Thursday, December 29, 2011


cc: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
date: Tue Feb 8 12:41:07 2005
from: Keith Briffa <>
subject: RE: IMPRINT
to: "Dan Charman" <>, "Lotter, prof. dr. A.F." <>

Just to give an idea at this stage, I suspect that the nominal 740K E for each task , will
be shifted perhaps to less in 1.5 ,1.4, and 1.3, more in 1.1 and 1.2 (the 1.1 needing to
hold the "consultancy" pot for bringing in other data suppliers to workshops and including
updating of selected tree-ring records. However, we do not yet have the total task
deliverables and requests to see the balance. The specific focus for integrating the
various records will have to be explicit somewhere (though will be done by all to some
extent) and I am assuming this will be in 1.1?
At 11:28 08/02/2005, Dan Charman wrote:

Hi Andy/Keith

Yes we will cover all the peat data in 1.4. The question is whether we split the nominal
budget between 1.4 and 1.2 for this work. I have no preference as long as we have the
money to do the job from somewhere! I guess this is an issue that affects many other
parts of IMPRINT in a similar way. I gather from the emails on ice core data that we
should probably split the budget between tasks where we are working on data relevant to
both. Can you indicate what you would prefer Andy/Keith/Valerie? Thanks.

From: Keith Briffa [[1]]
Sent: Tue 08/02/2005 11:17
To: Lotter, prof. dr. A.F.
Cc:;;;;;;; Dan Charman;;
Subject: Re: IMPRINT
the tree-ring stuff will all be collated in 1.1. I would suggest ice core
data and varves would be better in 1.2 but would like Valerie to comment -
in the meantime assume they are in 1.2. 1.4 does include peat and
rhizopods. The CO2 from stomatal density does not fit in the project - we
will get this information from the ice cores.
Valerie , please comment when you can. Keith
At 10:50 08/02/2005, you wrote:
>Dear Keith,
>Slowly I am getting an overview over Task 1.2
>Yet there are still some points that need clarification from your part:
>- Does 1.1 include ice-core data, varves and tree rings? I assume
>so. This would then also signify that 1.1 would be responsible to collate
>long time series of tree-ring and varve data in relation to Holocene
>climate reconstruction
>- Does 1.4 include peat records and rhizopods? Seeing Dan Charman
>as one of the taskleader I assume so, which would also mean that 1.4
>collates these data
>- What about CO2 reconstructions for the Holocene that do not
>derive from ice-cores? I am thinking of stomatal density derived CO2
>records. They would fit into 1.5 but I am not sure whether the ice-core
>lobby will be happy to deal with them as they tend to show somewhat
>different results.
>Could you let me have a quick answer?
>Many thanks,
>Prof. Dr. Andre F. Lotter
>Dept. of Palaeoecology
>Utrecht University
>Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology
>Budapestlaan 4
>NL-3584 CD Utrecht - The Netherlands
>Tel. direct +31 30 2532653
>Tel. secretary +31 30 2532629
>Fax +31 30 2535096
>e-mail <[2]>
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784

Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784

No comments:

Post a Comment