Hi

This paper as part of the forthcoming Exeter Climate Change Conference looks interesting:

http://www.stabilisation2005.com/33_Richard_Wood.pdf

I have not fully digested the information yet but it would be interesting to know how the information in it compares in detail with the conclusions of the CPDN HadSM3 artificial THC shutdown experiment.

Apologies if it has already been discussed in the suspended php boards but I missed it if it was.

Pete

Thanks, Pete.
I'm not sure but i think that section 1.3 (which i found quite interesting) was not the aim of CPDN THC experiement. Nick F. or DaveF will know better. There is also a CPDN THC experiment paper promissed...

There is a programme for the conference and lots of links to papers is <a href="http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html">here</a>. Enough reading for a few hours!

---

____________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.boincforum.info/boinc/">boinc forum</a> and <a href="http://www.uk4cp.co.uk/">United Kindom</a> team, my climate change <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mike_atkinson/">blog</a>.

I was also impressed by it's directness. It is also saying that our pre-industrial double CO2 level is underestimated (an emoticon should follow)

&gt; I was greatly impressed with the cool, clear logic and long term mitigation
&gt; costs by the Izrael and Semenov paper "Critical Levels of GG, Stabilization
&gt; Scenarios...". Briefly it's an imaginative long term
&gt; (2000AD-3000AD)mitigigation programme, that could cost upwards of $18 trillion
&gt; to contol gg emissions, but costs minimise at 650ppmv CO2 during the 23rd
&gt; century. The intention is that these costs never amount to more than 10-20% of
&gt; GDP for any? nation. For the 21st century (ie now) limits would be set at
&gt; 550-700ppmv CO2. These so called stabilisation limits include
&gt;