Page images
PDF
EPUB

Page 6.36, line 1: The Pleym et al reference is given as 1994, not 1995, in the references. Why is this the only result discussed when several others are referenced in passing on the preceding page? UNITED STATES Page 6.37, line 7: "...10%-40% of observations..." What does this mean, that only 10-40 percent of observations have biases, or something else? The present wording is not clear. UNITED STATES

Page 6.37, Table 6.6.1: Tasmania is omitted from the temperature part of the table. Was this intentional or an oversight? UNITED STATES

Page 6.39, line 26: Change this to "...precipitation biases in the range of approximately 45% to +20% of observed values..." UNITED STATES

Page 6.42, Section 6.7.1.3: It should be noted here that not all coupled ocean-atmosphere models require the use of flux adjustments in order to simulate realistic climate scenarios (e.g., Schopf et al). UNITED STATES Fig. 6.2.2: The text should note that the Cubash et al (MPI) transient model (identified as MPI CO2 anom in the figure) is suspected of simulating temperatures of the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere as too cold (by as much as 6C?) for roughly the first 65 years. If this error were eliminated, the warming it predicts would likely have begun well before now, leading to a disparity between this model and reality. UNITED STATES Page 6.68, Section 6.A.2: The text should indicate the best estimate and the uncertainty range regarding the forcing from each gas listed. (This comment applies to Chapter 2 if the section is moved to Chapter 2.) UNITED STATES Page 6.68, line 35: The sentence implies that Legett et al. did not project their results based on regional data. The text should clarify whether this is true. Given that the Legett et al. paper was prepared as an IPCC document, it would seem that the authors could have obtained unpublished regional results. UNITED STATES Page 6.73, line 8: Change the post-2100 assumption to an assumption based on constant cmissions or constant concentrations, at least through the 22nd century-or make an assumption based on the published literature (c.g. Nordhaus or Cline).

Justification: The basis for assuming that emissions decline lincarly rom the year 2100 to the year 2200 seems extremely optimistic and is not supported by the economic analyses in Working group II. There is sufficient carbon in the ground to sustain year-2100 emissions for more than a century. In the absence of detailed modeling, a simple assumption is necessary-but a better assumption would be constant emissions, since the stated premise of the analysis is no policy. A linear decline in emissions would a technical or policy change. UNITED STATES Page 6.73: Somewhere on this page, a discussion on the possibility of an abrupt climate change, and the reasons for omitting it from the model, should be included. UNITED STATES Page 6.73, line 28ff. The discussion of long-term changes in sea level should be moved to Chapter 7, and compared to other analyses of long-term simulations of sea level rise, such as those by Thomas (1985), Lingle (1985) (both in Polar Research Board 1985), Wigley and Raper, Titus and Narayanan (1995). The text should note that the 1-D model ignores ice sheet dynamics, which may be a particularly important oversight for very long-term simulations. UNITED STATES

Attachment to letter to Congressman George Brown from Dr. Robert Corell, March 4, 1996

ATTACHMENT 3

E-mail dated July 12, 1995 from J. Mitchell to Michael
MacCracken

E-mail dated July 17, 1995 from J. Mitchell to Michael
MacCracken and forwarded to K. Bergman

E-mail dated November 17, 1995 from J. Mitchell to Michael MacCracken

Attachment 3

Letter to Congressman Brown from Dr. Robert Corell, March 4, 1996

1

J Mitchell (by way of shenson@usger, 7/12/95 7:59 AMIPCCchpto
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 95 08:59:44 EDT
X-Sender: shenson@earth.usgcrp.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: mmaccracken
From: J Mitchell <jfbmitchell@meto.govt.uk> (by way of shenson@usgcrp.gov (Susan

Henson))
Subject: IPCCchpto

>From jfbmitchell@meto.govt.uk
12 July 1995
Dear Mike,
it was good to see you in Boulder. I think you organized an excellent session.
I have just received and glanced through the US comments on IPCC95 chapter 6,
section 2. For the most part, they are very helpful and will, I beleive,
help me improve the text. Please thank those who obviously took some time
and care in reviewing the text. I think we can accomodate most of the specific
comments.
I did have some difficulty with the general comments. It was not
clear from the specific comments what instances there were of 'disconnected
sentences. ... not always logically related to one another'. Nor am I quite
clear to what extent we can provide a discussion of model results 'and what
they mean - where we have done so we seem to have got our wrists slapped eg
interpreting the degree to which flux correction per se distorts the
response of
models. I would be grateful for guidance on this before next week when I will
go over the section in detail before the Ashville meeting.
As regards unpublished results, we have included references to results
which should be submitted for publication well before the publication date of
the report. Given the slow rate of turnround of referees at present (perhaps
exacerbated by their involvement in IPCC) some will inevitably not be accepted
by next January.
I should also like to rebutt the innuendo about release of results.
The only request for information that I am aware of being refused is Pat
Michaels request to me for grid point data from the model. I supplied him
with copies of the relevant manuscript which I believe fulfills the US
wish that detailed information should be generally available for all model

results cited in the report. This view is supported by the fact
that none of the 700 or so other reviewers have requested gridpoint data.
Thank you again for the care you have taken in assessing the chapter.
With Best wishes
John

J F B Mitchell

Hadley Centre for Prediction and Research
Meteorological office
Bracknell RG12 2SZ, UK.

NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE
Tel +44 1344 856613
Fax +44 1344 856912

Attachment 3

Letter to Congressman Brown frou Dr. Robert Corell, March 4, 1996

1

kbergman,7/17/95 2:27 PM,IPCCchpto To: kbergman From: J Mitchell <jfbmitchell@meto.govt.uk> (by way of shenson@usgcrp.gov (Susan Henson)) (by way of maccrac@usgerp.gov (Mike MacCracken)) Subject: IPCCchpt 6 Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments:

Ken--Here is a comment back from John Mitchell on the US review of Ch 6. Guess it was my comment that got him most stirred about data release. I will reply and try to ease off a bit--and will see him in Asheville next week. You might otherwise want to reply.

Mike

>From jfbmitchell@meto.govt.uk
12 July 1995
Dear Mike,
it was good to see you in Boulder. I think you organized an excellent session.
I have just received and glanced through the US comments on IPCC95 chapter 6,
section 2. For the most part, they are very helpful and will, I beleive,
help me improve the text. Please thank those who obviously took some time
and care in reviewing the text. I think we can accomodate most of the specific
comments.
I did have some difficulty with the general comments. It was not
clear from the specific comments what instances there were of disconnected
sentences.... not always logically related to one another'. Nor am I quite
clear to what extent we can provide a discussion of model results and what
they mean where we have done so we seem to have got our wrists slapped eg
interpreting the degree to which flux correction per se distorts the
response of
models. I would be grateful for guidance on this before next week when I will
go over the section in detail before the Ashville meeting.
As regards unpublished results, we have included references to results
which should be submitted for publication well before the publication date of
the report. Given the slow rate of turnround of referees at present (perhaps
exacerbated by their involvement in IPCC) some will inevitably not be accepted
by next January.
I should also like to rebutt the innuendo about release of results.
The only request for information that I am aware of being refused is Pat
Michaels request to me for grid point data from the model. I supplied him
with copies of the relevant manuscript which I believe fulfills the us
wish that detailed information should be generally available for all model

results cited in the report'. This view is supported by the fact
that none of the 700 or so other reviewers have requested gridpoint data.
Thank you again for the care you have taken in assessing the chapter.
With Best wishes
John

J F B Mitchell

Hadley Centre for Prediction and Research
Meteorological office
Bracknell RG12 252, UK.

NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE
Tel +44 1344 856613

[blocks in formation]

Letter to Congressman Brown from Dr. Robert Corell, March 4, 1996

1

J Mitchell, 11/17/95 10:22 AM,modeldata
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 15:22:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: J Mitchell <jfbmitchell@neto.govt.uk>
Subject: modeldata
To: MacCracken@usgcrp.gov
Posted-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 15:22:29 GMT

>From jfbmitchell@meto.govt.uk 17 Nov 1995

Dear Mike,
I hear through Richard Moss that my refusal to give Pat Michaels
grid point data will be considered by a congressional Inquiry.
This seems rather odd, as Pat has written . I respect your decision, although
I do not agree with it'. Perhaps you can let me know what the situacion is.
Note that the data does not belong to IPCC, it belongs to Her Majesty's
Government. Will you be at the IPCC meeting in Madrid?

With best wishes
John

JF B Mitchell

Hadley Centre for Prediction and Research
Meteorological Office
Bracknell RG12 2SZ, UK.

NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE
Tel +44 1344 856613
Fax +44 1344 856912

Printed for mmaccrac@usgerp.gov (Mike MacCracken)

ISBN 0-16-052761-9

[graphic][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »