cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, Pascale Braconnot <Pascale.Braconnot@cea.fr>, francis <francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca>
date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:44:43 -0500
from: Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@duke.edu>
subject: Re: [Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3]
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
Hi all,
SOunds good - I will try to edit some more cross chapter references in,
and we will also definitely change the terminology (Francis, would you 
mind putting a note
into the mastercopy top of 9.3 to remind me - medieval warm period 
terminology to consolidate with terminology
in box in chapter 6).

Will put on my todo list.
Peck overtime wrt what? :)))
(Tom only sees my back in evenings these days staring at the screen)

Gabi



Keith Briffa wrote:

> Gabi
> absolutely no problem in what you say - our discussion of relative 
> importance of specific forcing and attribution is limited to probably 
> 2 vague sentences that describe the EMIC panel. I have just found that 
> somehow one lot of editing I did on an earlier version has all 
> disappeared and NOW I have a major job to re-edit so I am not sure 
> that I can be specific re suggestions - but I do not think some 
> repetition is necessarily a problem . Let's see how I get on. Cheers
> Keith
> At 15:59 28/02/2006, Gabi Hegerl wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith et al.,
>>
>> I was trying to give you a call on this, but can't reach you - let me 
>> know if and when is a
>> good time, teaching later this morning.
>>
>> The LGM and early holocene is meant from our side that we refer to 
>> you for all the details, and summarize
>> the findings and why they are encouraging. The one aspect of the LGM 
>> we have in more detail is the
>> two pdf estimates (annan and schneider von deimling), which I think 
>> is ok.
>> And that mainstream sensitivity OAGCMs seem to do ok.
>>
>> Similar for the mid Holocene.
>>
>> For the last 1000 yrs,
>> it was my understanding that you guys talk about the reconstructions, 
>> the forcings, and individual periods
>> in the last 1000 yrs, and about the runs done with the forcings.
>> In that, we definitely need to go with your terminology, sorry about 
>> the medieval warm
>> period, that just didn't percolate down to us yet!
>> As to response to forcing and detection and attribution, as well as 
>> what forcings explains what,
>> what caused the early 20th century warming, and climate sensitivity,
>> what forcing do we detect where etc, role of solar,
>> volcanic and greenhouse gases relative to each other, I thought this
>> was for chapter 9 to talk about. I am happy to cross reference you 
>> more on other stuff, and delete
>> where you think we should for example not reference references, but 
>> chapter 6, unless its in these
>> attribution questions.
>>
>> Is that still ok? So please let me know where you are concerned in 
>> detail, and then lets see what to do
>> about the overlap
>>
>> Gabi
>>
>>
>> Keith Briffa wrote:
>>
>>> Gabi
>>> it is difficult to be precise as regards comments , mainly because 
>>> there do seem, as it turns out, to be large areas of overlap between 
>>> our discussion of the simulations, forcings, and consistency with 
>>> the CO2 record in what you sent. In some places you cite selected 
>>> references and occasional cross references to Chapter 6 , but this 
>>> could probably be much more frequent and perhaps specific with 
>>> regard to particular sections and Figures (and you could as a 
>>> consequence remove text if you wished - but I see no problem if not, 
>>> other than repetition , as there are no contradictory statements to 
>>> ours as far as I can see) . I make these remarks mostly with regard 
>>> to out last 2000 year section.
>>> The only only one gripe with the text that I have is your reference 
>>> to the medieval period being a 500-year warm period . In fact we go 
>>> to some trouble to discuss the ambiguity of the concept in our Box 
>>> 6.4 and describe the timing of the warm periods .I think you should 
>>> not perpetuate the term in the vague context that you do. At present 
>>> , I am not certain of our final Figure order as I hope to rearrange 
>>> the later ones yet again. Anyway , you have pretty much the final 
>>> draft I believe of Chapter 6 and can , as no doubt you would anyway, 
>>> take or leave my opinions. Best wishes
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>> At 18:10 27/02/2006, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> p.s. since I am going to a meeting on thursday (hockeystick revisited)
>>>> we are trying to be down to bookkeeping and really minor stuff by 
>>>> thursday,
>>>> so if you have suggestions, but wednesday would be best - SORRY!
>>>>
>>>> Gabi
>>>>
>>>> Gabi Hegerl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Keith, Peck and Bette,
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is our preindustrial section. I think our chapters merge fine 
>>>>> here, I don't
>>>>> see too much overlap, but it wouldn't hurt if you check either.
>>>>> I will also send the sensitivity section to Bette in a few hours.
>>>>> If you have changes, please use track changes. Francis, I have 
>>>>> accepted all
>>>>> changes in this and removed comments no longer relevant
>>>>>
>>>>> Gabi
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3
>>>>> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:22:32 -0500
>>>>> From: Crowley_Hegerl <mailto:ghegerl@nc.rr.com><ghegerl@nc.rr.com>
>>>>> To: <mailto:wg1-ar4-ch09@joss.ucar.edu><wg1-ar4-ch09@joss.ucar.edu>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi chapter 9 authors,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the preindustrial section 9.3 for final crosschecking.
>>>>> Please get back to us (using my work email or this list) by 
>>>>> Wednesday at the latest.
>>>>> It has some questions and things to check for Pascale (thanks for 
>>>>> all the help with this
>>>>> Already, did you see Bettes latest LGM numbers and the updated 
>>>>> terminology?  Ill
>>>>> Also send ch6 draft which I got this morning).
>>>>>
>>>>> And one for Nathan on circulation stuff, there was a comment we 
>>>>> were not sure about.
>>>>> Would be great of course if others have a chance to check, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> ALL: PLEASE ACCEPT ALL CHANGES before you make more changes. 
>>>>> Otherwise
>>>>> It will be close to impossible to trace!
>>>>>
>>>>> Good morning everybody
>>>>>
>>>>> Gabi and Francis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> Gabriele Hegerl
>>>>> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
>>>>> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
>>>>> Box 90227
>>>>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708
>>>>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
>>>>> email: <mailto:hegerl@duke.edu>hegerl@duke.edu, 
>>>>> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> Gabriele Hegerl
>>>> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
>>>> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
>>>> Box 90227
>>>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708
>>>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
>>>> email: <mailto:hegerl@duke.edu>hegerl@duke.edu, 
>>>> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>
>>> Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School 
>> for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
>> Box 90227
>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708
>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
>> email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
>>
>
> -- 
> 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/
>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl 
Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, 
Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833  
email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html


</x-flowed>
