Abstract: Recent and future changes in Arctic sea ice simulated by the HadCM3 AOGCM
w...@bas.ac.uk
Gregory JM, Stott PA, Cresswell DJ, Rayner NA, Gordon C, Sexton DMH
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 29 (24): art. no. 2175 DEC 21 2002
Abstract:
The HadCM3 AOGCM has been used to undertake an ensemble of four integrations
from 1860 to 1999 with forcings due to all major anthropogenic and natural
climate factors. The simulated decreasing trend in average Arctic sea ice
extent for 1970-1999 (-2.5% per decade) is very similar to observations.
HadCM3 indicates that internal variability and natural forcings (solar
and volcanic) of the climate system are very unlikely by themselves to
have caused a trend of this size. The simulated decreasing trend in Arctic
sea ice volume (-3.4% per decade for 1961-1998) is less than some recent
observationally based estimates. Extending the integrations into the 21st
century, Arctic sea ice area and volume continue to decline. Area decreases
linearly as global-average temperature rises (by 13% per K), and volume
diminishes more rapidly than area. By the end of the century, in some
scenarios, the Arctic is ice-free in late summer.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Titan Point
> Recent and future changes in Arctic sea ice simulated by the HadCM3 AOGCM
> Gregory JM, Stott PA, Cresswell DJ, Rayner NA, Gordon C, Sexton DMH
> GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 29 (24): art. no. 2175 DEC 21 2002
>
> Abstract:
> The HadCM3 AOGCM has been used to undertake an ensemble of four integrations
> from 1860 to 1999 with forcings due to all major anthropogenic and natural
> climate factors. The simulated decreasing trend in average Arctic sea ice
> extent for 1970-1999 (-2.5% per decade) is very similar to observations.
> HadCM3 indicates that internal variability and natural forcings (solar
> and volcanic) of the climate system are very unlikely by themselves to
> have caused a trend of this size. The simulated decreasing trend in Arctic
> sea ice volume (-3.4% per decade for 1961-1998) is less than some recent
> observationally based estimates. Extending the integrations into the 21st
> century, Arctic sea ice area and volume continue to decline. Area decreases
> linearly as global-average temperature rises (by 13% per K), and volume
> diminishes more rapidly than area. By the end of the century, in some
> scenarios, the Arctic is ice-free in late summer.
>
> -W.
It is a definition of economics that it is the science "which observes how
markets work in practice" and attempts to "see if they can work in theory"
And so with climate models.
David Ball
So you've read the paper in question have you, Titan? Why
don't you post a critique of it, since you clearly don't like the
result? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the problems you
found with the authors methodology. Please be detailed, though. If
you're going to critique the science you should at least be able to
give us a thorough analysis of what you found in error.
BretCahill
are outright frauds?
It's duck soup proving Republicon "market"
economists are outright frauds:
Would you call a biologist an "expert in his field" if he didn't even know
what is designated by the acronym "DNA"? How about chemist who couldn't
explain "stoichiometry?" A mathematician who couldn't prove the Pythagorean
theorem? A physicist who couldn't name Newton's Second Law of Motion?
Just about everyone in their respective fields would call them "outright
frauds" or "just plain stupid." What am I saying? Most educated people
outside their field would think there was something wrong. That's because
those questions are so basic you can go to any college or university and 98% of
the high schools in the U. S. and you know you'll get the correct answer in
less than 20 seconds.
The suggestion that there would be any stonewalling is ludicrous.
Now, let's leave the reputable science and math departments at every last
college and university on the planet and head on over the outspoken free market
"scholars" at the Chicago School, von Mises Inst., Hoover Inst., American
Enterprise, Cato, etc. and ask them a question that is even more basic to their
field:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Even though the correct answer is an obvious self evident truth, the outspoken
"market" economists won't have any answers. In fact, these outspoken
"scholars" will stonewall and dodge like Labor Secretary Chao at a press
conference.
As Milton Friedman might say, if corporate interests pay economists to dodge
issues, next thing you know, you have a lot of economists who dodge issues.
Bret Cahill
"Titan Point" Titanpoi...@myrealbox.com
>Date: 5/9/03 7:36 AM EST
>Message-id: <pan.2003.05.09....@myrealbox.com>
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
BretCahill
are ashamed to even post their names.
Does anyone REALLY think anyone bright
enough to find his way to a polling station
will take CO2 Science, et. al. seriously?
Their only goal is to tie up your time, not
persuade.
What you need to do is take the nine foot
loaded whip of economic populism to their
fannies.
A few pops and the nonsense will end. It's
no different than house training a puppy.
David Ball wra...@mb.sympatico.ca in
Why would he waste his time doing
THAT?
? ? ?
His only goal is to waste your time.
>Why
>don't you post a critique of it, since you clearly don't like the
>result? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the problems you
>found with the authors methodology. Please be detailed, though. If
>you're going to critique the science you should at least be able to
>give us a thorough analysis of what you found in error.
That ain't gonna happen.
Bret Cahill
R S Radford
> Can you prove the atmospheric scientists
> are outright frauds?
>
> It's duck soup proving Republicon "market"
> economists are outright frauds:
>
> Would you call a biologist an "expert in his field" if he didn't
Do you actually know anything about market economics, or is this
strange little rant you keep posting the extent of your contribution
to this subject?