From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
To: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: No Subject
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:32:19 +0100

   Eystein and Peck
   I have thought about this and spent some time discussing it with Tim. I have come up with
   the following
   Greater uncertainty associated with proxy-based temperature estimates for individual years
   means that it is more difficult to gauge the significance, or precedence, of the extreme
   warm years observed in the recent instrumental record. However, there is no new evidence to
   challenge the statement made in the TAR that 1998 (or the subsequent near-equivalent 2005)
   was likely the warmest in the last 1000 years.
   This should best go after the paragraph that concludes section 6.6.1.1
   I believe we might best omit the second sentence of the suggested new paragraph - but you
   might consider this too subtle (or negative) then. I think the second sentence is very
   subtle also though - because it does not exclude the possibility that the same old evidence
   that challenges the veracity of the TAR statement exists now , as then!
   I think this could go in the text where suggested , but I think it best NOT to have a
   bullet about this point.We need to check exactly what was saidin the TAR . Perhaps a
   reference to the Academy Report could also be inserted here?
   Anyway, you asked for a straw-man statement for all to argue about so I suggest we send
   this to Stefan, David , Betty and whoever else you think.
   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
   [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

References

   1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

