##### [2004 Committee of Visitors Report for the]{.smallcaps}

##### [NSF Lower Atmosphere Research Section]{.smallcaps}

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### Date of COV: September 14-16, 2004

**Programs:** Atmospheric Chemistry, Climate Dynamics, Large-Scale
Dynamic Meteorology, Mesoscale Dynamic Meteorology, Paleoclimate,
Physical Meteorology

####### **Section:** Lower Atmosphere Research Section

**Division:** Atmospheric Sciences

**Directorate:** Geosciences

Committee Membership:

####### Dennis L. Hartmann, Chair, University of Washington

Steven B. Bertman, Western Michigan University

Ping Chang, Texas A&M University

William B. Curry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Clara Deser, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Anthony Illingworth, University of Reading

Luisa T. Molina, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Michael C. Morgan, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Thomas Schlatter, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA (retired)

Daniel Schrag, Harvard University

Wayne H. Schubert, Colorado State University

Bjorn Stevens, University of California, Los Angeles

#####  

##### 

##### 

##### Table of Contents

##### 

##### 1. Overview of Findings and Recommendations 3

2\. COV Review Process 4

3\. Response to 2001 COV Report 4

4.  Integrity and Efficiency of the Program's Process and Management 6

> A.1 Merit Review Quality and Effectiveness 6
>
> A.2 Merit Review Implementation 9
>
> A.3 Selection of Reviewers 10
>
> A.4 Portfolio of Awards Under Review 12
>
> A.5 Management of the Program Under Review 17

5\. Outputs and Outcomes 19

> B.1 Outcome Goal for People 19
>
> B.2 Outcome Goal for Ideas 23
>
> B.3 Outcome Goal for Tools 28

6.  Other topics 34

> C.1 Areas in Need of Improvement 34
>
> C.2 Program Performance 35
>
> C.3 Agency-Wide Performance Issues 35
>
> C.4 Other Relevant Issues 36
>
> C.5 COV Review Improvements 36

Signature Block 36

#####  

##### 1. Overview of Findings/Recommendations

**[Integrity and efficiency of Program's Process and
Management]{.underline}.**

The Committee of Visitors for the NSF Lower Atmosphere Research Section
(LARS) finds that the Section is very well managed, is efficient and
supports a broad portfolio of innovative and important research. A
strong consensus emerged among the COV members that the program is
vibrant. Its vitality is expressed in a continuing record of funding
worthy, innovative, risky, collaborative and multi-disciplinary
proposals and stems directly from the quality of the section leadership
and program officers. To a person we found them to be extraordinarily
devoted to ensuring the fairness of the review process and, in the
broadest possible sense, the advancement of the field as a whole.

Reviews and the decision process appear to be very fair and effective.
In each of the jackets considered, the program officers gave a
thoughtful analysis of the decision process based on the information
provided by the reviewers and the program officers' own knowledge of the
subject. In most cases the key questions of the reviewers were shared
with the PI, and the PI responded constructively. Decisions were reached
within 6 months in 80% of cases in 2003. The COV believes that the
success rate in the section is aided by the program officer's
willingness to work with investigators, particularly new ones, to
improve proposals without resubmission.

The programs respond to new developments as they occur by continually
evolving the portfolio of research that is supported under each of the
program areas within the section. Growth in the overall level of funding
for the section in the past 3-5 years has been modest.

[Outputs and Outcomes]{.underline}.

The Section accounts for much of the fundamental research that NSF
supports to provide a basis for understanding and prediction of weather,
climate and air quality. These are important areas for human safety and
economic prosperity, and have had an important impact that can be
measured in new ideas, new infrastructure and important contributions by
LARS scientists to national and international science and policy
assessments.

The committee reviewed the successful efforts of LARS to develop human
resources by funding the research of leading scientists, supporting
outstanding young scientists through regular research grants and CAREER
awards, supporting graduate students to conduct original research and
funding Research Experiences for Undergraduates Programs.

The LARS has also supported the development of new ideas that have
steadily evolved the science addressed by the section over the past
three years. Examples of the development and refinement of ideas are
cited in the report.

Important tools have also been developed with funding from LARS,
including integrated data sets from field programs, new instruments and
observing facilities, and computational facilities.

##### 2. The COV Review Process

The Committee of Visitors met at NSF on 14-16 September 2004. The
committee was provided with a binder full of useful summary information
prior to the meeting. After a welcome by the Division Director, Jarvis
Moyers, Section Head, Pamela Stephens outlined the COV process and gave
an overview of the Lower Atmosphere Research Section (LARS). Overviews
of the six programs within the Section were then given by each of the
associated program officers. After discussion of procedural issues and
conflict of interest provisions, the committee split into six groups of
two to begin reviewing jackets (proposal folders). The goal was to
review about ten percent of the jackets from the 2001-2003 period, and
attempt to sample a broad spectrum of awards and declinations for a wide
variety of activities and from a wide variety of investigators. Although
the individual programs within the section were each reviewed
separately, the responses to the core questions in the report template
were addressed to the section as a whole. In general we found that the
review process and standards do not differ significantly among the six
programs.

During the first day the COV also met with Margaret Leinen, Assistant
Director for Geosciences. During the first afternoon a meeting of the
committee was held to discuss progress and apportion writing
responsibilities. The second day was a combination of jacket review in
program groupings and plenary meetings to discuss responses to the
questions posed in the report template. On the morning of the third day
the committee met with the ATM Division and LARS leadership and the
program officers to discuss our conclusions. A draft of the report was
written during the meeting. A revised draft was distributed via email
after the meeting for approval by the committee.

##### 3. Response to the 2001 COV Report

The 2001 COV Report for LARS made a number of recommendations. These
seem to have been well addressed.

1\. Program officers do work with new investigators to improve their
proposals in light of reviewer comments. LARS supports a relative large
number of new investigators, about 30%.

2\. Program officers do provide an evaluation of the past performance of
investigators in their evaluation (Form 7).

3\. Program officers do seem able to use their judgment to properly
weight the work of panels against the mail reviews received on a
particular suite of proposals.

4\. It does seem that program officers and division management are aware
that the scientific planning and motivation for a large project must be
well established before facility requests are approved. They also are
aware that proposals for field programs or other large projects should
stand the same tests for intellectual merit as other unsolicited
proposals. These issues will require continued vigilance.

5\. Funding rates for minority and female investigators are not
significantly different than those for other groups.

6\. Workload and staffing at the program officer level remain concerns,
particularly when gaps occur between the departure of one IPA and the
arrival of the next.

##### FY 2004 REPORT TEMPLATE FOR

#####  NSF COMMITTEES OF VISITORS (COVs)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### Date of COV September 14-16, 2004                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Program/Cluster:** Lower Atmosphere Research Section                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Division:** Atmospheric Sciences                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Directorate:** Geosciences                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Number of actions reviewed by COV:** *134* **Awards:** *86*         |
| **Declinations:** *48* **Other:**                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Total number of actions within Program/Cluster/Division during      |
| period being reviewed by COV:** *1348* **Awards:** *613*              |
| **Declinations:** *735* **Other:**                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Manner in which reviewed actions were selected:**                   |
|                                                                       |
| *Actions were selected for review by the COV from complete lists for  |
| each of six programs, with advice from program officers about which   |
| might be good examples of high-risk projects, new investigators, etc. |
| We tried to pick a distribution of awards and declinations from each  |
| program, including both unsolicited single investigator proposals and |
| proposals for participation in group activities such as field         |
| programs or climate process teams, which might have involved a panel  |
| review as well as mail reviews.*                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**4. PART A. INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE PROGRAM'S PROCESSES AND
MANAGEMENT**

A.1 Questions about the quality and effectiveness of the program's use
of merit review procedures. Provide comments in the space below the
question. Discuss areas of concern in the space provided.

+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| **QUALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF MERIT REVIEW PROCEDURES**  | **YES,   |
|                                                           | NO,**    |
|                                                           |          |
|                                                           | **DATA   |
|                                                           | NOT      |
|                                                           | AV       |
|                                                           | AILABLE, |
|                                                           | or NOT   |
|                                                           | APPL     |
|                                                           | ICABLE** |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Is the review mechanism appropriate? (panels, ad hoc      | YES      |
| reviews, site visits)                                     |          |
|                                                           |          |
| **Comments:**                                             |          |
|                                                           |          |
| The COV finds that the present review mechanism is        |          |
| appropriate. The majority of proposals to the core        |          |
| programs of LARS receive ad hoc reviews. These are        |          |
| sufficient in number and quality to ensure a thorough and |          |
| well-balanced review process. Other programs such as ESH  |          |
| within the Paleoclimate Program, ACE-ASIA within the      |          |
| Atmospheric Chemistry Program, and RICO and Climate       |          |
| Process Teams receive an appropriate mix of panel and ad  |          |
| hoc reviews.                                              |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Is the review process efficient and effective?            | YES      |
|                                                           |          |
| **Comments:**                                             |          |
|                                                           |          |
| The COV finds the review process to be highly effective   |          |
| and efficient. The percentage of proposals processed      |          |
| within 6 months of receipt in LARS shows significant      |          |
| increases over the 3-yr period of this COV review, from   |          |
| an average across the 6 programs of 49% in 2001, 62% in   |          |
| 2002, to 80% in 2003. The COV commends LARS for this      |          |
| improvement. Of the sample of proposals read by the COV   |          |
| (10%), there were approximately 4-6 ad hoc reviews per    |          |
| proposal, even when the program directors had difficulty  |          |
| getting reviewers to respond. This is excellent. The COV  |          |
| commends the efforts of the program officers for          |          |
| maintaining the proposal jackets in such good order and   |          |
| providing continuity and stability to the programs.       |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Are reviews consistent with priorities and criteria       | YES      |
| stated in the program's solicitations, announcements, and |          |
| guidelines?                                               |          |
|                                                           |          |
| **Comments:**                                             |          |
|                                                           |          |
| The COV finds the reviews consistent with the priorities  |          |
| and criteria stated in the program's solicitations,       |          |
| announcements and guidelines.                             |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Do the individual reviews (either mail or panel) provide  | YES      |
| sufficient information for the principal investigator(s)  |          |
| to understand the basis for the reviewer's                |          |
| recommendation?                                           |          |
|                                                           |          |
| **Comments:**                                             |          |
|                                                           |          |
| Yes, the COV finds that almost all of the individual      |          |
| reviews, and all of the collective reviews for a given    |          |
| proposal, provide sufficient information for the          |          |
| principal investigator(s) to understand the basis for the |          |
| reviewer's recommendation. Moreover, the program          |          |
| directors do an excellent job of explaining/interpreting  |          |
| the reviews (which are sometimes disparate) to the PI(s). |          |
|                                                           |          |
| Program officers request responses from PIs to referee    |          |
| comments and work with the PIs to improve the quality of  |          |
| proposals. The committee feels that this constructive     |          |
| feedback from program officers to PIs may reduce the      |          |
| number of proposal submissions and increase the success   |          |
| rate of proposals within LARS.                            |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Do the panel summaries provide sufficient information for | YES      |
| the principal investigator(s) to understand the basis for |          |
| the panel recommendation?                                 |          |
|                                                           |          |
| **Comments:**                                             |          |
|                                                           |          |
| The COV reviewed jackets from four panels. The panel      |          |
| summaries provided sufficient information for the PI(s)   |          |
| to understand the basis for the panel recommendation.     |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Is the documentation for recommendations complete, and    | YES      |
| does the program officer provide sufficient information   |          |
| and justification for her/his recommendation?             |          |
|                                                           |          |
| **Comments:**                                             |          |
|                                                           |          |
| The COV finds the level of thoughtfulness and             |          |
| thoroughness of the program officers' review of each      |          |
| proposal and the ad hoc/panel reviews extraordinary. The  |          |
| information provided by the program officers represents   |          |
| much more than a simple summary of the ad hoc/panel       |          |
| reviews. Moreover, the program officers go out of their   |          |
| way to give PI(s) (particularly new PIs) feedback on      |          |
| their proposals and a chance for the PI(s) to respond in  |          |
| light of reviewer comments. This process is very          |          |
| constructive for new PIs and the COV commends the program |          |
| officers for this. The documentation of the program       |          |
| officers' review process for each proposal is outstanding |          |
| (see "Form 7"). The COV was extremely impressed by the    |          |
| creative and flexible implementation of the Form 7        |          |
| vehicle by the Program Officers.                          |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Is the time to decision appropriate?                      | YES      |
|                                                           |          |
| **Comments:**                                             |          |
|                                                           |          |
| The COV finds the time to decision appropriate (80% of    |          |
| proposals submitted in 2003 were processed within 6       |          |
| months).                                                  |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+
| Discuss issues identified by the COV concerning the       |          |
| quality and effectiveness of the program's use of merit   |          |
| review procedures:                                        |          |
|                                                           |          |
| The COV is extremely pleased with the quality and         |          |
| effectiveness of the program's use of merit review        |          |
| procedures. In particular, the number and quality of ad   |          |
| hoc reviews for each proposal, the conscientious efforts  |          |
| of the program officers to reach a reasoned               |          |
| recommendation for each proposal and to convey that       |          |
| recommendation in a highly constructive manner to the     |          |
| principal investigator(s), the completeness of each       |          |
| proposal jacket, and the timely manner in which proposals |          |
| are processed, are exemplary. The COV recommends that     |          |
| LARS exercise particular care in judging proposals that   |          |
| cross divisional boundaries to ensure that they are       |          |
| reviewed with the same care as proposals that fit within  |          |
| a single division.                                        |          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+----------+

A.2 Questions concerning the implementation of the NSF Merit Review
Criteria (intellectual merit and broader impacts) by reviewers and
program officers. Provide comments in the space below the question.
Discuss issues or concerns in the space provided.

+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| **IMPLEMENTATION OF NSF MERIT REVIEW CRITERIA**          | **YES,    |
|                                                          | NO,**     |
|                                                          |           |
|                                                          | **DATA    |
|                                                          | NOT       |
|                                                          | A         |
|                                                          | VAILABLE, |
|                                                          | or NOT    |
|                                                          | APP       |
|                                                          | LICABLE** |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Have the individual reviews (either mail or panel)       | YES       |
| addressed whether the proposal contributes to both merit |           |
| review criteria?                                         |           |
|                                                          |           |
| ***Comments:***                                          |           |
|                                                          |           |
| Especially by the end of the review period, the vast     |           |
| majority (\>90%) of reviews substantially comment on     |           |
| both review criteria. Criterion 1 is considered to be of |           |
| primary importance, and none of the proposals evaluated  |           |
| was declined strictly on the basis of Criterion 2. In    |           |
| many reviews Criterion 2 focused strictly on graduate    |           |
| student education, but there are strong indications that |           |
| the community is beginning to embrace Criterion 2 and    |           |
| place higher value on broader educational and outreach   |           |
| goals, as well as the societal benefit of the work.      |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Have the panel summary reviews addressed whether the     | YES       |
| proposal contributes to both merit review criteria?      |           |
|                                                          |           |
| ***Comments:***                                          |           |
|                                                          |           |
| Panels were very conscientious and thorough in their use |           |
| of the review criteria in the jackets evaluated.         |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Have the *review analyses* (Form 7s) addressed whether   | YES       |
| the proposal contributes to both merit review criteria?  |           |
|                                                          |           |
| ***Comments:***                                          |           |
|                                                          |           |
| The review analyses addressed both criteria seriously in |           |
| every case examined. During this review period, program  |           |
| officers tended to define Criterion 2 more broadly than  |           |
| the majority of ad hoc reviewers and commented on        |           |
| contributions the research is making to society through  |           |
| public policy, through outreach, or through              |           |
| capacity-building in the community. In fact, several     |           |
| examples of decisions that were strongly influenced by   |           |
| criterion 2 were found by the COV in the set of jackets  |           |
| reviewed.                                                |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Discuss any issues or concerns the COV has identified    |           |
| with respect to NSF's merit review system.               |           |
|                                                          |           |
| Many reviewers interpreted the "Summary" section of the  |           |
| review forms differently. Some used it to synthesize     |           |
| while others simply reiterated previous comments. NSF    |           |
| may wish to indicate to reviewers exactly what is        |           |
| desired here. Is it a succinct summary statement         |           |
| reviewing the substance of the reviewer's evaluation or  |           |
| something else?                                          |           |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+

A.3 Questions concerning the selection of reviewers. Provide comments in
the space below the question. Discuss areas of concern in the space
provided.

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Selection of Reviewers                                  | YES , NO,  |
|                                                         |            |
|                                                         | DATA NOT   |
|                                                         | AVAILABLE, |
|                                                         |            |
|                                                         | or NOT     |
|                                                         | APPLICABLE |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Did the program make use of an adequate number of       | YES        |
| reviewers for a balanced review?                        |            |
|                                                         |            |
| **Comments:**                                           |            |
|                                                         |            |
| In general, the target of four reviews was maintained   |            |
| throughout. In some cases, it was difficult to get more |            |
| than three reviews, even though the program officers    |            |
| made great efforts to obtain them.                      |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Did the program make use of reviewers having            | YES        |
| appropriate expertise and/or qualifications?            |            |
|                                                         |            |
| **Comments:**                                           |            |
|                                                         |            |
| Program officers have an excellent knowledge of the     |            |
| reviewer base and their expertise, and make excellent   |            |
| use of that knowledge. In cases where proposals crossed |            |
| disciplines, program officers went to great lengths to  |            |
| ensure balanced reviews, consulting experts at NSF      |            |
| outside the Division, and requesting additional reviews |            |
| from the different disciplines.                         |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Did the program make appropriate use of reviewers to    | DATA NOT   |
| reflect balance among characteristics such as           | AVAILABLE  |
| geography, type of institution, and underrepresented    |            |
| groups?                                                 |            |
|                                                         |            |
| **Comments:**                                           |            |
|                                                         |            |
| A casual view of the institutions of the proposers      |            |
| suggests that a reasonable geographical representation  |            |
| would be obtained if the reviewers were chosen from the |            |
| pool of proposers. But we were given no data on the     |            |
| geographical or institutional representation of the     |            |
| reviewers, and did not have the time or inclination to  |            |
| try to derive representative data from the jackets.     |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Did the program recognize and resolve conflicts of      | YES        |
| interest when appropriate?                              |            |
|                                                         |            |
| **Comments:**                                           |            |
|                                                         |            |
| The program officers appear to be especially vigilant   |            |
| in this regard.                                         |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Discuss any concerns identified that are relevant to    |            |
| selection of reviewers.                                 |            |
|                                                         |            |
| The number of international reviews appears to be       |            |
| relatively low. While international reviewers could     |            |
| provide an additional source of independent reviewer    |            |
| expertise, the experience of the program officers is    |            |
| that international reviewers are often less willing to  |            |
| provide reviews than domestic reviewers. The COV        |            |
| believes that the additional perspective of             |            |
| international reviewers is worth pursuing, if this can  |            |
| be done in an efficient manner.                         |            |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+

A.4 Questions concerning the resulting portfolio of awards under review.
Provide comments in the space below the question. Discuss areas of
concern in the space provided.

+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| **RESULTING PORTFOLIO OF AWARDS**                    | **A           |
|                                                      | PPROPRIATE,** |
|                                                      |               |
|                                                      | **NOT         |
|                                                      | A             |
|                                                      | PPROPRIATE,** |
|                                                      |               |
|                                                      | **OR DATA NOT |
|                                                      | AVAILABLE**   |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Overall quality of the research and/or education     | Appropriate   |
| projects supported by the program.                   |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| As outlined in section B, the research and education |               |
| projects funded by the section continue to serve as  |               |
| the foundation for many of the important and         |               |
| creative developments in our field. These include    |               |
| the evolution of new strategies for developing and   |               |
| assessing climate models and initiatives that        |               |
| improve our ability to forecast weather over a range |               |
| of timescales and the many natural hazards related   |               |
| to it. Educational initiatives sponsored by the      |               |
| section have also had an impact on deepening         |               |
| connections among mathematicians, statisticians and  |               |
| the atmospheric science community.                   |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Are awards appropriate in size and duration for the  | Appropriate   |
| scope of the projects?                               |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Overall awards averaged very close to the stated     |               |
| target amount and duration of \$128,000 and 3 years. |               |
| Across the section they averaged \$129,000 and 3.04  |               |
| years respectively for 2003 with a slight tendency   |               |
| toward increasing proposal size over the three-year  |               |
| period of the review (increasing from \$106,000 in   |               |
| 2001). Average award amounts varied across the       |               |
| programs with award amounts tending to be larger and |               |
| longer in atmospheric chemistry, reflecting the more |               |
| experimental and instrumental nature of this         |               |
| program. Despite the close conformity of the         |               |
| proposal amounts and lengths to section wide goals   |               |
| this did not appear to reflect rigidity in the award |               |
| process; our review revealed numerous instances      |               |
| where program officers exercised good judgment when  |               |
| working with PIs to revise budgets and time-lines in |               |
| ways that best advanced the science.                 |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | Appropriate   |
| balance of:                                          |               |
|                                                      |               |
| -   High Risk Proposals?                             |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| For this and several of the ensuing questions        |               |
| relating to the appropriate balance of the           |               |
| portfolio, our assessment was based on an evaluation |               |
| of select proposals identified by the program        |               |
| officers as exemplary of particular qualities, i.e., |               |
| high risk, multidisciplinary, etc. Overall the       |               |
| program officers were able to identify an            |               |
| appropriate number of what they called high-risk     |               |
| proposals. The subset of these we randomly reviewed  |               |
| uniformly illustrated the acumen of the program      |               |
| officers as they repeatedly intervened, often quite  |               |
| imaginatively, to ensure that creative or novel, yet |               |
| risky, ideas/proposers were given a chance to        |               |
| succeed. Typically these high-risk proposals were    |               |
| identified by favorable reviews on the basic         |               |
| scientific ideas, but low numeric ratings due to a   |               |
| reviewer's skepticism regarding the feasibility of   |               |
| the project, or the lack of a track record by an     |               |
| investigator. In several cases (ATM-0124927 being    |               |
| one, and ATM-0137589 being another which is also     |               |
| featured in section B) these risks have already paid |               |
| dividends.                                           |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | Appropriate   |
| balance of:                                          |               |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Multidisciplinary Proposals?                     |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Program officers were also able to identify a        |               |
| healthy number of proposals as multi-disciplinary.   |               |
| These typically exemplified a willingness of program |               |
| officers to work across programs and divisional      |               |
| boundaries. Based on our review we believe that the  |               |
| ability of these proposals to succeed is a direct    |               |
| reflection of the willingness of program officers to |               |
| consult with experts outside of their narrow range   |               |
| of expertise when collecting reviews, and to think   |               |
| broadly about how their program relates to the       |               |
| broader needs of the science.                        |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | Appropriate   |
| balance of:                                          |               |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Innovative Proposals?                            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Across the program portfolio innovation is evident   |               |
| in every conceivable respect. Worth singling out in  |               |
| this respect are a number of instances where         |               |
| creative proposals from PIs from other disciplines   |               |
| not traditionally funded by LARS are bringing new    |               |
| ideas to bear on longstanding problems.              |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | Appropriate   |
| balance of:                                          |               |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Funding for centers, groups and awards to        |               |
|     individuals?                                     |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| The bulk of the section\'s support is to single PI   |               |
| projects, however numerous examples of collaborative |               |
| proposals both among diverse groupings of PIs and    |               |
| across agencies were evident in our review. In a     |               |
| limited number of cases large awards were given in   |               |
| support of groups maintaining facilities valued and  |               |
| used by the broader community. The support for the   |               |
| COLA group, and the investment in the cloud radar    |               |
| group at the University of Wyoming are examples of   |               |
| this.                                                |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | Appropriate   |
| balance of:                                          |               |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Awards to new investigators?                     |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Support to new PIs within the section was            |               |
| significantly higher (as a percentage of all awards) |               |
| than it was within the directorate and about on par  |               |
| with the foundation as a whole (with the section     |               |
| identifying approximately 30% of all awards being to |               |
| \"new\" investigators). A subset of these, 25        |               |
| awards, were given as CAREER awards. Although the    |               |
| success rate of new proposers was significantly less |               |
| than that of established investigators we were       |               |
| pleased to see many instances of constructive        |               |
| mentoring of new investigators by the program        |               |
| officers. In some cases this mentoring took the form |               |
| of helping guide resubmissions of denied proposals,  |               |
| but more often it was expressed in terms of program  |               |
| officers taking an active interest in proposals and  |               |
| helping PIs sharpen their plans, objectives, or      |               |
| methodologies in response to criticisms raised       |               |
| through the review process.                          |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | Appropriate   |
| balance of:                                          |               |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Geographical distribution of Principal           |               |
|     Investigators?                                   |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| This was difficult to judge based on the data        |               |
| provided and the fact that there exist regional      |               |
| biases in the geographic distribution of atmospheric |               |
| science programs (i.e., disproportionately large     |               |
| relative to the population in places like Wyoming,   |               |
| Colorado), which are difficult to adjust for simply  |               |
| by scanning the distribution of PIs. A survey of the |               |
| Paleoclimate Program alone found awards across 27    |               |
| states and overall we found no evidence of obvious   |               |
| bias in the distribution of principal investigators. |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | Appropriate   |
| balance of:                                          |               |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Institutional types?                             |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Examples of funding to a range of institutions       |               |
| including small businesses, non-profit               |               |
| organizations, a variety of colleges, large research |               |
| universities abound. Although balance was difficult  |               |
| to assess quantitatively the distribution of awards  |               |
| among institutions did seem to reflect our sense of  |               |
| the relative degree of activity among those          |               |
| institutions.                                        |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | Appropriate   |
| balance of:                                          |               |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Projects that integrate research and education?  |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| A very large fraction of awards help fund graduate   |               |
| education. For instance, one award supports the      |               |
| integration of a field school as part of an upcoming |               |
| field program. Participants in the program will      |               |
| lecture to graduate students participating in the    |               |
| program, and research time with the experimental     |               |
| facilities will be provided to the students to allow |               |
| them to design their own mini-experiment within the  |               |
| larger field campaign. Another example includes the  |               |
| incorporation of undergraduate engineering students  |               |
| from an exclusively female engineering school in the |               |
| development of new instrumentation at a neighboring  |               |
| research university, as well as a healthy mix of     |               |
| REU, RUI and CAREER proposals which more naturally   |               |
| address these objectives.                            |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have an appropriate       | Appropriate   |
| balance:                                             |               |
|                                                      |               |
| -   Across disciplines and subdisciplines of the     |               |
|     activity and of emerging opportunities?          |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| A spirit of openness and collegiality appears to     |               |
| characterize the work of the program officers. Many  |               |
| instances were found where creative efforts were     |               |
| made to bridge gaps across programs, ensure balance  |               |
| and address emerging areas. A particular example is  |               |
| the creative response of nearly every program within |               |
| the section in addressing emerging interests in      |               |
| aerosol processes across the section. No evidence of |               |
| parochialism was found. Indeed repeatedly we noted   |               |
| efforts by program officers to anticipate            |               |
| multi-disciplinary opportunities in dynamics and     |               |
| chemistry, ocean-atmosphere and biophysical          |               |
| interactions. Likewise efforts to nurture emerging   |               |
| areas (aerosol research, annular mode studies within |               |
| large-scale dynamic meteorology) were also evident.  |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Does the program portfolio have appropriate          | Appropriate   |
| participation of underrepresented groups?            |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| This is stated with the caveat that data was not     |               |
| collected in a fashion that made this easy to        |               |
| determine with any significance and the fact that    |               |
| the field as a whole tends to be acutely             |               |
| under-represented by certain population groups       |               |
| (African-American, Native-American, Hispanic). Thus  |               |
| our determination should be interpreted as our       |               |
| inability to discern any obvious bias. This is       |               |
| supported by the tendency of funding rates to be     |               |
| commensurate for women, minorities and the general   |               |
| PI population. Overall 15% of proposals had female   |               |
| PIs, with the rate being somewhat higher (as one     |               |
| would hope) for new proposers (20% of CAREER         |               |
| awards).                                             |               |
|                                                      |               |
| We were concerned about our ability to address many  |               |
| of the above issues because the data were not easily |               |
| available, as discussed further in Section C5.       |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Is the program relevant to national priorities,      | Appropriate   |
| agency mission, relevant fields and other customer   |               |
| needs? Include citations of relevant external        |               |
| reports.                                             |               |
|                                                      |               |
| **Comments:**                                        |               |
|                                                      |               |
| As stated at the outset, the program continues to    |               |
| fund the science that serves as the foundation for   |               |
| many of the important developments in our field. It  |               |
| continues to support the development of broad        |               |
| community initiatives ranging from a very active     |               |
| field/experimental community to important facilities |               |
| ranging from ground based remote sensors to          |               |
| satellite and modeling facilities.                   |               |
|                                                      |               |
| The science supported by this section is relevant to |               |
| national priorities in weather, climate and air      |               |
| quality. This is evident from a number of agency and |               |
| NRC documents such as the Strategic Plan for the     |               |
| U.S. Climate Change Science Program USCCSP (2003),   |               |
| and the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on     |               |
| Climate Change (IPCC, 2001). A list of relevant NRC  |               |
| reports can be found on the web page of the Board on |               |
| Atmospheric Sciences and Climate                     |               |
| http:/                                               |               |
| /www7.nationalacademies.org/basc/publications.html). |               |
| Examples include: Global Air Quality(2001), A        |               |
| Climate Services Vision(2001), Weather Forecasting   |               |
| Accuracy for FAA Traffic Flow Management(2002),      |               |
| Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises(2002).   |               |
| Tracking and Predicting the Atmospheric Dispersion   |               |
| of Hazardous Material Releases: Implications for     |               |
| Homeland Security(2002), Critical Issues on Weather  |               |
| Modification Research(2003), Understanding Climate   |               |
| Change Feedbacks(2003), Where the Weather Meets the  |               |
| Road: A Research Agenda for Improving Road Weather   |               |
| Services(2004).                                      |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Discuss any concerns identified that are relevant to |               |
| the quality of the projects or the balance of the    |               |
| portfolio.                                           |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Our only concern relating to these questions is a    |               |
| perception that NSF does not collect data as part of |               |
| the proposal evaluation process in a way that        |               |
| properly reflects its evaluation criteria as         |               |
| embodied by the above questions. If NSF would        |               |
| collect and synthesize information regarding the     |               |
| nature of the proposers' and reviewers'              |               |
| institutions, race/ethnicity/gender of the PI, their |               |
| geographic location, and the designation of the      |               |
| proposal as high-risk, multi-disciplinary,           |               |
| innovative, etc, future committees would be in a     |               |
| position to more quantitatively evaluate these       |               |
| questions. Our subjective judgment based on limited  |               |
| data is that these issues are being well addressed   |               |
| in LARS, however.                                    |               |
|                                                      |               |
| Our one other comment is to reiterate the            |               |
| introductory comments of our report, namely that the |               |
| strength of the program, particularly its ability    |               |
| and record of funding innovative, risky,             |               |
| collaborative and multi-disciplinary proposals,      |               |
| stems directly from the quality of the program       |               |
| officers. To a person we found them to be very       |               |
| knowledgeable and extraordinarily devoted to         |               |
| ensuring the fairness of the review process and, in  |               |
| the broadest possible sense, the advancement of the  |               |
| field as a whole.                                    |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+

A.5 Management of the program under review. Please comment on:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Management of the program.                                            |
|                                                                       |
| **Comments:**                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| LARS is managed by effective leadership at the division, section, and |
| program level. Their expertise in the disciplines for which they have |
| responsibility allows program officers to identify appropriate        |
| reviewers for proposals and to make well-reasoned discretionary       |
| decisions in cases for which reviews are inconsistent. The management |
| policy in ATM of having both permanent and rotating staff is a        |
| healthy one, which provides each program with good organizational     |
| memory and a continual import of fresh perspective and ideas.         |
|                                                                       |
| The COV has learned that LARS is planning a reorganization wherein    |
| the Large-Scale Dynamic Meteorology and Climate Dynamics programs     |
| will merge and the Mesoscale Dynamical Meteorology and Physical       |
| Meteorology programs will also merge. This merger was encouraged by   |
| the changing nature of proposed research in the affected programs and |
| facilitated by recent staff changes within these programs. While the  |
| reorganization seems justified, the COV feels it is very important to |
| preserve the working relationship between the program officers and    |
| reviewer community, particularly as expressed in the thoughtful       |
| syntheses found in Form 7. The particular concern here is that        |
| program officers will more frequently deal with subject areas and     |
| communities with which they are not familiar, if the programs within  |
| the section are reduced in number and broadened in scope. In          |
| addition, it is important to maintain the balance of priorities       |
| within the section and programs. One possible side effect of the      |
| reorganization is that it will be more difficult to recruit           |
| top-quality individuals if they are not solely responsible for a      |
| coherent component of the section, but rather have shared or          |
| subordinate responsibility for a larger grouping of disciplines.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Responsiveness of the program to emerging research and education      |
| trends.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| **Comments:**                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| The program is responsive to emerging research and supportive of      |
| educational initiatives. This responsiveness is fostered because the  |
| program officers are fully engaged in the review process. These       |
| emerging trends are reflected in the submitted proposals and program  |
| directors can decide to direct funds to emerging areas, if such       |
| decisions are consistent with the scientific evaluations of the       |
| reviewers.                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| LARS has participated successfully to varying degrees in CMG, ITR,    |
| bio-complexity awards, nano (Martin, Harvard chemistry), etc.         |
|                                                                       |
| The COV commends the program managers and division director for the   |
| fine job they have done with the funds available.                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Program planning and prioritization process (internal and external)   |
| that guided the development of the portfolio under review.            |
|                                                                       |
| **Comments:**                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Budgets are determined by the historical distribution of funded       |
| activities in a particular program. If strong growth or opportunity   |
| occurs within a particular program area, then funding increases for   |
| that program when possible. The fear of "unfunded mandates" at the    |
| program manager level appears to actively discourage the pursuit of   |
| additional funds for new research initiatives.                        |
|                                                                       |
| The COV encourages LARS to conduct periodic reviews focused on        |
| identifying emerging research trends within and between all programs. |
| We hope that the larger atmospheric sciences community is able to     |
| contribute to these discussions and that the results of these reviews |
| are shared with the community.                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Discuss any concerns identified that are relevant to the management   |
| of the program.                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| When there is a gap in staffing during periods of transition of       |
| rotating staff, a work overload results for existing program staff.   |
| If at all possible, gaps in staff should be avoided by early          |
| recruitment of rotating program officers.                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

##### 5. PART B. RESULTS: OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES OF NSF INVESTMENTS

**B. Please provide comments on the activity as it relates to NSF's
Strategic Outcome Goals. Provide examples of outcomes (nuggets) as
appropriate. Examples should reference the NSF award number, the
Principal Investigator(s) names, and their institutions.**

**B.1 [OUTCOME GOAL for PEOPLE]{.underline}: Developing "a diverse,
competitive and globally engaged workforce of scientists, engineers,
technologists and well-prepared citizens."**

The Lower Atmospheric Sciences Section has employed programs at several
educational and career levels to develop a diverse, recognized, and
competitive group of atmospheric scientists. Judging by the
accomplishments and honors of the individuals, the programs appear to be
very successful. The list of PIs supported by the LARS section includes
a very large number of recently elected members of the National Academy
of Sciences, and recipients of a variety of prestigious scientific
medals and awards. The LARS programs included educational training for
graduate students, research experiences for undergraduate students, as
well as early career support for new Ph.D.s.

Much of the effort came through the normal grants programs. During
FY01--03, 618 awards by the grants program supported graduate education
for a total of 640 students. During the same period, there were 25
awards for a diverse group of junior investigators in the NSF CAREER
program. In addition to providing support for undergraduates within many
awards, the section made a total of 8 awards to develop large projects
in the Research Experiences for Undergraduates program. The COV review
found several novel and exciting examples within these programs, some of
which are described below.

***Early Career Advancement:***

The Climate Dynamics Program co-funded the project \"Dissertations
Initiative for the Advancement of Climate Change Research\" (DISCCRS)
led by **C. Susan Weiler**, Whitman College. DISCCRS is a new program to
foster collaboration of new scientists across the natural sciences. The
program was aimed at recent Ph.D.s and underrepresented groups. Among
the 109 U.S. registrants, 40% were female and 10% were under-represented
minorities.

**Amy Clement,** University of Miami, is supported by an NSF CAREER
award for research and educational activities. The project, "The Earth's
Climate: Understanding the Past and Educating for the Future"
(ATM-0134742), will investigate one of the outstanding problems in
climatology, the origins and mechanisms of ice age climate variability.
The educational activities will promote climate awareness for graduate
and undergraduate students at the university and for the Miami general
public as well.

**John Seeley**, Oakland University, is supported by an NSF CAREER award
to develop the techniques for the analysis of atmospheric trace gases
(ATM-0094185). The PI is developing a new instrument for two-dimensional
gas chromatography, which will allow for the clear resolution of
hydrocarbons from oxygenated and nitrogenated organic compounds. The PI
trains undergraduate and graduate students and is very active in
outreach efforts to teachers and the community.

**David Thompson**, Colorado State University, is supported by an NSF
CAREER award for "Analysis of Annular Modes in the Atmospheric General
Circulation." The project (ATM-0132190) includes research investigations
into climate variability caused by the southern hemisphere annular mode,
curriculum development, mentoring of graduate students and opportunities
for undergraduate participation in research. Thompson was a recipient of
the American Geophysical Union Macelwane Award, which recognizes
outstanding research accomplishments by young researchers in the
geophysical sciences.

***Undergraduate Research and Education:***

An ADVANCE Fellows proposal titled "Langrangian Balloon for Atmospheric
Research" (ATM-0137589) by **Paul Voss**, University of Massachusetts,
was awarded to develop a new, neutrally buoyant balloon capable of
carrying a variety of instruments for atmospheric sounding. A major part
of the research program is the integration of research using the
instrument with instruction and research experiences for undergraduate
students at Smith College, the home institution of the PI's spouse. Thus
the award also provides the opportunity for continued advancement of a
two-career couple.

Two REU programs within the Paleoclimate Program were notable because
they included undergraduate research experiences in interesting and
difficult field locations and boosted training of under represented
groups. The first award, "REU Site: The Nyanza Project --
Interdisciplinary Tropical Lake Studies Associated with the
International decade of East African Lakes (IDEAL)', by **Andrew
Cohen**, University of Arizona, offers interdisciplinary research and
training for undergraduates, graduate students and secondary school
teachers (ATM-0223920). The program joins American students and mentors
with African counterparts for a season on teaching and research at the
field site, providing a rich experience of teaching, research and
cultural exchange. The second award, "Holocene and Modern Climate Change
in the High Arctic: Establishing an REU site on Svalbard, Norway", by
**Al Werner**, is funded by the Paleoclimate program and the Office of
Polar Programs (OPP-0244097). The project includes the participation of
Mt. Holyoke College, University Center on Svalbard, Hampshire College,
University of Massachusetts, Bates College, and Northern Illinois
University. The experience includes research projects designed and
executed by the students during the summer field season, analysis during
the following academic year, culminating with a project symposium during
the spring semester.

Several awards were made for research opportunities at small colleges:
**Matthew J. Elrod**, Oberlin College, received funding for a program
"Overall Rate Constant and Nitrate Branching Ratio Measurements for the
Reactions of Alkene-Derived Peroxy Radicals with Nitric Oxide
(ATM-0352537). This award followed a successful and productive NSF
CAREER. In addition, **Keith Beyer**, Lutheran College, was awarded a
grant titled "Solid-Liquid Phase Diagrams of Aqueous Inorganic and
Organic Substances of Upper Tropospheric Importance (ATM-0304966). This
award is to conduct original research in a topical area of interest in a
small undergraduate college by involving undergraduate students
extensively in laboratory studies and data analysis.

***LARS Scientists Receiving Awards -- FY2001-2004***

During the last three years, atmospheric scientists have been the
recipients of many prestigious awards. Some examples are:

In 2001, C. D. Keeling, Scripps Institution of Oceanography was awarded
the National Medal of Science "for his pioneering and fundamental
research on atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide, the basis for
understanding global carbon cycle and global warming.\" Keeling has been
a long-time recipient of LARS funding and his recent NSF awards include
ATM-0120527.

The American Geophysical Union presented Macelwane awards to two
researchers for outstanding research contributions by young scientists.
In 2001 **Daniel Schrag**, Harvard University, received his award for
his contributions to paleoceanography and earth history. In 2004,
**David Thompson**, Colorado State University, received his award for
contribution to understand large-scale climate variability and modes of
atmospheric circulation. Recent NSF awards to Schrag include ATM-0214328
and to Thompson include ATM-0320959.

The American Geophysical Union Roger Revelle medal, awarded "for
outstanding accomplishments or contributions toward the understanding of
the Earth\'s atmospheric processes", was awarded to **Ralph Cicerone**,
University of California, Irvine, in 2002 and to **Inez Fung**,
University of California, Berkeley, in 2004. Recent NSF awards to
Cicerone include ATM-0121153 and to Fung include ATM-9987457.

The first Gilbert Walker Gold Medal for the Year 2001 was awarded to
Prof. **Jagadish Shukla**, President of the Centre for Ocean Land
Atmospheric Research, USA. The award has been instituted by the Indian
Meteorological Society to be given biennially to an eminent Indian or
foreign scientist of international recognition, in the field of monsoon
studies. The award honors international scientists who have made
significant contributions to monsoon studies. Recent NSF awards to
Shukla include ATM-0332910.

**Mario J. Molina**, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, received the
Heinz Award in Environment in 2003 for his research on atmospheric
pollution and its effects on humans. Recent NSF awards to Molina include
ATM-0308748.

**Paul Wennberg**, California Institute of Technology, was named
MacArthur Fellow in 2002. He was recognized for his research of human
impacts on the atmosphere and for developing new tools and analytic
methods for measuring and understanding its chemistry. Recent NSF awards
to Wennberg include ATM-0094670.

***LARS Scientists -- Recent Elections to National Academy of
Sciences***

Over the past three years, six scientists supported by LARS have been
elected to the National Academy of Sciences. They are listed below, with
biographies taken from the National Academy of Sciences web site
(www.nas.edu):

**Bender, Michael L**.; Professor, Department of Geosciences, Princeton
University, Princeton, N.J. Bender has made major advances in
sedimentary geochemistry, the biogeochemistry of oxygen, and
paleoclimatology. His studies provided a framework to understand how
biologically active elements are recycled back into seawater. He also
helped to show that ocean productivity is high and that the land
biosphere sequesters about one-quarter of industrial carbon-dioxide
emissions.

**Cerling, Thure E**.; Professor, Department of Geology and Geophysics,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Cerling is a leading authority on
the geochemistry of processes occurring at or near the surface of the
Earth. He has applied novel geochemical methods to study the geological
record of ecological change, the evolution of modern mammals and other
terrestrial life, the evolution of landscapes, and the chemical
composition of the atmosphere.

**Denton, George H.;** Libra Professor of Geological Sciences and
Quaternary Studies, University of Maine, Orono. Denton is a glacial
geologist who is an expert on the Earth\'s glacial history and on global
cryosphere evolution. He has focused on the development of the Antarctic
ice sheet and its sensitivity to global warming. He has also
investigated the abrupt climate changes that dominated the last glacial
cycle, providing key insights on glacial changes in the Southern
hemisphere.

**Fung, Inez Y**.; Professor and Director, Center for Atmospheric
Sciences, University of California, Berkeley. Fung is an innovator in
tracing the sources, sinks, and transport of carbon dioxide, methane,
and other substances that regulate Earth\'s climate. She presented the
first three-dimensional transport model of atmospheric carbon dioxide
that realistically included the biosphere. She also pioneered the
interpretation of satellite observations of reflected radiation from
plant life.

**Ramanathan, Veerabhadran;** Victor C. Alderson Professor and Director,
Center for Clouds, Chemistry, and Climate, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla. Ramanathan
is an international leader in global climate studies. An atmospheric
physicist, he identified chlorofluorocarbons and ozone as significant
factors in human-induced climate change. In important experiments he
also demonstrated that soot can play an unexpectedly large role in the
Earth\'s thermal budget.

**Tolbert, Margaret A.;** Professor, Department of Chemistry and
Biochemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder. Tolbert is a pioneer in
laboratory studies of atmospheric surface chemistry and of microphysics.
In landmark works, she identified the role of surface reactions on solid
and liquid stratospheric clouds, proposed a new phase for some polar
stratospheric clouds, and demonstrated certain key cirrus cloud
processes in mid-latitude ozone depletion.

***LARS Scientists -- Recent Elections to National Academy of
Engineering***

**Robert E. Dickinson,** Professor, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. For pioneering contributions
to a wide range of topics in atmospheric dynamics and earth system
modeling.

**B.2 [NSF OUTCOME GOAL for IDEAS]{.underline}: Enabling "discovery
across the frontier of science and engineering, connected to learning,
innovation, and service to society."**

Examples abound of important research discoveries within LARS. The COV
highlights just a few of them here, at least one from each program area.

![](media/image1.png){width="2.75in" height="2.03125in"}*Atmospheric
Chemistry*

The ACE--Asia program was a major international collaborative effort
that involved scientists from the US, PR China, Korea, Japan, the UK,
and other countries. The atmospheric chemistry program recommended a
total of 25 awards during FY 2000 and 2001. ACE-Asia has resulted in
over 60 peer-reviewed publications through 2003, with many more in 2004
and still to come, including an ACE-Asia special issue in the *Journal
of Geophysical Research*. Results from ACE-Asia have improved our
understanding of how atmospheric aerosols influence the chemical and
radiative properties of the Earth's atmosphere. The work

of two investigators is highlighted below.

####### James Anderson, Arizona State University (ATM-0002513),

####### used an electron microscope to study single particles collected 

####### both on the ground and by aircraft in the outflow region. He demonstrated that the dust transported from Asia across the Pacific is mixed with black carbon and inorganic components derived from urban pollution. 

####### Gregory Carmichael, University of Iowa (ATM-0098122) studied a dust cloud from a major Chinese Storm in April 2001 that passed over the continental US, and across the Atlantic to the Azores. This Chinese dust storm had such a large impact on visibility in Colorado that it was featured in national newscasts. The progression of the dust outbreak from the source region in China into the Pacific was observed by the ACE-Asia stationary and mobile platforms as well as described by predictive models guiding the aircraft and describing atmospheric layers in terms of their major sources (dust, urban pollution, biomass burning, and clean air) and their vertical and horizontal extent. 

*Large-Scale Dynamic Meteorology*

Particularly timely in view of the current active hurricane season are
results by T.N. Krishnamurti at Florida State University (ATM-0108741).
He devised a "Super-Ensemble," a statistical combination of five
operational global prediction models and the Florida State global
spectral model. The global ensemble prediction outperforms each of its
members routinely and, in particular, reduces systematic errors
substantially for a number of common forecast parameters, including
precipitation, in forecasts out to five days. Specifically, the annual
global mean sea level pressure systematic errors in five-day forecasts
are generally in the range of +/- 1 hPa, compared to errors as high as 8
hPa in individual models. Similarly, systematic errors in two-day
forecasts of 500 hPa geopotential height were in the range of +/- 10
meters, compared to errors as high as 60 meters in individual models. Of
great practical significance, forecast errors in hurricane track and
intensity were smaller in the Super-Ensemble predictions than in any of
the separate global models during the 2002 hurricane season.

![](media/image2.wmf)

Fig. 2: Reduction of track and intensity errors for hurricanes in the
Atlantic basin for the 2002 season for predictions made with individual
global models and the Florida State University Super-Ensemble forecast
(red).

![](media/image3.png){width="4.465277777777778in"
height="5.944444444444445in"}

Fig. 3: Top panel shows the association of positive cloud-to-ground
flashes with graupel (pellets of soft hail). Bottom panel shows that the
height of origin of the positive cloud-to-ground flashes is typically
around the --10^o^C level and is associated with regions of hail. (From
Rutledge, ATM-0309303, presentation at meeting of the American
Geophysical Union, fall 2003)

*Physical Meteorology*

The Severe Thunderstorm Electrification and Precipitation Study (STEPS)
field experiment was conducted in May-June 2000. Physical Meteorology
supported six grants from FY01-03 that examined the field data:
ATM-0309303 (Rutledge), ATM-0233268 (MacGorman), ATM-0245147 (Detwiler),
ATM-0221512 (Lyons), ATM-0222011 (Cummer), and ATM-0220842 (Marshall). A
lightning mapping array developed by P. Krehbiel at New Mexico Tech
provides raw data about the three-dimensional branching of individual
lightning discharges and the way in which individual flashes propagate.
A key finding is that positive cloud-to-ground strokes may arise from a
variety of sources: shear-displacement of the upper positive charge
relative to the lower negative charge, removal of negative charge by
precipitation, leaving the positive charge exposed to the ground, or a
dipole structure inverted from the usual positive-over-negative.

The Dynamics and Chemistry of Marine Stratocumulus (DYCOMS-II) field
experiment was the focus of six grants from FY2001-2003: ATM-0097053
(Stevens), ATM-0094956 (Vali), ATM-0103951 (Snider), ATM-0104707
(Twohy), ATM-0004444 (Bandy) and ATM-0107738 (Gerber). Stratocumulus
clouds make a major contribution to the earth's albedo. Thus, anything
that substantially changes the coverage of these clouds will have an
impact on global climate. DYCOMS-II sought to determine the factors
controlling entrainment of dry air into the tops of stratocumulus clouds
and the roles of drizzle in modifying these clouds or causing them to
dissipate. Entrainment was measured in several different ways and the
uncertainty in the measurements was quantified---a major boost for those
who try to model these clouds. The formation of drizzle is governed by
the sizes and growth rates of cloud droplets and so is influenced by the
cloud condensation nuclei in the air parcels forming the clouds. Cloud
radar indicates that cellular structures where drizzle forms within
stratocumulus clouds are exceptionally complex.\
\
*Mesoscale Dynamic Meteorology*

Paul Markowski and Michael Fritsch at Pennsylvania State University
(ATM-0133506) addressed the question "Why does moist convection organize
into discrete thunderstorms on some occasions but as large regions of
overturning (slabs) on other occasions?" Using a numerical model, they
found that a critical factor in thunderstorm organization was the
strength and depth of the cold pool produced by evaporative cooling. The
vertical profiles of wind, temperature, and humidity within the
environment surrounding the storms were found to exert strong,
non-linear influences on cold-pool properties. Generally, "slab-like"
convection is favored in an environment with a shallow mixed layer, low
cloud base, and strong low-level wind shear.

![](media/image4.png)

*Climate Dynamics*

It is well known that the troposphere affects the stratosphere through
upward propagation of waves. Recent studies suggest that changes in
stratospheric circulation can also extend downward into the troposphere.
The well-documented correlation between stratosphere and troposphere
anomalies in observations has been attributed to the
stratosphere-troposphere coupling. Two new investigations supported by
the Climate Dynamics Program suggest that the stratosphere-troposphere
coupling may have important bearing on climate variability/change and
climate predictability in the high-latitude Southern Hemisphere (SH) and
Northern Hemisphere (NH).

![](media/image5.png){width="3.375in" height="3.0520833333333335in"}

David Thompson (ATM-0132190), collaborating with Susan Solomon, explored
a number of different data sets covering the last 30 years and showed
that the Antarctic climate change over the past several decades,
consisting of the observed warming trend over the Antarctic Peninsula
and Patagonia and a cooling trend over eastern Antarctica and the
Antarctic plateau, can be linked to the trend in the lower stratospheric
polar vortex. They propose that photochemically-induced cooling
associated with Antarctic ozone depletion strengthens the SH
stratospheric polar vortex, causing the tropospheric SH annular mode to
shift toward its high-index polarity, which in turn affects surface
conditions over Antarctic continent.

Through observational analyses and statistical modeling, Mark Baldwin
(ATM-002485) found that persistent circulation anomalies in the
lowermost stratosphere may increase the \"memory\" of the climate system
and enhance its predictability. In particular, these studies show that
the time scale of the Arctic Oscillation, a dominant mode of climate
variability in the high-latitude NH, is greatest during winter, which is
coincident with the longest NH annular mode time scale in the lowermost
stratosphere. Furthermore, long-lived Arctic Oscillation anomalies tend
to follow stratospheric NH annular mode anomalies of the same sign. This
stratospheric "memory" effect could lead to extended-range forecasts of
the monthly-mean Arctic Oscillation during boreal winter that are well
beyond the 7-10 day limit of deterministic weather prediction.

Andrew Vogelmann at Scripps Institute of Oceanography received a Small
Grant for Exploratory Research (ATM 0109135) to examine the large
uncertainty in the effects of aerosols on the earth's radiation balance.
Recognizing that most global climate models consider the effect of
aerosols on incoming solar radiation but few consider the effect of
aerosols on infrared (IR) radiation, he examined clear-sky IR spectra
obtained during a cruise across the western Pacific Ocean. He discovered
aerosol forcings up to 10 W m^-2^, values that are quite large compared
to the 1-2 W m^-2^ estimated for greenhouse gas accumulations since the
beginning of the industrial revolution. Prompted by this finding, Andrew
will collaborate with Bill Collins of NCAR to include aerosol IR effects
in the next version of the NCAR Community Climate System Model.

*Paleoclimate*

Lonnie Thompson and Ellen Mosley-Thompson of Ohio State University
(ATM-9910172) led a team of researchers to the summit of Mt. Kilimanjaro
to collect ice cores from the receding glacier there. They extracted a
climate record that would otherwise likely have been lost within decades
because of rapid melting. A surprising finding was that catastrophic
droughts, some lasting hundreds of years, plagued the region around
Tanzania 8300, 5200 and 4000 years ago. The ice core samples provided a
record back to 11,700 years ago, when the summit glaciers began forming.
Lake Chad, now covering 17,000 square kilometers, was once more than
twenty times larger. Learning the causes of such droughts is of immense
importance because they put heavy stress on the large populations that
dwell in the tropics.

![](media/image6.png){width="2.625in" height="2.125in"}

Fig. 6: Summit glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, Africa.

**B.3 [OUTCOME GOAL for TOOLS:]{.underline} Providing "broadly
accessible, state-of-the-art S&E facilities, tools and other
infrastructure that enable discovery, learning and innovation."**

The Lower Atmosphere Research Section has supported research leading to
the development of a wide variety of databases, new facilities and new
instruments. Below we highlight eight achievements that are described in
more detail below. The first three are databases resulting from large
field projects that address important issues:

i)  Atmospheric aerosol and ii) water vapor, and iii) mesoscale
    convective systems and associated wind damage.

Support has been provided to develop four national facilities that
provide:

iv\) Improved water vapor and temperature sounding from space

v\) A new dedicated climate model computing facility.

vi\) An airborne cloud radar available for community use.

vii\) A national lightning triggering facility.

plus

viii\) An instrument for analyzing trace gases developed by a career
award researcher:

1\. [Asian Pacific Regional Aerosol Characterization Experiment
(ACE-Asia)]{.underline}

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="2.1in" height="2.5527777777777776in"}

ACE-Asia took place during the spring of 2001 off the coasts of China,
Japan and Korea and involved multiple aircraft (including the NSF C-130,
and the U.S. Navy Twin Otter), ships (including the NOAA R/V Ron Brown),
satellites, and surface sites (in particular the highly instrumented
site at Gosan, Korea). The most comprehensive measurements ever of
hemispheric aerosol emission and transport were carried out. The goal of
the experiment was to assess the regional climatic and atmospheric
chemical effects of a continental-scale mixture of dust and pollution.
Measurements were focused on determining the physical, chemical, and
optical properties of these particles, including their horizontal and
vertical distribution. Results from ACE-Asia have improved our
understanding of how atmospheric aerosols influence the chemical and
radiative properties of the Earth's atmosphere.  The data base resulting
from this activity is available to the community.

2\. [The International Water Vapor Project (IHOP).]{.underline}

-21 awards worth \$3,339,717 in FY 2002.

-16 awards worth \$1,660,220 in FY 2003.

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.375in" height="3.310416666666667in"}

Refractivity bias as measured by the S-Pol radar and AERI (Atmospheric
Emitted Radiance Interferometer) during IHOP (from presentation by
Pettet, et al. to the 2^nd^ International IHOP_2002 Science Workshop)

The overarching goal of IHOP is to improve the characterization of the
four‑dimensional distribution of water vapor and to apply this knowledge
to gain improved understanding and prediction of convection and
associated precipitation. This goal is congruent with the quantitative
precipitation forecasting (QPF) objective of the US Weather Research
Program (USWRP), and NSF support of IHOP was the major NSF contribution
to the USWRP in FY 2002. The IHOP objectives include research on
numerical QPF, convective initiation, relationship between atmospheric
water vapor and boundary layer processes, and instrumentation tests. The
IHOP may be a harbinger of a paradigm shift in the mesoscale
observational sciences. The IHOP experiment took place over the Southern
Great Plains of the US from 13 May to 25 June 2002 and relied upon a
large number of mobile and transportable observational facilities that
were repositioned on a daily basis as opposed to a large number of
fixed, observational facilities. A summary of preliminary results from
IHOP can be found in Weckworth, *et al.*, 2004, *Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society*, Volume **86** (2), 253-277.

3\. [BAMEX, the Bow Echo and Mesoscale Convective Vortices
Experiment]{.underline}.

13 ATM awards in FY 2003 with a total value of \$1,628,677.

The goal of BAMEX is to study the life cycle of mesoscale convective
systems with an emphasis on damaging surface wind events and mesoscale
convective vortices. From 1995-2000 such windstorms resulted in over
\$1.4 billion in property damage and 72 deaths. BAMEX employed a large
number of mobile and transportable observational systems that were
deployed on a forecast basis. The field campaign documented numerous
long-lived mesoscale convective systems, many producing strong surface
winds and exhibiting mesoscale rotation (See figure below.) BAMEX is
described in Davis *et al*. 2004 *Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society*, Volume **85** (8), 1075-1094.

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="5.039583333333334in"
height="3.779861111111111in"}

Radar images from the Omaha WSR-88D on 6 July 2003 during BAMEX
(courtesy of report given to the BAMEX workshop by Wakimoto, et al.)

4\. [Constelation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere and
Climate (COSMIC)]{.underline} *(*ATM 9908671, Rocken, UCAR)

In 1999, NSF, in partnership with NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force and US
Navy, entered into an agreement with Taiwan to build and launch a fleet
of six GPS/MET low earth-orbiting satellites designed to improve and
dramatically expand the GPS/MET proof-of-concept measurements. Called
COSMIC, for Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere
and Climate, the new project cost \$100M. \$80M has been provided by
Taiwan and \$20M by the five US agencies. Launch is scheduled for
September 2005. The system measures the refraction of GPS radio waves as
they pass through the atmosphere by radio occultation (RO) techniques,
and from these measurements one derives electron density in the upper
(charged) atmosphere and vertical profiles of density in the lower
(neutral) atmosphere. The potential from COSMIC is shown by the
following figure in which the red dots indicate the current global
radiosonde network (the mainstream observational network for operational
weather and climate prediction) and the green dots show the added COSMIC
soundings. COSMIC will be launched in late 2005.

COSMIC is co-funded at NSF by ATM's CDP, LDM, MDM, PMP, AER, and by OPP.
The CDP Program Director serves as the Chair of the COSMIC Interagency
Working Group.

Initial analyses and evaluation of GPS RO soundings from the earlier
GPS/MET and other projects indicate highly accurate temperature
soundings and useful water vapor soundings can be obtained with this
system.

Reference: <http://www.cosmic.ucar.edu/>

#### ![](media/image10.png){width="5.909027777777778in" height="4.4319444444444445in"}

#### 

5\. [THE CLIMATE SIMULATION LABORATORY]{.underline} (ATM-9732655, NCAR
Cooperative Agreement, Al Kellie, SCD).

The Climate Simulation Laboratory (CSL), a dedicated climate model
computing facility in support of the multi-agency Climate Change Science
Program, is administered by the Divisions of Atmospheric Sciences, Ocean
Sciences and Mathematical Sciences at NSF and managed by CDP. The CSL
computational facilities are housed, operated, and maintained by the
Scientific Computing Division (SCD) of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR), located in Boulder, Colorado. The purpose
of the CSL is to provide high performance computing and data storage
systems to support large-scale, long-running simulations of the earth\'s
climate system (defined as the coupled atmosphere, oceans, land and
cryosphere, and associated biogeochemistry and ecology, on time scales
of seasons to centuries), including appropriate model components, that
need to be completed in a short calendar period. A large simulation is
one that requires many thousands, of processor hours for its completion
and usually produces many gigabytes of model output that must be
archived for analysis and intercomparison with other simulations and
with observations.

Reference: <http://www.scd.ucar.edu/csl/overview_2.html>

6\. [AIRBORNE CLOUD RADAR]{.underline} (G.Vali, U of Wyoming, A Pazmany,
U Mass; grants ATM-0094956 and ATM-0095163).

The Physical Meteorology Program has provided long-term support for the
development and operation of the Wyoming Cloud Radar. This has been a
collaborative project in which scientists from the University of
Massachusetts have provided engineering and technical expertise and
scientists at the University of Wyoming have guided the development to
produce an airborne system

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="6.3375in" height="3.785416666666667in"}

Figure Caption: Downward looking reflectivity showing cellular
precipitation features localized in a region of homogeneous
stratocumulus. The downward looking lidar, and radar show that the
precipitation features are associated with nearby breaks in the cloud.
Far from the precipitation features the lack of radar reflectivity is
indicative of the lack of drizzle size drops. These measurements were
made using the Scanning Aerosol Backscatter Lidar (SABL) and the Wyoming
Cloud Radar mounted on the NCAR/NSF C130 flying 180km circular flight
legs above cloud top as part of the DYCOMS-II field study which took
place in July 2001 West Southwest of San Diego CA.

for studies of clouds and precipitation. This radar, operating with a
wavelength of 3.2 mm, provides high sensitivity and the ability to
resolve fine-scale structures in clouds. In a continuation of this work,
grants ATM-0094956 and ATM-0095163 supported continued improvement of
the capabilities of the radar and operation in several field studies. A
second antenna was added to permit sensing in two different directions
for dual-Doppler measurements of wind fields. One of the applications of
the system was in the DYCOMS-II experiment in July 2001, where it
measured the detailed cloud structure in the mixing region near cloud
top and also provided sensitive detection of drizzle drops. This
long-term investment has now led to a new facility that is revealing the
exceptionally detailed structure present in many cloud systems.

7\. [THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR LIGHTING RESEARCH AND
TESTING]{.underline}. (ATM-0003994, Rakov and Uman, U of Florida)

![](media/image12.jpeg){width="2.2555555555555555in"
height="3.3666666666666667in"}The center for lightning research and
testing at Camp Blanding, Florida was established primarily with funding
by the Electric Power Research Institute and has continued with support
from NSF, Florida Light and Power, the University of Florida, and
several other groups.

The key to the effectiveness of this facility has been its ability to
trigger lightning to strike at or near the center of the instrumented
array. This is accomplished, when local conditions are suitable, by
firing a rocket that trails a fine wire. Despite some early concern
regarding the realism of the lightning strikes that are produced, this
has proven to be an exceptionally valuable tool for the study of the
properties and the effects of lightning. The facility operates not only
to support the research of the Principal Investigators (V. Rakov and M.
Uman at the University of Florida) but also as a site where many members
of the international community come to conduct their research. The final
report for grant ATM-0003994, which included the years 2001-2003, listed
15 collaborators on publications, 17 groups that were partners in the
research, 36 journal articles, and more than 50 conference papers or
articles in transactions published or accepted in this period that
resulted from research at this center.

8\. [NEW INSTRUMENTION]{.underline}:

Development of the GC x GC technique and evaluation of the impact of
n-aldehydes on tropospheric chemistry (John Seeley, Oakland University,
ATM-0094185)

The theme of this project is to develop techniques for the analysis of
atmospheric trace gases. For the research component, a two-dimensional
gas chromatography (GC x GC) method was developed as a tool for
characterizing the volatile organic composition of the atmosphere. This
approach can generate high-speed and high-resolution separations with
the sensitivity and quantitative precision of a conventional gas
chromatograph, while providing a rugged instrument suited for field
deployment. For atmospheric chemistry, the biggest advantage of GC x GC
analysis is that hydrocarbons can be clearly resolved from oxygenated
and nitrogenated organic compounds. The PI is investigating the possible
commercialization of his instrument.

Laboratory and field studies were performed to determine the
significance of n-aldehydes in the troposphere. Preliminary findings
indicate that earlier reports of these compounds in the atmosphere were
likely partially based on artifacts of the sampling procedures used
rather than produced by lake waters and other natural sources.

Dr. Seeley involves graduate and undergraduate students in his research,
but he also reaches out to his local community and provides
opportunities for high school students and teachers to get involved in
environmental measurements. He has developed some simple experiments for
use in laboratory courses that allow students to quantify the levels of
important atmospheric species without requiring elaborate or expensive
equipment. A simple method for measuring surface ozone was adapted in a
design based on easily and cheaply available materials and components,
and high school teachers and students are trained to apply this method
for measurements in the ambient atmosphere.

The PI participates in annual workshops involving high school chemistry
teachers and the OU Chemistry Department faculty, and has also
established research activities involving high school teachers and
students centered on learning about atmospheric ozone and making field
measurements.

![](media/image13.jpeg){width="2.625in" height="1.96875in"}

![](media/image14.jpeg){width="1.554861111111111in" height="2.0in"}

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### PART C. OTHER TOPICS

C.1 [Please comment on any program areas in need of improvement or gaps
(if any) within program areas.]{.underline}

The committee finds no serious gaps or weaknesses in the program areas.
However, in thinking ahead, the committee offers the following
incomplete list of research opportunities that fall under the LARS
umbrella, and point to the continuing vitality and importance of lower
atmosphere research.

Mesoscale Data Assimilation: Assimilation of cloud and hydrometeor data
into mesoscale forecast models is a developing area. Data assimilation
strategies for exploiting information from new remote and in situ
measurements are sorely needed. The problem is multi-disciplinary in
that it entrains instrument specialists, data assimilation experts,
numerical modelers, and cloud physicists. Progress on this problem will
lead to better forecasts of clouds and precipitation.

Air Quality and Climate Change Linkage: The atmospheric residence times
of urban air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter are long
enough to influence air quality over broad regional and even global
scales. Further, these species also contribute to global warming: one of
the largest uncertainties in climate change science is related to the
potentially very large impacts of particles on cloud properties. In
addition, global warming may influence the emissions, formation,
transport and deposition of a variety of air pollutants.

Scale Interactions and Multi-scale Modeling: Interactions between very
different spatial scales is a fundamental problem in understanding and
predicting weather, climate and air quality. New approaches to these
problems and the parameterizations they engender may be found through
new multi-scale modeling and stochastic modeling concepts and tools.

Hydrology: Interactions between mesoscale dynamic meteorology and
climate dynamics are important for issues of changing water cycles over
land during global warming and cycles of drought and flood.

Aerosol-Cloud Interactions: Aerosol cloud interaction during climate
change is an important area that spans climate dynamics, atmospheric
chemistry and physical meteorology.

Ice Physics: The issue of cirrus clouds and their role in climate is
raising fundamental questions about our understanding of ice formation
at low temperatures and pressures.

C.2 [Please provide comments as appropriate on the program's performance
in meeting program-specific goals and objectives that are not covered by
the above questions.]{.underline}

This item was dealt with adequately in the previous sections.

**C.3 [Please identify agency-wide issues that should be addressed by
NSF to help improve the program\'s performance.]{.underline}**

The LARS comprises a number of well-managed and high quality programs
with much potential for growth of novel programs that are intellectually
meritorious and of great practical significance. Improved mechanisms are
needed whereby the LARS managers and the communities of scientists they
support can bring these ideas forward to compete most successfully for
new resources. A safe path by which ideas deserving enhanced support can
be brought up from below does not appear to exist. Managers feel that
additional resources for opportunities that are not well aligned with
agency-wide initiatives will occur only through reallocation of funds
from within existing budgets. This discourages managers from developing
and nurturing such initiatives that would help maintain the pressure
LARS should be placing on NSF for additional resources. We feel that the
community of scientists would be best served if LARS, at the section
level, put more effort into developing such initiatives that cut across
programs and can best compete for resources within NSF.

C.4 [Please provide comments on any other issues the COV feels are
relevant]{.underline}.

The handling of interdisciplinary climate problems that cross boundaries
between traditional NSF categories remains a problem. Examples are
funding for coupled air-sea interactions in the climate system can be
disadvantaged both within OCE and ATM. Similarly, interactions of
biological and physical processes in the determination of atmospheric
carbon dioxide may not have a natural home in the NSF structure.

During our visit we learned that Large-Scale Dynamical Meteorology and
Climate Dynamics will be merged into one section, and Physical
Meteorology and Mesoscale Dynamic Meteorology will be merged into one
section, reducing the total number of sections from 4 to 6. We hope that
this can be accomplished without sacrificing the strong linkage between
the expertise of the program officers and the pool of proposals that
they administer. We feel that the knowledge of the program officers
about the subject areas they deal with is an important ingredient to
success. The next COV should probably review how well this
reorganization is working.

**C.5 [NSF would appreciate your comments on how to improve the COV
review process, format and report template.]{.underline}**

Our only concern relating to these questions was a perception that NSF
does not collect data as part of the proposal evaluation process in a
way that makes it easy to address the evaluation criteria in the above
questions (See also discussion at the end of Section A4). By collecting
and synthesizing information regarding the nature of the proposing
institution, race/ethnicity/gender of the PI, their geographic location,
and the designation of the proposal as high-risk, multi-disciplinary,
innovative, etc, NSF could provide future committees with information to
more quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of the section in addressing
the goals implied by these questions. The following specific points can
be made.

1\. The distinction between investigators that are 'new' to NSF and
those that are 'new' to science (junior people) is not clear in the
statistics provided. This point was also made by the previous COV for
LARS in 2001.

2\. We found the proposal jackets and particularly the form 7
documentation to be very useful in following the progress of proposals
and the rationale for the decisions in each case. However, time is short
and it is important to choose wisely so that a broad range of types of
proposals can be read in a short time. Program officers can be and were
helpful in this regard. The balance between guidance to a broad set of
proposals and freedom to view any of the proposals in the portfolio was
about right.

**SIGNATURE BLOCK:**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_-\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

For the COV for the Lower Atmosphere Research Section

Dennis L. Hartmann

Chair