Protecting the Arctic?

It am de report ob de House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Second Report of Session 2012–13, Volume I: Report, together with formal
minutes, oral and written evidence. And things like Arctic Methane Emergency Group? refer.

I don't really have much to say, because Geoengineering Politics has said most of what needs saying. I find it somewhat disturbing how seriously the HoC seems to take the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, though.

Oh yeah, its got tipping points in it too, and that Tim Lenton. And Peter Wadhams.

Don't rot your brains with this stuff. Read SoD on instability.

Refs

* HCTN 91 - MetOffice on sea ice.

More like this

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…
The extent of Arctic sea ice undulates like a yearly sine wave—rising in October, peaking in winter, and melting all spring and summer. This September we are likely to observe the lowest of lows; Greg Laden writes "There is less sea ice in the Arctic Circle than recorded in recent history." More…
Arctic Methane Emergency Group? refers. Via GP I find this discussion on a "geoengineering" newsgroup (gosh how quaint - people still use newsgroups? Maybe retro is back). AJL finds my article "damming" but Ken C finds it "a little distasteful". But both are worried, quite rightly, about…
Says Aunty. And the Graun says "Arctic thawing could cost the world $60tn, scientists say". $60tn is a big number. But lets not trouble ourselves with the popular press: lets go straight to the source, which is Nature ("Vast costs of Arctic change", by Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams…

Do I recall correctly David Archer last year commenting on realclimate.org that methane from the Arctic and surrounding regions could not be a major influence - at least in the short term (which I took to be on a centuries scale)?

If that's the case - while I think it's worthy of scientific study, from a policy perspective there are much bigger issues to concern us.

Probably would have paid me to read the report and tech note before commenting :(

Hadley report looks measured and scientific. The HoC report is written for policy makers. Both look to be worth reading.

Why can't you guys ever get it right? First it was an ice free arctic in 3000 years,

[You made that up -W]

then a few years later it was 1000,

[And that -W]

then 150,

[And that -W]

... now its supposed to be 2020 to 2050...

[Better -W]

Every single time wrong wrong wrong and always on the long side. Just looking at the aggregate photos I will give the trend two more years. Ice free in 2015. What moron would produce a model which ignored sunlight, or methane or other major factors and publish the results as serious science? And what is the result? We have slept while the forces against us have gathered a storm which will be the worse in human history. Famine, Hunger, Disease. With repeated unchallenged stupidity you have helped in our inaction, you have helped millions perhaps BILLIONS to untimely horrible early deaths. Think about that the next time you look in the mirror.

[You need to find out the facts before you rant -W]

By Daniel Pride (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

With repeated unchallenged stupidity you have helped in our inaction, you have helped millions perhaps BILLIONS to untimely horrible early deaths. Think about that the next time you look in the mirror.

Thanks for that. Now I know how climate change deniers feel when they listen to normal people.

By hinschelwood (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

William, I'd be the last to point out spelling mistakes (since I make them all the time myself as a non-native English speaker), but "It am de report ob de House of Commons..."
does not seem right.

[Homage to Spike Milligan. Good grief, its even online: http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=YJ5B23WM&p=9&two=1 -W]

By Rob Dekker (not verified) on 29 Sep 2012 #permalink

Ah, that brings back memories. The delights of Puckoon, Adolf Hitler, My Part in His Downfall (and that 'old Sussex folk song' beloved of those in military training: Apples be ripe, Nuts be brown, Petticoats up, Trousers down), "Rommel?" "Gunner Who?", Monty: His Part in My Victory,...

Ha, and here I was, thinking William had gone Ali G on us...

Maybe Baron Cohen was inspired by Spike Milligan for his character?

MetOffice on sea ice Figure 4.1.2 shows very likely a strong underestimation (by about 2 million square kilometer) of sea ice area for the period about 1850-1950. Compare this to http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/millennium_eis.jpg (based on simulations of Jungclaus et al. 2010 and reconstructions).

The underestimation 1850-1950 was probably not detected because of problems in the HadSST sea ice data, see e.g. http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/S519/2008/cpd-4-S519-2008.pdf

Colleagues, please look in the available reconstructions!

Best regards,

Lars

[Those are rather strikingly different. Is it really clear which is more correct, though? I never really had to trust HadISST pre-satellite, so was safe -W]

By Lars Kaleschke (not verified) on 01 Oct 2012 #permalink

William,

at least the Vinje et (2001) reconstruction based on ship observations is quite accurate. Although it is only for the Nordic Seas, it should be applied to validate the model results.

Also have a look at the Arctic temperature reconstructions of Kaufmann et al. (Science, 2009). It is highly unlikely that there was so little ice as Figure 4.1.2. suggests. Thus, I would say it is very likely, that there was much more sea ice 1850-1900 in the northern hemisphere as compared to the period 1970-2000.

By Lars Kaleschke (not verified) on 01 Oct 2012 #permalink