cc: Philip Newton <PPN@wpo.nerc.ac.uk>, <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>, <ewwo@bas.ac.uk>, <j.lowe@rhbnc.ac.uk>, <haugan@gfi.uib.no>, <rwood@meto.gov.uk>, <p.j.valdes@bris.ac.uk>, Andy Parsons <apar@nerc.ac.uk>, <sand@nerc.ac.uk>, <sfbtett@meto.gov.uk>, <j.m.slingo@reading.ac.uk>, <studhope@glg.ed.ac.uk>, <marotzke@dkrz.de>, <maria.noguer@defra.gsi.gov.uk>, Meric Srokosz <MAS@soc.soton.ac.uk>, <a.j.watson@uea.ac.uk>, <plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de>, <lkeigwin@whoi.edu>, <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, <Alex.Haxeltine@uea.ac.uk>, <mccave@esc.cam.ac.uk>, <r.r.dickson@cefas.co.uk>
date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:21:13 +0100
from: Peter Challenor <P.Challenor@soc.soton.ac.uk>
subject: Re: RAPID statement -round 2
to: Christine Gommenginger <cg1@soc.soton.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
In general I think it is good. I think Eric and John have made some 
good points I have a few further comments. I don't like the phrase 'is 
a low probability event'. I would prefer 'Present understanding would 
suggest that rapid climate change over the the next decade is unlikely' 
(or very unlikely if you want to add stress). I'm not sure what the 
second part of the following sentence means . Are the uncertainties on 
the probability of rapid climate change or on the impacts given that it 
has happened? I would cut it completely.


Coincidentally I received an update from UKCIP at the same time as 
Christine's message. It has a little piece on the film as well. For 
further details they add some web addresses. They include the Met 
Office, Wood Hole, Greenpeace and FoE but not RAPID or NERC. Clearly we 
still have some work to do

Peter

</x-flowed>