Sunday, June 3, 2012


cc: 'Meric Srokosz' <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:54:57 +0000 (GMT)
from: Paul Valdes <>
subject: RE: Rapid draft Science and Implementation Plans
to: Bob Dickson EQ CEFAS <>


I am just catching up with emails after having been away for a while. I
haven't had a chance to look at the more detailed comments yet, but I'd
like to add my support to some of the comments of Simon and Julia.

NERC received money for RAPID because of the THC's potential impact on UK
and European climate. Government is presumably not interested in studying
the THC for it's own sake, and if we are to show that the programme is
relevent then we must put considerable emphasis towards the climatic
impact of THC changes. This means that we must include substantial studies
of the impact of the THC on the atmosphere and terrestrial systems. This
comment equally well applies to past, present, and future studies. Thus I
strongly support Simon's and Julia's comments.

An additional concern is whether the observational side of the project is
well posed. The impression I am left with when reading the science plan
(and after our steering committee meeting) is that there is considerable
uncertainity about the best way to develop a long term monitoring
programme. Hence shouldn't RAPID first fund feasability studies rather
than immediately launching into a full scale observational programme?
After all, because of interannual variability, it is not clear that
observations of a few years will really say that much about the present
trends of the THC. RAPID's real observational aim should be to develop a
long-term cost-effective monitoring system, as well as to improve our
understanding of key proceesses, such as connvection.

Another related comment is are we really happy about the deliverables from
the programme, and whether we will be able to meet these? OST will not be
impressed if NERC fails to deliver much from a 20M programme.

A final comment is to echo Bob's question about whether this is a THC
programme, or a rapid climate change programme. I would like to see a
fraction of the money going to non-THC related rapid climate
change (and variability) processes. This would be very consistent with
some of PRESCIENTs aims and would make sure that the research truly
matched the title of the programme.


Prof. Paul Valdes Dept. of Meteorology,
Email: University of Reading,
Phone: + 44 118 931 6517 Earley Gate, Whiteknights,
Fax: + 44 118 931 8905 PO Box 243
Htpp: Reading. RG6 6BB. UK

No comments:

Post a Comment