cc: 'Philip  Newton' <ppn@nerc.ac.uk>, "'cvy@nerc.ac.uk'" <cvy@nerc.ac.uk>,  "'cg1@soc.soton.ac.uk'" <cg1@soc.soton.ac.uk>, "'nth@nerc.ac.uk'" <nth@nerc.ac.uk>, "'nrc@nerc.ac.uk'" <nrc@nerc.ac.uk>
date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 13:39:47 -0000
from: Bill Turrell <B.Turrell@marlab.ac.uk>
subject: RE: RCC Science Plan, and Exciting Results
to: lkeigwin@whoi.edu, plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de, ewwo@bas.ac.uk,  "r.r.dickson@cefas.co.uk" <R.R.DICKSON@cefas.co.uk>,  Simon.J.Brown@defra.gsi.gov.uk, mccave@esc.cam.ac.uk, haugan@gfi.uib.no,  studhope@glg.ed.ac.uk, Bill Turrell <B.Turrell@marlab.ac.uk>,  rwood@meto.gov.uk, sfbtett@meto.gov.uk, j.m.slingo@reading.ac.uk,  p.j.valdes@reading.ac.uk, j.lowe@rhbnc.ac.uk, jym@soc.soton.ac.uk,  pc@soc.soton.ac.uk, a.j.watson@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,  m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, 'Meric Srokosz' <mas@soc.soton.ac.uk>

Meric

Well done on a good start to the Science Plan. Please find comments below.

General

1. Have you narrowed "rapid" down to "annual to centennial" ? This phrase is
used in specific objectives 2 and 7, but elsewhere "millennial", "decadal -
multi-decadal" (e.g. p6) . "multi-decadal" (p9) and other time scales (e.g.
p9 "Rapid climate change events, such as 8.3kyr event" ) creep in. Does this
need streamlining ? "annual - centennial" may be too restrictive, but still
I think it should be clearer what time scales will be focused on.

2. Throughout cited references are a little NERC-ish. In a thematic program,
is it wise to focus at this stage too much on one "view" ? I especially feel
this in Sections 2 (see below), and 5. 

3. Section 2. I know this may sound like blowing our own trumpet, but I do
feel that the long-standing  Norwegian / UK / Faroe collaborations has shown
some of the aspects of recent change which section 2 refers to. I suggest
that the following references are included (I indicate in the document
where). This goes with the comment above. As this is part of a UK/ Norway
initiative, the document may be read by non-UK scientists. If so, it weakens
it if it appears we are unaware of work happening elsewhere, particularly in
the Nordic region.

The development of evidence that outflow over the Greenland-Scotland Ridge
is changing follows this progression:

a) Norwegian Sea deepwater is warming (due to re-supply from convection
ceasing)

	sterhus, S. and Gammelsrod, T. The abyss of the Nordic Seas is
warming. Journal of Climate. 1999; 12(11):3297-3304.

b) Outflow is freshening

	Turrell, W. R.; Slesser, G.; Adams, R. D.; Payne, R., and
Gillibrand, P. A. Decadal variability in  the composition of Faroe Shetland
Channel Bottom Water. Deep-Sea Research. 1999; 46:1-25.

c) Outflow is warming

	Hansen, B. and Kristiansen, R. Variations of the Faroe Bank Channel
overflow. Rit Fiskideildar. 1999; 16:13-22.

d) Outflow is weakening

	Hansen, B.; Turrell, W. R., and sterhus, S. Decreasing overflow
from the Nordic seas into the Atlantic Ocean through the Faroe Bank Channel
since 1950. Nature. 2001; 411:927-930.

e) Effect is propagating out into the abyssal N Atlantic

	Dickson, R. R.; Meincke, J.; Turrell, W. R.; Dye, S. R.; Yashayaev,
I. M., and Holfort, J. First evidence of a deep ocean response to high
latitude climate forcing. Nature. Submitted.

D and e are our latest "exciting results"., and I think add a little urgency
and realism to the concept of assessing the probability of rapid climate
change impacting European climate.

4. Deliverables: These do not directly tie to the 8 objectives. You may have
decided conciously not to do this. However, I think we should have a
deliverable which explicitly meets  the objective (8) "to quantify the
probability and magnitude of rcc". After all, this is the up-front purpose
of the programme. 

I am afraid you did not re-send the implementation plan in a form I could
read, but I now have this through Julia's comments. Hence can I comment on
these for Monday ? I attach a copy of the Science plan, with trivial typos
indicated.

Bill

 <<RCC_Sci2 turrell.doc>> 



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * 
Dr W R Turrell                              Tel (Operator) : +44 (0) 1224
876544 
Oceanographic Research
     and Services Group                Tel (Direct)   : +44 (0) 1224 295429 
Marine Laboratory Aberdeen        Fax               : +44 (0) 1224 295511 
PO Box 101, Victoria Road           Mobile          : +44 (0) 7867 904 954
Aberdeen, AB11 9DB                   E-mail           :
turrellb@marlab.ac.uk
Scotland                                       URL             :
http://www.marlab.ac.uk/ 
                                                                     
The Marine Laboratory is a division of Fisheries Research Services   
           An Agency of the Scottish Executive 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * 

> ----------
> From: 	Meric Srokosz[SMTP:mas@soc.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: 	15 November 2001 14:31
> To: 	lkeigwin@whoi.edu; plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de; ewwo@bas.ac.uk;
> r.r.dickson@cefas.co.uk; Simon.J.Brown@defra.gsi.gov.uk;
> mccave@esc.cam.ac.uk; haugan@gfi.uib.no; studhope@glg.ed.ac.uk;
> B.Turrell@marlab.ac.uk; rwood@meto.gov.uk; sfbtett@meto.gov.uk;
> j.m.slingo@reading.ac.uk; p.j.valdes@reading.ac.uk; j.lowe@rhbnc.ac.uk;
> jym@soc.soton.ac.uk; pc@soc.soton.ac.uk; a.j.watson@uea.ac.uk;
> k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
> Cc: 	ppn@nerc.ac.uk; cvy@nerc.ac.uk; cg1@soc.soton.ac.uk; nth@nerc.ac.uk;
> nrc@nerc.ac.uk
> Subject: 	Rapid draft Science and Implementation Plans
> 
> <<File: RCC_Sci2>><<File: RCC_Imp2>><<File: ATT06661.txt>>
> Dear all, as promised here is the draft of the Rapid Science Plan that
> I have put together with input from the writing team. Attached as well
> is an Implementation Plan draft put together by Christine and myself.
> I have tried to take account of all the inputs I have received in drafting
> this version of the Science Plan.
> 
> Notes:
> a) the implementation plan is far from complete as we need various
> decisions from the next Steering Committee meeting (e.g. approval
> of Science Plan, schedule for AOs, etc...). However, as it is a so-
> called "living document" it will evolve over time in any case.
> b) the science plan is about 11 pages long, with a 1 page plain English
> summary to be added, plus 3 pages of references. I would not want it to
> be much longer, so if you want to add something them something else
> needs to be shortened! Suggestions for tightening / sharpening up the
> plan are welcome.
> c) I think that it is worth keeping the 3 pages of references as an
> appendix. They will be useful as a starting point for new people
> entering the field.
> d) I am aware of the need to link observations (present day and palaeo)
> to the modelling, and have tried to make this clear in the plan. However,
> the observational objectives are stated separately as I think this is
> a "cleaner" way of framing them. If there is a better way to frame the
> objectives in a more integrated way, please let me know.
> e) at the moment the 8th (last) objective is a bit of a catch-all and
> attempts
> to cover things that are integrative and cannot be fitted into the other 7
> objectives. I feel that something is necessary in this way and would
> welcome ideas on how to improve this.
> 
> The schedule now is:
> a) comments  / revisions from the Steering Committee to me by 22/11
> b) I will revise / re-draft plans for inclusion by Catrin in next SC
> papers
> by 27/11
> c) papers will be sent out to SC on Fri 30/11 by Catrin
> (about 2 weeks before meeting, given constraints of SC people
> being involved in NOClim and AGU meetings)
> d) decision on these at next SC meeting 18/12 in London
> 
> Happy reading! Regards, Meric
> 
> p.s. the attached files are in Word format. If this is a problem, let me
> know
> and I will send them in RTF or some other format.
> 

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\RCC_Sci2 turrell.doc"
