cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no, john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk, Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@ncar.ucar.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:00:52 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
subject: Re: IPCC comment response review
to: Jean Jouzel <jouzel@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr>

   Hi Jean et al.: Thanks for going through all the comments so well, Jean. In responding, I
   think there are two key issues, one scientific related to 5e Greenland Ice, and the other
   related to the procedure we should follow to ensure our responses to expert review are
   consistent with our SOD (and beyond). I think we all need to agree - especially, Jean, John
   M, Peck and Eystein, but I'm cc'ing to Keith and Bette since they are typical (overworked?)
   LA's who have to be comfortable with the plan. Please all comment if you don't like what I
   propose in #2 below (or even if you do):

   1) First, regarding the 5e GIS ice - Bette is rewriting this section, and it is growing due
   to further refinement, and also coordination with other WGI and WGII chapters with stakes
   in ice sheet/sea level. I think Bette's prose will get it write, and we can all check to
   make sure. Bette (and the CLA/RE's) need to make sure we have consistency between the
   revised text and our final responses to expert reviews (comment numbers given by Jean below
   - Bette, will you double check, please).

   2) The broader issue is how do we best iterate between the expert review comment responses
   that are now submitted to the TSU and the revised text to make sure they are compatible. I
   propose that we send an email to all Chap 6 LA's with the plan articulated in the attached
   WORD file - put in word so you can edit if you'd like.

   Of course, Jean is correct also that the last 2000 years text and responses to expert
   review comments will be the most scrutinized, so that's one reason we wanted to make sure
   Keith is in on our planning how to deal with the consistency issue.

   Many thanks, Peck

     Dear Peck, Dear Eystein,

             Indeed I sent my first comment before you reminder. I have now had time to go
     through all the document. I now better understand why I reacted on comment 228 (comment
     from Eric Wolff dealing with Greenland at the Eemian). This comment is repeated in 978
     and indeed the answer is then "accepted". Ther is a clear inconsistency between the
     answers given to 228 and to 978 . I remember the discussion of Christchurch (Peck you
     were not with us) and it was clearly accepted that the North GRIP view should be taken
     into account in a balanced way. It is not my role to tell you how to handle this but I
     suggest that you have interaction on this specific comment with Valrie and Dominique.
     Here is the relevant text from North GRIP (The additional knowledge that the central and
     northern Ice Sheet during the Eemian period was at the same elevation as present
     constrains modelled ice volumes and sea level changes during the Eemian and glacial
     period.  This interpretation is only consistent with modelling studies of the ice sheet
     during the Eemian, that although predicting an overall smaller ice sheet in accord with
     higher observed sea levels during this time, allow for no large ice elevation change for
     the central Greenland ice).

             For me the most critical part deals with the "hockey stick" comments. The  notes
     correspond to what was discussed (as far as I remember) but the key here is the revised
     text. Again this is not our role to judge the quality of the revised text (this will be
     done in the next round of review) but we are, I feel, in charge of checking overall
     consistency between the notes and the revised text. I obviously anticipate such a
     consistency.

             With my best            Jean

     At 13:37 -0700 1/02/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

     Hi Jean - Eystein and I talked today and just were wondering when you'll be able to
     review the chap 6 responses to review comments? Hope all's well. Thanks/Best, peck
     --
     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/

     --

     Directeur de l'Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Universit de Versailles Saint-Quentin
     Btiment d'Alembert, 5 Boulevard d'Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt, FRANCE
     tl :  33 (0) 1 39 25 58 16, fax :  33 (0) 1 39 25 58 22, Portable : 33 (0) 684759682
      - Universit Pierre et Marie Curie, Tour 45-46, 3me tage, 305, 4 Place Jussieu,
     75252 Paris Cedex 05, e-mail : jzipsl@ipsl.jussieu.fr
     - Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR
     CEA-CNRS-UVSQ
     CE Saclay, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, tl :  33 (0) 1 69 08 77 13,
     fax :  33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16, e-mail : jouzel@lsce.saclay.cea.fr

--

   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/

   Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Commentconsistencey.doc"
