date: Tue Feb 22 17:25:51 2005
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: URGENT huge cuts to be made in IMPRINT WP1
to: Chappellaz Jerome <jeromeatXYZxyze.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr>, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.MassonatXYZxyz.fr>, Hubertus Fischer <hufischeratXYZxyz-bremerhaven.de>, petit <petitatXYZxyze.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr>
Thank you for these sacrifices. We genuinely are attempting to keep the balance on Science
and prioritize data production most likely to be compatible with the model comparison
aspect - the forcing side we have tried to protect . If it is possible , I see the value of
the methane gradient work , but this must rest with Jurg and Hubertus. From our part in
task 1.1 we will remove the dust work - and support strongly any initiatives to support it
elsewhere (as a collaboration with IMPRINT ) if you propose it.
At 16:51 22/02/2005, Chappellaz Jerome wrote:
A 17:24 22/02/2005 +0100, Valerie Masson-Delmotte a �crit :
We are in big trouble for IMPRINT WP1 budget. We are 25% over the upper limit for WP1.
We will defend the forcing reconstruction as a key priority and therefore have to take
about 300 keuros out of task 1.1.
As for task 1.1, the dilemna is the largest. If you look at the full proposal it is
really structured to propose revised regional and hemispheric temperature changes. It is
crucial to include there mainly calibrated and annual dated proxies which can also be
compared to the model results.
We have already argued about this but Keith and I really think that without climate
simulations including dust or even including a realistic representation of polar vortex
it will be difficult to make the dust reconstruction a central point of the project.
Do you think that it is possible to take the dust work out of IMPRINT at this stage? If
we do not do it then typically the tree ring work cannot be done.
We would like to hear from you about this urgently.
If the degree of prioritizing reaches this level, I don't see how we can keep the
pressure on the interest of dust size distribution and its striking link with solar
variability... I know that you are among the person who understands the interest of such
data. Note that cutting this will also mean to cut the Italian contribution (CONISMA,
formerly UNIMIB). I expect you and Keith to look at the end at the equilibrium between
disciplines within WP1 so that after such cut the ice input to WP1 do not become
ridiculous. Not to speak about the share of national contributions...
For your information, I took the yet-unconstrained decision to remove our input on the
CH4 gradient from task 1.5. Which means that for LGGE today, remains in WP1 only the
activity related with the volcanic forcing, through the sulphur isotope pionneering
work, on which I expect no more further cuts. On the other hand I expect that other
partners remain honest in their request and also accept to make cuts where it's not
absolutely first priority.
All the best,
Laboratoire de Glaciologie et G�ophysique de l'Environnement (LGGE, UMR 5183
54 rue Moli�re - Domaine Universitaire - BP 96 - 38402 St Martin d'H�res Cedex, FRANCE
Tel : +33 (0) 4 76 82 42 64 - Fax: +33 (0) 4 76 82 42 01
chappellazatXYZxyze.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr ; email@example.com
LGGE gas team web site
Want to know about climate, past, present and future ? :
Visit the PAGES web site
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.