cc: email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org, "Keith Briffa" <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:59:38 +0100
from: Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: [Fwd: Climate discussion on Friday]
At 08:02 30/04/2009, P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk wrote:
> Seems fine! Change Humidity to Relative Humidity.
> Also there is responding to the skeptic claims
> - as Andrew Dlugolecki has had to do.
But is this a key "research question" for the next 10 years? I tried
instead to cover it by indicating that there is still more to learn
about the physical climate behaviour and there may be surprises that
need to be understood.
> This can be media, journal papers etc. Why it hasn't
> warmed much over the last few years is one such thing.
> Solar Constant now is 1361 W/m*m! AR5 runs will go with
> whatever they have now, as it will take modelling centres
> 1-2 years to retune their models. Most have 1366-1370!
Interesting. Is this a general downward revision of the solar
constant throughout recent decades, or is it that the current solar
output is actually 5 W/m**2 in 2009 than it was in, say, 2003? This
would be a major radiative forcing!
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784