Sunday, March 25, 2012

2846.txt

cc: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Cox, Peter" <P.M.CoxatXYZxyzter.ac.uk>, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Sandy Tudhope <sandy.tudhopeatXYZxyzac.uk>, Chris Turney <turneychrisatXYZxyzil.com>, simon Tett <simon.tettatXYZxyzac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Chris Jones <chris.d.jones@metoffice.gov.uk>, Rob Allan <rob.allanatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, Philip Brohan <philip.brohanatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Bass, Catherine" <C.J.BassatXYZxyzter.ac.uk>, "ewwo@bas.ac.uk" <ewwoatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:38:20 +0100
from: Gabi Hegerl <Gabi.HegerlatXYZxyzac.uk>
subject: Re: NERC Consortium Bid - the 2 pager
to: Rob Wilson <rjswatXYZxyzandrews.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
Hi all, minor fiddling done with it, I do worry if we really need the
runs or if we could make reasonable progress focusing more on the
proxy side, but ok as is for now.
It would be good if there were a way to clarify what data will be
obtained and if this will be costed in this project or elsewhere, how
many pdras etc (but then we would have to cut this here elsewhere).

Gabi

Quoting Rob Wilson <rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk>:

> Hi,
> some minor comments and edits to Phil's version.
>
> I know that 2 pages is not a lot of space, but there is no brief
> specific information on, for example, the proposed palaeo updates.
> For example, how many coral sites (3 or ?) would be a realistic
> improvement on what is already available.
> From a tree-ring point of view, we are restricted to New Zealand,
> Tasmania and Souther America. Should we at least state that in
> collaboration with overseas partners, a major sampling of these three
> regions is proposed (covered by 2-3 PhD student projects?). These
> regions are pretty small - how can we ensure that a reviewer would not
> ask why the current reconstructions from these locations are not
> adequate for our purposes. Bar updating to present, can we really
> "improve" on what has been done previously? I think we could, but we
> make no statements in this regard.
>
> Rob
>
> Phil Jones wrote:
>> Peter,
>> Here's Simmons et al. (2004).
>> There is another paper almost accepted in JGR on the new ERA-INTERIM.
>> These are far better papers than any Kalnay et al papers that look at NCEP.
>>
>> We'll be able to use ERA-40 for 1958-88 and ERA-INTERIM for 1989 onwards,
>> and the longer ones from Compo et al. back to 1892.
>>
>> EURO4M will improve the input to the next set of ECMWF Reanalyses.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>> At 13:17 24/08/2009, Cox, Peter wrote:
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> many thanks. We will correct the typo.
>>>
>>> All the overseas collaborators are now confirmed, so you are
>>> absolutely right we should also send them the two pager.
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Prof Peter Cox
>>> Professor of Climate System Dynamics
>>> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics
>>> University of Exeter
>>> Exeter
>>> EX4 4QF
>>> UK
>>> Tel: 01392 269220
>>> Mob: 07827 412572
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Tim Osborn [t.osborn@uea.ac.uk]
>>> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:16 PM
>>> To: Cox, Peter; Cox, Peter; Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl
>>> Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith
>>> Briffa; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine;
>>> ewwoatXYZxyz.ac.uk
>>> Subject: Re: NERC Consortium Bid - the 2 pager
>>>
>>> Dear Peter et al.,
>>>
>>> my previous email with post-holiday comments just crossed with
>>> this. Some are still relevant, though this version is improved in
>>> relation to the claims of greatly reducing uncertainties thought we
>>> still claim too much influence on GCM development.
>>>
>>> Typo error: Jones, Briffa & Osborn affiliation is "Climatic Research
>>> Unit" NOT Climate Change Research Unit!
>>>
>>> Have all the overseas partners confirmed their participation and
>>> hence won't be surprised to see their names listed? We should send
>>> them a copy of the submitted version too.
>>>
>>> Cheers and thanks for your hard work on this at Exeter and elsewhere,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> At 12:34 24/08/2009, Cox, Peter wrote:
>>>> Dear Potential Consortium Members
>>>>
>>>> Here is the 2 pager that we would like to send to NERC later today.
>>>>
>>>> If you can see any obvious (factual or typing) errors please try to
>>>> let me know by 4pm today.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise we will get back to you as soon as NERC get back to us.
>>>>
>>>> Many Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> Prof Peter Cox
>>>> Professor of Climate System Dynamics
>>>> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics
>>>> University of Exeter
>>>> Exeter
>>>> EX4 4QF
>>>> UK
>>>> Tel: 01392 269220
>>>> Mob: 07827 412572
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Cox, Peter
>>>> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:39 AM
>>>> To: Cox, Peter; Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl
>>>> Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith
>>>> Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine
>>>> Subject: NERC Consortium Bid
>>>>
>>>> Dear Potential Consortium Members
>>>>
>>>> Chris Turney is in the back of beyond but we have had a discussion
>>>> on the phone and he has given me my instructions..;-)
>>>>
>>>> There has been loads of interesting email discussion about this
>>>> proposal, which bodes well for a lively consortium!
>>>>
>>>> Given the time constraints we have decided on the following course
>>> of action:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Chris, Catherine Bass and me will revise the 2 pager (using
>>>> Philip Brohan's version as the starting point and making changes
>>>> consistent with the feedback we have had from Chris Franklin at
>>>> NERC) and send to NERC asap.
>>>>
>>>> 2) If we get the go ahead from NERC we will hold a bid planning
>>>> meeting 22nd-24th September to prepare a proposal for the December
>>>> round. We hope as many of you as possible will be able to attend the
>>>> planning meeting where we can thrash out the details and sharpen the
>>>> scientific focus.
>>>>
>>>> We will get back to you as soon as we have feedback from NERC on the
>>> 2 pager.
>>>>
>>>> All the best
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> Prof Peter Cox
>>>> Professor of Climate System Dynamics
>>>> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics
>>>> University of Exeter
>>>> Exeter
>>>> EX4 4QF
>>>> UK
>>>> Tel: 01392 269220
>>>> Mob: 07827 412572
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Cox, Peter
>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:58 AM
>>>> To: Rob Wilson; Gabi Hegerl
>>>> Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith
>>>> Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine
>>>> Subject: RE: Proposed 2 pager
>>>>
>>>> Dear Folks
>>>>
>>>> I don't think holding an Exeter funded discussion meeting to discuss
>>>> a proposal for July 2010 is really an option.
>>>>
>>>> The university has provided funding on the basis that we prepare a
>>>> proposal for the Dec 2009 round, and the key university support for
>>>> this proposal (Catherine Bass) is only available to work with us
>>>> until December.
>>>>
>>>> So I think we either decide to meet up soon (and spend the
>>>> University's seed funds) with a view to submitting in December, or
>>>> we delay the whole thing and don't meet this year.
>>>>
>>>> Although I agree that the proposal lacks a little focus (although
>>>> Philip's version is much better), I don't actually think this focus
>>>> will emerge magically if we wait for 6 months. So I vote for going
>>>> full-steam ahead for the December call.
>>>>
>>>> Can the rest of you give a preference for (a) meeting in Sept and
>>>> submitting in Dec, or (b) putting the whole thing on ice ?
>>>>
>>>> All the best
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prof Peter Cox
>>>> Professor of Climate System Dynamics
>>>> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics
>>>> University of Exeter
>>>> Exeter
>>>> EX4 4QF
>>>> UK
>>>> Tel: 01392 269220
>>>> Mob: 07827 412572
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Rob Wilson [rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk]
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 4:32 PM
>>>> To: Gabi Hegerl
>>>> Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith
>>>> Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Cox, Peter; Rob Allan; Philip
>>>> Brohan; Bass, Catherine
>>>> Subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> I think I am also keener for July 2010
>>>> If all goes to plan, I will be submitting 2 NERC standard grants for Dec
>>>> 1st as a PI and co-PI and I do not think I am allowed to be a co-PI on
>>>> another proposal if I have read the guidelines correctly.
>>>> I also have a lot less teaching next semester :-)
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> Gabi Hegerl wrote:
>>>> > Hi all, just a quick followup: I like Phils idea. Maybe more serious
>>>> > modelling along the line of sensitivity
>>>> > etc, as I suggested earlier, could come in a followup
>>>> > later. It would be important to have some modellers involved for
>>>> > something along the line Phil is suggesting, to
>>>> > test methods and answer questions about dataneeds.
>>>> >
>>>> > The difficulty is funding something that is integrative ....
>>>> > I'd also vote for a July submission, and for meeting in November to
>>>> > get thoughts clearer.
>>>> >
>>>> > Gabi
>>>> >
>>>> > Phil Jones wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Chris et al (Rob, Sandy, Simon, Gabi),
>>>> >> Lots of good comments and useful suggestions. To summarise, we
>>>> >> have a number
>>>> >> of strands:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> - extending the instrumental records
>>>> >> - extending the proxy records, and identifying where extra series
>>>> >> are needed
>>>> >>
>>>> >> (both of these making use of all our collaborators around the
>>>> >> world, as Rob and Sandy allude to,
>>>> >> and we also have these for instrumental data also)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> - and then there are the model integrations and the comparisons
>>>> >> between models and obs.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Most important of all though is the justification for the
>>>> >> consortium and what the
>>>> >> proposed work seeks to achieve. One thrust could be bringing all
>>>> >> the proxy and
>>>> >> early instrumental data together. There are now probably two orders
>>>> >> of magnitude more proxy
>>>> >> data than were available at the beginning of the 1990s. This could
>>>> >> reassess all these
>>>> >> diverse sources in a consistent way, addressing what each is good
>>>> >> for (or not) and
>>>> >> seasonal and maybe timescale limitations. This would eventually lead
>>>> >> to new larger-scale
>>>> >> reconstructions, of which a few would be more spatially detailed (in
>>>> >> a few regions). This
>>>> >> would be good to work on together (parallel post-docs and or PhDs),
>>>> >> but it wouldn't be main justification.
>>>> >> Thinking in terms of PhDs, we'd have to come up with specific topics
>>>> >> for the students.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> A parallel thrust could be emphasizing the uncertainties in all the
>>>> >> reconstructions. As Rob
>>>> >> says this is quite difficult with the proxy data as each discipline
>>>> >> has a specific set of
>>>> >> limitations. I'd also expect the uncertainties to expand, as we
>>>> >> brought more things in.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The other thrust is the modelling, but this seems from a number of
>>>> >> the emails to be going to
>>>> >> happen anyway. Perhaps then, we don't need the models in the
>>>> >> consortium bid. Just
>>>> >> putting together all the proxy and instrumental data would be
>>>> >> enough. It will be difficult to sell,
>>>> >> but it would be extremely useful for the whole community. The proxy
>>>> >> data center at NCDC (Boulder)
>>>> >> does this but doesn't rate the proxies. They just make the series
>>>> >> available.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Not sure where this is taking us. There are a lot of good
>>>> >> scientific issues when
>>>> >> considering combining proxies. In reconstructions like MBH, which
>>>> >> ones do the work
>>>> >> and which are superfluous. The longer instrumental records that are
>>>> >> coming along -
>>>> >> on both land and sea will enable many of these issues to be
>>>> >> addressed, enabling the
>>>> >> robustness of large-scale reconstructions to be quantified.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Groups all around the world are trying to do this at
>>>> >> local-to-regional scales with some
>>>> >> looking more globally. What is needed is co-ordination of these
>>>> >> efforts, bringing together
>>>> >> all the contacts each of us has.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Better quantified reconstructions should eventually lead to
>>>> >> reductions in climate sensitivity,
>>>> >> but it will be a long process.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As for timing, I think a July 2010 submission would be better to
>>>> >> bring all the parts
>>>> >> together - showing how the consortium is bringing together numerous
>>>> >> efforts going
>>>> >> on across the world. We do need to meet at some point to thrash out
>>>> >> most of the issues.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> One small point. Reanalyses are important but refer to those from
>>>> >> ERA-40
>>>> >> and ERA-INTERIM as they are much better than NCEP. I'm involved in a
>>>> >> paper
>>>> >> on ERA-INTERIM and efforts through an EU project called EURO4M to
>>>> >> improve the
>>>> >> input these get given. We do need efforts in analysing the longer
>>>> >> 20th century reanalyses.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Cheers
>>>> >> Phil
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> At 09:26 21/08/2009, Rob Wilson wrote:
>>>> >>> Morning All,
>>>> >>> from the proxy point of view, it seems to me that there should be a
>>>> >>> good rationale for the consortium if we emphasise the importance of
>>>> >>> a coordinated 'update' and 'new' sampling of key proxies and
>>>> >>> regions. Only through a consortium could we ensure that by, for
>>>> >>> example, year 3, we have updated (to present) reconstructions for
>>>> >>> New Zealand, Tasmania, South America and key areas in the tropics.
>>>> >>> Presumably if new model runs may need to be made, they can be
>>>> >>> grinding away in the back ground for the first couple of years and
>>>> >>> then the full strength of the consortium kicks in during year 3 when
>>>> >>> we all start putting it together. Also during the first couple of
>>>> >>> years, the consortium can focus on the methodological issues of
>>>> >>> calibration and uncertainty estimates - probabilistic or otherwise.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> some random comments w.r.t. proxy data
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Millennium has NO plans, as far as I know, to produce spatial
>>>> >>> reconstructions for the last 500 years for Europe. The focus is on
>>>> >>> millennium long reconstructions and there simply is not enough data
>>>> >>> for a "true" spatial reconstruction. We will have "reasonably"
>>>> >>> robust summer temperature reconstructions for the Alpine and
>>>> >>> Scandinavian regions however. Of course there is a whole myriad of
>>>> >>> other local based reconstructions, but for different seasons and
>>>> >>> parameters.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> At Mike Mann's session at the EGU, there was this interesting talk.
>>>> >>> Do you know this group Sandy? This current series used only growth
>>>> >>> rates. I am not sure if they have plans to measure isotopes on this
>>>> >>> record.
>>>> >>> C. Saenger, A. L. Cohen, D. W. Oppo, and J. Carilli
>>>> >>> A coral-based reconstruction of Atlantic sea surface temperature
>>>> >>> trends and variability since 1552
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I have spoken with Rosanne and Ed w.r.t. New Zealand and Tasmania.
>>>> >>> In principle there should be no problem with updating these areas
>>>> >>> and maybe sampling more sites. Perhaps scope for a one or two PhDs.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Rob
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Sandy Tudhope wrote:
>>>> >>>> Hi Chris et al,
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Many thanks for the draft, and sorry for the slow reply but I was
>>>> >>>> off email for a few days. I've seen responses from Rob Wilson,
>>>> >>>> Simon and Gabi. I don't know if you received any more.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I agree with most of the points made by Simon, Gabi and Rob. Some
>>>> >>>> more specific comments:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> a) WHY NOW? Even although we don't have much space in two pages,
>>>> >>>> I think we need to highlight more explicitly the nature of the
>>>> >>>> current opportunity ... why are we going to be able to make
>>>> >>>> significant progress now in an area that people have been working
>>>> >>>> in for quite some time? In terms of the climate reconstruction
>>>> >>>> from proxies, we can point to a number of advances, e.g., for corals:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> - the recent demonstration of the potential of using networks of
>>>> >>>> coral sites for pan-tropical and regional climate reconstruction
>>>> >>>> (e.g., some of Rob Wilson et als papers).
>>>> >>>> - the fact that some of the necessary long coral cores already
>>>> >>>> exist through our collaborators, and ongoing efforts from
>>>> >>>> ourselves, and that with a relatively modest field effort we are
>>>> >>>> now in a position to provide a more complete and hence robust
>>>> >>>> coverage for tropical SST reconstruction.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> b) CONSORTIUM: The justification for a consortium still needs work.
>>>> >>>> My one experience on the NERC Consortium panel suggested that the
>>>> >>>> justification for a needed to be closer to "can only be done
>>>> >>>> through a consortium approach" rather than "can be more effectively
>>>> >>>> approached". I still wonder if we can make some significant
>>>> >>>> advances in the way we approach estimating and using uncertainties
>>>> >>>> in the proxy data and their interpretation. As I've said before,
>>>> >>>> the inclusion of isotopes in models is going to provide some
>>>> >>>> excellent opportunities to better understand what we can and can't
>>>> >>>> say from some forms of proxy data.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> c) TIME FRAME: We can sort out details later, but just so
>>>> >>>> everybody knows, realistically we should be looking to the corals
>>>> >>>> to provide a reasonable tropical network back to around 1750-1800AD
>>>> >>>> getting sparser back beyond than and hardly anything prior to
>>>> >>>> 1600AD (in terms of continuous records from living corals).
>>>> >>>> d) NERC PROPOSAL: Again, just for information: Gabi and I (with
>>>> >>>> Mat Collins at the Met Office and a large cast of other
>>>> >>>> collaborators) currently have a proposal submitted to NERC that is
>>>> >>>> focussed around ENSO variability over the past 5,000 years, using a
>>>> >>>> combination of analysis of fossil corals in Galapagos, integration
>>>> >>>> to other climate proxy data (to look at stability of
>>>> >>>> teleconnections), and climate model evaluation and runs (using the
>>>> >>>> CMIP5 archive plus new isotope enabled HadCM3 model runs). One of
>>>> >>>> our periods of focus is, naturally, the last millennium.
>>>> >>>> Obviously, we have no idea if this will be funded, but if it is, it
>>>> >>>> would provide additional proxy data (mostly short floating
>>>> >>>> chronologies), plus modelling.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> e) DECEMBER? I understand Chris' enthusiasm for moving forward,
>>>> >>>> but like Simon feel we've not yet really pinned down the scope and
>>>> >>>> novelty of our approach as much as we need to. December 1st would
>>>> >>>> be a rush, so, personally, I'd suggest July but with the schedule
>>>> >>>> of meetings as currently proposed (although I can't make the
>>>> >>>> September one).
>>>> >>>> However, if the consensus is to attempt a 1st December submission,
>>>> >>>> I will do what I can to contribute.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Cheers,
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Sandy
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Chris Turney wrote:
>>>> >>>>> Hi guys,
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold
>>>> >>>>> and wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not
>>> the best.
>>>> >>>>> Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks
>>>> >>>>> great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note.
>>>> >>>>> The more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash
>>>> >>>>> out the detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you
>>>> >>>>> think of the attached by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for
>>>> >>>>> us to proceed, perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head north
>>>> >>>>> the internet access will probably get worse of if we can do it
>>>> >>>>> before I fall off the edge of the known world that would be great.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested
>>>> >>>>> in being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> All the best,
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Chris
>>>> >>>>> ****************************************************
>>>> >>>>> *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS*
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Director of Carbonscape <http://www.carbonscape.com>, /Fixing
>>>> >>>>> carbon the way nature intended/
>>>> >>>>> //
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Author of Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past
>>>> >>>>> <http://us.macmillan.com/icemudandblood>
>>>> >>>>> Popular science website: www.christurney.com
>>>> >>>>> <http://www.christurney.com>
>>>> >>>>> Journal of Quaternary Science
>>>> >>>>> <http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/jqs> Asian and
>>>> >>>>> Australasian Regional Editor
>>>> >>>>> School of Geography
>>>> >>>>> The University of Exeter
>>>> >>>>> Exeter
>>>> >>>>> Devon
>>>> >>>>> EX4 4RJ
>>>> >>>>> UK
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Home page:
>>>> >>>>> www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml
>>>> >>>>>
>>> <http://www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> E-mail: c.turneyatXYZxyzter.ac.uk <mailto:c.turney@exeter.ac.uk>
>>>> >>>>> Office Tel.: +44 (0)1392 263331
>>>> >>>>> Fax.: +44 (0)1392 263342
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> ****************************************************
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> *Slartibartfast: * Science has achieved some wonderful things of
>>>> >>>>> course, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day.
>>>> >>>>> *Arthur Dent:* And are you?
>>>> >>>>> *Slartibartfast:* No. Thats where it all falls down of course.
>>>> >>>>> *Arthur Dent:* Pity. It sounded like quite a good lifestyle
>>>> >>>>> otherwise.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> /The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy/, Douglas Adams
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> ****************************************************
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --
>>>> >>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> >>> Dr. Rob Wilson
>>>> >>> Lecturer in Physical Geography
>>>> >>> School of Geography & Geosciences
>>>> >>> University of St Andrews
>>>> >>> St Andrews. FIFE
>>>> >>> KY16 9AL
>>>> >>> Scotland. U.K.
>>>> >>> Tel: +44 01334 463914
>>>> >>> Fax: +44 01334 463949
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/gg/people/wilson/
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> ".....I have wondered about trees.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure.
>>>> >>> Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul
>>> of a tree
>>>> >>> for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this
>>> faculty
>>>> >>> might prove useful. "
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance
>>>> >>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Prof. Phil Jones
>>>> >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>>>> >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>>>> >> University of East Anglia
>>>> >> Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
>>>> >> NR4 7TJ
>>>> >> UK
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Dr. Rob Wilson
>>>> Lecturer in Physical Geography
>>>> School of Geography & Geosciences
>>>> University of St Andrews
>>>> St Andrews. FIFE
>>>> KY16 9AL
>>>> Scotland. U.K.
>>>> Tel: +44 01334 463914
>>>> Fax: +44 01334 463949
>>>>
>>>> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/gg/people/wilson/
>>>>
>>>> ".....I have wondered about trees.
>>>>
>>>> They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure.
>>>> Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree
>>>> for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty
>>>> might prove useful. "
>>>>
>>>> "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> School of Environmental Sciences
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>>>
>>> e-mail: t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
>>> phone: +44 1603 592089
>>> fax: +44 1603 507784
>>> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Rob Wilson
> Lecturer in Physical Geography
> School of Geography & Geosciences
> University of St Andrews
> St Andrews. FIFE
> KY16 9AL
> Scotland. U.K.
> Tel: +44 01334 463914
> Fax: +44 01334 463949
>
> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/gg/people/wilson/
>
> ".....I have wondered about trees.
>
> They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure.
> Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree
> for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty
> might prove useful. "
>
> "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Gabriele Hegerl
chair of climate system science
School of GeoSciences
University of Edinburgh
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\RW-2009 08 24 Consortium_Concept_TASOC_gh.doc"

No comments:

Post a Comment