cc: tar10@egs.uct.ac.za date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:50:50 +0100 from: "Jens H. Christensen" subject: Re: chapter 10 to: GIORGI FILIPPO Dear Filippo, See below: GIORGI FILIPPO wrote: > Dear Chapter 10ers > > just a brief reply to hans, since we need to get to work and there is > really not much time for debating things. > > > I have had other obligations so far and have only now an oportunity to deal > > with the IPCC revision. > > I don't feel particularly bad about this as the IPCC business is voluntary, > > unpaid work meant to review the state of the art. That is, I am not willing > > to accept a dead line, given by Filippo ("so please set your mind to this > > in the next 3 weeks") or by the IPCC secretariat, which does not take > > account my other obligations. I hope to have a revised draft of 10.6 eary > > next week; updating the list of studies may need a bit longer as it means > > checking a substantial amount of additional material. > > > > This is fine, we can delay thing by a week or so I think. On the other > hand, it is true we are not paid and have other obligations (we all do!), > but when we accept to be lead authors of the report we are also implicitly > accepting a certain level of obligation to the IPCC, including trying to > stick close to their deadlines so as not to delay the whole process just > for us. Fortunately we have overlapping expertises in our group so that if > somebody is especially busy at certain times, others can pick up the pace. > > > Anyway, I would like to comment on some of Filippo's statements. > > > > First, I don't think that John Houghton is particularly qualified in saying > > anything about regional assessments. So far as I know he has no relevant > > official capacity in the process,and he has not been particulaly helpful > > inSAR. Actually, I consider him a politially intersted activitst and not > > as a scientist. This would be very different with somebody like Mike > > Wallace, Hans Oerlemanns or Neville Nicholls, just to give an example. > > Thus, if Sir John thinks that something is useful or not, does not bother > > me in any more sense as if Karlchen Mueller is making a statement, as long > > as Karlchen Mueller is a respectable scientist. > > > > No comment. > > > Seond: "The chapter lacks discussion of extremes and variability." I am > > happy to include in 10.6 all statements in this respect if somebody is > > telling me where such things are published. Please come forward with the > > material. > > > > this was true for the whole chapter, not just 10.6 Everyone will do what > they can. > > > Third: "Under the "encouragement" of Sit John, we also decided to add a > > text box on what we can say about regional climate change over different > > continents. This will probably be the most-read part of the chapter, so we > > need to be very careful with it. I and Peter will produce a draft to > > circulate. I know that originally we did not want to do this, but this is > > what they are asking us to do and it is now very clear that it is the main > > purpose of the chapter, so we have to do it. " I do not agree. What were > > the arguments we originally did not want to do this? What are the new > > arguments overriding our previous concerns? I am sure that people would > > love to read this statement in New York Times. We don't feel confident to > > make a statement, and then, suddenly, under the encouragement of Sir John, > > we cinclude it? This is truely embarassing. If the purpose of the Chapter > > is to produce statements on regions, and we found we can not do that, what > > should the assessment be? Simply: "We can not do it at this time, but we > > have a veriety of tehcniques to derive scenarios. However, for various > > reasons, we can not say that they are consistent, even if there is soem > > convergence." > > This is an important point that needs to be clarified and on which I'd > like to hear EVERYBODY's opinion. We discussed it at length before and in > Auckland and i think it is a legitimate point. In my eyes Sir John > represents the typical reader of this report and if he made that comment > and "encouragement" it means that our chapter is not sending the proper > message (after all he is one of the chairs of IPCC WGI). You may remember > that I was always of the opinion that we were talking too much about > techniques and too little about climate change. Now I think that we need > to change that to the extent possible: reduce technical issues, increase > climate change information. We actually already have a lot of that > information in there, especially in the AOGCM part. What Sir John asked > was to make it more "legible", and we decided in Auckland to make it in > the form of a box. We cannot invent information of course, but we can > condense it in this box by including 1) the info relative to what > AOGCMs sy for different continent, which is already there; 2) all possible > other info from the techniques. If there is none or if we can say nothing > we'll say we cannot do it for that specific region. but I think we need to > do something because the way it is, the chapter does not address the right > audience, which is not only made up only of scientists. > > AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM ALL OF YOU WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A BOX > IN THERE WITH INFORMATION FOR REGIONS OR NOT. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD > BE THE MOST READ PART OF THE CHAPTER, WHICH WOULD BE A PROOF THAT NOW > WE ARE MISSING THE TARGET. SO LET EVERYONE ELSE KNOW. > I just want to add my oppinion on this. I do agree with the point that we have to offer the regional information availble. By setting up the box with the regions, we will provide the obvious assessment over many regions, which Hans has put forward so simple: The quality of the global models are to poor to give any clear information about regional climate change. We can state for the various regions, where there is some information, to what extend there is agreement between models etc. However, even agreement amongst models does not at this stage allow for any thorough assessment about uncertainties about changes. This must come out crystal clear, even if this will be the message for all regions! At least we will make out point about assessing regional climate change very clear this way. > > > > > Forth: "Another issue raised more than once was that of contributors. Our > > contributor list appears very skewed towards very few developing country > > people (only one) and too many people from some countries (e.g. Germany)". > > I have listed only names of people who have contributed by suggesting pices > > of text. That many of these people are from Germany may be related to the > > fact that empirical regionalisation is done broadly in Germany at many > > institutions. If Bruce and I have overseen contributions from other > > countries, please let us know. Again, please come forward with material. > > > > fine. > > ################################################################ > # Filippo Giorgi, Senior Scientist, # > # Physics of Weather and Climate Group # > # The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics # > # P.O. BOX 586, (Strada Costiera 11 for courier mail) # > # 34100 Trieste, ITALY # > # Phone: + 39 (040) 2240 425 # > # Fax: + 39 (040) 224 163 # > # email: giorgi@ictp.trieste.it # > ################################################################ -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen Senior Advisor Danish Climate Centre Danish Meteorological Institute Lyngbyvej 100, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø DENMARK jhc@dmi.dk Phone: +45 39 157 500 Direct phone: +45 39 157 428 Fax: +45 39 157 460 About me: http://www.dmi.dk/f+u/klima/klimasektion/jhc.html About DMI http://www.dmi.dk ________________________________________________________________________________