Michael Tobis wrote:
> Sure. I agree with that summary but don't see how to turn it into a number.
>
> I believe that the climate risks are already large enough that we
> should choose the lowest target which makes the economic risk of
> disaster small.
Are you referring to the "disaster" of AGW or the "disaster" of cutting
emissions?
> I think this should be roughly expressed in terms of
> peak CO2 concentration in practice, and that would appear to be in the
> neighborhood of 500 ppmv, assuming the carbion cycle feedbacks don't
> decide to bite with a vengeance.
>
> I don't put much stock in the 2 C number except to say it is the best
> estimate of the outcome of the lowest peak we can achieve, barring
> some unforeseeable technological fix.
I think the problem is best considered as one of (continuous and
adaptive) optimisation, rather than "minimise emissions at all costs".
Furthermore, although it is sensible to bear in mind the long-term
outcome, I'm not convinced that the best approach is to build a strategy
around a "target" CO2 level in 2100-2150.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
