Well said Andrew. Here is one data point from the PacNW. FWIW in this
local area the models generally agree that we won't see much change
either way.
These photos were taken about 30 years apart from the same peak. See
anything missing?
<http://www.interisland.net/watershed/mike/Luna%20compared.jpg>
Mike
> Nonetheless, I'm just writing a study guide for a documentary on Kiribati
> and Tuvalu - they don't a bugger about the science out there, just the
> disappearance of their villages and croplands. Two degrees up and they'll
> cease to exist. They are already in serious trouble.
> The models are simply attempts to explain what appears to be happening, with
> differing and competing frameworks. All or some of them may be wrong in part
> or entirely. This does not change the observations of a general trend. It is
> 'normal science'. The fact that they disagree is unexceptional - there are
> several competing theories of evolution (Gould vs. Dawkins, for example) but
> I'm not about to throw away the general idea because of it.
> Climate change scepticism is also a normal social reaction to any major
> shift. Those with a deep conservatism or an agenda will seize on any minor
> inconsistency in the argument and claim that it destroys the entire
> hypothesis. Rarely are their own positions brought under the same blowtorch.
> It is better to adopt a cautious scepticism to specific theories while
> recognising the overall problem.
> But then, we're human and prefer utterly polarised arguments where we can
> shout at each other pointlessly, so that's not about to happen.
> Andrew Fildes
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
