Trying to stop people trying to save humanity from catastrophe: Arctic example

[John Nissen]

This [1] is an example where "experts" try to stop efforts to prevent many metres of sea level rise which would be catastrophic for humanity. I can't help feeling that their reasons are trumped up and exaggerated; they certainly have obtained publicity by siding against geoengineering. Who is doing a cost/benefit analysis: the dubious cost to locals versus the outstanding benefit to mankind if it works even partially?

Cheers John 

[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025AV001732 

[H simmens]



John,

I would be cautious about making a claim that questions their integrity by suggesting their findings are ‘trumped up and exaggerated’. 

It is best to withdraw that claim unless you have hard evidence to substantiate it. 

That said, reading the abstract and the plain language summary there appears at least to me to be a distinction between what is said in one format which is that the social impacts or considerations should be considered which seems entirely reasonable and what is said in another summary format which is that “Negative impacts on fisheries raise critical questions about the social viability of any such scheme “ 

This statement suggests or implies that the so-called viability of such a scheme should be dependent on the impacts on fisheries rather than fishery impacts simply being one factor out of many to be taken into consideration. 

It would be helpful if someone who chooses to read the entire paper would comment on the phrasing used in the paper itself and its implications for determining whether such a Geoengineering approach should be given serious consideration. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Aug 21, 2025, at 1:54 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:



This [1] is an example where "experts" try to stop efforts to prevent many metres of sea level rise which would be catastrophic for humanity. I can't help feeling that their reasons are trumped up and exaggerated; they certainly have obtained publicity by siding against geoengineering. Who is doing a cost/benefit analysis: the dubious cost to locals versus the outstanding benefit to mankind if it works even partially?

Cheers John 

[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025AV001732 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CACS_Fxqn7Gm%3DcYsAXb0n-NFa1uZWUWXuEQ9KEKu9zaNd9Zn_Dw%40mail.gmail.com.