Wednesday, June 20, 2012

5341.txt

date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 16:09:24 +0000 (GMT)
from: Robert Nicholls <R.NichollsatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: IMPORTANT:NATURE COMMENTARY
to: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, nwa1@soton.ac.uk, arnell61@btinternet.com, PARRYMLatXYZxyz.com

All numbers are correct and I find the new text fine. The two
additional paragraphs make an excellent case for adaptation.

However, an implicit message of Table 2 is that adaptation could
handle climate change alone (the -15% option), so why are we worrying
about mitigation? I think that this will be noted by many readers and
it would be best if the piece had an explicit view on this, or delete
the -15% option. We could note the long-term benefits of mitigation
earlier in the piece (like GEC), or alternatively the cummulative
threats of an unmitigated pathway.

The only other change I would suggest is to table 1. Remove sea-level
rise and replace with "coastal flooding (per year)".

Robert
______________________________________________________________________
Note New Fax Number Below


Robert J. Nicholls
Middlesex University
Queensway
Enfield EN3 4SF
United Kingdom

44-181-362-5569 (Tel and answer phone)
44-181-362-6957 (Fax)

R.nichollsatXYZxyz.ac.uk (Internet)

No comments:

Post a Comment