A comment by Judith Curry reminded of a suggestion that Ross McKitrick sent me for a CA contest. Judith said:
There is no fear of H/W making it into IPCC4, the closing for papers to be accepted was over a year ago.
What Judith said here is what IPCC rules said prior to IPCC AR4. However unbeknownst to many active climate climate scientists such as Judith, IPCC varied their rules. The rules which were sent out to third-party scientists ahead of time were:
In practice this means that by May 2005, papers cited need to be either published or available to LAs in the form of a reasonably accurate draft of what is expected to be the final publication….This means that LAs need to ensure that drafts of any such papers are sent to the TSU before or at the same time as the chapter drafts, for which the absolute deadline is August 12….When the second draft of the AR4 is written authors need to be sure that any cited paper that is not yet published will actually appear in the literature, is correctly referenced, and will not be subsequently modified (except perhaps for copy editing). In practice this means that by December 2005, papers cited need to be either published or “in press”….When the second draft of the AR4 is sent to Governments and experts for the second round review, the TSU must hold final preprint copies of any unpublished papers that are cited in order that these can be made available to reviewers. This means that by late-February 2006 if LAs can not assure us that a paper is in press and provide a preprint we will ask them to remove any reference to it.
In July 2006, IPCC sent out the following:
In preparing the final draft of the IPCC Working Group I report, Lead Authors may include scientific papers published in 2006 where, in their judgment, doing so would advance the goal of achieving a balance of scientific views in addressing reviewer comments. However, new issues beyond those covered in the second order draft will not be introduced at this stage in the preparation of the report.Reviewers are invited to submit copies of additional papers that are either in-press or published in 2006, along with the chapter and section number1 to which this material could pertain, via email to firstname.lastname@example.org, not later than July 24, 2006. In the case of in-press papers a copy of the final acceptance letter from the journal is requested for our records. All submissions must be received by the TSU not later than July 24, 2006 and incomplete submissions can not be accepted
Here’s Ross’ contest suggestion:
I was thinking it might be fun on CA to have a contest. Post the IPCC letter where they changed the deadline for papers to be used in the AR4 draft, and then have people guess which paper they think the IPCC wants to insert after the deadline that everyone else was adhering to.
I’ll start off with my nominations: (1) Osborn and Briffa 2006. (2) Ammann and Wahl 2007 ?. Neither of these articles met IPCC publication deadlines. Osborn and Briffa 2006 was not published until February 2006 and was not even available as a preprint in the First Order Draft. Ammann and Wahl still isn’t published. The accepted version was not filed with IPCC TSU until the issue was raised here. As a reviewer of the Second Draft, I pointed out in writing that these articles were ineligible under IPCC publication deadlines (alo Hegerl et al 2006).
However, I suspect that a third nomination may show its head: (3) Hansen et al 2006. It would be pretty cheeky for IPCC to include this article as it wasn’t available for reviewers of either the First or Second Draft. But Hansen’s got a lot of attention and what’s a zoning variance between friends.
Whatever is on IPCC’s collective mind, you can be sure that there’s a reason for the variance. I’m not familiar with literature outside the paleoclimate area. Maybe there’s some interesting candidates there.
So the question: your suggestions as to the studies that will be cited in IPCC AR4 that were grandfathered by the July 2006 zoning variance.