Saturday, April 14, 2012


cc: (Mike Hulme), (Tim Carter)
date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:34:32 -0600 (MDT)
from: Linda Mearns <>
subject: Re: Future of Chapter 13

>After some conversations with our co-chairs regarding the contents of Chapter 13
>and where should it go, the following opinion was reached:
>They would like to see a very short Chapter on the assessment of Scenario
>Development (5 to 7 pages). According to them, the Chapter outline presented in
>BadMustereifel is still a review and not an Assessment. They argue that, in the
>same way as IPCC does not review the development of Climate Models, it should
>not review the development of climate change scenarios. It should, on the other
>hand, asses the utility of these scenarios concentrating on signal to noise,
>errors, uncertainties,... They would like to see a modified outline that would
>comply with the comments raised. It would be great if you could send me the
>"modified" outline as soon as possible so that we can start the process.

What comments raised?
I don't see any comments raised except their saying that it is a review and
not an assessment. We went over this several times in B. M. and the outline
was modified to remove review segments and keep only assessment segments.
If it is now again felt that this is not an assessment, then we need
further clarification
about the difference between an assessment and a review.

Moreover, given that this entire topic has really not been addressed in the
FAR or SAR, I would recommend that the co-chairs reconsider the desirability
for some basic background material to be included, if this is
what is considered objectionable in the outline.
All other subjects have inherent back ground by the very continuation of the
topics through the three assessment reports.
The topic of climate change scenario development does not have this, even
though this topic could have (and some might argue should have been) included
in the earllier reports.

I have just wandered through various segments of the FAR and SAR, and in
point of fact, back ground material is indeed included in some chapters.

However, there is not much point in providing extended justifications
here without our all working with a clear, operational definition of
an assessment versus a review versus providing back ground material.

Kind Regards,

>The outline that was presented in BadMustereifel was:
>13 Climate Change Scenario Development
>13.1 Introduction, definition, context
> 13.1.2 Impact needs driven
> 13.1.2 Need for scenarios
>13.2 Evaluation of evolution of methods
> 13.2.1 Sensitivity Analyses
> 13.2.2 Analogue approaches
> 13.2.3 Equilibrium experiments
> 13.2.4 Transients experiments
> 13.2.5 Simple models - Integrated models
>13.3 Spatial Resolution
> 13.3.1 Need for varying resolution - levels of aggregation
> 13.3.2 Downscaling
>13.4 Temporal Resolution - Variability
> 14.4.1 High frequency
> 13.4.2 Low frequency - decadal to century
> 13.4.3 Extreme events
>13.5 Baseline climatologies
>13.6 Inclusion of transience
> 13.6.1 Scaling of AOGCMs results
> 13.6.2 Effect of control run variability
> 13.6.3 Integrated Assessments models
>13.7 Consistency of scenario components
>13.8 Measures of uncertainty
> 13.8.1 Signal to noise in changes in climate variables
> 13.8.2 Annotation of scenarios - control run errors - validation for impact
> 13.8.3 Range of scenarios - range of forcing
>I am sure this will raised lots of comments from all of you......
> Dr. Maria Noguer 
> IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit 
> Hadley Centre  
> Met Office 
> London Road 
> Bracknell
> Berks, RG12 2SY
> UK
> Tel: +44 (0) 1344 854938
> Fax: +44 (0) 1344 856912 
> Email:  


Quote of the week:
``Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock''

Dr. Linda O. Mearns Phone: 303 497 8124
Scientist Fax: 303 497 8125
Environmental and Societal Impacts Group e-mail:
NCAR P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80307

No comments:

Post a Comment