Let us begin by agreeing that the target must be less than 85 C and
greater than 0.1 C .
How should we narrow it down in the absence of perfect information?
I would say a 10% chance of severe disruptions is about as risky as we
should get. Nobody would construct a bridge with a 10% chance of
severe injury to anyone crossing it. Yet here we are at least flirting
with that sort of thing for the entire planet.
I think at 2 C we are well above 10% chance of severe consequences,
but the definition of "severity" is also, admittedly, unclear.
Still, some serious target must be chosen and stuck to, and that many
serious people think 2 C is already a very big deal.
Leaving aside all the other concerns, if we ever do control climate
our first objective would surely be to have a stable sea level, and 2
C is a long way from sea level stability.
mt
On 5/15/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any comment on this peer reviewed article by Richard Tol on that 2C
> target:
>
> Energy Policy
> Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 424-432
>
> Europe's long-term climate target: A critical evaluation
>
> Abstract
>
> The European Commission as a whole and a number of its Member States
> individually have adopted a stringent long-term target for climate
> policy, namely that the global mean temperature should not rise more
> than 2 °C above pre-industrial times. This target is supported by
> rather thin arguments, based on inadequate methods, sloppy reasoning,
> and selective citation from a very narrow set of studies. In the
> scientific literature on "dangerous interference with the climate
> system", most studies discuss either methodological issues, or
> carefully lay out the arguments for or against a particular target.
> These studies do not make specific recommendations, with the exception
> of cost-benefit analyses, which unanimously argue for less stringent
> policy targets. However, there are also a few "scientific" studies
> that recommend a target without supporting argumentation. Overall, the
> 2 °C target of the EU seems unfounded.
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
