Global climate change...in Iceland
No question there are those that doubt..but for those of us that have crossed that particular Rubicon..... http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/vr/iceland-glaciers-climate-change-vr/index.html Gary...
Forum Discussion
westernrvparkowner wrote:
Humans have recorded accurate climate data for how long? 100 years? 200? The earth as been around 5 billion years, give or take. Not exactly a huge statistical sample, to say the least.
Then, there is the fact that we currently use sophisticated data recorders to record that temperature. Do we really think the guy who recorded the temperatures for Missoula, Montana in 1914 had the same accuracy as today? Do we know for sure he didn't locate his equipment for a bit of convenience, say closer to his building than ideal, just to make it a bit easier to get those readings? Do you really think he was concerned his temperature data would be used to justify billions upon billions upon billions of spending 100 years in the future?
Then there is the fact that to derive these current temperature readings, climatologists use mathematical models to "adjust" for things like thermal gain in cities. Tweak the formulas, you tweak the resulting evidence of climate change.
Finally, the bulk of the earth's landmass would benefit from climate change. Think of the additional food that could be grown and the additional population that could be accommodated if Siberia and Northern Canada was habitable.
You make some very good points WRVPO. And I agree with your take on the temperature data collection. However much of the data collected is done with ice cores from the arctic regions and the tale is told there for sure. What caused any given change is up for at least some educated guesses.
But one thing I can say for certain since I have seen it with my own eyes is that the glaciers of both Alaska and Europe have shrunken DRAMATICALLY in my lifetime. This observation was made in person over 35+ years. When I was stationed at Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage in 1973 the portage glacier could be seen right in front of the visitor center. Now it is completely out of sight and you have to take a boat to it. It has receded more than two miles in that time.
That supports the FASTER change theory and I agree with that. But also to deny that putting too much of a pollutant into our finite atmosphere has no effect is to ignore the patently obvious.
Just a note to another poster: the earth being round was NOT a scientific discovery it was OBSERVATIONAL. Just as was the fact that we orbit the sun.
