slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Mike Bell, co-chair (Met Office, UK)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

Mike Bell, co-chair Met Office, UK - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 229 Views
  • Uploaded on

Slides presented at IGST XII - St John’s . Mike Bell, co-chair (Met Office, UK). Patrons & GODAE Project Office. ● Role of Patrons To advise on institutional priorities To assist in funding projects, events and GODAE Project Office ● Updating list of Patrons

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Mike Bell, co-chair Met Office, UK ' - Gabriel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Slides presented at

IGST XII - St John’s

Mike Bell, co-chair (Met Office, UK)

patrons godae project office
Patrons & GODAE Project Office

● Role of Patrons

    • To advise on institutional priorities
    • To assist in funding projects, events and GODAE Project Office

● Updating list of Patrons

    • BMRC (Neville Smith), CNES (Eric Thouvenot), ESA (Mark Drinkwater), EUMETSAT (F Parisot), Mercator (Pierre Bahurel), Met Office (Mike Bell), NASA (Eric Lindstrom), NOAA (Stan Wilson), ONR (Scott Harper)
    • Additional potential patrons are being encouraged to participate (e.g. IOOS (Mary Altalo), NCEP (Ming Ji)

● Financial situation of GODAE Project Office

    • £143k transferred from BMRC (Jan 07)
    • £78k is actual spend Sep 06 – Jun 07
    • £250k is estimated total spend Sep 06 – Dec 08
    • £64k committed (mainly EUMETSAT, NOAA) since Sep 06
    • £43k is present shortfall

● Sponsorship of Major Events

  • Final Symposium & Summer school will not be funded through the GODAE project office
      • Funds will be raised directly
reports back on actions
Reports back on Actions

● Action 8: Poor Man’s Ensembles

  • Simple time series of SSTs for selected points and differences from ensemble mean using SST products generated by OSTIA, RTG, RSS, FNMOC and FOAM products
  • Useful conclusions on strengths/weaknesses attainable

● Action 7: Collate examples of ocean input in NWP

  • Yamamoto M. & Hirose N. (2007), GRL, 34. Impact of satellite based SST and ocean model RIAMSST on developing cyclone in Japan Sea in 10 km resolution NWP simulation. Impact on MSLP, surface turbulent fluxes, precipitable water content. Validation using integrated cloud water amount and an infra-red cloud image.
  • Mike McCulloch (Met Office) has rerun NWP tropical cyclone forecasts using OSTIA SST analyses. Discernible positive impact on track of one of four hurricanes studied

● Action 44: Coordination of demonstrations of impact of observations on seasonal forecasting

  • David Anderson sees seasonal forecasting as a blunt tool for assessments. He’s not aware of a coordination effort. OSSE meeting may be able to raise this issue ?
report from ghrsst 1
Report from GHRSST (1)

● Project is progressing very well

  • GHRSST Annual Science Meeting in Melbourne well attended and useful

● Good operational use of satellite data

  • Most useful SST satellite data now within the GHRSST-PP regional/global task sharing framework
  • This now exchanges 10 Gbyte of data per day

● There are now 10 L4 analyses

  • A new GHRSST-PP Multi-Product Ensemble (GMPE) Group has been set up to intercompare the L4 analyses
  • Key global L4 analyses combined as a poor man’s ensemble at Met Office
  • High resolution diagnostic data set (HRDDS) work extending to include model data as well as in situ – useful to include

● The re-analysis project (for last 20 years) is moving ahead. Data sets are being developed and links to GCOS SST/SI WG are strong

report from ghrsst 2
Report from GHRSST (2)

● Craig would like to broaden support for GHRSST Project Office (current supporters are European) to include NOAA or Japan if possible

● The future of the GHRSST project is being discussed

  • Concensus in Science Team is that the PP should remain until transition to operations has occurred and beyond if necessary
  • Dexter (and others) suggest it may not need a “home” (such as IOC or JCOMM or GEO) but there are other views
  • Options will be explored further. Decision expected next year
future of igst
Future of IGST ?

● What was good about GODAE and IGST ?

  • Had a clear and compelling objective – to demonstrate open ocean forecasts both feasible and valuable in order to make case for transition of necessary observing systems to operational status
  • Objectives well aligned with organisations able to provide funding (space agencies)
  • IGST is a good size of group for information exchange. Best chance of year to find out what other groups are doing and discuss issues
  • People involved willing to contribute (but often too busy)
  • Incentives/reasons stronger for collaborating than competing
  • Excitement of doing something new
  • A good leader
future of igst8
Future of IGST ?

● My current opinions

    • Important to close GODAE to take stock of where we are
    • Refreshing the objective – getting a new compelling objective is key
    • Tie in to JCOMM is important – if it is not rather close operational oceanography and JCOMM will not be effective
    • Quality of information exchange is key. Group could be a bit larger but not bigger than 50
    • Some Project Office type resources are necessary to help people to contribute and complete tasks (e.g. web & IP)
    • Incentives/reasons for collaborating must be stronger than competing
    • Excitement is important: doing something that will have an impact is exciting
    • A good leader doesn’t have to be like Neville
  • WCRP/CAS/JCOMM WG sounds better than IOC
final symposium break out discussion summary
Final SymposiumBreak-out Discussion summary

● OST preferred to JCOMM as partner

  • Difficulties in capturing target user attention; organisational strengths of CNES; observation community

● Themes and Balance

  • Review and planning of future 75:25
  • Celebration and critical examination 70:30
    • Recognition of key achievements does both
  • Individual systems and key issues 20:80
  • Observations and user applications 50:50

● Organising ideas

  • Multi-author papers similar to First Symposium
  • Focus on key achievements

● Need an outline of themes, papers and joint authors

  • Mike & Pierre-Yves to draft outline of themes and papers
final symposium 2 themes papers
Final Symposium (2)Themes/Papers

● Original concept

  • The concept of GODAE and the Symposium

● Operational forecasting systems that have been implemented

  • Model & Assimilation system (National report writers)
  • Data and product servers (Frederique Blanc, Steve Hankin, Keith Haines, Peter Cornillon, Peter Hacker, Srinivasan, Tim Pugh, Martin Price

● Internal Validation (title ?)

  • Demonstrations of feasibility (Harley Hurlburt, Eric Dombrowsky, each system)
  • Intercomparisons of forecasts (Fabrice Hernandez, Gary Brassington, Matt Martin,
  • Assessments of impact of observing system (OSEs) (Peter Oke, T. Awaji, Matt Martin, Eric Dombrowsky, Greg Jacobs, Jim Cummings, P-Y le Traon)

● Key Scientific & Technical Developments & Issues

  • In situ & Satellite Observational network (2 papers ?) (Dean Roemmich, Mike Johnson, Ed Harrison, Craig Donlon, Stan Wilson, Mark Drinkwater, Francois Parisot, Susan Wjffels, Eric Thouvenot)
  • Observation processing (Jim Cummings, Bruce Ingleby, Giles Larnicol, Sylvie Pouliquen, Gary Brassington, Greg Jacobs, Pierre-Yves le Traon, Bob Keeley)
  • Modelling (Eric Chassignet, Alan Wallcraft, Gurvan Madec, Anne Marie Treguier, Remy Baraille, Steve Griffies, Andreas Schiller, Bernard Barnier, Dan Wright)
  • Assimilation (Jim Cummings, Anthony Weaver, Peter Oke, Keith Haines, Toni Lee, Ichiro Fukumori, Pierre Brasseur, Pierre de Mey, Jacques Verron, Matt Martin, T. Awaji, Keith Thomson, Laurent Bertino)
  • Product serving (Frederique Blanc, Steve Hankin, Keith Haines, Peter Cornillon, Peter Hacker, Srinivasan, Tim Pugh, Martin Price

● Development of Applications (Services?)

  • Safety and effectiveness of operations at Sea (includes SAR) (Fraser Davidson, Brian Stone, Art Allen, Oyvind Breivik, Bruce Hackett, Pierre Daniel, Ralph Rayner, Bob Woodham, Greg Jacobs)
  • Downscaling for Coastal models (Pierre de Mey, Roger Proctor, John Siddorn, Fraser Davidson, George Halliwell, Alexander Barth, Peter Craig, John Kindle,Dominique Obaton, Hiroyuki Tsujino)
  • Coupled atmospheric forecasts (NWP, seasonal, climate) (Oscar Alves, Magdalena Balmaseda, Arum Kumar, Toni Lee, Paul Sandery, Helene Banks, Rich Hodur, Nicolas Ferry, Yosuke Fujii)
  • Monitoring and protection of the environment (John Siddorn, Patrick Monfray, Nicolas Gruber, Patrick Lehodey, Keith Brander, Andreas Oschlies, Alistair Hobday)

● Project Assessments

  • Pilot Projects: Argo & GHRSST (Dean Roemmich, Craig Donlon, ….)
  • Evaluation of effectiveness (Neville Smith, Pierre Yves le Traon, Mike Bell, Mary Altalo, Pierre Bahurel)

● Proposal for the future

  • Key research priorities (Pierre Brasseur, Eric Chassignet, Roger Proctor, Patrick Monfrey, Gary Brassington, Scott Harper)
  • Assessment of options for coordination post-GODAE (Stan Wilson, Pierre Bahurel, Neville Smith, Ed Harrison, Scott Harper, Pierre Yves le Traon, Mike Bell)
final symposium 4 themes papers key issues
Final Symposium (4)Themes/Papers/Key issues

● Original concept

  • The concept of GODAE and the Symposium
  • the aim, rationale and need; minimum required for observations, modelling, assimilation and user engagement
  • Explanation of purpose and organisation of papers

● Operational forecasting systems that have been implemented

  • Model & Assimilation systems
  • Data and product servers
  • Coordinated factual descriptions

● Internal Validation (title ?)

  • Demonstrations of feasibility
  • Intercomparisons of forecasts
  • Assessments of impact of observing system (OSEs)

● Key Scientific & Technical Developments & Issues

  • In situ & Satellite Observational network (2 papers ?)
  • What is being monitored (variables & scales), what has value mainly for validation
  • key technological advances
  • Observation processing
  • Modelling
  • Key steps forward; goals for future
  • Assimilation
  • What complexity is required; what aspects of error covariance need to be captured properly & what methods are well suited to this
  • Product serving
final symposium themes papers key issues
Final SymposiumThemes/Papers/Key issues

● Development of Applications (Services?)

  • Safety and effectiveness of operations at Sea (includes SAR)
  • Downscaling for Coastal models
  • Coupled atmospheric forecasts (NWP, seasonal, climate)
  • Monitoring and protection of the environment (fisheries)
  • What information is feasible and valuable; key achievements; key goals for future (why important and achievable)

● Project Assessments

  • Pilot Projects: Argo & GHRSST
  • What was the need/rationale/opportunity; key achievements; key goals for future (why important and achievable)
  • Evaluation of effectiveness
  • Original Metrics for Success; other outcomes; evolution of concept

● Options for the future

  • Key research priorities
  • Assessment of options for coordination post-GODAE
next igst location timing
Next IGST – Location & Timing

● Location – Washington DC – Scott, Ming, Ed to sort out

● Date - between May and Sep 08

● What to discuss ? How does this affect date ?

  • Future of IGST – no constraints
  • Preparation of final Symposium
    • Content of joint papers ? Aug / Sep a good time ?
  • Results from intercomparisons – later is better June/July
  • Preparation of summer school – OK
  • Working groups – no constraints
  • National reports – no constraints – may not be needed ?
ad