Fred Carr University of Oklahoma Aug. 11, 2009

1. First AMS Annual Partnership Topic:Feasibility of Multi-Partner, Multifunctional Mesoscale Observing Networks Fred Carr University of Oklahoma Aug. 11, 2009

2. 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.

3. 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 end-to-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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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).

9. 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 USWRP-sponsored 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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?

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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?

16. 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?

17. 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?

18. 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?

19. 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?

20. 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?

21. 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

22. 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?

23. 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

24. 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?

25. Example of Need for Metadata

28. 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? 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? File: tws/testbed_criteria.ppt T. Schlatter, 21 June 2006