1 / 13

Options for Future Event-Based Hydrologic Products Tim Helble Hydrologic Services Division Office of Climate, Water, and

Options for Future Event-Based Hydrologic Products Tim Helble Hydrologic Services Division Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services. Topics. Current suite of event-based hydrologic products Three of many possible options for the future. Current Product Configuration.

oded
Download Presentation

Options for Future Event-Based Hydrologic Products Tim Helble Hydrologic Services Division Office of Climate, Water, and

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Options for Future Event-Based Hydrologic Products Tim Helble Hydrologic Services Division Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services

  2. Topics • Current suite of event-based hydrologic products • Three of many possible options for the future NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

  3. Current Product Configuration • FFW for Flash Flood Warnings, FFS for follow-ups (flash flood statement) • FF.W indicates flash flood warning for an area • No VTEC phenomena/significance code for flash flood warning for a point • FFA for Flood/Flash Flood Watches • FF.A indicates flash flood watch for an area • FA.A indicates flood watch for an area • FL.A indicates flood watch for a point NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

  4. Current Product Configuration • FLW for Flood Warnings, FLS for follow-ups (flood statement) • FL.W indicates point-based warning • FA.W indicates areal warning • FLS for Flood Advisories – both initial and follow-ups • FL.Y indicates point-based advisory • FA.Y indicates areal advisory NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

  5. Current Product Configuration • Each product has a unique MND Product Type Line – e.g.: • FLASH FLOOD WARNING • FLOOD WARNING • FLOOD WATCH NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

  6. An Opportunity… • Next Generation Warning Tool (NGWT) provides an opportunity to: • Eliminate current difficulties in hydro products arising from use of three different applications • Start from scratch and build a product suite that meets the needs of partners and other users. • Implement better product quality control • Timeframe: 3+ years NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

  7. Future Option #1 • Keep current configuration of product identifiers. • Keep unique MND Product Type Lines – e.g., FLASH FLOOD WARNING, FLOOD WATCH. • Partially rely on VTEC to parse products • Action codes – e.g., NEW, CON • Phenomena codes – e.g., FL, FA • Significance codes – e.g., W, A, Y NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

  8. Future Option #1 • Pros: • Already understood by partners and other users. • Cons: • Too many product identifiers -- can be confusing. • Doesn’t allow for an upgrade/downgrade capability (e.g., watch to warning). • Doesn’t allow for a transition capability (e.g., flash flood warning to flood warning). • Very limited ability to issue products combining different types of segments (all segments must be under the same identifier). NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

  9. Future Option #2 • One product identifier for all hydrologic watches, one for all flood warnings, and one for all advisories • Keep unique MND Product Type Lines – e.g., FLASH FLOOD WARNING, FLOOD WATCH • Partially rely on VTEC to parse products NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

  10. Future Option #2 • Pros: • More logical structure – one unique identifier for each major type of product. • Allows for a transition capability (e.g., flash flood warning to flood warning). • Some ability to issue products combining different types of segments (so long as they use the same product identifier). • Cons: • Doesn’t allow for an upgrade/downgrade capability (e.g., watch to warning). • Only eliminates two identifiers. • Somewhat limited ability to issue products combining different types of segments (all segments must be under the same identifier). NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

  11. Future Option #3 • One product identifier for all event-based products (watch/warning/advisories) – FLW • Keep unique MND Product Type Lines – e.g., FLASH FLOOD WARNING, FLOOD WATCH • Entirely rely on VTEC to parse products. Users can also parse on the MND Product Type Lines if necessary NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

  12. Future Option #3 • Pros: • Very simple – one identifier covers all (like WSW). • Allows for both a transition capability (e.g., flash flood warning to flood warning) and an upgrade capability (e.g., flood watch to flood warning). • Provides maximum ability to issue products combining different types of segments – e.g., a single product containing two points in flood, two at flood advisory level, two under a flood watch, and the entire upper portion of the basin covered by an areal flood warning. • Places emphasis on versatile VTEC information rather than product identifiers. • Cons: • Would likely require users who automatically parse NWS products to make changes to their software. NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

  13. Feedback • Option preference, other ideas? Please contact: Tim Helble timothy.helble@noaa.gov (301) 713-0006 x152 NWS Partners Meeting June 18, 2008

More Related