----- Original Message -----
From: "James Annan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 4:41 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 2395] Re: Is it true?
>
> I think you may be missing a subtle point here. +2C (relative to
> pre-industrial) requires stabilisation in the region of 450ppm CO2, not
> 550ppm (which is doubling). Of course there is uncertainty due to
> uncertainty in climate sensitivity, but these are probably reasonable
> ballpark figures. Given that we are at 430ppm CO2 equivalent, and 380ppm
> CO2 alone (and rapidly rising), the lower target is pretty hard!
>
> James
>
Well I finally stuck my nose into the Fourth Assessment Report, and the
situation is even more dire than "90% by 2030" would suggest - as far as I
can tell from Table SPM.5 and Figure SPM.8, it is virtually impossible to
stablize at +2C given the present state of the world. Wonderful. Now we'll
have to invent a machine to turn biomass into diamonds, I suppose.
Cheers,
-dl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
