[CCSM-participants] Draft plan for CMIP5 (IPCC AR5 model output)
bballard at ucar.edu
Thu Jul 31 10:27:00 MDT 2008
Oops! I forgot the attachment.....here it is. Barbara
Barbara Ballard wrote:
> Dear all,
> As most of you know, plans are well underway for a coordinated set of
> climate model experiments, which will constitute the Fifth phase of
> CMIP. Attached is a description of the proposed experiments. As
> members of the CMIP panel, which was established by the WCRP's Working
> Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) to help coordinate this activity, we
> are seeking your comments. Considerable thought and input from a wide
> community of scientists have already contributed to the CMIP5 design,
> and therefore major changes are not envisioned. Competing interests and
> various tradeoffs have been carefully considered before coming up with
> the proposed suite of experiments. Please keep in mind that modeling
> groups have limited resources and the experiment must represent a
> compromise among various priorities. We will not be able to please everyone.
> The CMIP panel must present a final design plan for CMIP5 to the WGCM at
> its annual meeting in September, just two months from now. Given this
> tight deadline (which cannot slip if the CMIP5 results are to be
> available in time for the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report). For this
> reason, we ask that you send us (taylor13 at llnl.gov and
> Ronald.Stouffer at noaa.gov) any comments and suggestions you have by
> September 1, 2008.
> Feel free to pass this document on to anyone you think will have an
> interest in it. We invite comments from scientists associated with all
> aspects of the climate change issue, spanning the three IPCC working groups.
> With best regards,
> Karl Taylor (PCMDI) and Ron Stouffer (Chair, CMIP panel).
> P.S. Please note that there are remaining details yet to be worked out.
> In particular it has been suggested that experiments 4.2 a&b described
> in the document should be performed in conjunction with the so-called
> RCP-driven experiments given in Table 2 rather than with the idealized
> (1% CO2 increase per year) experiments of Table 4. Experiments 4.2
> allow us to separate out the climate-carbon cycle feedback. The original
> proposal was in fact to do this separation for the RCP runs, but several
> scientists offered compelling arguments for switching this diagnostic
> analysis to the 1% runs. Some of the reasons for making this change
> from the original proposal can be found in section 9. Still, there are
> some scientists who continue to express a preference for the original
> design. Please let us know what you think about this.
Administrative Assistant III
CCSM Program Office
National Center for Atmospheric Research
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
Phone: (303) 497-1358
Fax: (303) 497-1700
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 242403 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/ccsm-participants/attachments/20080731/0bb76069/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the CCSM-participants