date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:19:56 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: AR5 to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith - thx. Please do send the material that you and Tim are working on if you think it's compelling and will help make the case for paleo. I hear you on the chapter issue - just don't know yet what we're up against. Will talk to Caspar re: Wengen. I bet the reason you're not going to Venice is because there are too many Brits doing top climate science... Very impressive, but it does have a down side. But, you'll be in the mix I bet where it counts. Thx again, best, peck On 5/22/09 8:11 AM, "Keith Briffa" wrote: > Hi Peck > thanks for this response and update - I am happy I asked now because > I was imagining that it was something personal that resulted in my > non invitation - but if the Palaeo field is so bare I feel less > stigmatized! As for your points - truth is that I don't have a lot > that I can show re model data comparison but will try to send > something from work Tim and I have been doing along these lines as a > pointer. Asking Caspar would be useful all round because I have heard > nothing about post-Wengen for a while. I take your point re the > likelihood of no stand alone chapter - but I feel that getting the > palaeostuff well and consistently represented , if spread about , > will be difficult. The regional detail will of course depend on what > gets done in coming years but the hydrology work (better addressed > regionally as you say ) will I feel make progress. Some of us, (Ed > and Richard Seager and other European colleagues) are meeting > informally here next month to look at prospects for such work in > Europe over the next few years. > > I think you and your family may be better served by you being spared > the CLA role next time - I was thinking anyway that this time I would > rather defer to someone else anyway - we are still in ongoing dispute > (under Freedom of Information rules) about releasing our IPCC-related > emails , as I believe are other universities. We have absolutely > nothing to hide but there is a principal of academic freedom to > uphold here - at least I think so. > > that's all for now ... love and best wishes to Julie and little ones > > Keith > > At 17:36 21/05/2009, you wrote: >> Hi Keith - thanks. Sorry to hear about your Mother. >> >> I think the invites have gone out for Venice, and so far the only one from >> AR4 Chap 6 going is me - or rather, I haven't heard from anyone else. >> Eystein isn't going since Norway has a bunch from the other WGs. Seems >> "representation" isn't working in our favor. I would really like more there, >> and I fear that if it's just me, it's another sign that paleo won't be a >> chapter since I can't be CLA again of such a chapter (fortunately for my >> family!). Based on limited discussions w/ Thomas, I also get the sense of a >> paleo chapter might be an uphill battle, but on the other hand, a >> conservative approach would be to stick close to the AR4 outline. That said, >> it appears that the gov's are pushing even harder for more regional, so... >> >> Your list is a big help, and I wonder if you could arm us with some good >> graphics where you can on these issues, especially the latest on >> >> Paleo model evaluation - showing what the models can and can't do. Of >> course, the non-paleo folks like to argue that if their is mismatch, it's >> the paleo data, but with the right results and presentation, that can be >> overcome. Need some compelling graphics that are post AR4 - if there are >> papers or manuscripts that's even better, but even if not at that stage. >> >> I'm going to guess that Gabi will be there (do you know?) and will do the >> sensitivity part. But, if you know of new stuff, pls send also. >> >> Your regional idea is a good one - want to share some compelling examples of >> where paleo (more than one proxy always good) is informing the full range of >> variability in specific regions, and illustrating ca last 50 years vs the >> longer record. I can think of some good examples, but you might have some >> recent ones I haven't seen. >> >> Wegan followup - should I ask Caspar? I haven't heard anything, but it would >> be good... >> >> Hydrologic fits well with regional, so I think I'd emphasize it, although >> some temp would be good too. More on extremes? Anything out there that's new >> and compelling? >> >> This is just a scoping mtg, so only a small subset of those who will be >> involved. You need to get your gov to push you once the chapter outline is >> decided (i.e., you get nominated for specific roles in specific chapters - >> or at least that is how it worked before - suspect you know the drill). >> >> I'm guessing that if there is no paleo chapter, then the backup will be to >> have strong paleo (at least a person) in relevant chapters, with a >> cross-cutting paleo caucus or something so that the paleo Las across the AR5 >> can work together to ensure there is consensus on things and that the parts >> make up a coherent and compelling whole. But, I'll be pushing for a chapter >> since that is clearly the best outcome. Need those compelling examples to >> make it work - need to show it's too much great stuff to be sprinkled >> throughout other chapters. >> >> Thanks again, Peck >> >> >> On 5/21/09 7:43 AM, "Keith Briffa" wrote: >> >>> Hi Peck and Eystein >>> sorry have not responded to recent emails re Palaeo stuff in next >>> IPCC assessment - have been away from the Unit and email because of >>> the death of my mother and ensuing issues. I simply would add that in >>> terms of pure pragmatism , efficiently stitching in Paleodata into >>> separate chapters is likely to be impractical - a self-standing >>> chapter - even of restricted length would be more feasibly achieved. >>> In terms of specific issues , top of my list would be model >>> validation progress , and a description of where we are in attempts >>> to constrain estimates of climate sensitivity with the use of >>> palaeodata - covered I know in Gab's chapter last time. Updating the >>> high-resolution work would have to be in there for continuity but >>> perhaps with an attempt to assess specific regional changes , and >>> between-proxy comparisons. If completed , "the big challenge" work >>> that arose from the Wengen meeting would be good. Then "new" data - >>> e.g. new proxies or areas not covered before - with much more on >>> hydrologic change. I agree about the inclusion of less-resolved >>> proxies. Finally, the "important issues we highlighted at the end of >>> the AR4 chapter should be reviewed and the issues updated. >>> Do you know whether the list for the scoping meeting in Venice has >>> been selected - if I have not been invited does this mean I will not be? >>> >>> cheers >>> Keith >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Professor Keith Briffa, >>> Climatic Research Unit >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >>> >>> Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>> Fax: +44-1603-507784 >>> >>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ >>> >>> >> >> Jonathan T. Overpeck >> Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society >> Professor, Department of Geosciences >> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >> Mail and Fedex Address: >> >> Institute of the Environment >> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >> University of Arizona >> Tucson, AZ 85721 >> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >> Email: jto@u.arizona.edu >> PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712 >> regalado@email.arizona.edu > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > > Jonathan T. Overpeck Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute of the Environment 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 Email: jto@u.arizona.edu PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712 regalado@email.arizona.edu