Wednesday, May 9, 2012

4059.txt

cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk,c.goodess@uea.ac.uk, "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]
to: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk

<x-flowed>
Phil,

At 08:02 30/04/2009, P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk wrote:
> Tim,
> Seems fine! Change Humidity to Relative Humidity.

ok

> 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!

Tim


Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm


</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment