Thursday, April 12, 2012

3345.txt

cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansenatXYZxyz.uib.no>, Pascale Braconnot <Pascale.Braconnot@cea.fr>, francis <francis.zwiersatXYZxyzgc.ca>
date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:44:43 -0500
from: Gabi Hegerl <hegerlatXYZxyze.edu>
subject: Re: [Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3]
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
Hi all,
SOunds good - I will try to edit some more cross chapter references in,
and we will also definitely change the terminology (Francis, would you
mind putting a note
into the mastercopy top of 9.3 to remind me - medieval warm period
terminology to consolidate with terminology
in box in chapter 6).

Will put on my todo list.
Peck overtime wrt what? :)))
(Tom only sees my back in evenings these days staring at the screen)

Gabi

Keith Briffa wrote:

> Gabi
> absolutely no problem in what you say - our discussion of relative
> importance of specific forcing and attribution is limited to probably
> 2 vague sentences that describe the EMIC panel. I have just found that
> somehow one lot of editing I did on an earlier version has all
> disappeared and NOW I have a major job to re-edit so I am not sure
> that I can be specific re suggestions - but I do not think some
> repetition is necessarily a problem . Let's see how I get on. Cheers
> Keith
> At 15:59 28/02/2006, Gabi Hegerl wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith et al.,
>>
>> I was trying to give you a call on this, but can't reach you - let me
>> know if and when is a
>> good time, teaching later this morning.
>>
>> The LGM and early holocene is meant from our side that we refer to
>> you for all the details, and summarize
>> the findings and why they are encouraging. The one aspect of the LGM
>> we have in more detail is the
>> two pdf estimates (annan and schneider von deimling), which I think
>> is ok.
>> And that mainstream sensitivity OAGCMs seem to do ok.
>>
>> Similar for the mid Holocene.
>>
>> For the last 1000 yrs,
>> it was my understanding that you guys talk about the reconstructions,
>> the forcings, and individual periods
>> in the last 1000 yrs, and about the runs done with the forcings.
>> In that, we definitely need to go with your terminology, sorry about
>> the medieval warm
>> period, that just didn't percolate down to us yet!
>> As to response to forcing and detection and attribution, as well as
>> what forcings explains what,
>> what caused the early 20th century warming, and climate sensitivity,
>> what forcing do we detect where etc, role of solar,
>> volcanic and greenhouse gases relative to each other, I thought this
>> was for chapter 9 to talk about. I am happy to cross reference you
>> more on other stuff, and delete
>> where you think we should for example not reference references, but
>> chapter 6, unless its in these
>> attribution questions.
>>
>> Is that still ok? So please let me know where you are concerned in
>> detail, and then lets see what to do
>> about the overlap
>>
>> Gabi
>>
>>
>> Keith Briffa wrote:
>>
>>> Gabi
>>> it is difficult to be precise as regards comments , mainly because
>>> there do seem, as it turns out, to be large areas of overlap between
>>> our discussion of the simulations, forcings, and consistency with
>>> the CO2 record in what you sent. In some places you cite selected
>>> references and occasional cross references to Chapter 6 , but this
>>> could probably be much more frequent and perhaps specific with
>>> regard to particular sections and Figures (and you could as a
>>> consequence remove text if you wished - but I see no problem if not,
>>> other than repetition , as there are no contradictory statements to
>>> ours as far as I can see) . I make these remarks mostly with regard
>>> to out last 2000 year section.
>>> The only only one gripe with the text that I have is your reference
>>> to the medieval period being a 500-year warm period . In fact we go
>>> to some trouble to discuss the ambiguity of the concept in our Box
>>> 6.4 and describe the timing of the warm periods .I think you should
>>> not perpetuate the term in the vague context that you do. At present
>>> , I am not certain of our final Figure order as I hope to rearrange
>>> the later ones yet again. Anyway , you have pretty much the final
>>> draft I believe of Chapter 6 and can , as no doubt you would anyway,
>>> take or leave my opinions. Best wishes
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>> At 18:10 27/02/2006, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> p.s. since I am going to a meeting on thursday (hockeystick revisited)
>>>> we are trying to be down to bookkeeping and really minor stuff by
>>>> thursday,
>>>> so if you have suggestions, but wednesday would be best - SORRY!
>>>>
>>>> Gabi
>>>>
>>>> Gabi Hegerl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Keith, Peck and Bette,
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is our preindustrial section. I think our chapters merge fine
>>>>> here, I don't
>>>>> see too much overlap, but it wouldn't hurt if you check either.
>>>>> I will also send the sensitivity section to Bette in a few hours.
>>>>> If you have changes, please use track changes. Francis, I have
>>>>> accepted all
>>>>> changes in this and removed comments no longer relevant
>>>>>
>>>>> Gabi
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3
>>>>> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:22:32 -0500
>>>>> From: Crowley_Hegerl <mailto:ghegerl@nc.rr.com><ghegerl@nc.rr.com>
>>>>> To: <mailto:wg1-ar4-ch09@joss.ucar.edu><wg1-ar4-ch09@joss.ucar.edu>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi chapter 9 authors,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the preindustrial section 9.3 for final crosschecking.
>>>>> Please get back to us (using my work email or this list) by
>>>>> Wednesday at the latest.
>>>>> It has some questions and things to check for Pascale (thanks for
>>>>> all the help with this
>>>>> Already, did you see Bette�s latest LGM numbers and the updated
>>>>> terminology? � I�ll
>>>>> Also send ch6 draft which I got this morning).
>>>>>
>>>>> And one for Nathan on circulation stuff, there was a comment we
>>>>> were not sure about.
>>>>> Would be great of course if others have a chance to check, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> ALL: PLEASE ACCEPT ALL CHANGES before you make more changes.
>>>>> Otherwise
>>>>> It will be close to impossible to trace!
>>>>>
>>>>> Good morning everybody
>>>>>
>>>>> Gabi and Francis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> Gabriele Hegerl
>>>>> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
>>>>> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
>>>>> Box 90227
>>>>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708
>>>>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
>>>>> email: <mailto:hegerl@duke.edu>hegerl@duke.edu,
>>>>> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> Gabriele Hegerl
>>>> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
>>>> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
>>>> Box 90227
>>>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708
>>>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
>>>> email: <mailto:hegerl@duke.edu>hegerl@duke.edu,
>>>> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>
>>> Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School
>> for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
>> Box 90227
>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708
>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
>> email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
>>
>
> --
> 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/
>

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl
Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html


</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment