cc: Mike Hulme , John Schellnhuber , "S.E. van der Leeuw" , Carlo Jaeger date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 09:15:11 +0200 from: Wolfgang Cramer subject: Re: ... "in agreement"... to: Klaus Hasselmann Ok, Klaus, then I think we are in pretty good agreement here, certainly on the content. Budget- and management.-wise, we now have a minimalistic approach (like everywhere else in FP6) on doing only the utmost necessary, which is achieved by ensuring 75k€ for a postdoc with precisely the skills you outline (Tim Mitchell) in the world-leading center for precisely this work (CRU-Tyndall, or Tyndall/CRU, or whatever). I would have loved to give them more, but I think we failed to discuss this point appropriately early on in the game. Remember that precisely what is said about climate here also counts for land use change, an even more massive driver of global change in many regions (and we assign even less to it). I also think that many of these content issues (which Mike, I and others have been hammering in, among other places, two recent EU Concerted Actions, appropriately named ECLAT) will require adequate discussion at AMS meetings in the future. On the optimistic front, I note that, at this late hour, apparently ENSEMBLES is recognising this need as well, and is installing a matching (not overlapping) action by involving Tim Carter of the Finnish Environment Institute, another core member of our earlier joint activities. Best wishes, Wolfgang On 04/01/2003 07:47 AM, Klaus Hasselmann wrote: > Dear Wolfgang: > I have not been involved in the ENSEMBLES discussion, apart from the > joint AMS/ENSEMBLES teleconference a few days ago, in which only Dave > Griggs participated from ENSEMBLES. My comments are my summary of the > teleconference as I understood and interpreted it, but has not been > discussed with others yet. > > You underline my point that providing useful information for the user > from GCM scenario runs is largely a matter of communication. The users > know what they need, but only the climate modellers can provide the > information. If the climate modellers simply dump the massive outputs > of their simulations on AMS-WP 1.3 , the poor WP 1.3 scientists will > be swamped and drown. Also, much of the input they need will probably > not be stored, or stored in a manner which will be very costly to > retrieve. What is needed is a clear strategy, geared to the user > needs, on > > a) what is stored, and in what format, from the scenario runs, and > > b) what software tools will be available for the post-processing > needed to transform the output of the scenario runs into useful > information for the impacts community. > > This requires more than just a "pointer" in WP 1.3, but somebody, or > rather a few people, who are willing to work in close collaboration > with the ENSEMBLES modellers, and to whom the ENSEMBLES modellers > would listen. And there will be a fair amount of coding work to be > done on the post-processing side. > > Cheers > Klaus > > At 22:37 31.03.2003 +0200, Wolfgang Cramer wrote: > >> Dear Klaus, >> >> I keep pondering about this. It seems you are indicating that 1.3 is >> hardly needed and should be replaced by a pointer to ENSEMBLES? >> >> One could start a whole discussion here. In fact, the result of last >> week's consultations with ENSEMBLES, for example, is, as I see it, >> even worse than I imagined: not only do the "climate modelling >> centers" have no consideration whatsoever of the possible "user >> needs" - they keep reporting negative progress. For example, despite >> the massive build-up of computing power, this power is being invested >> into atmospheric process studies almost exclusively. Not even the >> most evident anthropogenic land surface feedbacks are dealt with in >> any credible way, and I don't even want to speak about the needs for >> off-line scenarios for impact assessment. >> >> The information that is being produced, the little it is, is mostly >> grossly inadequate for impact studies - and this is not a problem of >> the impact models, neither of the ill-informed impact modellers, but >> it is because most atmospheric modelling teams stay clear of the >> complexities involved in making appropriate choices in assembling >> climate information. >> >> This is why a small, but significant part of 1.3 needs to go to >> Tyndall/CRU and an entirely statistical operation there. The most >> part, however, is used to define the nuts&bolts of the scenarios >> (scenarios, emissions, climate, land use, etc.) that the >> vulnerability and adaptation crowd in AMS needs. I am aware that time >> could have been spent usefully during recent months to develop this >> better, and we all know what we have been occupied with in reality. >> But if there is no support in the strategy committee for the >> development of credible, geographically comprehensive baseline and >> scenario information, then AMS will be just a talkshop where people >> forever debate about terminology. I would not want to be part of it. >> >> Hence I hope we can avoid throwing away the efforts we have made to >> generate a useful Scenarios WD and a useful WP1.3. We are almost there. >> >> Herzliche Grüße, >> >> Wolfgang >> >> On 03/31/2003 04:46 PM, Mike Hulme wrote: >> >>> ... except maybe Klaus Hasselmann. John Schellnhuber sent me this >>> message from Klaus on Saturday, with a different take on WP1.3. Is >>> Klaus's idea going anywhere? >>> >>> Mike >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Klaus Hasselmann" >>>> To: "S.E. van der Leeuw" ; "S.E. van der Leeuw" >>>> ; >>>> Cc: "armin haas" ; "Armin Haas" >>>> ; >>>> "Alexander Wokaun" ; "John Schellnhuber" >>>> ; "Klaus Hasselmann" >>>> ; >>>> "Pier Vellinga" ; "S.E. van der Leeuw" >>>> ; "S.E. van der Leeuw" >>>> ; >>>> "Sebastian Gallehr" ; "Pier Vellinga" >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 9:58 PM >>>> Subject: WP-1.3 >>>> >>>> >>>> > Dear Sanders and Carlo, and other strategists: >>>> > >>>> > Attached please find the short description of WP 1.3 as I >>>> understood it. >>>> > >>>> > I would imagine you would need much less than the 450,000 Euro >>>> per Work >>>> > Package to establish the link as I described WP 1.3. Perhaps you >>>> would >>>> > prefer to modify the reference value of 450,000 Euro beyond the >>>> 10% swing >>>> > we decided in the Strategy Committee for an individual WP, while >>>> sticking >>>> > with the average value of 450,000 Euro for the domain. I would >>>> support >>>> this. >>>> > >>>> > Cheers >>>> > Klaus >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> >>>> > Klaus Hasselmann >>>> > Max Planck Institute for Meteorology >>>> > Bundestrasse 55, 20146 Hamburg, Germany >>>> > Voice: +49-(0)40-41173-236 >>>> > Fax: +49-(0)40-41173-250 >>>> > Email: hasselmann@dkrz.de >>>> > URL: http://www.mpimet.mpg.de >>>> > >>> >> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Wolfgang Cramer, Department of Global Change and Natural Systems >> Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 60 12 03 >> D-14412 Potsdam, Germany, Tel.: +49-331-288-2521, Fax: -2600 >> mail:Wolfgang.Cramer@pik-potsdam.de, www.pik-potsdam.de/~cramer >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > Klaus Hasselmann > Max Planck Institute for Meteorology > Bundestrasse 55, 20146 Hamburg, Germany > Voice: +49-(0)40-41173-236 > Fax: +49-(0)40-41173-250 > Email: hasselmann@dkrz.de > URL: http://www.mpimet.mpg.de > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Cramer, Department of Global Change and Natural Systems Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 60 12 03 D-14412 Potsdam, Germany, Tel.: +49-331-288-2521, Fax: -2600 mail:Wolfgang.Cramer@pik-potsdam.de, www.pik-potsdam.de/~cramer ----------------------------------------------------------------