date: Tue Apr 19 16:48:28 2005
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: IPCC stuff
to: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@ucar.edu>

    Kevin,
        I've looked very briefly at chapters 6 and 9. I did download the others but they
    have sat unopened on my laptop. Even with 6 and 9 I've only read small bits and had
    brief discussions with Keith Briffa (6) and Nathan Gillett (9) as we occasionally interact
    over coffee/tea/lunch breaks. They are both LAs, but it seems their CLAs are working
    differently. Neither chapter was sent back to all CAs, and they haven't yet got any
    of their comments back.  Still going through ours - the latest lot.
        Obs/model changes is one possibility but that would also have to involve 9 and 6
    (if the paleo runs were involved) as well as the modelling chapters.  I did look at Ch 4
    on the cryosphere (the figures). They have one based on NCEP temperatures for
    the Arctic (N. of 70N) in response to one their CQs !!! They also have a whole
    section on Oerlemans (2005) reconstruction of global-scale temperatures from
    glacier termini positions. A lot of overlap with Ch 6 here as well. A lot of
    integration is going to be needed with this one.
        On the issue of what else we have to contribute to, Brian Hoskins is a good choice,
    but I doubt he'll do it. Agree that we don't have someone we can nicely pass this onto.
    If only we had Neville Nicholls in our chapter !  I think we will likely end up doing the
   SPM
    and Tech Summ and the Synthesis between us. We do one each. I reckon it all depends
    how good an FOD we can put together and how much that can alter when it come sto
    the ZOD. Parts of our FOD will hopefully be good once we have the lengths right and
    better figures.  Depends also on how many comments the FOD gets - how long is a piece
    of string?  From my brief look over 4, 6 and 9 I reckon ours is better. The comments we
   were
    getting were encouraging. Mike Manton thought Ch 1 very poor, by the way.
       Commitment and time are crucial, and I can't decide till after Beijing. If we can get a
    sub group to take responsibility for the figures, might this help (say David P, Dave E,
   Brian,
    Jim R and Albert)? If this can go to safe pairs of hands, once their content and layout
    have been decided, we might get more time.
     Have to go home now.   We'll need to work on plans for the 3 days on May 9.
    Phil
   At 22:57 18/04/2005, you wrote:

     Hi Phil
     I just talked with Susan Solomon about the forthcoming IPCC meeting.
     Below somewhat confidential.
     Seems like they will go ahead and we will be up on the last day to give our views on the
     AR4 as a whole.  This means a bit of homework to say how our chapter relates to others
     and whether or not we are at odds.
     Will our obs changes be related to those from models? might be one question.  I have not
     looked at any other chapters ZOD.  Any ideas?
     Seems like I will be co-chairing the inter-chapter group on obs (oceans, cryosphere,
     paleo).  So we will need to also prepare for that:  how we integrate with snow and
     glacier melt, sea level rise, sub-surface T changes, overlaps between paleo and
     instrumental record, etc.  Care to add to the list?
     Other big questions we have to contribute to include
     1) The SPM and Technical summary.  Who from our chapter can do this?  It needs someone
     who is broad and knows the whole chapter, and probably is NOT you or me as we have too
     much else to do that overlaps.   Frankly I am not sure I can truly recommend anyone.  So
     a possible option is to use a review editor (Susan suggested Brian Hoskins). Here is my
     quick take:
     David P contributes, but does not have strong views and does not speak up enough.
     Brian S. has the knowledge but has been disappointing in failure to interact and
     contribute outside of tasks assigned.
     Jim R. might be possible but not very strong
     David E. has not done much or anything outside of 3.3.
     Klein Tank: might be possible, but I have been disappointed thus far.
     Has not grasped everything, too many things in 3.8 at odds with elsewhere.
     Roxana, Matilde, Peter, Fatema, Pan Mao would be out of their depth.
     2) The synthesis report.  This is another troublesome item that will go on in parallel
     with AR4 report and makes it tough to do both.  Need broad people and ones who will
     speak up and take issue with the WG2 and WG3 people who have political agendas that go
     beyond the science.
     Requires a commitment.  You or me might be possible but will we have time?
     So 4 things to think about.
     Kevin
     --
     ****************
     Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
     Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
     P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
     Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
     Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303

   Prof. Phil Jones
   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

