Saturday, March 31, 2012


cc: <>, <>, <>
date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:42:25 +0000
from: "Eric W Wolff" <>
subject: Re: modelling intercomparison (continued)
to: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>

Meric et al.,

Of course I completely understand Peter's concern. But you know that the motivation of the modelling subgroup was that we need to get this exercise started as soon as possible (while 1st round projects are still active!). We have already lost almost a year because our first attempt was unsuccessful. If there had been a lot of groups out there wanting to do this, my guess is that they would have found a person associated with them to apply last time, although I realise what Peter suggested is a very different mechanism. However, we have no guarantee that a second attempt, by a slightly different route, will be any more successful.

My attitude, wanting to get this rolling, was that, if NERC felt this (Gregory) route was acceptable within their rules, then it was a good solution. I know this prejudges, but we are unlikely to get a better offer, in terms of expertise, connectivity to the international intercomparisons, and willingness. It still demands that the methodology be peer reviewed so does not compromise quality. It is not based on random favouritism, because it builds on a submitted outline that showed a willingness to do this kind of task. It seems to me that this method shows the steering committee doing what it should, steering!

Peter feels we could do a tender in a similar time. I am not so sure, but maybe. If we do that, we have to remove Jonathans's existing outline from the second AO or we will have duplication. I am not so sure this is fair either.

Anyway, in summary, I'd like to hear the NERC view on the legality of the route we proposed. I accept that, if its considered an inappropriate route, we have to go with a tender, but I have a feeling we would be losing time to bureaucracy for no result if we do that.

I have stated a rather clear opinion to try to help Meric resolve the issue so i will sit back and wait for the brickbats.


Eric Wolff
British Antarctic Survey
High Cross
Madingley Road
Cambridge CB3 0ET
United Kingdom

Phone: +44 1223 221491
Fax: +44 1223 221279
Alternate fax: +44 1223 362616

>>> Meric Srokosz <> 16/03/04 16:31:26 >>>
Dear all - Peter Challenor has raised some issues regarding the
modelling intercomparison (see below). Do others have views?
We need to move forward on this, so I am going to set a deadline
of noon next Monday 22nd March for imput. So if you have a view
(of any kind) please e-mail the Steering Committee before the

Many thanks, Meric

>I am not exactly sure what is being proposed here. Is the plan to
>remove Jonathan Gregory's proposal from the second AO and rebadge an
>expanded version as the modelling intercomparison activity or is the
>expanded version still going to be part of the AO? I am not
>particularly keen on either. In both cases we seem to be giving a
>proposal an 'inside track' to funding in way that does not to me to
>be either open or fair. There may be other groups who would have bid
>for this work if they had not thought that there was an existing
>model intercomparison activity. I should make it plain that I have
>no problem with Jonathan actually doing the work - he would be an
>excellent choice; it is the mechanism I am not happy with.
>I would prefer us to put out a tender for the work (after all we
>know what we want done). This would then be completely open and fair
>and I would have thought we could sort it out in a similar time
>scale to the AO.

Dr. Meric Srokosz, Room 254/43,Southampton Oceanography Centre (SOC)
Empress Dock, Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK
Tel:+44-(0)23-80596414 (direct line); Fax: +44-(0)23-80596400
e-mail: or

Science Coordinator NERC Rapid Climate Change Programme

No comments:

Post a Comment