<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Weekly Carboholic: IPCC 2007 conclusions were too conservative</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/11/the-weekly-carboholic-ipcc-2007-conclusions-were-too-conservative/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/11/the-weekly-carboholic-ipcc-2007-conclusions-were-too-conservative/</link>
	<description>Think.  It ain&#039;t illegal yet...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:32:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Weekly Carboholic: California report recommends changes to adapt to rising sea level &#124; Scholars and Rogues</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/11/the-weekly-carboholic-ipcc-2007-conclusions-were-too-conservative/comment-page-1/#comment-96417</link>
		<dc:creator>The Weekly Carboholic: California report recommends changes to adapt to rising sea level &#124; Scholars and Rogues</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:21:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8024#comment-96417</guid>
		<description>[...] Team is using the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report as their baseline, but as I reported in the last week&#8217;s Carboholic, the IPCC predictions were overly conservative. So planning for a worst-case sea level rise from [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Team is using the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report as their baseline, but as I reported in the last week&#8217;s Carboholic, the IPCC predictions were overly conservative. So planning for a worst-case sea level rise from [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Weekly Carboholic: Climate disruption will disrupt volcanism too &#124; Scholars and Rogues</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/11/the-weekly-carboholic-ipcc-2007-conclusions-were-too-conservative/comment-page-1/#comment-96147</link>
		<dc:creator>The Weekly Carboholic: Climate disruption will disrupt volcanism too &#124; Scholars and Rogues</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:19:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8024#comment-96147</guid>
		<description>[...] Just because the estimated costs are lower for reducing CO2 emissions via family planning doesn&#8217;t mean that this will be enough to keep cumulative emissions from exceeding what many scientists consider &#8220;acceptable.&#8221; Recent science suggests that global warming should be kept &#8220;acceptable&#8221; (&lt; 2 &#176;C global temperature rise) if total cumulative emissions are kept below an additional 1,000 billion tons of CO2 over what we&#8217;ve already emitted. The OPT study found that the cumulative emissions savings from 2010 to 2050 was 34 billion metric tons. In 2050, the difference between the worst case and the best case IPCC emissions scenario is about 500 billion tons of CO2, with the best case staying below the 1,000 billion tons of CO2 limit and the worst-case exceeding it by 250%. The 34 billion tons saved via population reductions from family planning represents only 6.8% of that difference, and actual emissions are worse than the IPCC wost-case scenario. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Just because the estimated costs are lower for reducing CO2 emissions via family planning doesn&#8217;t mean that this will be enough to keep cumulative emissions from exceeding what many scientists consider &#8220;acceptable.&#8221; Recent science suggests that global warming should be kept &#8220;acceptable&#8221; (&lt; 2 &deg;C global temperature rise) if total cumulative emissions are kept below an additional 1,000 billion tons of CO2 over what we&#8217;ve already emitted. The OPT study found that the cumulative emissions savings from 2010 to 2050 was 34 billion metric tons. In 2050, the difference between the worst case and the best case IPCC emissions scenario is about 500 billion tons of CO2, with the best case staying below the 1,000 billion tons of CO2 limit and the worst-case exceeding it by 250%. The 34 billion tons saved via population reductions from family planning represents only 6.8% of that difference, and actual emissions are worse than the IPCC wost-case scenario. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Weekly Carboholic: NE Pacific clouds observed to amplify warming &#124; Scholars and Rogues</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/11/the-weekly-carboholic-ipcc-2007-conclusions-were-too-conservative/comment-page-1/#comment-96137</link>
		<dc:creator>The Weekly Carboholic: NE Pacific clouds observed to amplify warming &#124; Scholars and Rogues</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8024#comment-96137</guid>
		<description>[...] of the Southern Ocean accelerates and the effects thereof worsen. These effects include reduced calicification of plankton and larger areas of low oxygen (hypoxia) that could lead to larger ocean dead [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of the Southern Ocean accelerates and the effects thereof worsen. These effects include reduced calicification of plankton and larger areas of low oxygen (hypoxia) that could lead to larger ocean dead [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milloy&#8217;s latest climate op-ed riddled with errors &#124; Scholars and Rogues</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/11/the-weekly-carboholic-ipcc-2007-conclusions-were-too-conservative/comment-page-1/#comment-93616</link>
		<dc:creator>Milloy&#8217;s latest climate op-ed riddled with errors &#124; Scholars and Rogues</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 16:16:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8024#comment-93616</guid>
		<description>[...] not &#8220;man-made CO2 emissions&#8221; are causing harm, start by researching the effect of ocean acidification on marine [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] not &#8220;man-made CO2 emissions&#8221; are causing harm, start by researching the effect of ocean acidification on marine [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scholars and Rogues &#187; Insuring the world against climate disruption (Blog Action Day)</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/11/the-weekly-carboholic-ipcc-2007-conclusions-were-too-conservative/comment-page-1/#comment-72504</link>
		<dc:creator>Scholars and Rogues &#187; Insuring the world against climate disruption (Blog Action Day)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8024#comment-72504</guid>
		<description>[...] data suggests that the IPCC&#8217;s conclusions about the severity of climate disruption were overly conservative. As a result, both the IPCC&#8217;s projections for climatic upheavals later this century and their [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] data suggests that the IPCC&#8217;s conclusions about the severity of climate disruption were overly conservative. As a result, both the IPCC&#8217;s projections for climatic upheavals later this century and their [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fikshun</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/11/the-weekly-carboholic-ipcc-2007-conclusions-were-too-conservative/comment-page-1/#comment-64192</link>
		<dc:creator>fikshun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:56:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8024#comment-64192</guid>
		<description>Yes, thank you.  I rarely reply to this series because it&#039;s just sobering and is a lot to digest, but it&#039;s a good read every time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, thank you.  I rarely reply to this series because it&#8217;s just sobering and is a lot to digest, but it&#8217;s a good read every time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russ Wellen</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/11/the-weekly-carboholic-ipcc-2007-conclusions-were-too-conservative/comment-page-1/#comment-64168</link>
		<dc:creator>Russ Wellen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8024#comment-64168</guid>
		<description>Thanks again, Brian. Wouldn&#039;t know any of this without you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks again, Brian. Wouldn&#8217;t know any of this without you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

