| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:cuts no ice | |
| Posted by: | Tom Pike | |
| Date/Time: | 01/07/08 04:22:00 |
| Fraser, The scientists who discovered volcanic activity under the Arctic Ocean themselves discount any significant effect on ice melting. Firstly the eruption took place in 1999 and if it had caused much melting we would have seen that as a step change in ice loss from the time of the eruption. In fact we have seen loss of Arctic ice over nearly three decades. Secondly, undersea volcanoes at mid-ocean ridges, like the one under the Arctic, cause negligible heating of surface currents - the Gulf Stream that gives us our temperate climate is heated by the warm air over the Caribbean, not by passing over the North Atlantic Ridge. That climate-change sceptics have chosen to latch onto these arctic volcanoes as the cause ice loss says a lot about the weakness of their scientific case. As for IPCC projections, these indeed show a strong correlation between temperature and emissions, and the latest work also analyses regional shifts of wind patterns, precipitation and weather extremes, all correlated to rising levels of CO2. Not all aspects of climate are projected to change, but this is hardly a reason to discount those shifts in global and regional climate that are likely to occur. Finally, the causality is clearly stated by the latest, forth IPCC report: "The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming." Science should indeed be the basis of policy in the real world. Your basis appears to be something else. |