cc: WG1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu, IPCC WGI TSU date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:15:14 -0600 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Comment on the to: V.Ramaswamy@noaa.gov Hi Susan et al Like Ram I think that more acknowledgment ought to be given to the pre-AR4 work. I am also sympathetic to a number of things Richard has raised. However I am not sure that a random drawing of everyone is the way to go. In particular, there are many of us who have participated in more than the AR4. In a random drawing, does that mean one's name gets entered multiple times to increase the odds? Or wouldn't it make sense to try to do an integral over the reports and select those who have contributed the most, in the same spirit as for those already selected? I make this suggestion with trepidation because I have a vested interest as someone who was a CLA in the SAR, an LA in the TAR, and an LA on the SPM and TS in both. In other words I was in Madrid, and Shanghai, as well as Paris. I know several others who have been involved in multiple reports. I would like to see this experience also considered. Regards Kevin [1]V.Ramaswamy@noaa.gov wrote: All, Interesting to read about the IPCC "delegation" to Oslo. I was on travels, and did not have access until I returned this afternoon to the flurry of e-mails concerning the who-will-be-there issue. First and foremost, no matter who else gets to go, I am really pleased about the inclusion of the Chairs and Co-Chairs, as listed. After that, who else should be on the "Team of 25".....? Decidedly, a complicated puzzle to be wading into so soon just after signing off on a successful scientific package. I am not sure if this has been suggested yet, but a sure way to truncate the predicament/dilemma could be to stop with the Co-Chairs and settle on a delegation less than 25. Can it not be less than 25? I agree that all comments made so far have merits attached to them. But, I am quite in sync with Richard's comment, and especially the names he suggests. I realize it is difficult to follow through without some judgemental value - as has been pointed out in subsequent comments. But, if we consider the "8" spots as important, surely we can do better than "random" drawing, and recognize the more deserving stalwarts from the past. Reiterating Susan's point emphasizing the Nobel citation, to me, the evolution of the science in the IPCC since 1990 counts as much as where AR4 has drawn the frontier. As a factual matter, and without trying to prejudice the solution: - does the Nobel recognition extend only to the 4 major IPCC reports? Should not the other assessments - Supplementary, Interim, SROC, Aviation - also be included? One can argue that each one of those reports was an important stepping stone. If so, then how about the Chairs/Co-Chairs from those reports (unless they are already on the list)? - should those CLAs who have been involved in several reports/WGs merit more than one 'entry' in the drawing? It is the complication and hassle of sifting/arguing through all this that convinces me it may be wise to stop with the Co-Chairs - they can handle the Nobel ceremony and the media very well - no one further is really required. As Susan points out, we are all "available" anyway to respond to the media. The collective recognition is upon us irrespective of who does or does not turn up in Oslo. Count me as OK with any decision that is taken - that would be the "consensus", isn't it? Cheers, Ram _______________________________________________________________________________ Dear CLAs of the AR4, Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the issue of the Oslo ceremony. I have a great deal of sympathy for the views expressed by Richard, but I understand the concerns expressed by several of you. I would like to propose a possible way forward. Given the strong feelings of several, it seems that the approach of a lottery may be the only fair approach to the matter raised regarding the participants at Oslo. As Ken notes, anyone who goes can make clear that they are only a representative of a much larger group, and that this award is to the entire community of scientists who have contributed so much to the IPCC and thus to the world. Regarding the issue of the media, I agree with Richard's concerns. It would be great to have all of you in Oslo. In the absence of that, we can and will work to distribute media contacts among those who are there and those who may be at home and willing to help via remote methods insofar as possible. The press conference is on Sunday Dec 9 and the ceremony is Monday Dec 10. If you are available to help with media on those days, please let me know that, with a number where you can be reached. To quote the Nobel committee, "Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming." This makes it clear that the strong intent of the award is to acknowledge the suite of comprehensive assessments that have built this understanding - the FAR, the SAR, the TAR, and the AR4. As Richard has noted, acknowledging clearly the cornerstones represented by previous reports would be appropriate. The question is how to best do this. While it is clear that the authors of the SYR of the AR4 are still working while others are not, including the current SYR authors in the lottery as suggested by Gabi would further tilt the balance towards the AR4 so I would suggest not adopting that approach. My proposal is that all the chapter chairs (CLAs of the TAR and AR4, and first authors from the SAR and FAR, before they were called 'CLAs') from all four comprehensive assessments would comprise the list of names that WG1 would submit to the lottery, if you agree. This would be a statement from the AR4 author team to our predecessors of how highly we value their contributions that would surely be well appreciated. Please let me know if you agree, or have alternative suggestions. best Susan At 2:09 PM -0700 10/24/07, Ken Denman wrote: Hi All, While I understand Richard's comments, I think that coming to a consensus of who is most worthy from past reports will be very difficult. Also we have all given numerous talks on the IPCC findings since we were in Paris, and I think we can all answer any technical questions that might be asked, and know when we do not know enough to answer intelligently. This is an award to the IPCC as a whole. If people are chosen by lottery then when they are asked why they are going, and not others, they can and should respond (my feelings) that the award is to all the IPCC Authors and you won a lottery to represent all the authors at the ceremony. Regards, Ken Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] wrote: > > Hi all, > > I agree with Gabi's comments. I understand and sympathize with > Richard's observations, but I personally would find it difficult to know > who to exclude from the list that Pachi has drawn up. Allocating the > remaining seats via a lottery amongst present and former CLAs (and SYR > author team members) strikes me as being a fair approach. However, we > should agitate to have 9 seats rather than 8 allocated in this way. > Pachi is currently offering up only 8 seats so that one can be retained > as a "contingency". We should insist that this seat also be allocated. > If an important contingency does arise, it should be satisfied by > displacing one of the adminstrative officers rather than one of the > lottery winners. > > My two cents worth ... > > Cheers, Francis > > > > > Francis Zwiers > Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada > 4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4 > Phone: 416 739 4767, Fax 416 739 5700 > > > > *From:* [2]wg1-ar4-clas-bounces@joss.ucar.edu > [[3]mailto:wg1-ar4-clas-bounces@joss.ucar.edu] *On Behalf Of *IPCC WGI TSU > *Sent:* October 24, 2007 3:11 PM > *To:* [4]WG1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Comment on the IPCC prize ceremony > delgation(Hegerl) > > This message from Gabi was accidentally intercepted by our Mailman, so > am forwarding along... > > Subject: > Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Comment on the IPCC prize ceremony delegation > From: > Gabi Hegerl [5] [6] > Date: > Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:54:37 +0100 > > To: > [7]wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu [8] > > > Hi Richard, I think your suggestion has advantages and disadvantages. > I agree that the media coverage point would be useful. On the other hand, > even if some topics are particularly hot, and some are more media > attractive than others, I think the report draws from efforts from all > of us, and I think we are all equally valuable parts of the puzzle. Any > attempts to pull some of us forward would be inevitably unfair... so I > cant think of a way to do this right (and definitely not fast) without > doing the others injustice....and it would > create first and second tier citizens beyond the Chair-CLA-LA-CA > structure which has been approximately proportional to the efforts > involved (emphasis on approximately). > One might consider though to add the somewhat exhausted looking SYR > team along with the CLAs list into the lottery...and CLAs from earlier > reports, I agree that would be good! > > Gabi > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please note that our email address has changed. > Please direct all future correspondence to: [9]ipcc-wg1@ucar.edu [10] > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Melinda M.B. Tignor > Program Administrator > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change > Working Group I Technical Support Unit > NOAA Chemical Sciences Division > 325 Broadway DSRC CSD08 > Boulder, CO 80305 USA > Phone: +1 303 497 7072 > Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628 > Email: [11]ipcc-wg1@ucar.edu [12] > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list > [13]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu > [14]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas -- Ken Denman, FRSC, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis c/o University of Victoria PO Box 1700 STN CSC Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2 Phone: (250) 363 8230 FAX: (250) 363 8247 email: [15]ken.denman@ec.gc.ca Room 263 Courier: CCCMA/Ian Stewart Complex/UVic Rm 267 - 3964 Gordon Head Road Victoria, B.C. V8N 3X3 Also: Institute of Ocean Sciences Fisheries and Oceans Canada tel. 250 363 6335 web page: [16]http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/~kdenman _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list [17]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu [18]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas __________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list [19]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu [20]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas __________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list [21]Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu [22]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [23]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [24]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html NCAR P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list Wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas