date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:19:10 -0000
from: "Jenkins, Geoff" <geoff.jenkinsatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>
subject: RE: UKCIP08 presentation for Nairobi work programme workshop-
to: "Humphrey, Kathryn \(CEOSA\)" <kathryn.humphreyatXYZxyzRA.GSI.GOV.UK>
Some comments below. Overall I have the same comment as on your slides to Defra
policymakers, that many of the slides are too difficult. I would have even more concern on
this point over the UNFCCC meeting. I also felt the overall tone is too negative - fine for
an internal discussion when we have to consider guidance etc but risks leaving the UN
audience with the impression that UKCIP08 will be so ridden with "snags" and "criticisms"
and "problems" and "misuses" as to be almost worthless. This just isnt the case.
Slide 7: better to use the IPCC AR4 one instead of TAR.
Slide 8: first bullet is about emissions uncertainty - this will not change in UKCIP08.
Just say "no info on model uncertainty"
Slide 11: PLEASE DELETE THIS ONE - until published and explained.
Slide 12: we dont have weigths cols any more
Slide 13: LHS - only one PDF will be available, and not climate sensitivity.
Slide 14: despite the header - PLEASE DELETE - too much info too soon.
Slide 16: I think Phil and Chris will object to this slide (my invention) as being too
Slide 17: what does the header meant to imply? suggest you make plain that the
availablility of some WG variables is subject to validation.
Slide 18: suggest leave off hourly at this stage. Also bullet 4 - "assumes relationships
between ppn and other variables will remain..."
Slide 19: Seems too negative - suggest headline is "methodological limitations". 1st
bullet, prefer: "As with all models and methodologies some assumptions and judgements are
made which can affect the results. The use of observations helps to reduce this
sensitivity, and these sensitivities willbe investigated and made plain to users, where
possible". 3rd bullett:."...in climate models, but there is evidence to show that this may
be less important for radiatively driven future changes". If 4th bullett means
flux-adjustments, then work done some time ago shows that this doesnt appear to drastically
change predictions. Last bullett: statistical downscaling may be OK for temps, but RCM is
better for precipitation etc, so delete this suggest.
Slide 20: suggest not mention WG limitations twice (its all in Slide 18). I already emailed
you about storyline scenarios (usually called spatial analogs) being heavily criticised (in
fact dismissed) in TGCIA reports, so please mention this.
Slide 22: "strength of evidence for a prticular outcome", not belief.
Slides 24-30: suggest dont allow the info to just build up on the LHS, eg the top 3 bullets
on Slide 21 are all wrong for the storm surge model.
Slide 33: I think the 2nd bullet isnt well worded. dont think the last sentence is fair.
Slide 34: I think there is a reasonable case to be made that UKCIP08 is indeed the "best
thing ever". But not perfect of course, plenty of ideas for improvenent.
Slide 36: Last bullet: just say we have problems getting robust pdfs for some variables.
Slide 1: your name is missing!
Thats enough for now!
From: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) [mailto:kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK]
Sent: 19 February 2008 15:30
To: Ag Stevens; Anna Steynor; Bryan Lawrence; Butt, Adrian (CEOSA); Chris Kilsby; Colin
Harpham; Sexton, David; Geoff Jenkins; Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); Kevin Marsh; Elkington,
Mark; Phil James; Phil Jones; Richard Westaway; Roger Street; Sue Latham
Cc: Butt, Adrian (CEOSA)
Subject: UKCIP08 presentation for Nairobi work programme workshop- Mexico
Adrian is off to Mexico in the first week of April to attend a workshop under the
Nairobi Work Programme on methods and tools for adaptation. There is no agenda as yet
but Adrian intends to give a general presentation on UKCIP08- the general approach and
possible uses. I'm going to give him a selection of the slides I did for internal Defra
but would be grateful if you let me know if there are any here that you would rather not
been used for an international audience. I will take out the results one. Please get
back to me on this asap.
Also, The UNFCCC has apparently asked MOHC if anyone can attend this meeting.
David/Geoff, have you come across this invitation at all? Adrian doesn't want to take
anyone off important work like '08, but would be interested if there is any availability
to attend this meeting (4-6th March in Mexico City; link here
<<2008-01-31 UKCIP08 Defra teach in.ppt>>