from: Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>
subject: Re: AOGCMs
SARAH -- QUICK REPLY, SINCE HAVE TO GO & TAKE CAT TO VET.
>Here are some preliminary points re AOGCM details:
>The problem of drift was swept under the capet in the TAR and
>we hardly discussed it at all. Thus the CMIP2 plot is all relative to
>control (Figure 9.3).
BUT -- IS THIS CONTROL AT SAME DATES OR (EG) CONTROL INITIAL
YEARS (1-20)? FIG CAPTION NOT CLEAR ON THIS EITHER.
>your note (1) is unclear to me.
>For your DT (Def1) and DT (Def2) I read TCR (Def1), TCR
>for def 1 I do 61-80 perturbed minus 1-20 control (I think)
>for def 2 I do 61-80 perturbed minus 61-80 control
>(already by years 1-20 in perturbed some warming has occured).
YEAH, THIS IS WHAT I DO. GOOD.
>The TCRs in Table 9.1 were likely calculated by the individual
>modelling groups and then given to Cath Senior who compiled the
>table. Mayb there was some confusion over definistions?
POSSIBLE -- BUT DISTURBING.
> I gave
>her my effective sensitivity values so these should be the same
>as in Table 9A.1,
YES -- THESE CHECK.
> also I may well have given her the CCC and MRI
>values cos I tried these models too.
>for (6) better to compare with heat flux into the ocean rather than
OK - WILL CHECK. Kz WAS JUST A ROUGH THING TO CHECK.
> These are plotted for 9 models in figure 9.20 (my figure!)
>because this includes influence of changes in upwelling whereas
>Kz is just the bulk diffusion needed to match the ocean heat flux
>after the upwelling has been varied.
GOOD POINT -- I DID LOOK AT UPWELLING, BUT NOT AT YOUR FIGURE
WHICH IS THE BEST THING.