cc: Mike Hulme date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:00:41 +0000 from: John Shepherd subject: Re: RP4 : Third Draft (14 Feb) to: Phil Jones Phil 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. John 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 > comments. > > 1. add -- particularly in Europe to the sentence on the LIA and MWP. The > effects were not that great outside the N. Atlantic/European > region. > > 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 the > 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 > resolution. > > 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 abrupts > 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. > > Cheers > Phil > > >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.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >