Wednesday, March 14, 2012

2468.txt

cc: "'Barrie Pittock'" <pittockatXYZxyzironmental-change.oxford.ac.uk>, mataatXYZxyz-bonn.de, tar_claatXYZxyzcrp.gov, tar_la@usgcrp.gov, tar_revedatXYZxyzcrp.gov, wgii.bureauatXYZxyzcrp.gov, John Houghton <jthoughtonatXYZxyzcwg1.demon.co.uk>, yhdingatXYZxyzlic.bta.net.cn, djgriggsatXYZxyzo.gov.uk, Neil Leary <nlearyatXYZxyzcrp.gov>, kwhiteatXYZxyzcrp.gov, ipccatXYZxyzcrp.gov, maureen.josephatXYZxyzironmental-change.oxford.ac.uk, giorgiatXYZxyzp.trieste.it, Tom Karl <tkarlatXYZxyzc.noaa.gov>, Jerry Meehl <meehlatXYZxyzker.ucar.edu>, cubaschatXYZxyzz.de, ckfollandatXYZxyzo.gov.uk, stockeratXYZxyzmate.unibe.ch, hewitsonatXYZxyz.uct.ac.za, Barrie Pittock <barrie.pittockatXYZxyz.csiro.au>
date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
from: Stephen H Schneider <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>
subject: RE: Extreme - Mata re sustainability etc
to: "Kozak, LeeAnn" <LAKOZAKatXYZxyzthernco.com>

Hello all. I've finally seen the table and agree it is dense, but think
that given its purpose--to condense a large number of results onto one
page for assessors--not policy makers since it is in a chapter--works
despite the density. Moreover it has a message that needs to be rung from
the rooftops: that there are impact needs that must drive climate science,
not always the other way around. By defining the kinds of combinations of
variables that matter to impacts--even second order impacts like insurance
if we deem that a major concern--we send the message that the physical
climatology research agenda needs to focus on such topics, not just those
in the purview of the climate modelers who may not be aware of what the
needs are out there--and the climate modelers shouldn't feel too
threatened by this since it means new customers for their products
and such customers have research budgets too. So this strikes a coup for
what I have long termed "impacts driven climate reasearch", and thus vote
to keep it--density and second order terms and all-in chapter 3. For the
SPM we may need to summarize, however.
Now, as to the issue of past versus future, I agree that some people
could get confused, as Lee Ann did. What is meant, of course, is that
given the paucity of adequate data combined with the problem of multiple
causation and high noise levels, we can't always be highly confident about
what happend in the past--ergo, sometimes confidence levels are higher for
yet to occur events than for past events--something I can understand
would get the attention of an economist! But a future high confidence
can be based on very well validated theory whereas the past was too noisy
to claim clear detection. So again, I vote to keep both columns, but,
alas, to make the table even more dense by expanding footnote a) to make
this point about noise, imprecise data and competing explanations clearer
to avoid the likelihood of similar confusion in many of our readers.

Finally, to add to my earlier comments on the THC issue again--I know the
first set hasn't been responded to so I won't repeat them--I note the
right hand column says "methods to be developed". Now that is true for
most things that aren't "well established", and I am quite familar with
this literature and it is not by anymeans one or two papers--but several
dozen with varied methods. THe problem is very tough and methods do need
to be substantially enhanced before we get higher confidence I agree, but
for both the West ANtarctic Ice Sheet and THC there is quite a literature
and this assessment is rather insulting as phrased to those who have many
good methods, but not nearly enough data to pin down which is best.
Maybe we say "methods need to be enhanced and confirmed by more data" or
somthing like that? And, how many papers make something earn the
lable "rarely considered"--that we asigned to THC and WAIS? Might say in
"early phase of consideration"?

Thanks again to all for a very useful dialogue on this exceedingly
important connection between WOrking Groups 1 & 2; and as a distillation
of major parts of our two reports. It is not surprising, therfore, it is
generating so much useful commentary.
CHeers, Steve

PS One more thing--under the column "Future" might have a parenthesis: (up
to 2100)" and likewise under Past "(20th century)" since I expect this
table to be copied often and footnotes have a tendency of getting lost
in reproductions, and without clear labels it will be attacked from all
sides if they don't know the timeframes we had in mind

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Kozak, LeeAnn wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> If this table is intended to only identify first order impacts, then
> insurance should be deleted. Impacts on insurance are clearly second-order
> effects. They occur only as a result of the first-order impacts on
> buildings, crops, etc.
>
> The notion of assigning probabilities to observed events (the "Past" column)
> is very confusing. It seems that either it has been observed or it hasn't.
>
> Finally, I agree with the other commenters that have suggested that this
> table is very dense. It strikes me as more of a data dump, rather than
> something that clearly conveys knowledge.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barrie Pittock [SMTP:pittockatXYZxyzironmental-change.oxford.ac.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 10:40 AM
> > To: mataatXYZxyz-bonn.de; tar_claatXYZxyzcrp.gov; tar_la@usgcrp.gov;
> > tar_revedatXYZxyzcrp.gov; wgii.bureauatXYZxyzcrp.gov;
> > jthoughtonatXYZxyzcwg1.demon.co.uk; yhdingatXYZxyzlic.bta.net.cn;
> > djgriggsatXYZxyzo.gov.uk; nlearyatXYZxyzcrp.gov; kwhiteatXYZxyzcrp.gov;
> > ipccatXYZxyzcrp.gov; maureen.josephatXYZxyzironmental-change.oxford.ac.uk;
> > giorgiatXYZxyzp.trieste.it; tkarlatXYZxyzc.noaa.gov; meehlatXYZxyzker.ucar.edu;
> > cubaschatXYZxyzz.de; ckfollandatXYZxyzo.gov.uk; stockeratXYZxyzmate.unibe.ch;
> > hewitsonatXYZxyz.uct.ac.za
> > Cc: Barrie Pittock; barrie.pittockatXYZxyz.csiro.au
> > Subject: RE: Extreme - Mata re sustainability etc
> >
> > Dear Louis, Tim, et al.,
> >
> > I am inclined to agree with Eugene Stakhiv on this. The basic reason is
> > that
> > we know everything is connected to sustainability and to lives eventually.
> > What we are concerned with identifying in table 3-9 are the first-order
> > impacts, which explain why we are interested in these phenomena, on the
> > route, as it were, to affecting lives and sustainability. Thus TCs kill
> > people very directly, whereas many other phenomena listed do so through
> > food
> > supply etc.
> >
> > Tim, I see "human" is mispelled under TCs.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Barrie
> >
> > A. Barrie Pittock
> > c/o <maureen.josephatXYZxyz.ox.ac.uk> until 7 September 2000,
> > and then c/o <Martin.BenistonatXYZxyzfr.ch> until 25 September 2000.
> > Back c/o <barrie.pittockatXYZxyz.csiro.au> from 4 October 2000.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Maureen Joseph
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 2:40 PM
> > > To: pittockatXYZxyz.ox.ac.uk
> > > Subject: FW: Extreme - Mata re sustainability etc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Luis Jose Mata [SMTP:l.mataatXYZxyz-bonn.de]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:37 PM
> > > To: Timothy Carter
> > > Cc: tar_claatXYZxyzcrp.gov; tar_la@usgcrp.gov; tar_revedatXYZxyzcrp.gov;
> > > wgii.bureauatXYZxyzcrp.gov; jthoughtonatXYZxyzcwg1.demon.co.uk;
> > > yhdingatXYZxyzlic.bta.net.cn; djgriggsatXYZxyzo.gov.uk; nlearyatXYZxyzcrp.gov;
> > > kwhiteatXYZxyzcrp.gov; ipccatXYZxyzcrp.gov;
> > > maureen.josephatXYZxyzironmental-change.oxford.ac.uk;
> > giorgiatXYZxyzp.trieste.it;
> > > tkarlatXYZxyzc.noaa.gov; meehlatXYZxyzker.ucar.edu; cubaschatXYZxyzz.de;
> > > ckfollandatXYZxyzo.gov.uk; stockeratXYZxyzmate.unibe.ch; hewitsonatXYZxyz.uct.ac.za
> > > Subject: Re: Extreme climate phenomena
> > >
> > > Dear Tim:
> > >
> > > The table is very much inclusive and well done. Great job. I would like
> > > to make a couple of comments. (1) I wonder why the issue of
> > > sustainability (ecological, economical or human) ---(i.e; sustainable
> > > development)----is not included in the column importance for impacts. I
> > > believe, for instance, that high rainfall intensity phenomena impact
> > > sustainable development a good deal. I think this is valid for other
> > > phenomena mentioned in the table no matter simple or complex. (2) Why in
> > > only one case---phenomena --- (Tropical cyclones) the importance for
> > > impact in human lives is mentioned? It should be mentioned in all cases
> > > (complex phenomena---heavy impact) or otherwise deleted.
> > >
> > > Best Regards.
> > >
> > > Luis J. Mata (Chapter 14)
> > > << File: Card for Luis Jose Mata >>
>

------
Stephen H. Schneider
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A.

Tel: (650)725-9978
Fax: (650)725-4387
shsatXYZxyzand.stanford.edu

No comments:

Post a Comment