William Connolley wrote:
> "10,000 to 100,000 years" is an awfully big range. I thought the answer
> was 50kyr, which happens to be in the middle of the range, so I'm not
> sure if there is anything very new here. Anyone actually read the paper? -W
Yes, I have glanced at it and it is quite interesting, the main result
as I see it isn't so much the time scale of the next ice age as the
mechanism/analysis of increasing oscillations as we approach a
bifurcation point.
In response to Eric, while I agree that predictions over 10,000 years
are not in themselves useful, understanding what drives climate change
on all time scales is.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
