Also please see 
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/10/30/panic-at-2-am-the-search-for
-multiyear-arctic-ice/

Ice cover is not the only issue--ice thickness also matters for it takes an
extensive, pretty solid (i.e., very small or no leads) ice cover about a
meter thick or more (with a bit of snow on top) to insulate the winter
atmosphere from the ocean and allow ice surface temperatures to drop down to
-40 or lower so that the really cold winter air masses that create the
winter weather that we have depended on can form.

Best, Mike


On 11/2/09 10:08 AM, "David Keith" <[email protected]> wrote:

> A couple of points on sea ice:
>  
> 1. There have been a bunch of hype-rich data-poor announcements recently that
> confidently predict very early dates for disappearance of summer sea ice.
> There is some good evidence that people are overinterpreting interannual
> variability as signal. The following is quite painful: it was the July 2009
> compilation of forecasts every single one of which overestimated the actual
> sea ice loss in 2009. (I enclose a figure with the 2009 data added as an
> annotation. See the following for the original report:
>  
> http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/july_report/downloads/g
> raphs/JulyReport_JuneData_Chart.pdf
>  
> I am deeply concerned about the rapidity of change in the Arctic, indeed
> unlike most people who talk about this I spent a fair amount of time traveling
> on skis high Arctic, but I'm a skeptical scientist and I know that uncertainty
> cuts both ways. I also am keenly aware that people tend to interpret noise as
> signal when it goes the way they expect.
>  
> 2. Several folks on this list talk about the ice-albedo feedback as if it is
> not included in models. In fact this feedback is one of the central reasons
> for the polar amplification of predicted global warming and has been in models
> in various forms since the early 70s. In recent years the big focus has been
> improving dynamic (including ocean currents) sea ice models. Among the things
> typically not included are the (very uncertain) effect of warming permafrost
> on methane emissions, this is likely not a large omission as it's very hard to
> have methane emissions large enough to significantly change radiative forcing
> over half-century timescales.
>  
> 3. It does appear that the IPCC underestimated the possibility of large-scale
> loss of the big ice sheets, I have run an expert elicitation
> (www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/elicitation.html
> <http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/elicitation.html> ) on the topic and our
> compilation of expert judgments (almost all of whom were in IPCC) shows that
> IPCC dramatically underestimated the risk.
>  
> 4. One can make an argument that albedo geoengineering would be particularly
> appropriate for the Arctic both for the obvious reason that climate change
> impacts and responses are largest there, and because by increasing
> reflectivity geoengineering would be nicely countering the albedo feedback
> that decreases reflectivity.
>  
> -David
>  
> 
> 
> From: John Nissen [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: November 1, 2009 11:54 AM
> To: David Keith
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Ken
> Caldeira; Julian Norman; Mike MacCracken
> Subject: Re: [geo] ERL papers on line
>  
> 
> Thanks for the reference to the Environmental Research Letters, David.
> 
> Only Mike MacCracken's paper considers the context for geoengineering.  If we
> are going to have to use geoengineering to tackle certain problems, how should
> we approach it.  He considers three problem areas:
> 1) the warming of low-latitude oceans which contribute to more intense
> tropical cyclones and coral bleaching;
> 2) the amplified warming of high latitudes and the associated melting of ice
> that has been accelerating sea level rise and altering mid-latitude weather;
> 3) the projected reduction in the loading and cooling influence of sulphate
> aerosols, which has the potential to augment warming sufficient to trigger
> methane and carbon feedbacks.
> 
> I would suggest that the amplified warming of (2) has the potential to trigger
> massive methane discharge (and associated positive feedback on global warming)
> of (3) as well as the potential to trigger rapid sea level rise.  The retreat
> of Arctic sea ice is part of the warming amplification process, so it is
> crucial to prevent its summer disappearance.  Do you agree, Mike?
> 
> If you agree, then the importance of this (i.e. preventing Arctic sea ice
> summer disappearance) makes the arguments against geoengineering in the other
> papers seem rather irrelevant!
> 
> Note that Mike has only considered the problems that could be addressed with
> SRM geoengineering.  If we consider problems such as ocean acidification, and
> addressing them with techniques such biochar, then the arguments in the other
> papers against geoengineering seem irrelevant to the point of absurdity - but
> then perhaps the arguments were directed at SRM geoengineering alone.
> 
> Cheers from Chiswick,
> 
> John
> 
> ---
> 
> David Keith wrote:
> Folks,
>  
> There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental Research
> Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special issue. More
> papers and a editorial will be added later.
>  
> Cheers,
> David
>  
>  
> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045101
>  
> Focus on Climate Engineering: Intentional Intervention in the Climate System
> 2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 045101   doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045101
> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045101>
> <http://www.iop.org/EJ/help/-topic=abstract/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045101>
> 
> Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been receiving
> much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle climate change is
> not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen this December. However, the
> field is controversial as the methods may have unforeseen consequences,
> potentially making temperatures rise in some regions or reducing rainfall, and
> many aspects remain under-researched.
> 
> This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a collection of research
> articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and Ken Caldeira,
> Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different methods for
> engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in this issue
> highlight various methods of climate engineering but they also detail the
> arguments for and against climate engineering as a concept.
> 
> Further reading
> Focus on Geoengineering at
> http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/subject/tag=geoengineering
> IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science is an open-access
> proceedings service available at www.iop.org/EJ/journal/ees
> <http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/ees>
> 
> Focus on Climate Engineering: Intentional Intervention in the Climate System
> Contents
> 
> Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming
> <http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045102>
> David L Mitchell and William Finnegan
> 
> Climate engineering and the risk of rapid climate change
> <http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045103>
> Andrew Ross and H Damon Matthews
> 
> Researching geoengineering: should not or could not?
> <http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045104>
> Martin Bunzl
> 
> Of mongooses and mitigation: ecological analogues to geoengineering
> <http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045105>
> H Damon Matthews and Sarah E Turner
> 
> Toward ethical norms and institutions for climate engineering research
> <http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045106>
> David R Morrow, Robert E Kopp and Michael Oppenheimer
> 
> On the possible use of geoengineering to moderate specific climate change
> impacts <http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045107>
> Michael C MacCracken
> 
>  
> 
> > 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to