cc: Sandy Tudhope <sandy.tudhopeatXYZxyzac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, simon Tett <simon.tettatXYZxyzac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Chris Jones <email@example.com>, Peter Cox <P.M.CoxatXYZxyzter.ac.uk>, Rob Allan <rob.allanatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, Philip Brohan <philip.brohanatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, Rob Wilson <rjswatXYZxyzandrews.ac.uk>, Catherine Bass <C.J.BassatXYZxyzter.ac.uk>
date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:05:11 +0100
from: Gabi Hegerl <gabi.hegerlatXYZxyzac.uk>
subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager
to: Chris Turney <turneychrisatXYZxyzil.com>
thanks for this. I have a few smallscale comments and a larger scale
comment. Like Simon, I worry a bit about focus. However, I wonder if the
set out 'improve predictions' wouldnt be one that would offer a very
useful focus on climate sensitivity and carbon climate sensitivity. If
thats interesting to
the group, we'd only need to emphasize the probabilistic nature of the
reconstructions: that we would aim to not only arrive at
reconstructions, but at reconstructions
with credible uncertainty ranges that can be stuffed into work taht
tries to estimate climate sensitivity (or rather tightens estimates
based on tropics and SH
data for last few centuries) and the carbon cycle response to climate
variability (for the latter though, a longer horizon than last 500 would
be attractive, I
agree with Peter - we would also want to make use of the MWP and its
CO2. ). The tropics and SH would be attractive as it hasnt been used in
sensitivity work yet,
and is relevant for both carbon cycle and should show a good response to
external forcing as you point out.
THis would lead to a true collaboration, as the people using the data
would need to help provide uncertainties in things relevant to estimate
sensitivities; and it would
allow science to really move on compared to people like me or a paper I
read this week trying to estimate sensitivity/carbon sensitivity by in
some ad hoc way
estimating uncertainty in data....
Of course not sure if the others agree! If this is attractive, we would
have to be able to run a QUMP like ensemble if possible with varying
carbon cycle feedback strength,
so we'd need somebody (David Sexton or Hiro Yamazaki?/another
climateprediction.net guy?) who knows how to handle that machinery. And
I dont know if the carbon
cycle can be QUMPEd or if it would be just carbon respnse/CO2 assuming
some kind of lag...
p 1: validate to evaluate (climate models cant really be validated...)
p. 1 point 3: maybe add: For using proxy based reconstructions to
estimate climate sensitivity and climate carbon cycle feedback, credible
uncertainty ranges will need to be included.
p. 1, end of 2nd to last paragraph: I am not sure the long reanalysis
will really inform about stability of teleconnections, as that may be
model sensitive, so the teleconnections may be
influenced by what the model can do....
turn of page 1 to 2 doesnt seem to work out - it sounds right now as if
we want to constrain sensitivity to global and regional modes of
top of p. 2: I would emphasize predictions through the 20th century, as
the next few decades will be strongly influenced by transient climate
response but the end of the century more by
carbon cycle feedbacks.
p. 2, point 3: the detection studies are to some extent covered by my
new grant - sensitivity would not be.
point 5: I wouldnt trust stability of teleconnections based on a model
only...need to be nailed by data. This may benefit if Sandys proposal
and last tiny point: the Edinburgh team are now all profs.
cheers and thanks for this
Chris Turney wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold and
> wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not the best.
> Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks
> great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note. The
> more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash out the
> detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you think of the
> attached by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for us to proceed,
> perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head north the internet access
> will probably get worse of if we can do it before I fall off the edge
> of the known world that would be great.
> Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested in
> being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know.
> All the best,
> *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS*
> Director of Carbonscape <http://www.carbonscape.com>, /Fixing carbon
> the way nature intended/
> Author of Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past
> Popular science website:
> www.christurney.com <http://www.christurney.com>
> Journal of Quaternary Science
> <http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/jqs> Asian and Australasian
> Regional Editor
> School of Geography
> The University of Exeter
> EX4 4RJ
> Home page:
> E-mail: c.turneyatXYZxyzter.ac.uk <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Office Tel.: +44 (0)1392 263331
> Fax.: +44 (0)1392 263342
> *Slartibartfast: * Science has achieved some wonderful things of
> course, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day.
> *Arthur Dent:* And are you?
> *Slartibartfast:* No. Thats where it all falls down of course.
> *Arthur Dent:* Pity. It sounded like quite a good lifestyle otherwise.
> /The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy/, Douglas Adams
Chair of Climate System Science
School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
Grant Institute, The King's Buildings, West Mains Road
EDINBURGH EH9 3JW
Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.