cc: Carolin Richter <CRichteratXYZxyz.int>
date: Mon Jul 27 17:26:46 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Report of IPCC Scoping Meeting
to: Kevin Trenberth <trenbertatXYZxyzr.edu>, Adrian.SimmonsatXYZxyzwf.int
Agree with Kevin about Thomas being somewhat fixed in his ways.
I think a few things will come back to haunt Thomas later in the process. I got the
that there would be more interaction with WG2, but the proof of the pudding will be
in the eating. When the authors are selected there needs to be some interaction
between Ch 2 and 3 and also between 2 and 14 to decide where various bits
come. Thomas wanted very short bullets that wouldn't allow issues of overlap
to be addressed adequately.
As for surface, I made sure SST is in the surface and atmosphere. Waves and
swell will likely end up in Ch 2, as I got the impression the oceans don't want to
do it. Depends what the oceans think of as a surface process, circulation and fluxes
There are longer summaries that will be given to the Ch leads once known.
As Kevin says I tried hard to get rid of the word archives. It is proxy records
(natural and documentary). Traditional dusty archives will be in Ch 2 as the vast
majority are instrumental of some sort. Ch 2 and 5 will need to determine a
time threshold as we did last time (1850 was the date last time).
Cloud obs and all the problems should be in Ch 2.
With extremes there is an issue of what will be in Ch 2 and 14. Tropical and
extra-tropical storms (and drought) will be in 2, but 14 may get extremes of
precip and temperature. Kevin made the point that extremes are part of
the whole distribution. This comes of having a regional chapter and trying
to put extremes in it! 14 also has a few things like patterns of variability and
monsoons that will be discussed in 2.
Extremes also has a special report starting soon - crossing WG 1-3. The authors
for that get chosen in September.
Ch 14 was supposed to have lots of tables in supplementary material,
which seems to have fallen off.
I did mention gaps in knowledge and what we need to know, but this got missed out.
I'd raise all of these - as they are within GCOS.
At 16:06 27/07/2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Several comments on the scoping meeting. I found Thomas very intransigent wrt any
suggestions made in the meeting. I was called out to co-chair a cross cutting task
group on water and that took over a day out of my being involved with WG 1. While we
got a full chapter on the topic in WG 2, our report had almost no impact on WG-1 and I
was thoroughly PO'd. Precipitation is not given much prominence and soil moisture,
ground water, and lake storage are not mentioned. I treid to get a breif mention of
"land water storage" to embrace these aspects and actually the total is a big issue for
sea level as well. There should also have been a bullet in the last chapter on the
synthesis of the water cycle aspects. I can send you our TG report if you don't have
Adrian Simmons wrote:
I have now had a look through the report of the IPCC Scoping Meeting
held in Venice two weeks ago, on which GCOS has an opportunity to comment.
I have only a few minor comments on the outline of the WG I report, and
am not sure any of them are worth raising formally - I'm copying this to
Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones, who may well be able to respond and put
matters to rest.
(i) I'm pleased to see the chapter on "Observations : Atmosphere and
Surface" has been moved from number 3 to number 2 for AR5. It's good to
see the disappearance of the historical review, which I did not find
particularly balanced in AR4, and the radiative forcing discussion moved
to later in the report.
(ii) I'm rather confused by what is meant by "surface" in Chapter 2. It
clearly includes sea-surface temperature, but apparently nothing else to
do with the surface of the sea, as "Changes in ocean surface process" is
a topic for Chapter 3. I can see why SST has a natural home in Chapter 3
along with atmospheric observations, but as ocean surface waves are so
strongly linked with atmospheric forcing, and rather directly indicative
of shifts in atmospheric circulation (albeit with swell effects to
confound interpretation), I wonder whether they are not best covered in
Chapter 2. Soil moisture, on the other hand, does seem to be in Chapter
2, in "Changes in hydrology ...".
This was originally atmosphere and land surface and it was only after I pointed out that
the global sfc T had to be done somewhere that it was broadened to surface. Anything
atmospheric dominated (incl waves) surely has to be there.
(iii) I have a problem with the title of Chapter 5 - "Information from
Climate Archives". Vast amounts of the WG1 report will be based on
information from Climate Archives - Archives of observations made
anytime from Centuries to a few hours ago, reanalyses, results of
climate model runs. Archives don't only hold old data - they are updated
regularly with new data. I can appreciate why the former title of
"Palaeoclimate" was dropped, but don't find the replacement any better.
Many of us strongly disagreed with the wording here (including Phil and me). But the
French loved the word "archive". There seemed to be strong resistance to using
paleoclimate and Phil and I suggested "Information from proxy records". I would
encourage GCOS to comment.
A few of us (including David Warillow (sp?)) thought paleo should be distributed and not
a separate chapter. From the user and stakeholder viewpoint and other WGs that is
clearly true. But being distributed would make it harder for the paleo guys to caucus
and depend a lot more on the one expert in each chapter (as happened last time with sea
(iv) "Observations of clouds ..." comes up in Chapter 7, but I imagine
it will be hard for Chapter 2 to cover changes in the radiation fields
and energy budgets and in hydrology, without discussing clouds. But as
long as there is good editorial control and interaction among the lead
authors this should not be much of a problem. Likewise with regard to
"Changes in radiation fields" in Chapter 2 and "Radiative forcing
changes" in Chapter 8.
Chapter 7 should not be observations of clouds; those must be in chapter 2, except
insofar as they relate to process. And so all the cloudsat and calypso obs etc are
likely to end up here. The thing to remember here is that the bullets here may well
determine who gets selected as LAs. So small refinements can be worthwhile. If chapter
2 does not have anyone who can handle radiation or clouds then it won't happen.
I think that's more or less it from the observations side, except that
in the WG I chapters I do not see anything like "Gaps in knowledge" as a
sub-heading, whereas I do see this sub-heading in several chapters of
the WG III report. There is also a sub-heading on "Research gaps" in the
WG II outline.
I've a few other reactions to what I've read, but they are not to do
with GCOS's business.
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbertatXYZxyzr.edu
Climate Analysis Section, www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk