May I make the reminder that their group is not called the Arctic "Sea Ice" Emergency Group, but the Arctic Methane Emergency Group?
The primary issue in all this is: what is happening with arctic methane emissions right now. That's what matters here. Criticizing PIOMAS or whatever is what Al Gore made into effectively exploding fish in the newest version of his slideshow - red herrings. Connelley's blog hardly addresses methane, and nor do these various posts either, to a degree that is, frankly, a little odd. For the record, if I were in the group and asked my opinion of them, I'd recommend against the sea ice loss statements in question, in part because even if the ice losses evolved as predicted, it could end up being more as a consequence and not as a driver. That is, methane increases and sea ice losses are looped, but in complex ways, and the group makes it sound as though it's a one-way street, sea ice loss leading to more methane releases. It should hardly be controversial to say that if there ARE really major methane releases there that the paper Ken attached will no longer be relevant. And thus far the news on the ground makes AMEG seem like quite a rational enterprise, since from what we know it looks relatively probable (much more than so than anyone should be complacent about) that there are rapidly increasing methane excursions going on there. The thing that really matters here for AMEG in terms of expertise and credibility is what Shakhova and Semiletov have been finding in the ESAS region. They are there again right now, and what they see is what will be important. Those wishing to critique the legitimacy of their group should really have things to add to the discussion about those methane releases. Best, Nathan On Mar 18, 3:43 pm, Andrew 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.
