Sunday, May 13, 2012


cc: Rik Leemans <>, Wolfgang Cramer <>
date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:54:39 +0100
from: Rik Leemans <>
subject: Re: AMS-Europe - WP1.3
to: Mike Hulme <>

I agree with you. But if we include you, we have to exclude Tim, because
the shares become just too small.

I further do not know, if we can actually use the grant to fund PhD-student
or that is is only for post-docs. If the latter, the Wageningen fee is
about 90000 euros a year. I want to have at least a post-doc for 2 years:
ie 180000, Wolfgang would get the same for Dagmar.
if we provide Mark Rounsevell with 25000 to provide some land-use scenario
input, that would leave 65 for you Mike. Unfortuentaly, this does not
include any travel, equipment, etc.
I would actuially like to use a dutch PHD-student (who had a 5-year msc
education) to perform the work. Then the costs come down for me to 160000
euros for 4 years work of a person. Much more cost effective.

So I am still in doubt how to share, please give suggestions here!

Mike Hulme
<m.hulme@uea.a To: Wolfgang Cramer <>, Rik Leemans> <>
28-03-03 12:22 Subject: Re: AMS-Europe - WP1.3

Rik and Wolfgang,

I have spoken with Tim Carter also .......... he is not sure at all what
FEI will be asked to do for WP1.3 (and also very sceptical that ENSEMBLES
will really make progress in "designer climate information"). I would
therefore make a stronger argument for a resource person in WP1.3, ~�75k,
to be able to develop consistent climate information in the Scenarios WD,
and which will be useful in the other AMS Work Domains. I suggest that
person be Tim Mitchell here in Tyndall.

As I have said to Carlo, if WP1.3 does not address this - even in this
basic minimum way - the AMS-Europe project will be a "climate-information
free zone" - this is not what we want.


At 09:39 28/03/2003 +0100, Wolfgang Cramer wrote:
>Rik, thanks for that clarification... I still think we should actually
>support Tim Mitchell partly through this WP. I am also happy about any
>involvement of Tim - but I would like Mike's views on whether this makes
>for a productive addition here.
>On 28/03/03 09:25, Rik Leemans wrote:
>>Dear Mike,
>>Sorry to be so little communicative, but things were changing so fast and
>>did not know how to effectively proceed and simultaneously involve all
>>necessary player.
>>I just returned to the office after a day on a very different topic the
>>World Barley, malt, and Beer conference and saw your mail. Sorry therefor
>>for my late response.
>>When I was asked to coordinate WP1.3 last week, I did not have a clue on
>>what should go into it. Early this week, therefore I drafted the document
>>that you saw, which had quite some overlap with the other Wps. This were
>>preliminary ideas. I still strongly believe that we should do some of the
>>impacts (from emissions to impacts) in this Wp. Climate is a part of that
>>but not the only one. For me the innovative part is not only to base the
>>impact assessment on the quantitative climate scenarios but also on the
>>qualitative narratives, which help to define resilience, sensitivity etc.
>>Additionally from a systemic point of view the interactions between
>>climate, impacts and concentrations are important. This was my main
>>filosophy in drafting the WPs.
>>I also had a call with Tim Carter on his involvement in other project and
>>learned several thing from him. He was very hesitant to become involved,
>>although some money for Suzanne for literature review (She did a great
>>on collecting scenarios information for forestry developments in EU
>>countries) was always welcome.
>>I have also been thinking to involve the IMAGE group a little stronger (I
>>am not with them any more) but are hesitating because they want to focus
>>the mititgation strategies.
>>I had indeed made the assumption that for the climate scenarios, we
>>use off-the shell material but I believe that it could be a good idea to
>>actually grant a little more money into to get some, for impact
>>important climate variables from the latest runs.
>>Brian is organising at 11.00 a telephone conference to discuss the Wps,
>>do you not try to be involved in that discussion (I'll give brian a call
>>invite you as well).
>> Mike
>> Hulme
>> <m.hulme@uea.a To: "Leemans, Rik"
>> <>,,
>>, Brian

>> O'NEILL <>,,
>> 27-03-03 17:27,
>>, "S.E. van der Leeuw"
>> <>,
>> cc:
>>, Armin Haas
>> <>
>> Subject: AMS-Europe -
>> WP1.3
>>Dear Rik - and other Scenarios WD people,
>>Following 24 hours of some confusion - and having talked with
>>and Wolfgang (I have tried to raise Carlo Jaeger today for
>>but with no luck, so I am still a little in the dark) - it seems you are
>>well on track for developing the WP1.3.
>>May I therefore make sure you have seen the attached document from me
>>circulated a week or so ago, concerning the role of climate information
>>AMS-Europe. I have seen your comment that WP1.3 should *not* be about
>>climate information - historic and future - and whilst I can agree it
>>should not necessarily be *primarily* about climate information (although
>>it could be if AMS wanted it so), then it must at least pay some
>>to climate information (otherwise we are *entirely* dependent upon
>>climate information other people and projects may just happen to produce
>>and as we know, these things rarely happen to conform to people's needs
>>just by chance!). There seems to be a need to connect the storylines in
>>WP1.1 and economics of WP1.2, including inter alia stabilisation
>>with climate information and this connection is likely to be unique to
>>AMS-Europe (i.e., ENSEMBLES is unlikely to re-orient itself, unresourced,
>>to do this).
>>So this is the main thrust of my short set of notes and I hope that you
>>consider these when drafting the WP1.3 - which I have not yet seen.
>>Best wishes,
>>(See attached file: Climate information in AMS.doc)
>Wolfgang Cramer, Department of Global Change and Natural Systems
>Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 60 12 03
>D-14412 Potsdam, Germany, Tel.: +49-331-288-2521, Fax: -2600

No comments:

Post a Comment