date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:36:00 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@email.arizona.edu>
subject: Re: AR5
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, <Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no>

Hi Keith - thanks. Sorry to hear about your Mother.

I think the invites have gone out for Venice, and so far the only one from
AR4 Chap 6 going is me - or rather, I haven't heard from anyone else.
Eystein isn't going since Norway has a bunch from the other WGs. Seems
"representation" isn't working in our favor. I would really like more there,
and I fear that if it's just me, it's another sign that paleo won't be a
chapter since I can't be CLA again of such a chapter (fortunately for my
family!). Based on limited discussions w/ Thomas, I also get the sense of a
paleo chapter might be an uphill battle, but on the other hand, a
conservative approach would be to stick close to the AR4 outline. That said,
it appears that the gov's are pushing even harder for more regional, so...

Your list is a big help, and I wonder if you could arm us with some good
graphics where you can on these issues, especially the latest on

Paleo model evaluation - showing what the models can and can't do. Of
course, the non-paleo folks like to argue that if their is mismatch, it's
the paleo data, but with the right results and presentation, that can be
overcome. Need some compelling graphics that are post AR4 - if there are
papers or manuscripts that's even better, but even if not at that stage.

I'm going to guess that Gabi will be there (do you know?) and will do the
sensitivity part. But, if you know of new stuff, pls send also.

Your regional idea is a good one - want to share some compelling examples of
where paleo (more than one proxy always good) is informing the full range of
variability in specific regions, and illustrating ca last 50 years vs the
longer record. I can think of some good examples, but you might have some
recent ones I haven't seen.

Wegan followup - should I ask Caspar? I haven't heard anything, but it would
be good...

Hydrologic fits well with regional, so I think I'd emphasize it, although
some temp would be good too. More on extremes? Anything out there that's new
and compelling?

This is just a scoping mtg, so only a small subset of those who will be
involved. You need to get your gov to push you once the chapter outline is
decided (i.e., you get nominated for specific roles in specific chapters -
or at least that is how it worked before - suspect you know the drill).

I'm guessing that if there is no paleo chapter, then the backup will be to
have strong paleo (at least a person) in relevant chapters, with a
cross-cutting paleo caucus or something so that the paleo Las across the AR5
can work together to ensure there is consensus on things and that the parts
make up a coherent and compelling whole. But, I'll be pushing for a chapter
since that is clearly the best outcome. Need those compelling examples to
make it work - need to show it's too much great stuff to be sprinkled
throughout other chapters.

Thanks again, Peck


On 5/21/09 7:43 AM, "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Peck and Eystein
> sorry have not responded to recent emails re Palaeo stuff in next
> IPCC assessment - have been away from the Unit and email because of
> the death of my mother and ensuing issues. I simply would add that in
> terms of pure pragmatism , efficiently stitching in Paleodata into
> separate chapters is likely to be impractical - a self-standing
> chapter - even of restricted length would be more feasibly achieved.
> In terms of specific issues , top of my list would be model
> validation progress , and a description of where we are in attempts
> to constrain estimates of climate sensitivity with the use of
> palaeodata - covered I know in Gab's chapter last time. Updating the
> high-resolution work would have to be in there for continuity but
> perhaps with an attempt to assess specific regional changes , and
> between-proxy comparisons. If completed , "the big challenge" work
> that arose from the Wengen meeting would be good. Then "new" data -
> e.g. new proxies or areas not covered before - with much more on
> hydrologic change. I agree about the inclusion of less-resolved
> proxies. Finally, the "important issues we highlighted at the end of
> the AR4 chapter should be reviewed and the issues updated.
> Do you know whether the list for the scoping meeting in Venice has
> been selected - if I have not been invited does this mean I will not be?
> 
> cheers
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/
> 
> 

Jonathan T. Overpeck
Co-Director, Institute for Environment and Society
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences

Mail and Fedex Address:

Institute of the Environment
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
Email: jto@u.arizona.edu
PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712
regalado@email.arizona.edu




