Thursday, June 7, 2012


date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:59:29 -0600 (MDT)
from: Bette Otto-Bliesner <>
subject: Re: [wg1-ar4-ch06] Updated 6.1 (inc. Bette's comments)
to: David Rind <>


Looking more closely at the PRISM data set on the web, I would be more
comfortable with the following changes and additions to the text:

1. In paragraph 3, temperatures warmer (estimated by GCMs to be 2-3C
above preindustrial). The uneven and geographically sparse nature of the
data cores makes me uneasy including a global warming estimate based on
the data.

2. In paragraph 4, I would like to see numbers (with uncertainties) of
high-latitude and tropical warming from the data. This is important since
we contend that the Pliocene response is different than what models
project for the future.

I think in addition to Jim Zachos we should have Alan Haywood look at this


Bette L. Otto-Bliesner
Climate Change Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
1850 Table Mesa Drive / P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, Colorado 80307
Phone: 303-497-1723
Fax: 303-497-1348

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, David Rind wrote:

> Hi Eyestein,
> Thanks for your comments. With respect to the suggested changes in paragraphs
> 1,2 and 4, they seem fine to me. However, I think we need to include in
> paragraph 5 potential reasons as to why the substantial (and not just
> significant) high latitude warming that appears in the mid-Pliocene record is
> not produced in GCMs in response to higher CO2, in general - otherwise we
> leave the reader with a big question and no possible solution. The tendency
> of GCM simulations for the future climate to produce an NADW decrease forces
> those simulations to have minimal high latitude warming in the North
> Atlantic, exactly opposite the inference from the Pliocene paleo-record
> (which is quite robust in this respect at least). If the Pliocene record is
> indicating the opposite of what current models are predicting, it may be
> offering us a valuable clue...
> The suggested reasons also include the comment that the lack of land ice at
> high northern latitudes might be a strong contributing cause - which would
> make it a no-analog situation, and hence not fully a GCM problem.
> I would favor leaving those two sentences as they were.
> David
> At 5:19 PM +0200 7/22/05, Eystein Jansen wrote:
>> Hi,
>> see enclosed some comments to the last version of the deep time box. I
>> propose some deletions and some toning down of language. What do you think?
>> Eystein
>> --
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Eystein Jansen
>> Professor/Director
>> Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
>> Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
>> All�gaten 55
>> N-5007 Bergen
>> e-mail:
>> Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661
>> Fax: +47-55-584330
>> Attachment converted: Toltec:IPCC Box 6.1_latest_EJcomm.doc (WDBN/�IC�)
>> (1BE54183)
> --
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list

No comments:

Post a Comment