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