Comments on: “Rosie Revisited”

By: mattreitman

mattreitman — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:35:18 +0000

Carlos you must be on every listserv in the free world to know about all this stuff. This report is incredible – 80% by 2025 with less than 20% flat out conservation, no stated increase in nuclear, and only a moderate increase in biofuels. Looks like we have a path, now we’ve just got to walk it (or…march it!).

By: Anna Rose

Anna Rose — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:22:58 +0000

Looking forward to reading this report. Short term targets that are based on the science are REALLY important – much more important than a long term target. Has anyone read the Retallack paper and/ or the Meinhausen paper? There’s also some good reading at “The 2-degree target: How far should carbon emissions be cut?” (www.carbonequity.info).

The Ratallack paper is: Retallack, S. (2005) “Setting a long-term climate objective: A paper for the International Climate Change Taskforce”, Institute for Public Policy Research, http://www.ippr.org. Retallack concludes that for the UK the emissions scenario must be 90% by 2050. UK per capita emissions are half that of Australia, so the maths quickly tells us that if they need 90%, we need 95% just to not exceed carbon sink capacity by 2050, let alone the issue of driving down GHG levels.

By: TarunKJuyal

TarunKJuyal — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:16:40 +0000

The study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation. I am write a blog which gave complete information about Global Warming.