date: Mon Feb  4 10:09:24 2008
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Fwd: RE: Presentation for Defra officials on UKCIP08
to: c.harpham@uea.ac.uk, c.goodess@uea.ac.uk

    FYI
    Phil

     X-VirusChecked: Checked
     X-Env-Sender: kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK
     X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-67.messagelabs.com!1201797478!21737588!1
     X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
     X-Originating-IP: [195.92.40.48]
     X-SIZE: LGE
     X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,285,1199664000";
        d="scan'208,217,32?ppt'208,217,32,32";a="12032768"
     Subject: RE: Presentation for Defra officials on UKCIP08
     Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:37:32 -0000
     X-MS-Has-Attach:
     X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
     Thread-Topic: Presentation for Defra officials on UKCIP08
     Thread-Index: AchW0ddBZ2sACiv7Sfyl/Ase/V+1IQNUP8uQ
     From: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" <kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK>
     To: "UKCIP08" <ukcip08@ukcip.org.uk>,
             "Jenkins, Geoff" <geoff.jenkins@metoffice.gov.uk>,
             "David Sexton" <david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk>,
             "Chris Kilsby" <c.g.kilsby@ncl.ac.uk>,
             "Phil Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>,
             "Murphy, James" <james.murphy@metoffice.gov.uk>,
             "Richard Lamb" <richard.lamb@ukcip.org.uk>,
             "Stephens, Ag" <ag.stephens@metoffice.gov.uk>
     X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2008 16:37:40.0097 (UTC) FILETIME=[98412F10:01C86427]
     Hi all,

     I did my UKCIP08 teach-in this morning; everyone seemed extremely interested and they
     would like to report back to you that they did indeed understand slides 11 and 12 after
     some time spent going through the process ;-)  Had lots of representatives from domestic
     adaptation policy, plus farming, water supply and regulation, biodiversity, and Karl!

     I attach the final presentation which I've added various things to, mainly pinching
     stuff from the prep workshops presentation (thanks Richard).   I'd be grateful if on
     glancing you can see anything that I've subsequently added which isn't quite right,
     particularly on the use/misuse slides as the group really liked these, in case I use
     this again.

     The other thing is that I know the list in slide 1 is not exhaustive but it's quite nice
     to have the whole project team listed to show officials how many people are involved, so
     if you see names missing let me know and I'll add them.

     Some of the questions that were raised which I need to think about in the run up to
     launch are:

     - if users want to amalgamate data for regions that are not given (e.g. countryside
     survey regions) will there be capacity to expand the given regions after launch?  I
     explained that computing capacity and time meant limiting the types of aggregated
     regions we could give, but suggested that there might be scope for Defra funded projects
     after launch to take the raw data and amalgamate it into different regions for
     particular sectors e.g. biodiversity.  Do you think this would be possible? (not for you
     to do but theoretically?).

     - What messages will we give about how long UKCIP08 will be current for?  Ie will it be
     worthwhile for users to spend a lot of money on '08 only to find a new set of scenarios
     comes out in another 5 years?  I explained that this was difficult to predict but that
     the modelling represented in '08 was cutting edge and as the modelling community was
     moving towards probabilistic modelling we didn't expect it to suddenly become obsolete
     in a few years time...so worth investing in.  But a good thing to do in communication
     terms would be to have some explanation of the differences in the results between '02
     and '08; more detail obviously, but also whether the sign of change has altered
     dramatically, so that projects that used 02 know whether they need to rethink their
     results, or not.

     - What are the pros and cons of using statistical vs dynamical downscaling?  Have
     discussed cost and sent them the text from the IPCC that describes differences between
     the two, but any more information on what approach works best for the UK (specific
     regions even) would be of interest; downscaling created a lot of interest in terms of
     its robustness.

     - Can we give stakeholders a statement about our confidence in HadCM3 as a model
     compared to other models, e.g. are there any studies that score different models on
     their ability to model past climate?  They understood that we are now using more than
     the Hadley model but were still interested in how it performs against other IPCC
     models.  Have sent them to IPCC text on reliability of all models, but have yet to see
     anything apart from Jason's work on how HadCM3 performs compared to other models...do we
     have anything?

     - In relation to migration and cross-Europe issues, having scenarios for the whole of
     Europe would be of interest.  Is this theoretically possible?  Mentioned ENSEMBLES and
     that the UKCIP08 model data includes some of Europe (it's just that we're not giving the
     data out!).

     On the whole, the group was extremely impressed with the quality of the science, the
     fact that UK was one of the first countries to try this, and the way the results will be
     presented through the user interface and in the different layers of complexity.

     Kind Regards,

     Kathryn


       ___________________________________________________________________________________

     From: UKCIP08 [[1]mailto:ukcip08@ukcip.org.uk]
     Sent: 14 January 2008 17:21
     To: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); Jenkins, Geoff; David Sexton; Chris Kilsby; Phil Jones
     Cc: Stephens, Ag
     Subject: Re: Presentation for Defra officials on UKCIP08- comments please
     Giving a presentation of this type is a challenge and going into the science at a level
     higher than that we have used in discussions with non-scientists adds significantly to
     that challenge.

     Although you know best the level of those involved, I would be somewhat surprised if the
     audience was comprised of many at level 2 (see PMG paper).  If this is the case, there
     are aspects of this presentation which may be over their heads.  You may be able to
     simplify the science through the accompanying explanations, however the slides
     themselves may loose them.

     Comments on specific slides:

     Slide 4 - "User feedback" has been sought and received, albeit somewhat informally,
     since 2002.  The formal consultations process used to inform UKCIP08 initial development
     took place in 2005/06.

     Slide 6. Bullet points 1 and 2 - UKCIP02 does not give a range just a single estimate
     (for each of four emission scenarios).  This presentation of different results for the
     available emission scenarios will be the same for UKCIP08, albeit the results will be
     probabilitistic projections rather than a single estimate as in UKCIP02.

     Slide 6, Bullet point 4 - In terms of having projections at 25kmX25km rather than
     50kmX50km introduces additional atmospheric processes and geographic features (mountain
     ranges and islands) that may be useful in better representing climate at the local level
     (this will need to be verified through application).

     Slide 6, Bullet point 6 - Note that UKCIP02 includes information on changes in sea level
     and UK marine climate (see chapter 06).  This information is not as extensive as that to
     be provided by UKCIP08, and did not include projections under the sea.

     Slide 8 - UKCIP08, like UKCIP02 addresses the uncertainty arising from that associated
     with the future emissions of GHG (atmospheric concentration of GHG) by providing
     projections of changes in climate based on use of a discreet number of emission
     scenarios (SRES emission scenarios).  This point needs to be clear throughout the
     presentation.  It should also be mentioned that UKCIP08 provide a representation of a
     range of uncertainty, it does not necessary account for all uncertainty.

     Slide 9  - quite complex, but I can see the advantage of this type of presentation.  I
     would prefer to use GJJ's slides that show the implications of additional information
     and stay away from the joint probabilities representation.

     Slide 10 - quite complex and will be a challenge to communicate.  I would caution you in
     using this and suggest simplifying the slide (remember the difficulty and questions
     raise during David's presentation of this type of information at the UKCIP08 learning
     day.  Perhaps David Sexton could suggest a simpler presentation.

     Slide 11 - Agree with Ag's suggestion regarding the title of this slide.  You may find
     that there are better ways of showing what information will be provided (e.g., posters
     shown at the last SG meeting - see Ag).  I would also note that climate sensitivity
     (horizontal axes on pdf) is not a UKCIP08 variable and including it may cause some
     confusion.  I would also be careful about including the numerical values as I believe
     that the intention is not to include interaction and running total of weights.

     Slide 12 - need to emphasis that these are preliminary results that do not include all
     aspects of the modelling (e.g., do not believe that they include carbon cycle feedback).

     Slide 13 -  I suggested you use our slide on the weather generator from the training
     workshop slides (or at least components of it).  I believe It more clearly depicts how
     the weather generator perturbs the observed climate by sampling off the PDF.

     Slide 16 - Including Bayesian, discrepancy, etc. could be too complex for the intended
     audience.  I would suggest raising the related issues in a context that the audience may
     better understand (e.g., difficulties with statistical techniques may be more than
     required/possible to provide).

     Slide 17 and 18 - My advise is to keep it simple.

     Slide 20 (see earlier e-mail).

     As I said, this will be a challenge and I would be careful about raising the level
     unnecessarily above that that the audience can take in.

     Roger

     ----- Original Message -----

          From: [2]Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)
          To: [3]UKCIP08 ; [4]Jenkins, Geoff ; [5]David Sexton ; [6]Chris Kilsby ; [7]Phil
          Jones
          Cc: [8]Stephens, Ag
          Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:01 PM
          Subject: Presentation for Defra officials on UKCIP08- comments please
          Dear all,
          On 31st January I'll be doing a session for (about 20) Defra officials to bring them
          up to speed on UKCIP08 (particularly on what probabilistic modelling actually is),
          how it will be presented, and get them thinking about any work they might need to
          commission.  None are scientists but I thought I'd have a go at the science with
          them anyway to see if it's possible to get it across in slightly more detail than
          the prep workshop level for example.   Attached is the draft presentation so far.
          I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at some of the slides as follows to
          check I'm not saying anything incorrect, as follows:
          Geoff/David- slides 2,3,5,8,9,10,11,12,16,17,18,19
          Chris/Phil- slide 13
          UKCIP- slides 4,6,7,14,15.  I also need some help with slide 20; would it be
          possible to do a quick ask round of the users' panel and ask for some examples, so
          they're a bit more realistic than me just making them up?
          Ag- if you fancy taking a general look!
          I'll be adding some more "Defra-relevant" material on how UKCIP08 relates to policy
          etc. as well at the end and tidying up the presentation so no need to comment on
          style, text size etc.
          Comments by the 17th if possible would be much appreciated!
          Kind Regards,
          Kathryn
          <<2008-01-02 UKCIP08 Defra teach in.ppt>>
          Kathryn Humphrey
          Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Team, Defra
          Zone 3F Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 3JR
          tel 0207 238 3362 fax 0207 238 3341

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)



          This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only.
          If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose,
          store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform
          the sender.
          Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked
          for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no
          responsibility once it has left our systems.
          Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored and/or
          recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other
          lawful purposes.

   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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

