Unidata Policy Committee
NOAA/NWS Status
September 7, 2006
LeRoy Spayd
Chief, Operations and Requirements Division
Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services
NOAA’s National Weather Service
1
Outline
• Storm-based Warnings
• Radiosonde vs Aircraft Water Vapor observations
• Analysis of Record
• Digital Services
• NWS Budget
2
From County-Based Warnings to Storm-Based Warnings
Three simultaneous
tornadoes within line
of severe
thunderstorms
County-Based Tornado Warnings
8 Counties under warning
Almost 1 million people warned
• More specific
• Increased clarity
• Supports new
dissemination technology
Storm-Based Tornado Warnings
70% less area covered
~600,000 fewer people warned
3
Storm-Based Warnings Provide Improved Service
Strong circulation within
line of severe
thunderstorms
Tornado warning area
based on storm without
regard to county
boundaries
In the current system, six full counties are warned. Storm-Based
Tornado Warnings provide much improved service.
4
Effective Storm-Based Warnings Can Avoid
Unnecessary Warning of Population Centers
“Storm-based warnings
would save the public a
minimum of $100 million
dollars a year in
reduction of the cost of
sheltering”
- Dr. Dan Sutter
Professor of Economics
Most of the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex is
correctly omitted from this Storm-Based tornado
warning. New siren system selectively activated.
5
Partner Acceptance of Storm-Based Tornado Warnings
Screen capture of Brian Busby at the ABC
affiliate in Kansas City, MO.
WFO Kansas City/Pleasant Hill issued a
Severe Thunderstorm Warning (blue) then
upgraded to a Tornado Warning (red).
6
Current County-Based Verification System
• Tornado warning for
Counties A, B, C, and D
equals four warnings.
County D
County C
• Tornado occurs in County A.
• False alarms for Counties
B, C, and D.
County B
County A
Confirmed
Tornado at 0030Z
County-Based Verification
False Alarm Rate (FAR) = 75%
Probability of Detection = 100%
7
Current County-Based Verification System
Tornado warning
issued with lead time to
first touchdown of 10
minutes. Lead time for
County B of 20 minutes
and County C of 25
minutes.
Storm at Tornado
Warning Issuance
County D
County C
LT = 25 min.
County B
County A
LT = 20 min.
Tornado Touchdown
LT = 10 minutes
County-Based Verification
Lead Time (LT) = 18.3 minutes (10+20+25 / 3)
Probability of Detection = 100%
False Alarm Rate = 25%
8
Dissemination of Storm-Based
Warnings
•
Those who access warnings via television, Internet, PDAs, and other GISenabled services will benefit.
•
•
A recent NSF study shows a majority of Americans obtain weather information via
these sources.
We already use directional delimiters (based on the location of the storm) in
verbal and text-based products.
•
“A Tornado Warning is in effect for Southwestern Montgomery County”
•
Planning ongoing to fully utilize these benefits in NOAA Weather Radio (NWR)
and Emergency Alert System.
•
NWR Improvement Project specifies need for “geo-targeting” specific radio
transmitters.
9
Regional In Situ Soundings
Radiosonde/WV Aircraft Obs
• In FY06-07:
•
Evaluate model response to water-vapor
sensor derived data
•
Evaluate implications of
– forecasters using different data source and,
– reaction of broader US weather enterprise.
•
Use evaluation to develop plan for
implementation
• In FY08: Begin eliminating redundant
capability for weather observations
10
Future Directions:
Commercial Aircraft Observations
•
Now:
•
25 WVSSII sensors on United Parcel Service B-757 aircraft since March 2005 (NOAA)
•
60 TAMDAR sensors on Mesaba Saab 340 Aircraft since January 2005 (NASA)
•
Sept 06: NOAA RFP for Water Vapor Data from Commercial Aircraft
•
FY07-08: NOAA Phase I contract for sensor installation and data collection
•
FY08-12: NOAA Phase II contract for expanded sensor installation and data collection
•
Bottom Line:
•
Potential for significant increase in atmospheric soundings from regional and larger airports; ex. Each
Southwest Airlines has 450 B-737s, each aircraft has about 8 destinations per day or 16 soundings
opportunities – 7200 soundings
•
Expansion of parameters from aircraft include water vapor, turbulence (EDR), and icing. Some prototyping effort for air quality measurements (European MOZAIC Program)
•
Enhanced data monitoring/QA providing RMSE and bias by tail #
11
Adaptive Sounding Strategy
Notional Plan
• Use alternative sounding from commercial aircraft if WV instrumented aircraft has a scheduled ascent
or descent at an airport which is within:
•
XX miles of radiosonde site
•
YY minutes of radiosonde valid time
• CONOPS:
•
Lead Meteorologist at closest WFO coordinates sounding strategy
•
Short (<3 hrs) and long term (6 month) public notices disseminated indicating product availability and
associated WMO Heading and circuits
•
Soundings from aircraft publicly available in near real-time
• Alternative sounding strategy limited to:
•
1 of 2 sounding launches per radiosonde station (initially)
•
CONUS Non-GUAN stations
• Outcomes:
•
$4M/yr in cost avoidance from radiosonde expendables
•
Redundant observations eliminated
•
Greater % of Data Requirements Achieved
12
Adaptive Sounding Strategy:
Weather Enterprise Input
A few questions…
• How do you currently use radiosonde observations?
• What do you know about atmospheric observations from commercial
aircraft?
• What transition issues might you have with use of aircraft observations
as an alternative to radiosonde observations?
• How can NOAA best communication data quality issues associated with
aircraft observations?
• How does the proposed adaptive sounding strategy timeline impact
you?
• How can we recruit Weather Enterprise contacts to answer these and
other issues associated with the Adaptive Sounding Strategy???
13
Questions and Comments:
David Helms
Office of Science and Technology
NOAA’s National Weather Service
Bldg: SSMC2, Rm: 15334
Mail Code: W/OST12
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Email: david.helms@noaa.gov
AMDAR Observations
Phone: 301-713-3557 x193
34K Reports in 12 Hours
Radiosonde (purple) and
WVSSII (black) Comparison
April 26, 2005
14
The Analysis of Record (AOR)
•
Analysis of Record
•
A comprehensive set of the best possible
analyses of the atmospheric variables at high
spatial and temporal resolution with attention
placed on weather and climate conditions
near the Earth’s surface.
15
The Analysis of Record (AOR)
Project Components
•
Phase I: Real-time Mesoscale Analysis (RTMA)
• A quick analysis using few computer resources.
• Proof of Concept for AOR.
• NCEP EMC and GSD volunteered to build first phase.
•
Phase II: Analysis of Record (AOR)
• A delayed, comprehensive truth analysis using late arriving data and
more computer resources.
•
Phase III: The Reanalysis
• A 30 year history of AORs analyzed using AOR system.
• Apply the resulting analysis to local climate studies.
16
The RTMA
•
•
Description
•
RTMA: A high-spatial resolution analyses of sensible weather variables disseminated
to forecasters and external users.
•
Affordable application of a state-of-the-art analysis system.
•
Generated by NCEP’s 2DVar analysis.
•
Available to forecasters at HOUR + 43 min – goal is + 35 minutes
Production and Data
•
Initial set of variables produced hourly at 5 km resolution: temperature (2 m), dew point
(2 m), wind direction (10 m), wind speed, precipitation estimate, sky cover estimate.
•
Analysis uncertainty of first four elements provided and expressed in same units as
surface variables.
•
Distributed in GRIB 2 by AWIPS SBN as part of OB 7.2 upgrade.
•
Archived at NCDC.
•
Uses various data sources (e.g., surface, buoys, radar).
17
The RTMA
Data Resources
•
•
NCEP obtains full compliment of observations
•
Conventional observations through the TOC.
•
Mesonets through MADIS at GSD.
•
MesoWest will be an alternate path to MADIS during AOR due to the ability
to store and forward old data transmitted in bursts from some sites.
•
RTMA uses several thousand observations.
Analysis Verification
•
Cross-validation
– Withhold small percentage of obs from analysis
– Only way to verify analysis for analysis sake
– Can withhold and internally compare analysis
– Future performance metrics will be based on improvement over this
Baseline
18
The RTMA
Analysis Scheme
•
•
Reasons the RUC is used as a first guess for RTMA
•
Hourly mesoscale analysis.
•
Designed to fit observations.
•
Full-physics model.
•
Assimilation of full mesonet observations, except winds.
•
Generated by NCEP’s 2DVar analysis.
•
Downscaled from 13 to 5 km as an extra module at end of RUC post-processing code.
•
RUC 1-hour is used as RTMA background.
Why use a 2DVar solution?
•
2DVar is a subset of NCEP’s 3DVar GSI (Grid-point Statistical Interpolation).
•
2DVar is already running in NAM.
•
Anisotropy built into 2D-Var provides way to restrict influence of observations on
elevation.
•
2DVar is fast enough to run in NCEP production suite.
•
Produce an estimate of analysis uncertainty.
19
The RTMA
Schedule
•
Milestones and Project Schedule
•
Initial, experimental RTMA products generated routinely and transmitted through
NOAAPort: August 2006
•
RTMA survey results compiled and analyzed: Second Quarter FY 2007
•
Operational testing and acceptance completed: Second Quarter FY 2007
•
Start OCONUS development, if funding is available: First Quarter FY 2007
•
Start development of additional meteorological parameters, if funding is available: First
Quarter FY 2007
•
Implement OCONUS RTMA, if funding is available: FY 2008.
•
Implement training: Second Quarter FY 2007
20
RTMA 2 m Temperature Analysis
21
RTMA Summary
•
RTMA provides an affordable solution for an NDFD-matching verification.
•
Enhanced analysis of surface weather variables available for situational awareness
and other operational applications.
•
Provides a proof-of-concept for main AOR with applications for other NOAA offices.
•
Transfer of the RTMA to operational status will greatly increase the daily usage in
operations and is the next important step in the RTMA evolution.
22
Information Sources
•
RTMA Evaluation Web Site
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/rtma/
•
Established by EMC’s Geoff Manikin (January 2006)
•
7 geographical sub-regions displayed:
NE, DC, FL, MW, TX, NW and SW
•
RTMA experimental hourly sky product is displayed at
http://www.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/opdb/goes/sdpi/html
•
RTMA precipitation estimate graphics are at
http://wwwt.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/ylin/pcpanl/
23
Current Capability
NDFD
Operational elements:
• Maximum Temperature
• Minimum Temperature
• Temperature
• Dew Point
• Probability of Precipitation
• Weather
• Wind Direction
• Wind Speed
• Apparent Temperature *
• Relative Humidity *
*
Experimental elements:
• QPF
• Snow Amount
• Sky Cover
• Significant Wave Height
• Wind gust – added 09/06/06
Operational & experimental
elements available for
CONUS, Puerto Rico/
Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Guam
Derived fields
24
HAWAII NDFD
25
Alaska grids
 New experimental elements for Alaska – added 09/06/06
• Max Temp
• Min Temp
• POP12
• Significant Wave Heights
• Wind Speed
• Wind Direction
26
Probabilistic Winds –
Operational
• Graphical
• Text
• Experimental
in the NDFD
27
Probabilistic Storm Surge –
Experimental
Pre Katrina
• www.weather.gov/mdl/psurge/
• Two choices:
 Overall chance storm surges
will be greater than 5 feet
above normal tide levels
during the next 2 days
Mainland
Mississippi
 Storm surge heights, in feet
above normal tide level,
which have a 10 percent
chance of being exceeded
during the next 3 days
Post Katrina
28
Experimental storm surge
29
Extreme Wind Warning
• http://www.weather.gov/os/hurricane/eww.htm
• Purpose
• New for 2006
• Extreme Wind Warning Product
for 2007
• Beyond 2007
30
NWS Budget
 FY06 enacted - $826M
(cumulative shortfall of $ 51M in operations)
 FY 07 PB - $ 882M
• + $38 M for operations (shortfall reduced to $ 30M)
• + $18 M for systems
 FY 07 House Mark - $ 885 M
 FY 07 Senate Mark - $ 927 M
• Earmarks - $ 15 M
• NDBC - $ 28 M
31