Howdy everyone. Hope you're all well. Since I used to hang out here I've had people asking me questions about the results that were recently published in Nature. If anyone could find the time to answer these I'd be very appreciative.

Best regards to Carl, DaveF and AstroWX! <i>-Cam</i>

P.S. I should be back running the model in another couple of months when we finally get broadband going here, along with the rest of my flat!

Questions:
"I'm just curious about the results, in one article I read it said that there was some which predicted cooling as well, but those were thrown out as the model was incorrect? Are they to be redone?

Also how many results have they done, I read they said 2000 were analyised, of how many?

And how many predicted the higher temperatures, were they extreme outliers or fairly common?"

"Of less importance but I'm just curious about:
I'm also wondering how they are taking clouds, and cloud formation into account?
Especially some new research [Nature again I think - cam] which showed clouds are either a) Forming
faster, or b) Forming slower, they weren't entirely sure, but something it definitly happening, that they
are sure of! I love science. -GavinH"
[the article was about aerosol particle density and its effect on cloud formation, but I never saw the conclusion. -cam]

If you read the Nature <a href="http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/nature_first_results.pdf">paper</a> that should answer most of your questions.

Many of the parameterisations are to do with cloud formation, so in one sense cpdn already takes into account that the cloud physics may be different than originally thought. The default values of the parameters have been chosen by experts, according to the state of knowledge a few years ago, so this new information may change the default values a bit if they were chosen again. The experts do not just pick values out of the air, they run the model with different values and try to converge on a optimum set. The new cloud results may affect the range of plausible high and low values for the parameters, experts are already known to underestimate the range according to the Nature paper.

---

____________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.boincforum.info/boinc/">boinc forum</a> and <a href="http://www.uk4cp.co.uk/">United Kindom</a> team, my climate change <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mike_atkinson/">blog</a>.

If you want further details on the way cooling models were handled have a look at the supplementary discussion document and figures on the <a href="http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v433/n7024/abs/nature03301_fs.html&amp;dynoptions=doi1106816686">Nature website</a> (no subscription required).

---

"The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Hi, Cam. Good to see you back. Sorry I missed you at the airport. Hopefully we'll have our proper board back soon.

---

Hi, Cam. We look forward to your renewed participation. What sort of CPU power will you throw into that broadband connection? (Just curious.)

Jim

---

"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
Greetings from coastal Washington state, the scenic US Pacific Northwest.

How is the book progressing?

---

__________________________________________________

&gt;Hi, Cam. Good to see you back. Sorry I missed you at the airport. Hopefully &gt;we'll have our proper board back soon.

Yeah, that was a bummer. Next time I guess. :)

&gt; Hi, Cam. We look forward to your renewed participation. What sort of CPU
&gt; power will you throw into that broadband connection? (Just curious.)
&gt;
&gt; Jim

Probably 2x 2.6GHz Celerys and my AXP 1700+. I'll probably look at buying a new rig next year sometime - I upgraded my gfx card to play newer games (which sort of answers the next question) so that should tide me through.

&gt; How is the book progressing?

Err. It's not. I just haven't been motivated in to write much more of it. I'll pick up a copy of Phil Harrington's(?) Astronomy with Binoculars(?) yet. It's sposed to be very good (according to Walter Scott Houston), so I'll use that as direction for how I want my book to go - I want it to be different, or what's the point?

Life's full of exciting opportunities at the moment so it's pretty hard to remain focussed. I'm still writing astronomy articles and giving talks, but not a lot else in that area. I've been accepted by an academic to do graduate study in ecology next year (plant-animal signalling) and we're off on a week long (fully catered!) field trip around Easter.

Anyway, I should be rejoining the crunching soon. Keep up the good work guys.
Peace out,
Cam