tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post4332964742407922818..comments2024-03-25T04:43:08.153-07:00Comments on Arctic News: Rebuttal: David Archer wrong to dismiss concern about potential methane runaway in ArcticSam Caranahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12376449209858411775noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post-68842063582235419762012-02-18T17:35:15.076-08:002012-02-18T17:35:15.076-08:00A logarithmic trend pointing at 2013 appears to fi...A logarithmic trend pointing at 2013 appears to fit observed data even better than the exponential trend pointing at 2015, as described at the <a href="http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/arctic-sea-ice.html" rel="nofollow">Arctic Sea Ice</a> page.Sam Caranahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12376449209858411775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post-61571327112642805982012-02-17T12:45:53.247-08:002012-02-17T12:45:53.247-08:00I was a sceptic, in sorting out my former sceptici...I was a sceptic, in sorting out my former scepticism on AGW I had to read the science, that lead to me reading the science as a hobby, and eventually starting a blog.<br /><br />Last Autumn I started reading about Arctic methane, I've recently blogged the opinion I've formed as a result of that reading, you can find the posts <a href="http://dosbat.blogspot.com/search/label/Arctic%20Methane" rel="nofollow">here</a>. In short I agree with David Archer and Carlos Duarte that methane from the Arctic is most likely to be a chronic issue rather than a catastrophic one.<br /><br />If you are interested in discussing this matter further, I'd like to start with a point. Please feel free to put forward any point you wish, but to make progress let's discuss points until they are resolved or we are in an impasse. Let's not digress into a 'gish-gallop' from either side.<br /><br />If I can start not directly with methane but with a key graphic in your post. I accept that PIOMAS produces the best available estimate of Arctic sea-ice volume. Its physics seem sound and the cross validation together with what little information there is on thickness (e.g. Alfred Wegener Institute flights) supports PIOMAS at least in a qualitative sense. So whilst we could argue about the exact volume, and the implications that has for your third graphic's zero crossing date, that would be a minor issue - that graph still implies a sea-ice free summer this decade. Given that this is the inference you draw from that graph, what comment do you have on PIOMAS's projections? The PSC have a page <a href="http://psc.apl.washington.edu/BEST/PSW2007/PSW07_modelpredictions.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> showing future projections that shows a virtually sea-ice free summer by 2035, not 2015.Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3046701423623795423.post-88202797926543666252012-02-09T02:36:06.321-08:002012-02-09T02:36:06.321-08:00Thanks for all this useful stuff and links. Good i...Thanks for all this useful stuff and links. Good informative hub.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.brochuretemplates.net/" rel="nofollow">brochuretemplates</a>jaylen watkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246576951108532477noreply@blogger.com