Tuesday, March 27, 2012


cc: <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <j.turnpennyatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "roger.courtney" <roger.courtney@ntlworld.com>, <brian.launderatXYZxyzst.ac.uk>, <ann.webbatXYZxyzst.ac.uk>, "Tom Choularton" <t.w.choularton@umist.ac.uk>
date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:10:27 -0000
from: "John Page" <johnpageatXYZxyzvshef.freeserve.co.uk>
subject: Re:John Page replies on ITT , Lon Boros
to: <geoff.levermoreatXYZxyzst.ac.uk>, <simon.shackleyatXYZxyzst.ac.uk>

Hi all.

I talked last week to one of the selectors on the Yorkshire and Humber study
about strengths and weaknesses of projects recently submitted for the
Yorkshire and Humber study. Projects based on an assembly of a large number
of different participants did not seem to gain much favour because the
selection team felt the study scale and time limits did not allow for a
process that could use a large core team effectively. Projects based on much
smaller focused cores were favoured as providing the means for rapid
progress in a complex field.

We need to ask whether Tyndall could find an effective role on this short
time scale on the London study with an allocation of only a very small piece
of the Agenda. I have my doubts, as a former regional planner on the
Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council. I only got myself
involved unsuccessfully in the Yorkshire and Humber bid with Sheffield
University because I had 15 years of Yorkshire & Humberside regional
planning experience already behind me. (I have however now picked up the
Yorkshire and Humber cards on a personal level with W.S.Atkins who are
leading the study and with the Stockholm Environmental Centre at York, the
local University partner, through Mike Chadwick. He was for some years the
Stockholm Director. He is now back with the York team as a senior part-time
advisor. This link reopens the opportunity for some limited Tyndall
interlinking. My policy is to always stay on board with the action, limited
though the contact may be. In this way you pick up the next important
messages before others).

We should also take note that the commercial group of the Met Office
captured the climatological high ground as the climate change advisers to
the Yorkshire and Humber study.

We need to assess our current strengths and weaknesses on the climatological
front. In certain areas we are ahead of the UK Met Office, notably solar
radiation including ultra violet radiation, cloud physics and probably wind
for wind energy applications. We also have specialized applications
knowledge, for example in building engineering. In other areas we have
almost certainly some important knowledge weaknesses that will need
rectification. Wind is a particularly difficult area, containing many
significant mis-understandings,

As a matter of policy should we try to form Tyndall partnerships for
applications studies with the UK Met Office? Alternatively do we regard them
as competitors in the applications field? I have wrestled with the
complications of this problem of ownership all my working life.

I think the situation in London is even more complicated because of the
large number of local authorities.

It would also be wrong to over-exagerate the role of construction in the
overall regional planning agenda, important though it is.

Geoff's proposal focusing on energy has a merit in its own right as a
decarbonisation study, and could be negotiated, as such, through other
channels (Energy Foundation, EPSRC). Because there is a London call for a
regional policy and climate change study, it does not mean that all ideas
should be forced into that mold.

However I would make the general point that our effectiveness in all
application areas depends on us being able to provide effective design
support tools for the design of the future. I have come to discover several
points of difficulty in using the Hadley outputs in the building engineering
context. I think we should give priority to these fundamental issues as they
provide the scientific foundation for all our future applications work. It
is what I personally intend to concentrate on. We also need to address the
issue of what areas of risk are implicitly covered in climate change
modelling and what risks lie outside that modelling capability. I need
meteorological advice on this issue, but certainly the sea land interface is
one, lee wave storms and hills is another, thunderstorm downdrafts is
another. UEA have tended to ignore Ann Webb's acheivements on UV because UEA
are driven more by the Hadley outputs that do not address the ozone issue.

I am beginning to identify photonic climatology as a key branch of
climatology largely ignored in standard climatology. It is a field, in which
the Department of Physics at UMIST is well placed to take the national lead

I recently circulated a note about Worth a Surf on the WMO Climatology
Commission's November meeting. These papers contain a lot of information
relevent to this debate
John Page
----- Original Message -----
From: "GEOFF LEVERMORE" <geoff.levermoreatXYZxyzst.ac.uk>
To: <geoff.levermore@umist.ac.uk>; <simon.shackleyatXYZxyzst.ac.uk>
Cc: <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>; <johnpage@univshef.freeserve.co.uk>;
<j.turnpenny@uea.ac.uk>; "roger.courtney" <roger.courtney@ntlworld.com>;
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: ITT , Lon Boros

> Mike, Simon,
> Recently spoken to Roger Courtney, ex CEO of BRE and now a
> Prof Res Fellow here in the Centre. We've just finished a CRISP
> project together. He's been talking to TRL re this and I suggest that
> Tyndall joins a consortium that Roger and his contacts may set up.
> We have considerable strengths that could help a consortium. I
> suggest we await news on Roger's discussions. This is just a first
> round effectively and as a collaborator we are not committing
> ourselves too much.
> On Fri I addressed the London Boroughs Energy Management
> Group that I founded with colleagues 21 years ago. It is interested
> in Tyndall especially decarbonising London and the group will
> probably invite Tyndall to do a presentation in February. The Group,
> and its spin offs on purchasing, could be a useful stakeholder input
> to Tyndall.
> Geoff
> From: "Simon J Shackley"
> <simon.shackleyatXYZxyzst.ac.uk>
> To: geoff.levermoreatXYZxyzst.ac.uk
> Date sent: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 17:45:22 -0000
> Subject: ITT
> Send reply to: simon.shackleyatXYZxyzst.ac.uk
> Copies to: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk,
> johnpage@univshef.freeserve.co.uk,
> j.turnpennyatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> Priority: normal
> > Geoff / Mike / John / John
> >
> > Received an ITT for 'A Study of Climate Change impacts on
> > London'.
> >
> > is it of any interest to us? seems unlikely we would get it without
> > a london university involved, then we're into the territory of sharing
> > out smallish sums of money between lots of parties .... Past history
> > of this hasn't been good .... Northern Ireland and Yorkshire &
> > Humberside studies .....
> >
> > we could ask Rob Wilby at Kings if he wanted to team up?
> >
> > any thoughts
> >
> > cheers, simon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Dr Geoff Levermore
> Department of Civil & Construction Engineering
> UMIST PO Box 88 Manchester M60 1QD
> Tel 0161 200 4257
> Fax 0161 200 4252
> Email geoff.levermoreatXYZxyzst.ac.uk
> Also can use
> Mrs Helen McCaffery
> Tel 0161 200 8965
> Fax 0161 200 4252
> Email helen.mccafferyatXYZxyzst.ac.uk
> ------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment