tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post113299155486463062..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: UJCC workshopJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1133138441094410872005-11-28T00:40:00.000+00:002005-11-28T00:40:00.000+00:00I know what you mean, but you're in danger of over...<I>I know what you mean, but you're in danger of over/mis-stating this, IMHO</I><BR/><BR/>Probably - the point is not so much about the particular chain of command, as the overall effect. But certainly we performed a suite of modelling experiments specifically because IPCC authors wanted to write about a particular subject in a particular way.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1133092661899943142005-11-27T11:57:00.000+00:002005-11-27T11:57:00.000+00:00Re It sometimes seems like the IPCC is not so much...Re <I>It sometimes seems like the IPCC is not so much assessing the science, as determining what science needs to be done, and by when</I>.<BR/><BR/>I know what you mean, but you're in danger of over/mis-stating this, IMHO. IPCC makes no (little?) attempt to determine who does what; the push comes because people are desperate to get their stuff into ARx, and funding bodies also (rightly?) see inclusion of science in IPCC as some seal of approval/relevance.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1133079473950012522005-11-27T08:17:00.000+00:002005-11-27T08:17:00.000+00:00John,This paper makes the case against over-comple...John,<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/fbi076v1" REL="nofollow">This paper</A> makes the case against over-complexifying in one particular context. (The author was at the workshop.)James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1133056040234950632005-11-27T01:47:00.000+00:002005-11-27T01:47:00.000+00:00Sorry Steve,The journal in question (GRL) seems to...Sorry Steve,<BR/><BR/>The journal in question (GRL) seems to have extremely restrictive ules regarding "public" disclosure (more so than Nature, for example). And due to the particular circumstances I really don't want to pre-empt the formal scientific process. I'll have plenty to say in a few weeks...James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1133054919565193582005-11-27T01:28:00.000+00:002005-11-27T01:28:00.000+00:00"...I talked about something we did more recently...."...I talked about something we did more recently. The latter stirred up a bit of debate, as we had hoped."<BR/><BR/>Another tease, eh? Still not down to a glimpse of the fur-lined lingerie, it seems. :) Come on, it sounds as if this event was a sufficiently public forum that surely you can say a little bit about the new paper here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1133054395495831382005-11-27T01:19:00.000+00:002005-11-27T01:19:00.000+00:00John,Well, I've not got much to add to what I said...John,<BR/><BR/>Well, I've not got much to add to what I said. There seems to be pressure to simply patch any newly-developed parameterisation (say, vegetation models) into GCMs for the purpose of 100 year projections without always understanding their strengths and weaknesses adequately. A relationship that seems robust at the individual leaf scale may not be relevant for 300km grid boxes, and may fail completely once the temperature changes sufficiently. Does this really mean that we face massive vegetative die-back, or is it merely a case of "more research is needed"? So long as the uncertainties in the reseach are presented honestly, maybe it doesn't matter too much, but I suspect most people see the scary headlines from Nature press releases, and might not catch the more measured reassessments in the more conventional literature.<BR/><BR/>You may or may not be surprised by the fact that development plans and timetabling are already well in place for the anticipated modelling requirements of AR5. It sometimes seems like the IPCC is not so much assessing the science, as determining what science needs to be done, and by when.<BR/><BR/>The flip-side of this of course is that the pressure to perform has driven research on at a great rate. So it's not by any means all bad.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1133022075391519682005-11-26T16:21:00.000+00:002005-11-26T16:21:00.000+00:00John Fleck asks -James, could you elaborate on the...John Fleck asks -<BR/><BR/>James, could you elaborate on the grumbling? As a consumer of the science y'all produce, the sacrifice of underpinnings for rushed predictions makes me a tad nervous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com