cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:00:41 +0000
from: John Shepherd <John.G.ShepherdatXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk>
subject: Re: RP4 : Third Draft (14 Feb)
to: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
If those are the most serious problems you can see then I think we're in
good shape. I will incorporate your comments as best I can. However, I do
not guarantee to do precisely what you wish in every instance, and I rather
object to the peremptory and didactic tone of some of your observations
(particularly 3 & 4), with which I do not wholly agree, and where
alternative views are tenable.
At 08:56 15/02/00 +0000, you wrote:
> Dear John,
> I still have serious concerns about a few sections of RP4. Here are my
> 1. add -- particularly in Europe to the sentence on the LIA and MWP. The
> effects were not that great outside the N. Atlantic/European
> 2. para 3 Large-scale 'winter' floods .. to distinguish from the
> previous sentence.
> 3. There is serious concern about global warming (future warming from
> human influences). Any concern about the change in the THC is
> not as serious. Just say some concern. Giving it such a high
> profile just confuses. I only want one word changed, serious to
> some !
> 4. The second para of the Analysis of Observations doesn't really link to
> the first, but the most serious problem of all is that the third para
> is in the wrong place. It can't go here. It is about scenarios. These
> will come from models so this has to be in the next section on models.
> The modelling sections begins with a sentence saying we will evaluate
> chosen scenarios. These scenarios come from models, not observations.
> The 3rd para should be the first in the modelling scetion and it should
> say that the scenarios will come from the Hadley Centre models. I can't
> see why you're so against saying that the scenarios will come from
> HadCM3/4 etc. This RP is about extreme events and rapid climate change.
> Scenarios for extreme events which are needed for the next 3 sections
> on Impacts, Decision Analysis and Tech/Eng WILL NOT come from your
> intermediate-complexity models. They can't by definition. You might get
> them through downscaling but only through using HC models again. Your
> intermediate-complexity models haven't got the spatial and temporal
> 5. What is the recent work that has shown potential to model the system
> in a quasi-stochastic manner ? This sentence needs a reference. I've
> no idea what you're referring to. A real reference is needed, not a
> pers. comm. or an in press one.
> 6. If the title of the RP says rapid climate change, then change all
> to rapid.
> 7. Short para at the end of the modelling section. We have the experts in
> the group at UEA. The implication here is that we don't have them.
> 8. What are the 'events which are outside the range of eventualities' ? Can
> there be an example ?
> 9. downscaling is all one word.
> 10. The tech/eng section is good. The final para is a bit fanciful. You
> could add a sentence about combatting rapid climate change.
> Sorry to reiterate my earlier points but things are in the wrong place,
> the empahasis isn't right at times and there are at least two totally
> unsupported statements.
>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