Hi, Josh – I hope the irony is not entirely lost on you, in your quote from Shakhova, that the people she hopes will keep their minds "open to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we understand about our world," are hardly the folks at AMEG - but rather those like yourself, Ken Caldeira, the David Archers, etc. We all know her work, and I certainly believe that is what she intended by that sentence, and in its context she was simply expressing that she was well aware that their findings were butting up against some very strongly entrenched opinions.
I think I have gone over my own considerations of the statements of Dlugokencky and many others in some detail (for example in the series of pieces I did at Huffington Post, discussing such things as the isotopic data, what ice core data can and can’t be expected tell us about future hydrate behavior, etc.). Of course I agree with you that we should keep looking – to repeat, what is found on the ground at the ESAS re escaping methane is what really counts. But if you really think that what has been observed over the last ten to fifteen years around ESAS doesn’t strongly suggest a change going on there, I don’t know what to say. I’ve discussed some of my interpretations of the psychology of it, using the extreme case of David Archer, in one of my Huffpost pieces. I think the topic could make an interesting analogue to Gore's analysis in his last book of the neuroscientific basis of climate denial generally. Joe Romm, in Climate Progress, took a totally different approach – he never discussed Archer’s opinions in any detail at all, except that he found a response to one comment, hundred of comments deep in the thread to one of Archer’s follow-up pieces, in which Archer admitted to the commenter that actually he, too, was quite worried about the methane bubbles happening now on the shelf. If one simply adds in the cautionary principal of taking preventative measures where possible, then it becomes easy for me to say that John Nissen is actually the one who is being the most rational here – the time to start doing something is actually now. I suspect my only disagreement with John’s viewpoint would be in extent: I gather he has been, at least until quite recently, wanting a full-fledged massive response, which I see as both practically impossible, and on principle unwise. I believe one’s Hippocratic oath should, in dealing with a “class-of-one” type situation like ours dealing with the planet, bind one to always doing the absolute minimum to get any desired effect, so the only way to do this, practically speaking, is (irrespective of modelling) to start on the small side and then adjust one’s parameters in real time based on actual responses, increasing the scale as needed. All best, Nathan On Mar 19, 9:48 am, Josh Horton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-a...>" > 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-war...>" > 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-methan...> > "* > * > * > *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-geoengine...>," > 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-eme...) > > 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 -- 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.
