There are some very mixed messages coming out of the current environmental audit comission meeting on the Arctic. Even given the fact that most media organisations/writers have strong feelings/predicatable biases these appear difficult to resolve.
1. Sea ice retreat timescales (Met Office, via Guardian: 2040-2060, BBC, via AMEG: 2013)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/14/met-office-arctic-sea-ice-loss-winter?INTCMP=SRCH
2. Salter's own position on rapid deployment in the arctic (BBC: alarmingly positive (reportedly), Google groups (from the horse's mouth) : wholly negative).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17400804
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/9019051258cfd7d9#
Prof. Salter, who I greatly admire by the way, also caused a stir with this (from the same BBC article)...
'The idea of putting dust particles into the stratosphere to reflect
sunlight, mimicking the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions, would in
fact be disastrous for the Arctic, said Prof Salter, with models showing
it would increase temperatures at the pole by perhaps 10C.'
His source is here...
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/5999/2010/acp-10-5999-2010.pdf
There are some major issues with the statement above, as highlighted by Ken Caldiera here....
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/3197d7a41e2370bf#
This is why we need a decent, open discussion.
