cc: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:22:47 +0200
from: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de>
subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Comments on Section 6.3
to: David Rind <drind@giss.nasa.gov>

<x-flowed>
Dear David,

not sure this is a helpful discussion to get the AR4 on track...

So convection is not a "zeroth and first order processes that dominate 
the problem", when GCMs look at ocean circulation changes? As an 
oceanographer, I would argue that it is, and it is parameterised in any 
coupled climate model I know of, not calculated from first-order 
principles. I suspect the same is true for clouds in GCMs.

Our model certainly parameterises more processes than a GCM - there is 
indeed a price to pay for speed. But that remains a difference of 
degree, not a fundamental one. Note also that the parameterisations we 
use mostly have a sound theoretical basis, they are not some arbitrary 
tunable things.

It is not a scientific argument to refer me to other people who may have 
a bad opinion of the model (the reviewers of our 50+ papers obviously 
didn't), nor is it a scientific argument to compare me with climate 
sceptics. That does not help our working atmosphere.

I suggest we close this discussion and simply agree that we disagree on 
this point; the topic of EMICS is covered well in other chapters, and 
there is no need to go deeply into this in our chapter.

Stefan

-- 
To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de
(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.)

Stefan Rahmstorf
www.ozean-klima.de
www.realclimate.org

_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
</x-flowed>
