> Is [2m sea level rise this century] "can't be eliminated" or " not very > unlikely" or what? Really quite > improbable would be my view. I don't think ice sheet[s] behave like champagne.
Just wondering, do you believe the 2C target is useful, and if so on what basis? You don't seem to be buying the "ice sheets are going to collapse by paleo analogy and so we are likely to see multi metre sea level rise in 100-300 years" supporting point for one. You have been good at confusing me about this. It's not that I agree/disagree with you, I just don't understand what you actually believe. On the one hand, you produce a post like this (Help me here defining dangerous climate change): http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/help_me_here_defining_dangerou.php and then you write that you've come to believe more and more that 2C is a useful target, and that really costs don't matter given the necessity of sticking to the target. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
