Sunday, May 6, 2012

3867.txt

date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:12:46 +0000
from: "James Garvey" <osotogarveyatXYZxyzmail.com>
subject: RE: FW: question about carbon
to: p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk

<x-flowed>
Dear Phil,

Sorry to bother you with this, but maybe you know something I'm missing.
I'm looking for the largest answers going with respect to what to do about
climate change, namely targets or general strategies. I'm certainly not
asking for your opinion, just help with research.

So far as I can tell, there's not much in the way of answers concerning what
to do. Probably we don't know, beyond the fact that our emissions are
increasing, and that's not good. But at least there's:

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: 'stabilize GHG concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system'. Working out what that level is is
the Big Question. I'm starting to think that there's no such level.

European Union seem to be hoping to limit temp increases to 2 C. (Too late.)

Contraction and Convergence: everybody aims for 450 ppmv by 2100.

Lots of other proposals and promises, which smell ad hoc, aiming to reduce
emissions by x% by some date or other.

Um, is that it? A sentence or two pointing me in other directions, if they
exist, would be very welcome.

Many thanks,
James


>From: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>To: osotogarveyatXYZxyzmail.com
>CC: "Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) ks918" <Sylvia.SheppardatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>Subject: FW: question about carbon
>Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:57:26 +0000
>
>
>> James,
>
> Best place to look for the second answer is the CDIAC
> web site in the US. This is at Oak Ridge Natl Lab in TN.
>
> On Q1, don't perpetuate the myth that there is a safe
> level of emissions. This assumes we understand more than we do.
> Also read the SPM of the latest IPCC Report. This has a few typos
> changed, but still has a few more small mistakes - comes from
> working long hours in Paris last week.
>
> Point of sending you this, is that this is the current final word.
> For 'safe' read the points about Greenland near the end. Maybe not
> in our generation or the next, but the current levels of CO2 in
> the atmosphere will eventually cause Greenland to melt.
> This would be dangerous, so the safe concept should be avoided.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: James Garvey [mailto:osotogarvey@hotmail.com]
>>Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 1:42 PM
>>To: cruatXYZxyz.ac.uk
>>Subject: question about carbon
>>
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I'm an academic writing a book, partly about climate change. I would be
>>
>>very grateful if you could point me in the right direction for the
>>answers
>>to two questions.
>>
>>I'd like to know how much CO2 we (as a species) put into the atmosphere
>>each
>>year; and how much is considered 'safe' or how much we can put in the
>>atmosphere without dangerous effects. I realise both answers might just
>>be
>>goodish guesses, but that's enough for me.
>>
>>I'm also finding all sorts of numbers on per capita emissions. Is there
>>a
>>good place to go for this data?
>>
>>Many thanks in advance,
>>James Garvey
>>Royal Institute of Philosophy
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail
>>http://ideas.live.com
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


><< WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf >>

_________________________________________________________________
Rate your skiving credentials with our Slack-o-meter
http://www.slack-o-meter.com

</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment