1. 1 GOES Users’ Working Group Sept. 12, 2001

2. 2 General Topics for Discussion: –Suggest formation of sub-groups u Assign tasks to appropriate groups –Review list of recommendations from the GUC –Prioritize recommendations u Consider importance and feasibility –Begin process of plan development for implementation of feasible recommendations; u Where solutions are unclear identify need for further study –Discuss use of Bulletin Board to track progress on issues;

3. 3 General Topics for Discussion: –Discuss need for outreach/ coordination with user agencies; u Need for briefing upper level management; u For validating new requirements, signature from DAA (NWS, NOS, NMFS, or OAR) required; –Cost Benefits Analysis (CBA) –Need to bring climate community onboard; –Begin plans for next GUC; –What additional resources does this WG need: u People/ Expertise –Plan for next WG meeting in Madison; –Develop action item list; –Information from this WG meeting on BB?

4. 4 Sub-committees: –Data and New Product Needs –Instruments of Opportunity –Data and Product Distribution –Data and Product Archiving –New Data and Product Integration into Operational Data Stream –User Education –NWP –Space Weather?

5. 5 Sub-committees: Data and new Product Needs co-chairs: Paul Menzel; Tim Schmit –Dennis Chesters; Gary Ellrod; Mark DeMaria –Don Gray; Jim Gurka; Jeff Hawkins; Jim Heil; –Gary Hufford; Del Jenstrom; Tony Mostek; –Kevin Schrab; Chris Velden

6. 6 Sub-committees: Instruments of Opportunity Chair: Mark DeMaria –Dennis Chesters; Gerry Dittberner; Gary Ellrod; –Al Gasiewski; Del Jenstrom; Jim Heil; –Kevin Schrab;

7. 7 Sub-committees: Data and Product Distribution Chair: TBD –Gerry Dittberner; Jeff Hawkins; Jim Heil –Dave Helms; Tom Renkevens; Dick Reynolds; –Steve Short;

8. 8 Sub-committees: Data and Product Archiving Chair: TBD –Don Gray; Jim Gurka; Jim Heil; Dave Helms; –Tim Schmit; Steve Short;

9. 9 Sub-committees: New Data Integration into Operational Data Stream Chair: Kevin Schrab –Bob Aune; Dennis Chesters; Gary Ellrod: –Don Gray; Jim Gurka; Dave Helms; –Gary Hufford; Ralph Petersen; Tom Renkevens; –Tim Schmit; Tim Walsh;

10. 10 Sub-committees: User Education Chair: Tony Mostek –Jim Gurka; Jeff Hawkins; Gary Hufford;

11. 11 Sub-committees: NWP Chair: Ralph Petersen –Bob Aune; Jim Gurka; Steve Koch; –Paul Menzel; Tim Schmit;

12. 12 Data and New Product Needs –A minimum of 12 imager channels required u 0.64µ, 0.86µ, 1.375µ, 1.60µ, 3.90µ, 6.15µ, 7.0µ, 8.5µ, 10.35µ, 11.2µ, 12.3µ, 13.3µ u Strong recommendation for 0.47µ, and 9.6µ u Valuable but lower priority: 4.57µ, and 14.2µ u Progress: memo from G. Dittberner to S. Kirkner –Recommended: 12 channel new threshold –Recommended trade studies for 2 additional channels u Recommendations? Further action? –Provide clear writeup of environmental information needed from imager that necessitates 12/ 14/ 16 channels –New requirements inherent in NWS Strategic Plan?

13. 13 Data and New Product Needs –ABI should provide FD every 5 min. u Impact on data rate? –Provide 1000 x 1000km every 30sec u Simultaneous with 5 min. FD? u Revert to 15 min. FD during rapid scan? u Recommendation: determine impact of simultaneous RS and 5 min FD. –Sounder should provide near FD coverage/ hour –Sounder FOV no larger than 4 km –Visible Imager channels should be calibrated onboard

14. 14 Data and New Product Needs –0.86µ Imager channel should have.5 km resolution to match the 0.64µ. u Paves the way for quantitative vis products u Recommendation: need stronger argument…more specific on type of products…who will benefit? –Funding for R & D of new satellite products should be part of satellite acquisition budget. –Calibration information and algorithms to generate products should be made available to the user community.

15. 15 Data and New Product Needs –Satellite soundings are needed in cloudy areas: u From ABS, above low level cloud layers; u Use polar microwave to complement Geo soundings; u Support concept of Geo microwave; –As instrument of opportunity? –As instrument on bus separate from GOES –Sounder should be flexible with option for RSO –Users need access to non-operational satellite data, such as MODIS and AIRS as a complement to operational data.

16. 16 Data and New Product Needs – New or improved product needs (not prioritized) u ID what spectral bands/ satellites to be used: u a) atmospheric aerosols; b) cloud phase; c) cloud particle size; d) cloud climatology products (fog, convective clouds etc) e) surface properties; f) satellite derived winds; g) QPE; h) moisture flux; i) volcanic ash product; j) probability of rainfall for each pixel; k) low cloud and fog product; l) cloud layers; m) SST; n) true color product; o) cloud optical depth; p) SO2 concentration; q) aircraft icing threat; r) ocean color; s) under (ocean) surface features; t) sea ice products; u) improved vegetation index; v) ozone layers; w) surface emmissivity; x) moisture and temperature profiles; y) clear sky cloud masks for imager and sounder

17. 17 Instruments of Opportunity –Prioritize candidate IOOs based on potential value and impact on mission complexity, power, volume, expense, and risk. u Lightning mapper u Special Events Imager u Microwave Sounder –Provide recommendations on S/C capabilities to host an IOO or IOOs; –Who should provide S/C accommodation costs?

18. 18 Instruments of Opportunity –If not feasible to host a microwave sounder on GOES, should we pursue a separate mission solely for a Geo microwave sounder? –How do we convince the budget folks that one or all the candidates will provide value above the accommodation costs?

19. 19 Data and Product Distribution –Multiple tiers of data distribution are needed to meet broad range of user needs; u Must include low cost and low data rate options; –We need to validate list of who needs u All the imager and sounder data in real time (NWP…driver) u All the imager and sounder data, delayed u Minimal data set: low cost low data rate; u All the data but over a limited geographic area

20. 20 Data and Product Distribution –Discuss pros and cons of: u Direct broadcast from GOES –L band –X band u Commercial re-broadcast u Land lines u WWW u User access from server via ftp u Use of old GOES u Optimal mix of above –Who do we need on this team?

21. 21 Data and Product Archive Needs –Users need full spectrum of GOES products, ranging from raw data to highly processed products; u For applications from nowcasting scale to climate scale –User friendly format; –Minimal cost to user; –Quick delivery to user u Most requests filled < 1 day; u Extremely large requests in < 1 week; –Users need to browse, select products, and submit requests via internet;

22. 22 Data and Product Archive Needs –Potential delivery methods for large requests: u ftp; CD-ROMS; DVDs –Users need metadata u Including info on product quality trends due to variations in instrument and satellite performance; –Users need access to query system (i.e. tornado cases, hurricanes, fog events etc); –Monthly storage in range of terrabytes; –We should provide info on user needs to: u NCDC; developers of the GAA

23. 23 New Data Integration –Use AIRS and GIFTS data to prepare for ABS; MODIS to prepare for ABI; u ID needs for operational algorithms (by spring 2002); u Develop plans for algorithm completion by June 2005; –Develop plan for providing users with access to sample data sets by July 2006; –Develop plan to have NOAA educate users on use of new algorithms and data sets; –Develop plan for a fully operational infrastructure for reception, processing, distribution, and archiving of test data sets prior to GOES-R launch; –Develop plan for integrating data into AWIPS or follow-on

24. 24 NWP –Develop prioritized list of Imager and Sounder products (both individual and combined): u Layered moisture; moisture flux; cloud cover; cloud layers; cloud particle size; cloud phase; aerosols; thin cirrus; surface properties; temperature and moisture profiles; radiances; ozone layers; winds; etc u Products to include information on degree of confidence in product quality/ accuracy; u Determine format requirements for products;

25. 25 NWP –The use of other satellite data as a complement to GOES data; u Combined GOES/ Polar products; –Develop plan for product development: u Who, when, where, how? –User option for quality vs latency; –Determine needs of data distribution for NWP (NCEP/ DOD/ etc)

26. 26 NWP –Develop plan for coordination with JCSDA; –Impact of data compression; u User should be able to choose between varying degrees of data compression; –Targeted observations; –Workshop focused on NWP issues;

27. 27 User Education

28. 28 Cost Benefits Analysis (CBA) (MITRE Corp.) –Marginal CBA for both ABI and ABS –Develop benefit analysis with input from: u NOAA users and external users –Translate delta in sensor performance to: u User benefit/cost savings and or avoidance

29. 29 Cost Benefits Analysis (CBA) (MITRE Corp.) –Based on comparison of proposed vs current u What environmental and weather obs would be impacted? u What models would be impacted? u What products and services would be improved? –By how much? u Who would benefit from both? –Identify all key users that would be impacted; u For each user/product combination quantify the improvement; u Determine impact on users if improvements not provided;

30. 30 GUC Bulletin Board –Need to encourage more use; –Identify items from this meeting to post; –Notify GUC participants via e-mail to check postings –This group should set example; –http://www.osd.noaa.gov/GOES/feedback/sign.asp

31. 31 Coordination with User Agencies –Develop briefing package: u ABI; ABS; IOO; Input from GUC; –Provide results of CBA; –Set up schedule to brief DAAs: u NWS, NOS, NMFS, OAR; u DOD? –Request ORD –Recommendations for briefers? u Small team of experts?

32. 32 Climate Issues –We need to get the climate community engaged: –Recommendations:

33. 33 Resources –What additional resources does this group need: u People/ expertise

34. 34 Plans for Next GUC –May 2002 in Boulder? u Pro: –Infrastructure in place: facilities, facilitators, NIST personnel; –With annual meeting, more likely to keep participants active in process; –We may need only 2 day meeting: not starting from scratch. –Boulder worked well (If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it); u Con: –Planning must begin NOW! –Other locations/ venues might attract more international participation;

35. 35 Plans for Next GUC –November 2002 in Miami? –Coincident with OSDPD meeting for South American and Central American users. u Pro: –More international participation; –Larger audience u Con: –Most international participants will be interested in LRIT/ DCS etc; –Unfamiliar territory for meeting logistics; –Facilitators? –Setting up breakout sessions: more complicated –Less focused meeting;

36. 36 Plans for Next GWG –October 17, noon- 2pm in Madison –Luncheon meeting –Sub-groups report on action item progress; –Room: TBA