cc: "Mike Hulme" <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>, "Matthew Livermore" <mtjl.jei@ucl.ac.uk>
date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:51:55 +0100
from: "Matt Livermore" <matt@candmweb.netscapeonline.co.uk>
subject: Inverse FT
to: "Martin Parry" <parryml@aol.com>

Dear Martin and Mike,

Following on from Martin's earlier draft I attach a new figure.  Figures are
now based on Xianfu's gas files.  The influence of sulphate aerosols have
been totally removed and the climate sensitivity of the MAGICC model has
been increase to 3.3DegC to produce a closer match to the HadCM2 figures.

I had intended only to but the correct mitigation figures in but I have now
had time to think about the message we wish to convey.  The problem as
Martin has hinted is that we are currently telling a very similar story to
the 1998 Nature Commentary.  Currently we are not taking on board Mike's
thinking concerning mitigation target dates vs reduced dTemp for a give
time.   In thinking about how this could be incorporated into this piece in
a simple fashion I have opted to remove the 5% and 10% mitigation strategies
(basically a replication of Nature 1998) and instead focus on the 60%
reduction targets as suggested in the recent Royal Commission Report, which
I have progressive delayed until the 2020s and then 2030s.  In doing this we
are showing that even the most extreme mitigation does not remove the threat
of global warming.  Furthermore, it also highlights the problem in delaying
the next round of mitigation negotiations.  My question is do we want to
proceed with this amended figure?

Cheers

Matt

P.S.  I have just noticed that the water stress curve now falls off the
bottom of the graph I will correct this tomorrow if we decide to proceed.

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\impacts-2050v3.pdf"
