cc: Orson van de Plassche <orson.van.de.plassche@falw.vu.nl>, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory@reading.ac.uk>, "Tett, Simon" <simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Lowe, Jason" <jason.lowe@metoffice.gov.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:14:59 +0100
from: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Attaching All250 to Nat500 runs
to: Alex Wright <alex.wright@falw.vu.nl>

<x-flowed>
At 13:45 05/07/2006, Alex Wright wrote:
>Its great that the results are really being discussed now, but I am 
>going to 'pause' with any further 'figures/comparisons until a 
>'consensus' is reached on the issues Tim/Simon have brought up with 
>regards to model output.

Simon... any disagreement/suggestions for improvement with how I 
extracted the sea level data?

> > Yes you can clearly see the difference between Nat500 and All250 
> MOC, though my question remains, what is it specifically about the 
> All250 forcings that produces this response?

I'm not sure that it is a forced response.  It might just be internal 
variability that could have happened at any time or in either run, 
but just happened to occur in the all250 run.  Simon discusses this 
issue on page 12 of the paper (not the sea level paper, but the one 
titled "The impact of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings on Climate 
and Hydrology
since 1550."  See top right section.  The size of this MOC change is 
near the limit of what might be expected by internal variability, and 
it is unclear whether forcings were important or not.  Possibly they 
were, but I'm not sure which ones!

Cheers

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.osborn@uea.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

**Norwich -- City for Science:
**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006

</x-flowed>
