Friday, May 25, 2012


date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:48:56 +0000
from: Tim Osborn <>
subject: SOAP

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

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)
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
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.


(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.


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:
School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
University of East Anglia __________|
Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
UK |

No comments:

Post a Comment