Subject: Section on last 2000-years
Date: Tue Aug 9 17:21:11 2005
Peck and Eystein
in case you tried (!), my phone has been broken for the last few days (yes - honestly).
I am sorry I had to rush off - and stay longer than I had anticipated . The funeral was
while a post-mortem examination had to be held to establish the precise cause of death.
that dad had struggled on having had at least 3 heart attacks, 2 strokes, chronic diabetes
and partial liver and kidney failure for some years (besides being virtually immobile and
completely blind for 18 months). All in all , though it was a release, the actual demise
was sudden and unexpected and I managed to arrive too late to be with him at the end.
Given the time constraint , this "final" revision is not as considered as it might have
been , but we have tried to take into account all comments available , and have given
considerable attention to the IPCC terminology and emphasis on the bullet points . At this
stage , however, there are some clear areas where future work will be required to keep
abreast of recent developments and , perhaps, to re-balance the emphasis and structure. I
apologise for not having responded directly to Fortunat, Stefan, Ricardo.Olga, David and
Tom, but please be aware that I have considered all of their comments and done what I could
to address them .Thanks Fortunat and Ricardo (and Ed - who should be added to the list of
CAs) for the text and Figures and Henry and Jason for the help and data . David's
suggestions about re-ordering the paragraphs was particularly difficult to resolve in my
own mind , because I do see the logic , but equally , did not want to interfere with the
time line approach to describing post- TAR work that underlies the current structure. as
you can see I decided to leave the order as it was. It would be great if David and Fortunat
could check cross Chapter referencing (eg in relation to forcings and detection chapters).
We can revisit this , and the issue of McIntyre and McKitrick (centering of PCs in Mann et
al reconstruction - which is clearly unfounded) until such time as the numerous responses
The new SH section is in , and the MWP box slightly amended to take account of the new
Peck, I have considered your text on the regional section - and you will see that I have
edited out some relating to future (and association between drought and SSTs) . I feel
strongly that you are venturing into "observational" territory and speculation beyond what
we should say. I have also amended the bullet points to reflect this. YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE
ARBITERS and it is up to you if you wish to re-insert , but I will give you a continuing
argument later about our overstepping the "paleo" boundary. Note also that the bullet on
European summer 2004 has bee altered to reflect what was a last minute , one-sentence ,
insertion in the first paragraph regarding Jurg Lutterbacher's Science paper - as there was
no mention of it otherwise. We had to remove the reference to "700 years in France" as I am
not sure what this is , and it is not in the text anyway. The use of "likely" , "very
likely" and my additional fudge word "unusual" are all carefully chosen where used.
Tim has been a rock in the last minute rush here - not only doing the Figures , but also
helping with the text. I am really grateful to him. He has sent the text , with some
comments, and highlighted references, that need attention. If Oyvind can identify
references and handle these problems with Endnote , we are also really grateful.
The final references , if missing , are probably in the current text, the previous Endnote
library , or in sections of text sent by Ricardo, Fortunat, Peck and Eystein. I trust when
you guys have stiched the new text back in and the Figures etc. we will perhaps get a last
chance to correct and check references etc. Thanks
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.