cc: Peter Stott <peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk>, David Pierce <dpierce@ucsd.edu>, Knutti Reto <reto.knutti@env.ethz.ch>, "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" <francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca>, Tim Barnett <tbarnett-ul@ucsd.edu>, Hans von Storch <hvonstorch@web.de>, ClaudiaTebaldi <tebaldi@ucar.edu>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, David Karoly <dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au>, Toru Nozawa <nozawa@nies.go.jp>, Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, Daithi Stone <stoned@atm.ox.ac.uk>, Richard Smith <rls@email.unc.edu>, Nathan Gillett <n.gillett@uea.ac.uk>, Michael Wehner <MFWehner@lbl.gov>, Doug Nychka <nychka@ucar.edu>, Xuebin Zhang <Xuebin.Zhang@ec.gc.ca>, "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@science.doe.gov>, Chris Miller <christopher.d.miller@noaa.gov>, Tom Knutson <Tom.Knutson@noaa.gov>
date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:40:40 +0100
from: Gabi Hegerl <Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk>
subject: RE: priority list for MIP
to: Myles Allen <allen@atm.ox.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
HI everybody, sounds great! I had some amplified solar forcing runs  
with HadCM3 in a proposal for the last 500 yrs, and the reviewers  
HATED that - so not sure it will work for convincing sceptical people...
I agree that some more simulations would be highly useful,  
particularly also if going beyond 2000...so should be listed but along  
with land use maybe?

Gabi



Quoting Myles Allen <allen@atm.ox.ac.uk>:

> Dear Peter,
>
> Thanks for this. This should definitely be done for AR5: recent papers
> such as Lockwood and Frolich suggest that data since 2000 should be very
> informative with regard to the likelihood of a strong solar
> amplification, so it's a bit embarrassing that most direct simulations
> of solar influence on climate only run up to 2000 (if they even make it
> that far).
>
> Myles
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Stott [mailto:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk]
> Sent: 01 September 2008 16:27
> To: Myles Allen
> Cc: Gabi Hegerl; David Pierce; Knutti Reto; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario];
> Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; ClaudiaTebaldi; Phil Jones; David Karoly;
> Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett;
> Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Bamzai, Anjuli; Chris Miller;
> Tom Knutson
> Subject: RE: priority list for MIP
>
> Re the solar forcing we were discussing this very issue over lunch at
> the Met Office last week. To my knowledge, our 2003 detection study "Do
> models underestimate the solar contribution to recent climate change",
> J. Climate, 2003, has not been updated since then, even though, because
> of degeneracy between the GHG and solar response, the conclusions of
> that paper were heavily caveated (our "perfect model" analyses indicated
> we might have been attributing too much warming to solar forcing).
>
> What we need to update this study are model simulations with large solar
> forcing and ideally model studies that include a representation of uv on
> stratospheric ozone and we could I suppose have a go at trying to
> simulate the effect of cosmic rays in a model in some highly simplified
> way.
> It seems to me that this is something for a few interested groups to do
> rather than requesting everyone to do, since we could gain a lot of
> value from simulations with a single model or just a few models.
>
> Peter
>
> On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 15:27 +0100, Myles Allen wrote:
>> Dear Gabi,
>>
>> That sequence looks good to me. It might be worth emphasizing to the
>> modelers that we want as many takes as possible on the question of how
>> much warming can be attributed to past anthropogenic greenhouse
> forcing,
>> so the GHG-only runs are interesting in their own right, not just for
>> D&A.
>>
>> What solar forcing is being recommended (apologies if the answer to
> this
>> is in an earlier e-mail)? The one question it would be hard to answer
>> with that lot is Svensmark's: how much warming can be attributed to a
>> (possibly amplified) solar forcing? Are we anticipating that this
>> question will have become completely uninteresting by 2013?
>>
>> Myles
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk]
>> Sent: 01 September 2008 14:55
>> To: Gabi Hegerl; David Pierce
>> Cc: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario];
>> Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; ClaudiaTebaldi; Phil Jones; David
> Karoly;
>> Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett;
>> Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Bamzai, Anjuli; Chris
> Miller;
>> Tom Knutson
>> Subject: priority list for MIP
>>
>> Hi IDAG people, I forwarded the comments to Karl.
>>
>> One thing that Jerry and Karl would find helpful is a priority list
>> from us about runs important for detection and attribution.
>> if I write this (in a hurry so dont take terribly serious) I would get
>> the following priorities:
>> 0. control simulation longer than 150 yrs
>> 1.        1 All forcing 20th century simulation (1860-2015, ideally
>> even earlier start)
>> 2.        two more 20th century simulations particularly if control
>> shorter than 500 yrs
>> 3.        1 Natural only forcing 20th century simulation
>> 4.        1 Ghg only simulation
>> 5.        2 more natural only simulations
>> 6.        2 more ghg only simulations
>> from here on its a bit of a tossup
>> 7.        1-3 land use change simulation
>> 8.        1-1 volcano simulation
>>
>> what do you think - how would you splice? I tend to favor the
>> simualtion that is closest
>> to whats actually happening if having an opion of say ALLminus a
>> forcing or a forcing
>> alone.
>>
>> ALso, as soon as Karl has the suggested list of variables to be saved
>
>> I will circulate for feedback!
>>
>> Gabi
>>
>> Quoting Gabi Hegerl <gabi.hegerl@ed.ac.uk>:
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gabriele Hegerl
>> School of GeoSciences
>> University of Edinburgh
>> http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613
>>
>
>



-- 
Gabriele Hegerl
School of GeoSciences
University of Edinburgh
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


</x-flowed>
