'Geloofwaardigheid' is niet belangrijk.
Discussie wel. Merk op dat ik 'broeikaseffect' in bovenstaande post niet noemde, maar gewoon 'klimaatverandering'.
-> Edit, correxie: uit de context van de rest van de draad blijkt dat ik het wel degelijk over het versterkte broeikaseffect had. Dit is mijn overtuiging inderdaad ook.
De Kilimanjaro is binnenkort ijsvrij. Dat ligt in elk geval niet aan irrigatie!
Nee, niet aan irrigatie nee.
Maar: blijf a.u.b. genuanceerd (is misschien wel synoniem met geduldig) in die klimaatdiscussies, zou ik willen zeggen.
Groet,
Alwin
Employing much the same palette of facts and observations as invoked by [Kaser et al], one could paint this rather different picture of what is going on: The Kilimanjaro glacier has waxed and waned since the time of its inception about 11,000 years ago. An unusually wet decade around 1880 put the glacier into strongly positive mass balance, bulking up its mass. Early 20th century explorers found the glacier recovering towards equilibrium from this anomalous state. However, rather than finding a new equilibrium in the 20th century, the glacier has continued to retreat, and is now on the brink of disappearing. Though air temperature has so far remained below freezing, melting has begun to occur, and the glacier is suffering net ablation over its entire surface. Air temperature increases similar to those observed aloft since 1960, amplified by associated increases in humidity, account for a significant portion of the enhanced ablation leading to this strongly negative mass balance, but the exact proportion is highly uncertain because of the short span of energy and mass balance observations. However, changes in the distribution of snowfall through the year, conceivably linked to increases in sea surface temperature, may have reduced the reflectivity of the glacier and played an even bigger role in forcing the retreat than changes in air temperature alone.
)