date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:09:05 EST
subject: Publication of SRES fast track 2000
to: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk
I met with David Warrilow, Penny Bramwell and Caroline Fish last week (mainly
about IPCC matters) and fast-track SRES 2000 came up:
In summary, DETR almost certainly wishes to publish the 2 SRES runs we all
made last year, as a special journal issue (and maybe a brochure) prior to
CoP7 in October. I am gathering info on GEC journal costs and timings, but we
should assume the publishers will almost certainly need final copy by 1st
July (=final drafts by 1 June,latest).
DETR assume, I think reasonably, that taking this work through to publication
is something we originally planned, so would not be a new contract. They
would cover only printing, distribution costs etc. From the authors point of
viewpoint, we might see this as maintaining good relations with DETR prior to
open competition for a new fast track round.
I have 2 questions: Can each of you make this timetable? Are there any other
obstacles to publication?
I assume we have/will resolve any problems regarding assumptions,
interpretations etc such as arose with the health work; and if (as with the
ecosystems work?) publication has already occurred we can accept this if for
only only one chapter (more and a journal would not be interested).
The next step is, I think, for each of the impacts reports to be exchanged
between the impacts authors. vThis is important so that we can make sense on
I attach the agriculture draft. **will you please send yours ASAP*. Those
at the IPCC Geneva might meet to chew over what they contain.
In addition, DETR might (v. unclear at present, it is largely a question of
budget, but I have asked for a speedy answer) fund the 3 runs NOT yet done
(viz A1,B1 and the later high projection) also aiming at October CoP. Even
if this were the case, I suspect the format of the papers would be the same:
methods, assumptions, results, conclusions; and the additional runs would
simply lead to additional graphs and diagrams in the results section.
Therefore I propose that this uncertainty should not hold us back from
writing, now, broad content of the 2-run publication.
Please reply on the 2 points above, ASAP.
Prof. Martin L. Parry
Jackson Environment Institute
University of East Anglia
Tel: +44 (0) 1603 592 318
Fax: +44 (0) 1603 593 896
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Fast Track III (Food) Final Reportv5 .doc"