cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>
date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:19:51 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
subject: bullet debate #4 to #6
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

   Keith and Eystein  - Ah, it's getting easier...

   Ok on # 4 - change made as suggested, thanks

   Ok on #5 if Eystein agrees that we can delete the bullet on how unprecedented recent Euro
   warmth (I think it's ok to delete, since it's regional)

   Ok on #6 - your text makes the statement "In most multi-centennial length coral series, the
   late 20th century is warmer than any time in the last 100-300 years." BUT, this statement
   is based on isotopic records (mostly). I think the statement is true and that unpublished
   work will end up supporting it. Thus, by removing it from the Exec Summary, we're deleting
   it mostly to save space, or because we don't have much confidence in what is written in the
   text?  Just want to make sure both of you are ok with deleting this bullet.

   And... we won't let Susan push us to say things that are not supportable. I don't think
   she's doing that at all, but rather just trying to get our bullets more clear to the
   non-specialist. Although her solutions aren't all great (e.g., the idea of working solar
   into the first bullet), she is right that we can't be too vague. If we choose that route,
   we're going to have to defend our stance better than we have done so far.

   Also, given the import of these bullets, we need to take the extra time to think through
   all options.

   Thanks for putting up w/ me and this process.

   best, peck

     Fourth
     fine , though perhaps "warmth" instead of "warming"?
     and need to see EMIC text
     Fifth
     suggest delete
     Sixth
     suggest delete
     Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR , there has been a lot of argument re
     "hockey stick" and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is
     minimal. True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale
     data - but the efficacy of these is still far from established. We should be careful not
     to push the conclusions beyond what we can securely justify - and this is not much other
     than a confirmation of the general conclusions of the TAR . We must resist being pushed
     to present the results such that we will be accused of bias - hence no need to attack
     Moberg . Just need to show the "most likely"course of temperatures over the last 1300
     years - which we do well I think. Strong confirmation of TAR is a good result, given
     that we discuss uncertainty and base it on more data.  Let us not try to over egg the
     pudding.
     For what it worth , the above comments are my (honestly long considered) views - and I
     would not be happy to go further . Of course this discussion now needs to go to the
     wider Chapter authorship, but do not let Susan (or Mike) push you (us) beyond where we
     know is right.
     --
     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
   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/
