date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:18:28 -0700
from: Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>
subject: reply to several
to: Sarah Raper <sraperatXYZxyz-bremerhaven.de>, Sarah Raper <s.raperatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
I have just got back from a very interesting meeting in Japan on
stabilization -- from the IA modelling and economists viewpoint.
The only climate science people there were me, Michael Schlesinger
and Haroon Kheshgi. The rest were people like Naki, Jae Edmonds,
Richels, Tom Kram, John Weyant, etc -- and a lot of Japanese who
were mainly part of Morita's AIM team. Many people gave
eulogies for Morita -- he was much admired and respected.
Listening to what the AI groups have been doing recently makes
me cringe at what the Tyndall Ctr is trying to do, and realize just
how far they are out of it. Many people spontaneously criticized
Schellnhuber -- he is apparently a bit of a laughing stock among
I am glad to hear that you have the extra time in Germany -- must
be a load off your mind.
Thanks for the Stocker item. I cannot believe that they could be so
ignorant! I am not sure I understand what you say about sensitivity.
It is clear that in general it cannot be a constant. It the baseline
clouds change significantly or if sea ice changes a lot (etc) then
the cloud, ice, etc. feedbacks must change. For most of the scenarios
we consider, however, these changes are relatively small, so assuming
a constant sensitivity is a reasonable approximation. I realize that
there are some cases where one cannot fit the constant sensitivity
UD EBM to AOGCM results, but I do not think we yet understand
why this is so -- in terms of partitioning causes between UD EBM
inadequacies and real AOGCM sensitivity changes. I do not think
this is anything to worry about.
Re the AR4, NCAR put my name down as a possible LA or
contributing author for the projection and detection chapters. For the
former, I wanted to make sure that MAGICC *is* used as the primary
simple model. For the latter, I was afraid that Hadley people might
otherwise have too dominant a role. I did not volunteer for any CLA
jobs. Even if selected, I figure I can always say 'no' when the time
I do not know anything about the sensitivity meeting you mentioned,
other than that Myles Allen also asked me if I was going. I do plan to
go to his detection meeting in Oxford on April 15,16. I believe the
sensitivity meeting is after this -- but I have a lecture to give in Dallas
on April 20 which may well clash. Schlesinger gave a very good talk
about sensitivity in Japan -- but I still disagree with the pdf he has
backed out of the observational record. I cannot get his results, so I
guess I will have to do it myself more systematically. I have yet to
submit the volcano paper that you are a coauthor of -- this is
inconsistent with the Schlesinger/Andronova result too. If I went to the
sensitivity meeting, this would be a good paper to present.
The puppy is fine -- but most of the work in looking after it falls on
In Japan I presented a talk on new overshoot stabilization profiles.
There is some introductory material on climate feedbacks on the
carbon cycle. The new version of MAGICC does this better than in
the TAR version, but the concentration projections are very similar
to those in the TAR version. If you are interested I could send you
the full ppt prersentation.