date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:48:56 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: SOAP to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,sfbtett@meto.gov.uk, cubasch@dkrz.de,schnur@dkrz.de,storch@gkss.de,jones@gkss.de Dear all, Our EU-proposal (SOAP) for February 15th is now beginning to take shape. Much of it will be based upon last year's INTEGRATE proposal, so hopefully the amount of work should be less than last year. The major difference is that there will be no new collection of paleodata; instead we will combine, analyses, synthesise, calibrate existing paleodata to estimate past climate and compare these with the model simulations. We have dropped the collection of new paleodata because it doesn't fit in with the key action (2.1.3) being called this time. It simplifies some project management/structure problems, since we no longer need to get all the paleodata collected within 18 months, since it should all be available already. Once all the paleo-collection partners are dropped, however, the number of countries involved (UK and Germany) is rather low, and the budget is likely to fall below the preferred minimum (1.4 million Euros [this is the minimum contribution requested from the EU - the actual total will be higher still!]). We have decided, therefore, that it would be useful to include additional partners to contribute to the synthesis of paleodata etc. We have approached Juerg Luterbacher/Heinz Wanner and Joel Guiot to provide input on the European and Mediterranean paleoreconstructions. We have approached Orson van de Plassche to provide input on paleo-sea-level over the past 500 years or so. We are waiting for confirmation from them all, thought they have all responded positively to our initial e-mail. As usual, getting the A3 forms filled in, signed and returned to me is an immediate priority. PDF files containing the forms (just fill in page A3) and accompanying notes are attached to this e-mail. See below for acronyms, partner numbers etc. I have also listed a guide budget next to each partner. This is *completely* arbitrary and was made up to produce a total of 1.4 million Euros. We may have to change the amounts according to the work to be done. But note that the modelling centres have a much greater proportion of the budget than with INTEGRATE, to reflect to more central role of modelling in SOAP - if you are happy with the increased budget (I know that GKSS and MET.OFFICE have to find matching funds) then please reflect this by suggesting further analyses/work that you can do given more staff time than we allowed for INTEGRATE. The greater importance of modelling and analysis of model output is also the reason why we have suggested that this time GKSS be a principal contractor rather than an assistant to MPG.IMET. Please let me know anything that you're not happy with. For the form A3: (I have copies of last year's if you need to copy from them) Proposal acronym: SOAP Proposal number: Leave this empty Participant no. Short name Arbitrary budget (euros requested from EU) 1 UEA 340 (includes coordination costs) 2 THE MET OFFICE 210 3 MPG.IMET 220 4 GKSS 160 5? Marseille? 170? 6? Bern? 190? 7? Amsterdam 110? TOTAL= 1400 K euros We hope that much of the INTEGRATE proposal can be used for the SOAP project - especially part C, but also some of part B. However, it is not possible to remove the paleodata collection without replacing it with something - if we didn't replace it with something, our total request from EU would be something like 700 K euros - too small! So we need to alter the workpackages to take into account the greater emphasis on modelling etc. One suggestion: WP1: Project coordination. WP2: The NEW coupled model runs from 1500AD-present (WP5 of INTEGRATE). WP3: Development of calibrated paleoclimate reconstructions from existing paleodata (similar to WP2 of INTEGRATE, but modified). WP4: Combining model output and paleoclimate data, for validation, interpretation, signal detection etc (similar to WP6 of INTEGRATE, but more extensive). WP5: Sea level since 1500: (i) running couple model output through thermal expansion and glacier melt models to hindcast sea level; (ii) synthesise existing (50-100 year resolution) paleo-sea-level records (and long tide gauges) for past 500 years (NW Europe and US east coast); (iii) intercompare to validate model, to assess natural contribution to 20th century rise etc. Questions: (1) Is the sea level bit useful? (2) Should analysis of model simulations alone (i.e., not in comparison with the paleoclimate data) be done in WP2, WP4 or in a separate workpackage? (3) Should we have a WP3 and WP4 just for temperature data, and then have the same two workpackages repeated for moisture (precip/drought) data, making a total of 7 workpackages? (4) We should, I feel, identify specific case studies (variables/locations) where we have good paleodata and where we need to know how well the climate models perform. Initial list: (i) European temperature; (ii) S. Europe/Mediterranean drought; (iii) NAO; (iv) US drought (good paleodata, maybe a solar signal); (v) Northern Hemisphere temperatures (hemispheric mean, plus some regional spatial resolution). How about ENSO? Given that we're not collecting new paleodata, ENSO comparisons would be limited to existing reconstructions (Stahle, Mann, Quinn?). Other suggestions or things that should be deleted? Sorry for such a long e-mail! Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Please always reply to both Keith and me. Tim Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\rtdp_forms_en1.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\rtdp_guide_en1.pdf" Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: +44 1603 592089 Senior Research Associate | fax: +44 1603 507784 Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk School of Environmental Sciences | web-site: University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock: UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm