Rather than challenge the honesty of researchers, what would be much more informative, productive, and appropriate (not to mention respectful) would be to focus on the assumptions or shortcomings in the calculations and analyses. In earlier runs with the UKMO model, it took a few thousand years to lead to loss of most of the Greenland ice sheet, quite possibly so long because the model had no representation of ice dynamics, a term that models have generally not yet included and an omission that led to the IPCC AR4 ice loss projections being apparently a good deal less than present observations suggest to be likely if trends continue to accelerate.
As to the quote you give, note that is from the reporter and not the authors, who seem to me to be saying something different than the reporter's sentence and that is obviously true--the more you spend on mitigation, the less you will need to spend on SRM. At least in what is quoted from the authors, they did not seem to say that this would lead to lowest cost overall or least (or acceptable) impacts. So, let's have discussion focus on the physics without innuendo about motives. Best, Mike On 12/28/09 6:26 PM, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote: > > We had blunt honesty from Nathan Myhrvold. But what about this? > > http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/41245 > > What do you think of this research, when the scientists are being plain > dishonest, by suggesting that reducing emissions could cool the Arctic > in time to save the Greenland ice sheet? To quote: > > "Irvine and his colleagues stress that reducing carbon dioxide emissions > now is likely to be an easier and cheaper option [than SRM geoengineering]." > > Isn't honesty and truth important in science - and in getting > appropriate solutions to problems? > > Cheers, > > John > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
