date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:50:18 +0000 (GMT) from: Simon Tett subject: [postmaster@meto.gov.uk: Delivery Notification: Delivery has to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, jfbmitchell@meto.gov.uk ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:09 +0000 (GMT) From: PMDF e-Mail Interconnect Subject: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed To: sfbtett@meto.gov.uk Content-type: multipart/report; boundary="Boundary_(ID_3HiA8U1IrB/2ncx+CHrp/Q)"; report-type=delivery-status - --Boundary_(ID_3HiA8U1IrB/2ncx+CHrp/Q) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: EN-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields: Message-id: <200001252349.XAA09978@hc1600.meto.gov.uk> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Simon Tett To: sfbtett@meto.gov.uk Subject: INTEGRATE -- innovation & work packages. Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients: Recipient address: k.briffa%uea.ac.uk.jfbmitchell@meto.gov.uk Original address: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk.jfbmitchell@meto.gov.uk %MAIL-E-LOGLINK, error creating network link to node UEA.AC.UK.JFBMITCHELL - -SYSTEM-F-NOSUCHNODE, remote node is unknown - --Boundary_(ID_3HiA8U1IrB/2ncx+CHrp/Q) Content-type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns;meto.gov.uk Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Original-recipient: rfc822;k.briffa@uea.ac.uk.jfbmitchell@meto.gov.uk Final-recipient: rfc822;k.briffa%uea.ac.uk.jfbmitchell@meto.gov.uk - --Boundary_(ID_3HiA8U1IrB/2ncx+CHrp/Q) Content-type: message/rfc822 Return-path: sfbtett@meto.gov.uk Received: from meto.gov.uk by meto.gov.uk (PMDF V5.2-32 #32907) id <01JL51S8UN3K0059YI@meto.gov.uk>; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hc0800.meto.gov.uk ([151.170.1.12]) by meto.gov.uk (PMDF V5.2-32 #32907) with ESMTP id <01JL51S772B8005GJM@meto.gov.uk> for k.briffa%uea.ac.uk.jfbmitchell@meto.gov.uk; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hc1600.meto.gov.uk (hadst@hc1600.meto.gov.uk [151.170.11.21]) by hc0800.meto.gov.uk with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.1) id XAA20294; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: (from hadst@localhost) by hc1600.meto.gov.uk (8.7.6/8.7.3) id XAA09978; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:05 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:49:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Simon Tett Subject: INTEGRATE -- innovation & work packages. To: sfbtett@meto.gov.uk Cc: jones@gkss.de, schnur@dkrz.de, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, storch@gkss.de, cubasch@dkrz.de, k.briffa%uea.ac.uk.jfbmitchell@meto.gov.uk Message-id: <200001252349.XAA09978@hc1600.meto.gov.uk> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <200001201556.PAA12500@hc1600.meto.gov.uk> Dear all, here follows some drafty thoughts on innovation and WP5 & 6. To give us a good outline I need thoughts from Tim (WP6, Task 1 WP5) and from Julie and Reiner. Hans/ Ulrich are you happy with what is proposed?? I'm not at work tomorrow(26th) -- back on thursday but may get some time to read email. Simon ============================================================ Some notes on innovation for INTEGRATE (modelling side). For the first time we would carry out an quantitative intercomparision between simulated climate variability and annual resolved proxy reconstruction of temperature, drought and sea-level pressure. These comparisons will explicitly take account of error in the proxy reconstruction. We propose to compare results from "Control" simulations with constant external forcing, simulations forced with Natural (solar and volcanic) and Anthropogenic (greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and ozone changes) forcing for the last 500 to 1000 years, and simulations forced with Natural forcings with the annually resolved proxy data. In order to aid interpretation of model-proxy comparisons we plan to compare the same diagnostics from different models with proxy data. We plan to drive all climate models used in the project with the same forcing datasets. The extra simulations funded as part of the project will add to the range of simulations done at the modelling centres. [Note somehow that MPI/GKSS runs are funded outside the project -- analysis is what gets funded]. In addition we plan to diagnose changes in sea-level, glacier advance/retreat and simulated productivity to compare with reconstructions. Our aims in doing these comparisons are: 1) how much credence can be given to studies (i.e Tett et al, 1999) which claim to have detected an anthropogenic influence on climate and ruled out natural causes as an explanation of surface temperature changes since 1946. 2) estimate the effect of natural forcings on the variability of temperature, drought and other variables. This will be done by comparing results of "Control" and "Forced" simulations. Mainly through inverse modelling (i.e proxy data goes to model variables) though some forward modelling will be done. 3) estimate the contribution to 20th century sea-level rise from natural forcings. 4) compare glacier advance/retreat with records. 5) Directly diagnose vegetation productivity to compare with tree-ring data. In order to avoid using simulated climate variability we also propose to use proxy reconstructions of natural temperature variability to see if earlier D&A results still hold. Note this means having no knowledge of the timing of natural variability but assumes that the magnitude of the variability is correct. Why? 1) Validate models variability by quantitive comparison with proxy data. 2) Many studies using climate models to study mechanisms for decadal variability. Need to have some confidence that simulated variability has correct magnitude. 3) All current D&A studies use simulated internal variability to quantify model-observed agreement and to claim detection of anthropogenic changes. 4) Estimates of range of future climate change should include some estimate of natural variability. 5) Can estimate contribution that natural forcings make to total variance as a function of space and time scales. Workpackages: Some rough notes but I've included gross estimates of time taken. Time taken by HC are reasonable though not final. Rest, where I've put them in, are just guesses... Text probably needs expanding. [Keith -- need to start putting together various project management stuff.. Have you got something then I can add the WP5/6 stuff to it!!] All data extracted for common diagnostics to be converted to netcdf (GDT convention -- see URL for details) and transferred to partner UEA for dissemination to partners and other parties. Workpackage 5 ============================================================ Tasks. 1) Define forcings. Forcings will be defined, in as similar a manner as possible, for the modelling efforts. These forcings to include: a) Insolation changes due to orbital/axis changes. b) Changes in total solar irradiance. c) Changes in volcanic aerosol loading. d) Changes in CO2 and CH4 (and other trace well mixed greenhouse gases). e) Changes in Sulphates (direct & indirect) f) Changes in Tropospheric and Stratospheric ozone. We assume a-c are natural and d-f are anthropogenic. HC (1 Month), GKSS/MPI (1 Month), UEA (1/2 Month) 2) Run and monitor simulations. The simulations to be done are a experiment from 1500--2000 with natural forcings alone and a second experiemtn from 1750--2000 with natural and anthropogenic forcings. Extract common diagnostics and put them into the databank. This task involves setting up the experiments (with the forcings defined in (1)), checking that the simulations are proceeding as expected and extracting data to place it in the databank. HC (2 Months), GKSS/MPI (1 Month -- for extraction), UEA (1/2 month -- data into the databank) 3) Compute glacier advance/retreat and sea-level rise in forced and Control simulations. Diagnose if changes are outside internal climate variability as simulated in Control simulations. [Should this data go into the databank?]. Our aim in doing this is to see what effect natural forcings have had on sea-level rise and on glacier advance/retreat. HC (6 months), GKSS/MPI (??), UEA (0) 4) Compare forced temperature variance with "control" variance as a function of space and time scales. The aim is to see on what space and time scales is forced variance different from internal variance. Results from this task will be used to inform pre-filtering strategies for tasks 4 and 5 in WP6. HC (3 months) 5) Investigate forced simulations to see if there are periods and variables which are significantly different from the control. Such periods and variables will be compared with proxy data in task xx in WP6. HC (2 months) [Could merge 4 and 5 as they are about when/where/how is forced simulations different from control] ============================================================ Workpackage 6 Task 1. Develop methodology for inclusion of proxy error in model-proxy comparison for tasks 2, 3 and 4. [I'm assuming that UEA do this -- any comments or expansion ...] HC (0 months) Task 2. Compare the variance of both the control and forced experiments on 10-100 year timescales and a variety of spatial scales with proxy data. Document the results of this comparison. HC (4 months) Task 3. Compare glacier changes as simulated in models (WP5 task 3) with observations of glacier advance and retreat. HC (1 month) Task 4. Can simulated signals of climate change (temperature mainly) be detected in the proxy data records. This comparison will be done on 50-100 year timescales. It will use results from WP5, task 4 to decide on a pre-filtering strategy. Results from this and WP 4, task 4 will be used to decide if model variability is adequate. HC (5 months) Task 5 Attempt to detect model simulated changes of anthropogenic changes from 1946--1996 in temperature against natural noise as estimated from proxy data. This work will build on work done by partners XX and YY. The aim of this research is to see if recent simulated changes due to anthropogenic forcings are significantly present in the observations. HC (2 months) Task 6. Compare productivity diagnostics from forced and control simulations with proxy estimates of biological productivity estimated from mass changes inferred from tree ring data. This would be an attempt at forward modelling. [Keith -- how will we get the proxy data to do this..] HC (3 months) Products -- I think too many. Suggestions on merges/deletions?? ============================================================ I guess the products will largely be reports. 1) Dataset and Description of forcing datasets. Forcings to be in netcdf format and available to all interested parties. [John -- is this ok??] 2) Databank containing results from simulations. 3) Report comparing results of forced and control simulations of sea-level rise. 4) Report comparing results of forced and control simulations, and of "observed" glacier advance/retreat. 5) Report reporting on which space and time-scales, and periods, forced and control simulations differ significantly. Report to contain results of variance comparison between proxy and model data. i.e overall assessment of simulated natural variability as compared with "proxy" natural variability. 6) Report on detectability (or not) of forced signals in proxy data. 7) Report on detectability of 20th century anthropogenic signals against natural variability as estimated from proxy data. 8) report on forward modelling (simulated productivity vs proxy productivity) - -- ============================================================ + Spinning in the wind at the UKMO + ============================================================ Tel : +[44]-1344-856886 Fax: +[44]-1344-854898 - --Boundary_(ID_3HiA8U1IrB/2ncx+CHrp/Q)-- ------- End of forwarded message ------- -- ============================================================ + Spinning in the wind at the UKMO + ============================================================ Tel : +[44]-1344-856886 Fax: +[44]-1344-854898