From: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: AR5
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:57:14 +0200
Cc: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@email.arizona.edu>

<x-flowed>
Hi Keith,

Nice to hear from you, and sorry to hear about your mother.

Contrary to what I heard a few days ago, I received yesterday the  
invitation to the Scoping meeting in July and look forward to be  
joining Peck in providing the paleo-input to the scoping of the report.
On the issue of a separate chapter I agree that this option is most  
practical, yet I don´t think there is solid support for that avenue,  
and fear that it will not be pursued. This means that there is a  
danger that  single paleo-persons distributed into the chapters might  
become marginalised, and would need som x-chapter support an time to  
deal with the issues, and also to provide enough breadth of  knowledge  
about paleo-litterature to be assessed. The Plan B option would  
require that there is a mechanism that pulls together the combined  
paleo-competence amongst the LAs during the writing of AR5.
I think there will be a strong emphasis in AR5 on regional changes,  
and on climate predictions. Predictions need a strong basis in  
knowledge about natural modes of variability and the interplay between  
natural and man made changes on the regional scale, areas where the  
paleo perspectives are clearly needed and contribute. I think many new  
results are emerging, and we need to be on top of this to make the  
case in Venice.
It would be great if you could, within the next week preferably, send  
us a list of what new results you think will be good to use for the  
scoping.

Cheers
Eystein



Den 21. mai. 2009 kl. 18.36 skrev Jonathan Overpeck:

> 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
>
>
>
>

__________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
Allégaten 55, N 5007 Bergen, Norway
e-mail:eystein.jansen@bjerknes.uib.no
tel: 55-589803/55-583491
fax: 55-584330





</x-flowed>

