Plenary: Synthesis

1. Plenary: Synthesis Reports from Panels and Breakout Sessions

2. 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)

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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”

11. 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

12. Breakout Session #1 Handling Atmospheric Information in Some Key Meteorological Disciplines

13. 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)

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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, …

23. 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

24. 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)

25. 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)

26. 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

27. 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)

28. 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

29. Breakout Session #2 Interoperability, Compatibility, and Accessibility

30. 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)

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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)

35. 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

36. Formatting the Information: Key Results (cont’d) Format Change Constraints: • Decoding Information needed (Metadata) • Transition Cost • Lead-time for implementation

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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)

40. 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

41. 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