AMS Commission on the Weather and Climate Enterprise

Dr. Timothy Spangler, ChairAMS Summer Community Meeting

11-13 August 2008Boulder, CO

Board on Enterprise Planning (BEP)

Talk Overview

BEP Charter BEP Membership Annual Partnership Topic (APT) BEP Status Update

• Mesoscale Observing Networks APT• Building America’s Resilience to Hurricane Disasters

APT• New APT for 2008

BEP Charter

Review issues identified by the Steering Committee that are of long-term strategic nature with importance to the enterprise as a whole

Focus on a selected topic annually Annual Partnership Topic Working Group for a specific topic Annual Report to Steering Committee

BEP Membership

Chair 13 members at large 3 Working Groups [WGs], one for each APT

WG membership: Private, academic, and public sectors; user community

The current Board membership as of the end of 2007 is listed below:

Annual Partnership Topic Purpose

Give all interested parties an opportunity to express their views on the selected topic

Summarize those views in a concise report Identify consensus views when such consensus

exists Clarify differences of opinion when consensus

does not exist Offer recommendations to AMS itself and the

enterprise as a whole based on the understanding of views gained during the study

Annual Partnership Topic Selection

Annual Partnership Topic will be selected based on nominations received by AMS during an open nomination period

Selection based on published selection criteria Selection made by Commission Steering

Committee Any party may submit a nomination All nominations will be available for comment

Annual Partnership Topic Nominal Calendar of Events

Year One: Annual AMS Meeting – Issue call for nominations Spring – Open comment period Summer – Select topic, charge WG Remainder of Year – Organize activities for Year Two

Year Two: Annual AMS Meeting – Frame topic Remainder of Year – Conduct activities appropriate to topic

Year Three: Annual AMS Meeting – Conduct summary session on topic Summer – WG presents final report for review/approval Fall – Publish final report

Annual Partnership Topic Topic Selection Criteria

1. Timeliness [30%] Results of partnership topic activities must be relevant to

the weather and climate enterprise in relation to a 2-3 year timeline

Topics which require results more rapidly will be rejected Topics which have longer time frames will be considered

2. Breadth [25%] Partnership topic will have broad impact and interest Breadth judged on two factors:

• Sectoral breadth [60%] [private, academic, government]• Disciplinary breadth [40%] [scientific, policy, etc]

Annual Partnership Topic Topic Selection Criteria

3. Impact [20%] Impact it is expected to have on the weather and climate

enterprise and on society as a whole May be evaluated in

• Tangible terms [e.g., fraction of the U.S. economy affected]• Intangible terms [e.g., potential legal effects]

4. Interest [15%] Estimate of the likelihood of:

• Success in forming topic Working Group• Gaining multiple contributors to the topic

5. Linkage [10%] Potential linkage to other planned activities [e.g., topic related

to a planned activity by an organization other than AMS]

Annual Partnership Topic BEP Functions

1. Organize the APT nomination process Issue call, make public, collect comments

2. Evaluate nominations “Score” each nomination Draft charge for Topic Committee

3. Fill the Topic Committee4. Review Report5. Submit report to Steering Committee

Annual Partnership Topic Steering Committee Functions

Select Annual Partnership Topic Finalize Charge to Topic Committee Approve Final Report

APT 1--Mesoscale Observing Networks

Topic Committee Charge: Criteria for Evaluating Potential Testbeds. Identify potential

technical criteria for evaluating mesoscale observing network testbeds. Propose ways the criteria can be applied to rank order potential testbeds

Business Models for Partnerships in Mesoscale Network Testbeds. Identify potential business models. Propose ways the business criteria can be applied in conjunction with the technical criteria to rank order potential testbeds

Potential Mesoscale Network Testbeds. Identify potential mesoscale network testbeds that meet at least some of the technical criteria

Recommended Mesoscale Network Testbeds. Recommend at least three mesoscale network testbeds

APT 1--Mesoscale Observing Networks

WG: Fred Carr (OU) [Chair], Tim Spangler, Don Winter, Bruce Telfeyan

Topic Committee: .edu: Rebecca Morss (NCAR), Ken Crawford (OU), John Horel

(Utah) .com: Maria Pirone (AER), Mike Kalb (GST), John Lasley (SAIC),

Peter Neilley (WSI), Brent Shaw (Weathernews) .gov: Greg Mandt (NOAA), Marty Ralph (NOAA), Ralph

Patterson (Utah DOT), Paul Pisano or Andy Stearns (FHWA)

APT 1--Mesoscale Observing Networks 2008 Plan

On pause while NRC report is completed

APT 2—Hurricane Disasters Status

Topic Committee Charge: [Private Sector Engagement] How can the private sector

engage more fully in hurricane disaster prevention, preparedness and recovery actions nationwide?

[High Risk Populations] How can we do more to protect the poor and most vulnerable in hurricane disasters?

[Educating the Enterprise] What can be done to better educate the Enterprise on responses to forecasts and warnings for hurricanes?

APT 2—Hurricane Disasters Status

WG: Jim Harrison (.gov), Kristina Peterson (.edu), Bill Massey (.com)

Topic Committee: .edu: Joe Friday (OU), John Harrald (GWU), Susan Cutter (U.

South Carolina), Shirley Laska (U. New Orleans), Jeff Lazo (UCAR)

.com: Paul Try (STC), Jingli Yang (ERT), George Haddow (Bullock & Haddow), Betty Hearn Morrow (SocResearch Miami)

.gov: Margaret Davidson (NOAA), James Kunde (Coalition to Improve Management in State and Local Government)

Topic Committee Membership

Topic Committee Membership (con’t)

APT Schedule

Original Charge #1

How can the private sector engage more fully in hurricane disaster prevention, preparedness, and

recovery actions nationwide?

a) Enhance incentives for the private sectorb) Meet individual and community unmet needs in the recovery

phase of a hurricane disasterc) Engage businesses to prepare for Hurricanes (release

employees earlier, for example)d) Better utilize business to improve communication from getting

the message out to putting up temporary cell phone towerse) Better partnership between business and NGOs

Original Charge #2

How can we do more to protect the poor and most vulnerable hurricane disasters?

a) Have an evacuation plan AND a motivation plan for at risk populations to get 100% evacuated

b) Communication must address both practical issues (where to go) and emotional issues (what will happen to my pets?)

c) Enhance plans for temporary housingd) Expand & enhance NOAA’s Storm Ready Program

Include requirement for registry of “at risk” population.

Hurricane Disasters APT

3. What can be done to better educate the enterprise on responses to forecasts and warnings for hurricanes? [Educating the Enterprise]

a) Achieve improvements in areas related to NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards

b) Achieve improvements in education and training on hurricanes and preparedness

Status of New AP Topics

Call for Topics issued by AMS via email listservs No nominations received BEP will explore ways to stimulate new

nominations BEP may suggest topics as well