Tuesday, May 15, 2012

4227.txt

date: Tue May 11 15:00:46 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Procedures for LAs]
to: Kevin Trenberth <trenbertatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>

Kevin,
I have the ppt file and will look at this sometime soon. I also have your whole message
now from yesterday. I was trying to rush somewhere and doing too many things at once.
So.
1. I've just said I'll go to the GCOS Imp. Plan meeting, which is now only Aug 16-18. It
finishes at 5pm. With 3 full days I won't be able to get away on the Weds night, so will
have to stay until the 19th. So we should have time then or earlier in the meeting.
2. I've been going through my meetings in the autumn, and they are not quite as bad as
yours. So, a possibility would be to assign the main writing tasks to the LAs (and all the
CAs the'll involve) and we just polish it into a reasonable shape by the time its needed
for
review purposes. I doubt this version will bear much relationship to the final one, but
the
figures might once updated. Another option would be for me to put more effort into this
draft and say the 3rd and you to put more in for the 2cnd and 4th?
3. Neither of us can do much more at the moment until we know the LAs areas of
expertise. Hopefully we'll have that by the end of May. I suppose they want all to agree
before they send out the list of names. What we should try and do in August, and think
about before when we get some time, is a more detailed section list for the chapter
and then we can associate the LAs in pairs (if possible).
4. I like the idea of the 3D matrix - I'll give that a bit more thought when I get a
chance.
Although the basic outline is set, I would like to think we can produce a chapter in a
different style from before.
5. The Appendix will be a big problem. Here we will also have to bear in mind what the
other chapters do, so if we have some sort of template, we might get the others to
follow our lead.
6. My house is sold and the new one bought. All is going well at the moment, but these
things have a habit of breaking down - just needs one link in the chain to fail. Still we
have a short chain - only 4. I'll have a couple of weeks off around the move.
Just talked to Pete Lamb. He's going to call you. I think Aiguo has done a good job
and with a bit of input form Pete we can go with this. I've sent my comments earlier
today. I'm prepared to hassle the editor from here once submitted to get a quickish
turnaround.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:53 10/05/2004 -0600, you wrote:

OK Phil
I sent an email called attachments with the ppt on it. Let me know if you got it. It
has not bounced yet.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:

Kevin,
My email is OK. It is likely the UEA system which is bouncing things. There were
problems last week. Try sending in a few hours when everyone has gone home here.
70pp should be fine ! Didn't think it would be this large.
Agree we need to give them all assignments, but we can't till we know what they are
like
as you say. I think WGI are still contacting the LAs. Keith Briffa got an email here on
the paleo chapter, but only today ! We can't do much till we here from the TSU of WGI.
They are
all in Ireland this week. We also need to know who will be involved in other chapters !
Tom Peterson is with Chapter 1, for example.

Assigning all the writing is one way to go, but we will have to do a little ourselves.
I suspect
there is little point in giving the temp stuff to anyone else or the MSU/surf area to
one
of our LAs. Pairing them off with a native speaker in each pair (where possible) is a
possibility. All must come to Trieste, but we will need a more detailed outline of the
sections
to use as a strawman then - which we should be able to come up with in Geneva and email
out for all to think about a few weeks before.
I hope your email gets through later.
Cheers
Phil
At 09:08 10/05/2004 -0600, you wrote:

Sending again without ppt attached: too large. Will send other later.
Kevin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Procedures for LAs
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:57:04 -0600
From: Kevin Trenberth [1]<trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu>
To: Phil Jones [2]<p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
References: [3]<5.2.1.1.0.20040510114711.04470060@pop.uea.ac.uk>
Hi Phil
The initial guideline for Chapter 3 is 70 pp from an earlier document I
have.

The material I wrote was done before I knew who the LAs would be. I am
a bit dismayed that we have 5 from developing countries none of whom I
know, although I know a bit about 2 of them. I still do not even have
their names straight let alone what expertise they supposedly have. I
think we will have to give them all assignments, but I suspect it may be
prudent to pair them all with someone from the developed countries or
one of us? As CLAs it is best if we assign all of the chapter contents
to the LAs and we hold ourselves mostly in reserve and/or work directly
with the LAs on getting them going and making sure they are on track.

The main task in Sept is to make writing assignments and discuss
extensively the Contributing authors and agree what they will be asked
to do and who will contact them. Examples of my letters from the TAR
are attached: the first to Phil Rasch has the outline, the second to
Kerry Emanuel is about his expected contribution. Note each letter is
tailored. Collectively we need to exploit the community as best we can.
To do this best, however, means having the LAs come to Trieste with an
idea of their assignment and suggestions for CAs and what they would
contribute. It would also help if the TSU gave us info on CAs that
were nominated!!!!

More comments follow.

Phil Jones wrote:

>
> Kevin,
> Your language seemed clear enough for me. Hopefully Susan's
> generalizations won't
> lose any clarity. I had a look at all the documentation over the
> weekend. CVs of our LAs
> would be very useful. Although Susan went through them with me over
> the phone, I've
> already forgotten some of their areas of expertise.
> Looking at the chapter outline, we can go one of two ways
>
> - assign the LAs and ourselves to the sections and subsections
> - assign just you or me to one of sections 3.1 to 3.10 (with the 10th
> the Appendix).
>
> Suspect the CVs will tell us that we can only rely on 2-3 of the
> LAs, so the second option
> will likely involve less need for rewriting - but potentially more
> for us in the first instance. I
> reckon we could only rely on Dave Easterling to do a good job with
> 3.8 on extremes - maybe
> also the Canadian (Soden?).

I favor less for us in first instance. We will have our hands full
filling in and bridging gaps.
Brian Soden is from GFDL and is currently at U Miami. He is the only
person who has solid credentials on satellite data. I expect we should
assign him to take the lead on evaluating all the satellite stuff:
clouds, radiation budget, UTH, etc etc.

We may want to create a 3D matrix of variables (T, q, u,v, cloud,
precip, etc) and region (sfc, trop, strat, in situ, satellite,
tropics, extratropics, polar) and phenomena (monsoons, storms,
hurricanes, extremes, teleconnections (ENSO, NAO, NAM, SAM, etc)). I am
also attaching part of a talk I gave to a meeting of oceanographers on
the next IPCC: note the emphasis in phenomenology.

>
> Thinking aloud now, I could be responsible for 3.2 and 3.5 and you
> for 3.3, 3.6 and 3.7
> with 3.4 being relatively short. Length seems unknown at the moment,
> but that would help
> determining how large/small the different sections will be. Appendix
> will either be easy
> or a minefield. The HC are giving me a little bit of money to work
> with them putting errors
> on the gridded temp data - not just the hemispheric curves. We can
> refer to GCOS
> documents to show what should happen and then say it doesn't ! This
> could be an
> opportunity?
>
> I'm off after May 13 for much of the rest of May, then here for
> most of June and July (but
> I will have 2 weeks off when I move house). It seems that the GCOS
> meeting in August
> is our best option to meet. Is this still possible for you?

I have told them I will come to the GCOS meeting in the expectation that
we can get together there.

I think the appendix will be a major difficulty. Since we are supposed
to deal with what is in the literature it means unevenness. I think
some of this has to be invented by us. How to do this???

I am off next weekend to London for the Symonds lecture and at Reading
on Thursday (seminar Univ) and ECMWF friday.
Back here following Tuesday (cheaper fare if stay over weekend). Also
we have just signed up to buy a new house and so I am in chaos with
trying to achieve that and get our house on market. I have a lot of
other commitments: the CLIVAR conf and SSG mtg 20- 31 June, a GEO mtg
15-18 June, Aspen mtg 11-16 July, Montreal in Sep, and I host a mtg
here in Boulder in NOvember, plus several others including CAHMDA mtg at
GFDL in October. A key point is that I am worried about how much I can
do for IPCC even though it will be a top priority. So I have a problem
as you do below.
I also have to go to AMS in January 2004 as an invited speaker at the Ed
Lorenz symposium.

Cheers
Kevin

>
>
> I'm trying to reduce commitments, but will not see any success till
> 2005.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
> At 09:35 07/05/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>
>> Hi Phil
>> I'll cc Martin and Susan to see if they think this is useful, but I
>> put together some ideas for procedures for LAs to follow based on my
>> experience.
>> See attached.
>> Kevin
>>
>> --
>> ****************
>> Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail:
>> [4]trenbert@ucar.edu
>> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [5]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
>> P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
>> Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
>>
>> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
>>
>>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email [6]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>

--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [7]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [8]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303



--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [9]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [10]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

>From [11]trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu Thu Feb 4 15:32:04 1999
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:28:46 -0700 (MST)
From: Kevin Trenberth [12]<trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu>
Reply-To: [13]trenbert@ucar.edu
To: [14]pjr@ucar.edu
Cc: Kevin Trenberth [15]<trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: IPCC chap 7.
Phil:
As I mentioned to you, I would appreciate your help on the IPCC Third
Assessment in putting together part of chapter 7 dealing with processes.
I am a lead author and I will be dealing with, among other things,
precipitation (section 7.2.4, see below).
The first draft of the chapter is due by 14 May. This means I need your
contribution by 10 April if at all possible.
Here is a brief outline of the setting.
------------------------------------------------------------------
IPCC TAR 2001 CHAPTER 7 "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks"
------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPCC is currently planning the production
of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) which is due for publication
in early 2001. The report of Working Group 1 (Scientific Assessment of
Climate Change) will consist of 14 Chapters.
The goal of the IPCC TAR is to assess the state of knowledge about the
climate system, its processes, its current state, its past varability
and future projections. The report will be an assessment with a
special emphasis on uncertainties in our knowledge.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Annex A: Tasks and Responsibilities for Contributors to IPCC reports
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributing Authors
Function:
To prepare technical information in the form of text, graphics or data
for assimilation by the lead authors into the draft section.
Comment:
Input from a wide range of contributors is a key element in the
success of IPCC assessment, and the names of all contrbutors should be
acknowledged in the reports. Contributed material may be edited,
merged if necessary, amended, in the course of developing the overall
draft.
Annex B: Chapter 7 Outline
--------------------------------------------------------------------
COORDINATING LEAD AUTHOR: T. Stocker
LEAD AUTHORS:
G. Clarke, H. LeTreut, R. Lindzen, V. Meleshko, R. Mugara,
T. Palmer, R. Pierrehumbert, P. Sellers, K. Trenberth, J. Willebrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
7.1 Introduction/Tutorial/IPCC-1995 Status
7.1.1 Components of the climate system
7.1.2 Major Advances and revisions since IPCC-1995
7.2 Atmospheric Processes and Feedbacks
7.2.1 Clouds
7.2.2 Water vapour feedback
7.2.3 Convection
7.2.4 Precipitation
7.2.5 Radiative Transfer
7.2.6 Stratosphere
7.2.7 Atmospheric Boundary Layer
7.2.8 Assessment of Models
7.3 Oceanic Processes and Feedbacks
7.3.1 Mixed Layer Processes
7.3.2 Convection
7.3.3 Interior Ocean Mixing
7.3.4 Small-Scale Transport Processes
7.3.5 Assessment of Models
7.4 Land Surface Processes and Feedback
7.4.1 Soil-vegetation-atmosphere transfer
7.4.2 Land surface change
7.4.3 Land hydrology, run-off, snow cover
7.4.4 Permafrost
7.4.5 Assessment of Models
7.5 Cryosphere Processes and Feedback
7.5.1 Sea ice
7.5.2 Terrestrial Ice
7.5.3 Albedo
7.5.4 Assessment of Models
7.6 Coupled System Processes and Feedback
7.6.1 Transport of Heat and Freshwater
7.6.2 Wind-driven Circulation - Atmosphere Feedback
7.6.3 Thermohaline Circulation - Atmosphere Feedback
7.6.4 El Nino - Southern Oscillation
7.6.5 North Atlantic Oscillation
7.6.6 Assessment of Models
7.7 Assessment of Nonlinear Events and Instabilities
7.7.1 Reduction or Collapse of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation
7.7.2 Climate Regime Shifts
7.7.3 Non-linear Changes in Land Surfaces
7.8 Conclusions
7.8.1 Predictability in the Climate System
7.8.2 Quantification of Importance
===================
Phil,
The piece can not be too long: maybe a couple of pages, but it needs to be
heavily referenced and briefly discuss the state of the art in knowledge and
how that gets into models, and the issues, with some sense of importance.
Many thanks
Kevin
>From [16]trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu Fri Feb 5 09:02:29 1999
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:58:48 -0700 (MST)
From: Kevin Trenberth [17]<trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu>
Reply-To: [18]trenbert@ucar.edu
To: [19]emanuel@texmex.mit.edu
Cc: [20]rtp1@midway.uchicago.edu, Kevin Trenberth [21]<trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: IPCC TAR Chapter 7
Kerry:
I understand that you agreed to be a contributor to Chapter 7 of the
forthcoming IPCC assessment, and I refer you to an email from Tom Stocker
earlier. That message outlined the scope of the chapter (you can also check
the 1995 report on Chapter 4) which is to deal with "Physical Climate
Processes and Feedbacks".
Specifically the subsections we identified that we seek your help on are:
Subsection 7.2.3 Convection and Subsection 7.2.4 Precipitation
------------------------------
Note that what we are doing is assessing the state of the art, and therefore
we seek a short contributions of perhaps a couple of pages that is
heavily referenced with recent contributions to back up any statements made.
Of course we greatly value your interpretation of the literature. Also these
two topics are closely linked and you may prefer to deal with them that way.
I don't mind if you go a bit long, but clear succinct and distilled prose is
exceedingly valuable.
This chapter precedes the chapters on modeling and prediction. Therefore a
focus of the state of knowledge of the "processes" is that these are the
ingredients of models and what goes into models reflects our understanding
and the technology limitations. By the latter I mean restrictions through
space and time resolution, and so forth. The key questions, it seems to me,
concern the roles of convection and precipitation in climate and the global
atmospheric circulation, so that heat, moisture and momentum transports are
important, and what they mean for the water vapor, cloud, precipitation and
latent heating that result.
You may be interested in a study I was involved in on related matters:
Dai, A., F. Giorgi and K. E. Trenberth, 1999: Observed and model simulated
precipitation diurnal cycles over the contiguous United States.
J. Geophys. Res., \vol 104, (in press, March).
This study documents the diurnal cycle of precipitation over the United
States and how well it is simulated in high resolution regional (Giorgi's)
models with different convective parameterizations. We have explored various
convection parameterizations over the United States in a high resolution
regional model and shown that none do it right. In particular all tend to
kick off convection prematurely compared with the real world and instability
does not build up adequately. Premature cloud formation occurs in the models
as a consequence and this prevents the correct solar heating from occurring,
impacting the development of the continental-scale ``sea breeze'' and
associated convergence at the surface which acts to trigger convection. No
known scheme can deal with the summer U.S. precipitation diurnal cycle.
I think this scale interaction problem is also involved in the failure of
models to deal with the Madden Julian Oscillation successfully. So this
stuff is intended to provoke you.
Other topics we listed under these categories include: lapse rate, vertical
coupling, model sensitivity, extremes, and orography.
Overall, we need some sense of how well we know these things and how limiting
the lack of knowledge might be on model simulations. Of course
parameterizations are not supposed to get the details and exact sequences
right but they are supposed to get the average effects right, so perhaps the
details don't matter.
The first draft of the chapter is due by 14 May. This means I need your
contributions by 10 April if at all possible. (In fact I can't use it much
before then owing to other travel commitments I have). Please copy Ray
Pierrehumbert on any responses.
Many thanks
I would appreciate an acknowledgement of this before I leave for New Zealand
next Tuesday, if possible.
Regards
Kevin
---------------
Kevin E. Trenberth e mail: [22]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR, ML [23]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, [1850 Table Mesa Drive] (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
*******************************

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [24]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [25]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [26]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment