date: Fri Jan  7 16:33:48 2005
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: EA WG
to: "C G Kilsby" <C.G.Kilsby@newcastle.ac.uk>

    Chris,
       Tried ringing, so here are some thoughts about the Work Plan.
    Before I forget chop the referees off the end of Craig's CV.
    Task 1.  Emphasize the essential need for the WG to be able to be
    easily altered for a future climate.  Could say here that this will be difficult
    for WGs that use alternating sequences of wet and dry spells (this is what
    Lars WG does for precip). Changes to these sequences are likely to occur
    in the future but change from the model is most uncertain - at least cf
    mean and SD changes.  Need to word this wrt the way GNSRP works
    with RCM output changes - like mean, sd, skewness.
     Say that BETWIXT work has shown that changing precip is not enough
    to change other variables. Need to have change fields for these other
    variables as well - partic temp and vapour pressure.   Change fields for the
    mean for HadRM3H/P are very small for sunshine and wind so we will
    likely omit these.
     This whole aspect of being able to be modified for the future is the
    key. A WG may be very good - if it can't be altered simply it is
    useless for the future.
    Our WG works on half months - get the annual cycle better.
    Task 2 A lot of this can be got from Jones and Salmon (1995). This has
    Strengths and Weaknesses.  What are the EA requirements?
    Task 3 This is the meet of the work. All you need to say is that our
    WG will be fit to the daily gridded data for 1958-2002. We will need
    all the intercorrelations between variables.
     We then apply these to you generated precip series for each box.
    I'm assuming that your GNSRP will maintain the basic stats and
    the dry/wet spell lengths.
     State upfront that our implicit assumption is that the relationships (as correlations)
    between precip and the other variables will not change in the
    future.  We were going to investigate this in BETWIXT but never got around
    to it.  Could say we can test this !  The way to do this is to fit our WG
    to the RCM data for a few boxes for the present climate and separately
    for the future - then compare the correlations. We did this for SE England
    in another project for HadCM3 and there was little difference. Result
    should show that the RCM doesn't change these inter-relationships in the
    future cf the present, therefore there is no need to consider this.
      It doesn't matter if the model is wrong cf reality. If the model doesn't
    change there is no way of altering reality.
     Task 4
      A lot of Figures and/or Tables of means, sds, skewness. We could
    also do this for some extremes a la BETWIXT.  For BEWTIXT this got out
      of control as you had to have 100 simulations for each site to get
    reliable stats for anything other than the mean.  So need to be careful
    we don't promise too much here.  Remember there are 1000's of grid boxes.
      Maybe a simple graphical output showing a few things. I'd prefer not
    to go into extremes unless there is a robust one we can show for
    rainfall - 5 day max total in a year ?  Something that isn't too extreme
    so we don't need to many simulations.
     Task 5  is simple
    Task 6 Should be simple
    My home number is still 01953 605643.  If we're out answerphone will be on.
    Cheers
    Phil
    Chris,
       Rushed through this a little, but this will give you something to go on. I have to get
    through the whole of Ch 3 of IPCC report and submit by early next week, so will
    spend all weekend on this - breaking just to hear that Rochdale beat a Charlton second XI
    that Curbishley will put out !
        Once you get this give me a ring or I'll try you in about an hour or so.
     Attached CVs for me and Craig Wallace (the person we'll put forward here). Clare
    is in Cuba - she gets back this weekend. I'll send her an email for a CV and to discuss
    this briefly on Monday.
      Our Admin person isn't here so I've made up some numbers. Doesn't seem to get
    anywhere near 52K total so we need to discuss this.
      Urgent:
       I put most of Craig's time down for Task 3/4
       I don't have anything about LARS WG. Maybe a sentence or two could go in
    to say something like - ours is much easier to perturb?
      Others
       50-50 OK  I guess we will need to beef up the days accordingly but I reckon the 6
    for Clare and me is fair - it's realistic.  So add to Craig's.
      One submission from you with a sub contract to UEA. I think this will make it easier
    here as I don't need to get it signed off - a hope anyway.
    Cheers
    Phil

   At 11:36 07/01/2005, you wrote:

     Phil
     Find attached:
     - rough draft of proposal
     - rough/blank work sheet of costs etc
     Urgent points to deal with:
     #proposal: need input everywhere, especially
     - need to flesh out methodology - have indicated where
     - integration with other EA stuff - weak on this (DST etc)
     - skills
     - CVs (who do you have in mind)
     - work plan (not started this yet - ideas welcome/needed!)
     - am keen to put in comparison with LARS - do you have anything here to make us look
     good?
     # costs - need your day rates and a stab at people, no of days in each task etc.
     - guess we need to aim for 52-55K or so. Will use the spreadsheet to "optimise" this,
     but need some ideas from you first.
     -I guess we split the costs 50:50?  -
     I see us doing:
     - overall direction: rainfall model: (most of) software implementation, GIS/graphical
     stuff ?
     You doing:
     - review of WGs, climate scenarios, WG met variables, PET
     Sound OK?
     # contracts etc: how do we do this - one submission, UNEW lead, but we have choice of:
     - consortium or
     - we contract, you sub-contract?
     Haven't spoken with our finance people about this,the head honcho is away until Monday.
     Will need to wrap up Tues am, courier Tues pm. Need finances sorting Monday though to
     get signatures here for Tues.
     Chris

   Prof. Phil Jones
   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
