date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:15:24 +0000 from: "Griggs, Dave" subject: FW: Collated comments to: 'TAR CLA list' , "'tar_ts@meto.gov.uk'" Dear Colleagues We have been having problems with our group e-mail lists so you probably did not receive this when it was sent earlier today. Dave ----------------------------------------- Dr David Griggs IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit Hadley Centre Met Office London Road Bracknell Berks, RG12 2SY UK Tel +44 (0)1344 856615 Fax: +44 (0)1344 856912 Email: djgriggs@meto.gov.uk ----------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Griggs, Dave > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:05 AM > To: 'tar_cla@meto.gov.uk'; 'tar_ts@meto.gov.uk'; 'xdai@meto.gov.uk'; > 'm.r.allen@rl.ac.uk'; 'allen@wobbie.ag.rl.ac.uk'; > 'yhding@public.bta.net.cn'; Hall, DW; 'chakk@epri.com'; > 'jo.house@bgc-jena.mpg.de'; 'ivar.isaksen@geofysikk.uio.no'; > 'luque@ate.oikos.unam.mx'; 'jraman@prl.ernet.in'; Johnson, Cathy; > 'joos@climate.unibe.ch'; 'syljous@lsce.saclay.cea.fr'; > 'kitoh@mri-jma.go.jp'; 'lequere@bgc-jena.mpg.de'; 'nleary@usgcrp.gov'; > 'l.mata@uni-bonn.de'; 'lmata@t-online.de'; > 'mack.mcfarland@usa.dupont.com'; 'meleshko@main.mgo.rssi.ru'; > 'han@paaet.edu.kw'; 'zmd@zamnet.zm'; > 'moppenheimer@environmentaldefense.org'; 'michael@edf.org'; > 'bnyenzi@dmc.co.zw'; 'stevpoll@tstt.net.tt'; 's.raper@uea.ac.uk'; > 'j.salinger@niwa.cri.nz'; 'bscholes@csir.co.za'; 'solomon@al.noaa.gov'; > 'john.stone@ec.gc.ca'; 'ipcc3tsu@rivm.nl'; 'trenbert@ucar.edu'; > 'wmx@mail.iap.ac.cn'; 'pvanderlinden@meto.gov.uk'; > 'rwatson@worldbank.org'; 'yks@kjc.gov.my'; 'j.zillman@bom.gov.au'; > 'wmo@bom.gov.au'; 'dhqin@dial.cashq.ac.cn' > Cc: Maskell, Kathy; Renshaw, Alison; 'maria.noguer@ntlworld.com'; > 'Sundararaman, Ram'; 'Christ, Renate' > Subject: Collated comments > > Dear Shanghai attendees and non-attending CLAs > > As you all know the deadline for comments on the final government > distribution draft of the WGI report was 10 December. We have now finished > collating all the comments received and thought it would be good to send > them out to you before we take a break for the Christmas holidays. If we > receive any further comments we will produce an addendum for Shanghai. We > have also been considering how to run the Shanghai meeting most > effectively and I thought it would be worthwhile to give all of you, but > particularly those of you who have not previously attended a WG Plenary, > an idea of how we plan to proceed at the CLA/LA meeting prior to the > Plenary and at the Plenary itself. > > Attached as Word files are the collated comments which we have received > following the final distribution of the report to governments. The first > file contains those comments which the governments intend to raise at the > Plenary, but by sending them in writing it gives us the opportunity to > consider these comments prior to the Plenary. This is the purpose of the > CLA/LA meeting on 15/16 January. You should give prime consideration to > these comments as it is these comments we will be considering how to > address at the CLA/LA meeting and it is these comments which we will be > going through as we amend the SPM in the WG Plenary. The second file > contains comments on the SPM by experts. Governments will be looking > through these comments to see whether they wish to support any of them so > you should also give consideration to these comments. The final three > files are comments on the Technical Summary, by governments and experts, > and comments on the chapters by governments. Changes to the Technical > Summary and chapters will be made to correct inaccuracies or to make them > consistent with any changes which are made to the SPM during the Plenary. > So take a look at these comments but do not make any changes to the > Technical Summary or your chapter at this time. At the CLA/LA meeting we > will discuss the major issues which have emerged from the SPM comments and > agree a strategy for dealing with them. We will also consider all the SPM > comments and, where appropriate, will agree new or modified text to > address the comment, which we can present to the Plenary for their > consideration. Therefore you should, in particular, carefully take a look > at those which pertain to parts of the SPM which relate to your chapter > and consider whether the comment warrants any change in the SPM, giving > prime consideration to the comments by governments. > > On the first morning of the Plenary we intend to have a few short (10 mins > plus 5 mins for questions) presentations from some of you as Lead Authors. > As there is not time to have presentations from each chapter we thought it > would be most effective to have one presentation approximately based > around each of the main sections of the SPM. The presentation should give > an overview of the material in the SPM in that section, but with > particular emphasis on the issues which the governments have raised during > the review and which are likely to be the most controversial in the > approval process. Hence we would have presentations as follows: > > 1. IPCC TAR process (5 mins) > > Prof Ding > > 2. Observations > > Key issues: Satellite vs surface temperature records, heat island effect > > > Folland > > 3. Forcing > > Key issues: The indirect aerosol effect, solar influences > > Ramaswamy > > 4. Processes and models > > Key issues: confidence in model projections, stability of the THC, > representation of ENSO > > Stocker > > 5. Detection and attribution > > Key issues: Update of "discernible human influence" statement > > Karoly > > 6. Future projections (temperature and extremes) > > Key issues: Increase in temp range to 6C, extreme events table, regional > changes. > > Cubasch > > 7. Future projections (sea level and stabilisation) > > Key issues: Why sea level range has not increased, Greenland and WAIS. > > Qin (to be agreed with CLAs) > > I hope you don't mind that we have identified presenters. Obviously there > are several excellent candidates for each presentation but we have tried > to come up with a balanced set (e.g. no more than one from any country > etc). If your name is on this list then could you please plan to give a > presentation and let me know immediately if you are unable to do so as we > will very quickly have to identify an alternate. Please also look at the > collated comments so that you can tailor your presentation towards > addressing key issues which have been raised. The list above is our guess > of what these issues might be, but it is likely that there will be others. > > > This should take us until lunchtime, which usually lasts 2 hours. Probably > for the second hour we will schedule a "meet the Lead Authors" session > where we ask you to make yourselves available in the meeting room to > answer individual questions from delegates. Hopefully this will give the > delegates a chance to clear up some questions which they have and which > they would otherwise have to raise in Plenary. When the meeting resumes we > will probably ask Dan to give a brief overview of our discussions at the > CLA/LA meeting by way of an introduction to the long process of going > through the SPM word by word, and hopefully by midnight on the fourth day > we have an approved SPM. We are hoping to have a projection facility so > that we can display the SPM text bullet-by-bullet and input changes using > the "track changes" feature in real time. If we come up with situations > where we can't find the right words we will set up small drafting groups > of a few delegates and for issues with significant differences in views > between delegates and which we are unable to resolve in Plenary contact > groups will be set up. At least one Lead Author will be asked to be > present in all drafting or contact groups to ensure that what is agreed is > scientifically accurate and acceptable. In all cases text from drafting > and contact groups comes back to the Plenary for approval. > > In all the discussions at the Plenary it is your job to ensure that the > SPM, and hence the underlying report, remains scientifically correct and > balanced. It is a document intended for policymakers, and hence > governments will try to ensure that the text is as clear, unambiguous and > understandable as possible. There may also be issues which are very > important from a policy perspective (but which are maybe not > scientifically important) which they would therefore wish to be included, > or emphasised more, in the SPM. This should mean that we come out of > Shanghai with a clearer, more relevant document, but you must ensure that > throughout this process the document remains scientifically sound and > balanced. We will explain this in more detail in Shanghai at the CLA/LA > meeting but I thought it worth giving you some indication of your role at > this point. > > If you have any questions regarding the Plenary let me know and I will do > my best to answer them. Also a final reminder that by now you should > already have organised your visa for China and booked your accommodation. > If you have not done this you need to move very quickly or it may be too > late. > > Finally, I hope you all have an enjoyable and restful Christmas and I look > forward to seeing you all in Shanghai in the new Year. > > Dave > > <> <> <> < TS Comments.doc>> <> > > ----------------------------------------- > Dr David Griggs > IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit > Hadley Centre > Met Office > London Road > Bracknell > Berks, RG12 2SY > UK > > Tel +44 (0)1344 856615 > Fax: +44 (0)1344 856912 > Email: djgriggs@meto.gov.uk > ----------------------------------------- > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Government.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Experts.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Govt. TS Comments.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Expert TS Comments.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Govt. Chapter Comments.doc"