date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 07:04:41 -0600
from: Tom Wigley
subject: Re: Question re AR4 and long scenarios
to: sraper@awi-bremerhaven.xSarah,
(1) Even if your abstract is not for public dissemination, I still don't think the subtitle is wise.
date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 08:35:15 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: subtitle to: Sarah Raper
By the way, I would expunge the alternative title.
The fact that we can use MAGICC with a standard (and constant) sensitivity and get excellent results demonstrates that it is a very useful concept. Further, my work with volcanoes and PCM (and all the other forcing cases we have done with PCM that I have considered) shows that it works for different forcings and for forcings operating on very different timescales.
Are you trying to get IPCC to reject MAGICC? This is what it looks like with that subtitle.
I don't think we understand variable sensitivity, but this is a secondary and relatively minor problem. Constant sensitivity usually works well. If some models appear to have a changing sensitivity then so what -- is this just a model artifact, or is it something that may apply to the real world?
date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:17:08 +0100 from: Sarah Raper subject: my ppt for climate sensitivity workshop to: Tom Wigley
Dear Tom,
Please find my ppt for the climate sensitivity workshop. You will see I'm going ahead with the subtitle (don't quite know why I want to do it) but I'm just going to leave it as silent subtext. More important I have added at the end a new figure. It shows effective climate sensitivity for the CMIP2 runs I analysed for all 4 decades of available data. It shows where the 1.7 to 4.2 range comes from and ask the question whether this is a good definition for the AR4.
....attachment; filename=Presentation1.ppt
From the attachment:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment