Friday, April 27, 2012

3542.txt

date: Fri Jun 11 10:40:08 2004
from: Mike Hulme <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: RE: UKCIP review
to: "Jenkins, Geoff" <geoff.jenkinsatXYZxyzoffice.com>, "Horrocks, Lisa (GA)" <lisa.horrocksatXYZxyzRA.GSI.GOV.UK>, "Geoff Jenkins (E-mail)" <geoff.jenkinsatXYZxyzoffice.com>

Lisa,
I support Geoff's comments here.
We used what we thought were the best available estimates from Shennan (I entered into some
discussion with him at the time about this). If there is anything that the geological
community regard as "better" we can use them in the future.
I think Dawson is nit-picking - but then again, if there are new estimates let's be aware
of them,
Mike
At 18:01 09/06/2004 +0100, Jenkins, Geoff wrote:

Lisa
Looks like he is criticising the UKCIP02 (ie our) estimates of SLR.
We did make a correction for vertical land movement based on the only
info available (pers comm Ian Shennan at Durham University). For the BIC
report I used a published paper by Shennan (not available in time for
UKCIP02). I would be happy to consider any better analysis or prediction
of vertical land movement, but I would be very surprised if the
difference between Dawson's and Shennan's estimates of it was
significant compared to the huge uncertainty in global-mean SLR
(9-69cm), and especially the uncertainty in regional SLR.
Can you get hold of the report from him or from SNH? You are likley to
have more luck than us, I suspect.
I recall a few months ago addressing a similar question from Shetland (I
think) via Alaster Montgomery (Scot Exec) - to which I gave much the
same reply, ie if you can find a better estimate of local land movement
than grab it and add it to SLR.
Cheers
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Horrocks, Lisa (GA) [[1]mailto:lisa.horrocks@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK]
Sent: 09 June 2004 17:29
To: Geoff Jenkins (E-mail); 'm.hulme@uea.ac.uk'
Subject: FW: UKCIP review
Geoff, Mike,
I received this email earlier, provoked I think by the fact that we are
currently tendering for a review of UKCIP.
I'd be grateful for your view on what Alastair has said - it is unclear
to me whether he is criticising the regional scoping studies that UKCIP
facilitated, or the UKCIP02 scenarios themselves.
Regards,
Lisa
Lisa Horrocks Global Atmosphere Division
Defra
3/A2 Ashdown House 123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
Tel: 020 7082 8162 Fax: 020 7082 8151 lisa.horrocksatXYZxyzra.gsi.gov.uk
[2]www.defra.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: A. DAWSON [[3]mailto:GEX014@coventry.ac.uk]
Sent: 09 June 2004 11:18
To: Horrocks, Lisa (GA)
Subject: UKCIP review
Dear Lisa,
Just a note to say that my own view was that UKCIP was particularly weak
wrt its regional estimates of future sea level rise. In particular,
little attention was given in respect of Scotland to the influence of
glacio-isostatic deformation on future vertical land movements. I
summarised this information in an earlier commissioned report for
Scottish Natural Heritage (reference attached here).
Yours sincerely,
Alastair Dawson
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only.
Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
If you have received it in error, please destroy all copies and inform
the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been
checked for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no
responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Defra's
computer systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the
effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

No comments:

Post a Comment