The polar plots were done by [Add->Image Overlay] in Google Earth, then stretching the image to cover the globe, and aligning the continents. Fortunately you used lat/long as the projection, as everything lined up very well, although of course it skews the area representation somewhat in the 2D version.
If you open the following file in Google Earth it will give you a folder containing the two overlays mapped onto the globe, and you can view it from various positions and orientations. http://contrailscience.com/f/Robock-figures.kml Mick. On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Alan Robock <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear Ken, > > Actually, the GISS ModelE has a little too much sea ice. However, if you > look at Fig. 9 of our first geoengineering paper, > http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/2008JD010050small.pdf , you will > see that we indeed had an increase in sea ice in the very location that the > Hadley model shows an increase in absorbed solar. Our sea ice is not that > bad, but the entire Arctic is covered for the current climate, which is too > much sea ice. > > So the answer lies in clouds. What is plotted is changes in downward > solar, not net downward solar, so sea ice does not matter. How much was > your wager? > > By the way, the polar plots are great. How was that done? > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
