To: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no>, Jonathan Overpeck <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: No Subject
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:32:19 +0100
Eystein and Peck
I have thought about this and spent some time discussing it with Tim. I have come up with
Greater uncertainty associated with proxy-based temperature estimates for individual years
means that it is more difficult to gauge the significance, or precedence, of the extreme
warm years observed in the recent instrumental record. However, there is no new evidence to
challenge the statement made in the TAR that 1998 (or the subsequent near-equivalent 2005)
was likely the warmest in the last 1000 years.
This should best go after the paragraph that concludes section 184.108.40.206
I believe we might best omit the second sentence of the suggested new paragraph - but you
might consider this too subtle (or negative) then. I think the second sentence is very
subtle also though - because it does not exclude the possibility that the same old evidence
that challenges the veracity of the TAR statement exists now , as then!
I think this could go in the text where suggested , but I think it best NOT to have a
bullet about this point.We need to check exactly what was saidin the TAR . Perhaps a
reference to the Academy Report could also be inserted here?
Anyway, you asked for a straw-man statement for all to argue about so I suggest we send
this to Stefan, David , Betty and whoever else you think.
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.