Thursday, May 24, 2012


date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 16:08:46 +0000
from: "Jenkins, Geoff" <>
subject: RE: Yesterday's conference call
to: 'Catherine Cook' <>,,,

Re fig 14: I don't understand your comment. Showing M-H seems a good
compromise, or else we shall have to show 3 of them.

Re your last para: "will" is a difficult verb to use when we quote numbers.
We cannot say the temperature rise will be between XdegC and YdegC, even
when those numbers span the High to Low Emissions range - because they are
all from Hadley model for a start. UNLESS we do as I suggested and preface
the stsments with WE PREDICT THAT: Without this preface, we can only use
"will" when we have complete confidence in the direction, ie Temperatures
will rise.

I know everyone wants to see more certainty, but we have to maintain
sceintific credibility.

I suggest we let John and Mike come up with the goods.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Catherine Cook []
> Sent: 06 March 2002 14:20
> To:;;
> Cc:;;
> Subject: Yesterday's conference call
> Hello Diana
> Thank you for circulating your notes of our call. I know Richenda has
> subsequently been in touch re use of 2050s and the maps (and we are very
> pleased with what you have now decided re maps).
> I just wanted to add a couple of additional points for clarification:
> - re main results/key findings (reduced to 400 words). Will this include
> the
> "background" info? I think we agreed that some of this could usefully go
> on
> the left hand p3 (the introduction page), but this will be pretty full
> with
> the introduction text and the "main differences".
> We would like to see the revised version of pages 2 and 3 before the
> design
> stage, if possible.
> - fig 14. These figures are very effective in conveying where the effects
> are likely to be most serious and as such are very helpful in raising
> awareness. However, if we show the medium high version in the briefing,
> the
> media are likely to ask what the high version looks like. Presume as this
> is
> the technical report, we can't refuse to show it. If we include the low
> emissions one, this provides a more balanced view.
> - We would like it to be as clear as possible as to what "will" and "may"
> mean, and agree that this should be explained somewhere. I think it's
> useful
> for the key findings to say "will" wherever possible, using the range of
> high and low results (as I think we agreed).
> Kind regards
> Catherine
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

No comments:

Post a Comment