Friday, April 27, 2012

3546.txt

cc: ipccatXYZxyzth.usgcrp.gov
date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 02:06:10 -0500
from: Richard Moss <rmossatXYZxyzcrp.gov>
subject: Part II, Agenda items 4 and 5
to: tgciaatXYZxyzo.gov.uk

<x-rich><fontfamily><param>Times</param>Dear All:


This is the third or three messages I am sending on the TGCIA email
conference. This one contains a few observations on the TAR, as well as
an attachment--the strawman outline for the WG II TAR, which was
emailed to WG II participants in the scoping meeting earlier today (The
attachment is a microsoft word file; if you have trouble opening it,
please let me know and we will send it to you in another format, or by
fax--just indicate you preferrences).


As you will see when you review the outline, the strawman proposal is
to organize the WG II TAR into three broad sections: 1) State of
Science Update; 2) Regional Vulnerability Analyses; and 3) Global
Integration and Synthesis. This form of organization is intended to
respond to the mandate given the report by the IPCC at the Plenary
Session last September in the Maldives, as well as to respond to
information needs raised directly by a number of governments. Please
note that this outline is not intended to provide fine detail of what
is to be covered in each chapter. Indeed, the strawman outline should
be viewed as a starting point for discussion of the overall purposes
and structure for our part of the TAR. We fully expect that the outline
will be modified substantially through the contributions of scoping
meeting participants and other experts such as yourselves over the
coming weeks and months. Note that a number of the TGCIA members will
be at the scoping meeting, and that we expect additional members to be
added to writing teams in the next phase of preparation of the report.


WG II scoping participants will soon be starting an email conference of
their own to provide their initial reactions to the strawman outline.
The TGCIA's recommendations on the TAR will be provided to them, either
as part of the conference (if they are ready in time), or as part of
the background materials sent to participants before the meeting. In
addition, I would welcome comments from you (addressed to
rmoss@usgcrp.gov) on the outline.


Comments on TGCIA Agenda Item 4., Recommendations for TAR


Proposals made by various TGCIA members can be accommodated in this
broad outline, providing that there is a consensus among scoping
participants to do so. For example, were it to be determined that WG II
should include material on scenarios, as Linda Mearns has suggested,
this material could be housed in the state of science evaluation of
methods (chapter 2); Mike Hulme's suggestion to include a detailed
description of the scenarios used in the regional vulnerability
assessments could be included as part of the chapter describing the
framework and methods used in conducting this assessment (chapter 5).


My own view of this debate is that to the extent that the issue is
evaluating methods for use in creating scenarios, the material covering
this point should be included in WG I, as this is really their domain.
The scenarios information in WG II should be limited to assessing
application of these techniques in impacts analysis.


Regarding the suggestion for study regions in the TAR, I agree that
this should be discussed at the scoping meeting. However, I am
personally skeptical that we will actually be able to do a very
complete job of this in the TAR, but should begin to plan now, so that
we might be ready to take this on in the Fourth Assessment Report.


Additional Item: Report on interactions with Special Report on
Emissions Scenarios (SRES)


A number of us (Cynthia Rosenzweig, Mike Hulme, Nebojsa Nakicenovic,
Arnulf Grubler, Tsuneyuki Morita, Hugh Pitcher, and myself--I hope I
haven't left anyone out) have interacted over the last months in order
to coordinate preparation of socio-economic scenarios for use in the
IPCC TAR. The need to do this obvious--the climate/ socio-economic
scenarios for impacts analysis that we are providing through the DDC
should be as consistent as possible with the descriptions of "not
implausible" potential future states of the world being developed by
SRES to project emissions.


>From the TGCIA perspective, cooperation with SRES is essential, for at
the moment, we have no other option for generating updated
socio-economic scenarios to accompany the climate scenarios on the DDC.
Note that we have made the socio-economic projections underlying the
IS92 scenarios (rather simple spreadsheets) available on the DDC. In
addition, we have also included the baseline data that were produced by
the WG II TSU for use in the Special Report on the Regional Impacts of
Climate Change.


At the last meeting of the SRES lead authors and modeling groups, we
reached agreement that SRES modeling teams would be providing data from
their modeling runs on the DDC website, as follows:


Time slices

</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Symbol</param>�
</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Times</param>2020s

</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Symbol</param>�
</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Times</param>2050s

</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Symbol</param>�
</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Times</param>2100


Socio-economic scenario sets to be provided

</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Symbol</param>�
</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Times</param>New 1999 scenarios,
representing each of the four storylines


Regions

</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Symbol</param>�
</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Times</param>Report results at the
regional level of detail in the particular model used (this is more
detailed than highly aggregated level of reporting that will be used in
the SRES itself)


Variables (source in parentheses--note that some variables, such as
those in I., are standardized input assumptions, while others are
produced by the integrated models used to generate the emissions
scenarios)


I. Demographic (use UN projections at national level?)

I.1 Total Population

I.2 Assumed annual growth rate for the period

I.3 Population density

I.4 Percentage population working age

I.5 Percentage population urban

I.6 Percentage population in coastal margins


II. Economic variables (from IAMs)

II.1 GDP/capita

II.2 Assumed annual GDP growth rate

II.3 Percentage population employed in agriculture

II.4 Rate of growth of labor-force productivity


III. Biophysical resource base (from IAMS)

III.1 Gross caloric output/person to meet typical daily diet

III.2 Land use (land under production for biomass energy?)

III.3 Water availability per capita (with GCM community)


I would like to ask Mike Hulme to comment on this hurriedly assembled
report, as he was at the last day of the SRES meeting (I had to leave
early to attend another meeting) and may have more detailed information
on exactly when these data are expected to be made available. I would
also hope that Mike might comment on the extensive discussions
regarding which of the initial SRES results are expected to be made
available to climate modeling groups. These were only completed on the
last day of the meeting as well.


Closing


In closing, let me again thank Martin Parry and all TGCIA members who
participated for their comments. The TGCIA has made an excellent
contribution to the IPCC and the TAR because of all your efforts.







</fontfamily></x-rich>

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\WG_II_outline_3June98.doc"

No comments:

Post a Comment