Granted, AGW looms larger than most of our work, and
the extreme scenarios seem very damaging, so there's some justification for seeking a consensus.
Not exact matches
The final results will probably be somewhere in between the
extreme scenarios of a trade war or an unprecedented era of corporate wealth, but that hasn't
seemed to mitigate the wild responses so far.
It almost
seems like we were challenging Fortuna to come up with the most
extreme scenarios.
If Dr. Hansen never imagined
Scenario A as being a real possibility for the next 20 years, I guess indicated by his description «
Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in
Scenario A (~ 1.5 % yr - 1) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~ 4 % yr - 1)» then his subsequent comment (PNAS, 2001) «Second, the IPCC includes CO2 growth rates that we contend are unrealistically large»
seems to indicate that Dr. Hansen doesn't support some of the more
extreme SRES
scenarios.
«
Scenarios, which show rapid future emissions growth, which were once considered
extreme now
seem realistic or moderate,» he said.
The bigger picture To look at unlikely
scenarios seems reasonable when scoping out
extremes.