wmo 2012 survey on the use of satellite data
TRANSCRIPT
WMO 2012 Survey on the Use of Satellite Data
WMO Space Programme SP-9
WMO Space Programme SP-9
WMO 2012 Survey on the Use of Satellite Data WMO 2013
© World Meteorological Organization, 2013 The right of publication in print, electronic and any other form and in any language is reserved by WMO. Short extracts from WMO publications may be reproduced without authorization, provided that the complete source is clearly indicated. Editorial correspondence and requests to publish, reproduce or translate these publications in part or in whole should be addressed to: Chairperson, Publications Board World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 7 bis, avenue de la Paix Tel.: +41 (0)22 730 84 03 P.O. Box No. 2300 Fax: +41 (0)22 730 80 40 CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected]
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Motivation .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Survey ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Analysis Approach............................................................................................................. 2
2. CONTEXT AND EVENTS 2010-2012....................................................................................... 2
2.1 Satellite systems ............................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Data generation, dissemination and exchange ................................................................. 3 2.3 User preparation and training............................................................................................ 4
3. PARTICIPATION IN THE SURVEY (Q1-6) .............................................................................. 5 4. USE OF SATELLITES.............................................................................................................. 7
4.1 General (Q10, Q11)........................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Use of satellite systems (Q12-15) ..................................................................................... 9
4.2.1 Use of GEO satellites (Q13) ...................................................................................... 9 4.2.2 Polar orbiting satellites (Q14) .................................................................................. 10 4.2.3 Other Low-Earth orbiting satellites (Q15) ................................................................ 12
4.3 User interest in future satellites (Q22)............................................................................. 13 5. ACCESS TO SATELLITE DATA (Q16).................................................................................. 14 6. CURRENT AND PLANNED APPLICATION OF SATELLITE DATA..................................... 16
6.1 Importance of satellite data for applications (Q17).......................................................... 16 6.2 Current use of satellite data and products (Q19/20) ....................................................... 17 6.3 Planned use, unmet requirements for satellite data and products (Q19/20) ................... 17 6.4 Ways of using satellite data and products (Q21)............................................................. 19
7. CHALLENGES IN USING SATELLITE DATA (Q18)............................................................. 19 8. TRAINING............................................................................................................................... 20
8.1 Training needs (Q23/24) ................................................................................................. 20 8.2 Methods of delivering training (Q25) ............................................................................... 21 8.3 Awareness of distance learning programs ...................................................................... 22
9. FINAL QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................... 23
9.1 Sources of information about availability and access to satellite data (Q27) .................. 24 9.2 Final comments and suggestions (Q28).......................................................................... 25 9.3 Responses by NGOs, the Commercial sector and other institutions .............................. 25
10. Conclusions, Lessons for ET-SUP ...................................................................................... 26
APPENDICES A. 2012 Questionnaire B. Region-based Analyses C. List of Acronyms
WMO 2012 Survey on the Use of Satellite Data
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has undertaken the 2012 WMO Survey on the Use of Satellite Data to collect information on the availability and use of satellite data and products by users globally, and to identify any areas for improvement and remedial action. This is part of the work programme of the WMO Commission for Basic Systems Expert Team on Satellite Utilization and Products (ET-SUP).1 The total number of valid responses received was 227 (originating from 95 WMO Member countries2) of which 127 (56%) were provided by National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS), 31 (14%) from other operational governmental institutions, and 60 (26%) from institutions with a research/academic mandate. From the majority of responding Member countries, multiple responses were provided. Target audience of the survey were users in NMHSs of the 1893 WMO Member states and territories, as well as other satellite users worldwide (organizations, value-adders, individuals) active in the fields of meteorology, climate, hydrology, disaster risk reduction and related environmental applications. Key results from the survey are: • There is increasing utilization of satellite data in most Member countries responding to the survey • The increasing relevance of satellite data is recognized for a wide range of applications
(nowcasting, aviation, atmospheric composition) • The importance of satellite data for climate applications is perceived as equally important as for
weather applications • Users increasingly demand high-resolution data and products • Overall improved access to data, facilitated by data policies and the enhanced role of the internet
as a data dissemination mechanism • Growing recognition of the sometimes unique value of satellites, e.g., for ocean monitoring, for
meteorological and Earth system research, for spatial mapping, and in data-sparse areas such as small-island states and polar regions
• The key relevance of data from research/demonstration missions for operational purposes has been confirmed
• There is increasing availability and use of commercial data • Easier access and guidance should be provided to satellite products • Satellite data formats should be harmonized and simplified, for platform-independent use • With exceptions, most users are insufficiently prepared for the new generation of operational
satellites planned for 2014-2020 • Targeted and continuous training is required to build and maintain human capacity • Future surveys should be conducted by Region on a 2-3 year basis, complemented by WMO-led
global surveys on a 4-5 year basis
1 ET-SUP operates within the WMO Commission for Basic Systems Open Programme Area Group on Integrated Observing Systems (OPAG-IOS) 2 Member states and territories 3 At the time of conducting the Survey; as of early 2013, WMO has 191 Members (185 States and 6 Territories)
WMO Survey on the Use of Satellite Data
1
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Motivation The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has undertaken the 2012 WMO Survey on the Use of Satellite Data to collect information on the availability and use of satellite data and products by users globally, and to identify any areas for improvement. This is part of the work programme of the WMO Commission for Basic Systems (CBS) OPAG IOS Expert Team on Satellite Utilization and Products (ET-SUP). Target audience are users in National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS) of the 1894 WMO Member states and territories (hereafter referred to as Member countries), as well as other satellite users worldwide (organizations, value-adders, individuals) active in the fields of meteorology, climate, hydrology, disaster risk reduction and related environmental applications. The overall aim is to obtain updated user feedback, including limiting factors and difficulties faced by users, in order to take remedial action (e.g., enhanced training) in support of a broad range of satellite users of relevance to all WMO and co-sponsored Programmes. The various responses to this survey are expected to help bridge the gaps between the large amount of satellite data available, and the tremendous need for improved, easy access to those data, products, tools, derived information, and user training. The responses on status, progress, and challenges in using satellites as an information resource will also shape international action by the WMO Space Programme in effectively responding to satellite-specific needs within the WMO Integrated Global Observing System (WIGOS), the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) and, as appropriate, within WMO Member countries. 1.2 The Survey The 2012 survey was developed by ET-SUP5 using as input the questionnaire used in earlier WMO surveys on this topic, and reviews by the co-chairs of the WMO/Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites (CGMS) International Working Groups and the Management Group of the Virtual Laboratory for Education and Training in Satellite Meteorology (VLab). Conducted via an online questionnaire6 during the period 30 May to 11 September 2012, the survey was announced through a number of communication channels: formal invitation letters to all Permanent Representatives (PR) of Member countries with WMO, emails to WMO and related expert teams, to WMO and co-sponsored Programmes, through CGMS and its International Scientific Working Groups, to the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) and the Group on Earth Observation, to the VLab, the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), regional WMO initiatives and other satellite user communities, as well as through a dedicated WMO website. The survey was also publicized at the 2012 EUMETSAT Meteorological Satellite Conference in Sopot, Poland.
The letters to PRs encouraged distribution of the announcement of the survey to major satellite user organizations in every Member country. ET-SUP considered that in order to make the survey as informative as possible for the CBS, direct responses by satellite data users in all WMO Member countries should be sought, in addition to the information collected and forwarded by the PRs.
The 2012 survey is structured along three major topics (the full list of 29 questions is given in Appendix A):
• Access to satellite data and products, • Application and use of satellite data, • Training on satellite data utilization.
This report strives to compare the 2012 results with results from earlier surveys wherever possible and relevant. It also takes qualitative responses into account, which often highlight needs or difficulties
4 At the time of conducting the Survey; as of early 2013, membership of WMO is 191 (185 States and 6 Territories) 5 For details, see the ET-SUP-6 Report, Appendix VIII 6 Using the survey tool http://www.surveymonkey.com
2
encountered by users more sharply than statistical analyses. Targeted user interviews, although discussed by the Team as being proven useful to investigate detailed requirements, could not be carried out due to a lack of available resources. The structure of the report reflects the various components of the survey, which has been included in full in Appendix A. 1.3 Analysis Approach The following steps were involved in the analysis: 1. Validation of responses, to ensure completeness and consistency 2. Grouping of responses, by type of affiliated organization (Q4)
a) Responses associated with NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies: grouped in one category
b) Responses associated with Research / Academic institutions: grouped in one category c) Responses associated with Regional / International organizations: distributed into categories a)
and b), depending on the main mandate of the organization d) Responses associated with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the commercial sector
and others: analyzed separately 3. Distinction by WMO Regions7 4. Further in-depth analyses provided on a per-Region basis (Appendix B) and upon demand 2. CONTEXT AND EVENTS 2010-2012 Following World Climate Conference-3, a high-level task force recommended to establish a Global Framework for Climate Services, subsequently endorsed by the 16th World Meteorological Congress in 2011. Congress decided on the establishment of an Architecture for Climate Monitoring from Space to ensure the sustained provision of climate-quality data from satellites and Essential Climate Variables. It also decided on extending the scope of the WMO Space Programme to include space weather coordination. In 2012, WMO held its first Extraordinary Congress to agree on governance of the Global Framework for Climate Services. Key resolutions and recommendations agreed by the 15th session of the Commission for Basic Systems addressed, inter alia, further implementation of the WMO Information System and components of the WMO Integration Global Observing System, safeguarding radio frequencies for use by the meteorological community, and extension of the Severe Weather Forecasting Demonstration Project to all regions in need. 2.1 Satellite systems In the January 2010 – September 2012 period preceding and during the survey, a number of new satellites were placed in orbit, contributing to the space-based Global Observing System with a wide range of instrument payloads.8 These included:
• GOES-15 • CryoSat-2 • GOES-12 (relocation at 60°W for South America) • TanDEM-X • COMS-1 • FY-3B • COSMO-SkyMed-4 • Electro-L N1
7 Some Member countries are represented in more than one WMO Region, however none of them provided multiple per-Region responses (see section 3 for details) 8 Source and details: http://www.wmo.int/oscar
3
• SAC-D • HY-2A • Megha-Tropiques • Suomi-NPP • FY-2F • GCOM-W1 • Meteosat-10 • KANOPUS-V1 • SPOT-6 • Metop-B
Between January 2010 and September 2012, the list of satellites reaching the end of their lifetime included:
• GOES-12 (removed from its nominal GOES-East position) • CBERS-2B • OceanSat-1 • ICESat • INSAT-3B • Orbview-2/SeaStar • Meteosat-6 (IODC) • ALOS • ERS-2 • Landsat-5 • GOES-11 • FY-1D • Envisat • INSAT-2E
A launch failure prevented commissioning of the NASA Glory satellite in 2011. In 2011, CGMS satellite operators agreed to an updated operational/sustained satellite systems baseline (“CGMS baseline for the operational contribution to the GOS”),9 thereby confirming the plan to provide users with sustained data streams from an extended range of missions, with a perspective of long-term follow-on. 2.2 Data generation, dissemination and exchange Space agencies have enhanced their efforts in reprocessing historical satellite records for the purpose of climate monitoring and climate research. The response by satellite agencies to GCOS requirements is being coordinated within mechanisms such as SCOPE-CM, the CEOS Working Group Climate and the Architecture for Climate Monitoring from Space. There is an increasing realization by satellite operators of the overall benefits in making datasets and products available to users on a free and open basis, pending existing licensing agreements for certain time-critical data. This trend is enabled partly by the promulgation of GEOSS Data Sharing Principles and initiatives on Data Democracy advocated for by CEOS. Near-real time access to satellite sounding data has progressed through further coverage of the Regional ATOVS Retransmission Services (RARS). The GEONETCast rebroadcast system in Digital Video Broadcast standard, derived from the WMO Integrated Global Data Dissemination Strategy (IGDDS) initiative, now involves CMACast in addition to EUMETCast-Europe, EUMETCast-Africa,
9 CGMS (2011): Report of the 39th Meeting of the Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 3-7 October 2011, Annex 6.
4
EUMETCast-Americas, and GEONETCast-Americas. However, progress in truly global exchange of time-critical data and interoperability of systems has been slow over the past two years. For the regions of North/Central America and the Caribbean, and South America (RA IV and RA III, respectively), a task team on satellite data requirements brought together a representative number of users and satellite providers. It developed an initial set of documented, detailed requirements for satellite data access and exchange.10 These have led to a better understanding of the technical and operational context of satellite activities for WMO Member countries in the area, a better understanding of existing and planned data dissemination means, and the addition of products by NOAA to the GEONETCast-Americas broadcast stream in response to requirements. The team’s work, which is yet to be formalized at the level of RAs, has also led to the identification of the highest priority needs in the short-term, and recommendations to prepare a sustainable response to regional needs in the longer term. In Africa (RA I), the user-provider dialogue through the EUMETSAT User Forum and the annual meetings of the WMO RA I Satellite Product and Dissemination Expert Group made progress in identifying regional data and associated training needs. Members of the RA II Pilot Project for the Development of support for NMHSs in the areas of satellite data, products and training have undertaken a user survey among countries in Asia, established web-based access to satellite data and products that were identified as a priority, and provided training and support as needed.11 Noting these successful regional user-provider feedback mechanisms, the WMO Commission for Basic Systems at its 15th session in September 2012 recommended a general Procedure for Documenting Regional Requirements for Satellite Data Access and Exchange. A new Task Team on Satellite User Requirements has subsequently been set up in RA V (South-West Pacific) in accordance with this Procedure, and has started its work under Australian Bureau of Meteorology and NOAA leadership. 2.3 User preparation and training An entirely new fleet of geostationary meteorological satellites is planned for launch in the 2014-2018 timeframe, affecting users in all WMO Regions. In September 2012, the WMO Commission for Basic Systems at its 15th session endorsed a Guideline for Ensuring User Readiness for New Generation Satellites, calling for preparation efforts on the part of WMO Member countries and satellite operators well in advance of launch (~5 years) to fully benefit from the new technology and to minimize the risk of disruption to operations. Such preparation consists of training programmes, the provision of proxy datasets, test beds, and user-provider feedback mechanisms, such as in the NOAA-NASA Proving Ground program. In addition, necessary upgrades to data reception and processing infrastructure need to be realized in a timely fashion. The WMO-CGMS Virtual Laboratory for Education and Training in Satellite Meteorology (VLab) continued to provide essential online training resources and events to satellite data users all over the world, in all six WMO languages. KMA joined the VLab as a Centre of Excellence in Satellite Meteorology in 2011 and took on a major commitment in organizing a training event associated with the 3rd Asia/Oceania Meteorological Satellite Users’ Conference in the Republic of Korea. The Asia/Oceania Meteorological Satellite Conference has emerged as the leading forum for the satellite meteorology community in the region. It should further evolve as the key user-provider platform, including sessions on data utilization, tools, and training events. The 1st and 2nd Conferences were held in Beijing, China, and Tokyo, Japan, hosted by CMA and JMA, respectively. Morocco’s NMHS (Direction de la Météorologie Nationale) joined the VLab as a Centre of Excellence in late 2012, with support from EUMETSAT.
10 http://satelite.cptec.inpe.br/geonetcast/es/datareq.html 11 http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/sat/ra2pilotproject-links_en.php
5
In 2012, the VLab forged a partnership for capacity building in developing countries with the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), and a first co-sponsored training workshop on remote sensing of the global water cycle was held in Beijing in September 2012, hosted by the National Space Science Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Figure 1: WMO Regions
3. PARTICIPATION IN THE SURVEY (Q1-6) The total number of valid responses received was 227 (originating from 95 WMO Member countries) of which 127 (56%) were provided by NMHSs, 31 (14%) from other operational governmental agencies, and 60 (26%) from institutions with a research/academic mandate. From the majority of Member countries, multiple responses were provided. In addition, one NGO, five commercial entities and three individuals responded. 52 responses (23% of total) were provided on behalf of PRs, 79 (35%) on behalf of institutions or departments within institutions, and 96 (42%) from individual satellite data users. Although less official responses on behalf of PRs were recorded than in previous years (2010: 86), there is an overall much larger range of responses from a slightly larger number of countries than in all surveys undertaken in the past fifteen years (2012: 50% of all WMO Member countries; 2010: 46% and 32 to 46% in earlier surveys). The nine answers from NGOs, commercial companies and individuals are discussed qualitatively in section 9.3, and, for reasons of simplified presentation, excluded from further evaluation. This leaves all further analyses with 218 responses from 95 WMO Member countries as the baseline (of these are 127 from NMHSs and an additional 31 from other operational governmental agencies (totalling 158), and 60 responses associated with Research & Academia). The geographic extent of WMO Regions is shown in Figure 1. The distribution of responses per Region is given in Table 1 and shows strong participation by European users (Region VI), in particular from NMHSs, from users in North/Central America and the Caribbean (Region IV), in particular in Research and Academia, and good to fair participation in the other Regions, with NMHSs always providing the majority of responses. Some bias towards user needs in Region IV and VI can therefore be assumed in any global statistics given in this report. It is for this reason that most analyses are broken down by Region, and in addition, Appendix B provides detailed information by Region and where possible, by country.
6
Per-country response rate is highest in Europe (at least one response received from 34 (68%) of 50 Member countries), in the South-West Pacific and in Asia. Around a third of all Member countries responded in Africa, South America, and in North/Central America and the Caribbean. Compared to the 2010 survey, response rates have significantly improved in the South-West Pacific, slightly improved in Europe, somewhat dropped in North/Central America and the Caribbean, and dropped sharply in South America (2010: responses received from 11 Member countries, in 2012 only from 5). It is expected that in the Americas, the establishment of a Regional Coordination Group for Satellite Data Requirements would help lead to increased awareness for such surveys in the future. Table 1: Number of responses by WMO Region (Q1-5)12
WMO Region Number of Members13
Number of Members with
at least one response (rate in %)
NMHS Other
operational agency
Research & Academia
Total number of responses
I (Africa) 56 17 (30%) 21 11 5 37 II (Asia) 35 19 (54%) 25 2 7 34 III (S America) 13 5 (38%) 6 4 4 14 IV (N&C America &C) 26 8 (31%) 14 6 24 44 V (SW Pacific) 22 12 (55%) 15 1 1 17 VI (Europe) 50 34 (68%) 46 7 19 72
All 189 95 (50%) 127 31 60 218
Whether Regions are over- or underrepresented in the survey can also be seen when comparing, for each Region, its per-country response rate with its share of Member countries in WMO (Figure 2). For example, 56 (30%) of the 189 Member countries are in Region I (Africa), whereas from all 95 Member countries with at least one response, only 17 were in Region I (18%). This means that that on a per-country basis, Region I is under-represented in the survey compared to its weight in WMO, and so is Region IV (North/Central America & the Caribbean), whereas Region VI (Europe) is over-represented. Beyond factors directly affecting responsiveness to the survey (effectiveness of distribution, ability and motivation to respond, awareness of WMO etc.), these comparisons give a rough indication of the extent to which satellite data are broadly utilized across all Member countries in a Region. Some Member countries are represented in more than one WMO Region (Colombia, France, Kazakhstan, Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America) however none of them provided, in their response on behalf of the PR or otherwise, multiple per-Region responses. Regarding Q6, it is important to realize that 99% respondents to the survey are using satellite data in one way or another (90% routinely and 10% occasionally), i.e. answered affirmatively to the question “Are you using satellite data?”; only one response indicated not using satellite data without giving a reason. It must be noted that half of WMO Member countries did not respond to the 2012 survey.
12 These include multiple responses per institution 13 Note multiple membership in Regions
7
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
I II III IV V VI
WMO Region
% of all Member countrieswith at least one response% of all Member countries
Figure 2: Regional representation in the survey, on a country basis: comparison of response rate to the survey and the Region’s percentage of all WMO Member countries (cf. also Table 1) (Q1, 2) 4. USE OF SATELLITES 4.1 General (Q10, Q11) 72% of all respondents (i.e. 157 out of 218) and 90% of NMHSs and other operational users indicate that they use satellite data for operational purposes, 78% (71%) for research and development, 48% (43%) for education and training, and 31% (34%) for value-added services (see Table 2 and Figure 3). It is remarkable that 114 users in NMHSs and other agencies use satellite data for R&D, with a high proportion across all Regions except in Region V. As expected, responses from Research & Academia focus on R&D when using satellite data. Education and training is also an important area where satellite data find application, although it is not clear from the survey whether satellite data are used to underpin educational content, or whether they are the subject of training themselves. Table 2: Purpose of satellite data use (Q10) WMO
Region NMHS and other operational agency Research & Academia
Total responses Operations R&D Edu &
Training V/A
Services Total
responses Operations R&D Edu & Training
V/A Services
I 32 28 21 13 15 5 1 5 3 2 II 27 25 19 13 9 7 0 6 6 0 III 10 8 9 6 2 4 2 4 4 0 IV 20 17 16 7 7 24 4 23 13 6 V 16 16 7 7 4 1 1 1 0 1 VI 53 49 40 22 16 19 6 19 12 7 All 158 143 112 68 53 60 14 58 38 16
8
Purpose of satellite data use
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Operations Research andDevelopment
Education Value-addedservices
Research and Academia
NMHS and other operationalagency
Figure 3: Purpose of satellite data use (Q10) With 90% of respondents indicating that they use satellite data routinely (Q6), a strong majority of close to 80% indicated that their overall use is increasing (Q11; Figure 4), with no significant difference between applications and research communities, and no significant variation across Regions. The reasons given for this are manifold and include: • Increasing demand for value-added services that rely on satellite products • Increasing relevance for applications (nowcasting, aviation, atmospheric composition) • Growing recognition of the sometimes unique value of satellites, e.g., for ocean monitoring, for
meteorological and Earth system research, for spatial mapping; in data-sparse areas such as small-island states, polar regions
• Progress in assimilating satellite data in Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) models • Expected large data volumes from next-generation geostationary satellites • Emerging long time-series of satellite data for climate studies • Plans for new satellite systems with higher spectral, spatial and radiometric resolution, and
thematic focus • Increasing importance of satellite data for research, for exploring new application areas • Enhanced quality of satellite data, improving its utility and impact • Reduced quality of in-situ observing networks • Facilitated access of satellite data • Improved data reception infrastructure and connectivity • Development of capacity through training programmes These results corroborate findings from earlier surveys, including the one conducted in 2010, and call for the significant enhancement of user preparedness efforts in all Regions. These should include capacity development in the light of upcoming satellite missions and increased expectations on user uptake. Among the reasons why some users foresee a decrease in their use of satellite data are detected biases in satellite-derived products that led in one example to overestimation of precipitation using TRMM-derived precipitation estimates.
9
Is your overall use of satellite data changing over time?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Increasing Decreasing Remaining thesame
% o
f res
pons
es
Research and AcademiaNMHS and other operational agency
Figure 4: Trends in the use of satellite data (Q11) 4.2 Use of satellite systems (Q12-15) Users were asked in broad terms for the category of satellites they considered most important for their applications (Q12, see Table 3). On the whole, NMHS/other operational users consider geostationary systems (GEO) more important than polar orbiters (63% vs. 22% of responses). This result likely reflects the direct use of GEO imagery which is viewed by many as relatively more important than the direct use of polar-orbiter data, whereas polar orbiters generally have strong impact on improving NWP forecasts on which most NMHSs rely and thus indirectly benefit from satellite data. Some respondents commented that it was not possible for them to give a definite answer to Q12 (“Not sure”). The view of users in research/academia is the reverse (53% consider polar orbiters the most important data source, and only 16% GEOs). Satellites in other low-Earth orbits have importance for certain applications, however are seldom rated as being the overall most important data source. Blended or composite datasets generated on the basis of multiple satellite systems are considered somewhat important, particularly in Region III and II. (Note that Table 3 does not show the response “Not sure”, therefore the difference between “Total Responses” (grey shade) and the sum of “All” (no shading)). Table 3: Categories of satellites considered most important (Q12) WMO
Region NMHS and other operational agency Research & Academia
Total responses GEO Polar-
orbiting Other LEO
Blended/ composite
Total responses GEO Polar-
orbiting Other LEO
Blended/ composite
I 32 23 5 1 2 5 2 1 0 1 II 27 18 4 0 4 7 3 3 0 1 III 10 4 1 0 5 4 0 2 2 0 IV 20 11 7 0 2 24 3 13 2 4 V 16 13 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 VI 53 32 15 0 4 19 1 13 2 1 All 158 101 33 3 17 60 9 33 6 7
4.2.1 Use of GEO satellites (Q13) The overall use of data from geostationary satellite systems is displayed in Figure 5, by user groups. For example, 50% of all respondents from research/academia use GOES data, and more than 70% of NMHS/other operational agencies utilize Meteosat data. There is also significant use of MTSAT (Himawari) and FY-2 data, mostly by operational entities, and good uptake of data from Insat, Kalpana, and COMS. Table 4 provides a regional breakdown of responses, broadly reflecting the regional geographical coverage of geostationary systems (e.g., high response rate for Meteosat in Regions I, II,
10
and VI; for FY-2 and MTSAT in both Region II and V, etc). Multiple responses to this question were possible. These results are broadly consistent with results from the 2010 survey which provided evidence for the utilization of individual satellites via different data access mechanisms (p9 of WMO, 2010).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
GOES
Meteos
atIns
at
Kalpan
aFY-2
COMS
MTSAT (Him
awari
)
Electro
-L
% o
f res
pons
es b
y us
er g
roup
Research and AcademiaNMHS and other operational agency
Figure 5: Global use of geostationary satellites Table 4: Use of data from geostationary satellites, by Region
NMHS and other operational agency WMO
Region Total
responses GOES Meteosat Insat Kalpana FY-2 COMS MTSAT (Himawari) Electro-L
I 32 7 28 1 0 5 2 0 0 II 27 6 21 7 7 9 4 9 0 III 10 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 IV 20 19 9 1 1 3 0 7 0 V 16 11 4 2 0 5 0 12 0 VI 53 17 48 0 0 5 1 10 1 All 158 69 114 11 8 27 7 38 1
Research & Academia
WMO Region
Total responses GOES Meteosat Insat Kalpana FY-2 COMS MTSAT
(Himawari) Electro-L I 5 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 7 5 3 3 3 2 0 2 0 III 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 IV 24 14 7 0 0 2 1 2 0 V 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 VI 19 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 All 60 30 29 4 3 4 1 5 1
4.2.2 Polar orbiting satellites (Q14) The overall use of data from polar-orbiting satellite systems is displayed in Figure 6. Multiple responses were possible to this question. On the whole, the research community makes more use of these systems than operational users according to this survey. To users in NMHSs and other operational agencies, the Metop, Aqua/Terra and POES systems are the most relevant, with DMSP, NPP, Landsat and Envisat following (each used by around 20% of responding NMHSs and other
11
operational agencies). To the research community, data from Aqua/Terra is considered most important, followed by Envisat, Landsat, Metop and DMSP.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
METOP
POESDMSP FY
METEORM
NPP
Ocean
sat
Land
sat
CBERS
Aqua/T
erra
Cloudsa
t/Calip
soERS
Envisa
t
SPOT
GOSAT
Other s
atellite
s
% o
f res
pons
es b
y us
er g
roup
Research and AcademiaNMHS and other operational agency
Figure 6: Global use of polar orbiting satellites Table 5: Use of data from polar orbiting satellites, by Region
NMHS and other operational agency
WMO Region Total
ME
TOP
PO
ES
DM
SP
FY
ME
TEO
R
M
NP
P
Oce
ansa
t
Land
sat
CB
ER
S
Aqu
a/Te
rra
Clo
udsa
t/ C
alip
so
ER
S
Env
isat
SP
OT
GO
SA
T
Oth
er
sate
llites
I 32 11 2 0 4 0 1 0 9 0 3 0 0 3 9 0 6 II 27 14 5 7 6 0 4 6 4 0 16 3 4 3 2 2 7 III 10 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 8 0 2 3 2 0 2 IV 20 9 12 9 0 1 9 3 4 0 14 4 4 7 3 0 4 V 16 4 7 2 3 0 3 1 3 0 8 1 1 2 1 2 1 VI 53 38 23 9 7 2 15 7 10 0 28 13 8 16 6 4 10 All 158 78 54 29 20 3 32 17 34 1 77 21 19 34 23 8 30
Research and academia
WMO Region Total
ME
TOP
PO
ES
DM
SP
FY
ME
TEO
R
M
NP
P
Oce
ansa
t
Land
sat
CB
ER
S
Aqu
a/Te
rra
Clo
udsa
t/ C
alip
so
ER
S
Env
isat
SP
OT
GO
SA
T
Oth
er
sate
llites
I 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 5 0 2 II 7 4 1 5 2 1 2 4 2 0 5 1 2 1 2 0 0 III 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 IV 24 8 7 9 0 2 6 5 3 0 14 6 5 12 2 5 10 V 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 VI 19 8 1 3 0 0 1 2 12 2 18 6 10 12 7 1 3 All 60 21 10 19 2 5 9 13 23 3 44 16 19 29 17 6 15
Table 5 provides a regional breakdown, showing a more even geographical distribution of users across Regions as compared to Table 4, and reflecting global coverage of polar orbiters.
12
For NMHSs and other operational users in Region I, Metop, Landsat and SPOT are the top three systems, whereas in Region II, Aqua/Terra and Metop stand out, and in Region V Aqua/Terra and POES. Apart from Aqua and Terra which represent R&D satellites of prime importance to all users globally, Cloudsat and Calipso and the (now inactive) Envisat have been used by many operational users, particularly in Europe and in North/Central America and the Caribbean. Good levels of usage are also observed for DMSP, FY, NPP, Oceansat, and ERS in several Regions. Statistics from the Research / Academia perspective are influenced by a high number of responses from Region IV and VI. In addition to the R&D missions Aqua/Terra, Envisat, ERS, Cloudsat, Calipso, Oceansat, the land surface observation systems Landsat and SPOT, and the meteorological operational systems Metop, DMSP, POES and NPP are considered most relevant. Comparison with the 2010 survey suggests that globally, use of the Metop system is now higher than that of the POES system. Considering its pre-operational status (commissioning not completed at the time of closing the survey), NPP already has a significant user base except in Region III. The importance of Aqua/Terra to both operational and research users could be confirmed, as could the level of use of most other systems. Other polar-orbiting satellites being used by survey participants include: • Aquarius/SAC-D • High-resolution imagers (Ikonos, Quickbird-2, GeoEye-1, Worldview-2) • Odin • SAR missions (RADARSAT, TerraSAR-X, Cosmo-Skymed, TanDEM-X) • Orbview-2/SeaStar • SMOS • GOCE • HJ 4.2.3 Other Low-Earth orbiting satellites (Q15) The overall use of data from low-Earth orbiting satellite systems other than those in polar, sun-synchronous orbits is displayed in Figure 7. It reproduces the scores for TRMM and to some extent for Jason established in the 2010 survey, from the perspective of both operational and research user groups. One in ten respondents uses data from GNSS radio occultation from the COSMIC constellation, a level of usage roughly matched by the Megha-Tropiques mission. Multiple responses were possible to this question.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
JASON
TRMM
Megha-T
ropique
sHY
COSMIC
Others
% o
f res
pons
es b
y us
er g
roup
Research and Academia
NMHS and otheroperational agency
Figure 7: Use of low-Earth orbiting satellites (non sun-synchronous)
13
Table 6: Use of data from low-Earth orbiting satellites (non sun-synchronous), by Region NMHS and other operational agency
WMO Region
Total responses Jason TRMM Megha-
Tropiques HY COSMIC Other
I 32 4 4 1 0 0 2 II 27 5 12 5 1 3 4 III 10 1 5 1 0 0 0 IV 20 6 11 4 0 4 1 V 16 2 9 0 0 2 3 VI 53 14 8 6 0 8 8 All 158 32 49 17 1 17 18
Research and academia
WMO Region
Total responses Jason TRMM Megha-
Tropiques HY COSMIC Other
I 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 II 7 2 6 2 1 2 1 III 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 IV 24 3 7 2 0 3 2 V 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 19 6 9 0 1 1 1 All 60 11 28 4 2 6 4
Table 6 provides a regional breakdown of the use of data from non sun-synchronous satellite systems. The Jason series is highly relevant to operational users particularly in Region VI, whereas TRMM is heavily used everywhere, notably by NMHSs and other operational users. Megha-Tropiques has been adopted by NMHSs and other operational agencies mostly in Europe, Asia, and North/Central America and the Caribbean. HY has low levels of use, restricted to Asia and one European user. The COSMIC system delivers data based on radio occultation which are assimilated by advanced NWP centres mainly present in Europe, Asia, and North/Central America and the Caribbean. Other non sun-synchronous polar satellite systems mentioned by respondents include: • C/NOFS • Cryosat-2 • GRACE • Scisat-1 4.3 User interest in future satellites (Q22) In this open, non-mandatory question, 132 respondents provided information on their plans for using data from future14 satellite instruments and missions. Overall statistics for geostationary, polar-orbiting and other low-Earth orbit satellites are given in Figure 8 (note different vertical scales in each panel). These are indicative snapshots – absence or lack of response for any particular mission should not be interpreted as a lack of user interest, but could indicate scope for increased efforts on raising user awareness and preparation.
14 Mission or part thereof (e.g., satellite, instrument) not operationally in orbit at time of Survey (May 2012)
14
Figure 8: Planned use of satellites
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
METOP
Sentin
el
JPSS
Land
sat
GCOM-W FY-3
SMAP
GCOM-C
Ocean
satOCO
Radars
at
ADM-Aeo
lus
Saral A
ltika
SWOT
Worl
dView
ALOS-2
CBERSHY-2
Num
ber o
f res
pons
es
0
5
10
15
20
25
MTG
GOES-R
Himaw
ari-8/
9MSG
INSAT-3D FY-4
Electro
-L
Num
ber o
f res
pons
es
0
2
4
6
8
10
GPM
Jaso
n-CS
Megha
-Tropiqu
esPCW
COSMIC
Num
ber o
f res
pons
es
5. ACCESS TO SATELLITE DATA (Q16) As for satellite data reception mechanisms, the internet (ftp, http) is used by a large majority (76%) of survey respondents globally (69% from NMHSs/other operational agencies, and 95% from Research/Academia). Services relying on Digital Video Broadcast (DVB-S/S2) are used by 39% (49%; 12%) (see Figure 9), Direct Readout of satellite data by 35% (42%; 16%) and the GTS by 12% (16%; 2%) of users. Compared to the 2010 survey where 33% of responses from NMHSs regarded the internet as a means of data access, and 60% relied on Direct Readout and DVB-S, this result shows a marked change in favour of the internet. Direct Readout and other broadcast services remain however very relevant, especially for NMHSs/other operational users, and are considered about equally important. The wider use of the internet is probably due to increased availability of broadband, high-speed internet connectivity in many Member countries, and more widespread use of R&D satellite data which are often only accessible from data centres via the internet. Importance of the GTS remained stable compared to 2010.
15
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Direct readout (e.g., HRPT)
GTS point-to-point network
Internet (ftp, http)
DVB-S / S2 (EUMETCast, CMACast,GEONETCast Americas...)
% of responses by user group
NMHS and Otheroperational agency
Research and Academia
Figure 9: Satellite data reception and access mechanisms Regional statistics on satellite data access mechanisms are given in Table 7. As for operational users, the use of Direct Readout and the GTS is evenly distributed across Regions, so is the use of the internet except in Region III (South America). Digital Video Broadcast systems are mostly used in Regions I (Africa), II (Asia) and VI (Europe), and less so in the Americas and in Region V (South-West Pacific). In addition to the GEONETCast components EUMETCast, CMACast and GEONETCast-Americas, several users indicated the Russian Mitra system as an important data broadcast service. Other means of data access used mostly by NMHSs/other operational services range from dedicated high-speed data links to data delivery via email or shipment of bulk storage media (disk drives, CD-ROM). Except on some small island states, mobile services are considered irrelevant in this context. Table 7: Satellite data reception and access mechanisms, by Region
NMHS and other operational agency
WMO Region
Total responses
Direct readout (e.g.,
HRPT)
GTS point-to-point network
Internet (ftp, http)
DVB-S / S2 (EUMETCast,
CMACast, GEONETCast Americas...)
Mobile services (UMTS, GSM, LTE...)
Other
I 32 10 4 14 18 0 7 II 27 13 6 18 14 0 4 III 10 5 2 8 2 0 1 IV 20 10 3 18 3 0 3 V 16 10 3 15 3 1 1 VI 53 20 9 36 39 0 11 All 158 68 27 109 79 1 27
Research and academia
WMO Region
Total responses
Direct readout (e.g.,
HRPT)
GTS point-to-point network
Internet (ftp, http)
DVB-S / S2 (EUMETCast,
CMACast, GEONETCast Americas...)
Mobile services (UMTS, GSM, LTE...)
Other
I 5 1 0 4 1 0 2 II 7 1 1 7 3 0 0 III 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 IV 24 4 0 23 0 0 2 V 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 VI 19 2 0 19 3 0 0 All 60 9 1 57 7 0 4
16
6. CURRENT AND PLANNED APPLICATION OF SATELLITE DATA 6.1 Importance of satellite data for applications (Q17) Q17 investigated the perceived importance of satellite data for a number of application areas. Respondents indicated whether they considered satellite ‘very important’ or ‘important’ for applications areas, or whether satellite data was ‘not important’ or ‘not relevant’ to them or their organization. Results are therefore determined by perceived importance as well as by institutional mandates. Positive results do not necessarily imply that data are actually being used for these purposes (current and planned use is enquired in Q19 and Q20). Multiple responses were possible. Figure 10 is based on responses by NMHSs and other operational users, and shows the strong recognition of the relevance of satellite data in all application areas, particularly for weather forecasts, climate predictions and assessments, disaster mitigation and preparedness, research and development, and education and training. The survey provides a striking evidence of the fundamental importance of satellite-derived information for climate, as well as for education and training. Satellites are also very important to users in the areas of hydrological forecasts and assessments, oceanography and marine meteorology, land monitoring, and environmental assessments. Only 20-40% of responses considered satellite data very important or important in the areas of space weather as well as socio-economic mapping. These low percentages reflect the fact that most of the responding organizations have no mandate in these two areas, as illustrated in Figure 11 for space weather. Figure 10: Importance of satellite data for application areas as perceived by NMHS/other operational users, by Region
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
or r
elev
ant
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
or r
elev
ant
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
or r
elev
ant
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
or r
elev
ant
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
or r
elev
ant
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
or r
elev
ant
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
or r
elev
ant
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
or r
elev
ant
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
or r
elev
ant
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
or r
elev
ant
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
or r
elev
ant
Weather Climate Hydrology Ocean andmarine
Space weather Disastermitigation
Landmonitoring
Envt'lassessm'ts
Socio-economicmapping
R&D Education andtraining
IIIIIIIVVVI
17
Figure 11: Detailed responses on the importance of satellite data for three selected WMO application areas, by Region
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Ver
y im
porta
nt
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
Not
app
licab
leto
my
orga
niza
tion
Ver
y im
porta
nt
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
Not
app
licab
leto
my
orga
niza
tion
Ver
y im
porta
nt
Impo
rtant
Not
impo
rtant
Not
app
licab
leto
my
orga
niza
tion
Hydrology Ocean and marine Space weather
IIIIIIIVVVI
6.2 Current use of satellite data and products (Q19/20) This question (split into two parts in the web-based questionnaire, for reasons of practicality) sought to establish which geophysical products derived from satellites were either currently being used, or planned to be used, or not required or unknown to users. Respondents could also indicate what products were considered a requirement, but at this moment not available (for whatever reason) or useful. This is important guidance for addressing gaps and deficiencies (Q18, see section 7 below). Figure 12 gives an overview of the current use of satellite data and products based on all responses. Region-based details are provided in Appendix B. 6.3 Planned use, unmet requirements for satellite data and products (Q19/20) Q19/20 elucidated the plans by respondents for using satellite data and products. This provides guidance for the generation of customized products, for facilitated data access and adequate training efforts. Figure 13 gives an overview of the top 10 products planned to be used. Furthermore, survey respondents indicated which products were required by them, but were currently not available, not available in a useful form or at the necessary quality. As shown in Figure 13, products on soil moisture, lightning, greenhouse/trace gases and characterizing inland waters (rivers, lakes, floods) stand out in both categories as being in high demand, and often not available or useable by respondents. Some of these products are available on an experimental basis (e.g., from SMOS, Aura/OMI), confirming a finding from the 2010 survey on the importance of R&D data for users (p11 in WMO, 2010). Responses frequently indicated plans for using land surface temperature and surface salinity products in their applications. Many users plan to employ sea level, sea state, and ozone products in their applications; demand for such products is often not met (see right panel of Figure 13). These results provide good strategic guidance on product generation and distribution, and help focus remedial action and user support wherever possible; Region-specific results in Appendix B complement these findings.
18
Figure 12: Current use of satellite data/products, by application domain
Current use of data and products (Atmosphere)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%C
loud
s
Pre
cipi
tatio
n
Tem
pera
ture
/H
umid
ity
Win
ds
Aer
osol
, Dus
t,V
olca
nic
Ash
Imag
erR
adia
nces
Rad
iativ
eFl
uxes
Ozo
ne
Sou
nder
Rad
ianc
es
Ligh
tnin
g
GH
G, o
ther
Trac
e G
ases
GN
SS
Ben
ding
Ang
les
Per
cent
age
of a
ll re
spon
ses
Current use of data/products (Oceans)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Sea
Sur
face
Te
mpe
ratu
re
Oce
an S
urfa
ceW
inds Sea
Ice
Sea
Lev
el
Oce
an C
olou
r
Sea
Sta
te(W
ave
Spe
ctru
m)
Sea
Sur
face
Sal
inity
Oce
an S
urfa
ceP
ollu
tion
Perc
enta
ge o
f all
resp
onse
s
Current use of satellite data/products (Terrestrial)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Land
Sur
face
Tem
pera
ture
Veg
etat
ion
(FA
PA
R, L
AI)
Surfa
ce R
adia
tion
/ Alb
edo
Land
Cov
er
Sno
w
Fire
Dig
ital E
leva
tion
Mod
els
Soil
Moi
stur
e
Inla
nd W
ater
s(R
iver
s, L
akes
)
Ice
Shee
ts
Bio
mas
s
Gla
cier
s an
d Ic
eC
aps
Perc
enta
ge o
f all
resp
onse
s
Current use of satellite data/products (Space Weather)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Sol
ar A
ctiv
ity
Iono
sphe
ric
Ene
rget
icP
artic
les
Geo
mag
netic
Perc
enta
ge o
f all
resp
onse
s
Figure 13: Top 10 planned products (left chart); Top 10 products required by users, but not available or useable (right chart)
Planned use of satellite data/products (Top 10)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Soi
l Moi
stur
e
Ligh
tnin
g
GH
G, o
ther
Trac
e G
ases
Sea
Sur
face
Sal
inity
Land
Sur
face
Tem
pera
ture
Inla
nd W
ater
s(R
iver
s, L
akes
)
Sea
Lev
el
Sea
Sta
te (W
ave
Spe
ctru
m)
Ozo
ne
Bio
mas
s
Perc
enta
ge o
f all
resp
onse
s
Products required, not available or useable (Top 10)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Soi
l Moi
stur
e
Ligh
tnin
g
GH
G, o
ther
Tra
ceG
ases
Inla
nd W
ater
s(R
iver
s, L
akes
)
Ozo
ne
Sea
Leve
l
Sea
Sta
te (W
ave
Spec
trum
)
Oce
an S
urfa
ceP
ollu
tion
Sur
face
Rad
iatio
n/ A
lbed
o Win
ds
Perc
enta
ge o
f all
resp
onse
s
19
6.4 Ways of using satellite data and products (Q21) In addition to information on satellite datasets, the survey also asked for the ways datasets were being used, or planned to be used. This includes direct use in analysis and operations, assimilation in models, or for the generation of (higher-level) products (Figure 14). The majority of respondents use satellite data directly; the use of such data for product generation comes second. Significant development and planning efforts go into using and improving satellite data assimilation in models, inter alia for NWP, with significant benefits for users of model analyses.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Use
d
Plan
ned
Not
Plan
ned
Use
d
Plan
ned
Not
Plan
ned
Use
d
Plan
ned
Not
Plan
ned
Direct Use Assimilation in Models Product Generation Otherways
Research andAcademiaNMHS and Otheroperational agency
Figure 14: Ways of using satellite data and products (Q21) As other ways of data use were indicated model validation, inter-satellite calibration and use as input to a processing and visualization system. 7. CHALLENGES IN USING SATELLITE DATA (Q18) Respondents to the survey were asked for challenges they face in using satellite data (Q18). Resource issues (e.g., adequate personnel, training, tools, and equipment) are a dominant source of concern (63% of all baseline; 68% of NMHSs/other operational agencies; 50% of research/academia), followed by challenges in the capacity to process data (48% of all; 50%, 43%, respectively), and the ability to analyze and interpret satellite data (45% of all, 51%, 28%, respectively). Access to data in near real-time (NRT) and in general remains a concern albeit less frequently indicated, with 42% of all (42%, 42%) having challenges in NRT access, and 27% (23%, 37%) indicating general access to data as a concern. Statistics based on all responses and by Region are given in Figure 15. Despite many information sources available, knowledge about available satellite data also remains an issue in many countries, with 39% of respondents indicating this as a challenge (39% of NMHSs/other operational agencies; 38% of research/academia). The utility of data that is available also poses problems for a sizeable number of users: for 36% this is a point of concern (35%, 38%, respectively). These results indicate, overall, a higher level of challenges experienced by respondents as compared to the 2010 survey, although the results are not directly comparable (p12 in WMO, 2010). There are some interesting Region-based differences to be observed: for example, responses indicated that near-real time data access was a relatively minor issue in Region I compared to other Regions; general access to data, and the utility of data, were relatively minor issues compared to other challenges in most Regions. In Region I, III and V, knowledge about available datasets was identified as a challenge. Data access, including in near-real time, is problematic in Region III and Region V, whereas respondents from Region III felt that their data analysis capacity was mostly adequate. Such capacity is under-developed mostly in Region II and V. Resource issues are prevalent in all Regions, particularly in Region III and V. Overall the utility of data, once available, Interestingly, the number of respondents indicating no significant challenges is highest in Region II and I (21 and 19%, respectively), followed by Region IV (18%) and VI (15%).
20
Other challenges identified by respondents include: • Sharing of data and products protected by licenses • Connectivity / bandwidth to remote sites • Data quality assurance, for example for generation of climate data records • Uncertainty over planning of future satellites Figure 15: Challenges in the use of satellite data (Q18)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
I II III IV V VI (Total)
WMO Region
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pons
es
Knowledge of available dataAccessing data in near-real timeAccessing data in generalData processingUtility of data (format, quality, ...)Data analysis and interpretationResources (personnel, training, tools, …)Other challenges Do not face any significant challenges
8. TRAINING 8.1 Training needs (Q23/24) A strong overall need for training is expressed throughout all Regions, in particular by NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies (Q23) (Figure 16).
NMHS and other operational agency
Yes 84%
No 15%
Research and Academia
Yes 38%
No 62%
Figure 16: Need for training in the use of satellite data (Q23) The following discussion focuses on the needs of NMHSs/other operational users. Table 8 provides a region-based overview of competency areas where training is required and delivered for NMHSs and other operational agencies. These areas included: • Equipment operation and maintenance • Satellite image interpretation
21
• Use of software tools (for processing, analysis, and assimilation) • Product utilization and interpretation • The physical basis of remote sensing • Preparation for new generation satellites Table 8: Capacity areas where training is needed and delivered for NMHSs and other operational agencies, by Region (Q24)
NMHS and other operational agency
WMO Region
Total responses
Equipment operation &
maintenance
Satellite image
interpretation
Use of software
tools
Product utilization
and interpretation
Physical basis for remote sensing
Preparation for new
generation satellites
I 32 13 23 15 16 12 10 II 27 16 22 19 21 16 11 III 10 3 3 3 2 4 3 IV 20 2 7 4 6 5 4 V 16 3 9 4 5 4 1 VI 53 11 28 21 21 15 13 All 158 48 92 66 71 56 42
In all Regions there is a focus on image interpretation, followed by building capacity in the use of satellite-based products. Table 9 shows the equivalent responses for areas where required training is not delivered or available. The largest shortfall is apparent in the preparation of users for the new generation of satellites (rightmost column), followed by training in the use of software tools, and product utilization and interpretation. These results are based on Q24. Table 9: Capacity area where training is needed but not delivered for NMHSs and other operational agencies, by Region (Q24)
NMHS and other operational agency
WMO Region
Total responses
Equipment operation &
maintenance
Satellite image
interpretation
Use of software
tools
Product utilization
and interpretation
Physical basis for remote sensing
Preparation for new
generation satellites
I 32 11 7 15 14 14 17 II 27 5 3 8 6 7 13 III 10 4 5 6 7 4 6 IV 20 4 5 8 6 5 8 V 16 9 6 11 10 10 13 VI 53 13 9 16 15 14 19 All 158 46 35 64 58 54 76
Other identified training-related needs included: • Geo-referencing of imagery • Frequent updates on available satellite products • Use of satellite data in weather forecasting, model verification, nowcasting, and climate change
monitoring 8.2 Methods of delivering training (Q25) This question enquired on the relative popularity of different methods for delivering training (Figure 17). Among responses from NMHSs and other operational agencies, classroom-based training is most often used, confirming results from a 2010 survey (p19, WMO, 2010). e-Learning methods were used by almost half of all respondents (45%), as high as “Computer Assisted Learning” and “Distance
22
learning” taken together in 2010. Blended techniques based on a mix of classroom training, e-learning and pre-recorded media (DVDs, computer-assisted learning, books) are also very important (46%). On-the-job training was most often mentioned as an additional method of acquiring skills. Self-study, secondments to other institutions, and institution-internal advising by experts were also mentioned. Table 10 has a Region-based breakdown of results. In Region VI, there is an even distribution of different training methods.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Classroom e-Learning Pre-recordedmedia
Blended Othermethods
Perc
enta
ge o
f all
resp
onse
s
Research andAcademia
NMHS and otheroperational agency
Figure 17: Methods used to deliver training Table 10: Methods used to deliver training, for NMHSs and other operational agencies, by Region (Q25)
NMHS and other operational agency
WMO Region Total responses Classroom e-Learning Pre-recorded media (DVD,
books) Blended learning
I 32 25 14 9 17 II 27 20 11 9 15 III 10 5 5 3 6 IV 20 10 10 6 9 V 16 11 11 3 6 VI 53 22 20 19 20 All 158 93 71 49 73
Unlike in previous surveys, no investigation was made regarding the number of staff trained by skill, and the training means and instruments used for this purpose. It was felt that these statistics were difficult to compare across Regions, and moreover no sufficient indication on the overall capacity development in any particular Region. 8.3 Awareness of distance learning programs This question sought to establish the level of awareness by users of the existence of distance learning programmes, such as the VLab, the European Virtual Organization for Meteorological Training (EUMETCAL), the EUMETSAT-cosponsored EUMeTRAIN project, and the UNESCO Bilko Training Resources. Figure 18 provides an overview, Figure 19 details by Region.
23
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Used orAware
Notaware
Used orAware
Notaware
Used orAware
Notaware
Used orAware
Notaware
Used orAware
Notaware
VLab -WMO/CGMS
Virtual Laboratoryfor Training in
SatelliteMeteorology
COMET ESRC EUMETCAL EUMeTRAIN UNESCO BilkoTraining
Resources
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pons
es
Figure 18: Level of awareness of distance learning techniques, by NMHSs/other operational users (Q26)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Used tosupporttraining
Aware ofexistence
Not awareof
existence
Used tosupporttraining
Aware ofexistence
Not awareof
existence
Used tosupporttraining
Aware ofexistence
Not awareof
existence
Used tosupporttraining
Aware ofexistence
Not awareof
existence
Used tosupporttraining
Aware ofexistence
Not awareof
existence
VLab - CGMS Virtual Laboratoryfor Training in Satellite
Meteorology
COMET ESRC EUMETCAL EUMeTRAIN UNESCO Bilko TrainingResources
Per
cent
age
of re
spon
ses
IIIIIIIVVVI
Figure 19: Knowledge of distance learning (NMHSs/other operational users, by Region, Q26) Awareness and use of the VLab by NMHSs/other operational users (49% of all such respondents) has slightly declined compared to the figures established in the 2010 survey (p20/21, WMO, 2010), unawareness has remained stable (30-35%). However, it must be noted that the “operational” sample of respondents also includes non-NMHSs, providing a (partial) explanation for this result. Heavy use of the online COMET Earth Science Resource Library can be noted with more than 60% of respondents using it for training purposes. The COMET ESRL has been adopted as an official resource by the VLab. In Region VI, the EUMETNET training programme EUMETCAL and the EUMETSAT co-funded EUMeTRAIN are particularly popular. The UNESCO Bilko resource has a marginal role in satellite-related training for the audience of this survey. 9. FINAL QUESTIONS These questions shed light on the sources of information consulted by users to stay informed about availability and access to satellite data (Q27), and allowed respondents to provide, as optional input,
24
general feedback to WMO (Q28), and personal contact details (Q29). 9.1 Sources of information about availability and access to satellite data (Q27) Multiple answers were possible to the question whether users received information via: • Satellite operator websites • International scientific working groups • Social networks • Colleagues and peers (word of mouth) • Website of the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) • Website of the Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites (CGMS) • Peer-reviewed literature • Internet search engines • Conferences and meetings • Website of the WMO Space Programme • Website of the VLab Results (Figure 20, Table 11) show that international scientific working groups and conferences/meetings are primary means of obtaining the latest information on satellite programmes, products, and data (60% or more of responses by NMHSs/other operational users). The websites of satellite operators, CEOS, the WMO Space Programme and the VLab are also popular information sources, as well as social networks (48% of responses).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Satelliteoperatorwebsites
Internationalscientificworkinggroups
Socialnetworks
Throughcolleaguesand peers
CEOSwebsite
CGMSwebsite
Peer-reviewedliterature
Internetsearchengines
Conferencesand meetings
WMO SpaceProgramme
website
VLab website
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pons
es
Research andAcademia
NMHS and otheroperational
Figure 20: Sources of information on satellites, data, tools, and training used (Q27) Table 11: Sources of information on satellites, by Region (Q27)
NMHSs and other operational agencies
WMO Region
Total responses
Sat
ellit
e op
erat
or
web
site
s In
t’l
scie
ntifi
c W
Gs
Soci
al
netw
orks
Col
leag
ues
and
peer
s
CE
OS
w
ebsi
te
CG
MS
w
ebsi
te
Pee
r-re
view
ed
liter
atur
e
Inte
rnet
se
arch
en
gine
s
Mee
tings
/ C
onf’s
WM
O S
P
web
site
VLab
w
ebsi
te
I 32 15 27 12 0 16 6 3 6 23 16 9 II 27 17 20 11 2 16 6 10 6 18 10 6 III 10 6 6 6 2 5 0 1 4 6 4 4 IV 20 8 10 11 1 5 3 1 2 6 7 6 V 16 10 13 8 0 9 3 4 6 12 3 1 VI 53 21 34 28 1 22 10 9 7 30 25 20 All 158 77 110 76 6 73 28 28 31 95 65 46
25
9.2 Final comments and suggestions (Q28) Other comments provided by respondents included the following: • Satellite data are under-used in many instances • Lack of qualified personnel prevents better use of satellite data in many institutions • Geostationary and polar satellites are equally important • Better access is needed to data from R&D satellites, given their importance • More satellite impact studies for NWP are needed • More training required (with indication of specific skill areas) • A central “one-stop” data/product access website needed • Simple(r), platform-independent data formats should be introduced, documented, and promulgated • Survey was well-formulated and easy to complete • Such a survey should be repeated every five years 177 of all 227 respondents (78%) voluntarily provided their contact details, greatly facilitating follow-up by WMO in addressing their specific needs and issues, and an importance resource for conducting future user surveys. 9.3 Responses by NGOs, the Commercial sector and other institutions Nine responses to the survey indicated as ‘Type of organization (Q4)’ the commercial sector (5), non-governmental organizations (NGOs; 1) and individuals (3) were separated from the other 218 for reasons of facilitating presentation and analysis. The 5 responses from the commercial sector had the following origin: VisioTerra, France Mondi, South Africa Weatherguy.com, USA Innovative Hydrology, USA Self-employed, Australia
Three individuals from Argentina, Australia, and Belize responded. The 1 response from an NGO came from “Belize Tropical Forest Studies”. All use satellite data routinely or occasionally, either for operations (3), for R&D (2), for Education (2) or for Value-added services (2). Overall use of satellite data is increasing for three, and constant for two companies. Data from GOES, Meteosat and Landsat are mostly used, other platforms mentioned sporadically and including Geoeye, Worldview, and RapidEye. The internet is by far the most popular data access route. Weather, marine, disaster mitigation and land management application are considered benefiting most from utilizing satellite data. For the NGO, land monitoring, environmental assessment and socio-economic mapping were important satellite application areas. Challenges are mostly identified in accessing data (general and near-real time), data utility, and the capacity of analyzing and interpreting data. The individuals indicated a need in training on the physical basics of remote sensing. In terms of data use, imager radiances, wind, precipitation products, lightning, sea state, ocean surface vector winds, and snow products are used by three or more respondents. Training needs were identified by three companies, particularly in satellite image interpretation, the use of software tools, and product utilization and interpretation. Respondents were largely unaware of training mechanisms indicated in the questionnaire. Conferences, peers and satellite operator websites were the most popular sources of information on satellite systems and data.
26
10. Conclusions, Lessons for ET-SUP • In the future, surveys on the use of satellite data should be conducted regionally on a biennial
basis, using the questionnaire used in the 2012 WMO survey as a model; such surveys should be led by regional mechanisms to identify and document user requirements for satellite data and products (e.g., RA II Pilot Project; Regional Coordination Groups for Satellite Data Requirements in RA III/IV)
• The distinction between NMHS/other operational users and research/academic users provided
new insight into the diversity of user needs • Targeted surveying of focus groups and individuals (e.g., through interviews) should be considered
to address problems identified in broad surveys • Global surveys led by WMO should be conducted less frequently, i.e. on a 3-5 year basis (N.B.: the
work programme of CBS is organized in 4-year cycles) • Additional effort should go into reaching out to a broader range of satellite data users in all GEO
Societal Benefit Areas; partnering with other international organization should be considered to achieve this
• Online techniques should be employed for conducting surveys • Statistics are important; qualitative analyses are equally important; they enable identifying
individual “cries for help” by users • Work plans to take remedial action based on surveys should be developed; the WMO Expert Team
on Satellite Utilization and Products should take a key role.
APPENDIX A
27
APPENDIX A
WMO 2012 SURVEY ON THE USE OF SATELLITE DATA – LOGICAL FLOW OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX A, p. 28
28
WMO 2012 SURVEY ON THE USE OF SATELLITE DATA - QUESTIONS IN DETAIL
Welcome Note Dear Colleague,
I would like to thank you, in advance, for the time you will spend responding to the subject questionnaire (15-20 minutes) on the use of satellite data in
meteorological, climate, water, and related environmental applications.
WMO is interested in your feedback in the following three areas:
• Access to satellite data and products
• Application and use of satellite data
• Training on satellite data utilization.
Your responses will help bridge the gaps (both real and perceived) between the tremendous amount of satellite data available, and the tremendous need
for increased access to those data, information, products and training.
Your responses on status, progress, and challenges in using satellites as an information resource will also shape international action by WMO and its
Member states in responding to your needs. We will do our best in strengthening and leveraging your contributions internationally.
With appreciation for your time,
Barbara Ryan, Director of the WMO Space Programme
29
General information
Questions denoted with an asterisk (*) require an answer.
* 1. Please select your country:
* 2. Please select your geographic region: For more information on the WMO Regions (RA) please see the Map of WMO Regions. If your Organization is active in more than one WMO Region,
please complete this questionnaire for each region separately.
* 3. Name of your organization: (if not affiliated to an organization, please enter N/A)
* 4. Type of your organization:
• National meteorological/hydrological service
• Other operational governmental agency
• Regional / International organization
• Research / Academic institution
• NGO (Non-governmental organization)
• Commercial company
• Other (please specify)
* 5. You are responding on behalf of
• The Permanent Representative of your country with WMO
• Your Organization/Department/Division
APPENDIX A
30
• Yourself as an individual
* 6. Does your organization use satellite data from any source?
• Yes, routinely
• Yes, occasionally
• Not sure
• No
(IF “Yes” OR “Not sure”, GO TO QUESTION 10)
(IF “No”, GO TO QUESTION 7)
Challenges and possible benefits
* 7. Please explain the reasons why your organization does not use satellite data: (Multiple answers possible)
• We have no identified need for satellite data
• We have insufficient knowledge of what satellite data are available
• We have no satellite data reception capability
• We have technical difficulties preventing access to satellite data
• We have financial difficulties preventing access to satellite data
• We have problems with the serviceability of existing satellite data reception systems
• We have an insufficient number of qualified staff
APPENDIX A
31
• Other reasons (please specify)
* 8. Please indicate which areas you think COULD benefit from the use of satellite data in your organization? Possibly great
benefit Possibly some benefit
Probably no benefit
Not applicable to my organization
Weather forecasts and warnings
Climate predictions and assessments
Hydrological forecasts, warnings and assessments
Oceanography and marine meteorology
Space weather
Disaster mitigation and preparedness
Land monitoring (e.g., for agriculture)
Environmental assessments
Socio-economic mapping
Research and development
Education and training
APPENDIX A
32
Plans to use satellite data
9. Does your organization have any plans to use satellite data in the future?
• Yes, definitely
• Yes, probably
• No plans to use satellite data
(IF “Yes” GO TO QUESTION 19)
(IF “No” GO TO QUESTION 23)
Use of satellite data
* 10. What do you / your organization use satellite data for? (Multiple answers possible)
• Operations
• Research and Development
• Education
• Value-added services
• Other purposes (please specify)
* 11. Is your overall use of satellite data changing?
• Increasing
• Decreasing
APPENDIX A
33
• Remaining the same
If changing, please explain why:
* 12. What category of satellites are your most important data source?
• Geostationary
• Polar orbiting
• Other low earth orbit (non polar-orbiting)
• Blended/composite data
• Not sure
APPENDIX A
34
13. Please indicate the GEOSTATIONARY satellites you use: (Multiple answers possible)
• GOES
• Meteosat
• Insat
• Kalpana
• FY-2
• COMS
• MTSAT (Himawari)
• Electro-L
14. Please indicate the POLAR ORBITING satellites you use: (Multiple answers possible)
· METOP · CBERS
· POES · Aqua/Terra
· DMSP · Cloudsat/Calipso
· FY · ERS
· METEOR-M · Envisat
· NPP · SPOT
· Oceansat · GOSAT
· Landsat
· Other satellites (please specify)
APPENDIX A
35
15. Please indicate other LOW EARTH ORBIT satellites you use: (Multiple answers possible)
• JASON
• TRMM
• Megha-Tropiques
• HY
• COSMIC
• Other satellites (please specify)
APPENDIX A
36
Access to satellite data
* 16. How do you receive your satellite data? (Multiple answers possible)
• Direct readout (e.g., HRPT)
• GTS point-to-point network
• Internet (ftp, http)
• DVB-S / S2 (EUMETCast, CMACast, GEONETCast Americas...)
• Mobile services (UMTS, GSM, LTE...)
• Other (please specify)
Benefit and challenges of using satellites
* 17. How important is satellite data to the following application areas in your organization: Very important Important Not important Not applicable to my
organization
Weather forecasts and warnings
Climate predictions and assessments
Hydrological forecasts, warnings and assessments
Oceanography and marine meteorology
Space weather
Disaster mitigation and preparedness
APPENDIX A
37
Land monitoring (e.g., for agriculture)
Environmental assessments
Socio-economic mapping
Research and development
Education and training
* 18. Concerning the use of satellite data, your organization faces challenges in: (Multiple answers possible)
• Knowledge of available data
• Accessing data in near-real time
• Accessing data in general
• Data processing
• Utility of data (adequacy of formatting, documentation, quality, ...)
• Data analysis and interpretation
• Resources (personnel, training, tools, equipment...)
• Do not face any significant challenges
• Other challenges (please specify)
Current and planned use of satellite data and products
* 19. Please indicate your current and planned use of satellite data / products: (1)
APPENDIX A
38
Used Planned Required, but currently not available or useable
Not required Unknown
Imager Radiances
Sounder Radiances GNSS Bending Angles Temperature and Humidity
Winds
Clouds
Radiative Fluxes
Precipitation
Lightning
Aerosol, Dust, Volcanic Ash
Ozone
Greenhouse Gases and other Trace Gases
Sea Surface Temperature
Sea Level
Sea State (Wave Spectrum,...)
Ocean Surface Winds
Ocean Colour
Ocean Surface Pollution
Sea Surface Salinity
Sea Ice
APPENDIX A
39
* 20. Please indicate your current and planned use of satellite data / products: (2) Used Planned Required, but currently
not available or useable Not required Unknown
Surface Radiation and Albedo
Soil Moisture Inland Waters (Rivers, Lakes, Floods)
Land Surface Temperature
Vegetation (FAPAR, NDVI...)
Land Cover
Snow
Ice Sheets
Glaciers and Ice Caps
Fire Biomass
Ionospheric
Geomagnetic
Energetic Particles
Solar Activity
Digital Elevation Models
Other (please specify)
APPENDIX A
40
Current and planned use of satellite data and products
* 21. How are you using, or planning to use satellite data? Used Planned Not Planned
Direct Use
Assimilation in Models
Product Generation
Other ways of using data (please specify)
* 22. Which future satellites are you planning to use? (please specify)
APPENDIX A
41
Training
* 23. Do you have a need for training related to the use of satellite data?
• Yes
• No
(IF “Yes” GO TO QUESTION 24)
(IF “No” GO TO QUESTION 27)
* 24. What are the key areas where training is needed? Needed and
being delivered Needed, but not delivered
Not needed
Equipment operation & maintenance
Satellite image interpretation Use of software tools (processing, analysis, assimilation)
Products (utilization and interpretation)
Physical basis for remote sensing
Preparation for new generation satellites
Give details or specify other areas where training is needed
25. What are the methods used to deliver training in your organization? (Multiple answers possible)
• Classroom
APPENDIX A
42
• e-Learning (web-based, broadcast)
• Pre-recorded media (DVDs, computer-based training, books, ...)
• Blended (mix of classroom / e-Learning / pre-recorded)
• Other methods (please specify)
APPENDIX A
43
* 26. Which of these distance-based learning resources are you aware of and which of them do you use to support training activities? Used to support
training Aware of existence
Not aware of existence
VLab - CGMS Virtual Laboratory for Training in Satellite Meteorology (Link)
COMET ESRC (Link) EUMETCAL (Link) EUMeTRAIN (Link)
UNESCO Bilko Training Resources (Link)
Other training resources that you use (please specify)
Final questions
27. What are your sources of information regarding availability and access to satellite data? (Multiple answers possible)
• Satellite operator websites
• International scientific working groups (Link)
• Social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn...)
• Through colleagues and peers (Word of mouth)
• CEOS website (Link)
• CGMS website (Link)
• Peer-reviewed literature
APPENDIX A
44
• Internet search engines (Google, Yahoo...)
• Conferences and meetings
• WMO Space Programme website (Link)
• VLab website (Link)
• Other (please specify)
28. Final comments and suggestions
29. Tell us more about yourself (note that your personal information will be treated confidentially, in line with the privacy policies of
Surveymonkey and WMO, and only be used for the purposes of this survey.) Name:
City/Town:
Email Address:
Phone Number:
Thank you!
Thank you very much for your time in completing this survey. All your answers have been recorded
45
APPENDIX B
REGION-BASED ANALYSES
Region I (Africa) NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies The 32 responses from NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies came from the following institutions (multiple responses possible): Kenya Meteorological Department National Meteorological Agency of Ethiopia Mauritius Meteorological Services Department of National Meteorology Cameroon Rwanda Meteorological Agency Meteorological Authority Sudan African Center of Meteorological applications for Development – ACMAD Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia Mozambique IGAD Climate Prediction & Applications Centre Department of Water Resources Gambia Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd SANSA South African Weather Service Uganda Department of Meteorology United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) ASECNA Agence Nationale de l’Aviation Civile Congo-Brazzaville Mettelsat Democratic Republic of the Congo Agence Nationale de la Météorologie Mali Egyptian Meteorological Authority Agence Nationale de l'Aviation Civile et de la Météorologie Sénégal
Research & Academia The 5 responses from Research & Academia came from the following institutions (multiple responses per institution possible): CSIR University of KwaZulu-Natal University of Pretoria
Detailed response results are available at <Anonymous online resource on WMO website.xls>.
APPENDIX B
46
Table 12: Summary of current or planned use of satellite data in Region I (Africa) by NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies. Top parameters indicated in bold for each domain and response category (Q19/Q20)
NMHSs and other operational agencies
Total responses: 32 Used Planned
Required, but currently not
available / useable Not required Unknown
Imager Radiances 10 5 1 4 11 Sounder Radiances 2 6 3 6 14 GNSS Bending Angles 2 5 0 9 15 Temperature and Humidity 26 1 2 1 1 Winds 21 3 4 2 1 Clouds 24 0 3 3 1 Radiative Fluxes 6 7 6 3 9 Precipitation 23 2 4 2 0 Lightning 11 5 10 4 1 Aerosol, Dust, Volcanic Ash 16 4 5 5 1 Ozone 5 8 11 4 3 Greenhouse Gases and other Trace Gases 4 5 14 3 5 Sea Surface Temperature 18 5 4 3 1 Sea Level 7 7 11 4 2 Sea State (Wave Spectrum,...) 8 9 7 5 2 Ocean Surface Winds 15 6 5 5 0 Ocean Colour 3 6 4 12 6 Ocean Surface Pollution 2 7 6 9 7 Sea Surface Salinity 2 7 4 13 5 Sea Ice 4 5 1 19 2 Surface Radiation and Albedo 9 6 9 5 2 Soil Moisture 10 9 9 2 1 Inland Waters (Rivers, Lakes, Floods) 10 6 8 5 2 Land Surface Temperature 20 7 3 1 0 Vegetation (FAPAR, NDVI...) 14 7 5 4 1 Land Cover 10 8 5 5 3 Snow 6 2 1 21 1 Ice Sheets 2 4 0 19 6 Glaciers and Ice Caps 1 4 1 23 2 Fire 16 5 5 5 0 Biomass 6 8 5 8 4 Digital Elevation Models 7 8 7 6 3 Ionospheric 3 4 2 12 10 Geomagnetic 2 5 2 12 10 Energetic Particles 2 5 2 12 10 Solar Activity 2 7 6 10 6
APPENDIX B
47
Key findings: • Used: Heavy use of temperature/humidity, precipitation, clouds, winds, aerosol products; SST,
ocean surface vector winds, land surface temperature, vegetation and fire parameters • Plans: to use sounder radiances, radiative fluxes, ozone, sea state, soil moisture, land parameters
(biomass, land cover, DEMs); solar activity products • Required and not available/useable: Ozone, GHG / trace gas, sea level products • Unknown: Use of calibrated radiances or GNSS bending angles
RA I
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Knowledge ofdata
Accessingdata NRT
Accessingdata general
Dataprocessing
Utility of data Analysis andinterpretation
Resources Do not facesignificantchallenges
Research and AcademiaNMHS and Other operational agency
Figure 21: Challenges in the use of satellite data (Q18) In addition to the analyses given in the main report and above, some country-specific issues: (from Q11) Lack of expertise for interpreting satellite products, for environmental and resource management (DRC Congo) Need for geospatially-located information products (Ethiopia) (from Q16) Direct read-out (HRPT) station currently not working (Kenya) (from Q18) Real-time access to polar orbiting data a challenge (Mauritius) High cost of high-resolution imagery (South Africa) (from Q19/Q20): Data extraction in particular grid format needed (Cameroon) Land use, settlement, and urban typology information needed (South Africa) (from Q24): GIS training needed (Kenya) Rainfall rate estimation training needed (Kenya) Administration of SYNERGIE system and MPEF/SAF product interpretation (Niger) (from Q28): A geostationary satellite based around 70°E would offer optimum coverage of Indian Ocean (for cyclone monitoring, high seas warning, airmass movements) (Mauritius)
APPENDIX B
48
Region II (Asia) The 27 responses from NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies came from the following institutions (multiple responses possible): Yemen Civil aviation and Meteorology Authority Islamic Republic of Iran Meteorological Organization Japan Meteorological Agency Project Coordination & Monitoring Unit-Sindh Water Sector Improvement Project, Pakistan Macao Meteorological and Geophysical Bureau Tajikistan State Organization of Hydrometeorology India Meteorological Department Kuwait Meteorological Department Bahrain Meteorological Service Korea Meteorological Administration Qatar Civil Aviation Authority-Department of Meteorology Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology Hong Kong Observatory NCMS United Arab Emirates CMA Uzbekistan Uzhydromet Kazakhstan Kazhydromet Kyrgyzstan Hydrometeorological Agency Thai Meteorological Department
Research & Academia The 7 responses from Research & Academia came from the following institutions (multiple responses possible): South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of SciencesNanjing University of Information & Science Technology, China IITM, Pune, India Indian Space Research Organisation Hokkaido University, Japan Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
APPENDIX B
49
Table 13: Summary of current or planned use of satellite data in Region II (Asia) by NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies. Top parameter is indicated in bold for each domain and response category (Q19/Q20)
NMHSs and other operational agencies
Total responses: 27 Used Planned
Required, but currently not
available / useable Not required Unknown
Imager Radiances 11 4 5 1 6 Sounder Radiances 9 6 5 2 5 GNSS Bending Angles 6 4 4 2 11 Temperature and Humidity 19 3 2 1 2 Winds 18 2 6 0 1 Clouds 23 3 0 0 1 Radiative Fluxes 9 5 6 2 5 Precipitation 21 3 3 0 0 Lightning 4 10 10 0 3 Aerosol, Dust, Volcanic Ash 14 7 3 0 3 Ozone 8 8 5 2 4 Greenhouse Gases and other Trace Gases 3 9 7 2 6 Sea Surface Temperature 18 2 3 2 2 Sea Level 7 7 7 2 4 Sea State (Wave Spectrum,...) 4 6 11 2 4 Ocean Surface Winds 12 3 6 3 3 Ocean Colour 9 2 4 7 5 Ocean Surface Pollution 2 5 6 9 5 Sea Surface Salinity 3 9 4 7 4 Sea Ice 6 4 4 8 5 Surface Radiation and Albedo 12 5 7 0 3 Soil Moisture 7 4 13 1 2 Inland Waters (Rivers, Lakes, Floods) 4 7 11 2 3 Land Surface Temperature 12 7 6 0 2 Vegetation (FAPAR, NDVI...) 10 5 7 1 4 Land Cover 10 5 5 2 5 Snow 12 2 5 5 3 Ice Sheets 5 5 7 7 3 Glaciers and Ice Caps 5 5 6 7 4 Fire 7 8 5 4 3 Biomass 3 7 5 5 7 Digital Elevation Models 6 5 3 4 9 Ionospheric 2 5 4 8 8 Geomagnetic 2 5 5 8 7 Energetic Particles 2 5 4 8 8 Solar Activity 5 6 4 4 8
APPENDIX B
50
Key findings: • Used: Heavy use of temperature/humidity, precipitation, clouds, winds, aerosol products; SST,
ocean surface vector winds, ocean colour, land surface temperature, surface radiation/albedo, snow parameters
• Plans: to use lightning, GHG/trace gas, ozone, sea surface salinity, fire, inland water, biomass products
• Required and not available/useable: lightning, sea state, soil moisture, inland water products • Unknown: Use of GNSS bending angles, digital elevation models
RA II
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Knowledge ofdata
Accessingdata NRT
Accessingdata general
Dataprocessing
Utility of data Analysis andinterpretation
Resources Do not facesignificantchallenges
Research and AcademiaNMHS and Other operational agency
Figure 22: Challenges in the use of satellite data (Q18) In addition to the analyses given in the main report and above, some country-specific issues: (from Q19/20): • Ocean current data are required but not available (Japan) • River level and extent in flood events needed (Pakistan) (from Q28): • Rainfall rate at high updating frequency needed, for nowcasting and hydrology (Hong Kong, China) • Diversity of various satellite data formats require training and are a hindrance to their use (India) • Difficulties encountered when installing EUMETCast software and antenna for receiving MSG data
(Kazakhstan) • Lack of specialized personnel to operate data receiving system, inhibiting the use of received data
and product generation (Kyrgyzstan)
APPENDIX B
51
Region III (South America) The 10 responses from NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies came from the following institutions (multiple responses possible): Centro Meteorológico Nacional, Argentina Servicio Meteorológico Nacional, Argentina INPE/CPTEC, Brazil Dirección Meteorológica de Chile INAMHI, Ecuador Servicio Nacional de Meteorologia e Hidrología del Peru Comisión Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Aeroespacial (CONIDA), Peru INGEMMET, Peru
Research & Academia The 4 responses from Research & Academia came from the following institutions (multiple responses possible): CONICET, Argentina Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil University of Sao Paulo, Brazil Federal University of Itajuba, Brazil
(See Table 14 on next page) Key findings: • Used: Heavy use of temperature/humidity, clouds, precipitation, aerosol products; SST, ocean
surface vector winds, land surface temperature, vegetation, land cover, fire products • Plans: to use GHG/trace gas, soil moisture products • Required and not available/useable: winds, sea level, sea state, inland water, ice sheet,
biomass products
RA III
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Knowledge ofdata
Accessing dataNRT
Accessing datageneral
Dataprocessing
Utility of data Analysis andinterpretation
Resources Do not facesignificantchallenges
Research and AcademiaNMHS and Other operational agency
Figure 23: Challenges in the use of satellite data (Q18) In addition to the analyses given in the main report and above, one country-specific issue was identified: (from Q11): • Apply adjustment to TRMM-based rainfall estimates since these have tended to over-estimate
rainfall (Peru)
APPENDIX B
52
Table 14: Summary of current or planned use of satellite data in Region III (South America) by NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies. The Top parameter is indicated in bold for each domain and response category (Q19/Q20)
NMHSs and other operational agencies
Total responses: 10 Used Planned
Required, but currently not
available / useable Not required Unknown
Imager Radiances 5 1 0 1 3 Sounder Radiances 2 2 3 1 2 GNSS Bending Angles 0 1 3 4 2 Temperature and Humidity 8 0 2 0 0 Winds 5 1 4 0 0 Clouds 8 2 0 0 0 Radiative Fluxes 3 0 3 3 1 Precipitation 7 1 1 1 0 Lightning 4 2 3 1 0 Aerosol, Dust, Volcanic Ash 6 3 0 1 0 Ozone 3 3 2 2 0 Greenhouse Gases and other Trace Gases 1 4 2 1 2 Sea Surface Temperature 8 0 1 1 0 Sea Level 1 0 4 4 1 Sea State (Wave Spectrum,...) 1 1 4 3 1 Ocean Surface Winds 5 1 3 1 0 Ocean Colour 4 1 2 2 1 Ocean Surface Pollution 0 1 3 4 2 Sea Surface Salinity 0 1 3 5 1 Sea Ice 2 0 3 4 1 Surface Radiation and Albedo 7 2 1 0 0 Soil Moisture 5 4 1 0 0 Inland Waters (Rivers, Lakes, Floods) 4 2 3 0 1 Land Surface Temperature 8 1 1 0 0 Vegetation (FAPAR, NDVI...) 8 0 1 0 1 Land Cover 6 0 1 1 2 Snow 5 0 2 1 2 Ice Sheets 2 0 3 3 2 Glaciers and Ice Caps 2 1 2 5 0 Fire 6 1 2 1 0 Biomass 2 1 3 2 2 Digital Elevation Models 4 1 2 3 0 Ionospheric 1 0 2 6 1 Geomagnetic 1 0 3 5 1 Energetic Particles 1 0 2 6 1 Solar Activity 1 1 2 5 1
APPENDIX B
53
Region IV (North/Central America and the Caribbean) The 21 responses from NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies came from the following institutions (multiple responses possible): National Meteorological Service Belize Caribbean Meteorological Organization Meteorological Service of Canada Canadian Space Agency Environment Canada Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad Instituto Meteorologico Nacional Costa Rica Saint Lucia Meteorological Services NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service NOAA National Weather Service NOAA National Climatic Data Center
Research & Academia The 23 responses from Research & Academia came from the following institutions (multiple responses possible): Caribbean Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology University of Saskatchewan University of Toronto McGill University University of Waterloo York University University of Alberta University of Calgary Université de Montréal Water Center for the Humid Tropics of Latin America and The Caribbean (CATHALAC) Center for Ocean-Atmosphere Prediction Studies, Florida State University Brigham Young University University of Texas Center for Space Research National Ecological Observatory Network National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado City College of New York NOAA NESDIS (at Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison)
(See Table 15 on next page)
APPENDIX B
54
Table 15: Summary of current or planned use of satellite data in Region IV (North/Central America & the Caribbean) by NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies. Top parameter indicated in bold for each domain and response category (Q19/Q20)
NMHSs and other operational agencies
Total responses: 20 Used Planned
Required, but currently not
available / useable Not required Unknown
Imager Radiances 14 1 0 3 2 Sounder Radiances 9 2 2 4 3 GNSS Bending Angles 6 0 2 6 6 Temperature and Humidity 14 2 2 1 1 Winds 14 1 1 3 1 Clouds 16 2 0 1 1 Radiative Fluxes 8 1 1 7 3 Precipitation 14 2 1 2 1 Lightning 10 5 1 3 1 Aerosol, Dust, Volcanic Ash 11 2 1 5 1 Ozone 9 1 2 7 1 Greenhouse Gases and other Trace Gases 7 2 2 7 2 Sea Surface Temperature 14 1 1 3 1 Sea Level 6 5 2 5 2 Sea State (Wave Spectrum,...) 9 1 2 7 1 Ocean Surface Winds 13 0 2 4 1 Ocean Colour 9 1 0 9 1 Ocean Surface Pollution 6 1 0 10 3 Sea Surface Salinity 6 2 1 10 1 Sea Ice 11 0 0 7 2 Surface Radiation and Albedo 11 2 1 5 1 Soil Moisture 7 6 3 3 1 Inland Waters (Rivers, Lakes, Floods) 8 5 1 4 2 Land Surface Temperature 11 3 3 1 2 Vegetation (FAPAR, NDVI...) 9 3 2 4 2 Land Cover 10 2 3 3 2 Snow 12 0 0 6 2 Ice Sheets 8 0 0 8 4 Glaciers and Ice Caps 7 0 0 9 4 Fire 8 3 2 6 1 Biomass 6 2 0 8 4 Digital Elevation Models 2 1 1 12 4 Ionospheric 2 2 1 11 4 Geomagnetic 3 2 1 10 4 Energetic Particles 4 2 1 10 3 Solar Activity 4 2 2 7 5
APPENDIX B
55
Key findings for NMHSs/operational governmental agencies: • Used: Core meteorological products (clouds, precipitation, winds, temperature/humidity) and
imager radiances, aerosols, SST, snow, land surface temperature, land cover; some level of use of space weather products
• Planned: to use lightning, sea level, soil moisture products • Required and not available/useable: only few products Key findings for Research / Academia: • Used by a majority: Meteorological products, ozone, other atmospheric composition products,
surface radiation/albedo, land surface temperature, land cover, inland water products, snow; good use of space weather products
• Planned: to use soil moisture products, sea surface salinity, lightning, sea surface temperature, cloud products
• Required and not available/useable: some land surface and space weather products.
RA IV
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Knowledge ofdata
Accessingdata NRT
Accessingdata general
Dataprocessing
Utility of data Analysis andinterpretation
Resources Do not facesignificantchallenges
Research and AcademiaNMHS and Other operational agency
Figure 24: Challenges in the use of satellite data (Q18) In addition to the analyses given in the main report and above, one country-specific issue was identified: (from Q16): • Direct readout GVAR system defunct (Saint Lucia)
APPENDIX B
56
Region V The 16 responses from NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies came from the following institutions (multiple responses possible): Australian Bureau of Meteorology Geoscience Australia Fiji Meteorological Service Indonesia Meteorological Climatological and Geophysical Agency (BMKG) Malaysian Meteorological Department (MMD) Weather Service Office, Chuuk, Federated States of Micronesia Meteorological Service of New Zealand Cook Islands Meteorological Service Niue National Meteorological Service Samoa Meteorology Division Meteorological Service Singapore Solomon Islands Meteorological Service Tonga Meteorological Service Vanuatu Meteorology and Geo-Hazards Department
Research & Academia The 1 response from Research & Academia came from the following institution: National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand15
(See Table 16 on next page)
15 Categorized under Research & Academia for the purpose of this survey.
APPENDIX B
57
Table 16: Summary of current or planned use of satellite data in Region V (South-West Pacific) by NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies. Top parameter indicated in bold for each domain and response category (Q19/Q20)
NMHSs and other operational agencies
Total responses: 16 Used Planned
Required, but currently not
available / useable Not required Unknown
Imager Radiances 7 2 3 1 3 Sounder Radiances 2 3 4 2 5 GNSS Bending Angles 2 0 5 3 6 Temperature and Humidity 8 1 3 2 2 Winds 10 3 2 1 0 Clouds 15 0 0 1 0 Radiative Fluxes 4 1 5 1 5 Precipitation 11 1 3 1 0 Lightning 2 2 7 2 3 Aerosol, Dust, Volcanic Ash 6 1 4 2 2 Ozone 2 3 7 2 2 Greenhouse Gases and other Trace Gases 0 3 8 2 3 Sea Surface Temperature 11 1 3 1 0 Sea Level 5 3 6 2 0 Sea State (Wave Spectrum,...) 2 4 4 2 4 Ocean Surface Winds 9 2 3 1 1 Ocean Colour 2 2 7 1 4 Ocean Surface Pollution 0 4 8 1 3 Sea Surface Salinity 0 5 6 2 3 Sea Ice 2 0 1 10 3 Surface Radiation and Albedo 2 3 4 3 4 Soil Moisture 2 5 5 2 2 Inland Waters (Rivers, Lakes, Floods) 2 2 5 4 3 Land Surface Temperature 5 3 5 1 2 Vegetation (FAPAR, NDVI...) 5 2 4 1 4 Land Cover 5 4 3 1 3 Snow 1 0 1 12 2 Ice Sheets 1 0 0 14 1 Glaciers and Ice Caps 0 0 0 14 2 Fire 7 2 4 1 2 Biomass 0 2 6 5 3 Digital Elevation Models 3 1 4 2 6 Ionospheric 2 2 3 5 4 Geomagnetic 0 1 4 6 5 Energetic Particles 1 1 3 6 5 Solar Activity 2 3 4 4 3
APPENDIX B
58
Key findings: • Used: Core meteorological, sea-surface temperature, ocean surface winds, fire products • Planned: to use ozone, GHG/trace gas, sea-surface salinity, land cover, solar activity products • Required and not available/useable: GHG/trace gas, lightning, ozone, ocean surface pollution,
ocean colour, biomass products; some space weather-related products
RA V
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Knowledge ofdata
Accessingdata NRT
Accessingdata general
Dataprocessing
Utility of data Analysis andinterpretation
Resources Do not facesignificantchallenges
NMHS and Other operational agency
Figure 25: Challenges in the use of satellite data (Q18) In addition to the analyses given in the main report and above, some country-specific issues: (from Q18): • Communication bandwidth a limiting factor to remote sites (Australia) • Sharing of licenses and products can be a limiting factor (Australia) (from Q28): • Extend geostationary satellite coverage to cover all of territory (Federated States of Micronesia) • Need for single website with access points to satellite data and products, for internet users (Tonga)
APPENDIX B
59
Region VI The 54 responses from NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies came from the following institutions (multiple responses possible): Azerbaijan National Hydrometeorological Department Belarus Hydrometeorological Department Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy Federal Hydrometerological Service Bosnia and Herzegovina (METEOBIH) Hydro-Meteorological Service of Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina DHMZ, Croatia Meteorological Service Cyprus Czech Hydrometeorological Institute Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) Finnish Meteorological Institute Météo-France Georgia National Environmental Agency EUMETSAT Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD) National Center of Sustainable Development, Greece HNMS, Greece Hungarian Meteorological Service Italian Air Force Meteorological Service Meteotrentino, Italy Jordan Meteorological Department Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre Service Météorologique de Luxembourg Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) Norwegian Meteorological Institute Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, National Research Institute, Poland State Hydrometeorological Service, Republic of Moldova National Meteorological Administration, Romania ROSHYDROMET SRC Planeta, Russian Federation Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute (SHMU) Slovenian Environment Agency SMHI, Sweden Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, MeteoSwiss Hydrometeorological Institute, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Turkish State Meteorological Service Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Research Institute ECMWF UK Met Office
Research & Academia The 18 responses from Research & Academia came from the following institutions (multiple responses possible): Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien) National Space Institute Denmark University of Copenhagen Laboratoire Atmosphères, Milieux, Observations Spatiales (LATMOS), Institut Pierre Simon Laplace
APPENDIX B
60
Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology Hamburg National Research Council of Italy European Commission Joint Research Centre Ispra University of Warsaw Spanish National Research Council Stockholm University University of Zurich University of Leicester University of Bristol
(See Table 17 on next page)
APPENDIX B
61
Table 17: Summary of current or planned use of satellite data in Region VI (Europe) by NMHSs and other operational governmental agencies. Top parameter indicated in bold for each domain and response category (Q19/Q20)
NMHSs and other operational agencies
Total responses: 53 Used Planned
Required, but currently not
available / useable Not required Unknown
Imager Radiances 30 4 5 10 4 Sounder Radiances 19 8 4 10 12 GNSS Bending Angles 11 6 2 14 20 Temperature and Humidity 39 8 2 4 0 Winds 32 8 6 5 2 Clouds 47 2 0 3 1 Radiative Fluxes 17 9 5 14 8 Precipitation 38 5 5 4 1 Lightning 13 11 11 11 7 Aerosol, Dust, Volcanic Ash 32 4 5 6 6 Ozone 25 7 8 7 6 Greenhouse Gases and other Trace Gases 14 8 9 13 9 Sea Surface Temperature 25 8 4 15 1 Sea Level 12 10 4 21 6 Sea State (Wave Spectrum,...) 12 12 3 20 6 Ocean Surface Winds 18 6 2 22 5 Ocean Colour 8 7 4 26 8 Ocean Surface Pollution 6 8 5 24 10 Sea Surface Salinity 7 9 4 25 8 Sea Ice 21 3 4 22 3 Surface Radiation and Albedo 29 6 6 7 5 Soil Moisture 15 12 13 9 4 Inland Waters (Rivers, Lakes, Floods) 14 10 10 11 8 Land Surface Temperature 24 11 9 6 3 Vegetation (FAPAR, NDVI...) 28 9 6 9 1 Land Cover 22 6 9 12 4 Snow 34 8 5 4 2 Ice Sheets 17 5 4 19 8 Glaciers and Ice Caps 9 6 4 26 8 Fire 21 8 8 11 5 Biomass 10 6 7 21 9 Digital Elevation Models 18 6 9 13 7 Ionospheric 6 4 3 34 6 Geomagnetic 6 6 5 30 6 Energetic Particles 6 2 4 33 8 Solar Activity 8 4 6 28 7
APPENDIX B
62
Key findings for NMHS and other operational governmental agency: • Used: Strong level of use across all domains • Planned: to use lightning, radiative flux, sea state, sea level, soil moisture, land surface
temperature, inland water, geomagnetic products • Required and not available/useable: lightning, ozone, GHG/trace gas, soil moisture, inland
water, solar activity products Key findings for Research / Academia: • Strong level of use in all domains, particularly in ocean and terrestrial domains • Planned: to use soil moisture products, land surface temperature, snow products, among
others • Required and not available/useable: only few products (clouds, winds, GNSS bending angles,
ice sheets)
RA VI
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Knowledge ofdata
Accessingdata NRT
Accessingdata general
Dataprocessing
Utility of data Analysis andinterpretation
Resources Do not facesignificantchallenges
Research and AcademiaNMHS and Other operational agency
Figure 26: Challenges in the use of satellite data (Q18) In addition to the analyses given in the main report and above, some country-specific issues: (from Q18): • Lack of personnel to maintain data receiving station (The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia) • Access to data from Russian satellites (UK) • Interruptions in the Meteosat-8 rapid scan service, harming the operational production for
nowcasting (France) (from Q19/20): • Snow cover, depth, density information very important for hydrological forecasting in Caucasus
region (Azerbaijan) (from Q24): • Require regular updates on available satellite product suites, given their rapid development
(France) (from Q28): • Better access to ESA-operated satellites will be highly appreciated (Poland) • Advice sought on image processing procedures and evaluation methods (The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia)
63
APPENDIX C
LIST OF ACRONYMS
(Note that the WMO OSCAR (Observing Systems Capability Analysis and Review tool)16 provides extensive detail on satellite systems and instruments.) AIRS Atmospheric Infra-Red Sounder ALOS Advanced Land Observing Satellite (JAXA) ATOVS Advanced TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder CAST Chinese Academy of Science and Technology CBERS China-Brazil Earth Resources Satellite (CAST, INPE) CBS WMO Commission for Basic Systems CEOS Committee on Earth Observation Satellites CGMS Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites CMA China Meteorological Administration C/NOFS Communication/Navigation Outage Forecasting System (USA) COMET COMS Communication, Oceanography and Meteorology Satellite (KMA) CONAE Comisión Nacional de Actividades Espaciales (Argentina) COSMIC Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere & Climate (NSPO, NOAA,
UCAR) COSPAR Committee on Space Research CryoSat Cryosphere Satellite (ESA) CSA Canadian Space Agency DEM Digital Elevation Model DLR Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (Germany) DMSP Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (USA) DVB-S Digital Video Broadcasting - Satellite ENVISAT Environmental Satellite (ESA) ERS European Remote Sensing Satellite (ESA) ESA European Space Agency ESRC Environmental Satellite Resource Center ET-SUP WMO Commission for Basic Systems Expert Team on Satellite Utilization and Products EUMETSAT European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites FAPAR Fraction of ABSORBED Photosynthetically Active Radiation FY Feng-Yun Satellite (CMA) GCOM Global Change Observation Mission (JAXA) GCOS Global Climate Observing System GEO Satellite system in geostationary orbit GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of Systems GFCS Global Framework for Climate Services GHG Greenhouse Gas GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System GOCE Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer (ESA) GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (NOAA) GOS Global Observing System GOSAT Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (JAXA) GRACE Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (NASA, DLR) GSM Global System for Mobile Communications GTS Global Telecommunication System GVAR GOES VARiable data service HJ Huan Jing Satellite (CAST) 16 http://www.wmo.int/oscar
APPENDIX C
64
HRPT High-Resolution Picture Transmission HY Hai Yang Satellite (CAST) ICESat Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (NASA) IGDDS Integrated Global Data Dissemination Strategy INPE Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (Brazil) INSAT Indian National Satellite (ISRO) ISRO Indian Space Research Organisation JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency JMA Japan Meteorological Agency KMA Korea Meteorological Administration LEO Satellite system in Low-Earth orbit LTE Long Term Evoluation Mobile Telecommunications Standard Metop Meteorological operational satellite (EUMETSAT) MPEF Meteorological products extraction facility MSG Meteosat Second Generation MTSAT Multifunction Transport Satellite (JMA) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index NGO Non-Governmental Organization NIVR Netherlands Agency for Aerospace Programmes NMHS National Meteorological and Hydrological Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA) NPP National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NOAA, NASA) NRT Near Real Time NSPO National Space Organization of Taiwan, China NWP Numerical Weather Prediction OceanSat Satellite for the Ocean (ISRO) OMI Ozone Monitoring Instrument (NIVR) OPAG IOS WMO Commission for Basic Systems Open Programme Area Group on Integrated
Observing Systems POES Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (NOAA) PR Permanent Representative of a Member with WMO RA Regional Association (WMO) RARS Regional ATOVS Retransmission Services SAC Satélite de Aplicaciones Cientificas (CONAE, NASA) SAF Satellite Application Facility (EUMETSAT) SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar SCOPE-CM Sustained Coordinated Processing of Environmental Satellite Data for Climate
Monitoring Scisat Scientific Satellite (NASA, CSA) SMOS Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity Satellite (ESA) SPOT Satellite Pour l’Observation de la Terre (Spot Image) SST Sea-Surface Temperature Suomi-NPP Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NOAA, NASA) TanDEM-X TerraSAR-X Add-oN for Digital Elevation Measurement (DLR) TIROS Television and Infrared Observational Satellite (NOAA, NASA) TRMM Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (JAXA/NASA) UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (USA) UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications System UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization VLab WMO-CGMS Virtual Laboratory for Education and Training in Satellite Meteorology WIGOS WMO Integrated Global Observing System WMO World Meteorological Organization
For more information, please contact:
World Meteorological Organization7 bis, avenue de la Paix – P.O. Box 2300 – CH 1211 Geneva 2 – Switzerland
www.wmo.int
WMO Space Programme OfficeTel.: +41 (0) 22 730 85 19 – Fax: +41 (0) 22 730 80 21
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.wmo.int/sat JN 1
3297