date: Thu Aug 12 16:56:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: [Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-clas] WGI AR4 LA1 Programme]
Sounds good re the outline. Let's discuss this at some point next week. If we can get
some views/answers from Susan/Martin that will help.
I reckon that small groups (the CLAs) can sort out boundaries etc. We can leave our
sort some aspects out and see how they do !
The GCOS plan is long - I hadn't taken on board how long. Still need to look at this.
For Reanalyses, I was thinking of IPCC when I said we need to address it. Some work
I've been doing with Adrian, shows it is OK from 1979. Before that (at least for
temperature) it has serious biases. The paper (submitted) and the ERA-40 report
(on the ECMWF web page, report # 18) show that Kalnay and Cai are wrong - as you
knew already. So, we can refer to that as well as the earlier comments.
At 09:30 12/08/2004 -0600, you wrote:
I am out today: checking email. I think the GCOS plan is too long and
unwieldy: the comments of John Church and John Gould make sense to me: need
to prioritize more perhaps as 3 tiers.
I am very unimpressed with Lennart's work on reanalyses: some of it is wrong,
I have taken the outline from chapter 2 TAR and modified it so that it fills
in what might be a first draft of a detailed table of contents for our
chapter. I think we should review this and this is what we should come away
from Trieste with agreement on and also assignments for each item. The
questions are what is missing, what is redundant, etc.
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Phil Jones wrote:
> Got the agenda, but had to clear something else before beginning to
> think about the
> Geneva meeting next week. I'll be there, late on the Sunday, so see you
> Monday morning
> at breakfast. Still need to read the GCOS stuff yet. Glad Adrian sent
> that email about
> all those pdfs from Norway. One of them on the Arctic looks worth a read
> and I'll guess
> we'll have to say something about Reanalysis at some stage.
> As for the first IPCC meeting, I also looked at the Extended Outlines
> of all the chapters -
> you were involved in their preparation and you sent me a ppt summarising
> the expectations
> for AR4. The most useful thing we can discuss next week appears to relate
> to the
> overviews/visions we must come up with by the Monday (pm) in Trieste. How
> far can we
> diverge from the outlines? I guess Susan will have views on this during
> her introduction the
> day before. Should we develop our own outline next week - with more
> detailed subsections?
> The outline has a section 3.9 on Synthesis/Consistency amongst
> observations. Our
> chapter is the only one of the observations to have such a section, so I
> guess we should
> include things from the cryosphere/oceans chapters and maybe paleo.
> Consistency should
> involve glacier retreat, snow cover and sea ice changes as well as all
> our atmospheric
> variables. Aspects from the oceans and the paleo record (wrt to spatial
> patterns of change
> in temp/precip and also circulation patterns).
> So, with this in mind, I reckon the chapters we need to co-ordinate
> with most are
> 4 (as you say for glaciers and sea ice), but also 6 (on paleo) and later
> 9 (on detection).
> The oceans chapter doesn't mention SST nor circulation indices. We seem
> to have all
> of these, but the ocean people may have other ideas. Paleo has the
> circulation indices
> mentioned so we need to define boundaries there. Detection (Understanding
> and Attribution)
> has a section on understanding climate change during the instrumental
> era, so again
> do they just draw on us?
> Initially, all these issues could be resolved with discussions of the
> CLAs and Susan/Martin,
> but the two of us should be clear what we must have and what we're happy
> for others to
> do. I'll send a brief addition to your email to Martin/Susan.
> There is one odd thing in our chapter - waves, but I guess this should
> go along with wind.
> Also Chapter 1 has a section on Progress in Observations and I think we
> need some
> guidance there. This talks about new data and data rescue.
> Here tomorrow and I'll check my email Sunday before leaving for
> Geneva. I hope we have
> some time next week - I'll also need to discuss a proposal with Adrian.
> The GCOS document
> is enormous !
> At 09:16 11/08/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> >Hi Phil
> >No doubt you got this agenda.
> >Firstly: I assume you'll be in Geneva next week and we can get our
> >thoughts together on this?
> >Secondly, I wonder if you have thoughts about joint meetings with other
> >chapters? It seems to me that we need to coordinate with chapters 4, 5
> >and 6. The question is how much? Does it require a formal meeting among
> >all LAs or is a short visit just with CLAs sufficient?
> >Sometimes it is simply a matter of introducing LAs to each other so the
> >two who need to interact get off on the right footing.
> >In the ocean area, understanding who does ENSO will a key point of
> >discussion: I assume we will do most. But if there is any discussion
> >about processes and mechanisms then the ocean chapter must be
> >involved. In the TAR there were boxes on ENSO, but there is no
> >processes chapter as such this time around. So issues related to
> >processes are murky.
> >On ice: it is not so clear who does snow cover, presumably they do, but we
> >have to do precipitation and can't avoid it. Also there is murky area wrt
> >SSTs and sea ice. Presumably they can do the Arctic for both? However,
> >someone has to do the consistency between glacier retreat, sea ice and
> >snow changes and temperatures????
> >On paleo, do you see any overlap issues? Or is that simply instrumental
> >vs proxy records? Presumably we must have consistency where they overlap?
> >-------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] WGI AR4 LA1 Programme
> >Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:26:57 -0600
> >From: IPCC-WG1 <mailto:email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: <mailto:Wg1email@example.com>Wg1firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Dear WGI CLAs and Bureau Members,
> >Please find attached a draft programme for the upcoming WGI AR4 First Lead
> >Authors Meeting, 26-29 September 2004, Trieste, Italy. Please note the
> >section regarding "cross-chapter breakout sessions". We have suggested
> >four breakouts of this type, but would appreciate any suggestions from you
> >regarding other cross-chapter breakouts that you feel may be needed. We
> >kindly ask that you provide the WGI TSU
> ><mailto:email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org> any feedback you may
> >have by Friday, 20 August 2004.
> >Best regards,
> >WGI TSU
> >IPCC WGI TSU
> >NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory
> >325 Broadway DSRC R/AL8
> >Boulder, CO 80305, USA
> >Phone: +1 303 497 7072
> >Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628
> >Email: <mailto:email@example.com>firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail:
> >Climate Analysis Section,
> >NCAR <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/>www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
> >P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
> >Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
> >Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
> 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
> NR4 7TJ
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbertatXYZxyzr.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 3080 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO 80301
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