Actually, I don't see much of anything missing. I thought originally
that the pool of water was setting on top of glacial melt and it looked
like the level had dropped considerably. However, I cut the two images
apart, loaded them in PhotoShop and then rescaled them until I got a
reasonable fit on the mountain tops. You can't get an exact fit since
the photos are taken from different points. But, when you fit the
mountain peaks together both vertically and horizontally and vary the
opacity to see through the top image the two water pools pretty much end
up on top of each other. So, no, I don't see much on anything missing.
However, even if your image were to display some glacial melt (and I'm
sure some of it is occurring there) it has absolutely nothing to do with
Andrew's concerns about Kiribati and Tuvalu. The Pacific there is
rising at about 2mm/year and has been doing so for many, many years.
Yet these islands are growing in land area. They are not being
submerged by the sea. See the link I posted in my reply.
ps: The "models" say lots of things. But show me one that can make a
correct hindcast of the last 30 years let alone a forecast of the next
100 years. No model ever predicted the lack of any statistically
significant warming which has been the case since about 1998. Can't do
even 10 years? Why should I believe 100?
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/8/2011 1:28 PM, Mike Lazzari wrote:
> 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/
|
