1
GOES Users’ Working GroupSept. 12, 2001
2
General Topics for Discussion:
– Suggest formation of sub-groups Assign tasks to appropriate groups
– Review list of recommendations from the GUC– Prioritize recommendations
Consider importance and feasibility
– Begin process of plan development for implementation of feasible recommendations;
Where solutions are unclear identify need for further study
– Discuss use of Bulletin Board to track progress on issues;
3
General Topics for Discussion:
– Discuss need for outreach/ coordination with user agencies; Need for briefing upper level management; For validating new requirements, signature from DAA (NWS,
NOS, NMFS, or OAR) required;
– Cost Benefits Analysis (CBA)– Need to bring climate community onboard;– Begin plans for next GUC;– What additional resources does this WG need:
People/ Expertise
– Plan for next WG meeting in Madison;– Develop action item list;– Information from this WG meeting on BB?
4
Sub-committees:
– Data and New Product Needs
– Instruments of Opportunity
– Data and Product Distribution
– Data and Product Archiving
– New Data and Product Integration into Operational Data Stream
– User Education
– NWP
– Space Weather?
5
Sub-committees: Data and new Product Needsco-chairs: Paul Menzel; Tim Schmit
– Dennis Chesters; Gary Ellrod; Mark DeMaria
– Don Gray; Jim Gurka; Jeff Hawkins; Jim Heil;
– Gary Hufford; Del Jenstrom; Tony Mostek;
– Kevin Schrab; Chris Velden
6
Sub-committees: Instruments of OpportunityChair: Mark DeMaria
– Dennis Chesters; Gerry Dittberner; Gary Ellrod;
– Al Gasiewski; Del Jenstrom; Jim Heil;
– Kevin Schrab;
7
Sub-committees: Data and Product DistributionChair: TBD
– Gerry Dittberner; Jeff Hawkins; Jim Heil
– Dave Helms; Tom Renkevens; Dick Reynolds;
– Steve Short;
8
Sub-committees: Data and Product ArchivingChair: TBD
– Don Gray; Jim Gurka; Jim Heil; Dave Helms;
– Tim Schmit; Steve Short;
9
Sub-committees: New Data Integration into Operational Data Stream
Chair: Kevin Schrab
– Bob Aune; Dennis Chesters; Gary Ellrod:
– Don Gray; Jim Gurka; Dave Helms;
– Gary Hufford; Ralph Petersen; Tom Renkevens;
– Tim Schmit; Tim Walsh;
10
Sub-committees: User EducationChair: Tony Mostek
– Jim Gurka; Jeff Hawkins; Gary Hufford;
11
Sub-committees: NWPChair: Ralph Petersen
– Bob Aune; Jim Gurka; Steve Koch;
– Paul Menzel; Tim Schmit;
12
Data and New Product Needs
– A minimum of 12 imager channels required 0.64µ, 0.86µ, 1.375µ, 1.60µ, 3.90µ, 6.15µ, 7.0µ, 8.5µ, 10.35µ,
11.2µ, 12.3µ, 13.3µ Strong recommendation for 0.47µ, and 9.6µ Valuable but lower priority: 4.57µ, and 14.2µ Progress: memo from G. Dittberner to S. Kirkner
– Recommended: 12 channel new threshold– Recommended trade studies for 2 additional channels
Recommendations? Further action?– Provide clear writeup of environmental information needed from imager that
necessitates 12/ 14/ 16 channels– New requirements inherent in NWS Strategic Plan?
13
Data and New Product Needs
– ABI should provide FD every 5 min. Impact on data rate?
– Provide 1000 x 1000km every 30sec Simultaneous with 5 min. FD? Revert to 15 min. FD during rapid scan? Recommendation: determine impact of simultaneous RS and 5 min
FD.
– Sounder should provide near FD coverage/ hour– Sounder FOV no larger than 4 km– Visible Imager channels should be calibrated onboard
14
Data and New Product Needs
– 0.86µ Imager channel should have .5 km resolution to match the 0.64µ.
Paves the way for quantitative vis products Recommendation: need stronger argument…more specific
on type of products…who will benefit?
– Funding for R & D of new satellite products should be part of satellite acquisition budget.
– Calibration information and algorithms to generate products should be made available to the user community.
15
Data and New Product Needs
– Satellite soundings are needed in cloudy areas: From ABS, above low level cloud layers; Use polar microwave to complement Geo soundings; Support concept of Geo microwave;
– As instrument of opportunity?– As instrument on bus separate from GOES
– Sounder should be flexible with option for RSO– Users need access to non-operational satellite data,
such as MODIS and AIRS as a complement to operational data.
16
Data and New Product Needs
– New or improved product needs (not prioritized) ID what spectral bands/ satellites to be used: a) atmospheric aerosols; b) cloud phase; c) cloud particle size; d)
cloud climatology products (fog, convective clouds etc) e) surface properties; f) satellite derived winds; g) QPE; h) moisture flux; i) volcanic ash product; j) probability of rainfall for each pixel; k) low cloud and fog product; l) cloud layers; m) SST; n) true color product; o) cloud optical depth; p) SO2 concentration; q) aircraft icing threat; r) ocean color; s) under (ocean) surface features; t) sea ice products; u) improved vegetation index; v) ozone layers; w) surface emmissivity; x) moisture and temperature profiles; y) clear sky cloud masks for imager and sounder
17
Instruments of Opportunity
– Prioritize candidate IOOs based on potential value and impact on mission complexity, power, volume, expense, and risk.
Lightning mapper Special Events Imager Microwave Sounder
– Provide recommendations on S/C capabilities to host an IOO or IOOs;
– Who should provide S/C accommodation costs?
18
Instruments of Opportunity
– If not feasible to host a microwave sounder on GOES, should we pursue a separate mission solely for a Geo microwave sounder?
– How do we convince the budget folks that one or all the candidates will provide value above the accommodation costs?
19
Data and Product Distribution
– Multiple tiers of data distribution are needed to meet broad range of user needs;
Must include low cost and low data rate options;
– We need to validate list of who needs All the imager and sounder data in real time (NWP…
driver) All the imager and sounder data, delayed Minimal data set: low cost low data rate; All the data but over a limited geographic area
20
Data and Product Distribution
– Discuss pros and cons of: Direct broadcast from GOES
– L band– X band
Commercial re-broadcast Land lines WWW User access from server via ftp Use of old GOES Optimal mix of above
– Who do we need on this team?
21
Data and Product Archive Needs
– Users need full spectrum of GOES products, ranging from raw data to highly processed products;
For applications from nowcasting scale to climate scale
– User friendly format;– Minimal cost to user;– Quick delivery to user
Most requests filled < 1 day; Extremely large requests in < 1 week;
– Users need to browse, select products, and submit requests via internet;
22
Data and Product Archive Needs
– Potential delivery methods for large requests: ftp; CD-ROMS; DVDs
– Users need metadata Including info on product quality trends due to variations in
instrument and satellite performance;
– Users need access to query system (i.e. tornado cases, hurricanes, fog events etc);
– Monthly storage in range of terrabytes;– We should provide info on user needs to:
NCDC; developers of the GAA
23
New Data Integration
– Use AIRS and GIFTS data to prepare for ABS; MODIS to prepare for ABI;
ID needs for operational algorithms (by spring 2002); Develop plans for algorithm completion by June 2005;
– Develop plan for providing users with access to sample data sets by July 2006;
– Develop plan to have NOAA educate users on use of new algorithms and data sets;
– Develop plan for a fully operational infrastructure for reception, processing, distribution, and archiving of test data sets prior to GOES-R launch;
– Develop plan for integrating data into AWIPS or follow-on
24
NWP
– Develop prioritized list of Imager and Sounder products (both individual and combined):
Layered moisture; moisture flux; cloud cover; cloud layers; cloud particle size; cloud phase; aerosols; thin cirrus; surface properties; temperature and moisture profiles; radiances; ozone layers; winds; etc
Products to include information on degree of confidence in product quality/ accuracy;
Determine format requirements for products;
25
NWP
– The use of other satellite data as a complement to GOES data;
Combined GOES/ Polar products;
– Develop plan for product development: Who, when, where, how?
– User option for quality vs latency;
– Determine needs of data distribution for NWP (NCEP/ DOD/ etc)
26
NWP
– Develop plan for coordination with JCSDA;
– Impact of data compression; User should be able to choose between varying degrees of
data compression;
– Targeted observations;
– Workshop focused on NWP issues;
27
User Education
28
Cost Benefits Analysis (CBA)(MITRE Corp.)
– Marginal CBA for both ABI and ABS
– Develop benefit analysis with input from: NOAA users and external users
– Translate delta in sensor performance to: User benefit/cost savings and or avoidance
29
Cost Benefits Analysis (CBA)(MITRE Corp.)
– Based on comparison of proposed vs current What environmental and weather obs would be impacted? What models would be impacted? What products and services would be improved?
– By how much?
Who would benefit from both?– Identify all key users that would be impacted;
For each user/product combination quantify the improvement; Determine impact on users if improvements not provided;
30
GUC Bulletin Board
– Need to encourage more use;
– Identify items from this meeting to post;
– Notify GUC participants via e-mail to check postings
– This group should set example;
– http://www.osd.noaa.gov/GOES/feedback/sign.asp
31
Coordination with User Agencies
– Develop briefing package: ABI; ABS; IOO; Input from GUC;
– Provide results of CBA;– Set up schedule to brief DAAs:
NWS, NOS, NMFS, OAR; DOD?
– Request ORD
– Recommendations for briefers? Small team of experts?
32
Climate Issues
– We need to get the climate community engaged:
– Recommendations:
33
Resources
– What additional resources does this group need: People/ expertise
34
Plans for Next GUC
– May 2002 in Boulder? Pro:
– Infrastructure in place: facilities, facilitators, NIST personnel;
– With annual meeting, more likely to keep participants active in process;
– We may need only 2 day meeting: not starting from scratch.
– Boulder worked well (If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it);
Con:– Planning must begin NOW!
– Other locations/ venues might attract more international participation;
35
Plans for Next GUC
– November 2002 in Miami?– Coincident with OSDPD meeting for South American and Central
American users. Pro:
– More international participation;– Larger audience
Con:– Most international participants will be interested in LRIT/ DCS etc;– Unfamiliar territory for meeting logistics;– Facilitators?– Setting up breakout sessions: more complicated – Less focused meeting;
36
Plans for Next GWG
– October 17, noon- 2pm in Madison
– Luncheon meeting
– Sub-groups report on action item progress;
– Room: TBA