Tuesday, November 29, 2011

0226.txt

cc: wg1-ar4-ch06atXYZxyzs.ucar.edu
date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:22:47 +0200
from: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorfatXYZxyzan-klima.de>
subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Comments on Section 6.3
to: David Rind <drindatXYZxyzs.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: rahmstorfatXYZxyzan-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-ch06atXYZxyzs.ucar.edu
http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment