cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, "N.W.Arnell" <N.W.ArnellatXYZxyzon.ac.uk>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, "Grubb, Michael" <michael.grubbatXYZxyzac.uk>
date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:33:19 +0100
from: "Jenkins, Geoff" <geoff.jenkinsatXYZxyzoffice.com>
subject: RE: DEFRA stabilisation - additions?
to: "Cox, Peter" <peter.coxatXYZxyzoffice.com>, Mike Hulme <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
i AGREE WITH pETERS POINT. iN FACT i WOULD HAVE THOUGHT A MORE NATURAL (sorry about caps lock) progressions is:
How do we define dangerous interference and hence stabilisation level?
- thresholds in the climate system and the chem/eco/bio system (ie excluding people & money) (as in Pete Cox) (includng irreverable ecological impacts from your later bullett)
- climate system changes (eg X% decrease in Gulf Stream, X% change in ability of natural sinks to upake human carbon, etc) or rate of change which may not be trigger points
- chnages at regiuonal level (eg loss of 50% of amazon rain forest, loss of arctic sea ice, some ikons?)
- socioeconomic thresholds or changes
- bearing in mind the committment, not just the realised (ie dangerous = committed to dangerous in the future)
Emissions pathways and policies
- what is the range of emissions pathways, including uncertainties (eg due to c cyle) - can least cost/most practicable (in terms of technology, timescale, etc) emissions profiles be found
- what burgen sharing arrangements (from your bullett one)
- the rest as is
Other headings as
Other points: can we make use of other Defra progs in India and China to say something about cultural perceptions of risk etc?
Be worth relating the whole exercise to defra objectives, eg
Impacts and risks of stabilisation pathways is on eof defras top-ten science goals
GA Objective CC1 is to consider long term objectives on stab of ghg
GA Cross cutting priority is stabilisation of ghg in the atmos
GA Science Objectives
SO1 is assess impacts and risks assoc wirth stab levels and pathways
SO2 is economoc, env & social costs and befits assoc with stab levels
Also would it worth mentioning the end of the UNFCCC dangerous sentence, ie about "enabling economic development to proced in a sustainable manner" etc?
I am OK for 1430 today Tues but not 1030 Wed
PS: I have taken alex h off the ciruclation list as presumably in defra he has to maintain a distabnce from possible bidders
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cox, Peter
> Sent: 07 October 2003 10:40
> To: 'Mike Hulme'
> Cc: Jenkins, Geoff; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; N.W.Arnell; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Grubb, Michael; alex.haxeltineatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: DEFRA stabilisation - additions?
> thanks for this draft. It's really nicely written and contains a lot of the relevant elements of a potential programme on stabilisation.
> However, I think we could be a bit more explicit about the whole issue of defining "dangerous anthropogenic interference" in the context of Earth system dynamics. This is obviously a massive issue and one we couldn't hope to tackle alone, but we certainly ought to be able to make use of the findings of other government and EU funded programmes (such as RAPID, ENSEMBLES etc.).
> The bullet on "Ecological, economic and social thresholds" covers some of tis ground but more in the context of climate change impacts, rather than "interference in the climate system" per se.
> I would therefore like to see your first bullet point as:
> - Dangerous Interference in the Climate System - Are there thresholds in the Earth System which define dangerous climate change? How probable are abrupt changes in the Earth system in the next century and beyond (e.g. via the thermohaline circulation, the carbon cycle, the Amazonian rainforest, atmospheric chemistry changes)? How do these probabilities vary with the CO2 stabilisation level? Is there an "optimum" CO2 stabilisation level which would prevent the next ice-age but would minimise the risk of dangerous interference through greenhouse warming?
> The last question is obviously a bit "off the wall" so its down to you whether you include it or not.....!
> Unfortunately, I can't make either of the suggested TELECON times, but I should be able to respond to further drafts/emails in the next few days.>
> All the best,
> Peter Cox
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Hulme [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: 06 October 2003 12:36
> To: Jenkins, Geoff; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Cox, Peter; N.W.Arnell; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Grubb, Michael; alex.haxeltineatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> Subject: DEFRA stabilisation - additions?
> Importance: High
> Dear All,
> As mentioned last week, here is a draft couple of pages on the issue itself
> to be inserted into the stabilisation tender. Your comments on this would
> be valued, especially whether the sample of topics and questions I've
> introduced is sufficiently representative (not exhaustive of course).
> My take on this is that we don't have to spell out the issues in more
> detail than this in a tender; simply to give DEFRA a sense and flavour of
> the questions and issues we *will* explore at length in the study - should
> we get it.
> Again, I am still hoping for a tele-conference with you all, either Tuesday
> 2.30pm or Wednesday 10.30am. Please let me know which you prefer.
> The bid has to be finalised by Friday.
> << File: DEFRA stabilisation_scope.doc >>