Seems like there is a healthy interest in bringing US stations back into
GNIP or similar database.  I would extend my full support for these efforts,
keeping in mind that money generally flows from the US to the IAEA!   Still,
there probably are ways in which we can help and act as a catalyst,
especially given President Clinton and Secy. of State Albright's recent
statements in support of clean water and transboundary water issues.

I would like to explore some of these options and am open to suggestions -
we can easily organize a meeting or two for planning purposes, offer limited
financial support as seed money, provide database service, lobby for some
additional Government funding, etc.

Pradeep Aggarwal


=======================================================
Pradeep K. Aggarwal, Ph.D.
Head, Isotope Hydrology Section

International Atomic Energy Agency
P.O. Box 100               (Please use Box 200 for PERSONAL mail)
Wagramer Strasse 5
A 1400, Vienna, Austria

Ph.  +43-1-2600-21735
Fax +43-1-26007
e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
========================================================



> ----------
> From:         Emi Ito
> Sent:         Friday, 28 April 2000 16:36
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: O18 precip
>
> A few of us have been trying to resurrect IAEA monitoring program
> within USA and in collaboration with the Canadians for North America.
> The discussion has involved people from NSF and NOAA and USGS.  The
> Canadians are going ahead with a program but US has not been able to
> get one going.  IAEA demands monthly weighted averages with stringent
> QA/QC and compatibility with other data sets. Those of you who
> participated in the IAEA interlaboratory calibration project a few
> years ago know that there is a range of numbers produced by different
> labs.
>
> Tyler Coplen of USGS, Jeff Welker (Wyoming) and Jim White (INSTAAR)
> and myself have looked into using archived precip samples collected
> by NADP (National Atmospheric Depositon Program).  These samples by
> and large seem unaltered during storage (some are), but these are
> weekly samples.  My last conversation with ISOMAP (a small program
> sponsored by IAEA and PAGES, I think) leader, Tom Edwards (Waterloo)
> suggested that there will be a significant obstacle to merging
> analysis of NADP samples with the AEA data:  how to accurately
> convert weekly data into monthly averages since months begin and end
> mid-week, and weekly precip sample does not say when during the week
> it rained or snowed (I checked into this info with NADP coordinator).
>
> I am frustrated by all this.  USGS, which seemed like a logical
> agency to engage in this type of monitoring activity shows no
> interest (Tyler's proposal to USGS funding fathers was turned down,
> and a letter to Chief Hydrologist got nowhere). Using NADP samples
> seemed like a way to go (they are archived for 3 years after various
> chem analysis and then can be released provided the steering
> committee approves of the intended use), and the data from these
> samples will be tremendously useful but whether they can be
> incorporated into the IAEA data set is uncertain.  And last but not
> least, none of us are independently wealthy to fund the analysis of
> several hundred to several thousand hydrogen and oxygen analysis.
>
> Any creative suggestions?  I think the interpretation of
> paleorecords, for one, is being hampered by not being able to
> quantitatively examine the modern relationship between meteoric water
> and surface water bodies.
>
> Emi Ito
> University of Minnesota
>
>
> >Dear Colleagues,
> >
> >With regards to meteoric water data:
> >
> >There is a nice repository of stable isotope data for meteoric water
> >organized by the IAEA.  However, it is my understanding that a lot of
> labs
> >have collected meteoric water data that is not published.  Perhaps in
> each
> >case there isn't enough information, or by itself a limited data set does
> >not justify a paper.  I wonder if it wouldn't be possible for all of us
> to
> >consolidate our unpublished data in a single publication/repository?  I
> >realize there are a great deal of caveats.  Some data may not be as good
> as
> >others, you might say.  Collection procedures may differ, etc.
> >Nevertheless, I would guess that a large amount of 'private' data
> gathered
> >together would represent a very valuable resource.
> >
> >If there is an interest in making this happen, I would propose the
> >following:  David Gutzler -- our climatologist -- and I would try to
> >organize the data using some data management program such as ArcInfo.
> >Dave, in his meteorological wizardry, would be able to add temperature
> and
> >precipitation data to the stable isotope data, so that some wonderful
> >correlations could be made.  All data would be available on the web in
> >Excel and/or arcinfo format, and we would publish an overview with all
> >contributors as authors.  Presumably the journal would keep an archive of
> >the data base.
> >
> >Clearly we realize that putting everyone's data together limits the
> impact
> >of each of the contributors.  But we have little doubt that the compiled
> >data would be a great benefit that would compliment the very high quality
> >IAEA data.  Obviously, there are still some details to work out, but if
> the
> >response is positive, we will proceed.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Zach
> >Zachary Sharp
> >Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
> >Northrop Hall
> >University of New Mexico
> >Albuquerque, NM 87131
> >USA
> >FAX 505 277 8843
> >Phone 505 277 2000
>