date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 08:06:39 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: AOGCMs to: sraper@awi-bremerhaven.de SARAH -- QUICK REPLY, SINCE HAVE TO GO & TAKE CAT TO VET. sraper@awi-bremerhaven.de wrote: >Dear Tom, > >Here are some preliminary points re AOGCM details: > >The problem of drift was swept under the capet in the TAR and >we hardly discussed it at all. Thus the CMIP2 plot is all relative to >control (Figure 9.3). > BUT -- IS THIS CONTROL AT SAME DATES OR (EG) CONTROL INITIAL YEARS (1-20)? FIG CAPTION NOT CLEAR ON THIS EITHER. > >your note (1) is unclear to me. >For your DT (Def1) and DT (Def2) I read TCR (Def1), TCR >(Def2) >for def 1 I do 61-80 perturbed minus 1-20 control (I think) >for def 2 I do 61-80 perturbed minus 61-80 control >(already by years 1-20 in perturbed some warming has occured). > YEAH, THIS IS WHAT I DO. GOOD. > >The TCRs in Table 9.1 were likely calculated by the individual >modelling groups and then given to Cath Senior who compiled the >table. Mayb there was some confusion over definistions? > POSSIBLE -- BUT DISTURBING. > I gave >her my effective sensitivity values so these should be the same >as in Table 9A.1, > YES -- THESE CHECK. > also I may well have given her the CCC and MRI >values cos I tried these models too. > >for (6) better to compare with heat flux into the ocean rather than >Kz. > OK - WILL CHECK. Kz WAS JUST A ROUGH THING TO CHECK. > These are plotted for 9 models in figure 9.20 (my figure!) >because this includes influence of changes in upwelling whereas >Kz is just the bulk diffusion needed to match the ocean heat flux >after the upwelling has been varied. > GOOD POINT -- I DID LOOK AT UPWELLING, BUT NOT AT YOUR FIGURE WHICH IS THE BEST THING. THANX, TOM. > > > > >