Hi, Josh - Well, I appreciate your comments, to which there are two distinct parts.
First, in terms of the Shakhova quote, I know it very well and knew exactly where it came from, as I had already used some it myself in a Huffington Post piece. Maybe I expressed myself poorly, though: of course, she is being a good scientist, and so she is admonishing EVERYONE to keep their minds open, includes herself, I suppose. But you must remember the context of the piece, in which, quite rightly, Andy Revkin had elicited from them their responses to public criticism, which started when many within the climate community seemed unhappy with the tenor of media attention to their AGU presentation. Thus, her piece was a response to criticism, and I think in that context it is abundantly clear whose minds she is most hoping that she can keep open. She is emphasizing, after all, that the actual observations they are making are more important than the models, etc, that various others are calling upon, knowing that not a single one of those taking a critical position on her work had one iota of first-hand experience - and that includes Dlugokencky, Archer, Pierrehumbert, etc, etc - in studying the actual place that was being discussed. None of them has ever been there once, to my knowledge. But, yes, in the end, we ALL need to keep an open mind, that's true, both me and you. Now, in terms of John's statements, I wasn't particularly commending his specific phrasing or use of language. In fact, I myself would phrase it differently. But I think, like in Gladwell's "blink" idea, that a judgement can be both a fast process and include a lot of slow ratiocination at the same time. I think John has, like Lovelock did on 2005, made his calculations based on what he knows and concluded that, should there be a large methane release in a rather short time period, it would be highly likely to lead to a concatenation of events that our current civilization could not withstand. I actually agree with that assessment, in fact. It is based on imperfect knowledge, of course. But often to act we have to behave so. I don't think that Shakhova, in asking people not to "jump to conclusions", is asking that when judgments be made on this, ultimately, that they won't still be "snap" judgments in a way. Judgment always includes that aspect in the end, no matter how much information is behind it. It's always a Gestalt, as it is for every juror in every court case. And knowledge is always imperfect. In medicine, there's a point when it's better not to wait any longer for data, and simply to act, for the good of the patient, when things seem strongly like they will go in a certain direction. I agree with John's position on this. I suspect that Shakhova, while straining hard to retain professional objectivity in order to be the trusted reporter of the facts as they emerge, feels the same way, although I certainly don't know that. All best, Nathan On Mar 20, 5:27 pm, Joshua Horton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > (fromhttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methan... > ): > > 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-arc...> > 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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
