Tuesday, May 22, 2012

4546.txt

date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:11:21 -0000
from: "Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC)" <kathryn.humphreyatXYZxyzRA.GSI.GOV.UK>
subject: RE: FW: UKCP09 review- Lenny
to: "Phil Jones" <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Jenkins, Geoff" <geoff.jenkinsatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Chris Kilsby" <c.g.kilsbyatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Hi Phil,


Just tried to call you- give me a ring if you like; I'm a bit sensitive about writing
emails about Lenny in case he decides to do an FOI request on himself.


I've spoken to Clare G, David, Brian and Kathryn P about this and think we have sorted out
the chasing of other reviewers and users' panel that Lenny's been doing. I'm also going to
speak to Kathryn P and David again about this today, and sent a reminder to the SG and UP
yesterday about confidentiality.


Kathryn


From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 19 December 2008 11:03
To: Jenkins, Geoff; Chris Kilsby
Cc: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC)
Subject: Re: FW: UKCP09 review- Lenny


Geoff,
No they didn't! I have seen an email Lenny wrote to Clare, that she sent to Kathryn.
This is getting out of hand.
Should I suggest Brian reads the WG Report - and looks at the comments
from the three sets of reviews we've received? Has Brian read anything?
There doesn't seem any point in talking to Brian if he's going to listen to
hearsay - without reading the report and the reviews. The reviews are all
very positive.
Clare said to me yesterday that she now thinks like I do - Brian and Lenny
are trying to scupper the WG. I'm getting really fed up with all this.
Chris is doing all he can to get the WG running on the Newcastle cluster
and producing maps, yet we're having to cope with all this at the same time.
At the wind meeting yesterday Geoff you said that the probabilistic pdfs
for each 25km square couldn't be used to get pressure gradients as they
weren't spatially dependent. Only the 11 RCMs are. What is anyone
to do with these pdfs then other than produce maps - if they haven't got a WG.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:45 19/12/2008, Jenkins, Geoff wrote:

Did anyone send you this. Do you want to reply direct to Brian. I am baffled why all this
stuff is coming up at the last minute rather than over the last 3 years.
Geoff
___________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Hoskins, Brian J [[1] mailto:b.hoskins@imperial.ac.uk]
Sent: 18 December 2008 16:58
To: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC)
Cc: roger.street@ukcip.org.uk; Jenkins, Geoff; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate
Science); Warrilow, David (CEOSA); Hoskins, Brian J
Subject: RE: UKCP09 review- Lenny
Kathryn
I am very keen to get general views on WGs from those who are not WG people. In particular,
I am keen to get Lenny's views now rather than after the launch.
I believe that his "flaw" is the fact that the WG information may be of little use for
those users for whom e.g. a run of hot days is crucial.
Also, has the WG data been evaluated by comparison with data in the recent past? If so, how
well does it do?
Best wishes
Brian

From: Humphrey, Kathryn (ACC) [[2] mailto:kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK]
Sent: 18 December 2008 11:38
To: Hoskins, Brian J
Cc: roger.street@ukcip.org.uk; Geoff Jenkins; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate
Science); Warrilow, David (CEOSA)
Subject: UKCP09 review- Lenny

Hi Brian,
I understand that you've been discussing the review of the weather generator with Lenny to
get an alternative view given that the WG comments are quite positive. Just to let you and
copyees know that Lenny called Roger yesterday stating that through being involved in the
review he's learned that there's a "fundamental flaw in the projections", and wanted to
know from Roger what we were planning on doing about it (delay, phased delivery etc).
As I don't know of any suggestions of fundamental flaws, this sounds to me like Lenny has
been fishing for Roger to admit something that he guesses is there, so that he can quote
him. But to get a better picture of where this latest action has come from I was just
curious if Lenny had said anything to you along these lines, or if perhaps he's spoken to
Myles and Myles has given him this impression?
Roger is off to Canada now but said he hadn't given Lenny any impression that we did think
there was a fundamental flaw, and that any decisions rested with Defra (the usual line). I
promised Roger that I'd just pass this info on to keep you in the loop.
Kind Regards,
Kathryn
Kathryn Humphrey
Research and Evidence
Adapting to Climate Change Programme
Defra

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment