Zeke Hausfather wrote:
> Fergus: I'll correct the range of modeled slowdowns. Am I correct in
> saying that no model shows a complete shutdown in this century, or
> should I qualify that a bit (e.g. virtually no).
Well, you can finesse that to taste a bit. Some models show no
overturning in their pre-industrial equilibrium state, so you can
correctly but deceptively say that these models predict no overturning
by the end of the century if you like - they don't predict a decline
though :-)
No GCM indicates a rapid collapse due to a CO2 increase, but note that
they also don't (generally) include the effect of Greenland melting.
However, AIUI you have to add an awful lot of melt water to get a rapid
shutdown.
Really I'm a bit surprised this dead horse is being flogged so hard -
but I suppose having got NERC to cough up millions for the RAPID
project, there would be too much egg on faces if people admitted it was
already thoroughly debunked with years(?) still to run on the project.
(Not that I'm saying it wasn't worth investigating initially, just that
there may be more useful things to look at now.)
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
