cc: keith.alverson@pages.unibe.ch
date: Tue May 28 15:43:57 2002
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
subject: 1st draft EoI in IP (HOLCLIM)
to: r.battarbee@ucl.ac.uk,    John.Birks@bot.uib.no,  p.j.valdes@reading.ac.uk, sfbtett@meto.gov.uk

   28 May 2002
   Dear Rick, Simon, Paul and John (and Keith),
   Here is a draft of the HOLCLIM EoI.  The title is just an attempt to distinguish it from
   HOLIVAR for logistic reasons (and ESF sensitivities).  It is formatted to address the
   points specified in the Invitation to Submit - see details
   [1]http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/eoi-instruments/home.[2]html).  As agreed, it is largely based
   on HOLIVAR, though with more specific (but ambitious) specified aims that corresponds in
   part to the original UK NERC PRESCIENT proposal and my own less ambitious , but
   methodologically similar project SOAP (Simulations, Observations and Palaeodata),
   imminently to be agreed with the EC under FP5.
   I propose that we submitted it on behalf of the HOLIVAR SSC, though at present, Franoise
   and Christoph are the only HOLIVAR SSC members not included in the selected list of HOLCLIM
   partners at the end.  This list is a nightmare to compile.  It needs to show critical mass,
   but we will offend many whose names are not specified.  I have tried to cover the necessary
   areas and, in general, include only three partners per subject area (but of course lakes
   represents more than one area, if you think of diatoms, chironomids, pollen, isotopes,
   separately).  At this stage we need impressions and suggestions to edit.  The whole
   document must be no more than 5 pages.
   I need specific advice on how to handle the partner list - and after incorporating your
   comments/rewrites, we need to circulate it to the proposed partners.  Paul and Simon, how
   far do you think we need to stress (perhaps right at the outset - first section) that it is
   no use Europe putting cart loads of money into adaption and mitigation, or impact studies,
   without first establishing the true levels of uncertainty - including probability of
   extreme events, return times, etc., inherent in regional scales of model outputs?  I just
   ask this, because I suspect there will be very many such impact studies suggested.
   In reality, the EC will be totally inundated with expressions, to an extent that will
   overwhelm them.  Probably all that will come of this is a bold statement that climate
   change is one area where the new instruments will be relevant!  It is hard to think of this
   as anything but an even bigger lottery than normal EC applications - but they may just go
   for some similar project and would then have to consider how selecting even 40 partners
   would work in practice.
   I could flag a web site here that includes many other possible participants.
   Could also put in HOLIVAR address? I have not sent this to anyone else yet. Incidentally,
   the overheads I produced for the Brussels meeting (and which I did not get to talk at !)
   can be found at
   [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~harry/integratedproject/presentation.pdf
   They may be useful if anyone wishes to publicise or push for the project ever. Obviously we
   need to get this to the listed folks soon - give the Table on Page 5 time to list off as it
   seems slow. Over to you
   best wishes
   Keith

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

   Phone: +44-1603-593909
   Fax: +44-1603-507784
   [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[5]/

