To: Keith Briffa <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: FP6-news?
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 21:29:43 +0200
Dear Keith, thanks for the update. I think I am reading much the same
message as you do. I also agree that we need focus, and not too many
groups involved. In terms of where the focus should be I agree that
DOCC is too wide, and my feeling now is to dissolve it and reorganise
under another heading with fewer groups, perhaps as an IP if Brussels
allows. I do not have any preconceived notions as to where the
co-ordinations hould lie.
I agree with you that integration with biogeochemistry is not
straight forward with Holocene climate variability except for the
vegetation feedback which may be important.
I also know of one other palaeo-based initiative, ICON, dealing with
the thermohaline circulation, coordinated by Rainer Zahn. We are
involved. This will be submitted for the call just launched under the
hot spots in the climate system heading, but may be brought over to
the next call if unsuccessful (probably). We are involved there with
a number of modelling centres and many of the palaeoceanography labs.
I guess we should discuss a bit further after summer has passed what
to do. I am very keen on the science of Holclim and hope to be able
to develop this initiative with you and others.
Last thing - any idea of when the conference Brussels wants is going
I am away for two weeks on the Greek islands, but then I am back again.
>I seem to keep getting distracted this week so I have not phoned
>again. I can say the basics here though. I went to the meeting that
>was also attended by Berger, Raynaud, Shackleton , Starkel and
>(in place of Von Storch). The rationale for the meeting was nothing
>more than The EC (Hans Brelen) felt that they ought to be organising
>a palaeoclimate conference, but there was some hinting that this
>might signal the new call (in Sept 04) but not imply any weighting
>in the appraisal of proposals. It seems definite that there will be
>money for a single (new instrument) project only , as we supposed .
>Some at the meeting spoke about a range of time scales and possible
>subject foci for the conference (and by implication also for the
>call) but I still feel strongly , on the evidence of other projects
>that I have heard are to be funded , that the need is for a sharper
>focus than was involved in our DOCC concept , and that the HOLIVAR
>approach is the optimum way forward. The problem will be scale of
>initiative (15-20 million seems a maximum likely request , with
>perhaps 12-15 a likely maximum award). The unified data / modelling
>route, as outlined in the HOLCLIM NoI seems the most likely
>candidate still. Obviously there remain difficulties even with this
>, such as geographic focus , use of the integrated data for defining
>future climate probabilities and links with socio-economic (impacts)
>community. This is also likely to clash with the direct interests of
>some major palaeoclimate scientists who focus on longer time scales
>and stronger climate and response signals. It is easier to think of
>climate forcings and the interaction of bio-geochemical cycles at
>glacial /interglacial time scales , but I am not convinced that this
>type of work would be a practical inclusion in this call. This is
>still my opinion , but an admittedly (unashamedly) biased one.
>At 07:34 PM 6/19/03 +0200, you wrote:
>>I wonder if there are any news around the meeting with Brelen on
>>FP6 that can be used. Lots of rumors around and not much specific
>>knowledge, so if you have an update I�d appreciate it.
>>P� mandag, 7. april 2003, kl. 10:46, skrev Keith Briffa:
>>>your point is exactly correct , that only one project (and I
>>>believe it should be an IP) will be allowed and with the shrinking
>>>general scale of these things, it likely needs to be very clearly
>>>focused (on integrating evidence and providing some
>>>state-of-the-art product on climate history and its causes) . I am
>>>not in Nice (have to go to 2 other meetings in May) . I am still
>>>leaning towards your institute co-ordinating this . I have not
>>>discussed anything with the rest of the HOLIVAR committee.
>>>We do need some sort of meeting but only small - there is no
>>>chance of a 25 million Euro project and many people are likely to
>>>be disappointed . I have to be in Brussels for a meeting with
>>>Brelen in June . What are you thinking about , re. a meeting?
>>>At 10:01 PM 4/3/03 +0200, you wrote:
>>>> I was just wondering whether you were coming the the EGS meeting
>>>>in Nice next week, in order for us to exchange some ideas about
>>>>how to proceed for FP6. Recent rumors says that the palaeoclimate
>>>>variablity item is in the books for the third call, and that the
>>>>call will be issued by the turn of the year, thus we should start
>>>>discussing how to proceed. So far my DOCC initiative is dormant,
>>>>and I am more inclined to develop or take part in developing an
>>>>IP if the call for proposals allow for one. But the size of these
>>>>IPs seems to be diminishing, hence a careful focussing needs to
>>>>be undertaken in order for there to be resources for the science
>>>>teams. I would be happy to discuss idea with you on this in Nice
>>>>or sometime else if you�re not there.
>>>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
>>>>All�gaten 55, N5007 Bergen, Norway
>>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>Climatic Research Unit
>>>University of East Anglia
>>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
>>All�gaten 55, N5007 Bergen, Norway
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Geology, Univ. of Bergen
Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661
The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months fellowships to PhD students
More info at: www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts