from: Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>
subject: your text
to: Sarah Raper <sraperatXYZxyz-bremerhaven.de>
To expand on my earlier email, the problem is that your text
is too brief. Instead of saying DF is the heat flux below the
atmosphere, it might be better to relate this to the heat flux into
the ocean -- as it is in MAGICC because the other parts
of the model have no heat capacity. This then relates to the
change in ocean heat content (dH/dt) in my (much) earlier
emails), which then links to Levitus.What you say is correct,
but it is confusing to give the Murphy idea of running from a
instantaneous transient point in time to a rather idealized
equilibrium that will not in general be the same equilibrium
that the model would go to if allowed to run freely. So this
is what is missing. It would be difficult to do the Murphy
thing in practice, so using MAGICC (or a simplified EBM
picture) to illustrate the concept is I think a better way to go.
In this context, the simple analytical solution I sent you a while
back helps in understanding how, in anything but a 1-box model,
the effective sensitivity can change in time. I am not suggesting
you use this, but it is useful.
Grammar: it is '... if .... were ...' not '... if .... was ...'
See 4 lines above first equation.
Also, your last three references are distorted -- come out very
weird when I view in or print from Word.
Final point, the Watterson idea is garbage. In my flux
breakdown version of MAGICC I calculate his parameter and
it is unrelated to anything conventional, and adds zero insight.
There is a link to effective heat capacity, which we introduce
in the Schlesinger book -- but this is off the track.