Friday, May 18, 2012

4428.txt

date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:02:54 -0700 (MST)
from: Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzker.ucar.edu>
subject: Re: protocols
to: Mike Hulme <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Dear Mike,

What I said about your paper still holds -- TP4 makes it largely
unnecessary, and the S issue is more complex than your analysis implied.
Steve Smith, Hugh Pitcher and I have produced new, spatially detailed SO2
emissions scenarios that are based on CO2 concentration stabilization. We
are using these in O/AGCM runs here, in collaboration with Hadley and
CSIRO -- the runs will begin early next year. As far as I know, IPCC is
only looking at BAU cases -- which we have done as well, of course. Given
that the FCCC goal is CO2 stabilization, I can't see the point in re-doing
BAU cases.

Re MAGICC, there is a more serious aerosol breakdown problem. I'll have
to tell you more about it later (and fix it of course). The errors
involved, however, are quite small -- so don't panic.

By May next year, we will have O/AGCM results consistent with FCCC and
including direct and indirect aerosol effects that you can compare with
SCENGEN.

I think Mickey's job opening has closed -- i.e., deadline for applications
is past. NCAR is offering more $ for ESIG, so it is quite an attractive
job.

Cheers,
Tom

On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Mike Hulme wrote:

> Tom,
>
> I got a copy of your comments on the Subak et al. paper, and also your
> email of course.
>
> You're right in thinking the manuscript was hastily prepared. Susan sent
> off the final version to Martin Parry before I had had a second look at it.
> Also, we undertook the work under the false assumption that TP4 did not have
> T and MSL estimates included (the July version I had on my desk indeed did
> not have these in). I agree that given the final appearance of TP4, our work
> loses some of it significance. What the actual Kyoto outcome will be will
> also
> need interpretation. (Clinton's proposal for stabilisation by 2012, actually
> makes virtually no difference from a 2000 stablisation for Annex 1 countries
> in terms of 2050 or 2100 T change; the WRE 1996 analysis and conclusion
> remains
> largely valid).
>
> Our intention though was to provide some quantification of what the various
> Kyoto proposals mean in T and MSL terms and, also, importantly, to demonstrate
> that uncertainties in the S aerosols component in global-mean terms are very
> large re. what has been tabled. These uncertainties relate of course both
> to the
> forcing (as your earlier work shows), but also the emissions (i.e., the old
> IS92
> S scenarios are now largely invalid and have been superceeded by WEC and
> IIASA and
> will be further superceeded next year by IPCC). Indeed, the new IS98/99 S
> scenarios will
> be radically different and will therefore yield very different regional
> climate
> changes to the '1995' vintage GCM experiments of HADCM2, ECHAM3 and GFDL.
> In fact,
> over Europe, for example, S emissions are likely to fall _below_ 1990
> levels hence
> we should be adding warming and not cooling for next century. This is
> exactly the situation for which MAGICC/SCENGEN has been designed.
>
> I have set up a system for handling MAGICC/SCENGEN requests, and am keeping
> all
> Licence Agreements. If you ever want a list of who has got the software
> then let me
> know. Probably about 30 people/institutes so far.
>
> As far as MAGICC is concerned, I think the only problem that I am aware of re.
> S aerosol forcing is that the global cooling values re. the regional S
> emissions
> are wrt 1990, rather than 1961-90. This causes a slight inconsistency in the
> application of the results. If you think there is a more serious problem then
> let me know.
>
> Yes, it would be nice to have a more complete revised MAGICC handbook from
> you, but
> for now MAGICC 2.3 has an on-line help facility which provides some basic
> information
> for the novice.
>
> The IPCC have agreed for us, together with DKRZ Hamburg, to handle the
> climate change
> scenarios for the TAR. We should have something up and running by
> April/May next
> year. This will be a web site, with on-line tutorial about scenarios, and
> also a
> CD-ROM with aggregate datasets, scenarios and our new baseline climatology.
> If there
> is anything I should know about what ACACIA is doing and using, then please
> let me
> know (or else I'll get it from Rob).
>
> Finally, what do you know about Micky Glantz's position being advertised?
> Is that
> an opening worth looking at in more detail or is it a poisoned chalice
> given NCAR
> politics?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Mike Hulme tel: +44 1603 593162
> Climatic Research Unit fax: +44 1603 507784
> School of Environmental Sciences email: m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> University of East Anglia web site: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/
> Norwich NR4 7TJ
> ****************************************************************************
>
> Mean temp. in C.England during 1997 has been about 1.0degC above the
> 1961-90 average.
> The maximum temperature in Norwich: Sunday 2 November: 10.7degC.
>
>
>


**********************************************************
*Tom M.L. Wigley *
*Senior Scientist *
*National Center for Atmospheric Research *
*P.O. Box 3000 *
*Boulder, CO 80307-3000 *
*USA *
*Phone: 303-497-2690 *
*Fax: 303-497-2699 *
*E-mail: wigleyatXYZxyzr.edu *
**********************************************************


No comments:

Post a Comment