[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting from > > Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering > > H. Damon Matthews and Ken Caldeira > > "If climate sensitivity turns out to be on the high end of current > estimates [which have not been able to rule out climate sensitivities > as large as 8-10°C for a doubling of CO2 (e.g., ref. 15)], ..."
That's nothing, some people are still touting absurd estimates, eg: The regrets of procrastination in climate policy Klaus Keller et al 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 024004 (4pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024004 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/2/2/024004 which uses the Andronove and Schlesinger 2001 result: "At present, the most likely scenario is one that includes anthropogenic sulfate aerosol forcing but not solar variation. Although the value of the climate sensitivity in that case is most uncertain, there is a 70 percent chance that it exceeds the maximum IPCC value. This is not good news." said Schlesinger. (from <http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/01/06globewarm.html>) At least the Matthews and Caldeira approach is endorsed by the IPCC authors, if not by me - this new paper deliberately cherry-picks an extreme outlier to advance the case of mitigation... 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
