1. Page 1© Crown copyright 2007SRNWP 8-11 October 2007, Dubrovnik Draft Interoperability Proposal Terry Davies SRNWP Meeting October 8-11, 2007

2. Page 2© Crown copyright 2007SRNWP 8-11 October 2007, Dubrovnik Flow chart

3. Page 3© Crown copyright 2007SRNWP 8-11 October 2007, Dubrovnik Interoperability deliverables D1-D3 D1: A report documenting the standard output format and including a list of parameters for which the standard output format is applied. D2: A report documenting the standard observational data format. D3: Requirements Specification for the adaptor software: This document includes the identification of the methods that can be used for implementing the adaptors, and for maintenance of the software in connection with the consortia. It must be agreed by all groups involved.

4. Page 4© Crown copyright 2007SRNWP 8-11 October 2007, Dubrovnik Interoperability deliverables D4-D6 D4: Four adaptors that transform the output from every LAM to the standard output format. This includes the software as well as the documentation D5: Enhancements to existing software tools that enable all LAMs to process data from the four available GMs. This includes the software as well as the documentation. D6: Enhancements to existing software tools that enable all LAMs to process data from the other LAMs. This includes the software as well as the documentation.

5. Page 5© Crown copyright 2007SRNWP 8-11 October 2007, Dubrovnik Not submitted because: D1, D2 and D3 require consultation between the consortia to reach agreement on formats and specifications. D4, D5 and D6 are best carried out by each of the consortia working to the agreed specifications. In this case there is a better chance of achieving success if the consortia work together through the WG and for each consortium to find its own staff resources to do the actual work.

6. Page 6© Crown copyright 2007SRNWP 8-11 October 2007, Dubrovnik Draft proposal for UK as RM  Aim to deliver D1 to D4 within 2 years of commencement.  As RM the UK will provide a Programme Manager at between 0.25 and 0,5 of a FTE – figure to be confirmed once further work has been completed into scope.  The PM will coordinate and manage the technical work and produce reports required by Council.  Each NWP consortium will carry out its own work for D4 under the coordination of the PM. (options for funding are given later).

7. Page 7© Crown copyright 2007SRNWP 8-11 October 2007, Dubrovnik Draft proposal for UK as RM Deliverables D5 and D6 would effectively allow any NWP model to use any other to provide lateral boundary conditions. The UK has some doubts over the desirability and achievability of these deliverables in a relatively short time scale. They are not as straightforward as D4 and it is felt that more work needs to be done to resolve the scope of the work. In particular, C-SRNWP members can provide valuable input into considering how sophisticated such a system need be. For instance, would a simple reversal of the systems to convert model output to a standard format suffice? There is also a question over the responsibility for maintenance of conversion systems as models change. And should the owners of global modelling systems be responsible for maintaining those models in a way that allows users of their lateral boundary conditions to carry on unaffected by change?

8. Page 8© Crown copyright 2007SRNWP 8-11 October 2007, Dubrovnik Draft proposal for UK as RM  Many of these issues will require work to be done at individual nation level, not just by consortia.  The UK feels that firm proposals for this developments required to deliver D5 and D6 should be deferred until there has been further examination of the size and complexity of the task.

9. Page 9© Crown copyright 2007SRNWP 8-11 October 2007, Dubrovnik Funding options  Option 1 To provide the same level of funding as previously envisaged (€100K per annum). €30K to go to RM (€20K for 0.25 FTE plus €10K for travelling expenses) and the rest to be shared equally between NWP consortia (Unified Model, Hirlam, COSMO, Aladdin and ECMWF).  Option 2 To reduce funding to €30K for the RM and ask the consortia to fund the technical work themselves.

10. Page 10© Crown copyright 2007SRNWP 8-11 October 2007, Dubrovnik Questions