cc: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, "Martin Widmann" <Martin.Widmann@gkss.de>
date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:37:19 +0100
from: "Collins, Matthew" <matthew.collins@metoffice.gov.uk>
subject: RE: SAT in MOC experiment
to: <t.kleinen@uea.ac.uk>, "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>

> Anyway, it looks as if the behaviour is not spurious at all, 
> but rather a 
> feature in many models. Unfortunately this means I won't be 
> able to get a 
> separate publication out of this... :-)

Unless you could look at it from the palaeo-data angle. i.e. are there
any paleo-indicators in the region which show warming during the LIA? If
so (and we put our faith in the models) then it is suggestive of a THC
mechanisms for the LIA, if not then it points to other mechanisms.

BTW, mixed layer depth is a good proxy for convective activity I think.

Thanks for the nice meeting. Not sure if anyone is aware of the recent
Karoly and Stott paper in Atmos. Sci. Letts. Basicially it's a
detection+attribution study on the CET. One of the things they worry
about is that the model doesn't produce the NAO trend with anthropogenic
forcing and that this might affect their conclusion of a positive
detection of anthropogenic influence on CET. Could be a nice application
of the nudging technique. i.e. a suite of runs with/without anthro
warming and with/without nudging.

Cheers, Mat