cc: Eystein Jansen date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:19:51 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: bullet debate #4 to #6 to: Keith Briffa Keith and Eystein - Ah, it's getting easier... Ok on # 4 - change made as suggested, thanks Ok on #5 if Eystein agrees that we can delete the bullet on how unprecedented recent Euro warmth (I think it's ok to delete, since it's regional) Ok on #6 - your text makes the statement "In most multi-centennial length coral series, the late 20th century is warmer than any time in the last 100-300 years." BUT, this statement is based on isotopic records (mostly). I think the statement is true and that unpublished work will end up supporting it. Thus, by removing it from the Exec Summary, we're deleting it mostly to save space, or because we don't have much confidence in what is written in the text? Just want to make sure both of you are ok with deleting this bullet. And... we won't let Susan push us to say things that are not supportable. I don't think she's doing that at all, but rather just trying to get our bullets more clear to the non-specialist. Although her solutions aren't all great (e.g., the idea of working solar into the first bullet), she is right that we can't be too vague. If we choose that route, we're going to have to defend our stance better than we have done so far. Also, given the import of these bullets, we need to take the extra time to think through all options. Thanks for putting up w/ me and this process. best, peck Fourth fine , though perhaps "warmth" instead of "warming"? and need to see EMIC text Fifth suggest delete Sixth suggest delete Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR , there has been a lot of argument re "hockey stick" and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is minimal. True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale data - but the efficacy of these is still far from established. We should be careful not to push the conclusions beyond what we can securely justify - and this is not much other than a confirmation of the general conclusions of the TAR . We must resist being pushed to present the results such that we will be accused of bias - hence no need to attack Moberg . Just need to show the "most likely"course of temperatures over the last 1300 years - which we do well I think. Strong confirmation of TAR is a good result, given that we discuss uncertainty and base it on more data. Let us not try to over egg the pudding. For what it worth , the above comments are my (honestly long considered) views - and I would not be happy to go further . Of course this discussion now needs to go to the wider Chapter authorship, but do not let Susan (or Mike) push you (us) beyond where we know is right. -- 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 Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/