date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:02:54 -0700 (MST) from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: protocols to: Mike Hulme 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.hulme@uea.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: wigley@ucar.edu * **********************************************************