# Presentation: 442979

## Final Report of theNOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB)NCEP Ocean Modeling Review Panel (OMRP)OMRP Members:Mr. D. Blaskovich, IBMDr. A. F. Blumberg, SITDr. A. J. Busalacchi, UMDDr. J. McClean, NPGSDr. C. N. K. Mooers, UMDr. L.J. Pietrafesa, NCSU, Chair Dr. D. P. Rogers, SAICDr. R. H. Weisberg, USF 13 July 2004International Business Machines, Stevens Institute of Technology, University of Maryland, Naval Post Graduate School, University of Miami, North Carolina State University, Science Applications International Corporation, University of South Florida (respectively)

## Revisit the Charge to the PanelIn response to a request from the NOAA National Weather Service in July 2003, an Ocean Model Review Panel was commissioned by the NOAA SAB to address the following two part Charge:1. Provide an assessment of the current ocean modeling activities at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction’s (NCEP) Environmental Modeling Center (EMC) including those that support global, regional and coastal applications for Climate, Weather and Marine forecasts. 2. Provide a review of, and specific recommendations for, EMC’s future plans for the improvement of Ocean Models used operationally in NOAA, including the proposed approach for the next generation Modeling System based on the multi-agency Earth System Modeling framework.

## A Note of Thanks

**On behalf of The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), Ms. Meg Austin and Ms. Susan Baltuch facilitated the review process**
** **
**The Panel also makes note that NCEP Headquarters has been very responsive in providing any and all support material deemed necessary by the Panel to conduct this review. The Panel feels that an important signal about the professionalism of an organization being reviewed is the level of cooperation demonstrated by those being reviewed. NCEP management and personnel receive high marks for this**

## The Process and Notes

**The Panel met at NCEP headquarters over 11-13 November 2003 with the NCEP leadership, staff and also toured the Camp Springs, MD facilities**
** **
**The OMRP (entire committee along with UCAR facilitators M. Austin and S. Baltuch and NCEP representatives, Dr. L. Uccellini, Dr. S. Lord and Dr. D. Johnson) met again during the American Meteorological Society annual meeting (13 January 2004) in Seattle, WA**
**It is of note that the Panel has taken advantage of several of the findings and recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Report**** ****as appropriate**

## By way of reminder:

**   ****In its former life, NCEP was known as the National Meteorological Center (NMC). The “National Center for Environmental Prediction” was coined in 1995 after Dr. R. McPherson, Director at the time,  determined that NOAA required an operational forecast and products unit with a name that was ‘extensible’ in keeping with its mission”.**** **
- (Dr. R. McPherson, Executive Director of the AMS and former NCEP director)

## NCEP’s 3-part VISION

**To be the Nation’s source of 1st alert for all climate, weather and space weather hazards**
**To be the preferred partner in developing numerical model and new weather, water, climate and space weather products and services**
**To become** **the Nation’s 1st choice for global and national climate and weather analyses, forecasts and guidance**** **

-    NCEP believes its vision will be achieved by:
**improving its forecasts by employing and exploiting climate-weather-water linkages**
**producing a seamless suite of products through a collaborative approach**
**extending the predictability of weather and climate**
**improving forecasts of extreme events**
**creating a common model infrastructure **
**addressing uncertainty in forecasts**

## Recommendation # 1

**In-situ and remote-sensing observations and models of air-sea interactions over a broad range of time and space scales dictate the need for the coupling of ocean, coastal ocean and Great Lakes models to atmospheric models. The coupled modeling will enhance the forecast capabilities for the atmosphere, the ocean, and coastal ocean and Great Lakes, in the context of a whole earth system model framework.  Thus ocean, coastal ocean and Great Lakes modeling must be fully integrated into operational weather, climate, hydrologic and earth system forecasts.**

## Recommendation # 2

**NCEP is presently the major governmental provider of atmospheric forecast products and services in the United States. To maintain this preeminence, particularly given the nation’s growing needs in the ocean and coastal regions, NCEP must develop internal and external partners, collectively committed towards implementing two-way, and interactively coupled, ocean-coastal-atmosphere models for its operational forecasts.**

## Recommendation # 3

**    ****In order to move forward aggressively, and to most efficiently and effectively make accurate and comprehensive weather, climate, water and marine forecast forecasts and warnings, NCEP must develop a comprehensive strategy with the ocean community, including academia, private industry, and all appropriate federal entities, both external and internal, to capitalize on existing and developing ocean and coastal observations and models. Further, NCEP must lead in the merging of models and data via data assimilation, and in the applications which ensue.**

## So What has changed from the previous report of the OMRP?

**In March 2004, the OMRP focused primarily on NCEP in Recommendation #3**
**But in this report, the OMRP recognizes the activities and efforts of NOS and the potential for a mutually beneficial partnership between NWS/NCEP and NOS; particularly in near coastal, estuary, Great Lakes and ecological forecasting**
**However, we note that the Panel Charge did not include an evaluation of NOS modeling capabilities;**
**     ****though the panel is apprised of them**
**                                                                                      ****Also,**

- In March 2004, the Commission on Ocean Policy Report had not yet surfaced and we now can assess its findings and recommendations, as they may (positively) impact NCEP’s operational forecasting enterprise, such as:
**The opportunity to take advantage of the Integrated Ocean Observing System boldly called for in the COP Report. More and better data from under-sampled regions, both atmospheric and ocean state variables, and from data deserts will improve the goodness of operational models**
**The opportunity to partner with researchers interested in advancing research to operations with some of the $650M of new $ called for in the COP Report cannot be ignored (of course most of the Panel members are realists) **
-                                                                                           **Also,**

**The limited set of in-situ and remote (satellite) measurements to measurements now being made regionally by consortia of academic, state and local governments, and private sector scientists is essential toward developing an ocean and coastal ocean observing system. This capability, while not yet robust, is at least a start towards building needed capacity that can be supportive of ocean, coastal ocean, and lake and estuary state variable estimation and for providing essential input in to atmospheric models over ocean, coastal and estuary environments, including the Great Lakes.**
**Coastal watersheds are integrated systems, stretching from heads of rivers to the coastal zone and coupled to the atmosphere and must be modeled as such**

**By way of a reminder, the value of “more” observations is demonstrated by:**
**The NWS National Forecast Verification Program of forecast accuracy indicates that weather forecasts over land are far more accurate than are forecasts in coastal zones and over the oceans**
**In 2003 the NWS determined that the addition of several new buoys lead to a dramatic improvement in its significant wave height forecast capability lending credence to the assumption that more data in coastal areas will improve forecasts**
**Coastal, Great Lakes and Estuary, Academia & Industry developed coupled models of storm induced surge and flooding have demonstrated that an advanced systems modeling approach, both deterministic and probabilistic, will significantly improve forecast skill**

** **
**NOS has developed much in-house capabilities in coastal, estuary and Great Lakes modeling and should be entrained as a partner as NOS has developed capabilities and costumers that would be beneficial to NCEP**
** **
**NCEP is beginning to work with the broad community to develop new mechanisms to increase the interaction between operations and research, including the establishment of partnership test-beds focused on the rapid transition of research ideas into operational solutions through the use of operational data streams and models. This approach would work very well in ocean and environmental modeling. Here NWS/NCEP should work with NESDIS and NOS to “build the case” **
**Here, community-derived numerical predictions of ocean, marine atmospheric, coastal and estuary events could be stored at NCDC and be jointly accessed by NCEP and the model developers to conduct ensemble and probabilistic forecasts**

**The OMRP believes there is a national need for NCEP to become fully integrated into the U.S. national ocean research community, both external and internal to NOAA,**
**    ****to take advantage of the division of labor to develop and rapidly move new ocean modeling capabilities from research into operations**
**This activity would result in new, cost effective capabilities being deployed at NCEP far more rapidly than if NCEP were to attempt to develop such capabilities in-house**
**With NCEP playing a central role, NOAA needs to develop an across-line office strategy, particularly coupling the NWS to the NOS, and elements of OAR, for a total ocean prediction system (i.e., from requirements to observing systems, modeling systems, information products, delivery systems, and performance measures) **
**This should be done in collaboration with the Navy, and Academic and Private Sectors where needed expertise and human resources reside**

**There is urgency in these matters; for example, the coastal ocean observing system components of IOOS depends upon a partnership between regional observing systems and networks and the “national backbone” to be provided by federal agencies (primarily NOAA)**
**However, the design of the “backbone”, which should accord NCEP a central role, is a missing part of the architecture for IOOS, which includes the concept of a joint operations center involving the Navy and NOAA**
**This would move the emerging coastal observing systems to morph into coastal prediction systems and thus provide the intellectual rationale for a national network of these systems.** **Plus, many of these, nominally 10 COTS regional components could benefit from NCEP input, guidance and oversight.**

## Social Science Integration

**This is not yet well implemented in NCEP but in the context of an Earth System Modeling Framework, NCEP and other partners, principally external to NOAA, could become the core provider of information, products and services via an end to end system that encompasses the physical, biological and human sciences network that embraces and integrates the social and economic sciences in a quantitative way**
**This would be a very powerful advance and capability**
**The OMRP again notes the recent work of Kocin & Uccellini (BAMS, 2004) in the creation of a five level NE U.S. snow accumulation scale  **

**Finally, the OMRP notes that the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), the parent department of NOAA, released the results of a DOC commissioned study entitled *****Partners on a Mission: Federal Laboratory Practices Contributing to Economic Development. *****The study***** *****focused on the viability and great value of federal laboratories becoming seed beds for the facilitation of technology transfer for innovation, entrepreneurship, and new industries. The DOC study reviewed the policies and protocols pertaining to nine case studies of technology transfer, all of which have become highly successful. Curiously, NOAA laboratories and centers are not included in the highlighted case studies. In fact, NOAA is not mentioned in the DOC document. **

## New #s: OoD (9/1), CO (75/32), AWC (54/10), CPC (50/30), EMC (47/75), HPC (43/1), OPC (24/0), SEC (51/5), SPC (32/4), TPC (41/2) = 426 FTEs + 160 Cs + Vs => 586 8 centers plus the Director’s Office. 7 linked to the Envir. Mod. Cntr. thru Central. Ops.