Sunday, April 1, 2012


date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:22:23 -0000
from: "Jenkins, Geoff" <>
subject: RE: [ukcip08-pmg] awareness raising workshop slides
to: "Anna Steynor" <>, "UKCIP08" <>, "Sexton, David" <>, "Humphrey, Kathryn \(CEOSA\)" <kathryn.humphreyatXYZxyzRA.GSI.GOV.UK>, "C G Kilsby" <>, "Phil Jones" <>

Thanks for sending these, Anna.
I am sending back some quick comments as I think you have a workshop
coming up very soon.

Slide 10: bullet 2 - add variability, but delete trends (as 30y climate
is assumed to be stationary), bullet 5 - add 2 is like, and the
variability around that typical day"
Slide 21: would prefer that the term "internal" isnt use as this will
confuse with internal variability - same comment applies to some later
Suggest a slide before this one to show the 3 sources of uncertainty -
variability/chaos, modelling and emissions.
Slide 29: add "variants"
Slode 30: Most of the weighting of the model variants will come from how
well it does recent climate (61-90) - the fig seems to suggest it is how
well it does the trend (which is part of it but not most imp)
Slide 33: delete internal in bullett one
Slide 34: instead of "added in" which makes it sound as if the other
models were treated as just one of the MOHC family, might be better to
say "....other IPCC models are incorporated into the overall uncertainty
Slide 36: same comment
Slide 37: "based on our current understanding, modelling and
methodology, there is a % prob". Couldn't work out what the dot at 3.4
represents, or indeed the line from 1.3 - 4.8 along the x-axis?
Slide 38: Please delete quote from Descartes - we expressly don't want
users to follow what is most probable, but to use the whole of the PDF.
Slide 39: I like the distinction, but prefer inductive to subjective,
and prefer "strength of evidence" to belief, which sound a bit
Slide 41: OK, its not objective in the dice way, but does use a formal
scientific methodology. Didn't underrstand the last bullet which seems
to be more associated with emissions, which is NOT part of the
probabilistic climate projection. Suggest delete.
Slide 42: again, would say evidence rather than belief.
Slide 44: bullet 2 ....change for a specific probability. "direction
of change"? of course we have seen the prob can stretch across both
directions (eg summer ppn).
Slide 46: suggest delete the "per deg C" from the PDF and just use
relative probability. add to CDF diagram "prob of change being less
Slide 47: again, prefer "evidence for" rather than "belief in"
Slides 54-60: allowing the build up of bullets to remain through the
sequence gives some problems, eg when 25km grid is up at the same time
as the 3 marine slides - none of which are at 25km, or have daily max
and min temp etc.
Slide 63: I know you don't like time series for some reason, but I think
"statistical expression" is misleading. I use synthetic daily time
Slide 64: can we hold on the hourly for a while, please - I think we may
need to talk this over again.

Looks a lot of commnets, sorry, but most of them are v simple. Please
get back if I have not been clear.

Only other comment is that you may need to have a few slides on what a
PDF and CDF is - there seemed to be a lack of understanding of this at
the Oxford wksp and it is absolutely central to the whole scenarios, so
worth labouring, I suggest.

Roger was down at PMG to send the timetable of the next couple of
workshops - could you send me this as I would like to come to one of
them please.



-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Anna
Sent: 24 January 2008 09:57
Subject: [ukcip08-pmg] awareness raising workshop slides

We took an action at the PMG to send you the ppt slides we are using for
awareness raising workshops. All the material we are giving to the
delegates is available from this link
Kind Regards

Anna Steynor
Science Team
UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP)
Oxford University Centre for the Environment (OUCE)
South Parks Road
Oxford OX1 3QY
Tel: 01865 285532
Fax: 01865 285710

ukcip08-pmg mailing list

No comments:

Post a Comment