Transcript EnKF OSS Analysis and Forecast Experiments on

First AMS Annual Partnership Topic:
Feasibility of Multi-Partner,
Multifunctional Mesoscale
Observing Networks
Fred Carr
University of Oklahoma
Aug. 11, 2009
Why Did We Propose This
Topic?




Continuation of USWRP-sponsored Community
Workshop on Design and Development of Multifunctional
Mesoscale Observing Networks held 8-10 December 2003
(summarized in July 2005 BAMS article).
This workshop outlined the observations needed, explained
the testbed framework, and proposed business models that
would enable multiple partners to improve mesoscale
analysis and forecasting for mutual benefit.
The next step is to figure out how to actually do it! We
want to produce some specific recommendations on
observational gaps, testbeds, and possible ways forward to
agencies and stakeholders.
The goal of increasing the national mesoscale observing
capacity appears to be one nearly all parts of the weather
enterprise can agree on and one for which many
organizations can contribute.
APT Brief Description
Given existing plans for future satellite platforms, the
greatest unmet need for vital observations will be in the
atmospheric boundary layer, where vertical, spatial and
temporal resolution requirements are greatest. It is
proposed that a collaboration between private, public and
academic sectors could provide the resources for an endto-end solution to the mesoscale measurement challenge.
An APT discussion is needed to determine how we can
initiate one or more testbeds to confirm the feasibility of
this approach.
Responses to APT Nomination Queries

1. Timeliness: Do you expect the results of the
AMS annual partnership topic activities will be
relevant to the weather and climate enterprise in
2 years and beyond?
Yes. Observations are the lifeblood of atmospheric
diagnosis and prediction, and, if successful
partnerships within the enterprise can be
developed to acquire them, this will have a
positive effect that could last for decades.
Responses to APT Nomination Queries

2. Breadth:
a. Is the topic of concern to many private sector,
academic, and government organizations of
various kinds [Sectoral breadth]?
Yes, all members of the weather and climate
enterprise need observations. The private sector
especially values dense observations at the
surface and lower troposphere to best serve their
customers. Many federal and state agencies are
now planning to make such observations for a
variety of reasons. These efforts should be
coordinated to avoid duplication.
Responses to APT Nomination Queries

2. Breadth:
b. Is the topic of concern to scientific, technological, policy, legal,
and economic interests of various kinds [disciplinary breadth]?
Yes. Scientific, because much of what we need to know about
both mesoscale weather and climate can be gleaned from denser
observations of the surface, sub-surface and ABL. Technological,
because sensor development/improvement is a key component.
Policy, because, e.g., the public needs to be better prepared by
governing organizations about how to respond to impending
weather threats. Legal, because, e.g., better “road weather” data
can provide more reliable information for accident litigation.
Economic, because increased weather information can enable
many stakeholders to make more timely, cost-beneficial
decisions.
Responses to APT Nomination Queries

2. Breadth:
c. Is the topic of broad interest to many kinds of
government agencies (federal, state, local), many kinds of
private sector organizations (both users and providers of
weather and climate information) and many kinds of
academic / research institutions?
Government agencies, yes, since many now have plans to
increase observational capacity, and these efforts could
leverage each other. Many private sector organizations are
already taking some observations; a business model is
needed to develop the consortiums needed to allow all to
benefit from shared observing systems. Academic/research
institutions can always make use of increased observations
in both process studies and NWP research
Responses to APT Nomination Queries

3. Impact: What is the impact the proposed APT is
expected to have on the weather and climate enterprise
and on society as a whole? Please describe the impacts in
tangible terms (e.g. the fraction of the U.S. and/or global
economy affected) and/or intangible terms (e.g. potential
legal and institutional effects).
If prototype multi-partner mesoscale testbeds can be
developed and shown to be successful, then this could be a
world-wide model for how to greatly increase the amount
of most-needed observations without one organization
taking on the burden. We don’t know enough about the
economic benefits of increased observations to make a
specific prediction, but nearly all new observing platforms
have shown a benefit to NWP skill, and this doesn’t include
their value for improved public response to weather
emergencies (e.g., via nowcasting).
Responses to APT Nomination Queries

4. Interest: What is your estimate of the likelihood of
success in forming a committee, with members from all
four enterprise sectors, to study the APT and in gaining
multiple contributors to the topic?
Interest in this topic can be estimated from the large
turnout for the Community Meeting on the Future of
Weather Prediction in July 2005 and for the USWRPsponsored community workshop on mesoscale observing
networks held in Dec. 2003. All are agreed that increased
observations are a key component to future improvements
in weather prediction.
Responses to APT Nomination Queries

5. Linkage: Does the APT have potential linkage to other
planned activities? For example, a topic which is related to
a planned activity by an organization other than AMS (e.g.
the
World
Meteorological
Organization)?
Increased observational capacity is a desired goal of many
organizations, countries, states and cities. It is important
to have this APT as soon as possible to take advantage of:
(1) Current plans by many federal agencies and states to
deploy observing networks; (2) A National Research
Council study, funded by NOAA and several other agencies,
was initiated on this topic in December 2006; (3)The Office
of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology formed a Joint
Action Group for Joint-Urban Testbeds.
APT Study Committee




Academic: Fred Carr, Ken Crawford, John
Horel, Rebecca Morss
Private: Mike Kalb, David Katz, John Lasley,
Peter Neilley, Maria Pirone, Brent Shaw
Public: Greg Mandt, Ralph Patterson, Paul
Pisano, Marty Ralph, Andy Stern
BEP: Tim Spangler, Terry Tarbell, Bruce
Telfeyan, Donald Winter
Key Questions to be Addressed




Should multi-partner networks or testbeds be
created?
What current networks exist? Who are the
potential partners?
What should be observed? What measurement
systems should be used?
Can AP&P sectors work together to do this?
What business model should be used?
NRC Study on Mesobs - NoN




NOAA, EPA, OFCM, DoT/FHA, NASA, DHS
funded a NRC study to examine this. 21-month
study began Jan. 2007
Original title: “Developing Mesoscale
Meteorological Observational Capabilities to Meet
Multiple National Needs”
Objectives between this study and AMS APT very
similar
Therefore, APT committee decided to wait for
NRC study to be completed, and then address 2-3
aspects in greater detail.
Likely APT Focus Areas




Testbeds - Specific proposal(s)
“Benefits” - Economic, Societal
Measurements - What, Where, Resolution;
Or… Need for rational approach to deciding
most-needed new observations
Business Model - How make it happen
Criteria for Evaluating Potential Testbeds
(Questions to ask)
Rationale
•What scientific or societal problem is the testbed
supposed to address?
•Why is it important, economically and from the
standpoint of safety?
•What barriers to progress will the testbed overcome?
•How many existing resources can be leveraged?
Resources
•What new observing or prediction resources will be added to what
is already there? Why are they needed?
•How will the new resources be integrated into existing services?
For example, will the new observations be available for decisionmaking, assimilation into prediction models, and forecast
verification?
•Is there a real-time component to testbed operation so that benefits
are immediate?
•What new communications networks are needed?
•What additional labor is required?
Stakeholders
•Who are the beneficiaries of the expected
improvements in service?
•What is their stake in the improved service?
•What is their involvement in planning for the testbed and
in evaluating the results?
•Who must be involved in the operation of the testbed?
Have participants bought in to the idea?
Evaluation
•Who is responsible for the evaluation?
•What criteria will be used to judge the success of the
testbed?
•How long should the evaluation last for credible results?
•What is the timetable from planning through execution
and evaluation?
Follow-up
•Is the testbed merely a temporary proof-of-concept, or
will some components be left behind permanently?
•How will the outcome of the testbed experiment be
documented?
Questions
•Rationale: What problem solved?
Value?
•Resources: What is already in place? What else is
needed? Infrastructure needs?
•Stakeholders: Who benefits? What can they
contribute? What is their involvement?
•Evaluation: What are criteria for success?
•Follow-up: Does testbed remain? Lead to increase in
observations elsewhere?
New Schedule - 2009-10
• Sept.- Dec.: Refine sub-group tasks; begin fact-finding
and draft potential recommendations
• January:
Possible THM at AMS Meeting by
CWCE? - Solicit member feedback
• Feb.- May: Compile first draft - Solicit feedback from
BEP and CCWE
• June-Sept.: Present to AMS Council. Present to
Summer Community Meeting?
• Oct.-Dec.: Produce final report
Possible Outcomes
•Presentations at AMS and other meetings
•Article in BAMS (others?)
•Assist with briefings to Congress, private
sector, etc. on need for observations
•AMS Statement?
How build on NRC NoN Study
•
•
•
•
Observational needs well documented
Specific testbeds recommendations avoided
Not all possible instrumentation explored
Economic value of new observations not
explored
• Further discussion on business model
Possible Adjusted Topics of APT Study?
• Leveraging of existing observational efforts (FAA,
DoT, NWS, etc.)
• Suggestions for organization of the “Observational
Summit” recommended by NRC report
• More pros and cons on the various business
models
• Identification of all possible organizations
(PP&A) who can contribute
• Others?
Example of Need for Metadata
Criteria for Evaluating Potential Testbeds
(Questions to ask)
Rationale
What forecasting problem is the testbed supposed to address?
Why is it important, economically and from the standpoint of safety?
What barriers to progress will the testbed overcome?
Resources
What new observing or prediction resources will be added to what is
already there? Why are they needed?
How will the new resources be integrated into existing services? For
example, will the new observations be available for decision-making,
assimilation into prediction models, and forecast verification?
Is there a real-time component to testbed operation so that benefits are
immediate?
What new communications networks are needed?
What additional labor is required?
Stakeholders
Who are the beneficiaries of the expected improvements in service?
What is their stake in the improved service?
What is their involvement in planning for the testbed and in evaluating the
results?
Who must be involved in the operation of the testbed? Have participants
bought in to the idea?
Evaluation
Who is responsible for the evaluation?
What criteria will be used to judge the success of the testbed?