i did as you suggested and this is the only thing they say
wikipedia
An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area which is significantly warmer than its surroundings. As population centers grow in size from village to town to city, they tend to have a corresponding increase in average temperature, which is more often welcome in winter months than in summertime. The EPA says: "On hot summer days, urban air can be 2-10?F [2-6?C] hotter than the surrounding countryside." Not to be confused with global warming, scientists call this phenomenon the "urban heat island effect." [1]
There is no controversy about cities generally tending to be warmer than their surroundings. What is controversial about these heat islands is whether, and if so how much, this additional warmth affects trends in (global) temperature record. The current state of the science is that the effect on the global temperature trend is small to negligible?see below.
Scientists compiling the historical temperature record are aware of the UHI effect, but they vary as to how significant they think it is. Some scientists (see Peterson, below) have published peer reviewed papers indicating that the effect of the UHI has been overestimated, and that it does not affect the record at all. Other scientists have used various methods to compensate for it. Some advocates charge that temperature data from heat islands has been mistakenly used as evidence for the global warming theory.
As a result of the urban heat island effect, monthly rainfall is about 28% greater between 20-40 miles downwind of cities, compared with upwind.
you will notice that the only thing they discuss is cities and urban environments. in other words your saying that cities that create their own heat is the cause of glacial melting.
for a large amount of ice to melt that fast due to a small difference in air temperature, the ice would have to be very close to melting. other wise, the melt would be exactly as its been for century. if the ice was that close to melting, then global warming would not have affected it much.
you cant have it both ways. either the ice pack is all just below the melt point or its not.
you really should learn to read your own post and figure out where you are standing before you claim that others are saying it.
in order for the ground below the ice to radiate the heat, it has to get the heat first. if the increase in loss of the glacier is due to the ground being exposed, its not global warming that is causing it, its natural processes. what you described is the natural process of the end of the glaciers, not global warming.
in other words, its either a natural process, or its the pollution that china is pumping into the atmosphere down wind of that glacier.
you really should stick to politics. your not that good at science.
