from: "Emma L. Tompkins" <e.tompkinsatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: your lunchtime presentation
to: "'Mike Hulme'" <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
I just wanted to put into words what I was poorly expressing at lunch.
1) You argue that dangerous climate change is undefinable at the global
scale as it is context-dependent.
2) The proponents of global measures or indicators of 'danger' all omit
important elements and hence provided very biased results which generate
different policy conclusions.
3) I would argue that it is important that people understand what the
dangers of climate change are so that we can work towards solving the
problem - but this is what the impacts work provides (I think).
4) If dangerous climate change cannot be defined at the global scale, we
need to be very clear about this and suggest that better approaches
might be to contextualise climate change for different groups and
smaller scales - perhaps using your method...
Does there really have to be a chapter on this in AR4? Instead 1 chapter
on sensitivity analysis of the impacts, 1 on perceptions of what
dangerous mean, and 1 on communicating this information might be a
better way to deal with this?
Hope this helps explain my thoughts a little better,
Dr Emma L. Tompkins
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,
School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia,
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.