cc: <e.hedderwick@nmsi.ac.uk>, "Christopher Baker" <CKB@wpo.nerc.ac.uk>, "Philip  Newton" <PPN@wpo.nerc.ac.uk>
date: Tue Feb  5 13:48:10 2002
from: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Science Museum text
to: "Sheila Anderson" <sand@nerc.ac.uk>

   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 <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk> 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.
