| Topic: | Re:Re:Vegetarian | |
| Posted by: | Fraser Pearce | |
| Date/Time: | 01/07/08 19:12:00 |
| Tom - The volcanic activity in the Arctic wasn’t new, but the discovery of its scale was (belying the former belief the ridge was spreading too slowly to produce significant volcanism). Although the team’s discoveries were new, the phenomenon they observed obviously wasn’t - hence one wouldn’t expect a step change in ice loss (unless you’re suggesting the volcanism came into existence with the US boomer in 1999, which we both know you’re not). Personally, I don’t see how the heat from these volcanoes can have that significant an effect on the polar caps (then again, that’s just supposition). What does concern me, however, is the amount of water vapour, CO2 and SO2 these volcanoes may or may not be releasing into the atmosphere. It’s not about the ‘weakness of the scientific case’ but whether these specific these boundary conditions have yet been factored into the prevailing models and reflected in the observed features – which they haven’t (yet). Read my posting again. It’s not ‘denying’ anything apart from Stewart’s level of certainty, causation and alarmism with regard to that one Indy article - hence the comment “Your conclusions may be right, they may be wrong, but do seem a tad premature”. On Sunday, I emailed an advisor to last year’s Security Council debate on climate change. I asked whether the volcanic natural forcings in the 2007 IPCC report took account of the scale of active seamounts now presumed to exist. The response an hour ago was “possibly not”. Please do me the service of reading my posting again. It’s critiquing one person’s premature leaps of logic with regard to one specific newspaper article, not critiquing AGW. ------- As for an understanding of science, mine’s from Boston and New Jersey. I now advise on policy for a living – and remain more pessimistic about our immediate to mid-term future than most of my analysts. As for the “basis” of my views then, you’re absolutely right, they are based on “something else” and aren’t a scientific pure play. On the one hand they’re based on the recollection that the irrational probabilities of wrong answers in high energy physics, for example, would have to be raised by a factor of 100 or more over and above that of climate science. On the other hand they’re also based on more prosaic matters such as the practical impact of threat multipliers, mitigation and risk management strategies. In my work, a predicted decadal 0.06°C average increase in man-made annual warming has to be weighed against observed annual double-digit rise in food prices. So too whether the IPCC’s suggested development policies and mitigation areas are more harmful than the disease they’re trying to cure (i.e. sections 4 and 5 of the 2007 Synthesis Report). ------- As for the switch to as carbon-free economy, it certainly is possible. As you know, the issue is whether the switch can be achieved at a similar cost and scale as the current energy paradigm. Then there’s the intervening aggravation of political competition over remaining oil and gas reserves, the impact of finite geology on current economic models and the matter of which poor bastards are going to go hungry. You know all this stuff. [I apologise if I’m not making myself clear in any of the above. I’m fairly rushed and a nervous flyer. I’m vegetarian too and love peas] |