date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:15:24 +0000
from: "Griggs, Dave" <djgriggs@meto.gov.uk>
subject: FW: Collated comments
to: 'TAR CLA list' <tar_cla@meto.gov.uk>, "'tar_ts@meto.gov.uk'" <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
> 
>  <<Government.doc>>  <<Experts.doc>>  <<Govt. TS Comments.doc>>  <<Expert
> TS Comments.doc>>  <<Govt. Chapter 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"
