cc: Valrie Masson-Delmotte  <Valerie.Masson@cea.fr>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:17:22 +0100
from: Juerg Beer <beer@eawag.ch>
subject: Re: budgets IMPRINT
to: Hubertus Fischer <hufischer@awi-bremerhaven.de>

<x-flowed>
Dear Valerie, Keith and Hubertus,

I agree with Hubertus that it will be quite 
impossible for us to deal with the cutting 
problem because you have to look at the proposal 
as a whole and to define core issues which are 
absolutely essential compared to other things 
which are nice to have.
What I can say with regard to solar forcing based 
on 10Be we can live with the data we already have 
and the ones we are producing right now. 
Additional data would be nice but are not 
fundamental. The main task will be to figure out 
how to extract the forcing function which is not 
at all trivial. My plan is to find a brilliant 
postdoc to basically this job. If things are 
getting really tough I would be willing to cut 
this postdoc down from 3 to 2 years provided I 
would be allowed to pay let say  20'000 to a 
retired scientist with unconventional ideas who 
would be extremely useful  to help working out 
the kind of model we are looking for. Please have 
a look at my revised EAWAG budget which comes 
down from  231000 to  177500.
What do you thin about this?

Best wishes,

Juerg

>Dear Val, Keith and Juerg
>
>First of all, did I get you right (last 
>paragraph of your email) that you want the task 
>leaders to boil down the budget. I would hate to 
>do that. Not only because I don't like to argue 
>about money with everybody but most of all, 
>because a lot of the personal requested (and the 
>money for it) is shared in different tasks and 
>WPs. So if we change something in one task 
>without considering the others we will make work 
>impossible for some groups. E.g. in the case of 
>AWI  I asked for one PhD and one PostDoc for 
>three years. While I can handle to reduce the 
>total sum by taking out the PhD or shortening 
>the PostDoc time I cannot do that in task 1.5. 
>only. So it would be much more convenient if the 
>coordinator together with the WP leaders (who 
>have the overview about the total budget) would 
>allocate a maximum sum for each group (based on 
>the comments provided by the task leaders) and 
>then each group has to recalculate their budget 
>to fit that number and change the task 
>contributions a!
>  ccordingly.
>Below a few more comments on where to cut:
>
>>  Hubertus and Jurg
>>  and Valerie (sorry tried ringing without luck )
>>  thank you for these fair and constructive remarks . We are having
>>  real
>>  trouble with budgets and the problems seem basically irresolvable.
>>
>>  You are the arbiters of  1.5 , and I think it is a vitally
>>  important
>>  section of this project. Ultimately I make suggestions but that is
>>  all I do
>>  .I simply ask that you go forward as follows
>>
>>  1  remove the biomass burning work
>
>yes
>
>>  2  remove the Talos Dome work
>
>I guess we have to do that in task 1.5 but probably not in 1.1
>
>>  3  reconsider the AWI PhD - but only if you are convinced the
>>  other groups
>>  really do have facility to do the work - the last 2000 years is an
>>  absolute
>>  must here.
>
>I will squeeze some money out of the AWI budget, 
>one way or the other, but there is also 
>potential at other groups. E.g. if the Swiss use 
>their CFA system for NGRIP the Copenhagen people 
>need only personell and very little equipment
>
>>  4  I am not able to judge , but there seems to be a good deal of
>>  Be data
>>  out there or being worked on already. Jurg I fully appreciate the
>>  need to
>>  compile various records and address the problem of local
>>  concentration
>>  influence (precipitation variability) but we need you to ensure
>>  this is
>>  efficiently covered only to the extent it needs to be in IMPRINT.
>
>Juerg please respond
>
>>  5 Hubertus , I take you message that the dust work is important
>>  and will
>>  say no more about dropping it.
>
>Yes, I think that is true and the dust size 
>comes with the CFA analyses on NGRIP 
>automatically. However, it needs someone to 
>evaluate the data.
>
>Any comments on the sulfur isotopes from anybody?
>
>>  Valerie please intercede as you see fit also - ice is certainly
>  > not my thing
>>  Hubertus and Jurg I would then be grateful if you discuss,decide, 
>>  explain
>>  to colleagues, amend and resend budgets - wait til the version of
>>  B4 comes
>>  again before reworking task descriptions though
>>
>>  thanks
>>
>>  Keith


-- 
   Juerg Beer		phone:     +41-44-823-5111
    EAWAG			fax:         +41-44-823-5210
    Ueberlandstrasse 133	e-mail:    beer@eawag.ch
    Postfach 611		http://www.eawag.ch
    CH-8600 Duebendorf 
	http://www.eawag.ch/research/surf/forschung/d_tracer.html
</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IMPRINTbudgetEAWAG2.xls"
