Friday, May 4, 2012

3825.txt

cc: <lkeigwinatXYZxyzi.edu>, <plemkeatXYZxyz-bremerhaven.de>, <ewwoatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <r.r.dicksonatXYZxyzas.co.uk>, <Simon.J.Brown@defra.gsi.gov.uk>, <mccaveatXYZxyz.cam.ac.uk>, <hauganatXYZxyz.uib.no>, <studhopeatXYZxyz.ed.ac.uk>, <B.TurrellatXYZxyzlab.ac.uk>, <rwoodatXYZxyzo.gov.uk>, <sfbtettatXYZxyzo.gov.uk>, <j.m.slingoatXYZxyzding.ac.uk>, <p.j.valdesatXYZxyzding.ac.uk>, <j.loweatXYZxyznc.ac.uk>, <jymatXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk>, <pcatXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk>, <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <ppnatXYZxyzc.ac.uk>, <cvyatXYZxyzc.ac.uk>, <cg1atXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk>, <nthatXYZxyzc.ac.uk>, <nrcatXYZxyzc.ac.uk>
date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:20:53 -0000
from: "Andrew Watson" <a.j.watsonatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Rapid draft Science and Implementation Plans
to: "Jochem Marotzke" <Jochem.MarotzkeatXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk>, "Meric Srokosz" <masatXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk>

Dear all

1) We are charged with producing a coherent programme.
Because of the comparatively large amount of resources we
have, we have the opportunity (rare in the history of
NERC!), to actually achieve something worthhile. But we must
have a focus for the programme, and (I agree with Jochem and
Nick) that focus must be the THC. Without such a focus, we
may easily spend 20 million on this, that and the other and
achieve nothing very much.

2) There is a tension between creating a focussed program
and ensuring that we do not cut out some part of the
community that can importantly contribute. The science plan
therefore should be inclusive rather than exclusive, but
should not commit us to doing something about everything. I
personally think that the version sent out gets more or less
the right balance, and that it already includes the views of
most of those who have so far criticised it. In particular,
the present version seems to be OK on the issue of
atmosphere-ocean coupling. It doesn't overly emhphasise it,
but given that that NERC has already funded COAPEC with
nearly �5 million precisely on that subject, that is
sensible. On the other hand, coupled ocean-atmosphere
modelling studies are clearly part of this programme via
objectives 5 and 6.

3) The implementation plan says more or less nothing at this
stage. Ultimately however, it is probably more important
than the science plan -- the programme will actually be
defined by what we do. Also, the wording of the
announcements of opportunity will be critically important.
These, and the subsequent decisions about what is funded or
commissioned, will be what shapes the programme. In this
context, I note that we are supposed to discuss, as agenda
item 7 at the upcoming meeting, "Announcement of opportunity
for observations of the North Atlantic THC". I think this is
a bit premature, and we should first discuss "Announcement
of opportunity for design studies of strategies for
observing the north atlantic THC".

Cheers,

Andy

***********************************
Prof Andrew J. Watson
email: a.watsonatXYZxyz.ac.uk
or : a.j.watsonatXYZxyz.ac.uk
phone: (44) 1603 593761 direct
1603 456161 switchboard
1603 507719 fax
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
NORWICH NR4 7TJ
U.K.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~ajw/ajw.htm
***********************************


No comments:

Post a Comment