Thursday, March 15, 2012

2512.txt

cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansenatXYZxyz.uib.no>, oyvind.paascheatXYZxyzrknes.uib.no, john.f.mitchellatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk, Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobliatXYZxyzr.ucar.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:00:52 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>
subject: Re: IPCC comment response review
to: Jean Jouzel <jouzelatXYZxyz-mail.saclay.cea.fr>

Hi Jean et al.: Thanks for going through all the comments so well, Jean. In responding, I
think there are two key issues, one scientific related to 5e Greenland Ice, and the other
related to the procedure we should follow to ensure our responses to expert review are
consistent with our SOD (and beyond). I think we all need to agree - especially, Jean, John
M, Peck and Eystein, but I'm cc'ing to Keith and Bette since they are typical (overworked?)
LA's who have to be comfortable with the plan. Please all comment if you don't like what I
propose in #2 below (or even if you do):

1) First, regarding the 5e GIS ice - Bette is rewriting this section, and it is growing due
to further refinement, and also coordination with other WGI and WGII chapters with stakes
in ice sheet/sea level. I think Bette's prose will get it write, and we can all check to
make sure. Bette (and the CLA/RE's) need to make sure we have consistency between the
revised text and our final responses to expert reviews (comment numbers given by Jean below
- Bette, will you double check, please).

2) The broader issue is how do we best iterate between the expert review comment responses
that are now submitted to the TSU and the revised text to make sure they are compatible. I
propose that we send an email to all Chap 6 LA's with the plan articulated in the attached
WORD file - put in word so you can edit if you'd like.

Of course, Jean is correct also that the last 2000 years text and responses to expert
review comments will be the most scrutinized, so that's one reason we wanted to make sure
Keith is in on our planning how to deal with the consistency issue.

Many thanks, Peck

Dear Peck, Dear Eystein,

Indeed I sent my first comment before you reminder. I have now had time to go
through all the document. I now better understand why I reacted on comment 228 (comment
from Eric Wolff dealing with Greenland at the Eemian). This comment is repeated in 978
and indeed the answer is then "accepted". Ther is a clear inconsistency between the
answers given to 228 and to 978 . I remember the discussion of Christchurch (Peck you
were not with us) and it was clearly accepted that the North GRIP view should be taken
into account in a balanced way. It is not my role to tell you how to handle this but I
suggest that you have interaction on this specific comment with Val�rie and Dominique.
Here is the relevant text from North GRIP (The additional knowledge that the central and
northern Ice Sheet during the Eemian period was at the same elevation as present
constrains modelled ice volumes and sea level changes during the Eemian and glacial
period. This interpretation is only consistent with modelling studies of the ice sheet
during the Eemian, that although predicting an overall smaller ice sheet in accord with
higher observed sea levels during this time, allow for no large ice elevation change for
the central Greenland ice).

For me the most critical part deals with the "hockey stick" comments. The notes
correspond to what was discussed (as far as I remember) but the key here is the revised
text. Again this is not our role to judge the quality of the revised text (this will be
done in the next round of review) but we are, I feel, in charge of checking overall
consistency between the notes and the revised text. I obviously anticipate such a
consistency.

With my best Jean

At 13:37 -0700 1/02/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

Hi Jean - Eystein and I talked today and just were wondering when you'll be able to
review the chap 6 responses to review comments? Hope all's well. Thanks/Best, peck
--
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/

--

Directeur de l'Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Universit� de Versailles Saint-Quentin
B�timent d'Alembert, 5 Boulevard d'Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt, FRANCE
t�l : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 16, fax : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 22, Portable : 33 (0) 684759682
- Universit� Pierre et Marie Curie, Tour 45-46, 3�me �tage, 305, 4 Place Jussieu,
75252 Paris Cedex 05, e-mail : jzipslatXYZxyzl.jussieu.fr
- Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR
CEA-CNRS-UVSQ
CE Saclay, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, t�l : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 13,
fax : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16, e-mail : jouzelatXYZxyze.saclay.cea.fr

--

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/

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Commentconsistencey.doc"

No comments:

Post a Comment