Nathan's blunt honesty: emission cuts cannot cool Arctic and avoid tipping points

[John Nissen]

We had blunt honesty from Nathan Myhrvold. But what about this?

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/41245

What do you think of this research, when the scientists are being plain
dishonest, by suggesting that reducing emissions could cool the Arctic
in time to save the Greenland ice sheet? To quote:

"Irvine and his colleagues stress that reducing carbon dioxide emissions
now is likely to be an easier and cheaper option [than SRM geoengineering]."

Isn't honesty and truth important in science - and in getting
appropriate solutions to problems?

Cheers,

John

[Mike MacCracken]

Rather than challenge the honesty of researchers, what would be much more
informative, productive, and appropriate (not to mention respectful) would
be to focus on the assumptions or shortcomings in the calculations and
analyses. In earlier runs with the UKMO model, it took a few thousand years
to lead to loss of most of the Greenland ice sheet, quite possibly so long
because the model had no representation of ice dynamics, a term that models
have generally not yet included and an omission that led to the IPCC AR4 ice
loss projections being apparently a good deal less than present observations
suggest to be likely if trends continue to accelerate.

As to the quote you give, note that is from the reporter and not the
authors, who seem to me to be saying something different than the reporter's
sentence and that is obviously true--the more you spend on mitigation, the
less you will need to spend on SRM. At least in what is quoted from the
authors, they did not seem to say that this would lead to lowest cost
overall or least (or acceptable) impacts.

So, let's have discussion focus on the physics without innuendo about
motives.

Best, Mike

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
>

[Hawkins, Dave]

John,
We know how you feel but your repetitive assertions of scientific dishonesty are getting quite tiresome.
David