MET OFFICE PROPOSAL TO BECOME RESPONSIBLE MEMBER FOR INTEROPERABILITY PROGRAMME.
Purpose of this Document
This is a strawman proposal proposed for EUMETNET Council 31st meeting. It outlines an updated structure for the Interoperability Programme, discussed between C-SRNWP members, and agreed as a workable way forward.
EUMETNET Council is asked to endorse the general approach, to comment on and select a chosen option and to agree to the UK coming to next Council with a full proposal.
Background
At its 30th meeting EUMETNET Council discussed proposals for Interoperability, EUREPS and Verification programmes. The outcome of the discussion is summarised in decision 6 from the meeting:
6. - Council decided to continue the C-SRNWP Programme in its present format
and keeping to its current budget of 35 k€. A Call for proposals to become RM is
to be sent out by the CO.
- After having analysed the proposed NWP themes (Interoperability; EUREPS;
Verification), Council decided to begin in a step by step approach with the
Interoperability project. This should be considered as a precursor to the two other
projects.
- Council agreed, by majority, to start the Interoperability project as a new
Optional Programme and 15 Members confirmed their intention to participate:
ZAMG; RIMB; DHMZ; DMI; FMI; Météo-France; OMSZ; KNMI; met.no; IMP; INM;
SMAL; SMHI; MeteoSwiss and UKMO. A call for Responsible Member will be
sent out by the CO.
- A detailed presentation on the Verification project will be presented at C31.
No proposals to become RM for the Interoperability programme were received by the due date of 15 July 2007. In the case of the UK, though a bid had been considered, it was felt that the scope of the programme proposal presented at 30th Council was too ambitious, and that further discussion was required on whether some of the deliverables were required.
The Met Office raised these concerns with fellow C-SRNWP members and following discussion and agreement Jean Quiby asked the UK to provide a proposal on the basis of the outcome of these discussions.
Benefits of Carrying out the Interoperability Programme.
An increased degree of interoperability between NWP systems in Europe would have a number of benefits for EUMETNET members. These include:
· The ability to more easily visualise and use NWP products from other centres, providing improved business continuity and a better ability to share output.
· Interoperability is vital for other aspects of the C-SRNWP programme such as verification and EUREPS.
· Provides a route to closer collaboration between European models.
· Provides potential for the easier and more effective exchange of lateral boundary conditions and ancillaries.
Scope of the Proposals.
The original programme proposal identified 6 deliverables, based on consideration of the following NWP systems – Global: Arpege, IFS, UM, GMEand 4 LAM model systems: UM, HIRLAM, COSMO, ALADIN:
· 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 and Specifications 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.
· 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.
Examination of these deliverables suggests that D1, D2 and D3 would normally be produced by a programme manager/coordinator, whilst D4, D5 and D6 would require technical staff to make changes to NWP systems.
The basis for the new proposals is that changes to the NWP software will be carried out by the teams responsible for developing each system rather than by a single RM. The role of the RM will be restricted to the management and coordination of the technical work and the production of reports for Council.
There are a number of NWP consortia within the EUMETNET umbrella. These have varying numbers of members, with different systems of maintenance and version control. It is best that each consortium considers what changes need to be made to their system and what is the best method for them of doing so. This approach has the approval of the C-SRNWP working group.
UK Proposals
The UK proposes to become the RM for the Interoperability programme.
Its aim will be 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 the necessary work to its own system under the coordination of the PM. (Options for funding are given later).
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 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 consultation with C-SRNWP members and the owners of the global models, addressing such issues as: who is responsible for the maintenance of the conversion software as model formulations change an how will this be funded? And how do we ensure that users of lateral boundary conditions are able to continue their operations unaffected by changes in the formulation of the source model?
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 the developments required to deliver D5 and D6 should be deferred until there has been further examination of the size and complexity of the task.
Funding Options
The re-evaluated programme described above leads to two funding options.
N.B. Those numbers are indicative until a fuller assessment of the work to be done has been made.
The principal advantage of option 1 is that it will provide more incentive for consortia to complete the work as they will be under a contractual obligation and will allow Council and the RM to keep control of the process.
The principal disadvantage of option 1 is that the varying structures of the NWP consortia may make the management of funds more difficult for larger more complex consortia and may result in limited funds being spread very thinly.
Timetable
By 33rd Council Meeting
– provide details of PM.
– Complete the scoping of the work required for D5 and D6 in consultation with C-SRNWP members
– Provide a fully costed proposal for the programme.
First deliverable from the project by 34th Council should be agreement on the ideal common data format for the exchange of NWP output.
Risks
Since many members use ECMWF output as the source of lateral boundary conditions, ECMWF must be involved if the programme is to be successful. The Centre indicated its willingness to take part during the 30th Council debate.
Work to achieve deliverable D5 in particular has the potential to load the global modelling centres with responsibility, work and costs in order to maintain the output from their systems in ways that will allow exploitation by others.
The INSPIRE legislation has the potential to put extra requirements on to the choice of standard data format. In essence INSPIRE will try to make NWP output interoperable with other geographic data and services. NMHS’s and others will be required to make NWP output available through catalogue services and other sources and that it should conform to ISO/TC211 standards. Currently, WMO BUFR and GRIB tables are not served through catalogue services. NetCDF is better, but does not have a catalogue service mechanism to publish and deliver the codes. In addition to specifying the scope of work to complete D5 and D6, further work is required on the potential impact of INSPIRE on Interoperability.
The interoperability issue goes much wider than Europe. Many will look to WMO to provide a framework for future work. Liaison with WMO RAVI must be maintained on this issue to ensure that Europe stays in line with the rest of the world, or hopefully takes the lead and sets the standards.