From: Phil Jones To: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA)" Subject: Fwd: RE: Outstanding comms plan issues Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:10:59 +0100 Cc: "Roger Street" , "Clare Goodess" ,, "Winter, Guy (SEERAD)" , "Vicky Pope" , "Steven Wilson" , "Sear, Chris (CESA)" , "Rob Wilby" , "Rachel Warren" , "Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC)" , "Phil Newton" ,"Phil Jones" , "Phil James" , "Marguerite Gascoine" , "Linda Livingston" , "Geoff Jenkins" , "geoff jenkins at home" , "David Sexton" , "Chris Kilsby" , "Butt, Adrian (CESA)" , "Bryan Lawrence" , "Brian Hoskins" , "Barry McAuley" , "Ag Stephens" Kathryn, Made some slight mods to the WG definition. Maybe Chris should check this and then we'll be there on this definition. Cheers Phil >X-VirusChecked: Checked >X-Env-Sender: kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK >X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-67.messagelabs.com!1182153653!16925857!1 >X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,- >X-Originating-IP: [195.92.40.48] >X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.16,434,1175468400"; > d="doc'32?scan'32,208,32";a="3997439" >Subject: RE: Outstanding comms plan issues >Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:00:44 +0100 >X-MS-Has-Attach: yes >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >Thread-Topic: Outstanding comms plan issues >Thread-Index: AcewxUEWmbycgv6dRPW5zHVRv1IojQAuHs8g >From: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA)" >To: >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2007 08:02:06.0823 (UTC) >FILETIME=[F6D0E770:01C7B17E] >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >I'm very happy to send this to the users' panel for recommendation to >the SG, if those suggested below (Geoff, David S, Roger, Chris K, Phil >Jones) are happy to work up definitions based on the latest version we >have, attached. > >Kathryn > >PS congratulations on your Gong, Brian! > >-----Original Message----- >From: Roger Street [mailto:roger.street@ukcip.org.uk] >Sent: 17 June 2007 10:51 >To: Clare Goodess; Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA); >david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk >Cc: Winter, Guy (SEERAD); Vicky Pope; Steven Wilson; Sear, Chris (CESA); >Rob Wilby; Rachel Warren; Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC); Phil Newton; Phil >Jones; Phil James; Marguerite Gascoine; Linda Livingston; Geoff Jenkins; >geoff jenkins at home; David Sexton; Chris Kilsby; Butt, Adrian (CESA); >Bryan Lawrence; Brian Hoskins; Barry McAuley; Ag Stephens >Subject: Re: Outstanding comms plan issues > >With respect to the changes suggested by Clare (green inserts within the > >text) I am comfortable with the suggested changes. I am, however, >somewhat >concerned with the definition for weather generator but this relates to >a >personal perception and my concerns as to how this would be interpreted >by >users. I would prefer not suggesting that the weather generator >generates >weather data but that it generates weather variables at the daily and >sub-daily level consistent with the projected climate. As such, I would > >prefer something along the lines of the following definition: > >Weather generators are statistically-based computer programs that use >existing weather records and random number sampling to produce long >timeseries of synthetic daily and sub-daily variables. The statistical >properties of the generated weather-like variables are expect to be >similar >to those of the existing weather record. The UKCIP08 weather generator >bases its daily and sub-daily variables for future time periods on the >statistical nature of the PDF data chosen to drive it. The variables >generated are those required by many applications: precipitation, >maximum >and minimum temperature, rainfall, solar radiation and wind speed, as >well >as measures of atmospheric water vapour and evapotranspiration. > >In terms of the definitions for scenarios and projections, those >ascribed to >me are actually those developed through the deliberations within Chapter >2 >of the IPCC WGII for which Tim Carter was one of the Lead Authors. My >understanding after talking with Tim was that these definitions, which >are >the result of considerable discussion within the IPCC impacts, >vulnerability >and adaptation community, will be included with the WGII publication. I >suggest that the definitions to be included and used within UKCIP08 do >need >further consideration to ensure that they are clearly identifying what >UKCIP08 will be delivering - probabilistic projections and scenarios. >The >definitions within UKCIP08 should be informed not constrained by the >IPCC >deliberations and should be directed at informing the user community >(client >focused). > >I also agree with Clare that we should be providing a definition of what >is >meant by probabilistic within the context of UKCIP08. > >In terms of a way forward, would it be reasonable to ask the following >to >develop for the specified terms definitions for approval by the SG >(after >seeking views of the Users' Panel): >MOHC - baseline period, climate, climate change, climate model, >deterministic, and probability/probabilistic density function; >Newcastle - weather generator; and >UKCIP - scenarios and projections. > >These could be done over the next couple of weeks with a single request >for >views going out to the Users' Panel in July. > >Roger > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Clare Goodess" >To: ; "Humphrey, Kathryn (GA)" > >Cc: "Roger Street" ; "Ag Stephens" >; "Barry McAuley" ; > >"Brian Hoskins" ; "Bryan Lawrence" >; "Butt, Adrian (CESA)" >; "Chris Kilsby" >; >"David Sexton" ; "geoff jenkins at home" >; "Geoff Jenkins" >; >"Linda Livingston" ; "Marguerite >Gascoine" ; "Phil James" >; "Phil Jones" ; "Phil >Newton" >; "Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC)" >; "Rachel Warren" ; > >"Rob Wilby" ; "Sear, Chris (CESA)" >; "Steven Wilson" ; "Vicky > >Pope" ; "Winter, Guy (SEERAD)" > >Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 6:59 PM >Subject: RE: Outstanding comms plan issues > > > > Dear all > > > > I was looking at this glossary on the train yesterday and have a few > > relatively minor comments on some of the entries - added in green to > > Kathryn's latest draft. > > > > But I found the definitions of projections and scenarios very > > confusing, with problems in both the IPCC and Roger's wording which I > > couldn't think how to resolve - so it was interesting to see this > > email discussion. There do seem to be some fundamental differences > > and still confusion, so I'm afraid that some more discussion is > > needed (sorry Kathryn!). > > > > We agreed at the last meeting to add deterministic - and following > > this logic through, I think that we should also have added >probabilistic. > > > > According to the key messages, UKCIP08 will be providing > > 'probabilistic projections'. It therefore seems rather confusing to > > read that 'projections are generally less comprehensive than > > scenarios'. This implies to the user that the UKCIP08 probabilistic > > projections are less comprehensive than the UKCIP02 scenarios. Which > > is not the intended message - though it depends what you mean by > > 'less comprehensive'. > > > > Over the last few months, I have been persuaded (by discussions with > > people like Tim Carter) that we should avoid talking about > > 'probabilistic scenarios'. > > > > I agree with David that it makes no sense to say that scenarios > > include projections - when our definition of the latter includes > > uncertainties/probabilities. Perhaps the solution is to make a clear > > distinction between 'projections' - which can be deterministic or > > probabilistic - and 'probabilistic projections'. > > > > At least we all seem agreed on not using 'prediction'! > > > > I hope that this has not further muddied the waters, best wishes, >Clare > > > > > > > > At 15:23 14/06/2007, david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>I am off for a week and half now and have a few things to sort out >here > >>so I won't be able to give you any text for PDFs. I think that might >be > >>best left until the report is written because it depends a lot on what > >>the report writers think. Other comments in the text... > >> > >>On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:03 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA) wrote: > >> > All, > >> > > >> > You seem to have all more or less agreed on the key messages which >is > >> > great. However, the glossary is continuing to bring up a range of > >> > divergent views! > >> > > >> > I've had more comments and have got amended definitions in the > >> > attached. David and Chris, who couldn't make last week's meeting, > >> > have questioned the use of the AR4 definitions (Chris- too >technical > >> > for the layperson, see comments in the attached) and the > >> > projections/scenarios definition (David- not in agreement with MOHC > >> > definitions). David, I am keen not to open up the debate again on >the > >> > differences between scenarios, projections and predictions (the >latter > >> > of which we're not using at all) as we've already had an >astonishingly > >> > long conversation on this one and I thought had come to agreement. > >> > >>For the time being I think we should remove any reference to "climate > >>predictions" in the AR4 definition of projections because we haven't >got > >>a glossary term for "climate prediction". So "...climate models. >Climate > >>projections depend upon the emission/conce..." would be better. > >> > >> > >> > >> > However if you can find support from the rest of the SG then I'll > >> > open this one up again; otherwise, I'd like to stick with the > >> > definitions we have which are consistent with the AR4 WG2 ones, > >> > defining projections as the bit that includes uncertainty and > >> > scenarios not. > >> > >>I must be missing something here but where does AR4 say "projections >as > >>the bit that includes uncertainty and scenarios not". Anyway, AR4 also > >>says "climate projections serve as the raw material for scenarios" so > >>how can scenarios not include uncertainty when projections do? > >> > >>I still think there is confusion and that this issue will arise again > >>when it comes to report writing. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Can I also have actual text if you want to change the definitions, >as > >> > otherwise I am just guessing on what you are asking for (David, I >like > >> > your point on providing an explicit def of probability and PDF, but > >> > can you offer me some text, plus some for stochastic and error if >you > >> > want these in)? > >> > >>I don't think we need stochastic and error, I just wondered why we had > >>"deterministic" there in the first place. > >> > >> > >>Cheers, David > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Kind Regards, > >> > > >> > Kathryn > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >______________________________________________________________________ > >> > From: Roger Street [mailto:roger.street@ukcip.org.uk] > >> > Sent: 14 June 2007 07:21 > >> > To: Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA); 'Ag Stephens'; 'Barry McAuley'; >'Brian > >> > Hoskins'; 'Bryan Lawrence'; Butt, Adrian (CESA); 'C Goodess'; >'Chris > >> > Kilsby'; 'David Sexton'; 'Geoff Jenkins'; 'Geoff Jenkins'; 'Linda > >> > Livingston'; 'Marguerite Gascoine'; 'Phil James'; 'Phil Jones'; >'Phil > >> > Newton'; Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC); 'Rachel Warren'; 'Rob Wilby'; > >> > Sear, Chris (CESA); 'Steven Wilson'; 'Vicky Pope'; Winter, Guy > >> > (SEERAD) > >> > Subject: RE: Outstanding comms plan issues > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > As this information is being used by the impacts, vulnerability and > >> > adaptation community and Chapter 2 within the IPCC WGII >specifically > >> > discussed these concepts and definitions as part of their remit >from > >> > that perspective, I would prefer to use the definitions they have > >> > developed. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I will look for these other definitions later today. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Roger > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >______________________________________________________________________ > >> > > >> > From: Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA) > >> > [mailto:kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK] > >> > Sent: 13 June 2007 16:32 > >> > To: Ag Stephens; Barry McAuley; Brian Hoskins; Bryan Lawrence; >Butt, > >> > Adrian (CESA); C Goodess; Chris Kilsby; David Sexton; Geoff >Jenkins; > >> > Geoff Jenkins; Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA); Linda Livingston; >Marguerite > >> > Gascoine; Phil James; Phil Jones; Phil Newton; Prosser, Havard >(WAG- > >> > EPC); Rachel Warren; Rob Wilby; Roger Street; Sear, Chris (CESA); > >> > Steven Wilson; Vicky Pope; Winter, Guy (SEERAD) > >> > Subject: Outstanding comms plan issues > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > All, > >> > > >> > Attached is an updated set of key messages and glossary for the > >> > UKCIP08 comms plan. > >> > > >> > For the glossary, the AR4 definitions for projections and scenarios > >> > differ to those Roger has from the co-author of the WGII report. > >> > Which do you want to use? Also if anyone has a better definition >of > >> > deterministic pls let me have it as the AR4 doesn't give one. >You'll > >> > also want to check the other definitions as I've either cut them >down > >> > from those presented in the AR4, or added sections to make them > >> > UKCIP08 specific. Also the only definition I can find of a weather > >> > generator is very old! > >> > > >> > Comments back to me by close Friday would be v helpful. > >> > > >> > Kathryn > >> > > >> > <<2007-06-13 comms plan Key Messages and glossary.doc>> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 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. > >> > email message attachment > >> > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:03 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA) wrote: > >> > > Cc: Ag Stephens , Barry McAuley > >> > > , Brian Hoskins > >> > > , Bryan Lawrence > >> > > , "Butt, Adrian (CESA)" > >> > > , Clare Goodess >, > >> > > Chris Kilsby , David Sexton > >> > > , geoff jenkins at home > >> > > , Geoff Jenkins > >> > > , Linda Livingston > >> > > , Marguerite Gascoine > >> > > , Phil James >, > >> > > Phil Jones , Phil Newton , > >> > > "Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC)" , > >> > > Rachel Warren , Rob Wilby > >> > > , Roger Street > >> > > , "Sear, Chris (CESA)" > >> > > , Steven Wilson , > >> > > Vicky Pope , "Winter, Guy (SEERAD)" > >> > > , "Murphy, James" > >> > > > >> > > In-Reply-To: > >> > > ><65D9B941E291E141821FEC1AB608D203210AC9@SAMC2V1T.DEMETER.ZEUS.GSI.GOV.UK > > > >> > > References: > >> > > > >> > > ><65D9B941E291E141821FEC1AB608D203210AC9@SAMC2V1T.DEMETER.ZEUS.GSI.GOV.UK > > > >> > > Content-Type: text/plain > >> > > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:05:52 +0100 > >> > > Message-Id: > >> > > <1181811953.5610.55.camel@eld432.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> > >> > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > >> > > X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-27.rhel4.6) > >> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> > > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2007 09:05:53.0499 (UTC) FILETIME= > >> > > [360A52B0:01C7AE63] > >> > > Return-Path: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk > >> > > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > here are some quick comments. I probably made some similar ones a > >> > > while > >> > > back. > >> > > > >> > > General comment on glossary: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > A general comment is that I can see the point of having a >glossary > >> > > early > >> > > on so that terms are consistent across different communications. >But > >> > > I > >> > > really feel that a lot of these are scientific and that they need >to > >> > > be > >> > > correct for the report and consistent with the ideas of the >report > >> > > writers (Geoff and James and to a lesser extent me, Phil and >Chris > >> > > and > >> > > Stephen Dye). These ideas will develop as the report is written >so I > >> > > don't think it helps the report writers to set in stone these >terms. > >> > > > >> > > Also, I think the glossary has several inconsistencies in it >which > >> > > will > >> > > cause confusion. So here are my comments: > >> > > > >> > > Finally, we have to be really careful with the terms "prediction" > >> > > and > >> > > "uncertainty" because both have connotations to the lay person >which > >> > > are > >> > > different to the scientist - scientific predictions should always > >> > > have > >> > > an estimate of uncertainty associated with them, where a >prediction > >> > > to a > >> > > lay person might mean a one-off value. "Error" is another good > >> > > example. > >> > > I would try to avoid these terms in the glossary and the report. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Specific comments: > >> > > > >> > > PROJECTIONS, SCENARIOS and "predictions": > >> > > At MOHC we see a climate projection as some plausible climate >that > >> > > is an > >> > > outcome of some inputs e.g. emission scenario. It has no >likelihood > >> > > assigned to it. Here, we see "climate predictions" as a set of > >> > > projections which have been calibrated by the observations and > >> > > therefore > >> > > have an assigned likelihood. It seems this is more like the AR4 > >> > > definition of SCENARIO as AR4 use observed data (see AR4 defn) >and > >> > > therefore scenarios DO ascribe likelihoods. This seems to >contradict > >> > > Roger's last line on "projections" which says scenarios do not > >> > > ascribe > >> > > likelihoods. Also, the product has always been referred to as the > >> > > "UKCIP08 scenarios" and they definitely assign likelihoods. I >also > >> > > disagree with Roger's last sentence on "PROJECTIONS" - I'd say > >> > > projections are not probabilistic. > >> > > > >> > > So a temporary suggestion would be to use the AR4 definition of > >> > > "PROJECTION" but delete the confusing bit relating it to > >> > > "predictions" > >> > > which haven't been defined in the glossary i.e. delete > >> > > "distinguished...projections". > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > PDF: I would use "Probability Distribution Function" cos it has >an > >> > > element of subjective uncertainty in it. Probability Density > >> > > functions > >> > > are to me more analytical e.g. Gaussian, exponential. Also, the > >> > > definition does describe what a PDF is, but it doesn't convey how > >> > > the > >> > > PDF should be viewed because it doesn't convey what "probability" >is > >> > > measuring. For UKCIP08, probability is measuring the degree to >which > >> > > future climates are consistent with the information used to > >> > > construct > >> > > the scenarios (climate model data, and observations) and the > >> > > assumptions > >> > > and methods used in constructing them i.e. they are a convenient > >> > > summary > >> > > statement of all that data given some assumptions, which are more > >> > > usable > >> > > than the data itself in helping planners make decisions. This is > >> > > different to the definition learnt at school where probability of > >> > > say > >> > > rolling a dice can be measured by a repeated experiment. Climate >is > >> > > a > >> > > one-off so there is no repeated experiment and so the schoolboy > >> > > definition doesn't apply and this needs to be explained. A > >> > > consequence > >> > > of this is the PDF will change in UKCIPnext because better >models, > >> > > methods and more observations will change it. > >> > > > >> > > Deterministic: means the output (i.e. from a single run of a >typical > >> > > climate model) is based solely on the inputs (here the model, its > >> > > input > >> > > parameter values, and the initial conditions). What word are you > >> > > contrasting this against. It should be contrasted against >"random" > >> > > or > >> > > "stochastic" where there is a random element involved that can > >> > > change > >> > > the sytem. Hopefully, this is not be contrasted against > >> > > "probabilistic". > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Cheers, David > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 16:32 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA) >wrote: > >> > > > All, > >> > > > > >> > > > Attached is an updated set of key messages and glossary for the > >> > > > UKCIP08 comms plan. > >> > > > > >> > > > For the glossary, the AR4 definitions for projections and > >> > > scenarios > >> > > > differ to those Roger has from the co-author of the WGII >report. > >> > > > Which do you want to use? Also if anyone has a better >definition > >> > > of > >> > > > deterministic pls let me have it as the AR4 doesn't give one. > >> > > You'll > >> > > > also want to check the other definitions as I've either cut >them > >> > > down > >> > > > from those presented in the AR4, or added sections to make them > >> > > > UKCIP08 specific. Also the only definition I can find of a > >> > > weather > >> > > > generator is very old! > >> > > > > >> > > > Comments back to me by close Friday would be v helpful. > >> > > > > >> > > > Kathryn > >> > > > > >> > > > <<2007-06-13 comms plan Key Messages and glossary.doc>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > 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. > >> > > -- > >> > > ______________________________________________________ > >> > > David Sexton PhD Climate Research Scientist > >> > > Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB UK > >> > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886524 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > >> > > E-mail: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk >http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > >> > > > >> > > > >> > email message attachment > >> > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:03 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CESA) wrote: > >> > > <<2007-06-13 comms plan Key Messages and glossary.doc>> Some >initial > >> > > suggestions and comments > >> > > I think UKCIP needs its own defs. AR4 too complex and >'scientific' > >> > > for lay users. > >> > > Chris > >> > > > >>-- > >>______________________________________________________ > >>David Sexton PhD Climate Research Scientist > >>Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB UK > >>Tel: +44 (0)1392 886524 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > >>E-mail: david.sexton@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >-------- > > > > Dr Clare Goodess > > Climatic Research Unit > > School of Environmental Sciences > > University of East Anglia > > Norwich > > NR4 7TJ > > UK > > > > Tel: +44 -1603 592875 > > Fax: +44 -1603 507784 > > Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > > > > > > > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2007-06-14 comms plan Key Messages and glossary_goodess11.doc"