Monday, March 5, 2012

2381.txt

date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:06:03 -0500
from: markham/dompka <grasslandatXYZxyzls.com>
subject: Re: Great work
to: Mike Hulme <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Jordon is off the menu. Looks like Bonn or (my preference for media
coverage) Montreal. What about Brazil for the mock up? If not, then maybe
Japan.

Yes, Ive heard vaguely about Barnaby's conference 9and sent him an e-mail
yesterday). I'm not sure if its on birds or on ecosystems. Also I think
WCMC is planning something?

Talk to you soon, Adam

----------
From: Mike Hulme <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
To: markham/dompka <grasslandatXYZxyzls.com>
Subject: Re: Great work
Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 8:17 AM

Adam,

Barnaby Briggs has been talking to me about a 1999 meeting, maybe here in
UK.

Rik's email is: <rik.leemansatXYZxyzm.nl>

The scenarios brochure idea ............ given your enthusiasm I will try
and produce a mock-up for one sample country (any preferences?) to show
you/WWF and other sponsors what we have in mind. If you could find �40k
for analysis costs we could endeavour to maybe find other sponsors for
production costs (what about BP!! - they are now 'cimate friendly' or even
our own UK Dept. of Environment, or DFID - any other thoughts?). Yes, I
didn't include translation costs which would be important I realise. We'll
have to think of ways round this. COP5 is a good target to aim at - where
and when will it be? Jordan I have heard.

Regards,

Mike

At 09:57 22/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi again Mike. Thanks for getting back to me so soon. I'd like to
follow-up
>more on the rate issue (also do you have Rik's e-mail these days?), and
the
>future world secnarios you were talking about. Also on adaptation. I read
>your Science paper (it was science wasnt it?) about the need to adapt with
>great interest. I cant quite work out how to play all this because
although
>WWF's public role is to try and push for early action to reduce emissions,
>we also want to promote sound and effective adaptation policies. However,
>at least in the past, arguing for adaptation makes it look like you accept
>the change and deny the need for early action. In addition, the problem
>with pathways not mattering is that business and industry argues for a
>delaying strategy in order to take advantage of new technologies in 20
>years time and save costs. I certainly would like to start a project on
>adaptation that we might run over the next couple of years and would be
>very interested to hear any ideas you have on that. What is the plan with
>WCMC. Last I heard from Richard Luxmoore, they wanted to do a science
>meeting some time next year. Do they have a more advanced project idea
now?
>We will probably work with them on an Arctic birds impacts piece in 99.
>
>On the Scenarios idea. I REALLY like the idea, it would be a natural for
>WWF as we would be able to provide our national organizations with locally
>useful material. I think you may have undersestimated the costs on
>publication though, simply because presumably we would need to produce a
>lot of the papers in the local languages (or have you a solution to that).
>If I get your figures right, we would need about 150,000 pounds just to
>produce the leaflets for 50 countries? We dont have that much available,
>but I think I might possibly be able to come up with the money for the
>analysis, and would love to do this by COP5. What do you think?
>
>Cheers, A
>
>----------
>> From: Mike Hulme <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>> To: markham/dompka <grasslandatXYZxyzls.com>
>> Subject: Re: Great work
>> Date: Friday, December 18, 1998 11:03 AM
>>
>> Adam,
>>
>> Good to hear from you again. To answer your questions ,........
>>
>> 1. Will send you as many copies as I can spare. If you need more, ask
>> Merylyn.
>>
>> 2. Same concentrations *can* yield different rates of change because we
>> assume different climate sensitivities, e.g. 1.5degC for doubling or
>> 4.5degC. This is still the valid IPCC-cited range and we wanted to
>factor
>> in this uncertainty. The other factor is that same concs. *and* same
>> sensitivity could *also* produce different rates of change depending on
>> which GCM you choose - but this might be less important than the above
>two
>> factors.
>>
>> 3. A rate of change workshop might be interesting. I actually think the
>> real issue is not what pathway to stabilisation (I don't think climate
or
>> impacts are hugely sensitive to the pathway - energy economics may be
>> though!), but what is the world future against which we evaluate climate
>> policy. By this I mean factoring in the full range of emissions
>> trajectories the world may generate *anyway* (exluding climate policy).
>> The IPCC SRES have produced four new world futures (all equally
>plausible),
>> each with very different emissions and hence climates and impacts.
Under
>> the lowest 1-2 impacts may be adapatable to; under the highest 1-2 they
>may
>> not. We need to design policies (mitigation *and* adaptation) to cope
>with
>> all possible outcomes. These uncertainties are not climate science
>> uncertainties, they are fundamental to the world we live in.
>>
>> Get Rik involved too. I am talking with WCMC about a possible project
in
>> this area.
>>
>> 4. Feb 3 is clear for me, but not Feb.2. Are your dates set in stone?
>w/b
>> 15th Feb is better for me. How much preparatory work is involved? I'm
>> pretty stretched around that time so could do relatively little.
>>
>> 5. This is my item ...........
>>
>> Having seen our UKCIP report - summary and science I hope - what do you
>> think the potential is for us creating parallel country-level scenarios
>for
>> a sample of countries (or even all) around the world? What I have in
>mind
>> is a 4-sided fold out colour brochure for each country, using some of
the
>> analytical and presentational techniques in UKCIP98. These brochures
>would
>> provide standard scenarios for the countries concerned, informative for
a
>> wide range of managers and policy advisors, not too technical but
>> authoritative and attractive. Our UKCIP98 report has had a huge impact
>in
>> the UK in mobilising opinion (in fact even as I write, I've had a call
>from
>> the Dept. of Health which, having seen our scenarios, now want a
>> brainstorming workshop to advise the Minister!) and it could have
similar
>> impacts in other countries. The scenarios would all be IPCC-compatible
>so
>> link in with IPCC statements.
>>
>> Of course the reason for raising this is too see where we might get
funds
>> from. WWF come to mind (WWF could have prominent billing re.
publicity),
>> but you may have other thoughts on options.
>>
>> Costs are twofold:
>>
>> - production/printing costs per country (fixed per country), e.g. 1000
>> brochures at $2-3 per copy.
>>
>> - analysis costs .... these reduce exponentially with the number of
>> countries covered. e.g.
>>
>> 1 country = $10,000
>> 2 countries = $15,000
>> 5 " = $20,000
>> 10 countries= $25,000
>> 20 countries= $30,000
>> 50 countries= $40,000
>>
>> What do you think? If your reaction is positive in principle, we might
>> find the time to sketch out a sample template.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> At 13:36 16/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>> >Hi Mike.
>> >
>> >Great work on the UK scenarios report. Merylyn sent me a copy, and it
is
>> >really useful stuff. Of course, I have a couple of questions and a
>couple
>> >of requests. First, is there any way you can get someone to send me 50
>> >copies of the summary, 20 copies of the impacts highlights, and 10
>copies
>> >of the long scenario report.
>> >
>> >Secondly, we are getting very interested in the issue of rates of
change
>> >(and how this applies to wildlife/ecosystem impacts). I wanted to use
>some
>> >of the figures from the scenarios report, but wasnt quite sure what to
>do
>> >with them. Specifically, where the temperature and sea-level change are
>> >compared for the four scenarios over different timescales. In the
>earlier
>> >decades you have similar concentrations leading to different levels of
>> >change. Am I being really stupid, or is it difficult to use those
>figures
>> >comparativeley?
>> >
>> >Which leads me on to my next question. Do you think it would be useful
>to
>> >have a small workshop (c.10 people) to talk about the importance of
>rates
>> >of change? I understand that the NSF here is to be asked to do
something
>on
>> >this, and for us it is crucial to expalining why it may matter what
path
>> >you use to get to an eventual concentration target. I was thinking of a
>> >group that might include you, Wolfgang Cramer, Rob Swart/Leemans, Ian
>> >Noble, Steve Schneider, Stuart Pimm and a few others to be determined.
I
>am
>> >virtually certain we can get funding for this from the german Marshall
>> >Fund. What do you think?
>> >
>> >Finally, this is a long-shot, but would you be interested in being the
>> >climate person for another small workshop we are doing in Washington on
>2&3
>> >February. It is in cooperation with the Marine Conservation Biology
>> >Institute and the topic is climate threats to marine biodiversity. We
>will
>> >have about 15 marine biologists and oceanographers and want to get a
>> >climate person to take on the role that you did at the tropical forest
>> >meeting. Only this time, its a short meeting with only 10 minute
>> >presentations and a lot of brainstorming. We also tried to get Stefan
>> >Rhamsdorf for this, but he looks unlikely. Let me know what you think.
>> >
>> >Cheers, Adam
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
****************************************************************************
*
Dr Mike Hulme
Reader in Climatology tel: +44 1603 593162
Climatic Research Unit fax: +44 1603 507784
School of Environmental Science email: m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk
University of East Anglia web site:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/
Norwich NR4 7TJ
****************************************************************************
*
Annual mean temperature in Central England during 1998
was +0.9 deg C above the 1961-90 average
***************************************************
The global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1998
was +0.58 deg C above the 1961-90 average, the warmest year yet recorded
****************************************************************************
*
----------

No comments:

Post a Comment