thc the rate of sea level increase was ~ 1.8mm pa. But there were periods when the rate was more and when it was less, even negative, arguably in correlation with PDO phase shifts. This is exactly what we are seeing since 1992. From 1992-2003 we saw a rate of increase greater than average; from 2003 we have seen a rapidly decreasing rate of increase, again arguably in correlation with PDO phase shift.

Thermosteric sea level increase is from ocean heat expansion; this hasn’t been happening since ~2003 as measures of Ocean Heat Content show a cooling sea.

And since global temps have been flat for 17 years it makes you wonder how there can be any melting of land ice to supply the mass component of sea level rise either.

ant

is this an example of your lack of comprehension skills?

'imajulianutter,your not able to use google? You mentioned in another thread that you were not able to find out anything about John Tyndall
A quote from you prviously …'

that is not the same as

'“Cannot find Tyndall but I suspect he'll confirm this.”'