Monday, May 21, 2012

4536.txt

cc: Rob Swart <Rob.SwartatXYZxyzm.nl>, PARRYML@aol.com, tim.carter@vyh.fi, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, maria.noguer@metoffice.com, naki@iiasa.ac.at, ssmith@pnl.gov, ssmith@colorado.edu, CHAKK@epri.com, rrichelsatXYZxyzi.com
date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 01:00:54 +0900
from: Tsuneyuki MORITA <t-moritaatXYZxyzs.go.jp>
subject: Re: stabilization scenarios
to: wigley@ucar.edu, Sarah Raper <s.raperatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Tom,

I just came back from Tokyo, and found your mail.
Thank you very much for your information.

In order to reply to your mail, I'd like to write here my recognition
about TGCIA's role and the reason why post-SRES result can be useful
in the TGCIA activities.

First, I recognize that one of the important role of TGCIA is to compare
various results of academic research on future socio-economic and climate
scenarios in order to provide consistent data for impacts researchers.

For this purpose, I believe that it is very much necessary to compare
various mitigation scenarios to prepare consistent set of input assumption
for climate change simulation.

Although I do not know your recent research to revise WRE scenario, I
know very well your previous contribution on stabilization scenario
analysis as well as famous MAGICC model. If you complete your recent
work, I beleive your stabilization scenario could become a strongest
alternatives for the input assumption.

However, I am afraid that your recent work adopts neither multi-baseline
nor multi-model approach. If I misunderstand your work, I would apologize
to you. Did you design WRE scenario based on all SRES baseline? Did you
refer other model than MiniCAM to determine spatial distribution of SOx
emissions?

In SRES and post-SRES process, we adopted multi-baseline and multi-model
approach in order to avoid arbitrary assumption and subjective value
judgement. As the result of these research, we found the following
important points:

(1) The CO2 emission path over next one hundred years for concentration
stabilization is significantly influenced by SRES baseline scenarios.
Please see Fig 1 of the attached file. You will find a wide range of
550 stabilization path. If assuming the B2 scenaio, the path is very
similar to your WRE in MESSAGE run. But if assuming high emission
baseline such as A1FI and A2, emission path for 550 stabilization is
much higher than WRE, and become lower after 2060-2100. These scenarios
assume more reduction during 2100-2150.

(2) Regional SO2 emission scenario is significantly different among
applied models.
Please see Fig.2 of the file. You will find that the miniCAM-based
scenarios of regional SOx distribution is not a median of all the
estimated scenarios. Especially, MiniCAM estimated the lowest SO2
emission in the ALM region.

The above fact is the reason why we need to compare various scenarios
in TGCIA process. If the comparison could find that the differences
between your scenarios and other scenarios have small sensitivities
to radiative forcing as well as regional climate change, I think
the value-added of your scenario would significantly increase. If not,
we need to recommend the preparation of more consistent set of scenarios.

Anyway, I cannot determine the direction pf TGCIA work. I ask Martin
to judge it.

Finally, I appreciate Tom's communication with me, and I would very
much appreciate your sending me any information on your recent research.
Our post-SRES results is summarized in Chapter 2 of IPCC TAR WG3 report.
The results were also published as a special issue of academic journal,
and you will get it from Hugh.

Best regards,
Tsuneyuki


Sarah Raper $B$5$s$O=q$-$^$7$?(B:
>
>*******************************************************
>*******************************************************
>** This is from Tom Wigley using Sarah Raper's email **
>** This is from Tom Wigley using Sarah Raper's email **
>** This is from Tom Wigley using Sarah Raper's email **
>*******************************************************
>*******************************************************
>
>Dear all,
>
>You may not be aware that I have updated and expanded the WRE CO2
>stabilization profiles for improved consistency with recent observed data
>and with the SRES scenarios. I have also considered the effects of non-CO2
>gases. I have a manuscript on this that it nearly complete -- it will take
>a few more weeks. The material will be presented at a workshop in Aspen in
>September.
>
>For the spatial distribution of SO2 emissions, Steve Smith has produced
>scenarios consistent with the earlier WRE CO2 stabilization profiles using
>MiniCAM. Since the new central profiles are very similar to the old WRE
>profiles, these emissions scenarios are valid for both. The new profiles
>also consider different baseline (no policy) scenarios as well as the
>central case. It will be easy to produce spatial SO2 emissions scenarios
>for these too. The SO2 emissions results are described briefly in a paper
>(Smith, Pitcher and Wigley) on future SO2 emissions that we plan to submit
>for publication within the next few weeks.
>
>Steve first did this sort of thing a number of years ago (when he was at
>NCAR) for a matched pair of ACACIA emissions scenarios, a no-climate-policy
>scenario and a consistent stabilization scenario. We have run these
>scenarios (out to 2100) with both NCAR coupled AOGCMs (CSM and PCM -- the
>PCM runs involved ensembles of four to increase the signal to noise ratio).
>The scenarios have also been run on the CSIRO AOGCM. The CSM results were
>published in Journal of Climate. The PCM results are in press. We have also
>extended both the no-policy and stabilization scenarios to 2200, and run
>these with PCM. These results are also in press.
>
>I am telling you this because there is a danger that you might do something
>that we have already done, or that we may do similar things without
>communicating. If any of you want reprints or preprints of the
>above-mentioned papers, send me your mailing addresses and I will send them
>to you.
>
>You might also be interested in my paper with Sarah Raper giving
>probabilistic projections of future global-mean warming consistent with the
>TAR projections (which we did with the same model). We first did this sort
>of thing 9 years ago for the SAR emissions and climate model, but the
>results were only presented in a report to the U.S. Dept of Energy. The
>present analysis is much better, but the approach is the same. Our recent
>work was published in Science on July 20.
>
>Best wishes,
>Tom.
>
>
>******************************
>* Dr. Sarah Raper *
>* Climatic Research Unit *
>* University of East Anglia *
>* Norwich *
>* NR4 7TJ *
>* *
>* Tel. + 44 1603 592089 *
>* Fax. + 44 1603 507784 *
>******************************
>
>

Tsuneyuki Morita
Director, Social & Environmental Systems Division
National Institute for Environmental Studies
(Professor, Tokyo Institute of Technology)
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8506 Japan
tel:+81-298-50-2541 / fax:+81-298-50-2572

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\post-SRES analysis for Tom.ppt"

No comments:

Post a Comment