Jim Torson wrote:
> At 11:33 PM 11/28/2006, James Annan wrote:
>
>> James Annan wrote:
>>
>>> Even if one assumes the premise that we are "optimally adapted" to the
>>> present climate (which I think would be difficult to rationally defend),
>>> it does not follow that changes to the climate would result in net costs.
>> Interestingly (to me at least), David Archer has backed down
>> significantly on his original assertion.
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/#comment-21686
>>
>> "the present-day warmth, which is comparable to the recent past and
>> arguably even beneficial"
>>
>> Even though he is only conceding the possibility, rather actually making
>> the claim (that the warming has been beneficial), this is not the sort
>> of comment that is often heard in climate science circles.
>>
>> James
>
> I think you should at least quote the complete sentence that David
> Archer wrote, which is:
>
> "I think Avery's trick was to muddy the distinction between the
> present-day warmth, which is comparable to the recent past and
> arguably even beneficial, with the forecast for the coming century,
> which is neither of those things."
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by saying Archer has "backed down
> significantly on his original assertion."
I was simply drawing what seemed to me to be an obvious contrast between
his previous "the best would be to not change climate at all" and "the
present-day warmth, which is comparable to the recent past and arguably
even beneficial".
> His original RealClimate
> post included the following:
>
> "Point. Human populations of Europe and India thrived during the
> medieval warm time, so clearly warming is good for us.
>
> "CounterPoint. No one asserts that the present-day warmth is
> a calamity, although perhaps some residents of Tuvalu or New
> Orleans might feel differently, and the Mayans may have been
> less than enthusiastic about the medieval climate. The projected
> temperature for 2100 under business-as-usual is another matter
> entirely, warmer than the Earth has been in millions of years."
The "point" was of course a summary of part of Avery's talk, which is
what he was dismissing as "Unstoppable hot air". His reply "no-one
asserts that the present-day warmth is a calamity" seems to lie roughly
in between the two quotes I've already provided, although it also looks
like a bit of a straw man in the context of the "point" it claims to
address.
The above is not intended as an endorsement of Avery, of course.
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
