date: Fri Oct 5 15:34:21 2007 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Polar bear paper revision to: S.O-neill@uea.ac.uk At 11:19 28/09/2007, you wrote: Hi Tim Andrew has been looking over the polar bear article before we submit and has suggested a fair few changes to get the paper to fit in an ecology journal. You may want to see this version before we submit. You'll also notice that Peter has withdrawn from being an author - he seemed unable to distinguish an expert elicitation reporting other expert views from his own views on polar bear management - and so felt a bit uneasy with some of the results (something I don't see should have any bearing as we're just reporting results, not our own opinions, but no matter). He's now acknowledged instead and so you are now 2nd author. Andrew is keen that I make more of a comparison between the IPCC risk statement and our own results on polar bear decline, see pp 19 'magnitude of the losses' (The discussion subheadings are there for editing only and will be removed before submission). I have 2 questions before I rewrite this paragraph, which I am hoping you can help with: 1. The IPCC statement states a 'high risk of extinction with a warming of 2.8degC' (It's in box 4.3 of the ecosystems chp in the 4AR). Do you know where this 2.8 figure comes from? Importantly, do we know what the sea ice decline % is? (and what does this figure if it is known relate to, is it summer sea ice? or what? - is it comparable to ours?) 2. Following on from that, what was the mean sea ice decline in the simulation you carried out (hopefully the same as IPCC i.e. both summer sea ice decline or whatever so we can compare the statements). Basically, I may not be explaining this well, but I want to be able to compare the sea ice decline under both the IPCC statement and our scenario, so we can draw conclusions about both the IPCC and our expert elicitations. I'm not on campus at all these days but let me know if you would like to meet to discuss this and I'll come in. Cheers Saffron