| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Vegetarian | |
| Posted by: | Tom Pike | |
| Date/Time: | 01/07/08 20:33:00 |
| Fraser, The contribution of volcanicity in general and seamonts in particular to climate change has been the subject of intense scientific research. The current state of knowledge is that the contribution is not negligible, but is much less than that of anthropogenic CO2. I don't think the IPCC separated out the forcings from separate instances of volcanicity, which would include both direct heating and the much more important gaseous contributions. The scientists who wrote the report, though, would certainly be aware of the work in the field. Of course if increased volcanicity were causing global warming, it rather begs the question as to how this effect only became apparent recently. You might expect a step change in temperature, which is really what we're seeing in geological time scales, if there was a sudden increase in volcanic emissions. I know no volcanologist who sees any evidence for this, except in the very particular case of increased polar seismicity ironically caused by the thinning of the ice sheets - a case of reversed causality to that you imply. I read your contribution, current and past, very carefully. I think your positing solar activity or volcanicity as counterbalances to anthropogenic emissions misinterprets both our current scientific knowledge and uncertainties. And I am a little worried that your role as an advisor in these matters is not science based, even with the necessary Bayesian modifiers. As to whether the political will, or even power, is there to produce the necessary change, I sometimes share your pessimism, Heathrow expansion being a case in point. But the cost of the immediate changes required are not an order of magnitude away from that spent so far in Iraq. The will and power existed there. |