Friday, March 30, 2012


date: Fri Oct 8 13:27:09 1999
from: Mike Hulme <>
subject: Re: ACACIA scenarios
to: Timothy Carter <>


Tried phoning, but no response.

I've got negative time available right now. I now have the lead responsibility to get our outline bid for �10 million sorted out before Friday next week - and tihs is with 10 other institutions and 24 co-applicants!

I cannot therefore make PIK at all and will tell Wolfgang today. Would you be able to do the 20 minutes on IPCC/ACACIA scenarios? There will be available a set of ACACIA OHs that Martin has prepared that could suffice is necessary - you may have some of your own re. the scatter plots etc., which are not on the ACACIA OHs. David Viner will also be briefed, but I do not want him giving my talk.

Sorry to land you in it - it's not often I pull out of meetings at the last moment.

Without thinking too much about things, I feel we should include the CCSR result in the scatters - it is a DDC model after all. A note explaining things might help.

See you in Brussels I hope.


At 10:37 08/10/99 +0300, you wrote:
>Thanks for the ACACIA link. What's your latest status re. Potsdam?
>I guess that you're heavily stressed by proposal writing, but I have a
>rather pressing query from Heikki.
>He has produced some graphs of selected representative regions for the
>characterizations, and they seem OK except for some enormous changes at
>northern high latitudes with the Japanese model. With scaling these are up
>to 26 deg C (Arctic Ocean - we haven't looked at Arctic land yet)! Seasonal
>changes in the tropics are nearer a few deg C and in the Antarctic are less
>than 10 deg C. Unfortunately, we have been unable to plot maps of the
>Japanese outputs using the visualisation tool (we both have firewall
>problems and this model isn't on the CDRom), but we did track down a map
>plus interesting comment in the caption at the University of Tokyo site -
>see bottom of this page:
>(incidentally, you might use this as a link on the DDC - the DKRZ link
>doesn't seem to work).
>The version of the model seems to be an earlier one than the one you have
>processed, and it shows equilibrium responses at 2 x CO2 supposedly with a
>coupled AO model, but the changes in the north are pretty big. In addition,
>the comment below the figure indicates that the sea-ice feedback is
>exaggerated in this model, hence the mega changes we are seeing. Have you
>noticed this when processing the transient data? I wonder if someone could
>check this for us. If our suspicions are confirmed, it begs the question as
>to how we might now proceed. Some options:
>1. Do nothing, and present the graphs with a major caveat for high northern
>latitudes included;
>2. Omit the CCSR model results for high latitude regions (but these are
>included in the range maps of your analysis, of course.
>3. Omit the CCSR results for all regions (but this will be inconsistent
>with your analysis) on the grounds that if model reliability is poor over
>high NH we can have only limited confidence in the results in other parts
>of the globe.
>If we can resolve this, and no more glitches appear in the other regions, I
>think that the full set of scatter plots can be produced fairly quickly.
>The only other issue to finalise then is Mike Schlesinger's sulphate maps,
>but they can wait until after your Oct 15 deadline.
>Best regards,
>Dr. Timothy Carter
>Finnish Environment Institute
>Box 140, Kes�katu 6, FIN-00251 Helsinki, FINLAND
>Tel: +358-9-40300-315
>Fax: +358-9-40300-390

No comments:

Post a Comment