Hello again, thanks for the interesting discussion&suggestions on the O18
precip stuff in the US and Southern Canada.
- - Tom.

******************************************************************************

Dr. sc. nat. Tomas Vitvar
Research Associate, State University of New York
East-of-Hudson Watershed and Reservoir Process Studies Project

Work:
U.S. Geological Survey, State Office of New York
425 Jordan Rd., Troy, NY 12180
Phone:+1 518 285 56 04
Fax:     +1 518 285 56 01
E-mail:  [log in to unmask]

Home:
18 Elm Street, Albany, NY 12202
Phone: +1 518 426 22 14
******************************************************************************












                    Emi Ito
                    <[log in to unmask]>         To:     [log in to unmask]
                    Sent by: Stable        cc:
                    Isotope                Subject:     Re: [ISOGEOCHEM] O18 precip
                    Geochemistry
                    <ISOGEOCHEM@LIS
                    T.UVM.EDU>


                    04/28/00 10:36
                    AM
                    Please respond
                    to Stable
                    Isotope
                    Geochemistry





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