Nathan,
Leaving aside the issue of my psychology, I think you misinterpret the
Shakhova/Semiletov statement. I've reprinted their full comment below
(taken from Andy Revkin's Dot Earth Blog), so group members can judge for
themselves what was intended. What I take from it is a warning not to jump
to conclusions ("This is how science works: step by step, from hypothesis
based on limited data and logic to expanded observations in order to gain
more facts that could equally prove or disprove the hypothesis. We would
urge people to consider this process, not jump to conclusions and be open
to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we
understand about our world."). As I see things, predicting a collapse of
the Arctic as early as summer 2012 followed "ultimately and inexorably to
the collapse of civilization as we know it" epitomizes jumping to
conclusions, while urging restraint, close monitoring, and an immediate,
robust research program represents sound science, good politics, and common
sense.
Josh
Semiletov and Shakhova (from
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methane-project-clarify-climate-concerns/
):
We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the
currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change. In
fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost
destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years
ago. We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a
decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone. And like most
scientists in our field, we have to deal with slowly improving
understanding of ongoing processes that often incorporates different points
of views expressed by different groups of researchers.
Yes, modeling is important. However, we know that modeling results cannot
prove or disprove real observations because modeling always assumes
significant simplification and should be validated with observational data,
not vice versa. Much of our work includes this field validation. Last
spring, we extracted a 53-meter long core sample from the East Siberian
Arctic Shelf, to validate our conclusions about the current state of subsea
permafrost. We found that the temperatures of the sediments were from 1.2
to 0.6 degrees below zero, Celsius, yet they were completely thawed. The
model in the Dmitrenko paper
[*link*<http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JC007218.shtml>]
assumed a thaw point of zero degrees. Our observations show that the
cornerstone assumption taken in their modeling was wrong. The rate at which
the subsea permafrost is currently degrading largely depends on what state
it was in when recent climate change appeared. It makes sense that modeling
on an incorrect assumption about thaw point could create inaccurate
results. [*Dec. 29, 9:28 a.m. | Updated *Dmitrenko disputes this reading of
his paper. See comment below.]
Observations are at the core of our work now. It is no surprise to us that
others monitoring global methane have not found a signal from the Siberian
Arctic or increase in global emissions. [*This refers to the work of Ed
Dlugokencky <http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090925_arctic.html> and
others; see his
comments<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arctic-seas-apocalypse-not/>
in
my Dot Earth post*.] The number of stations monitoring atmospheric methane
concentrations worldwide is very few. In the Arctic there are only three
such stations — Barrow, Alert, Zeppelin — and all are far away from the
Siberian Arctic. We are doing our multi-year observations, including
year-round monitoring, in proximity to the source. In addition to measuring
the amount of methane emitted from the area, we are trying to find out
whether there is anything specific about those emissions that could
distinguish them from other sources. It is incorrect to say that anyone is
able to trace that signal yet.
All models must be validated by observations. New data obtained in our 2011
cruise and other unpublished data give us a clue to reevaluate if the scale
of methane releases from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf seabed is assessed
correctly (papers are now in preparation). This is how science works: step
by step, from hypothesis based on limited data and logic to expanded
observations in order to gain more facts that could equally prove or
disprove the hypothesis. We would urge people to consider this process, not
jump to conclusions and be open to the idea that new observations may
significantly change what we understand about our world.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Nathan Currier <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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.
>
>
--
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.
