Just to note, however, that we really do not have a good sense of how big or small variability can be at this melting trend continues‹variability is very unlikely, in my view to be much of a saving influence on the decadal scale unless some strong cooling influence results‹whether from a major volcanic eruption, lots more sulfate pollution on the global scale, or climate engineering. With world warming, it is hard to have the Arctic go very far or very long in the opposite direction.
Mike MacCracken On 3/18/12 3:43 PM, "Andy Revkin" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm with Stoat, Ken Caldeira, David Keith, Alan Robock and others who see this > "emergency" effort to rush cloud intervention in the Arctic on behalf of sea > ice (and indirectly seabed methane) as undermining the case for a serious push > on geo-engineering options, impacts and policy issues. You're getting > headlines and the attention of factions in Parliament now, but just wait until > the variability kicks the other way. > > "Yelling fire on a hot planet" > <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/weekinreview/23revkin.html?_r=2> can have > unanticipated consequences. -- 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.
