Monday, April 30, 2012

3640.txt

cc: Marquis@ucar.edu, tignor@ucar.edu, averyt@ucar.edu, Henry.LeRoy.Miller@noaa.gov, qdh@cma.gov.cn, cdccc@cma.gov.cn, chenzhenlinatXYZxyzmail.com
date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:30:11 -0700
from: Martin Manning <mmanningatXYZxyznoaa.gov>
subject: Compiled comments on the Final Draft SPM
to: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu, ralley@essc.psu.edu, rba6@psu.edu, artaxo@if.usp.br, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, amnat_c@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th, pierre@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, j.m.gregory@reading.ac.uk, Jonathan.Gregory@metoffice.com, Isaac.Held@noaa.gov, kattsov@main.mgo.rssi.ru, Neville.Nicholls@arts.monash.edu.au, mati@at.fcen.uba.ar, peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk, Ronald.Stouffer@noaa.gov, b.j.hoskins@rdg.ac.uk

Dear Colleagues
Please find attached a compilation of the comments received from governments and NGOs on
the final draft SPM. We may get some further late comments but these are a substantial set
(nearly 1000) and probably raise all the major issues. In order to make it easier for you
to find your way around them, we are providing 5 separate files corresponding to: General +
introduction section; Drivers section; Observations section (inlcuding paleoclimate);
Attribution section; and Projections section.
Overall we are very happy with the way in which the SPM is being received. Although there
are many minor issues where the comments identify misunderstandings that need to be cleared
up, or suggest better ways of expressing things, there are only a few major issues. These
are consistent with some of the comments on the previous draft and so are not unexpected.
As in the work on our previous draft SPM, it's important that we jointly develop
responses. Our preparation should work towards a successful process. Many constructive and
helpful comments have been made in the attached but there are also constraints of several
types. Some of these are practical, procedural, or based upon precedents, and we will need
to discuss those. Please note that time will be very limited during the formal IPCC
sessions in Paris and will also constrain what is practical. A much longer SPM is simply
not an option, and we already have more figures than were in the TAR SPM. Finally, it is
important to recognize that at previous IPCC approval processes, some written comments by
governments were superceded by quite different stated concerns in the formal session, so
the written comments cannot be assumed to be absolute at this stage.
As we have mentioned earlier we will use our meeting on Jan 27 and Jan 28 to finalize our
jointly proposed revisions to the SPM in response to these comments. The TSU is currently
preparing a revision in which all the more mechanical and obvious revisions are made. Early
in the new year we will be contacting subgroups among you on specific science points and
trying to ensure that we have discussed all the key SPM revisions carefully by email or
conference call before arriving in Paris. We will also need to prepare some presentations
to the delegates in Paris to assist the process.
During Jan 29 to Feb 1 we are planning two types of science presentation by CLAs or LAs.
The first type will be given during the 2-hour lunch breaks or in the mornings before the
start of the plenary session. These will be open to any delegates who are interested, will
be informal in style (no translation) and should be from 15 to 30 minutes long. The aim in
these presentations will be to explain some of the underlying science, show typical data or
results from the chapters where appropriate, and allow delegates to ask questions. These
have been very helpful in the past as they allow delegates to interact with the authors in
a seminar type of environment. They help to clear up misunderstandings and can be used to
explain why some things being asked for by policymakers can not be provided. E.g in this
type of presentation we would hope to explain why observed changes are often expressed
probabilistically (which confuses some people) and how the sea level rise projections are
derived. We should be able to allocate about 3 or 4 hours in total to these presentations
and will cover a range of science topics suggested by the comments so far. In the attached
compilation of comments the ones that we think can be assisted through science
presentations are highlighted in a cyan color.
The second type of presentation will be given as part of the formal plenary session and be
used to introduce the key issues as we start each section of the SPM. These presentations
should be 5 to 10 minutes long and summarize more specifically what is in the SPM and where
it has come from in the chapters. We will only allow a very limited number of questions for
these presentations and their main purpose is to orient the delegates to the material they
are being asked to approve and remind them that it has to be based on the chapters. E.g
this type of presentation could help clarify why we do not mix attribution statements with
observation statements.
To summarize: We will be contacting a few of you separately today or tomorrow about
preparing the longer type of science presentations for Paris, then after Jan 1st we will be
contacting subgroups regarding our options for revisions to the SPM.
If you have any very specific suggestions for how to deal with particular comments or
groups of comments please let us know. In the meantime enjoy the holiday season and we will
be in touch again shortly.
Regards
Susan, Dahe, and Martin

--
Recommended Email address: mmanningatXYZxyznoaa.gov
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479
325 Broadway, R/CSD 2 Fax: +1 303 497 5628
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_General.doc" Attachment
Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Drivers.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Obs.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Attrib.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Proj.doc"

No comments:

Post a Comment