Message Board

ACUF at AMS Phoenix

ableistein — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:16:06 GMT

Please see attached:
1) ACUF Town Hall Notes (1/13/09)
2) ACUF Meeting Notes (1/14/09)

Forum: ACUF

Subgroup 2

ableistein — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:07:53 GMT

This post can be used as a collaboration point for Subgroup 2.

Forum: ACUF

New Scenarios for Subgroup 1

jgaynor — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:24:41 GMT

See new "thought experiment" attachments

Forum: ACUF

ACUF Broadcaster Focus Groups - Preliminary Analysis

ableistein — Thur, 24 Jul 2008 12:17:51 GMT

Please see the attached PRELIMINARY Analysis. Do not distribute this beyond ACUF at this time. Thanks!!

Forum: ACUF

Two different jobs

PSchultz — Thur, 17 Jul 2008 20:25:08 GMT

Right now there seems to be a push in the NWS to get forecasters more involved in forecast interpretation and other decision support functions for public officials. This makes sense in the context of current operations, if only because it should lead to better service.

I would like to suggest that in the upcoming era of probabilistic forecasting and weather services, it may be more appropriate to carefully isolate the forecaster from users. People are going to be using our gridded probabilistic forecasts in the context of cost-loss decision-making, using decision support methodologies of varying levels of sophistication. What we dont want is users getting on the phone to the forecasters and telling them their decision criteria. What we dont want is forecasters taking into consideration the societal implications of their forecasts. This leads to hedging, as it does in the issuance of severe weather warnings today. We want the forecasters making judgments based exclusively on scientific considerations.

The need for users to have a human to interact with is not going away, it will only increase as the complexity of our services will increase. A new and different role in the forecast office is implied. This role is to focus on communicating and interpreting the probabilistic forecast information. Perhaps this implies separate career paths and different qualifications for the two types of NWS field meteorologist. One is trained extensively in statistics along with the usual range of meteorological coursework; the other is trained more extensively in sociology and communications along with the basic undergraduate meteorology. I believe that many of our most talented forecasters are not the best communicators, and there are non-superstar forecasters who are excellent communicators. I would hazard a guess that many of today's forecasters would love to see their job descriptions changed to emphasize one role or the other.

There are no plans for the NWS to hire more meteorologists for its field offices. However, probabilistic forecasting is a process that leans heavily on ensembles of numerical model forecasts and statistical postprocessing to compute and calibrate probabilistic forecasts. It is expected that this guidance will be very, very good, essentially unbeatable on many days. The various models biases that collectively conspire to ruin forecasts of tougher cases require the involvement of human forecasters (really good ones). Its these rare events, the high-impact events, where forecasters will earn their money. So on most days, the forecaster shouldnt have to do more than review the guidance that gets into the GFE and then post them to NDFD. This should free the forecasters time to review the performance of the various sources of guidance on earlier cases of a particular category of high-impact weather, or to produce and calibrate predictor algorithms, or to write up past cases, or to do whatever it takes to prepare for whats ahead. Perhaps this activity changes by season, perhaps it is driven mostly by the suggestion of high-impact weather that appears in the day-to-day longer-range NWP.

I cant say for sure that the net change in station workload would be zero, much depends on the quality of the guidance, but thats the goal.

Forum: ACUF

Role of Probabilistic Weather Information in the Next Generation Air Traffic System

dulongt — Thur, 26 Jun 2008 14:18:04 GMT

Due to proliferation of aircraft using controlled airspace in the U.S. over the past decade, it is imperative that the national airspace system be "reinvented" over the next decade or so. Since I work closely with the FAA on certification and training issues, I have made it my goal to learn as much as I can about the Next Generation Air Traffic System (NextGen). This is one of the new frontiers for the use of probabilistic weather information.

Air traffic managers will have to rely on complex, automated decision-support systems, which would pull the needed information from a four-dimensional weather single authoratative source (4-D Wx SAS). This 4-D weather cube will be populated by a plethora of weather elements, qualified by probabilistic content.

Here is what the JDPO* has to say on this topic:

NextGen decision-support systems use a risk-management approach in planning capacity management and flow contingency management options. Probability expresses the likelihood that the decisionmaker will encounter the element being forecast. By using a probability of a consequential weather event, decisionmakers can mitigate the impact of that weather element. A majority of the 4-D Wx SAS weather forecast elements will require probabilistic content designed for the many decisions that depend on them. As a consequence, the 4-D Wx SAS will
provide the probability for a variety of weather elements to exist at the same point and time. For example, a probability of light icing will exist at the same time as the probability of severe icing, providing the likelihood of all outcomes. Both of these probabilities are represented in the 4-D Wx SAS because they have different consequences for different decisionmakers.

(From http://www.jpdo.gov/library/4D_Weather_Funt_Reqs_V6_CSv2-2.pdf)

Our committee has a great opportunity to refine the vision and subsequently set the direction of how probabilistic weather information will integrated into the NextGen.

*Joint Planning and Development Office

Forum: ACUF

2008-05-01: Call for 2008 APT Nominations

gary — Thur, 01 May 2008 17:07:54 GMT

This post describes the 2008 AMS call for annual partnership topic nominations. Appended at the end of this post is a blank APT Nomination Form.

2008 Call for AMS Annual Partnership Topic Nominations

The primary purpose of the AMS Commission on the Weather and Climate Enterprise (CWCE) Board on Enterprise Planning (BEP) is to review issues of a long-term strategic nature with importance to the weather and climate community as a whole. BEP will select one issue, called the Annual Partnership Topic (APT), each year from nominations submitted by members of our community. Nominations are encouraged from all community sectors: academic, government, private, and end user. BEP will evaluate each APT nomination using the evaluation criteria contained in the APT Nomination Form below. All community members may comment on any APT nomination.

Two previously selected APTs are in currently in process: one on Hurricanes Disasters (now near completion) and one on Mesonets.

New APT nominations are being accepted through 31 May 2008 . Please refer to the APT Nomination Form below and follow its instructions to submit an APT nomination or a comment on a nomination.

Thank you for your support and interest. If you have any questions, please contact the members of the BEP by sending email to amsbep@ametsoc.org.

Regards,
Tim Spangler

Dr. Tim Spangler
Chair, Board on Enterprise Planning
AMS Commission on the Weather and Climate Enterprise
tspang@ucar.edu
303-497-8473

----------------

Annual Partnership Topic Nominations and Comments

To submit a nomination please copy the APT form below, fill in the requested information, and post the completed APT Nomination Form to the CWCE message board as a reply to this post .

As APT nominations are added to this thread, you may comment on them in the same way, by posting your comment to the CWCE message board as a reply to this post .

Note: In order to post either a comment or a nomination you must be a registered member of the CWCE message board. When registering, you must supply your full name, as the message board moderator will reject anonymous registration requests.

The CWCE message board is located at:

http://amsforums.ametsoc.org/tool/mb/amscwceforum

This post is within the "APTs and Enterprise Commission News" forum.

----- APT Nomination Form ---

Nominators Name:

Nominators Affiliation :

Nominators Address:

Nominators Telephone number(s):

APT Short Title:

APT Brief Description :

Please address the following questions in relation to the APT Selection Criteria :

1. Timeliness: Do you expect the results of the AMS annual partnership topic activities will be relevant to the weather and climate enterprise in 2 years and beyond?

2. Breadth:
a. Is the topic of concern to many private sector, academic, and government organizations of various kinds ?

b. Is the topic of concern to scientific, technological, policy, legal, and economic interests of various kinds ?

c. Is the topic of broad interest to many kinds of government agencies (federal, state, local), many kinds of private sector organizations (both users and providers of weather and climate information) and many kinds of academic / research institutions?

3. Impact: What is the impact the proposed APT is expected to have on the weather and climate enterprise and on society as a whole? Please describe the impacts in tangible terms (e.g. the fraction of the U.S. and/or global economy affected) and/or intangible terms (e.g. potential legal and institutional effects).

4. Interest: What is your estimate of the likelihood of success in forming a committee, with members from all four enterprise sectors, to study the APT and in gaining multiple contributors to the topic?

5. Linkage: Does the APT have potential linkage to other planned activities? For example, a topic which is related to a planned activity by an organization other than AMS (e.g. the World Meteorological Organization)?

----- End of APT Nomination Form ---

Forum: Annual Partnership Topics (APTs)

Freakonomics: How valid are TV weather forecasts?

ableistein — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:51:57 GMT

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/how-valid-are-tv-weather-forecasts/

Forum: ACUF

Document written by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program

ableistein — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:28:11 GMT

Please note the following as Bob Glahn from the NWS and ACUF Group 1 member has sent around through various folks:

This document, written by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, is being reviewed by the NOAA Research Council. It is a tutorial, and summarizes what, and what is not, known about climate change. Most facets are covered, including probabilistic assessment and the provision of probability forecasts to non-scientists. It is long, but it makes for interesting reading for those really interested in probabilistic forecasting and communicating. There should be something in there for the ACUF team as a whole.

While there are stark contrasts in the way climate change is "forecast" and forecasting the weather, some of the concerns overlap, and the document indicates there is another whole world "out there" that many (even most) meteorologists may not be aware of.

ADDRESSES: The Draft Report is posted on the CCSP web site at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-2/public-review-draft/default.htm

Forum: ACUF

Some feedback on the ACUF

Thor — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:45:26 GMT

On 4/24, I had the pleasure of being the speaker at the Upstate, SC AMS Chapter meeting. For my talk I provided a thumbnail sketch of the ACUF and its mission, drawing upon materials posted on this forum. My own motivation was to draw some ideas and opinions from the group. The group consisted of mostly current and retired NWS employees, but academia and the geology community were also represented. It was a small group by conference standards, but it was a good chance for me to hear what others are thinking and worrying about. I am posting some of the response here for everyones general interest. Hopefully well all have continued contact with colleagues across the board.

The consensus was that providing uncertainty information would be of benefit and that this method of forecasting will become the state-of-the art in the future. The growing use of ensembles was briefly discussed.

However, two overriding themes dominated the post-lecture discussion.

One, presented pretty adamantly by a few, was directed at how uncertainties will be presented, and any subsequent policing of those standards. As an example, the PoP was offered up, along with accompanying verbal extensions (isolated, scattered, slight, occasional, etc.) that often occur in conjunction with these numbers. It was stated that in the past, the NWS was pretty rigid in making sure that a list of conventions was adhered towhat wording would go with what numbersbut with the passage of time standards have become lax. As a result, sloppy wording can accompany forecastsnot just in some NWS forecasts, but perhaps more rampantly in some media broadcasts. The problem: just what might a 40% chance of occasional rain mean? Multiply this issue by however many new products that might come down the line and you have a shot at some real confusion. It was proposed that, after the Enterprise gets on the same page, a mechanism needs to be in place to ensure we all stay on the same page.

The second major theme stressed education, not just from the how-to-do standpoint, but also from the we are now doing this angle. A tale was offered up from the geologic/earthquake community concerning some building codes that want into effect in 2000. It was stated that, despite the fact were eight years past the start date of these codes, there are still respected professors writing textbooks that only mention the old codes and not the new onesand that there are also some at the state-government level in California that, until recently, were in the dark about these updates. We were cautioned to not underestimate the time it will take to ensure that the word is out to everyone in the Enterprise.

A seperate note that I found interesting: one of the retired NWS employees did some research for his own enlightenment during his time at some different offices, concerning how the PoP forecasts were being used. While it seems readily agreed upon that most average citizens can not properly define PoP, his experience with businesses that needed to make specific decisions based on this data all had a firm grasp of what the PoP meansand many had implementation plans based on those numbers. This serves as a reminder as we continue forward that different audiences will want/need/expect different things out of the same product, and what is good for the goose wont always be good for the gander.

Dan Bickford
WSPA-TV

Forum: ACUF

WMO publication on Guidelines on Communicating Forecast Uncertainty (PWS-18)

ableistein — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:43:39 GMT

I encourage all of you to take a look at this document as it should assist with our ACUF activities.

Forum: ACUF

Subgroup 1

ableistein — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:24:09 GMT

This post can be used as a collaboration point for Subgroup 1.

Please see a Subgroup 3 update in the March 14th post below. I have also attached the first draft of slides that resulted from the ACUF Town Hall presentation. Please refer to your co-leads, Betty Morrow (betty@bmorrow.com) and John Gaynor(john.gaynor@noaa.gov), if you have further questions about current group progress and deliverables.

Forum: ACUF

Subgroup 3

ableistein — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:19:01 GMT

This post can be used as a collaboration point for Subgroup 3.

Please see a Subgroup 3 update in the March 14th post below. I have also attached the first draft of slides that resulted from the ACUF Town Hall presentation. Please refer to your co-leads, Tom Hamill (tom.hamill@noaa.gov) and Ross Hoffman (rhoffman@aer.com), if you have further questions about current group progress and deliverables.

Forum: ACUF

Subgroup 4

ableistein — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:17:06 GMT

This post can be used as a collaboration point for Subgroup 4. I have attached the first draft of slides that resulted from the ACUF Town Hall presentation. Please refer to your co-leads, Brenda Philips (bphilips@ecs.umass.edu) and John Sokich (john.sokich@noaa.gov), if you have further questions about current group progress and deliverables.

Forum: ACUF

Subgroup 5

ableistein — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:15:29 GMT

This post can be used as a collaboration point for Subgroup 5. I have attached the first draft of slides that resulted from the ACUF Town Hall presentation. Please refer to your co-lead, Neil Stuart (neil.stuart@noaa.gov), if you have further questions about group progress and deliverables.

Forum: ACUF