date: Tue Apr 5 16:50:27 2005 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: Progress Report] + additional thought to: Kevin Trenberth Kevin, Thanks for the reviews I didn't have. The WG1 AR4 as a whole was my reading of the email from Martin Manning about planning for LA2 in Beijing (his email of March 29). This was in the penultimate paragraph of a long email. We are down for a presentation (20 minutes) on Day 3 at LA2. I've not looked at the other chapters, except for a glance at Chs 6 and 9. Given all the other things we have to do between now and LA2, this seems a bridge too far. I picked this email up last week, but didn't take this Day 3 presentation in until the weekend. We have until April 11 to respond. The Climate Sensitivity Workshop was a more focused issue as far as I'm concerned. I still have difficulty remembering which number each chapter is except for 3, 6 and 9 ! I see I missed a bit in this email. WG1 will send compiled comments from their reviewers by April 11, if all reviewers get their comments in by April 8. I also meant to add in the email earlier today that the NRC review process appeared to go OK from my perspective. I had only to review Ch 5 and the Exec Summary. Although the latter will require some work, Ch 5 came off lightly compared to Chapters 1 and 6. Chapter 6 was a mess and none of the group got on with Pielke and I can understand why. Back to our ZOD, reducing the size is difficult, but it is something we will have to come to grips with. Working through the LAs is the way, but they will need strong suggestions. I hope the formal reviews have specifics. If we get the collated comments from WGI by April 11, then we should likely send these out. We should also send back the CA comments somehow, but we don't have time to collate them. I only know that Chris Folland's is for the whole thing and maybe Adrian's is. The rest might be very specific so could just be sent for each chapter lead? I've put the few that came in emails into doc files. We do need this lot to come with suggestions. So maybe send the WGI material when we get it, then the CA comments when we've had some time to think. Assigning people to downsize sections is a good idea - at least for 3.5-3.7. We need to think hard about 3.4 and 3.3 as the'll need some clear guidance from us. Off home in 20 minutes. Next login likely on Thursday unless I can get on at an airport tomorrow. Cheers Phil and also in a lesser sense to 2-4. The authors have to deal with Fu et al explicitly instead of saying it is controversial. I didn't succeed in getting some of Dick Lindzen's comments removed. Chapter 6 was a complete mess. It did seem odd that our review will get published - why, when the final report will be quite different. At 15:22 05/04/2005, you wrote: Phil I am attaching the 2 contributions from Warren, and also the Robertson and Fogt/Bromwich one. I did not understand your addendum: WG1 AR4 as whole? I must say I have not looked at any other chapters. It seems premature at this point. Our LAs are supposed to help on that. Last night I went over the hurricane sections of the 2004 BAMS article. It has a lot of useful material: on all the regions for the first time. I will follow up with Levinson to see if we can get a composite figure and a global view. Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, I meant to add - any thoughts about the view of the WG1 AR4 as a whole. Pity we don't get more time to think about this. We could have been given this for LA3 or LA4, but have it for May. Cheers Phil Kevin, Checking Lisa's list I think I have all except for the following: 1. I got some comments from Steve Warren, but don't have the earlier ones from March 17 on section 3.4.1 . 2. I've not got Peter Robertson's. 3. Also not got Fogt and Bromwich. I'm off tomorrow for a 3 day meeting of an EU project in Bologna and then on next week for AOPC in Geneva (April 11-15). I get back late on April 15 and am then here (except for the odd day or two in London) until I leave for Beijing on May 7. I need to get my visa during these three weeks ! I arrive in Beijing on May 8 in the morning. I have my visa for China at least. So from comparing schedules we have some time over the next 4 weeks. I'm away next week (and this) and you're away the week of April 25-29. I did begin reading the first few reviews but realised it was pointless, so stopped after Adrian's long one. I have them all on my lap top apart from the few above. I hope to go through some over the next 10 days whilst away. I did talk to Chris Folland about his review (briefly) and spoke to David Karoly (last week at Duke) and Jim Salinger (by email) about their formal (friendly reviews) which have gone directly to WGI. These were more extensive than many of the others and all said to me it was a good start, but 30-40% too long. All said major reductions needed in 3.5-3.7 and also if possible in 3.4. Apart from Chris' though I've not seen the other two. I've not looked at the pdfs of the chapter nor any others though. I think reductions are also necessary in 3.3 as well. Maybe this will get said. The only sections I think are near to their final size are 3.2 and 3.8. 3.1 is OK and 3.9 OK for size, not content. Then there is the summary ! Easier said than done. I don't see who else will do the heavy editing required. But then I am not sure if I try whether I also take out the good stuff: I am not familiar enough with the literature. So, what to do in the next few weeks and what to tell the LAs. Here are a few thoughts. We need to get things to them at least a week to 10 days in advance, I feel. One thing would be to get them to review the chapter ! Given my schedule this week: out all day wednesday and half of thursday, I plan to look at the collated material starting about friday, which is also when you should have it. After going thru it to see what it is like, I think we should try to get it to the LAs soon thereafter, but only if we can make sensible suggestions on procedures. 1. We need better figures in many cases. Here we could both independently go through these to - decide those we really want and suggest mods (likely to most, I think). - decide on additional ones and ones we can drop I think we'll need to be pretty specific here - down to colours, line styles. If we come up with a joint list, we can combine and then have a session on these at Beijing and/or send out joint suggestions ahead to the LAs. The NRC report has a few good ones in a common style re 3.4. Agree this is important. I would like to see more of things like latitude time sections to get away a bit from global means and also linear trends. Those could also be done regionally. 2. Reductions in size of the sections. Problem here is I don't reckon we can afford to let some of the LAs do this. Jim Renwick should be OK for this, PanMao and Roxana will need some help. I hope the 'overall' reviews are specific here as this would be useful to us and the LAs. The timetable seems to give us only 4 hours on May 10, but we didn't flag up too much so won't be involved in many of the clusters on the 11th, so potentially another 4.5 hours there. I guess we'll have to leave the 12th for planning who'll do what. We can try this one as homework before the meeting: assign some people to downsize certain sections. 3. Missing sections that get flagged up in the reviews. Impossible to say till we get the 'official' ones. April 22 was the date we should be getting these. 4. New stuff that has come along since Trieste. I think we're up top speed with most of this. The BAMS 2004 report will be useful. I've just got a copy of this from Dave Easterling, but not had a chance to go through it as I only got it yesterday. 5. The Summary and section 3.9. We should set aside some time for this, but I reckon this is best done by us beforehand. This is a possibility for May 9 in Beijing. 6. The boxes and the CQs. So, as we can't really see revised figures in Beijing, we should try and make all the suggestions ahead of time and just go through these briefly and decide who'll do what and who'll do the contacting when we're there. Most of our time should go on the revisions. Do we have some section or part of that looks good (and had few comments) with regard to style, content etc that we could show the LAs? We will need to be very specific on what needs redcuing. Do we want to try and stick to the page numbers for each section that we came up with - this would be a good starting point. Most of the boxes need some work, but not as much as much of the text. Finally, there is a lunch meeting on the CQs, so I reckon we should wait for that before deciding anything. This email got a bit disjointed - it's been 90 minutes since I started, but I kept on getting interrupted, but all my thoughts are there - but not always in the right place. I have to prepare for the 10 days away. I'll have email contact at WMO, and probably in Bologna, but not entirely confident on that. Cheers Phil PS My daughter's wedding is set for Sept10. I'll likely be totally out of it from September 7-12. I think this is after we have to produce the FOD. I only have 2 weeks away - one in June and one in July during JJA. Hay that's a long way off. The key thing is the FOD is due in August, so the intense period is the summer; you'll be home free by September. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------