cc: ,F.I.Woodward@sheffield.ac.uk date: Wed Nov 15 12:28:25 2000 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: proposal 4A to: Phil Jones , Mike Hulme ,"N.W.Arnell" What amazes me about Simon's comments , is the presumption that there is general acceptance that biological sequestration is irrelevant to the question of carbon futures. It seems to me that very little quantitative support for arguing this (one way or another) is available. There are large uncertainties surrounding the location, type, sustainability (in terms of climate responses and societal and commercial interactions) of forests and major problems with real world measurements and projections of forest carbon . There is also a lot more potential to sequester carbon in forest ecosystems than is represented in the standing mass of wood. It is plainly a topic of great significance to the COP discussions , yet the assumption contained in these messages is that Tyndall is not interested in biological sequestration - or work that aims to provide some flesh to the skeleton of skepticism of the Tyndall coordinators (or any basis for arguing with the "plant more forests" lobby) . I agree with Phil that an earlier brush off for this proposal was clearly possible - given the basis on which it is being done now. The pre-judgement of what would or would not be funded by NERC , was always , and remains , misguided. Tyndall should decide what it considers as most important as regards the science (or what other criteria it cares to use e.g. making a big noise) and promote it - regardless of whether it might or might not be proposed elsewhere. It also seems to me , that you should start looking outside of the consortium to judge ( or vet ) the scientific credibility of the choices you do make. At 11:52 AM 11/15/00 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: Dear All, Ian has just sent me a copy of the proposal for Tyndall he has written. He is away fro the next 10 days, so he had to get it done quickly. Keith and I will be commenting on it whilst he's away. I want to put it on record that I have been totally unimpressed with the way the first round of proposals have been handled. Getting comments like these at this time is not at all helpful. I am supposedly Nigel's deputy on RP4 but I've only got emails about one of my proposals and not about the other. I did get a summary from Mike at the beginning of last week, so I think I know where I am with my other two. NERC will not fund Ian's proposal in their general round. This proposal is only partly about the NAO so COAPEC is totally out of the question. The links between the proposal and RP2 are tangential, as they are with RP4. Just because the original main Tyndall Centre proposal had nothing on the biosphere and the carbon cycle along the lines of this proposal, doesn't mean the three of you can bat it about like you are. It would have been better to have got all your views in good time, before Ian spent more time putting the proposal together. How can you say that the proposal won't attract high marks ? Isn't this prejudging the whole issue ? If you knew it wasn't going to get a high score, why tell us to submit a 6 page proposal ? At 17:08 14/11/00 +0000, Mike Hulme wrote: Nigel, It seems that neither RP2 nor RP4 are that keen on fully embracing this project. Below are Simon's comments which have not yet been relayed to Ian. My own view follows Simon's line in the last paragraph in that it still looks to me like NERC could fund it. In which case, it may not attract high marks in the evaluation. Nigel, do you feel there is anything further to say to Ian? It seems he is intending to go ahead with a 6-page submission. I only want him to do so if he is fully aware of the various comments that have been made about it. As RPM for RP4, it would be best for these comments - plus any additional ones - to be relayed directly to him. Mike _______________________________________________________________- Comments on 4A: Investigating past, present and future effects of global- scale climatic extremes on terrestrial carbon sequestration. My feeling is that this proposal does not fit too well into RP2 because we are generally rather sceptical of biological sequestration as a sustainable approach to decarbonisation. This proposal highlights yet another uncertainty and problem with the approach. To justify funding it under RP2 it may need to be argued that this source of uncertainty is highly significant and/or has been ignored by the community up to now. How important is this phenomenon relative to other objections such as irreversibility and uncertainty in initial sequestration measurements? What has the IPCC said about it in its recent assessment of sequestration? Could this phenomenon influence how the nations in favour of sequestration are thinking and conducting assessments of its potential role? I also feel that the proposal as it stands seems quite eligible for NERC funding, e.g. under COAPEC which has a special interest in NAO I understand. The links with 2A are tangential rather than strong for the above reason that this is only one amongst a range of uncertainties.It is not immediately obvious how the proposal can become more interdisciplinary. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom Phone: +44-1603-592090 Fax: +44-1603-507784