Wednesday, May 9, 2012


date: Fri Oct 5 15:34:21 2007
from: Tim Osborn <>
subject: Re: Polar bear paper revision

At 11:19 28/09/2007, you wrote:

Hi Tim
Andrew has been looking over the polar bear article before we submit and
has suggested a fair few changes to get the paper to fit in an ecology
journal. You may want to see this version before we submit. You'll also
notice that Peter has withdrawn from being an author - he seemed unable to
distinguish an expert elicitation reporting other expert views from his
own views on polar bear management - and so felt a bit uneasy with some of
the results (something I don't see should have any bearing as we're just
reporting results, not our own opinions, but no matter). He's now
acknowledged instead and so you are now 2nd author.
Andrew is keen that I make more of a comparison between the IPCC risk
statement and our own results on polar bear decline, see pp 19 'magnitude
of the losses' (The discussion subheadings are there for editing only and
will be removed before submission).
I have 2 questions before I rewrite this paragraph, which I am hoping you
can help with:
1. The IPCC statement states a 'high risk of extinction with a warming of
2.8degC' (It's in box 4.3 of the ecosystems chp in the 4AR). Do you know
where this 2.8 figure comes from? Importantly, do we know what the sea ice
decline % is? (and what does this figure if it is known relate to, is it
summer sea ice? or what? - is it comparable to ours?)
2. Following on from that, what was the mean sea ice decline in the
simulation you carried out (hopefully the same as IPCC i.e. both summer
sea ice decline or whatever so we can compare the statements).
Basically, I may not be explaining this well, but I want to be able to
compare the sea ice decline under both the IPCC statement and our
scenario, so we can draw conclusions about both the IPCC and our expert
I'm not on campus at all these days but let me know if you would like to
meet to discuss this and I'll come in.

No comments:

Post a Comment