Tuesday, November 29, 2011


cc: Eric W Wolff <ewwoatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, plemkeatXYZxyz-bremerhaven.de, ewwoatXYZxyz.ac.uk, p.j.valdesatXYZxyzstol.ac.uk, r.r.dicksonatXYZxyzas.co.uk, marotzkeatXYZxyzz.de, hauganatXYZxyz.uib.no, studhopeatXYZxyz.ed.ac.uk, rwoodatXYZxyzo.gov.uk, sfbtettatXYZxyzo.gov.uk, j.m.slingoatXYZxyzding.ac.uk, Lowe J <J.LoweatXYZxyzl.ac.uk>, pcatXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk, a.j.watsonatXYZxyz.ac.uk, Alex.HaxeltineatXYZxyz.ac.uk, k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk, m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk, lkeigwinatXYZxyzi.edu, cg1atXYZxyzcury.soc.soton.ac.uk, aparatXYZxyzc.ac.uk, ppnatXYZxyzc.ac.uk
date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:38:50 -0000
from: Lowe J <J.LoweatXYZxyzl.ac.uk>
subject: RE: modelling intercomparison (continued)
to: "'I.N.McCave'" <mccaveatXYZxyz.cam.ac.uk>, masatXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk

I am in agreement with Nick and Eric. I understand the unease when
procedures depart from the norm, but sometimes pragmatism has to prevail.
In this instance, if sticking to 'the rules' means that there would be a
danger of this component of the programme falling apart at the seams, then
that would be to the detriment of the programme. Eric's assessment of the
situation I found persuasive.


-----Original Message-----
From: I.N.McCave [mailto:mccaveatXYZxyz.cam.ac.uk]
Sent: 18 March 2004 11:34
To: masatXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk
Cc: Eric W Wolff; plemkeatXYZxyz-bremerhaven.de; ewwoatXYZxyz.ac.uk;
p.j.valdesatXYZxyzstol.ac.uk; r.r.dicksonatXYZxyzas.co.uk; marotzkeatXYZxyzz.de;
hauganatXYZxyz.uib.no; studhopeatXYZxyz.ed.ac.uk; rwoodatXYZxyzo.gov.uk;
sfbtettatXYZxyzo.gov.uk; j.m.slingoatXYZxyzding.ac.uk; j.loweatXYZxyzl.ac.uk;
pcatXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk; a.j.watsonatXYZxyz.ac.uk; Alex.HaxeltineatXYZxyz.ac.uk;
k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk; m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk; lkeigwinatXYZxyzi.edu;
cg1atXYZxyzcury.soc.soton.ac.uk; aparatXYZxyzc.ac.uk; ppnatXYZxyzc.ac.uk
Subject: Re: modelling intercomparison (continued)

Dear Meric,

My opinion is the same as Eric's. We should move pragmatically, and do it
now. I forsee more complications and delay in other possibly more
bureaucratically "fair" but less effective routes.


At 08:42 18/03/2004, Eric W Wolff wrote:
>Meric et al.,
>Of course I completely understand Peter's concern. But you know that the
>motivation of the modelling subgroup was that we need to get this exercise
>started as soon as possible (while 1st round projects are still
>active!). We have already lost almost a year because our first attempt
>was unsuccessful. If there had been a lot of groups out there wanting to
>do this, my guess is that they would have found a person associated with
>them to apply last time, although I realise what Peter suggested is a
>very different mechanism. However, we have no guarantee that a second
>attempt, by a slightly different route, will be any more successful.
>My attitude, wanting to get this rolling, was that, if NERC felt this
>(Gregory) route was acceptable within their rules, then it was a good
>solution. I know this prejudges, but we are unlikely to get a better
>offer, in terms of expertise, connectivity to the international
>intercomparisons, and willingness. It still demands that the methodology
>be peer reviewed so does not compromise quality. It is not based on
>random favouritism, because it builds on a submitted outline that showed a
>willingness to do this kind of task. It seems to me that this method shows
>the steering committee doing what it should, steering!
>Peter feels we could do a tender in a similar time. I am not so sure, but
>maybe. If we do that, we have to remove Jonathans's existing outline from
>the second AO or we will have duplication. I am not so sure this is fair
>Anyway, in summary, I'd like to hear the NERC view on the legality of the
>route we proposed. I accept that, if its considered an inappropriate
>route, we have to go with a tender, but I have a feeling we would be
>losing time to bureaucracy for no result if we do that.
>I have stated a rather clear opinion to try to help Meric resolve the
>issue so i will sit back and wait for the brickbats.
>Eric Wolff
>British Antarctic Survey
>High Cross
>Madingley Road
>Cambridge CB3 0ET
>United Kingdom
>E-mail: ewwoatXYZxyz.ac.uk
>Phone: +44 1223 221491
>Fax: +44 1223 221279
>Alternate fax: +44 1223 362616
> >>> Meric Srokosz <masatXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk> 16/03/04 16:31:26 >>>
>Dear all - Peter Challenor has raised some issues regarding the
>modelling intercomparison (see below). Do others have views?
>We need to move forward on this, so I am going to set a deadline
>of noon next Monday 22nd March for imput. So if you have a view
>(of any kind) please e-mail the Steering Committee before the
>Many thanks, Meric
> >I am not exactly sure what is being proposed here. Is the plan to
> >remove Jonathan Gregory's proposal from the second AO and rebadge an
> >expanded version as the modelling intercomparison activity or is the
> >expanded version still going to be part of the AO? I am not
> >particularly keen on either. In both cases we seem to be giving a
> >proposal an 'inside track' to funding in way that does not to me to
> >be either open or fair. There may be other groups who would have bid
> >for this work if they had not thought that there was an existing
> >model intercomparison activity. I should make it plain that I have
> >no problem with Jonathan actually doing the work - he would be an
> >excellent choice; it is the mechanism I am not happy with.
> >
> >I would prefer us to put out a tender for the work (after all we
> >know what we want done). This would then be completely open and fair
> >and I would have thought we could sort it out in a similar time
> >scale to the AO.
> >
> >Peter
>Dr. Meric Srokosz, Room 254/43,Southampton Oceanography Centre (SOC)
>Empress Dock, Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK
>Tel:+44-(0)23-80596414 (direct line); Fax: +44-(0)23-80596400
>e-mail: masatXYZxyz.soton.ac.uk or M.Srokosz@soc.soton.ac.uk
>Science Coordinator NERC Rapid Climate Change Programme

Prof I.N.McCave
Department of Earth Sciences,
University of Cambridge,
Downing St.
Cambridge, CB2 3EQ.UK.
Phone: +44 1223 33 3422
Fax: +44 1223 33 3450
internet: mccaveatXYZxyz.cam.ac.uk

No comments:

Post a Comment