date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:40:23 +0000 from: "Noguer, Maria" subject: RE: chapter 10 to: tar10@egs.uct.ac.za Dear TAR10, The TSU, as part of the IPCC, is very aware, and extremely grateful, of the time and effort that all our authors put towards the process, and it is only through your enthusiasm and cooperation that the IPCC Reports are possible. We always try to have in mind that all our authors have other commitments, but given the strict procedures that the IPCC works uder, sometimes it might feel that we forget that very important point. Apologies for that. Anyway, regarding Filippo's statements: Contributors: He is right, contributors will be only listed if they have contributed some text towards the Chapter. I know from Richard that you developed a big list with potential contributors and asked for material, as long as you did that and you included developing country people on that list, it is OK. The government review might be concern about the participation of developing country scientist on the Chapter, but we have to keep in mind that we are assessing the science and not reviewing what every individual scientist has doen in every individual country. In summary, whenever you can include developing country contributors, please do!! I hope this helps. Regards, Maria PS: Hans, yes, the TSU archives all the correspondance regarding TAR. ************************************************* Dr. Maria Noguer IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit Hadley Centre Met Office London Road Bracknell Berks, RG12 2SY UK Tel: +44 (0) 1344 854938 Fax: +44 (0) 1344 856912 Email: mnoguer@meto.gov.uk ************************************************ > -----Original Message----- > From: Hans von Storch [SMTP:h.vonstorch@phys.uu.nl] > Sent: 13 March 2000 12:39 > To: tar10@egs.uct.ac.za > Subject: Re: chapter 10 > > Dear Tar10ers, > > I have had other obligations so far and have only now an oportunity to > deal > with the IPCC revision. > I don't feel particularly bad about this as the IPCC business is > voluntary, > unpaid work meant to review the state of the art. That is, I am not > willing > to accept a dead line, given by Filippo ("so please set your mind to this > in the next 3 weeks") or by the IPCC secretariat, which does not take > account my other obligations. I hope to have a revised draft of 10.6 eary > next week; updating the list of studies may need a bit longer as it means > checking a substantial amount of additional material. > > Anyway, I would like to comment on some of Filippo's statements. > > First, I don't think that John Houghton is particularly qualified in > saying > anything about regional assessments. So far as I know he has no relevant > official capacity in the process,and he has not been particulaly helpful > inSAR. Actually, I consider him a politially intersted activitst and not > as a scientist. This would be very different with somebody like Mike > Wallace, Hans Oerlemanns or Neville Nicholls, just to give an example. > Thus, if Sir John thinks that something is useful or not, does not bother > me in any more sense as if Karlchen Mueller is making a statement, as long > as Karlchen Mueller is a respectable scientist. > > Seond: "The chapter lacks discussion of extremes and variability." I am > happy to include in 10.6 all statements in this respect if somebody is > telling me where such things are published. Please come forward with the > material. > > Third: "Under the "encouragement" of Sit John, we also decided to add a > text box on what we can say about regional climate change over different > continents. This will probably be the most-read part of the chapter, so we > need to be very careful with it. I and Peter will produce a draft to > circulate. I know that originally we did not want to do this, but this is > what they are asking us to do and it is now very clear that it is the main > purpose of the chapter, so we have to do it. " I do not agree. What were > the arguments we originally did not want to do this? What are the new > arguments overriding our previous concerns? I am sure that people would > love to read this statement in New York Times. We don't feel confident to > make a statement, and then, suddenly, under the encouragement of Sir John, > we cinclude it? This is truely embarassing. If the purpose of the Chapter > is to produce statements on regions, and we found we can not do that, what > should the assessment be? Simply: "We can not do it at this time, but we > have a veriety of tehcniques to derive scenarios. However, for various > reasons, we can not say that they are consistent, even if there is soem > convergence." > > Forth: "Another issue raised more than once was that of contributors. Our > contributor list appears very skewed towards very few developing country > people (only one) and too many people from some countries (e.g. > Germany)". > I have listed only names of people who have contributed by suggesting > pices > of text. That many of these people are from Germany may be related to the > fact that empirical regionalisation is done broadly in Germany at many > institutions. If Bruce and I have overseen contributions from other > countries, please let us know. Again, please come forward with material. > > With regrads > > Hans > > PS: Maria, I understand that this e-mail will be filed with the IPCC > secretariat, right? > > >Dear chapter 10ers > > > >now that we are all more or less back from beautiful New Zealand > >it is time we get seriously to work on the revisions of the chapter. > >We have quite some work to do, and the deadline for submitting the new > >draft is March 21, so please set your mind to this in the next 3 weeks. > > > >After our discussions in Aukland, the main points that came out > concerning > >revisons are: > > > >1) Reduce the length of the text+figures by about 30 %. This is true for > >all sections, and in particular for 10.5, for which the reduction should > >be about 50%. We also decided to remove the final summary section (10.8) > >while keeping the info in the individual summaries of the sections. We > >also already reduced the exec summary in Aukland, but decided on the > >addition of two boxes (see below), and there is also new material to add > >here and there. So the reduction work is substantial and will not be that > >easy. In particular think about unnecessary figures that can be taken > out. > > > >2) The chapter is too technical and too much about techniques, while too > >little about climate change info. This came out in several reviews and in > >particular Sir John felt strongly about it. Now, I agree with this and > >we had a lot of discussions about it in the previous draft. This is not a > >document just for scientists, and thus technicalities should be kept to > >a minimum. I feel this is particularly the case for 10.6 (as you know) > >but also the other sections have the same problem. So please try to > change > >the slant of the present discussion to be less technical and more > >informative on climate change for the non atmospheric scientist reader. > > > >3) In your rewrite, try to avoid what we called "historical style of > >writing", i.e. things like "this guy did this, that guy did that etc.). > >This sounds too much like a review paper. You should decide what point > you > >want to make and then include appropriate material to support that point. > >We do not have to include all work that has been done or that has been > >submitted to us, but only what we feel gives a relevant message. The rest > >can be just referenced. > > > >4) The chapter lacks discussion of extremes and variability. This is > >pretty much the case for most sections, especially 10.5 and 10.6. In 10.5 > >we decided to put in a separate section heading on this and we thought > >that this might be done also for 10.6 if possible. Anyways, give more > >attention to this issue of extremes and variability. > > > >5) Given the importance of the topic, we decided to add a text box on > >tropical cyclones. Richard is in charge of producing a draft of it to > pass > >around. > > > >6) Under the "encouragement" of Sit John, we also decided to add a text > >box on what we can say about regional climate change over different > >continents. This will probably be the most-read part of the chapter, so > we > >need to be very careful with it. I and Peter will produce a draft to > >circulate. I know that originally we did not want to do this, but this is > >what they are asking us to do and it is now very clear that it is the > main > >purpose of the chapter, so we have to do it. > > > >7) Another issue raised more than once was that of contributors. Our > >contributor list appears very skewed towards very few developing country > >people (only one) and too many people from some countries (e.g. Germany) > >that perhaps gives an incorrect view of where research is being done. > >Anyways, we cannot make up contributors of course, but perhaps we should > >define better what a contributor is. To my knowledge (Dave correct me if > >I am wrong), a contributor is not somebody whose > >work we are discussing or referencing, but somebody who has actively > >contacted us about material to be included in the chapter, regardless of > >whether we include the material or not. Anyways, just go through > >the contributor list again and make sure that the contributors you have > >suggested meet this definition and also consider more carefully whether > >any contributors from developing countries can be added. > > > >8) there are of course many small specific comments to take care of. > > > >At this point this is what I propose: > > > >1) Bruce will distribute the reply to comments we came up with > >in Aukland, so that individual people can work on specific revisions > >to address the comments. > > > >2) Each section coordinator should revise their section according to the > >criteria above and possibly do this in an interactive way with others > >in the section team writing. > > > >3) The two new text boxes should be circulated around for feedback as > soon > >as possible. > > > >4) I need to have your final section drafts by MArch 16, and then I and > >Bruce will take care of final editorial changes and will produce the > final > >version to give to Dave and Paul. Hopefully this will be done by MArch > 21. > > > >5) Unfortunately we agreed to do all this in WORD to make life easier for > >Bruce in producing the final copy. Needless to say this makes life more > >difficult for me, but such goes life. I guess I will have to learn WORD > at > >some point anyways. > > > >$$$$$$$$$$$$$ > >Last but not least, let me and all the others know you are alive, > >acknowledge that a lot of work needs to be done and that you will do it > >!!! We have only about three weeks. > >$$$$$$$$$$$$$ > > > >Cheers to all and good luck with your work. > > > >Filippo > > > >################################################################ > ># Filippo Giorgi, Senior Scientist, # > ># Physics of Weather and Climate Group # > ># The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics # > ># P.O. BOX 586, (Strada Costiera 11 for courier mail) # > ># 34100 Trieste, ITALY # > ># Phone: + 39 (040) 2240 425 # > ># Fax: + 39 (040) 224 163 # > ># email: giorgi@ictp.trieste.it # > >################################################################ > > > Hans von Storch > > (until 31. March 2000) > Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht (IMAU) > Princetonplein 5, PO Box 80 005, NL 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands > http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/storch > fax: + 31 30 254 3163, phone: +31 30 253 3182 > private: Essenkamp 20, 3732 De Bilt, + 31 30 220 0863 > > New book: > Stehr, N., and H. von Storch (Eds.), 2000: Eduard Brückner - The Sources > and Consequences of Climate Change and Climate Variability in Historical > Times. Kluwer Publisher ISBN 0-7923-6128-8, 338 pp. >