Friday, May 18, 2012

4400.txt

cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansenatXYZxyz.uib.no>
date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:19:51 -0700
from: Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>
subject: bullet debate #4 to #6
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Keith and Eystein - Ah, it's getting easier...

Ok on # 4 - change made as suggested, thanks

Ok on #5 if Eystein agrees that we can delete the bullet on how unprecedented recent Euro
warmth (I think it's ok to delete, since it's regional)

Ok on #6 - your text makes the statement "In most multi-centennial length coral series, the
late 20th century is warmer than any time in the last 100-300 years." BUT, this statement
is based on isotopic records (mostly). I think the statement is true and that unpublished
work will end up supporting it. Thus, by removing it from the Exec Summary, we're deleting
it mostly to save space, or because we don't have much confidence in what is written in the
text? Just want to make sure both of you are ok with deleting this bullet.

And... we won't let Susan push us to say things that are not supportable. I don't think
she's doing that at all, but rather just trying to get our bullets more clear to the
non-specialist. Although her solutions aren't all great (e.g., the idea of working solar
into the first bullet), she is right that we can't be too vague. If we choose that route,
we're going to have to defend our stance better than we have done so far.

Also, given the import of these bullets, we need to take the extra time to think through
all options.

Thanks for putting up w/ me and this process.

best, peck

Fourth
fine , though perhaps "warmth" instead of "warming"?
and need to see EMIC text
Fifth
suggest delete
Sixth
suggest delete
Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR , there has been a lot of argument re
"hockey stick" and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is
minimal. True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale
data - but the efficacy of these is still far from established. We should be careful not
to push the conclusions beyond what we can securely justify - and this is not much other
than a confirmation of the general conclusions of the TAR . We must resist being pushed
to present the results such that we will be accused of bias - hence no need to attack
Moberg . Just need to show the "most likely"course of temperatures over the last 1300
years - which we do well I think. Strong confirmation of TAR is a good result, given
that we discuss uncertainty and base it on more data. Let us not try to over egg the
pudding.
For what it worth , the above comments are my (honestly long considered) views - and I
would not be happy to go further . Of course this discussion now needs to go to the
wider Chapter authorship, but do not let Susan (or Mike) push you (us) beyond where we
know is right.
--
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/

--

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/

No comments:

Post a Comment