Andy, Thanks for posting this communication from Semiletov and Shakhova - they clearly urge caution when interpreting their findings:
"We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change." "We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone." "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 New data obtained in our 2011 cruise and other unpublished data give us a clue to reevaluate if the scale of methane releases from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf seabed is assessed correctly (papers are now in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." None of this means methane plumes aren't a serious problem, but their comments hardly support near-term Arctic deployment. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Dec 27, 5:13 pm, Andrew Revkin <rev...@gmail.com> wrote: > The researchers who've been out in the slushy waters off Siberia have > offered some clarity after a lot of media torquing. > > December 27, 2011, *12:54 PM*Leaders of Arctic Methane Project Clarify > Climate > Concerns<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methan...> > By ANDREW C. REVKIN<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/> > > I’ve been in touch with Natalia > Shakhova<http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/nshakhova> > and Igor Semiletov <http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/igorsm>, the intrepid > Russian researchers, based at the International Arctic Research Center in > Fairbanks, Alaska, who for more than a decade have been leading an > important international project<http://research.iarc.uaf.edu/SSSS/index.php> > analyzing methane plumes rising from the > seabed<http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=116532&org=NSF> > in > the shallow Arctic waters spreading north from eastern Siberian shores. > (Here’s video of > Shakhova<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD8hU-lbqpE&feature=player_embedded#!> > describing > the methane releases and their work.) > > As I wrote > recently<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arc...>, > “Given that methane, molecule for molecule, has at least 20 times the > heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide, it’s important to get a handle > on whether these are new releases, the first foretaste of some great > outburst from thawing sea-bed stores of the gas, or simply a longstanding > phenomenon newly observed.” > > After their expedition this summer, Shakhova and Semiletov presented their > latest observations at the American Geophysical Union fall > meeting<http://sites.agu.org/fallmeeting/media-center/virtual-newsroom/> > in > San Francisco early this month, describing vastly larger methane releases > in the mid-outer continental shelf than they had seen before in shallower > water, leading to a fresh burst of > headlines<http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retr...> > about > risks of runaway warming. > > Shakhova and Semiletov, whose earlier analysis of methane in the > region<http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116532> > was published in > Science<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.abstract> last > year, had been unavailable for comment when I was preparing my piece, as > they had gone on vacation shortly after their presentation. When they were > back on the grid they got my e-mail inquiries and saw the post. Their > response clarifies their differences with other research groups and > emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating scientific findings > before rushing to conclusions, either alarming or reassuring. One clear > message, which I endorse, is the need to sustain the kind of fieldwork > they’re doing. > > Whether the issue is tracking Arctic methane or American stream > flows<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/irenes-rain-impacts-come...>, > there’s a vital need for sustained, consistent observations, but — > unfortunately — there’s a two-edged bias against such investments, given > the appeal of focusing on science’s frontiers and the tendency to target > monitoring programs — which are akin to bridge > maintenance<http://ascelibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/ascecp/421/41186/27_1?i...> > — > when looking to cut budgets. That’s all fine until the bridge groans and > buckles, of course. > > Here is the contribution from Semiletov and Shakhova: Read > more…<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/leaders-of-arctic-methan...> > > * > * > > *_* > * > * > ANDREW C. REVKIN > Dot Earth blogger, The New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/dotearth > Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies > Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009 > Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
