cc: , "Christopher Baker" , "Philip Newton" date: Tue Feb 5 13:48:10 2002 from: Mike Hulme subject: Re: Science Museum text to: "Sheila Anderson" Sheila and others, Just to clarify my meaning ........ the statement we (Hadley scientists and us) have agreed for the new UK climate scenarios - Hadley and Tyndall are producing these for DEFRA and UKCIP - is the following (cf. with IPCC TAR statement): "Although the strength of the Gulf Stream may weaken in future, it is very unlikely that this would lead to a cooling of UK climate over the next century". Note what this does *not* say: - what happens after 2100, longer-term - further weakening will not happen - any changes due to THC would not offset *some* of the 1.5 to 5degC of warming due to enhanced GHGs, through THC changes slowing down the rate of warming in the N.Atlantic Basin. Also, the full text of our report makes clear the major uncertainties outstanding and the need for more research, actually mentioning I think RAPID specifically. The above headline statement has gone back a few times between UEA and Hadley and has agreement of all parties. The previous quote from SOC in Emma's original gives a *very* misleading impression to stakeholders that we have to plan as though warming and cooling were equal possibilities. Newspaper headline writers love it of course, but I don't think the Science Museum should give this impression. Mike At 13:32 05/02/02 +0000, Sheila Anderson wrote: Dear All I would like to comment on Mike's paragraph 5 on the heating up/cooling issue. We need to firm up on the issue of rapid climate change. Sure, we cannot say there is a 50-50 chance of it happening, but there is uncertainty about the continuation of the warm currents that keep NW Europe warm. If there was a rapid change, UK temperatures could plunge in the space of a few decades. If that doesn't happen, it will indeed get warmer here. As we are sufficiently concerned about the uncertainties to invest £20m in rapid climate change, NERC is keen to see it covered appropriately. Sheila Sheila Anderson Head of Communications Tel: 01793 411646 Fax: 01793 411510 NERC, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1EU >>> Mike Hulme 02/05/02 12:49pm >>> Dear Emma, Apologies for my late reply but I hope you can incorporate my suggestions into the panel text. In general, I should point out that I am not entirely comfortable with the sensationalist language used. I would state things differently, but I do understand that the role of this text is to draw people in with striking comments. The one part of text that I feel is too sensational is under 'How will climate change affect the world'. Antenna states that six billion people are at mortal risk: this is certainly not the case. While a percentage of the world's population will be in danger, it is not 100% of the population. In addition, this implies that there will be no positive impacts of climate change. This leads to my next point: that the panel text does not mention that some people (and countries) may experience benefits as a result of climate change. I think this needs to be mentioned somewhere as it is one of the reasons that the problem of taking action is so difficult to solve - there are competing views on just how important and rapid effective action needs to be. I would also like to see the SOC Ocean Mooring quote changed: it implies that there is a 50/50 chance of being either hot or cold in Britain as a result of climate change. This is certainly *not* the case!! Warmer weather is pretty much guaranteed here: it is certainly highly unlikely to cool down in Britain over the next 100 years (our forthcoming UK climate scenarios will say this). To discuss cooling gives the wrong message. I feel that opening the panel with a comment like 'You can't escape it' is also the wrong message. I don't know what punchy line you could use, but the message should be that we *can* influence the climate (we can't stop climate change happening but we can effect the rate and adapt to the consequences), that if we get involved our actions can make a difference, and that we need to do something about it to avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change. You bring this in at the end, but surely it should be up-front that this is an issue where we must not be defeatist. Finally, I would like to agree with Simon Torok's comments sent to you already (particularly his suggestion for my quote), to emphasise the points he has raised. In particular, I feel a mention of surprises in the system needs to be made to highlight the high-risk nature of playing with a complex system that we do not completely understand, which could lead to large changes that we cannot predict. Yours sincerely, Mike.