date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:09:41 +0000
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Fwd: Compiled comments on the Final Draft SPM (manual resend)
to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk

     Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:31:43 -0700
     To: brasseur@dkrz.de, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca,
             hegerl@duke.edu, hewitson@egs.uct.ac.za, jhc@dmi.dk, jto@u.arizona.edu,
             jwillebrand@ifm-geomar.de, ken.denman@ec.gc.ca, letreut@lmd.jussieu.fr,
             meehl@ucar.edu, n.bindoff@utas.edu.au, p.jones@uea.ac.uk,
             peter.lemke@awi.de, piers@env.leeds.ac.uk, randall@atmos.colostate.edu,
             richard.wood@metoffice.gov.uk, rsomerville@ucsd.edu,
             stocker@climate.unibe.ch, trenbert@ucar.edu, v.ramaswamy@noaa.gov
     From: IPCC WG1 TSU <ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov>
     Subject: Compiled comments on the Final Draft SPM (manual resend)
     Cc: Martin Manning <mmanning@ucar.edu>
     Hello all,
     I apologize for the difficulties we've been having with the email list server.  This
     email, which should have gone out to you all yesterday, was apparently never processed
     by the email list server.  I'm sending this manually, so that you may have it as soon as
     possible.  -- Roy
     ---- Original email ----
     Dear Colleagues
     Please find attached a compilation of the comments received from governments and NGOs on
     the final draft SPM. We may get some further late comments but these are a substantial
     set (nearly 1000) and probably raise all the major issues. In order to make it easier
     for you to find your way around them, we are providing 5 separate files corresponding
     to: General + introduction section; Drivers section; Observations section (inlcuding
     paleoclimate); Attribution section; and Projections section.
     Overall we are very happy with the way in which the SPM is being received. Although
     there are many minor issues where the comments identify misunderstandings that need to
     be cleared up, or suggest better ways of expressing things, there are only a few major
     issues. These are consistent with some of the comments on the previous draft and so are
     not unexpected.
     As in the work on our previous draft SPM, it's important that we jointly develop
     responses.  Our preparation should work towards a successful process. Many constructive
     and helpful comments have been made in the attached but there are also constraints of
     several types.  Some of these are practical, procedural, or based upon precedents, and
     we will need to discuss those.  Please note that time will be very limited during the
     formal IPCC sessions in Paris and will also constrain what is practical.   A much longer
     SPM is simply not an option, and we already have more figures than were in the TAR
     SPM.   Finally, it is important to recognize that at previous IPCC approval processes,
     some written comments by governments were superceded by quite different stated concerns
     in the formal session, so the written comments cannot be assumed to be absolute at this
     stage.
     As we have mentioned earlier we will use our meeting on Jan 27 and Jan 28 to finalize
     our jointly proposed revisions to the SPM in response to these comments. The TSU is
     currently preparing a revision in which all the more mechanical and obvious revisions
     are made. Early in the new year we will be contacting subgroups among you on specific
     science points and trying to ensure that we have discussed all the key SPM revisions
     carefully by email or conference call before arriving in Paris. We will also need to
     prepare some presentations to the delegates in Paris to assist the process.
     During Jan 29 to Feb 1 we are planning two types of science presentation by CLAs or LAs.
     The first type will be given during the 2-hour lunch breaks or in the mornings before
     the start of the plenary session. These will be open to any delegates who are
     interested, will be informal in style (no translation) and should be from 15 to 30
     minutes long. The aim in these presentations will be to explain some of the underlying
     science, show typical data or results from the chapters where appropriate, and allow
     delegates to ask questions. These have been very helpful in the past as they allow
     delegates to interact with the authors in a seminar type of environment. They help to
     clear up misunderstandings and can be used to explain why some things being asked for by
     policymakers can not be provided. E.g in this type of presentation we would hope to
     explain why observed changes are often expressed probabilistically (which confuses some
     people) and how the sea level rise projections are derived. We should be able to
     allocate about 3 or 4 hours in total to these presentations and will cover a range of
     science topics suggested by the comments so far. In the attached compilation of comments
     the ones that we think can be assisted through science presentations are highlighted in
     a cyan color.
     The second type of presentation will be given as part of the formal plenary session and
     be used to introduce the key issues as we start each section of the SPM. These
     presentations should be 5 to 10 minutes long and summarize more specifically what is in
     the SPM and where it has come from in the chapters. We will only allow a very limited
     number of questions for these presentations and their main purpose is to orient the
     delegates to the material they are being asked to approve and remind them that it has to
     be based on the chapters. E.g this type of presentation could help clarify why we do not
     mix attribution statements with observation statements.
     To summarize: We will be contacting a few of you separately today or tomorrow about
     preparing the longer type of science presentations for Paris, then after Jan 1st we will
     be contacting subgroups regarding our options for revisions to the SPM.
     If you have any very specific suggestions for how to deal with particular comments or
     groups of comments please let us know. In the meantime enjoy the holiday season and we
     will be in touch again shortly.
     Regards
     Susan, Dahe, and Martin
     --
     Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov
     Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
     NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory  Phone: +1 303 497 4479
     325 Broadway, R/CSD 2                   Fax:   +1 303 497 5628
     Boulder, CO 80305, USA

   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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Drivers1.doc" Attachment
   Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Obs1.doc" Attachment Converted:
   "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_General1.doc" Attachment Converted:
   "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Proj1.doc" Attachment Converted:
   "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Attrib1.doc"
