On 10 Sep, 14:20, William M Connolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> you can do sig tests to show that the change is not likely due to chance (cue
> JA...). at which point you know immeadiately its due to... solar variation!
>
Can you also do sig tests to eliminate the solar component? IOW: do we
have enough data yet to match solar variability to sea ice
variability? (I am sure this actually involves far too many other
contingent variables, btw).
Eric: The Overland paper (abstract) reads a bit oddly in the light of
this year's decline (in that the estimates look too conservative).
Then you notice it was submitted back in May, so written before that.
It looks to me like a generally 'low end' estimate is still the
models' best guess, compared to observations, and the ensemble run has
'upped' the estimates of decline somewhat, but still appear to suffer
from some deficiency in their process; perhaps an underestimate of
feedbacks?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
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/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
