# Presentation: 150926

## Plenary: Synthesis

- Reports from Panels
- and Breakout Sessions

## Panel 1: Collection and Distribution of Weather Information (Part 1)

- Moderator:  **Dr. Elbert W. (Joe) Friday, Jr.** (*Director, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate*)
- Panel Members:
***Ms. Mary Glackin**** **(NOAA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information Services)*
***Mr. David Jones**** **(President & CEO, StormCenter.com, Inc.)*
***Dr. Eugene M. Rasmusson**** **(Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland)*
***Mr. Peter Weiss**** **(Strategic Planning and Policy Office, National Weather Service)*
***Colonel (Select) David Smarsh**** **(Assistant Air Force Deputy to NOAA)*
***Mr. Raymond Ban**** **(Executive Vice President, The Weather Channel)*
***Dr. Ronald D.  McPherson**** (**Executive Director, American Meteorological Society)*
***Dr. Denise Stephenson-Hawk**** **(Chair, The Stephenson Group)*

## Panel 1:(Part 1) Key Results

- Strategic planning required to develop an optimized atmospheric information system of systems to support a broad user community
- A vigorous interface with the user community is required, with a strong requirements pull and user involvement in the development of products
- Strategic partnerships among information providers are key.  Traditional Private – Public Sector roles are evolving to a more decentralized system – with more players and an increasing role for the academic community.  Partnerships must account for market factors and technology changes.

## Panel 1:(Part 1) Key Results

- As users become better educated regarding how atmospheric information can provide value to their lives/businesses then the market will demand access to new types of information
- Risk management industry is already driving increased forecast skill at greater time scales
- Increasing use of seasonal-interannual climate predictions

## Panel 1:(Part 1) Key Results

- Increased data availability will be key to optimizing the forecast component
- Open and unrestricted data exchange.  Need access to as much data as possible, data exchange stimulates the market, is critical for research
- Uncertainties documented, metadata required
- There is a relatively large number of mesonets and other sources of hydro-meteorological data that are untapped for numerical weather prediction

## Panel 1: Collection and Distribution of Weather Information (Part 2)

- Moderator:  **Ms. Linda Miller** (*External Liaison, UCAR/UNIDATA*)
- Panel Members:
***Mr. James Block**** **(Chief Meteorological Officer, Meteorlogix;  AMS Board of Private Sector Meteorology)*
***Dr. Jack L. Hayes**** **(Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Weather Service)*
***Ms. Helen M. Wood**** **(Director, Office of Satellite Data Processing and Distribution; National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service)*

## Panel 1:(Part 2) Key Results

- More data is needed, especially local
- Data value erodes with time, non-homogeneity, nonstandard formats, limited dissemination
- QC needed for reliability
- Need database transformations to merge non-standard data
- Complex needs require more observational data specific to the operation
- Need software tools to extract specific data from complex non-standard databases

## Panel 1:(Part 2) Key Results

- Analysis as well as forecasts have big payoff for some parameters (e.g., vis)
- Need higher temporal and space density for payoff from finer mesh models
- Products and service providers need technology infusion for continued advance  of state of the art

## Panel 2: Interoperability and Compatibility

- Moderator:  **Mr. Carl Bullock** (*Chief, Modernization Division, Forecast Systems Laboratory*
- Panel Members:
**Mr. Rainer L. Dombrowsky** (*Chief, Observing Services Division, National Weather Service*)
**Dr. Kevin D. Robbins*** (Director, Southern Regional Climate Center)*
**Dr. Aubry Bush*** (Director, Advanced Networking Infrastructure and Research Division, National Science Foundation)*
**Dr. David R. Easterling*** (Senior Scientist, National Climatic Data Center*

## Panel 2: Key Results

*Standards invaluable tool to interoperability and compatibility*
*Metadata critical part of data use and quality control*
*Open standards and IP networks key to addressing communications*
*need to apply technological advances while being mindful of addressing lesser capabilities - use “middleware”*

**Notes:**
Standards invaluable tool in exchange of data and information
- consistency of products
- provides compatibility among diverse users and data types
- standards can be defined for observations, instruments, and communication
-- widely applied but not necessarily universal
-- established by some authority, custom, and/or general consent
- 

## Panel 2: Key Results

*Archived data/access through flexible modern techniques*
*User has to be part of the process in requirements and design of architecture*
*Observational data availability*
*decision at site*
*limits of data sent*
*availability to end user or continuous stream*

**Notes:**
Archived data/access through flexible modern techniques
- important piece is access to the data; example is NCDC’s NOMADS which allows users to specify their data needs on-line; format of how data is stored is not a factor
User has to be part of the process in requirements and design of architecture
- can’t address every user’s wishes; but if included in process from onset, they have buy-in
Observational data availability
- need to discuss processing and how to handle availability of observational data, either on site, specify standards to address this or provide a continuous stream of data
Other questions, related to standards addressed in breakout session

## Breakout Session #1

- Handling Atmospheric Information in Some Key Meteorological Disciplines

## Breakout Group 1: Climate

- Co-chairs:
-  **Dr. Eugene M. Rasmusson*** (Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland)*
** ****Dr. Robert A. Schiffer*** (Deputy Director, Research Division, Earth Science Enterprise, NASA)*

## Climate: Key Findings

- Global Climate Observations System shortfalls:
- Need for integrated global observing system
- Existing CMDL stations are geographically limited
- Climate record depends upon existing operational components (in-situ and space-based), but there are known problems, such as humidity and precipitation
- Future system – Climate Reference Data Network – not fully funded – should look at dual-use, providing data for research and in real-time for operations

## Climate: Key Findings

- Satellite system making progress – NPOESS station keeping and improved calibration
- Many parallel efforts underway – need to foster better coordination between operations and users (USGCRP, WCRP)
- Need to exploit other sources of information e.g., state transportation, local mesonets, etc...(include calibration and transformation of data)

## Climate: Recommendations

- Fully fund Climate Reference Data Network, explore dual-use (real-time data for operations).
- Identify impediments to real-time transmission of data from climate observation systems (dual-use)
- Need for integrated global observing system:
- Consolidation of requirements
- Prioritization is essential

## Climate: Recommendations

- Inventory sources of data for climate record
- Explore non-traditional sources of information
- Identify impediments to data sharing
- Improved coordination required among ongoing efforts that are in parallel.  Need to rely on:
- Data assimilation for products
- Integrated systems (end-to-end systems)
- Instrumentation development (new concepts, improved calibration)
- _Bottom-line:_  Strive to adhere to the 10 Principles for Climate Monitoring (Karl, et al)

## Breakout Group 2: Urban Meteorology

- Co-chairs:
-  **Dr. David Rogers*** (Director, Office of Weather and Air Quality, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research) *
* ***Dr. Jason Ching*** (Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, EPA)*

##  Urban Needs for Specialized Weather Information

- Water supply and sewage facilities
- Electric power industry
- Fuel suppliers – natural gas, fuel oil, coal, gasoline
- Transportation sectors – aviation, marine and surface
- Emergency response agencies
- Regulatory agencies
- Public safety agencies
- Insurance industry
- Health care providers
- Recreational facilities
- The general public

## USWRP Urban Meteorological Forecasting Issues (No priority order) 

- Mesoscale forecasting in support of emergency response and air quality
- Visibility and icing for transportation
- Winter storms
- Convective storms
- Intense/severe lightning
- The impacts of large urban areas on the location and intensity of urban convection
- Quantify and reduce uncertainty in hydrological, meteorological, and air quality modeling

## Findings

***Recognize that today’s technology can provide the data base for tomorrow’s very high resolution numerical models of the urban atmosphere   ******	***
***E.g., building morphologies, real-time emissions***
***And that there is a corresponding need for new databases with suitable definition to evaluate and drive the next generation of  high resolution numerical models.***
***And that many stakeholders need real-time data***
***e.g., Transportation***

## RECOMMENDATIONS 

- 1. Need a forum for Urban Stakeholders (Municipal, State, Federal, Private) to identify common requirements for information and data
- e.g. Applied to Intelligent transportation, Homeland Security, Risk Assessment and Human Exposure, ...

## RECOMMENDATIONS 

- 2. Need to develop a “Data Exchange” Mechanism
- Develop incentives to create or exchange data
- 3. Promote understanding among users of the potential economic and social benefits of improved urban weather information

## Urban Meteorology: Key Results

- Need a forum for Urban Stakeholders (Municipal, State, Federal, Private) to identify common requirements for Information and data
- e.g. Applied to Intelligent transportation, Homeland Security, Risk Assessment and Human Exposure, ...
- Need to develop a “Data Exchange” Mechanism
- Develop incentives to create or exchange data
- Recognize that today’s technology can provide the data base for tomorrow’s very high resolution numerical models of the urban atmosphere
- E.g., building morphologies, real-time emissions

## Urban Meteorology: Key Results

- Recognize that there is a corresponding need for high resolution data to evaluate current and next generation urban models
- 4-dimensional
- Many stakeholders need real-time data
- e.g., Transportation
- Promote understanding among users of the potential economic and social benefits of improved urban weather information

## Breakout Group 3: Technological Hazards

- Co-chairs:
-  **Mr. Bruce D. Price*** (Deputy Director, Technological Hazards Division, FEMA) *
* ***Mr. Bruce Hicks*** (Director, Air Resources Laboratory, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research)*

## Technological Hazards: Key Results

- Issues Identified
- Data
- Need for a common data set
- More than standard met data required (e.g., turbulence intensity, stability, boundary layer depth, etc.)
- Wind directional accuracy not sufficient for some applications
- Data requirements change with time & space scales (i.e., layered response)
- Institutional Inertia
- Training/Education (e.g., default assumptions)

## Technological Hazards: Key Results

- Issues Identified (cont’d)
- Information overload for decision maker
- Decision aids not model output (e.g., red, yellow, green)
- Role of the WFOs in responding to tech hazard
- Contacted for immediate guidance
- Access to local mesonet data
- Run dispersion models

## Technological Hazards: Key Results

- Identified need for a layered response to  technological hazards
- Initial (immediate) Response   _<_ 1 hr
- Simple model; local wind
- Near-Field   1 _<_ 6 hr
- More sophisticated model(s); mesonet data
- Regional & Above      > 6 hr
- Sophisticated prognostic model(s), additional atmospheric data (e.g., NEXRAD)

## Technological Hazards: Key Results

- Bottom Line
- Technological hazard very sensitive to atmospheric conditions
- As scale of hazard gets smaller, scale of data required gets smaller
- Current atmospheric information not adequate for some applications

## Breakout Session #2

- Interoperability, Compatibility, and Accessibility

## Breakout Group 1: Observation/Instrumentation Standards

- Co-chairs:
-  **Mr. Rainer L. Dombrowsky*** (Chief, Observing Services Division, National Weather Service) *
* ***Dr. Frances Sherertz*** (Deputy Program Manager, Aviation Weather, FAA)*

## Observation/Instrumentation Standards: Key Results

*Key questions*
*How much standardization?*
*Who takes responsibility?*
*Metadata*
*Seek a national standard*
*NWS working through their observation sources - ASOS, COOP, NEXRAD, etc.*
*Guidelines for data attributes*
*Trade-off - including or discouraging mesonets*
*Incentives for following guidelines*
*paying for communications*
*show value-added for use*
*feedback on quality control*

## Observation/Instrumentation Standards: Key Results

*Collaboration among agencies*
*NWS has expertise in meteorological sensors/guidelines*
*FHWA has standards development process*
*Best practices among state DOTs and other implementers*
*Siting*
*filling data gaps in climate/weather prediction*
*diverse needs of other users, I.e., surface transportation*

## Observation/Instrumentation Standards: Key Results

*Actions*
*partnering on expansion of NWS COOP network*
*agency overlays for NWS/NCDC spatial density study*
*where possible, expand participation in New England High-Resolution Demonstration*
*collaboration on standards development process*
*collaboration on siting*
*assign responsibility for validation of standards and guidelines - observations/instrumentation/ formats*

## Breakout Group 2: Formatting the Information

- Co-chairs:
-  **Mr. James Block*** (Chief Meteorological Officer, Meteorlogix; Chair, AMS Board of Private Sector Meteorology) *
* ***Dr. Tim Kearns*** (Lead Information Systems Engineer, Electronic Systems Center (Mitre) USAF)*

## Formatting the Information: Key Results

*Group was supportive of change to improve data formatting, not particularly tied to any existing format*
*Ideal Data Format Characteristics:*
*Table Driven (self-describing)*
*Compressibility*
*Machine Independent*
*Metadata Availability (one clearing house)*
*Flexibility (extensibility)*
*Multi-dimensional*
*Internationally Recognized*

## Formatting the Information: Key Results (cont’d)

*Format Change Constraints:*
*Decoding Information needed (Metadata)*
*Transition Cost*
*Lead-time for implementation*

## Formatting the Information: Key Results (cont’d)

*Process Considerations*
*Determine transition cost*
*Determine Lead-time for implementation*
*Coordinate (Agencies, Industry etc.)*
*Use Industry Standards if possible*
*Look outside discipline (e.g. GIS)*
*Marketing*

## Formatting the Information: Recommendations

*OFCM take the lead in coordinating format improvement changes among stakeholders: Agencies, Industry (CWSA), AMS, etc. *
*Near term action:  Begin by making a call for comments at upcoming AMS meeting (Jan 02)*
*Must get started quickly – will take a long time to implement**	**	*

## Breakout Group 3: Communications Issues

- Co-chairs:
-  **Mr. Lloyd E. Irvin*** (Chief, Operations Support and Performance Monitoring Branch, Telecommunication Operations Center, National Weather Service) *
* ***LCDR Susan Groening*** (Chief, Communications Division, Fleet Numerical METOC Center)*

## Communications Issues: Key Results

*Access to mesoscale network data - need future growth planned within budget or partnering*
*Huge increase in amount of data tied into processing and latency of data*
*Differing systems and agency architectures - open & flexible to meet users needs*
*Proprietary data and security of data and system*
*User involvement and requirements*

## Communications Issues: Key Results

*RECOMMENDATION:  Activate/Form a communications group to discuss/address the issues*
- Architecture to include present, planned, future
- Economies of scale
- Leverage existing systems, design studies, research systems