To: Tim Osborn <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Fortunat Joos <email@example.com>, Jonathan Overpeck <firstname.lastname@example.org>, David Rind <email@example.com>, Stefan Rahmstorf <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bette Otto-Bleisner <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Ricardo Villalba <email@example.com>, Jouzel@dsm-mail.extra.cea.fr, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@cea.fr>, Dominique Raynaud <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Keith Briffa <email@example.com>, Phil Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Heinz Wanner <email@example.com>, Thorsten Kiefer <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eric W Wolff <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Michael Schulz <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Bette Otto-Bliesner <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Key new IPCC relevant paleo-science
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:34:21 +0200
Cc: Laurent Labeyrie <Laurent.Labeyrie@lsce.ipsl.fr>, Gavin Schmidt <email@example.com>
The scoping of IPCC AR5 will happen in July this year. In the
community there have been opinions raised regarding paleo-science in
the next report, e.g. whether to have paleo-science dispersed into
various topical chapters, e.g. forcing, model-evaluation, sea level
etc., or whether it might be best to do as in AR4 to have a separate
There are good arguments for both options, and it is not the intent of
this email to voice a specific opinion. Rather it is important to let
the scoping process be aware of all the relevant new paleo-science
which whould be assessed in AR5, thereby leading to the need for a
strong presence of paleoclimate scientists in the LA-team of AR5,
particularly in WG1, but also in WG2.
In order to make the case that paleo-science continues to be highly
relevant for IPCC, Peck and I have agreed to be the editors of a Slide-
series (ppt style) which can be used to make the case in the scoping,
and which of course could be a useful product for various outreach
activities of PAGES and the paleoclimate community at large.
The PAGES office will asssist in producing the slides
We therefore send this email to you who worked as LAs in AR4 or who
are on SSC or other relevant PAGES panels and ask for your input.
What we hope you can help with is the following:
1. Provide your best examples of key new IPCC (Policy) relevant new
results post AR4, i.e. accepted after July 2006, that provide
compelling arguments for paleoclimate science as a key contributor to
IPCC. Please limit this to the results which are clearly IPCC-relevant
2. Ongoing projects or programmes that are likely to deliver such
results in the next 2-3 years can also be included. The information
must, however, be specific and compelling to a non-paleo audience.
3. Send PDF of the paper or other material (like ppt slide) to Peck (firstname.lastname@example.org
), Myself and Thorsten Kiefer (email@example.com) at
PAGES, preferably by May 2.
We think this might become a very useful service to our community and
to the climate change communities at large, and will be very rewarding.
Hoping to hear back from many of you.
Peck and Eystein
Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
All�gaten 55, N 5007 Bergen, Norway