cc: plattner@climate.unibe.ch, Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:33:56 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations to: Fortunat Joos , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Fortunat - great to see this, thanks. I would agree that it seems too long and that our goal should be to make the captions as easy to get into as possible, and save the detail on the two Tim figs for a TABLE (see previous email) and the interpretation detail for the main text para (or two, if you need) - can you create a "Question" subheading to help with the organization? Hoping Keith/Tim can have the caption done really soon, hopefully using the table idea. Thanks all, peck >Hi, > >Here attached a first draft of the caption for figure e) - the EMIC. > >TIM can you please give us the appropriate >number for the low-freq. NH T variability and >specify the smoothin. > >It is suggested that KEITH and TIM do a further >editing to get it consistent in the language >compared to the captions of panel a to d. > >I have included main conclusions of the >simulations. These could be removed if the >caption appears too long - Peck any opinion??. >Will wait with writing the para in the main text >until we have agreed the caption. > >Regards, Fortunat > >Tim Osborn wrote: >>Dear all, >> >>some points of clarification: >> >>(1) Reference period. >> >>Sorry for the confusion about the reference or >>anomalisation periods in these figure panels, >>which probably arises because we haven't yet >>sent round an updated figure caption (though >>the caption in the FOD is still almost correct). >> >>Just to clarify - no data have been >>"normalised", which I take to mean "scaled to >>have unit standard deviation as well as shifted >>to have zero mean" over some reference period. >> >>All data in all panels, including the forcings, >>NH temperature simulations and the shading for >>the NH temperature reconstructions from proxy >>data have been "anomalised" to have zero mean >>over the same reference period, 1500-1899. >>NONE of the panels or data have been anomalised >>to have zero mean over 1960-1990 or 1961-1990. >> >>I think there are a number of advantages in >>using the 1500-1899 reference period over >>1961-1990 reference period (longer references >>are always better where possible, because they >>are better defined and less sensitive to >>short-term "unusual" behaviour in a few series; >>differences in 20th century warming rates do >>not then result in a continued separation of >>the series for the previous 900 years; I think >>of climate as changing from pre-industrial >>conditions forward to the present-day climate, >>rather than working backwards from the present >>to the past, etc.). >> >>I can see only one advantage in using 1961-1990 >>reference period, and that is if we will also >>include the instrumental temperature record, >>which cannot easily be referenced to the >>1500-1899 period! But I'm not sure if we are >>to include instrumental data or not? >> >>I will try to recreate the entire figures with >>all panels and data referenced to 1961-1990 >>mean instead and you can see for yourselves >>(except the "natural forcings only" EMIC runs >>which must then be adjusted to match the "all >>forcings" EMIC runs prior to 1765 rather than >>being referenced to their 1961-1990 means). >> >>(2) We use 10 reconstructions to obtain the >>grey-shaded regions of overlap between them, >>but we obtain 20 steps of grey because we count >>separately the overlaps of the reconstructions' >>+- 2 standard error range and their +- 1 >>standard error range, thus giving more weight >>to the inner range as being more likely. >> >>(3) None of the models were forced with >>smoothed forcings, but we showed smoothed >>forcings for two reasons: >> >>first, there are a number of difference >>forcings used and it is very hard to plot them >>sensibly (distinguishable from each other) if >>they are unsmoothed - especially for the >>volcanoes, but also for the others (e.g. some >>solar forcings have the 11-year cycle, which >>has been smoothed out here for the same reason, >>and some anthropogenic forcings that have been >>diagnosed from the models rather than assumed >>to follow the IPCC's concentration-to-radiative >>forcing formulae also show shorter timescale >>noise which can be distracting if not smoothed). >> >>second, it is very difficult to judge the >>relative importance of the forcings if we show >>the volcanic forcings as unsmoothed, with very >>short-lived but large magnitude spikes. The >>30-year smoothing used allows a much clearer >>comparison of, say, the negative volcanic >>forcing during the Dalton Minimum period and >>the Dalton Minimum in the solar forcing itself >>- even on the 30-year time scale, volcanic >>forcing is clearly more important than solar >>forcing for this period. With unsmoothed >>spikes it would be impossible to tell! >> >>I will make the other changes requested >>(colours, labelling) and re-circulate the >>figure (hopefully two version with the two >>reference periods to compare). >> >>Cheers >> >>Tim >> >>At 10:53 15/02/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: >> >>>Hi everybody, >>> >>>Sorry for coming back on the issue of >>>normalisation. We have just discussed this >>>again. >>> >>>a) We expect the following comments in the next review: >>> >>>Panel b and c are normalized to 1960-1990. >>>Why are the model panels d and e not >>>normalised in the same way. Is this to 'cheat' >>>and to make the model results look better? >>> >>>b) Another argument of normalising to the >>>instrumental period is that we have good data, >>>whereas preindustrial data are uncertain. >>> >>>c) It is hard for us to discern the impact of >>>the high vs low solar forcing in the present >>>panel e as the simulations have an offset both >>>on the start and at their end. >>> >>>d) Similarly, we think that the simulations >>>with/without anthropogenic forcing would be >>>separated in a much clearer way by normalising >>>to the instrumental record. >>> >>>Perhaps, we miss your point of view here? Would you mind to explain. >>> >>>As far as the colors are concerned, we would >>>suggest to use similar colors for identical >>>forced simulations. >>> >>>Tim's idea to relable the 'WLS' curve sound good. How about 'Bard08-WLS' >>> >>>With best regards, >>> >>>Fortunat and Kasper >>> >>>Gian-Kasper Plattner wrote: >>> >>>>Dear all, >>>>I have one comment with regard to the EMIC >>>>figure produced by Tim. Right now, the colors >>>>chosen do not hold additional information for >>>>the reader on which model or which forcing >>>>has been applied. For example, the WLS-forced >>>>run for Bern2.5CC is given in red, while the >>>>CLIMBER-3a is in blue; for the Bard2.5 run >>>>Bern2.5CC is in light-blue, while CLIMBER-3a >>>>is in purple... I think that by grouping >>>>either the colors for the individual models >>>>or for the individual forcing timeseries the >>>>figure could become much more comprehensible. >>>>What about using e.g. dark red - orange, dark >>>>blue - light blue, dark green - light green >>>>pairs to make things easier to read? >>>>In addition, the model names in the legend >>>>need to be updated (Bern2.5c --> Bern2.5CC, >>>>Climbr3a --> Climber3a). >>>>With best regards, >>>>Kasper >>>> >>>> >>>>Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>> >>>>>O.k. EMIC caption noted. Can go with the 1500-1899 ref period. >>>>> >>>>>Stefan, Anders, and Eva can you provide me >>>>>the appropriate references for your models >>>>>and the official names. >>>>> >>>>>Regards, Fortunat >>>>> >>>>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hi Tim and Fortunat: This looks nice >>>>>>(thanks) and my slight bias is that we >>>>>>should include the Climber3a results. What >>>>>>do you think, Fortunat? I think Stefan >>>>>>likes it based on his email. >>>>>> >>>>>>Regarding the reference period, I would >>>>>>side w/ Tim and Keith on using 1500-1899. >>>>>>We need to use the same ref period for >>>>>>everything on these two figs (obs and >>>>>>forcing/simulations), and I think the EMIC >>>>>>panel still convey's the main message. >>>>>>Keith/Tim/Fortunat - we have to resolve >>>>>>this FAST, so please weigh in more on this >>>>>>issue. Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>>Regarding captions, yes, you should do all >>>>>>but the EMICS, and you should make sure you >>>>>>send to Stefan so he can help make sure it >>>>>>makes sense (e.g., the red/grey shading). >>>>>>We have asked Fortunat to do the EMIC >>>>>>caption. Can you do this Fortunat? Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>>Best, Peck >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>please see the attached diagram (both the >>>>>>>same, PDF or GIF) with all three EMICs on >>>>>>>now. Climber3a seems to lie between >>>>>>>Climber2 and Bern2.5CC mostly. Does it >>>>>>>add to the message of the figure to use >>>>>>>all three? If so, please use this version >>>>>>>from now on, for drafting captions etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nobody said much about the previous >>>>>>>version, so hopefully this indicates >>>>>>>general agreement! I didn't show the >>>>>>>"Bard08" runs, because they were so close >>>>>>>to the runs I have labelled "WLS", but of >>>>>>>course in those runs the pre-1610 solar >>>>>>>forcing is Bard08 - so maybe the labels >>>>>>>should be altered to somehow indicate >>>>>>>them, or this could just be stated in the >>>>>>>caption. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Am I right that Keith and I need to >>>>>>>provide an updated caption for panels >>>>>>>(a)-(d), but that someone else will write >>>>>>>a caption for the EMIC panel (e)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Tim >>>>>>> >>>>>>>At 19:20 13/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi Anders and Tim - It could be too late, >>>>>>>>but this is up to Tim. Can you get these >>>>>>>>data onto the new EMIC panel? I think >>>>>>>>it'd be worth it, but only if you and >>>>>>>>Keith can get everything else done first. >>>>>>>>Best make sure you have all the data >>>>>>>>needed, just in case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>thanks Anders too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>best, peck >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>>>>>>>Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:20:14 +0100 >>>>>>>>>From: Anders Levermann >>>>>>>>>Organization: PIK >>>>>>>>>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >>>>>>>>>To: Fortunat Joos >>>>>>>>>Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , >>>>>>>>> Stefan Rahmstorf , >>>>>>>>> Anders Levermann , >>>>>>>>> Eva Bauer >>>>>>>>>, >>>>>>>>>plattner@climate.unibe.ch, >>>>>>>>> Eystein Jansen , >>>>>>>>> Keith Briffa >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Millennium Simulations >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>here is the data from the Climber-3alpha >>>>>>>>>simulations. I know they are too late, >>>>>>>>>but >>>>>>>>>perhaps there is still a way to include >>>>>>>>>them. The structure of the files is the >>>>>>>>>same as Eva's. The file names correspond >>>>>>>>>to the ones you gave in the simulation >>>>>>>>>protocol. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Cheers, >>>>>>>>>Anders >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Please find attached an update of the >>>>>>>>>>simulation protocol and input data >>>>>>>>>>description. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Kasper Plattner pointed out that I >>>>>>>>>>forgot the obvious. We need of course a >>>>>>>>>>control run to correct for potential >>>>>>>>>>model drift. The readme file has been >>>>>>>>>>modified accordingly adding a brief >>>>>>>>>>description on how the control should >>>>>>>>>>be done. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I am looking forward to any additional >>>>>>>>>>comments. Hope everything is clear. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Kasper is currently working to perform >>>>>>>>>>the simulation with the Bern2.5CC. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Regards, Fortunat >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I have now compiled the input data set and written a protocol how to perform the runs. It seems to me that it would make sense if we perform the simulations first with the Bern Model and with the Climber 2 model. We can then still decide if we need Climber 3. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Please let me know if there are any questions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I could also provide files where the radiative forcing of solar, volcanoes and non-CO2-anthropogenic has been added together. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>With best wishes, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Fortunat >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Dear Eva and Fortunat - thanks for working on getting things moving. It seems that the detailed forcing recommendations laid out below by Fortunat build nicely on what Eva first suggested, and that going with the forcing series suggested below by Foortunat (and the 6 simulations) is going to be just right for the IPCC AR4 Chap 6 needs. Does everyone agree? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks Fortunat for preparing/sharing the standard forcing series. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Best, peck >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear Eva, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>We are working on the forcing series and they should be ready by the end of the week. Stefan assured us that you can run this within a few hours. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>What we are preparing are the following series of radiative forcing in W/m2: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>a) RF from atmospheric constituents (well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, many Halocarbons) tropo and strato Ozone, various anthropogenic aerosols) as used in the Bern CC TAR version and the TAR (see Joos et al., GBC, 2001; pdf is on my homepage and TAR appendix). >>>>>>>>>>>>>b) volcanic from Crowley, Sci, 2000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>c) solar based on Lean and Bard et al. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>For the solar we will prepare 3 combinations: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>c1) original serie from Lean (2005) provided to you already >>>>>>>>>>>>>c2) Bard et al., Be-10 record linearly scaled to match the Maunder Minimum Average of Lean-AR4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>c3) Bard et al., Be-10 scaled to a MM reduction of 0.25 permil, i.e. the low case in the Bard et, Tellus, publication corresponding to the Lean et al, 1995 scaling >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>For the RF by atmospheric components two cases are foreseen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>a1) standard case with reconstructed evolution over past 1150 years >>>>>>>>>>>>>a2) RF kept at 1765 value after 1765, i.e. a simulation with natural forcings only. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>This will yield in total 6 simulations 3 over the full length from 850 AD to 2000 and 3 brach-off simulatons from 1765 with natural only forcing. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>An important point in IPCC is that things are published, consistent among chapters, and it helps if approaches are tracable to earlier accepted and approved IPCC work. The arguments for these series are as follows: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>a) Considering as many components relevant for RF as possible (more than just CO2). The series are fully compatible with TAR and that the setup is tracable to the TAR for the industrial era increase. The same series will be used in the projection chapter 10 for the SRES calculation >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>b) volcanic: a widely cited record >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>c) solar: c1) and c3) are published series; c2 follows the same approach and spirit as used to derive c3, i.e. scaling the Be-10 serie linearly with a given Maunder Minimum reduction. The impact of the 11-yr solar cycle can be looked at in the original Lean-AR4 serie. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I hope this help. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>With kind regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Fortunat >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Eva Bauer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear Jonathan, dear Fortunat: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Happy New Year! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stefan, Anders and me just have discussed how to set up our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>CLIMBER2/3alpha runs, to produce something useful for the IPCC WGI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>chapter 6. This chapter appears to touch the impact on the NH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>temperature related to low and high solar forcing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>For a reasonable comparison, we think two 1000-year simulations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>differing only by a low and a high solar forcing, conducted with both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>CLIMBER models, would be ideal. To do so, we would have to extend the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>solar forcing time series based on Lean (GRL, 2000) and on Wang et >>>>>>>>>>>>>>al. (2005) distributed in previous e-mails back to the year 1000. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>would require some splicing as was done, for instance, by Crowley. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm thinking of some scaling applied to a series of Crowley (say the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>data called Be10/Lean splice in Science, 2000) such that the amplitude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the solar variability from the 11-year cycle is conserved after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>~1720. I have to check but it appears that the variation in the TSI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>due to the 11-year cycle contained in the Crowley series agrees >>>>>>>>>>>>>>perfectly with the 11yr-cycle data in the file based on Lean (2000). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Before starting such an exercise I like to ask you what you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>about. We would be happy to receive your response quite soon to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>able to finish the calculations with our slow model in time for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>IPCC report. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Could you please also comment on the other forcings we should include, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>namely the volcanic forcing and the CO2 forcing. For the present study >>>>>>>>>>>>>>we suggest to use the forcing as in Bauer et al (2000) but omitting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the land-use. This means, using the volcanic forcing from Crowley, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>2000 and the CO2 forcing based on Etheridge et al 1996 and Keeling and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Whorf, 1996. (If you wish we can distribute these data series.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also, thinking beyond the IPCC study, the model results may become >>>>>>>>>>>>>>interesting enough to be discussed in a 3-model comparison study!? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Looking forward to your reply. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Best wishes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eva >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6 >>>>>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>F. Joos, >>>>>>>>>>joos@climate.unibe.ch >>>>>>>>>>18 Januar 2006 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>OVERVIEW >>>>>>>>>>-------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A total of 7 simulations is planned. >>>>>>>>>>A control simulation without any forcing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Two millennium-long simulations with >>>>>>>>>>solar forcing following Bard et al. >>>>>>>>>>with a Maunder Minimum reduction of >>>>>>>>>>0.08 and 0.25 percent in total >>>>>>>>>>irradiance and volcanic and >>>>>>>>>>anthropogenic forcing included >>>>>>>>>>A simulation from 1610 to 1998 with >>>>>>>>>>solar forcing from Wang et al, 2005 and >>>>>>>>>>volcanic and anthropogenic forcing >>>>>>>>>>included >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 >>>>>>>>>>with only solar and volcanic forcing >>>>>>>>>>included, but no anthropogenic >>>>>>>>>>forcings. These are branches from the >>>>>>>>>>above three simulation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A range of input data files have been >>>>>>>>>>prepeared. Each contains a header with >>>>>>>>>>additional descriptions of the data. >>>>>>>>>>Solar irradiance has been taken from >>>>>>>>>>Bard et al., Tellus, 1999 and from >>>>>>>>>>Wang, Lean, Shirley, JAp, 2005. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is estimated that the Maunder >>>>>>>>>>Minimum irradiance is reduce by 0.08 >>>>>>>>>>percent >>>>>>>>>>relative to today and that the present >>>>>>>>>>irradiance is 1366 W/m2 from the Wang >>>>>>>>>>et al. data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction >>>>>>>>>>of 0.08 percent is calculated from the >>>>>>>>>>Bard et al. data by scaling the >>>>>>>>>>original Bard series appropriately. >>>>>>>>>>The original Bard series are offset by >>>>>>>>>>1.3 W/m2 in irradiance to bring them to >>>>>>>>>>a present irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For >>>>>>>>>>this excercise we will utilize a Maunder >>>>>>>>>>Minimum reduction in irradiance >>>>>>>>>>relative to today of 0.08 percent and >>>>>>>>>>of 0.25 percent (other cases with high >>>>>>>>>>MM reduction are included in the files). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Irradiance has been converted to >>>>>>>>>>radiative forcing: RF= (IRR-1366)/4*0.7 >>>>>>>>>> Volcanic forcing is from Crowley >>>>>>>>>>Science, 2000, with albedo factored in >>>>>>>>>>(e.g. as for solar forcing). To avoid a >>>>>>>>>>cold start of the model, the serie is >>>>>>>>>>extended to 850 AD by mirroring the >>>>>>>>>>Crowley data from 1001 to 1150 to the >>>>>>>>>>period 850 to 1000. >>>>>>>>>>NonCO2 forcing is following TAR >>>>>>>>>>(updated for an error in tropo O3 in >>>>>>>>>>the TAR). >>>>>>>>>>CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, >>>>>>>>>>JGR, 97 data and the Siegenthaler, >>>>>>>>>>TEllus, 2005 data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>INPUT FILES DESCRIPTION: >>>>>>>>>>----------------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A1: Solar irradiance and radiative >>>>>>>>>>forcing following Bard from 850 to 2000 >>>>>>>>>>(Tag description) >>>>>>>>>>solBard08 2. col: Maunder Minimum >>>>>>>>>>reduction of 0.08 percent solBard25 >>>>>>>>>>3. col: Maunder Minimu reduction of >>>>>>>>>>0.25 percent >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Note: data from Bard have been linearlz >>>>>>>>>>interplated on an annual time step >>>>>>>>>> files: >>>>>>>>>> bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A2: Solar irradiance and radiative >>>>>>>>>>forcing following Wang, Lean, Shirley, >>>>>>>>>>2005 >>>>>>>>>> from 1610 to 2004 annual resolution >>>>>>>>>>Tag: WLS-05 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> files: >>>>>>>>>> wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> annual resolution >>>>>>>>>>Tag: CO2 >>>>>>>>>> file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from >>>>>>>>>>1001 to 1998 AD, extended by artificial >>>>>>>>>> data from 850 to 1000 AD by >>>>>>>>>>mirroring the forcing from 1000 to 1150 >>>>>>>>>>to the period 850 to 1000 >>>>>>>>>>Tag: volcCrow >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> annual resolution >>>>>>>>>> file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents >>>>>>>>>> annual resolution >>>>>>>>>>Tag: nonco2 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>>>> rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>B) SIMULATIONS >>>>>>>>>>----------------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM >>>>>>>>>>reduction of 0.08 percent, volcanic >>>>>>>>>>forcing and forcing from CO2 and other >>>>>>>>>>anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>-------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>as B1.1 but with solar forcing from >>>>>>>>>>Bard et al. reduced by 0.25 percent for >>>>>>>>>>the Maunder Minimum. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>-------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 >>>>>>>>>>to 1998 restarted from >>>>>>>>>>bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci >>>>>>>>>>ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation: 1610 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. >>>>>>>>>>bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>>>>> at year 1610 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to zero >>>>>>>>>>(except for volcanoes and solar) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CO2 is kept at its 1765 value. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B3.1: tag bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. >>>>>>>>>>bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>>>>> at year 1765 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B3.2: tag bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: restart from simulation B1.2. >>>>>>>>>>bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>>>>> at year 1765 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>----- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B3.1: tag WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: restart from simulation B2. >>>>>>>>>>WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>>>>> at year 1765 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B4: tag ctrl_850-1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Control simulation without any forcing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 850 to 1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>OUTPUT >>>>>>>>>>------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>Anders Levermann >>>>>>>>>phone: +49-331-288-2560 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research >>>>>>>>>fax: +49-331-288-2570 Telegraphenberg A26, 14473 Potsdam, Germany >>>>>>>>>anders.levermann@pik-potsdam.de www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>>>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>>>>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>>>>>University of Arizona >>>>>>>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>>>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>>>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>>>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>>>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modelsE.gif (GIFf/�IC�) (00113719) >>>>>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modelsE.pdf (PDF /�IC�) (0011371A) >>>>>>>Dr Timothy J Osborn >>>>>>>Climatic Research Unit >>>>>>>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia >>>>>>>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >>>>>>> >>>>>>>e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >>>>>>>phone: +44 1603 592089 >>>>>>>fax: +44 1603 507784 >>>>>>>web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>>>>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >> >> >>Dr Timothy J Osborn >>Climatic Research Unit >>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia >>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >> >>e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >>phone: +44 1603 592089 >>fax: +44 1603 507784 >>web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >> > >-- > > Climate and Environmental Physics, > Physics Institute, University of Bern > Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern > Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 > Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:caption_figure_emic_#113B6F.doc (WDBN/�IC�) >(00113B6F) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/