date: Fri Jul 14 15:09:53 2006
from: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: [Fwd: Research Grant Reference: NE/E002412/1 - Research Grant 
to: N.Gillett@uea.ac.uk

   Hi Nathan, thanks for offering to help out.  I plan to write a reponse on Monday and will
   then give it to you for editing.  In the meantime, if you have any views on what main
   points we should emphasize, then please let me know.  Note we've also just received
   comments from a 4th referee, which is also very favourable but I'm not quite sure how to
   respond to their only major recommendation.
   Cheers
   Tim
   At 21:08 12/07/2006, you wrote:

     Hi Tim,
     Looks like the review comments on the project are pretty favourable - this
     is good news. I'm happy to help out with the responses in any way you
     want.
     Cheers,
     Nathan
     ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
     Subject: Research Grant Reference: NE/E002412/1 - Research Grant
     Assessments for Comment
     From:    jrog@nerc.ac.uk
     Date:    Tue, July 11, 2006 4:42 pm
     To:      t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
     Cc:      n.gillett@uea.ac.uk
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Dear Dr Osborn
     PROJECT TITLE: Identification of changing precipitation extremes and
     attribution to atmopsheric, oceanic and climatic changes
     Your application for the above Research Grant will be considered at the
     Flood Risk from Extreme Events (FREE) meeting.  Referee comments have now
     been obtained on the application, and have included the following points to
     which you have been invited to respond.
     These comments are presented to you for clarification and do not represent
     any pre-judgement of the outcome of your application, and may be untypical
     of the general tone of review received.
     Should you wish to respond to the points raised by the referees, please do
     so by 18 July 2006 to allow us to include your response in the papers sent
     to the panel reviewing your application. We realise that this is a short
     period of time and would encourage you to submit your response by e-mail.
     Please make sure that you include your grant reference number. Please note
     that NERC is now introducing a page restriction on the length of your
     response. Your reply should be as concise as possible and must not exceed
     an average of one side of A4 for each referee assessment. For example,
     should you receive 3 sets of referee comments, your response should not
     exceed 3 sides of A4, with a minimum text font size 12. Please note that
     any response longer than the page limit will not be put to the Panel
     Meeting.
     This e-mail has been copied to all the Investigators on the application in
     case the Principal Investigator (PI) is out of contact. However, please
     note that we can only accept one response to these comments (preferably
     from the PI) - not one from each Investigator contacted.
     Should we receive further referee comments we will endeavour to forward
     these to you for comment before the meeting. Please note however, that
     these late comments may have alternative deadlines for response, due to
     meeting paper reproduction schedules, which you should attempt to meet
     wherever possible. No guarantee can be made that late responses will be
     included in the main set of meeting papers.
     Yours sincerely
     Jan Rogers
     Research Grants Team
     NERC
     Tel: (01793) 411574
     Fax: (01793) 411545
     E-Mail: JROG@wpo.nerc.ac.uk
     Please refer to [1]http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/contacts.shtml if you need to
     contact individuals within NERC.
     Referee A
     Sound, carefully planned scientific methodology, enabling the advancement
     of scientific understanding in this topic area.  I view this research to be
     a fundamental step in refining our ability to use, with confidence,
     regional projections of precipitation (both mean and extreme)  based on R
     and G CMs: as stated in the research, simulated projections of
     precipitation are quite uncertain - therefore focused investigation into a
     comparison of the mechanisms of extreme real-world and simulated rainfall
     is an obvious prerequisite to then using model projections to inform
     policy/planning decisions.
     The proposal to compare relationships within a variety of climate models,
     and the investigation of SSTs as a  driver, provides an option to extend
     this (or subsequent) research to benefit the seasonal-to-decadal
     forecasting community. However, I note this is note a stated primary goal
     of the research.
     Particular merit should be noted to the naming of specific end users (both
     personnel and institutions). This would suggest that knowledge transfer to
     appropriate partners has been carefully considered and seems an important
     component of the research plan.  Moreover, the proposal seem to indicate
     that some correspondence has occurred to investigate the usefulness of
     proposed work, so that the proposal could be tailored to benefit
     stakeholders. Again this is worthy of merit.
     I am confident that the stated objectives can be met and that the named
     applicants are suitable to carry out the research.
     Questions/hypothesis are clearly defined.
     I am not aware of duplicate research.
     I do not see flaws in the proposed scientific method.
     Presumably, having identified which R or G CMs most resemble the real world
     (in terms of humidity-circulation-precipitation relationships) and
     identifying the causes of any changes, the actual projected precipitation
     changes themselves from those models most successfully validated would be
     explicitly flagged to the user community-either in the literature or other
     avenues which might be more accessible to non-technical stakeholders?
     (The proposal does state that validation results could be used to weight
     individual models in forthcoming ensemble-type probabilistic predictions,
     but what about the distribution/dissemination of existing data?)
     I do not think that any of the resources requested are insufficiently
     justified.
     Referee B
     I think there is very good potential for this project to enhance the body
     of knowledge on the causes of regional precipitation variations observed
     over the past several decades. The PI's are highly experienced in the
     analysis of precipitation and circulation variability and in climate change
     detection, and they have world-class reputations in these areas.  They
     propose to work in a part of the world where adequate data are available,
     where models have relatively good performance in simulating precipitation
     and its extremes, and where circulation/precipitation relationships have
     been well studied.   I would therefore expect an important incremental step
     in knowledge.  I would also expect wider applications for the study of
     precipitation elsewhere in the world, for application in statistical
     downscaling (e.g., by better informing which circulation predictors should
     be included in downscaling), and for application in impacts research (e.g.,
     through the improvement of weather generators that are based on downscaling
     results).
     What are the proposal's particular weaknesses?
     I worry a bit that the PIs may encounter some difficulties in
     interpretation given that multiple proximal causes of precipitation change
     such as circulation and humidity change may themselves be linked, and may
     both be linked to anthropogenic forcing. Nonetheless, it may well be the
     case that S/N ratios can be enhanced in this way.  I think the implications
     for changes in flooding risk will have to be carefully considered. One
     could imagine the evaluation of change in flooding risk conditional upon
     certain circulation influences which in turn are affected by external
     forcing. However, I think considerable care will be required in selecting
     the appropriate covariates, and in developing appropriate statistical
     models that do not over extend the available data resources.  I didn't see
     much in the proposal that worries about this aspect of the research, so I
     must assume that all of the statistical models will be properly
     cross-validated.  Perhaps an initial step would be to conduct a perfect
     model study to consider what kinds of relationships might be identifiable
     and the extent to which statistical models describing these relationships
     that do not over-fit the available data resources can be built.
     These are first-rate researchers with excellent statistical skills who will
     definitely provide a useful increment on understanding of influences on
     precipitation extremes and flooding.  There is however non-negligible risk
     associated with the study of external influence on precipitation extremes
     given the weak signal-to-noise ratio. Success in this regard hinges on
     whether the disaggregation strategy will be successful.
     I think the request for resources was well justified.  I perceive it as
     being basically bare bones, seeking support for a post-doctoral fellow.
     Given the complexity and scope of the work envisioned, it would not be
     reasonable to try to proceed with studentships.  I would also anticipate
     that the pdf will get excellent supervision by the PIs.
     Referee C
     The greatest strength of this proposal is its combination of sophisticated
     statistical techniques for the analysis of extremes with analysis of the
     atmospheric factors that are related to precipitation.  It is not enough to
     know how what changes GCMs and RCMs predict for future precipitation; it is
     also useful to know how well they simulate variability in the factors that
     affect precipitation, and how well they simulation the relationships
     between these factors and different aspects of the distribution of
     precipitation.  The separation of the analysis of GCM and RCM output into
     these two parts will allow the proposed study to gain useful information
     about what these models do well and what they do not, and to use what the
     models do well to inform projections of future variability and change in
     precipitation extremes.  The approach is novel, as covariates are not yet
     widely used to estimate GEV or GPD parameters in extreme value analysis,
     and the PI and co-PI have the expertise in precipitation and atmospheric
     processes needed to find proper covariates to use for these extreme value
     distribution parameters.  The approach to isolate the variability in
     precipitation due to variability in the large-scale atmospheric
     circulation, developed in part by the PI, is also novel and appropriate, as
     it is expected to allow the detection of climate change signals in the
     residual once the part due to circulation variability has been removed.
     In addition, the project is set up well to succeed.  The PI and co-PI have
     expertise in both atmospheric processes and extreme value theory, so they
     are well-suited to lead a project that integrates knowledge and techniques
     from both disciplines, which is required for such a project to succeed.
     The proposal is well thought out, addressing important issues in the
     application of extreme value theory to the relationships between
     precipitation and atmospheric properties, considering methods of testing
     the ability of RCMs and GCMs to simulate precipitation, and the use of
     techniques developed in this project to the detection of precipitation
     changes associated with anthropogenic forcing.  The PI and co-PI also have
     established collaborations with individuals and groups who are well-suited
     to use the products of this project (such as simulated time series of
     precipitation to be used to drive streamflow models at CEH) in applications
     that are more directly beneficial to the general public.
     The weakest aspect of the proposal is the method proposed to relate SST
     variability to extreme precipitation.  While the rest of the proposal deals
     well with the climate system processes that relate the large scale
     atmospheric circulation with precipitation, a direct link between SST
     variability and extreme precipitation by using metrics of particular SST
     patterns as covariates in GEV/GPD models appears to miss the dynamics that
     is likely to be involved in this relationship.  Instead, it is more likely
     that SST will affect atmospheric circulation or temperature, which will
     then influence precipitation extremes.  Thus, I would prefer to see the use
     of some variety of atmospheric or climate model, or even empirically
     derived relationships, to first relate SST variability to variability in
     the atmospheric circulation, which is then related to the distribution of
     extreme precipitation, rather than looking for a direct SST-precipitation
     relationship.  This is hinted at by the final sentence of the "Method and
     approach" section, but should be clarified.  Otherwise, the approaches
     proposed are well-suited to the problem of understanding the causes of
     variability and change in extreme precipitation.
     I am impressed by the links that the PI and co-PI have made with
     researchers in other organizations that will be able to provide input to
     and use the products of this project.  The clearest benefit is from the
     link to NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, which will utilize hydrology
     model to produce streamflow estimates from simulated precipitation time
     series to produce information that has more directly applicable benefits
     than what the PI and co-PI can produce on their own.  It also seems that
     the Hadley Centre collaborators are sufficiently engaged to provide two-way
     discussions with the PI and co-PI on the direction of this project.
     It seems that the amount of time that the PI and co-PI are charging to the
     project is minimal.  The expertise of the PI and co-PI does seem critical
     for the successful completion of this project, so their involvement at
     least at the level that they are charging to the project appears
     well-justified, and I expect that they will spend more time on the project
     than they are charging.  In addition, the amount of time budgeted for the
     project, to be primarily carried out by a postdoctoral scientist, seems
     reasonable; at the very least, it does not seem to be less time that is
     needed.
     --
     This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
     is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
     of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
     it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
     NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.

