On Jun 20, 12:59 pm, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/20/07, William M Connolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is, in fact, quite a serious matter to say that the 100 year 2
> meter rise can't be excluded on current evidence. It would be good if
> we could do a better job of quantifying this, but insofar as we have
> very little observational evidence to constrain the model it does seem
> prudent to treat a 2 meter rise in a century as a substantial
> possibility. (With a "bigger than 10%" feel in that IPCC-ish
> qualitative probability range space.)
I'm suprised no one is challenging you on that 10%. The upper
end of the IPCC consensus is .59 meters.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
