Tuesday, April 10, 2012


cc: Melinda_Tignor <tignoratXYZxyzr.edu>, Martin Manning <mmanningatXYZxyznoaa.gov>, Melinda.MarquisatXYZxyza.gov
date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:21:14 -0700
from: Susan Solomon <ssolomonatXYZxyznoaa.gov>
subject: Re: Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Shorter presentations at Paris
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Susan Solomon <Susan.SolomonatXYZxyza.gov>, Isaac Held <Isaac.HeldatXYZxyza.gov>, Ronald Stouffer <Ronald.StoufferatXYZxyza.gov>, peter lemke <plemkeatXYZxyz-bremerhaven.de>

Keith, Peter, Isaac, Ron,

Thanks to all of you for helping out.

Keith, the audience for the presentations is the policy makers who
will be present in Paris. As you have already seen from the
comments, many of them are not scientists. The presentations need to
be pitched at a non-scientist level. A number of the policy people
will be lawyers, and a number will be legalistically looking to find
anything that can advance their position. Most of them will however
just be looking to ask questions and to better understand, and many
will be constructive in how they use the information provided. So it
is quite a mix. They should not be given input that distracts from
the job at hand. Therefore, these presentations should not bring in
new issues not raised in the comments, figures from material outside
the report, etc.

I hasten to say that all of us hope there will not be big problems in
going through the presentations. The presentations are being
carefully prepared by excellent people, so my expectation would be
for quite minor changes.

All of the above has been discussed with those preparing the
presentations, so a primary role in co-chairing this session is to
lend a constructively critical eye, seeking to advance the goal of
clarity, conciseness, and sticking to the report rather than
straying, if needed. The outcome is not a formal approval statement
of the presentation. The outcome is to guide the collective subgroup
to a *clear* consensus on what should be changed before the
presentation is passed in to the TSU. If there are things that a
majority of the group wants to see changed but others do not, you
will have a chairman's job to do in finding a solution everyone can
live with. It would probably be helpful if you could keep some
notes on the agreed changes, since that will help you ensure that you
have been clear enough in stating the conclusion. Too often there is
a thrash and no closure. A good chair gets agreement with the group.

Thanks again,

At 1:00 PM +0000 1/19/07, Keith Briffa wrote:
>Hi Susan et al
>sorry for delayed response - just back from Paris (or so I
>originally thought as the meeting I was at turned out to be 3 hours
>away by train ). I too am happy to act as you request, though I am
>still uncertain as to who the specific audience will be and more
>particularly, what you expect as an outcome of the session (a formal
>approval statement or recommendation for amendments?).
>At 00:31 18/01/2007, Susan Solomon wrote:
>>Dear Peter, Isaac, Ron, and Keith
>>I am writing to let you know that the agenda for our C/LA meeting
>>to take place in Paris on Saturday and Sunday Jan 27/28 will have
>>your names listed for a proposed role, and I hope you will be able
>>to accept.
>>At the end of the second day of the meeting, we will go over the
>>set of longer 'science presentations' that will be given informally
>>during the lunchtime sessions. There will be two parallel sessions
>>from 4-6 pm on Sunday, and I am hoping that Peter/Keith can chair
>>one dealing with drivers, obs, and paleo, whle Ron and Isaac can
>>chair one on attribution/sea level/projections.
>>Earlier on Sat/Sun we will also have gone over the shorter formal
>>presentations that will be used to start each section of the SPM
>>during the meeting.
>>See below for some more information CLAs requested for preparation
>>of the shorter presentations.
>>An important point is that the short and long presentations should
>>be consistent and should strongly support the SPM approval process
>>(see below).
>>We are seeking tough chairmen who could a) keep to a strict time
>>schedule and avoid slippage; b) ensure that a clear statement is
>>made about what the group conclusion is (e.g., if the group feels
>>that a particular presentation should be changed, that needs to be
>>made clear to the person who will hand in the final presentation to
>>the TSU); and c) helps the group to focus on the need for these
>>presentations to communicate with policy people (not overly
>>technical) and help address the comments received (not to digress).
>>In short, to be tough, fair, constructive, and well organized.
>>Thanks in advance for considering helping with this. If you feel
>>you cannot do it, let me know but I will assume silence is
>>agreement to serve.
>>best regards,
>>>Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:08:01 -0700
>>>From: Susan Solomon <Susan.SolomonatXYZxyza.gov>
>>>To: wg1-ar4-clasatXYZxyzs.ucar.edu
>>>Cc: zhenlin chen <cdcccatXYZxyz.gov.cn>, Martin.ManningatXYZxyza.gov
>>>Subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Shorter presentations at Paris
>>>X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-clasatXYZxyzs.ucar.edu
>>>List-Id: <wg1-ar4-clas.joss.ucar.edu>
>>> <mailto:wg1-ar4-clas-request@joss.ucar.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>List-Archive: <http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/private/wg1-ar4-clas>
>>>List-Post: <mailto:wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu>
>>>List-Help: <mailto:wg1-ar4-clas-request@joss.ucar.edu?subject=help>
>>>List-Subscribe: <http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas>,
>>> <mailto:wg1-ar4-clas-request@joss.ucar.edu?subject=subscribe>
>>>Sender: wg1-ar4-clas-bouncesatXYZxyzs.ucar.edu
>>>X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
>>>X-Rcpt-To: <ssolomonatXYZxyzec.al.noaa.gov>
>>>X-DPOP: Version number supressed
>>>Dear CLAs,
>>>We are writing to address the two types of presentations (shorter
>>>and longer) that are to be given in Paris. A number of you have
>>>asked about the shorter presentations in particular and we want to
>>>clarify that here.
>>>We would like to ask the people who served as section coordinators
>>>for each section in our TS/SPM meetings to coordinate pulling
>>>together the shorter presentations of not more than 10 slides
>>>(Ramaswamy on drivers; Bindoff on observations; Hegerl on
>>>attribution, Stocker on projections).
>>>Many of you have kindly already sent around draft material for the
>>>longer science presentations, and that has been very helpful.
>>>These will occur informally during lunch breaks, or before the
>>>morning sessions at the plenary and will not be subject to
>>>simultaneous translation. The most interested delegates will
>>>typically find these very helpful, and will want to use them to
>>>ask you questions.
>>>In addition, during the regular formal sessions and prior to
>>>presentation of each of the major sections of the report (drivers,
>>>observations, attribution, and projections), we will benefit from
>>>a very short presentation that introduces the section. The
>>>speaker's words will be subject to simultaneous translation. We
>>>suggest that the paleo ice core material be covered as part of the
>>>drivers, that the paleo observations be covered as part of the
>>>observations, etc, to speed things up (we can switch speakers but
>>>keep slides in the same file).
>>>These shorter presentations are extremely important in setting the
>>>stage. They must be very short. We will have an absolute limit
>>>of not more than 10 minutes, preferably 5 minutes for the shorter
>>>sections of the report namely drivers and attribution). Please
>>>do not include more than a maximum of 10 slides. Questions will be
>>>strictly limited by the session chair (Susan or Dahe) to matters
>>>of clarity (e.g., if an axis isn't clear).
>>>We will go over both the shorter and the longer presentations
>>>jointly at our preparatory meeting at the UNESCO center on Sat/Sun
>>>Jan 27/28 so please come prepared to do that. An agenda for the
>>>preparatory meeting will be circulated to you shortly.
>>>The shorter presentations can largely be derived from the longer
>>>ones. They will be most helpful if:
>>>- they do seek to provide a general sense of how the section
>>>is meant to fit together and some key highlights.
>>>- they present the figures and tables used in the SPM
>>>section to follow, but do not include figures from the chapters
>>>unless absolutely essential. Including figures from outside the
>>>report could create problems and should be avoided.
>>>- they avoid raising new issues or suggesting changes from
>>>the distributed SPM. As some of us have seen in the heated
>>>discussions via email about the MOC, sticking to the agreed
>>>consensus obtained in the chapter teams is something our
>>>colleagues who will not be in Paris would appreciate our doing as
>>>much as possible. We will need to agree to all changes to be
>>>presented by us to delegates as a team in our preparatory meeting
>>>on Jan 27-28. They will choose to seek more and that is what we
>>>will have to jointly manage.
>>>- they have very little text on them, as simple as possible.
>>>- they do not try to cover each bullet.
>>>You may wish to consider whether it is helpful to alternate
>>>speakers between your science presentation and these short
>>>presentations, so that more of you get a chance to speak.
>>>Some of you asked for sample presentations. You are probably
>>>aware that we completed a special report on HFCs/ozone in 2005.
>>>The short presentation on our section (section 2) at that session
>>>worked extremely well and is appended here as an example in case
>>>you want to glance at it, along with the SPM itself. We had much
>>>less material to cover of course and more time to do it (this is
>>>more than 10 slides but don't be tempted as that was a different
>>>situation) but we hope this is still helpful.
>>>We look forward to seeeing you and discussing all of the
>>>presentations on Jan 27-28.
>>>Best regards,
>>>Susan, Martin, and Dahe
>>>Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>Fax: +44-1603-507784


No comments:

Post a Comment