date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:36:21 +0100
from: "Jenkins, Geoff" <geoff.jenkinsatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>
subject: RE: UKCIP08 SG and UP decisions and actions
to: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" <kathryn.humphreyatXYZxyzRA.GSI.GOV.UK>, "Stephens, A (Ag)" <A.StephensatXYZxyzac.uk>, "Kay Jenkinson" <kay.jenkinsonatXYZxyzip.org.uk>, "Anna Steynor" <anna.steynoratXYZxyzip.org.uk>, "Lawrence, BN (Bryan)" <B.N.Lawrence@rl.ac.uk>, "Butt, Adrian (CEOSA)" <adrian.buttatXYZxyzRA.GSI.GOV.UK>, "Chris Kilsby" <c.g.kilsbyatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Phil Jones" <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Richard Westaway" <richard.westawayatXYZxyzip.org.uk>, "Roger Street" <roger.streetatXYZxyzip.org.uk>
A few late comments and comments on comments.
1 We should not use the term "land" in the prob proj report - the projections are for the
atmosphere (over land). Also this one should include the word "change" which it doesnt now
("climate change projections"). Agree with those who said delete UK and 21st century as
redundant. Dont mind it being called Summary Report or Briefing, but dont say scenarios on
this or the UG as we agreed with Roger to ban this word.
2 I think it should be very clear from the title that UG is not just a getting started
thing. Its main purpose is to talk about limitations in the projections and WG and the
implications for users.
3 Language - "as likley as not" doesnt work in key findings statements (think about it)
so please lets go for "central estimate".
PDC and CDC - just probability distribution and cumulative distribution will be enough, we
are generally talking about the distribution itself, not the curve it makes on a graph. I
agree with Brians comment that it is more important to have scientific sense than user
buy-in, so would strongly caution against asking UP to vote.
From: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) [mailto:kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK]
Sent: 25 April 2008 11:44
To: Jenkins, Geoff; Stephens, A (Ag); Stephanie Ferguson; Kay Jenkinson; Anna Steynor;
Lawrence, BN (Bryan); Butt, Adrian (CEOSA); Chris Kilsby; Colin Harpham; Sexton, David;
Lowe, Jason; Marsh, AKP (Kevin) - SSTD; Elkington, Mark; Phil James; Phil Jones; Richard
Westaway; Roger Street; Callaghan, SA (Sarah); Dye, Stephen SR (CEFAS)
Subject: RE: UKCIP08 SG and UP decisions and actions
Thanks very much for your comments on these decisions. I have made a few changes as
requested and attach a revised copy for sign off.
Two outstanding issues are the reports titles- UKCIP not keen; and whether we give
suggestion to the SG for the terminology or give them a range and ask them to vote.
On the latter point, I would rather give them suggestions and ask for anyone with serious
reservations to speak up; I think this will make it more likely to gain a consensus
decision which I would prefer. If there are serious resevations voiced, we can then take a
vote. Is this ok?
On the former, the title suggestions are from me, based on the comments I have received
which are attached for info. I have tried to bring into account the points about people
new to UKCIP08 needing more information on what is in each publication; the feeling that
the Getting Started title doesn't reflect the full purpose of the guidance, which is also
to give background information on the limitations of the scenarios etc; and to bring out
that this is just for the UK. However I'm happy for UKCIP to try and come up with some
better ones if they want to have a go; but would need these by Monday and I want to get
these decisions out for agreement (Geoff needs to know his formats for key findings now in
BTW I have ignored comments on the style of the covers as these were agreed months ago and
although some of the people who have commented are new to the project, I didn't feel the
level of feeling was large enough to warrant re-opening the issue. The majority of the SG
are happy with the covers.
Grateful for comments on these issues today.