Sunday, March 18, 2012


date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:50:18 +0000 (GMT)
from: Simon Tett <>
subject: [ Delivery Notification: Delivery has

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: PMDF e-Mail Interconnect <>
Subject: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed
Content-type: multipart/report;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_3HiA8U1IrB/2ncx+CHrp/Q)"; report-type=delivery-status

- --Boundary_(ID_3HiA8U1IrB/2ncx+CHrp/Q)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: EN-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:

Message-id: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:05 +0000 (GMT)
From: Simon Tett <>
Subject: INTEGRATE -- innovation & work packages.

Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:

Recipient address:
Original address:
%MAIL-E-LOGLINK, error creating network link to node UEA.AC.UK.JFBMITCHELL
- -SYSTEM-F-NOSUCHNODE, remote node is unknown

- --Boundary_(ID_3HiA8U1IrB/2ncx+CHrp/Q)
Content-type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns;

Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Original-recipient: rfc822;
Final-recipient: rfc822;

- --Boundary_(ID_3HiA8U1IrB/2ncx+CHrp/Q)
Content-type: message/rfc822

Received: from by (PMDF V5.2-32 #32907)
id <>; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ([])
by (PMDF V5.2-32 #32907)
with ESMTP id <> for; Tue,
25 Jan 2000 23:49:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( [])
by with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.1) id XAA20294; Tue,
25 Jan 2000 23:49:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (from hadst@localhost) by (8.7.6/8.7.3)
id XAA09978; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:05 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:05 +0000 (GMT)
From: Simon Tett <>
Subject: INTEGRATE -- innovation & work packages.
Message-id: <>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <>

Dear all,
here follows some drafty thoughts on innovation and WP5 & 6.

To give us a good outline I need thoughts from Tim (WP6, Task 1 WP5)
and from Julie and Reiner. Hans/ Ulrich are you happy with what is

I'm not at work tomorrow(26th) -- back on thursday but may get some
time to read email.


Some notes on innovation for INTEGRATE (modelling side).

For the first time we would carry out an quantitative intercomparision
between simulated climate variability and annual resolved proxy
reconstruction of temperature, drought and sea-level pressure. These
comparisons will explicitly take account of error in the proxy
reconstruction. We propose to compare results from "Control"
simulations with constant external forcing, simulations forced with
Natural (solar and volcanic) and Anthropogenic (greenhouse gases,
sulphate aerosols and ozone changes) forcing for the last 500 to 1000
years, and simulations forced with Natural forcings with the annually
resolved proxy data. In order to aid interpretation of model-proxy
comparisons we plan to compare the same diagnostics from different
models with proxy data. We plan to drive all climate models used in
the project with the same forcing datasets. The extra simulations
funded as part of the project will add to the range of simulations
done at the modelling centres. [Note somehow that
MPI/GKSS runs are funded outside the project -- analysis is what gets

In addition we plan to diagnose changes in sea-level, glacier
advance/retreat and simulated productivity to compare with
reconstructions. Our aims in doing these comparisons are:

1) how much credence can be given to studies (i.e Tett et al, 1999)
which claim to have detected an anthropogenic influence on climate and
ruled out natural causes as an explanation of surface temperature
changes since 1946.

2) estimate the effect of natural forcings on the variability of
temperature, drought and other variables. This will be done
by comparing results of "Control" and "Forced" simulations. Mainly
through inverse modelling (i.e proxy data goes to model variables)
though some forward modelling will be done.

3) estimate the contribution to 20th century sea-level rise from
natural forcings.

4) compare glacier advance/retreat with records.

5) Directly diagnose vegetation productivity to compare with tree-ring

In order to avoid using simulated climate variability we also propose
to use proxy reconstructions of natural temperature variability to see
if earlier D&A results still hold. Note this means having no knowledge
of the timing of natural variability but assumes that the magnitude
of the variability is correct.


1) Validate models variability by quantitive comparison with
proxy data.

2) Many studies using climate models to study mechanisms for decadal
variability. Need to have some confidence that simulated
variability has correct magnitude.

3) All current D&A studies use simulated internal variability
to quantify model-observed agreement and to claim detection
of anthropogenic changes.

4) Estimates of range of future climate change should include
some estimate of natural variability.

5) Can estimate contribution that natural forcings make to
total variance as a function of space and time scales.


Some rough notes but I've included gross estimates of time taken. Time
taken by HC are reasonable though not final. Rest, where I've put them
in, are just guesses... Text probably needs expanding. [Keith -- need
to start putting together various project management stuff.. Have you
got something then I can add the WP5/6 stuff to it!!]

All data extracted for common diagnostics to be converted to netcdf
(GDT convention -- see URL for details) and transferred to partner UEA
for dissemination to partners and other parties.

Workpackage 5


1) Define forcings. Forcings will be defined, in as similar a manner
as possible, for the modelling efforts. These forcings to include:

a) Insolation changes due to orbital/axis changes.
b) Changes in total solar irradiance.
c) Changes in volcanic aerosol loading.
d) Changes in CO2 and CH4 (and other trace well mixed
greenhouse gases).
e) Changes in Sulphates (direct & indirect)
f) Changes in Tropospheric and Stratospheric ozone.

We assume a-c are natural and d-f are anthropogenic.

HC (1 Month), GKSS/MPI (1 Month), UEA (1/2 Month)

2) Run and monitor simulations. The simulations to be done are a
experiment from 1500--2000 with natural forcings alone and a second
experiemtn from 1750--2000 with natural and anthropogenic
forcings. Extract common diagnostics and put
them into the databank. This task involves setting up the
experiments (with the forcings defined in (1)), checking that the
simulations are proceeding as expected and extracting data to place
it in the databank.

HC (2 Months), GKSS/MPI (1 Month -- for extraction), UEA (1/2 month --
data into the databank)

3) Compute glacier advance/retreat and sea-level rise in forced and
Control simulations. Diagnose if changes are outside internal
climate variability as simulated in Control simulations. [Should
this data go into the databank?]. Our aim in doing this is to see
what effect natural forcings have had on sea-level rise and on
glacier advance/retreat.

HC (6 months), GKSS/MPI (??), UEA (0)

4) Compare forced temperature variance with "control" variance as a
function of space and time scales. The aim is to see on what space
and time scales is forced variance different from internal
variance. Results from this task will be used to inform
pre-filtering strategies for tasks 4 and 5 in WP6.

HC (3 months)

5) Investigate forced simulations to see if there are periods and
variables which are significantly different from the control. Such
periods and variables will be compared with proxy data in task xx
in WP6.

HC (2 months)

[Could merge 4 and 5 as they are about when/where/how is forced
simulations different from control]


Workpackage 6

Task 1.

Develop methodology for inclusion of proxy error in model-proxy
comparison for tasks 2, 3 and 4. [I'm assuming that UEA do this --
any comments or expansion ...]

HC (0 months)

Task 2.

Compare the variance of both the control and forced experiments on
10-100 year timescales and a variety of spatial scales with proxy
data. Document the results of this comparison.

HC (4 months)

Task 3.

Compare glacier changes as simulated in models (WP5 task 3) with
observations of glacier advance and retreat.

HC (1 month)

Task 4.

Can simulated signals of climate change (temperature mainly) be
detected in the proxy data records. This comparison will be done on
50-100 year timescales. It will use results from WP5, task 4 to decide
on a pre-filtering strategy. Results from this and WP 4, task 4 will
be used to decide if model variability is adequate.

HC (5 months)

Task 5

Attempt to detect model simulated changes of anthropogenic changes
from 1946--1996 in temperature against natural noise as estimated from
proxy data. This work will build on work done by partners XX and
YY. The aim of this research is to see if recent simulated changes due
to anthropogenic forcings are significantly present in the

HC (2 months)

Task 6.

Compare productivity diagnostics from forced and control simulations
with proxy estimates of biological productivity estimated from mass
changes inferred from tree ring data. This would be an attempt at
forward modelling. [Keith -- how will we get the proxy data to do

HC (3 months)

Products -- I think too many. Suggestions on merges/deletions??


I guess the products will largely be reports.

1) Dataset and Description of forcing datasets. Forcings to be in
netcdf format and available to all interested parties. [John -- is
this ok??]

2) Databank containing results from simulations.

3) Report comparing results of forced and control simulations of
sea-level rise.

4) Report comparing results of forced and control simulations, and of
"observed" glacier advance/retreat.

5) Report reporting on which space and time-scales, and periods,
forced and control simulations differ significantly. Report to
contain results of variance comparison between proxy and model
data. i.e overall assessment of simulated natural variability as
compared with "proxy" natural variability.

6) Report on detectability (or not) of forced signals in proxy data.

7) Report on detectability of 20th century anthropogenic signals
against natural variability as estimated from proxy data.

8) report on forward modelling (simulated productivity vs proxy productivity)

- --
+ Spinning in the wind at the UKMO +
Tel : +[44]-1344-856886 Fax: +[44]-1344-854898

- --Boundary_(ID_3HiA8U1IrB/2ncx+CHrp/Q)--
------- End of forwarded message -------

+ Spinning in the wind at the UKMO +
Tel : +[44]-1344-856886 Fax: +[44]-1344-854898

No comments:

Post a Comment