Fergus wrote:
>
> What you are effectively saying, then , Michael, is that, as we almost
> certainly can't do any better than keeping GW down to 2C (from pre-
> ind?), we may as well take this as a baseline target. Like wise the
> the concentration, though between 450-500 ppm is probably achievable,
> given the will. Sadly, the current fashion is for 550 ppm; 2x CO2, o
> it looks like we are, via our representatives, currently aiming for a
> 3C rise.
We don't seem to be aiming for any stabilisation as far as I can see.
2C seems like motherhood and apple pie-in-the-sky, frankly - especially
if it really means 2C above pre-industrial rather than 2C above 1990 or
the present. It fulfils the attractive function of enabling usually
understated climate scientists to use words like "dangerous" in their
oh-so-dry scientific papers, but that's about it. IMO it functions more
as a thought-stopping rhetorical device than an aid to scientific
understanding.
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
