I agree with Nathan that we shouldn't lose sight of the methane issue, which is the motive force behind AMEG's assertions and activities. In this regard, here is a short excerpt from something I posted in December: * * *While declaring a methane emergency and calling for immediate action is rooted in good intentions, such advocacy is both premature and misguided. In scientific terms, the available evidence simply does not support assertions that a worst-case scenario is unfolding. Shakhova and Semiletov have discovered an important phenomenon in the ESAS, but there are no data to indicate that this is a new phenomenon, or that methane venting is increasing at a statistically significant rate, or that venting is tightly connected to sea-ice retreat and the ice-albedo feedback. Arctic climate expert Ed Dlugokencky has written that "There is no evidence from our atmospheric measurements that there has been a significant increase in emissions during the past 20 years from natural methane sources in the Arctic so far.<http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/19/392242/carbon-time-bomb-in-arctic-new-york-times-print-edition-gets-the-story-right/>" Ice expert Richard Alley states "the physical understanding agrees with the paleoclimatic data that methane can be an important feedback but isn't likely to have giant rapid climate-changing belches.<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/more-views-on-global-warmin-and-arctic-methane/#more-41111>" Even Shakhova and Semiletov urge restraint: "we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change. ... We would urge people ... not jump to conclusions and be open to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we understand about our world.<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methane-project-clarify-climate-concerns/> "* * * *Demands for quick deployment are also politically unwise. Given the mainstream scientific views described above, such calls will not be heeded, but instead will be attributed to "the scientific fringe<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21275-call-for-arctic-geoengineering-as-soon-as-possible.html>," which could in turn contribute to the marginalization of the broader geoengineering community. This would be especially tragic if compelling evidence subsequently emerges that we are indeed at an Arctic tipping point: climate remediation solutions may be dismissed as the science-fiction fantasies of doomsday prognosticators, even if the underlying engineering is sound and deployment warranted by an objective reading of events. Monitoring of Arctic methane venting should be increased, and research on global and regional geoengineering schemes should be intensified, but assertions that we are on the brink of calamity and must act now should cease. There is a difference between vigilance and alarmism, and the Arctic Methane Emergency Group is rapidly drifting toward the latter.*
(see here for the full post including links -- http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/12/arctic-methane-emergencies-and-alarmism.html) I'm not aware of any subsequent developments that warrant revising these statements. A close look at the methane issue gives us even more reason to question the claims put forward by AMEG, and perhaps for AMEG to reconsider its approach. Josh Horton On Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:59:29 AM UTC-4, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > This is very damning. I have also asked John several times to clarify the > membership of the group and he has not done so. Bearing in mind the high > media profile of the AMEG group, the issue is a major threat to the public > credibility of the entire geoengineering research community. > > http://t.co/OZnj6dMM > > Arctic Methane Emergency Group? Posted on: March 17, 2012 4:16 PM, by > William M. Connolley > > From Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane I find ameg.me who say: > > AMEG POSITION DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY We declare there now exists an > extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global > warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice > towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of > methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to > worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of > civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate > emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The > latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely > by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter > the threat have to be ready within a few months. > > So who are these bozos? (Note: I've been fairly dismissive about methane > before). Aunty says "Scientists told UK MPs this week... At a meeting in > Westminster organised by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (Ameg), Prof > Salter told MPs that..." so I think the first thing to realise is that > there is less to this than meets the eye. If you follow their "about" link > you come to: > > ABOUT AMEG In the preparation of the 2010 workshop report and AGU > conference poster presentation, scientific and/or engineering advice was > sought and obtained from the following people > > and there follows a list of distinguished-looking folk, whose only > misfortune was to have talked to these people. Lower, we come to > > a position statement on the Arctic methane emergency, proposed by the > chairman, John Nissen, was agreed by the following: Graham Ennis Doly > Garcia Jon Hughes Veli Albert Kallio Graham Knight Dr. Brian Orr Prof. > Stephen Salter Prof. Peter Wadhams > > Salter will be familiar to Old Folk as the inventor of the Duck, a > doubtless noble project but which has, as far as I know, been perennially > unused. Wadhams is a climate scientist - well, he is a sea ice person. The > rest I don't know. Wadhams has some credibility. Unfortunately, we don't > know what the position statement they agree was. They don't directly link > to it. It is possible that the text I've quoted is part of it, but its > impossible to know. > > Wadhams clearly believes something, see Rebuttal: Imminent collapse of > Arctic sea ice drives danger of accelerated methane thaw (thanks B for > reminding me). I see that page relies heavily on the Piomas graphs, whose > extrapolation I've disagreed with before and do now. But onto what W says > there: Archer clearly acknowledges the vulnerability of methane hydrates to > thawing in response to rising Arctic temperatures. Given that ice loss is > accelerating, which in turn will only accelerate that temperature rise > through the albedo effect, one has to wonder why he does not perceive an > imminent and urgent crisis, which certainly suggests that W does indeed > believe in "an imminent and urgent crisis". I think that is well over the > top; I don't think anything he says there supports it, nor do the links. > > I've worked with Wadhams a little bit, in the past. Wadhams knows about > sea ice, indeed as far as I know its his main specialism. But perhaps in a > local-processes sense. He was involvedin garnering thickness data from UK > submarine cruises. What I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't really trust > him to have a great deal of feel for the connection between sea ice and > global-scale methane; I'd expect him to care for the Arctic, but quite > possibly to over-emphasise local detail. > > And apart from Wadhams I can't see this group has any credibility. > > Update: bottom-trawling, I ran across a comment at JEB (thanks VB) talking > about "invaded by out-and-out nutters such as the UFOlogist and Arctic > methane expert Graham Ennes (AKA 'Omega Institute')". Well yes, GE (though > with an "i") is on that list. And yes, if you search for his name you'll > find some weird stuff. Wadhams ought to remember that if you lie down with > dogs, you get up with fleas. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/aznDWfBelfAJ. 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.
