Hi Alvia,
It's interesting that Dr Schuur talks only of CO2, whereas others consider methane much the greater threat. But it's this nonsense at the end which upsets me. To imagine that reducing emissions can stop permafrost thaw is rediculous. Clearly, if insulation won't work, there is no option but solar radiation management - and the sooner the better. How can Dr Schuur say such a thing? Does he not realise what a desperate situation we are in, with the whole Arctic warming and sea ice threatening to disappear? Cheers, John > Burning fossil fuels adds about 8.5 gigatonnes of emissions each year, > but it is a process that can theoretically be controlled. > > Permafrost thaw, though, would be self-reinforcing and could be almost > impossible to brake. > > "It's not an option to be putting insulation on top of the tundra," > Schuur said. > > "If we address our own emissions either by reducing deforestation or > controlling emissions from fossil fuels, that's the key to minimising > the changes in the permafrost carbon pool." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. 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/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
