Tiem klimageitas meiliem ir jauks meklēšanas mehānisms:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com
Šovakar, mani mazie mīļie, videi draudzīgie lasītāji, ņemsim priekšā failu 0926947295.txt
Par ko tur ir runa? Par CO2, ANO un to kā ir tapuši IPCC ziņojumi par draudošajām klimata katastrofām.
Izcēlumi mani, kam interesē, pilno tekstu atradīsiet arhīvā. Bismarkam laikam bija tas teiciens, ka labāk ir nezināt, kā taisa desas un politiku.
From: Dave Schimel <schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Shrikant Jagtap <sjagtap@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: CO2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: franci <franci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Felzer <felzer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kittel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nanr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working
with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are
scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.
You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense
realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios
provided by the synthesis team.
If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity
analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and
must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are
ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and
resources provide an upper bound).
'Advice' will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect
the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.
Dave
Tags: kiimatgeita