Thursday, December 22, 2011


From: Keith Briffa <>
To: Susan Solomon <>, Susan Solomon <>, Isaac Held <>, Ronald Stouffer <>, peter lemke <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Shorter presentations at Paris
Date: Fri Jan 19 15:36:09 2007
Cc: Melinda_Tignor <>, Martin Manning <>,

This is very clear and very useful Thanks
At 15:21 19/01/2007, Susan Solomon wrote:

Keith, Peter, Isaac, Ron,
Thanks to all of you for helping out.
Keith, the audience for the presentations is the policy makers who will be present in
Paris. As you have already seen from the comments, many of them are not scientists. The
presentations need to be pitched at a non-scientist level. A number of the policy
people will be lawyers, and a number will be legalistically looking to find anything
that can advance their position. Most of them will however just be looking to ask
questions and to better understand, and many will be constructive in how they use the
information provided. So it is quite a mix. They should not be given input that
distracts from the job at hand. Therefore, these presentations should not bring in new
issues not raised in the comments, figures from material outside the report, etc.
I hasten to say that all of us hope there will not be big problems in going through the
presentations. The presentations are being carefully prepared by excellent people, so
my expectation would be for quite minor changes.
All of the above has been discussed with those preparing the presentations, so a primary
role in co-chairing this session is to lend a constructively critical eye, seeking to
advance the goal of clarity, conciseness, and sticking to the report rather than
straying, if needed. The outcome is not a formal approval statement of the
presentation. The outcome is to guide the collective subgroup to a *clear* consensus on
what should be changed before the presentation is passed in to the TSU. If there are
things that a majority of the group wants to see changed but others do not, you will
have a chairman's job to do in finding a solution everyone can live with. It would
probably be helpful if you could keep some notes on the agreed changes, since that will
help you ensure that you have been clear enough in stating the conclusion. Too often
there is a thrash and no closure. A good chair gets agreement with the group.
Thanks again,
At 1:00 PM +0000 1/19/07, Keith Briffa wrote:

Hi Susan et al
sorry for delayed response - just back from Paris (or so I originally thought as the
meeting I was at turned out to be 3 hours away by train ). I too am happy to act as you
request, though I am still uncertain as to who the specific audience will be and more
particularly, what you expect as an outcome of the session (a formal approval statement
or recommendation for amendments?).
At 00:31 18/01/2007, Susan Solomon wrote:

Dear Peter, Isaac, Ron, and Keith
I am writing to let you know that the agenda for our C/LA meeting to take place in Paris
on Saturday and Sunday Jan 27/28 will have your names listed for a proposed role, and I
hope you will be able to accept.
At the end of the second day of the meeting, we will go over the set of longer 'science
presentations' that will be given informally during the lunchtime sessions. There will
be two parallel sessions from 4-6 pm on Sunday, and I am hoping that Peter/Keith can
chair one dealing with drivers, obs, and paleo, whle Ron and Isaac can chair one on
attribution/sea level/projections.
Earlier on Sat/Sun we will also have gone over the shorter formal presentations that
will be used to start each section of the SPM during the meeting.
See below for some more information CLAs requested for preparation of the shorter
An important point is that the short and long presentations should be consistent and
should strongly support the SPM approval process (see below).
We are seeking tough chairmen who could a) keep to a strict time schedule and avoid
slippage; b) ensure that a clear statement is made about what the group conclusion is
(e.g., if the group feels that a particular presentation should be changed, that needs
to be made clear to the person who will hand in the final presentation to the TSU); and
c) helps the group to focus on the need for these presentations to communicate with
policy people (not overly technical) and help address the comments received (not to
digress). In short, to be tough, fair, constructive, and well organized.
Thanks in advance for considering helping with this. If you feel you cannot do it, let
me know but I will assume silence is agreement to serve.
best regards,

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:08:01 -0700
From: Susan Solomon <>
Cc: zhenlin chen <>,
Subject: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Shorter presentations at Paris
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <[1]>,
List-Archive: <[3]>
List-Post: <[4]>
List-Help: <[5]>
List-Subscribe: <[6]>,
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Rcpt-To: <>
X-DPOP: Version number supressed
Dear CLAs,
We are writing to address the two types of presentations (shorter and longer) that are
to be given in Paris. A number of you have asked about the shorter presentations in
particular and we want to clarify that here.
We would like to ask the people who served as section coordinators for each section in
our TS/SPM meetings to coordinate pulling together the shorter presentations of not more
than 10 slides (Ramaswamy on drivers; Bindoff on observations; Hegerl on attribution,
Stocker on projections).
Many of you have kindly already sent around draft material for the longer science
presentations, and that has been very helpful. These will occur informally during lunch
breaks, or before the morning sessions at the plenary and will not be subject to
simultaneous translation. The most interested delegates will typically find these very
helpful, and will want to use them to ask you questions.
In addition, during the regular formal sessions and prior to presentation of each of the
major sections of the report (drivers, observations, attribution, and projections), we
will benefit from a very short presentation that introduces the section. The speaker's
words will be subject to simultaneous translation. We suggest that the paleo ice core
material be covered as part of the drivers, that the paleo observations be covered as
part of the observations, etc, to speed things up (we can switch speakers but keep
slides in the same file).
These shorter presentations are extremely important in setting the stage. They must be
very short. We will have an absolute limit of not more than 10 minutes, preferably 5
minutes for the shorter sections of the report namely drivers and attribution). Please
do not include more than a maximum of 10 slides. Questions will be strictly limited by
the session chair (Susan or Dahe) to matters of clarity (e.g., if an axis isn't clear).
We will go over both the shorter and the longer presentations jointly at our preparatory
meeting at the UNESCO center on Sat/Sun Jan 27/28 so please come prepared to do that. An
agenda for the preparatory meeting will be circulated to you shortly.
The shorter presentations can largely be derived from the longer ones. They will be
most helpful if:
- they do seek to provide a general sense of how the section is meant to fit
together and some key highlights.
- they present the figures and tables used in the SPM section to follow, but do
not include figures from the chapters unless absolutely essential. Including figures
from outside the report could create problems and should be avoided.
- they avoid raising new issues or suggesting changes from the distributed SPM.
As some of us have seen in the heated discussions via email about the MOC, sticking to
the agreed consensus obtained in the chapter teams is something our colleagues who will
not be in Paris would appreciate our doing as much as possible. We will need to agree
to all changes to be presented by us to delegates as a team in our preparatory meeting
on Jan 27-28. They will choose to seek more and that is what we will have to jointly
- they have very little text on them, as simple as possible.
- they do not try to cover each bullet.
You may wish to consider whether it is helpful to alternate speakers between your
science presentation and these short presentations, so that more of you get a chance to
Some of you asked for sample presentations. You are probably aware that we completed a
special report on HFCs/ozone in 2005. The short presentation on our section (section 2)
at that session worked extremely well and is appended here as an example in case you
want to glance at it, along with the SPM itself. We had much less material to cover of
course and more time to do it (this is more than 10 slides but don't be tempted as that
was a different situation) but we hope this is still helpful.
We look forward to seeeing you and discussing all of the presentations on Jan 27-28.
Best regards,
Susan, Martin, and Dahe
Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list

Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784

Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784



No comments:

Post a Comment