Thursday, May 17, 2012

4347.txt

cc: "Myles Allen" <allenatXYZxyz.ox.ac.uk>, <C.GoodessatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Bryden, Clare" <clare.brydenatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC)" <kathryn.humphreyatXYZxyzra.gsi.gov.uk>, "Sampson, Jo (DECC - ACC)" <Joanna.Sampson@decc.gsi.gov.uk>, "Warrilow, David (DECC - CEOSA)" <David.Warrilow@decc.gsi.gov.uk>, "Meah, Nafees (DECC)" <Nafees.Meah@decc.gsi.gov.uk>, "Roger Street" <roger.streetatXYZxyzip.org.uk>, "Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science)" <john.f.mitchellatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Pope, Vicky" <vicky.popeatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Murphy, James" <james.murphyatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Sexton, David" <david.sextonatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Collins, Matthew" <matthew.collinsatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Harris, Glen" <glen.harris@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Booth, Ben" <ben.booth@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Lowe, Jason" <jason.loweatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Jenkins, Geoff" <geoff.jenkinsatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Jason Holt" <jholt@pol.ac.uk>, <jwolfatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Phil Jones" <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "C G Kilsby" <c.g.kilsbyatXYZxyzcastle.ac.uk>, "Nigel Arnell" <n.w.arnellatXYZxyzding.ac.uk>, <alberto.montanariatXYZxyzbo.it>, <elaine.barrowatXYZxyzktel.net>, "Carter Tim" <tim.carteratXYZxyzaristo.fi>, "Wells N.C." <n.c.wellsatXYZxyzon.ac.uk>, "jaak monbaliu" <jaak.monbaliuatXYZxyz.kuleuven.be>, <corinna.schrumatXYZxyz.uib.no>
date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:31:18 -0000
from: "Hoskins, Brian J" <b.hoskinsatXYZxyzerial.ac.uk>
subject: RE: urgent -- RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review
to: "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" <francis.zwiersatXYZxyzgc.ca>, "claudia tebaldi" <claudia.tebaldiatXYZxyzil.com>, "Watson, Robert (SEG)" <Robert.WatsonatXYZxyzra.gsi.gov.uk>

Bob

I am coming into this after a load of meetings.

Claudia has said roughly what I would have said.

I have now gone through with Clare a version of our report which takes account of all the
Reviewers' suggestions, but it has as yet no change on this point. I should now like to go
back to the Reviewers with the concerns that Nafees and you have on this sentence and
discuss our final, agreed version.

Best wishes

Brian


From: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] [mailto:francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca]
Sent: 20 January 2009 14:35
To: claudia tebaldi; Watson, Robert (SEG)
Cc: Myles Allen; C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk; Hoskins, Brian J; Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn
(ACC); Sampson, Jo (DECC - ACC); Warrilow, David (DECC - CEOSA); Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger
Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope, Vicky; Murphy, James;
Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth, Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff;
Jason Holt; jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil Jones; C G Kilsby; Nigel Arnell;
alberto.montanari@unibo.it; elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak
monbaliu; corinna.schrumatXYZxyz.uib.no
Subject: RE: urgent -- RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop


Dear Bob, Claudia,


I think Claudia's interpretation concerning the intent is correct. On its own, it does
invite misinterpretation I think. One simple solution would be to remove the paragraph
break between "not possible at this time." and "There is a cascade...". Another solution
would be to deleted the 2nd half of the last sentence of paragraph 2 "and in some respects
was not possible at this time" and also to remove the paragraph break. The wording of the
first half of that sentence already hints that the challenge was large and that there were
limits in the extent to which the provider could respond to the request.


Cheers, Francis


ps - I'm be leavnig for Boulder in a couple of hours.


Francis Zwiers
Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4
Phone: 416 739 4767, Fax 416 739 5700


___________________________________________________________________________________________

From: claudia tebaldi [mailto:claudia.tebaldi@gmail.com]
Sent: January 20, 2009 7:28 AM
To: Watson, Robert (SEG)
Cc: Myles Allen; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk; Hoskins, Brian J; Bryden,
Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (DECC - ACC); Warrilow, David (DECC - CEOSA);
Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope,
Vicky; Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth, Ben; Lowe,
Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt; jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil Jones; C G Kilsby; Nigel Arnell;
alberto.montanari@unibo.it; elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak
monbaliu; corinna.schrumatXYZxyz.uib.no
Subject: Re: urgent -- RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop

Dear Robert,
I think the sentence should be read in the light of the following paragraph, where a
cascade of confidence is mentioned.
Our expectations about the robustness of the PDFs, considering what we trust GCMs to be
good at, at this point in time, invite us to be cautious in front of this results, for
example keeping in mind that development in the science and the methodology will likely
change the shape and range of these PDFs.
I think the very last sentence just refers to the fact that for some variable, i.e., winds,
the developers of the method decided it was not possible to characterize their uncertainty
at all.
That is my interpretation of the paragraph that gives you pause. Maybe a more precise
wording taking the place of "in some respects" could help. Maybe a more explicit link of
the two paragraphs could help too -- I will let others comment on that.
I know Myles is traveling to the US at this time and won't be in email contact for a few
hours.
The same may be true of Francis -- they are coming to Boulder/NCAR for the same meeting.
I'm sure they will be able to comment on this by tonight or tomorrow morning.

best regards
claudia

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Watson, Robert (SEG) <[1]Robert.Watson@defra.gsi.gov.uk>
wrote:

Dear colleagues
Could someone explain exactly what the last sentence in the following
paragraph was meant to mean, i.e., the sentence starting "Trying to
fulfil ....... I interpret the sentence as saying the panel does not
believe the analysis at all - hence none of the probabilistic analyses
can be trusted because it not only stretched the ability of current
climate science but it was actually not possible - this sentence will be
used by sceptics to argue that the projections are useless and should
not be used - is that what is meant???
Bob
In response to user request, the scope of the UKCP commission included
the quantification of uncertainty, taking account of climate models from
centres other than the MetO Hadley Centre, inclusion of new developments
such as carbon cycle feedback, and the production of daily data on a 5km
grid. Trying to fulfil this scope stretched the ability of current
climate science and methodology, and in some respects was not possible
at this time.
-----Original Message-----
From: Myles Allen [mailto:[2]allen@atm.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: 20 January 2009 06:52
To: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; [3]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk
Cc: Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (DECC - ACC);
Watson, Robert (SEG); Warrilow, David (DECC - CEOSA); Meah, Nafees
(DECC); Roger Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science);
Pope, Vicky; Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris,
Glen; Booth, Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt;
[4]jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil Jones; C G Kilsby; claudia tebaldi; Nigel Arnell;
[5]alberto.montanari@unibo.it; [6]elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells
N.C.; jaak monbaliu; [7]corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no
Subject: RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop
Dear Francis,
That sounds fine -- and even brings us back close to Brian's original
word-count. Revision enclosed.
If there is space, I don't think we lose anything by keeping "perhaps
like that used in the Marine Report" since it is clear that is just an
example of what we mean.
Myles
-----Original Message-----
From: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] [mailto:[8]francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca]
Sent: 20 January 2009 01:54
To: Myles Allen; [9]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk
Cc: Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (ACC); Watson,
Robert (SEG); Warrilow, David (CEOSA); Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger
Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope, Vicky;
Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth,
Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt; [10]jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil
Jones; C G Kilsby; claudia tebaldi; Nigel Arnell;
[11]alberto.montanari@unibo.it; [12]elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells
N.C.; jaak monbaliu; [13]corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no
Subject: RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop
Hi all,
I'm ok with the wording in this 2nd version. My suggestion would be to
end the first sentence of the "In view of these risks" paragragh at the
first comma, and to delete the remaining part "closer to conventional
...". I don't think we should dictate how they do this (they do have the
marine example to follow in any case). I would also replace
"conservative methodologies" with "traditional methodologies", which is
I think what we mean. I also suggest replacing "conservative" with
"traditional" near the end of the paragraph that starts with "The
guidance given ...".
Cheers, Francis
Francis Zwiers
Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin St., Toronto, Ont. M3H 5T4
Phone: 416 739 4767, Fax 416 739 5700
-----Original Message-----
From: Myles Allen [mailto:[14]allen@atm.ox.ac.uk]
Sent: January 19, 2009 5:37 PM
To: [15]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk
Cc: Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (ACC); Watson,
Robert (SEG); Warrilow, David (CEOSA); Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger
Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope, Vicky;
Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth,
Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt; [16]jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil
Jones; C G Kilsby; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; claudia tebaldi; Nigel
Arnell; [17]alberto.montanari@unibo.it; [18]elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter
Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak monbaliu; [19]corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no
Subject: RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop
Dear Clare,
That sentence was intended to be helpful, but if it isn't, then given
the aim of keeping the report as brief as possible, perhaps you're right
we should just leave it out. Second revision enclosed.
Myles
-----Original Message-----
From: [20]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk [mailto:[21]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 19 January 2009 22:28
To: Myles Allen
Cc: Clare Goodess; Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo
(ACC); Watson, Robert (SEG); Warrilow, David (CEOSA); Meah, Nafees
(DECC); Roger Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science);
Pope, Vicky; Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris,
Glen; Booth, Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt;
[22]jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil Jones; C G Kilsby; [23]francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca;
claudia tebaldi; Nigel Arnell; [24]alberto.montanari@unibo.it;
[25]elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak monbaliu;
[26]corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no
Subject: RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop
Dear all
I feel that this sentence proposed by Myles "If necessary, sample
results from the more conservative methodology could be provided at the
time of launch on condition that a firm commitment was made, with the
necessary resources, to provide this option in full as soon as
possible." goes somewhat further than what the reviewers discussed and
agreed during the meeting. In particular we did not all discuss and
agree on setting conditions and asking for firm committments, although I
recall Myles mentioning the need for additional resources. There was I
think a general consensus on the value of providing some comparative
examples with the launch material. But, personally, I would prefer to
keep the wording proposed by Brian.
Best wishes, Clare
> Dear Clare and Brian,
>
>
>
> I have always tended to use a Hawaiian interpretation of "close of
> play". Hope this nevertheless arrives in time to be useful.
>
>
>
> I can't remember exactly what was on the screen, but it seems to me
that
> we were recommending that, in view of the risks mentioned in the use
of
> a relatively untested and unpublished method, users should also be
> provided with an alternative based on a more conservative methodology
> such as that used by the IPCC, not just that consideration should be
> given to the usefulness of such an alternative. That was certainly my
> recommendation. If it is helpful, we can add that the consensus seemed
> to be that it wouldn't be necessary to have this available in full at
> the time of launch, but that an explanation of the alternative (and
its
> shortcomings) together with some comparative examples, accompanied by
a
> firm commitment (adequately resourced - meaning not just asking the HC
> team to do more work in less time) to release it as soon as possible,
> would be OK.
>
>
>
> I have suggested a revision to Clare Goodess' edits, enclosed. If
anyone
> wants to contact me, please try 07776 306691 tomorrow morning (flight
to
> Denver leaves shortly after 12).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Myles
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Clare Goodess [mailto:[27]C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk]
> Sent: 19 January 2009 17:50
> To: Bryden, Clare; Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC); Sampson, Jo (ACC); Watson,
> Robert (SEG); Warrilow, David (CEOSA); Meah, Nafees (DECC); Roger
> Street; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Pope, Vicky;
> Murphy, James; Sexton, David; Collins, Matthew; Harris, Glen; Booth,
> Ben; Lowe, Jason; Jenkins, Geoff; Jason Holt; [28]jwolf@pol.ac.uk; Phil
> Jones; C G Kilsby; Myles Allen; [29]francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca; claudia
> tebaldi; Nigel Arnell; [30]alberto.montanari@unibo.it;
> [31]elaine.barrow@sasktel.net; Carter Tim; Wells N.C.; jaak monbaliu;
> [32]corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no
> Subject: Re: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop
>
>
>
> Dear Clare and Brian
>
> Please find attached some minor comments on the draft report.
>
> Best wishes, Clare
>
> At 11:27 15/01/2009, Bryden, Clare wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dear All
>
> Please find attached Brian's draft report from the workshop. Please
> could you respond with any changes and comments by close of play on
> Monday, allowing him one day to review them before Defra's wash-up
> meeting on Wednesday. If any member of the Review Group finds this
> timing impossible, please let Brian and me know the earliest you could
> manage.
>
> Please also find attached my notes from the workshop, as requested by
> some of the reviewers. They were intended to document comments and
> discussions not covered directly by the presentations. They are still
> very much in note form, and I must attach a major health warning to
the
> notes of the more technical discussions.
>
> Note that these, as all other documents associated with the review,
are
> to be treated as confidential.
> <<Report UKCP Review draft 1.doc>>
> <<UKCP09_Workshop_Notes_20090114.doc>>
> Best regards
> Clare
>
> ---
> Clare Bryden Climate Business Manager
> Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> Tel: +44 (0)1392 884834 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Mobile: 07717
156452
>
> E-mail: [33]clare.bryden@metoffice.gov.uk [34]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
> <[35]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/> Please note that I work four days a
> week, Monday-Thursday.
>
> (c) Crown Copyright 2009. Produced by the Met Office.
> New Met Office Climate Change Seminars - plan today to safeguard your
> future success [36]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/training/climatechange
>
> Dr Clare Goodess
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
>
> Tel: +44 -1603 592875
> Fax: +44 -1603 507784
> Web: [37]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
> [38]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm
>
>
>
>
>
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only.
If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose,
store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it 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.

--
Claudia Tebaldi
Research Scientist, Climate Central
[39]http://www.climatecentral.org
currently visiting IMAGe/NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80305
tel. 303.497.2487

No comments:

Post a Comment