100 likes | 176 Vues
This draft transition plan aims to improve the quality of the nation's climate record for the 21st century. With increasing demand for high-quality NOAA climate data, deficiencies have become visible, prompting a focus on quality despite limited resources. The plan includes phases for identifying stations needing action, developing action plans, assessing results, and closing or reclassifying stations. Key players such as RCPMs, WFOs, CSPMs, climate service partners, and observers are involved in this coordinated effort. Actions include field reviews, validation, and prioritization of stations for action to enhance the overall climate data network.
E N D
Improving the Quality of the Nation’s Climate Record: Toward a 21st Century Cooperative Network DRAFT Transition Plan Overview Jim O’Sullivan Bob Leffler and Tim Owen
Outline • Why? • DRAFT Plan Overview • Pending Actions
Why? • Considered for many years • Increasing demand for high quality NOAA climate data • Deficiencies highly visible • Limited resources – focus on quality • Mesonets growing • In parallel with other COOP improvement efforts • Arlie House, VA Action Item (Nov. 2005)
DRAFT Plan Overview • Purpose • Scope • Key Players • RCPMs • WFOs • CSPMs • Climate service partners • Observers • NWSH
DRAFT Plan Overview(Phases/Schedule) Program Phases FY 2007 2008 2009 Qtr. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 Phase 1: Identification of Stations Requiring Action Phase 2: Development of Action Plans, Assessment of Results - Final Decision on Status Phase 3: Closure or Reclassifications
Draft Plan OverviewPhase I: Identification of Stations • Candidate lists provided for: • questionable quality “a” stations • inactive stations, • non-standard instruments, • unrepresentative exposures (rooftops, etc.) • WFO’s establish COOP21 Evaluation Teams • purpose • participants • Field review, validation, augmentation of candidate sites • Field assessment of all stations including “b” and “c” • Cost estimates • Prioritize stations for action
Draft Plan Overview Phase 1: Differences in Assessing “a” versus “b and “c” Stations • “a” Published Stations • Lists provided by NWSH – validation/augmentation by field • Assume data are used • Keep if fixable • HCN’s, reimbursables, and F/P guages exempt • “b and “c” Stations • No NWSH provided lists - field identification required • Close if not needed (whether fixable or not)
Draft Plan OverviewPhase II: Plans, Action, Results • Develop remedial action plans • Observer deficiencies • Part-time stations • Poorly exposed sites • Non-approved instrumentation • Evaluate results of action
Draft Plan OverviewPhase III: Station Closure and Reclassification • Decommissioning • Reclassifying stations to other networks