X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 3.3 (Enhance 2.0b5)
From: Mark Powell <powell@aoml.noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 98 15:37:16 -0500
To: HRD.dist@aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: HRD Scientific  Retreat

HRD Investigators:
Please mark Nov. 17th on your calendars.

This date has been chosen for a one day "Retreat" to discuss scientific aspects of HRD's current state and future.  This date is early enough to avoid conflicting with the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and the NOAA Hurricane Conference.  We will be keeping to a relatively small group of atmospheric scientists within HRD (< 25) in order to keep discussions focused and informal.  I will soon be putting together an agenda.  Please email me or stop by to discuss any items you would like to have considered for the agenda.

Right now it looks like we will be meeting at a nearby location with a tropical character for a full day of open discussions followed by  an evening dinner.  I should have the location finalized by the end of next week.

From: James Franklin <james@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: HRD Scientific  Retreat
To: powell@aoml.noaa.gov
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 7:19:37 EDT
In-Reply-To: <9810192037.AA01373@andrew.aoml.noaa.gov>; from "Mark Powell" at Oct 19, 98 3:37 pm
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.19]

Mark,

Some topics of interest to me would be:

How to deal with the massive amounts of data that we collect (i.e., not enough 
helpers to get data processed).

Data sharing within and outside of HRD (protecting PI's interests).

Computing resources.

X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 3.3 (Enhance 2.0b5)
From: Mark Powell <powell@aoml.noaa.gov>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 98 17:59:39 -0500
To: hrd.dist@aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: HRD Scientific Retreat Nov. 17 at The Kampong

This will be a one day meeting for principal investigators and co investigators to discuss scientific state and future directions of HRD.  In order to keep discussions focused in our small meeting room attendence will be limited to about 25 HRD investigators who have had been primary or coauthors on professional, peer-reviewed publications in atmospheric science.  If you have any doubts about your status in this regard please see HEW.

Please take some time to review the agenda and come prepared to discuss.  We have lots to do in a limited time so we will need a facilitator to keep things focused and on schedule.  We are trying to find funding sources to cover the cost of the meeting site.  There is a chance that a small fee will be charged to help defray expenses for food service (~$10). The Kampong is a fragile historic site so we will only be able to use catered services.

*********** HRD Scientific Retreat  **********************

HRD Scientific Retreat

Location: 

The Kampong (of the National Tropical Botanical Garden)
4013 Douglas Road
Coconut Grove, FL 33133

The Kampong (malay for village) is  the former home of Dr. David Fairchild, one of America©s most distinguished botanists and former government scientist for the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.  In the early part of this century, the site for our meeting was visited by some famous thinkers including Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Richard Leakey.  From his travels throughout the tropics, Dr. Fairchild collected many specimens of tropical plants  which are located throughout the site.  The main house (1928)   and surrounding gardens are listed in the National  Register of Historic Places.   The site was originally the residence of Dr. Galt Simmons, the first female doctor in South Florida (1892), who made her rounds in the Coconut Grove area by horse and buggy.  After Dr. Fairchild©s death (1954), his wife resided at the Kampong until her death in 1962.  Mrs. Catherine Sweeney and her husband  purchased the site in 1963 and gifted the Kampong to the Kauai HI National Tropical Botanical Garden in 1984.  The Kampong is a national treasure, please respect the site accordingly.

Date:  Nov. 17
Time:  0800-2100

Format:
Frank and open facilitated discussion of HRD©s scientific state and long range planning in a comfortable and informal atmosphere.

Facilitator:  to be announced

Schedule:

0800-0830  Coffee and muffins 

0830-noon   Discussion on the future and long range planning

Noon-1300  Catered boxed lunches. Presentation by Miles Lawrence: NHC and HRD:history and the future

1300-1330:  Informal tour of the grounds (possible discussion of  tropical cyclone  impacts on tropical botanical features by Larry Schokman, Kampong Director of Horticulture)

13:30 Discussion on HRD policies towards collaboration, data sharing, support, and workplace quality.

Agenda Items:

Morning Session
0830-0850  HRD Now and the future
 HEW will share his views on where HRD stands, where we are going, and how HRD  will develop.
 
 Discussion:
0850-1000  In what areas are we strongest / weakest? 

Strong?  					Weak?  New?
Theoretical studies				Satellite remote sensing
Structure/observational study		Mesoscale modeling
Climate interactions			Hurricane Risk (Insurance interest)
Seasonal TC activity forecasts		Mitigation 	(Emergency Mgmt. Interest)	
Cloud/Storm microphysics			Damage modeling (Ins. and EM interests)
Intensity Forecasting			Wave Modeling
Ensemble forecasting			Storm Surge Modeling
Adaptive observations			Quantitative Precip Forecasts
Boundary layer/turbulence
Air-Sea Interaction
TC Genesis and decay
TC Motion
Wind Engineering Applications
 
1000-1100  In  what areas do we need to develop expertise?

Specific Research Directions:

What is the future of theory and modeling?
Satellite / A/C Remote sensing:  Can we develop local expertise in this area beyond our already overloaded PIs?  How do we fit in with the proposed AOML group.

Theoretical, Synoptic, Mesoscale, and statistical modeling for track and intensity forecasting:  What is the long term plan?

Quantitative Precip Forecasting:  We have lots of radar expertise, in light of the Georges and Mitch catastrophes should this be a new focus area?

Technology Transfer:  Should we have a long term plan to transfer new developments to NHC and the private sector?

Aircraft instrumentation: Much of it is > 20 years old now; How can we go about upgrading it?  Whose responsibility is it to be at the forefront of new instrumentation, HRD? AOC?

Field program:   What are the criteria for deciding which storms to fly?  Aggressive and Not-so-aggressive years, Different priorities by season, Role of ENSO in Field program planning

1100-1130  Future Funding Opportunities

What do we see as funding sources/opportunities for the future?
USWRP, New NOAA initiatives, Private sector, Interaction thru FIU©s International Hurricane Center, State of FL, Insurance Consortium (RPI, IBHS, IFNHC).

Can we develop a ªHow toº manual to show how to handle funding proposals to 1.  NOAA, 2.  Other Govt agencies, 3.  Non-govt. entities. 

1130-noon  Funding and Accounting
Is HRD in charge of its destiny?   Can we develop strategies to influence  these activities?

How do we assure that our financial analyst and budget people are trained, well paid, professionals and not status quo individuals trained from within to make the same mistakes we©ve lived with for the last 15 years?

Do we have the ability to develop and enforce a budget?  
When scientists bring funds in, what is the most efficient way to handle labor costs without ridiculous overhead?  

What can we do to get more cooperation from OAR budget analysts in Silver Spring? Should we bring them down to meet us and tour the facilities?  

When we do bring funds in how can we be sure that HRD has control of them and they are not squandered or allowed to go back to NOAA Silver Spring before they are spent here?

 Noon-1300  Catered Luncheon and Guest Speaker Presentation
1300-1330  Informal ramble on the grounds

Afternoon Session

1330-1400  
  Recruiting:

How do we attract and maintain top notch scientists?  
Should we develop a recruiting package containing information on the lab, division, local area recreation and attractions, housing, and schools, Government salary fringe benefit values and health packages?
How do we prepare, train, and mentor young/new scientists?  How can they become aware of prior and current work by their  colleagues to avoid duplication of effort while pursing new  research ideas?

1400-1500  Productivity and Collaboration:  

Productivity:  How do we measure it, enhance it?

Coauthorship Policy
NOAA©s senior scientist  promotion policy rewards first authors exclusively.  Coauthors can sometimes do the bulk of the work for a paper.  Are they  given sufficient credit when promotion time comes up?  If the future requires more collaboration, what is our policy on coauthorship?

NHC Interactions:  HRD  is  active in applied research which can be transferred to NHC.  There©s lots of confusion on how to handle new data sources like the GPS sondes and they can get conflicting messages from those of us who disagree on data interpretation.  Are we really helping?  Are we appreciated?  What can we do to improve the situation?

 How do we decide who to work with among University faculty? 

How can we entrain MS and PH.D candidates to assist with our projects? 
 
What are the rules that determine HRD scientist ªturfº areas?

1500-1600  Data and software sharing: 
What are the rules in distributing data sets that are part of HRD scientists research?   Which datasets need to be Web accessible?

What are the rules in distributing HRD software to other research groups that could ultimately compete with us for research funding?

 What is our policy (and rights) regarding distributing s/w ( or any intellectual property) that may have potential commercial benefit?  e.g.  The HRD inland wind model, The Shapiro PBL wind model

We have lots of neglected field program data sets languishing in our tape and CD library.  How do we make these data of interest and available to young scientists?  Are we losing data through poor archival/backup procedures?  How do we improve data accessibility?

1600-1630  Data Processing:
We are receiving more and more requests for data that require processing to be useful.  Processing costs time and money in terms of labor, equipment, training, and delivery.  Are we using base funds to become a data center or are the users of the data paying for our services?

1630-1650  Support:
Computer support:  How do we stand and what lies ahead?
How can we maintain programming and administration staff when outside employment opportunities have attractive salaries?
How do we make sure our current staff receive training to stay current  with software development and operating system and hardware advances?
Scientific support staff:  How do we get more done with less?

1650-1700 Close of  Retreat
  Was the retreat useful?  Should we plan this as an annual activity?

19 January, 1999

To: HRD Retreat Attendees
From: Mark Powell
***Confidential***

Report on the HRD Retreat
Nov. 17, 1998
The Kampong, Coconut Grove 

For a variety of reasons this report is much later than intended and the fault is entirely mine.  I think all who attended would agree that the  retreat was a beneficial exercise allowing us to discuss common problems and potential solutions.  We had frank internal discussion and lots of dirty laundry was shown and as a result these notes should NOT be distributed beyond those who attended without HEW's permission.  Some of the salient points that emerged as potential action items include the following:

1.  An HRD intensity workshop should be scheduled at some point to discuss our various approaches to looking at and solving the problem.

2.  A Recruiting Package on our web page to help potential new employees with information and links on cultural and recreational attractions, housing, schools, programs.

3.  HEW will formulate an HRD Mission Description for discussion.

4.  We will put together an HRD Proposal Handbook with examples of successful proposals to entities within and outside of OAR and NOAA including budgets and correspondence boilerplate.  This can be used as reference material for anyone wanting to put a proposal together.

I am grateful that Peter Dodge and Stan Goldenberg agreed to capture the discussion in their notes (Unadulterated) which follow.  Thanks also to Mike Black for bringing in beverage refreshments and my apologies to those who were not invited to attend.  We had a small amount of space and had to draw the line somewhere.

From Peter Dodge:
	This is a rough transcription of handwritten notes I took during 
the HRD retreat on 17 Nov, 1998 at the Kampong. I have used abbreviations 
for speakers names that should be obvious to all who attended. 
 {page 1 } 
Hugh Willoughby's introduction: 
Assets and Liabilities: 
	Not enough people, not enough PI's. We know more than anyone else 
about hurricanes; we have to communicate that to others. P3's are a liability 
because we can fly so much. The Field Program (FP) consumes all our effort  
for 6 mos every yr. 
Dysfunctional Attitudes: 
	traditionally narrow focus 
	institutional insecurity ( a holdover from 1974 RIF's?) 
	careless data (and analysis) archiving and back-ups 
	perfectionism and publication of epitomes 
	lack of publications 
 
Radar and cloud microphysics could support QPF research, maybe way to get $ 
 ---------------- 
STRONG POINTS 
 
Theory:  
	Wayne Scubert and students may collab, Rob Rogers (RR) will be doing  
MM5 stuff, Liz Ritchie and Shu-Yi Chen also as collabs. HEW: can't do as much as 
I want. Need "Heavy Hitter", young Lloyd Shapiro 
 
Intensity Forecasting:  
	JK: Mark D leaving NHC leaves gap.  
Everything is important to intensity changes -> everyone is involved. 
HEW: It is a do-able fluid mech. problem, non-linear but just... 
SG: Rapid intensification before landfall is a big problem, so slant FP  
landfall experiments to that. 
PB: Shortcoming - who's got the big picture for intensity change - to  
coordinate the studies - how to put the pieces together 
 {page 2 } 
JF: Everybody works in independent areas - need to pull together 
FM: USWRP planning is model - work as a team 
JF: our collabs are narrow 
FM: we don't have internal players for some parts 
JC: need chief scientist? 
FM: maybe a floating position 
MB: 1 or 2 people defining problem - to set goals, sub-studies 
JC: Bonnie and Danielle are good storms for these studies, we have all  
the pieces. 
HEW: Guillermo also- enough data 
R Black: these data sets do not address rapid deepeners 
 
TC Motion: 
	MP: need similar game plan 
JF: Collab with Lloyd Shapiro on PV analysis was helpful. Observing side is 
strong now, understanding less. 
HEW: Data denial experiments will keep bean-counters happy 
SA: Track forecasting has skill, intensity change not so skillful. Need to improve  
data-assimilation, nobody at HRD studying DA. 
FM: We are expert in data, can help that way. 
PB: hole -in HRD - data assimilation important, because if our data not 
assim properly no improvment or even degradation of models 
MP: assim of SSMI, ERS-2 data into HRD Srf Wind An proved useful 
JF: operational problem, we can't do their (NCEP) job 
 
 {page 3 } 
Satellite Remote Sensing: 
	PB: Pushing MP's analysis pkg with Kristina K, in regards to new AOML 
group. 
HEW: We are the main folks for the (sfc) wind analysis 
PB: Jason D heped assim cloud-motion winds into sfc anlys, so maybe can 
do at higher level - need facilitator for this too 
SA: need satellite data -> track, intensity 
RR: has experience with data assim, willing to do more 
 
Other areas: 
MP: Hurricane risk modeling - nobody in HRD doing 
Mitigation - need to involve/inform insurance, emergency mgmt, wind engineers 
FM: what is our strategy (to influence..) 
HEW: Publish! because pubs are cited by engineers, etc. 
MP: Need a new paper on pressure wind relations. Also need to add convective 
structure to parametric models that insurance folks use. 
There are ~40 storms/data sets with ODW/GPS that could used to help derive new 
parametric models 
HEW: do curve fit on flight-level data to get mean structure (he is going 
to this with Ed Rahn) 
MB: To understand intensity change we need to understand current intensity 
HEW: yes, we need to get it (the study) out there. also need  
interim synthesis of GPS Boundary Layer Obs (soon) 
 
 {page 4 } 
Storm Surge and Wave Modeling: 
MP: hopes SH will work on this when he returns from Hawaii. 
FM: this is an area where we don't lead, but support by supplying wind fields 
PB: We have dabbled in this. V Cardone has directional wave model but NHC did 
not have $ to implement. 
FM: KK says this is an area for natural collab with ocenogs, we provide the 
data sets for bkgd. 
 
HRD's mission? 
JF: What is HRD's Mission vs what we have to do to survive financially? These 
are not the same. Is there a mission statement? 
HEW: There is, but it is out of date. Should we try a new one? He will do,  
let us look at/ critique. 
FM: anything with hurricanes is in our purview. 
JF: have we had to do stuff for $ that we didn't want to? 
PW: we could evolve into "data bureau" that just supplies data to other folks, 
don't want that. 
FM: funding within our purview is better than before 
HEW: we can get $ for hurricane and tropical QPF. broadening mission towards 
MP and CL's societal studies. 
FM: not enough people 
HEW: if we get NDRI $, could add 5 new folks 
 
VO: (Vic gave a long statement of his opinions; what follows is only  
what I wrote at the time and may not accurately reflect his thoughts.) 
	There are many kinds of theoretical studies. Some are just 
"theoretical wrapping" of observational studies, others are deeper studies 
of how the atmosphere behaves. He is interested in the second type. 
Origanally hurricanes were selected for NWP because they were thought to be 
well understood, a test bed for models that would then be applied to more 
complex situations. A new theoretician for HRD must have broad scope, 
because there is a broad range in theoretical studies and modeling. 
 {page 5 } 
Mesoscale modeling is very difficult, sometimes devolves into "engineering". 
VICBAR and GFDL models success due to initialization, but there is not 
enough physics for intensity forecasting. 
Looking at data from theoretical viewpt (GATE data while at NCAR) he tried 
parametrization - concluded does not work - have to calculate clouds explicitly 
One has to do stuff that is not fundamental science for funding 
Other folks don't understand his work, he feels; he didn't build empire. 
MP: So we need "young Vic Ooyama" 
HEW: VO doesn't need to apologize - his work set intellectual standard for lab. 
 --------------------------------------------------- 
SPECIFIC RESEARCH DIRECTIONS 
 
Aircraft Instrumentation 
R Black: had P-3's since 1977, no improvement to humidy sensors in 20 yrs 
FM: AOC is responsive but not enough folks, $. There has not been a better 
humidty instrument 
PB: develop airborne wet-bulb instrument? 
R Black: need fast-response instrument 
HEW: Sensors on G-IV need attention 
FM: need to propose instrumentation for G-IV, then will work on P-# also. 
R Burpee: How long are P-3's going to be around? 
HEW: Don Winter is committed to maintaining 2 P-3's 
FM: Next goal for G-IV is to develop instrumentation for reconnaissance work: 
profiler, Dopplerized nose radar, main data system upgrade 
 {page 6 } 
SG: So G-IV is going into the center? 
FM: Yes. Not us driving this though - NWS wants to go through center 
AOC's plan is to get new stuff for G-IV, then can get for P-3 
MP: What about satellite-plane data link? 
FM: We are waiting for Iridium network 
SG: AOC has great reluctance to fly G-IV through center 
 
FIELD PROGRAM: 
HEW: look at crewing to free up folks, do big HaL in 2001 
FM: How to make choices among hurricanes? 
JC: Expendables may limit # of flights 
FM: How do we optimize? 
SF: Allow more younger staff to fly in non-intensive yers 
HEW: maybe have individuals stand down for a month or more - to meet some 
specific scientific objectives 
Joe G: In some ways HRD has become data gatherers - not enough emphasis on 
analyzing data we already have 
JK: There is no Intensity Change Experiment 
HEW: Can go back to doing long-term monitoring - maybe set that as priority 
in non-intensive years. 3 flights per 2 days 
John G: Are there Jet research hours? 
HEW: Yes, we will have 
JF: But NWS ops have priority for G-IV, so need to tie experiments to reco 
 {page 7 } 
SA: Not sure what we need for intensity change expt. We have 19 data sets from 
this year to look at to define the areas of interest 
Joe G: Trade hrs for upgrades? 
HEW: AOC can't do that, because the bean counters might say we don't 
need the planes. 
CL: Can't use ENSO to fcst hurricane activity a year in advance, so how 
pick which year for less agressive flying? 
HEW: we understand that 
FM: need dumb luck 
JF: but if we get another Mitch we are going to fly it no matter what! 
 
FUNDING: 
	HEW: Funding in lab will be more sanely managed, so $ don't disappear 
into one giant pot. Real accounting. There will be a registry of funded 
proposals (C. Steward)  much better acctng, and guidnace - so we don't get 
"ripped off" anymore. 
MP: There are problems at OAR also. 
FM: Non-traditional funding sources are problematic. 
HEW: It is getting better. 
MP: Need to keep $ moving. 
HF: Problem is that we get $ too late to spend in "kosher" way ($ in July, 
have to spend by Sept). Have to have plan - 1st yr of multiyear proposal 
should only have three months - or 1st yr should be 15 month yr. Tying $ 
to fiscal yr is NOAA decision. 
 {Page 8 } 
HEW: Maybe AOML needs development person like universities have 
MP: Got USWRP $ end of August 2 yrs ago - thought it would carry over - but 
it disappeared 
PB: $ disappeared -> couldn't hire Eric U, but we are still committed to  
do the work 
JC: $1M pot, $3M request - that's why stuff gets shaved without 
scientific input. 
MP: Can bring our OAR budget analyst to HRD to see what goes on, face to face 
contact should help 
HEW: We need shadow acctng, like other divisions, work through AOML 
MP: need strategy for budget in proposal as to how it relates to total budget 
FM: overhead affects outside proposals - 2.15 X estimate for ovhd - but some 
groups won't pay that high overhead ( so we eat the difference) 
CL: Should other PI's be chasing $? How go about it? How-to manual? 
FM: New NSF initiative proposal $5 M ... NOAA competing with non-govt orgs 
MB: Other groups that want our help should budget funds for that also 
FM: Universities have lower overheads, usually 
HF: $2.6 M base funding no longer covers salaries, need addt'l $1 M - so 
have to be careful to produce what promised in proposals cause can't hire 
any more folks to do the work. 
 {Page 9 } 
JC: This is the first time that NOAA employees write grant proposals to 
get govt $ to fund own salary 
HEW: 2 kinds of budget: Basic (like check book) and "Mega-Budget" where you 
only care to nearest $ 100 K. First type will give you the second, so thats 
what we'll do 
MP: need a proposal/grant writing workshop with samples of successful 
proposals, time lines 
HF: Talk to me before sending out proposals - so we know what budget is, 
overall and for each project 
HEW: our budget is ~ 80% salaries 
FM: proposals that do not require extra bodies maybe better as far as overhd 
HEW: Need to bring in folks that will be long-term contributors. University 
PI for long term relationship + grad student coolies 
MP: Need volunteers to gather sample proposals and start manual 
FM: NRC post-docs possible source, maybe we can get more than one. NRC 
pays first year. 
HF: New NOAA program: ~100 FTE's for SCEP (Co-op students)...this is 
what we did for E Bracken, S Murillo. 
 {page 10 } 
 -------------------------------------------------- 
TALK BY MILES LAWRENCE after lunch: 
	He misses the old collaboration; should we co-locate with NHC (TPC)  
again? Examples of NHC benefits from HRD: 
Synoptic flow experiments are quasi-operational, 
HRD-NHC interaction in planning, flight level data plots, sfc wind analysis, 
best-track re-analysis, SHIPS model showing skill over SHIFOR in last yr and  
a half. 
	Miles thinks next improvement will be in intensity forecasting from 
models, in next decade. NHC's goals: Provide good 48 h watch areas, cut the 
warning areas size in half. 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
RECRUITING: 
HEW: There is a group of Gen-X folks who might come to work at HRD. Good 
idea to have a recruiting package 
HF: There are "signing bonuses" we can offer 
R Burpee: Keep the summer program going 
FM: AOML spent $10 k for computer lab facility at RSMAS. World wide Web 
good place to put recruting pkg 
SF: Can AOML pay for brochure? 
CL: Showed with bar charts that  # of staff and # of PHD's have  
decreased at HRD 
PB: Harry Hawkins used to talk to each scientist about who was doing what, 
informally. 
 {page 11 } 
SF: Feels that younger scientists may feel left out of decision-making. 
He read a list of HRD folks he thought should have been at the meeting. 
MP: replied that he felt there was a limited venue, also the topics involved 
long-term planning...didn't think folks omitted would get much out of this. 
allowed as how it could be done differently next time 
 -------------------- 
PRODUCTIVITY and COLLABORATION: 
HEW, FM: We ARE productive in terms of fieldwork and ideas, but we 
need first-authored scientific pubs 
PB: But we are also pushed into co-authoring as we collab yet they don't count 
MP: supervisors have to count citations 
MB: We have so much data that each PI could be working on 2,3 papers at once - 
one as prime author, others as collabs 
 ---------------------- 
NHC INTERACTIONS: 
PB: problem that we disagree on interp of data (GPS winds) so they disagree, 
generate anger and frustration 
SF: Some specialists scoff at HRD products, some accept wholeheartedly 
FM: Reluctance to change - known quantities are sacrosanct 
JF: NHC WANTS the data, no matter how they interpret 
MB: have NHC specific mini-seminars 
HEW: do the same again at AOC 
MP: We ARE coming closer to consensus as to what winds mean and what  
quantities are meaningful 
 {page 12 } 
HEW: Statistical descrip of wind from all eyewall soundings will  
provide an interim framework for interp of data. 
----------------- 
(back to)PRODUCTIVITY and COLLABORATION: 
MP: people will be asking to work with us? 
HEW: If we get NDRI $ we will have money to finance grad-student/PI visits 
FM: 1 - invite prominent scientists to CIMAS for 1-2 weeks, 2 - get 
university PI to fund grad student to work at HRD 
SA: host a workshop as way to attract co-investigators 
SF: use local talent 
----------------------------------- 
"TURF" AREAS: 
HEW: Consult your colleagues as sign of courtesy, and respect. But scientific 
disagreements are great 
PB: There are systems of data that requires of grunt work before fruition - 
so those folks need special consideration 
FM: If you don't open up data to more users then stagnates 
 ---------------------------------------- 
DATA AND SOFTWARE SHARING: 
JF: must distinguish data and products 
FM: and real-time products... 
HEW: and public archive data ( that scientist is willing to make public) 
Already public: LF composites (sent to NHC), GPS sonde messages, VTD's 
already there - need to make it easier to give 
HEW: Web all satsifies "send me all the data" folks (who don't know any  
better)...acts as filter for silly requests 
 {page 13 } 
(There were some arguments about flight-level data - should it be available 
in real time?) 
MP: worries about how flight-level data might be used by wind engineers 
JF: What about products? analyzed GPS, doppler analyses, cloud physics  
analyses? 
HEW: products several yrs old should be available 
MP: What time lag? 
HEW: ASDL data has about 1 yr lag because of data processing 
HF: we're pussyfooting around issue of priority: in use of data - analyze - 
and publish before anyone else can use. 
FM: Can't do that anymore 
John G: What if somebody asks for raw radar DAT as soon as you get off  
the plane? 
HEW: make them do Freedom of Information Act request 
FM: must fulfill FIA request quickly if it comes to that 
MB: HRD needs a data manager to handle the data requests 
HEW: agrees 
Joe G: we can make better products now 
JF: Processed HRD GPS data belong to the PI and it is up to PI how to share. 
That includes AF sonde (?) 
 {page 14 } 
JF: GPS software was supplied to NSSL so they could process (D. Bartels) 
SF: numerous requests for splaine analysis software have been turned down 
MP: Vince Cardone turned down 
SF: At Penn State software was stolen by Accuweather 
PB: questions about intellectual property - can lab get $ for software? 
PB: wants BT and drifting buoy data (on tapes in various formats) to be 
added to data base 
(somebody:)Can we charge for data copying? 
 --------------------------- 
SUPPORT: 
Joe G: feels he has no authority - ADP not responsive 
JF: Don't fill all slots with PI's - need support folks 
HEW: If you need help send him e-mail describing potential candidate - 
how long to train, how long they stay 
CL: Should we co-locate with NHC? Be seperate lab like NSSL? 
HEW: would be a bloody affair to split off from AOML. If we get $ we will 
rent space at FIU for some HRD folks. 
HEW: Maybe we should invite hurricane specialist to work at HRD in the  
off-season. 

Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:23:50 -0500
From: "Stanley B. Goldenberg"  <sgolden@aoml.noaa.gov>
Reply-To: "Stanley B. Goldenberg"  <Stanley.Goldenberg@noaa.gov>
To: powell@aoml.noaa.gov
Cc: dodge@aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: Kampong Retreat Notes: Afternoon sessions

Mark,
Here are my notes.  I hope that this format (similar to Peter's) will suffice.

Stan

This is basically just a transcription of the various comments.  Abbreviations 
for names are obvious.  Note that RB is Robert Black, but RWB is Robert Burpee. 
Also, JG=John Gamache, while JGr=Joe Griffin.

Notes from Afternoon sessions of HRD Retreat (Transcribed by Stan Goldenberg)

LUNCH TALK (Miles Lawrence)
Noted how much of an impact his one flight into a hurricane made (Gladys: 1975) 
[We need to get more Hurricane specialists on board!]
-  Recalled the improved interactions (map discussions, etc.) when we were 
co-located.
-  He is at NHC because SLR didnÍt want him at NHEML.
-  He feels most important aspect of Syn. Flow Xment ("no longer an Xment") is 
getting data into the models.  (Forecasters looking at data is of secondary 
importance...  meaning he probably doesn't bother.)
-  Commented on incredible overhead for SLOSH people.
-  Information HRD provides for NHC:
    -  Winds/D-values (used especially for wind radii.
    -  sfc. wind analysis field (used VERY routinely -- for wind radii, etc.).  
Specialists normally use winds slightly higher than analysis shows.
    -  Chris Landsea's reanalysis of B.T. file.
    -  Telephone support is MUCH appreciated!  Before RWB was there, anyone 
could have access to the Hurricane specialist. RWB moved to protect them from 
media interference.
    -  SHIPSæmodel -- Has started showing real skill over NHC's SHIFOR model.  
SHIPSæis used routinely in operations and taken very seriously.
[Note:  Never mentioned VICBAR/LBAR!]
-  Expects to see real improvement in intensity f.c. via increased obs. in the 
next 5-10 years.  
-  From Jerry J.:  Peeved that WSRP meeting was same time as NOAA Hurr. Conf. so
that NHC could not get fully involved.  Pete B. noted that NHC set the date for 
NOAA Hurr. Conf AFTER date set for WSRP!  Mark D. gave talk there but was only 
there for the first day.
-  Goals for the future at NHC...  Put up watches at 48 hr.  (FM mentioned the 
need to highlight value of longer lead time.)
-  Are there limits to how small f.c. errors can get?  SA commented that we 
definitely have a long way to go until we get to that limit.

Afternoon Session  (Moderator: James Franklin)

RECRUITING:
A1 point... WEæNEEDæ$$!
-  If we have $$, how do we recruit?
HEW:  We HAVEæhad trouble, mainly because people not wanting to move to Miami.
HF:  Good news!  NOAA has packages to help recruiting.  However, we still have 
no chance really competing for computer people.
RWB:  Suggested focusing on the summer programs that are available!
FM:  $10K was put into facility at RSMAS- USEæIT!  Set up classes, colloquiums, 
etc.
FM(?): Put stuff (recruiting) out on web!!  We need to start advertising summer 
stuff in the next few months.  
(...):  Also, show information about positive points of Miami on the web.  Draw 
on students at RSMAS for their interaction.  Create (color) HRD brochure - 
hardcopy and on web.
SA:  Suggested having booth at the annual AMS meetings like other ERL labs and 
universities, etc.
CL:  Gave stats on HRD employment.  We had peak (FTE) of 40 in 1987, down to 32 
today.  HRD PhD's - 13 in 1985, down to 9 today.

(How do we prepare, train, mentor young scientists?)
FM:  HRD has good record.
PB:  Remembers Harry Hawkins' visits.  Harry really took an interest in others' 
work.  Suggests that some of the senior staff people "make the rounds" like 
Harry used to.
(...):  One method of learning about others' work is through the IRR's.
SF:  Felt things should be more inclusive, such as the retreat including HRDers 
like Neal D., Shirley and Eric.
MP:  The facility had a limited size.  Retreat might be more inclusive next 
time.
HEW:  Should do this again!
SF:  Remembers Steve Lord's attitude -- "EVERYONEæis important!"
SA:  Should communicate to employees what was covered in the staff meetings.
HEW:  Promised that we would have more of the general HRD meetings.
SG:  Also suggested the need to pass on information to the employees of what is 
happening.  Lloyd used to share what took place in the senior staff meetings.
CL:  Would like to know what defines "senior staff"?  
HEW:  Those who HEW picks!

PRODUCTIVITY - How do we enhance it:
FM: How do we measure it?  There are things that cannot be measured.  BUT, 
management says: "first-authored publications".  MUSTæPUBLISH!
PB:  But we being pushed toward co-authorship (because of interactions through 
data availability) so the co-authored papers should count for more!
MP:  Supervisors -- forced to finds citations for 1st-authored papers.
HEW:  Rasmusson felt 1st-authored papers are not the only criteria.  Can be lead
on one, co-author on others.
JF:  We need to crank out short papers.
MB:  Each PI should at any given time be working on at least one 1st-author and 
several co-author papers.
HEW:  Encouraged use of PRODUCTIVITYæTOOLS -- i.e., various PC-type software 
that can save countless hours in research and writing.  The tools are cheap!  
Again emphasized that we need to write short papers -- more papers = more 
credit.  It doesn't matter how long they are!  Also, 2nd-author papers ARE still
important.

NHC INTERACTION
Main discussion had to do with the GPS eyewall winds.  HRD internal disagreement
is a major problem and affects NHC's ability to figure out what to do with this 
new data source.
PB:  Max M. reacts against throwing out the "above sfc" obs.  NHC folk are 
feeling anger and frustration because of different interpretations on this data.
We need a workshop at NHC to address this issue.
SF:  There is a variety of interpretations within about HRD products -- from 
welcomed to scoffed at!
(...):  NHC doesn't like the "pain" of learning.
FM:  Challenging the accepted rules about how to determine surface winds causes 
reaction!
JM:  HOWEVER, the fact remains thatæNHC STILLæWANTSæDATA!
MB:  We don't have to have a unified front, but the problem is hitting this 
stuff in the "heat of the battle".  We need to do it in forums - like something 
right before the season.
SG:  The problem in all of this is that NHC is not used to this kind of 
disagreement at HRD!
MP:  However, we (HRD) are getting some sort of consensus with interpreting 
these data!  One major help has been making use of the mean boundary layer winds
as a way of getting stable winds.  EVENæJAMES  and I are starting to see 
eye-to-eye.
CL:  Much of NHCæconfusion is that they MUST answer these things INæREALæTIME!  
Suggested we meet with  NHC with data analyses in April.
JK:  Because of some of the problems, NHC ends up using the pressure/wind 
relationship.
JG:  "Is the VTD being used at NHC?"
FM:  VTD is being used to help determine the radius of max winds.
HEW:  Need interim guidelines for wind field.
SG:  Has observed that the main thing NHC forecasters want to see are "simple", 
easy to interpret products.
JF/PB:  Mitch was a good example of the shortcomings of the pressure/wind 
relationship.

[Topic of interaction with Univ. faculty postponed till data-sharing section]

TURF/COLLABORATION
HEW:  Criteria - If you want to do it, then DOæIT!  If you don't want to, then 
explain it tactfully.  W e do have $125K to support students coming in during 
the summer and for travel during the year.  Need to solicit one-package (?) 
proposals.
FM:  Reminded that we can invite one prominent scientist to CIMAS per year, but 
need to mention suggested candidates with HEW early.
PB:  We needed to know the deadlines on these things.
FM:  We can invite someone, who would be of interest to the whole scientific 
community, to come for ~ two weeks.  
(...):  Other method of entraining people into HRD is to fund a professor's 
student -- pay for their travel, etc.
MB:  How about the other way?  Us going to universities (FM:  PI needs to 
initiate contact.)
JF:  After the upcoming data meeting, we will have plenty of people coming to 
us!
SA:  Other groups host workshops for interested investigators.
HEW:  Such as Bob Abbey did with TCM data.
CL:  Suggested for people to have their own student.  (He has one from RPI -- 
pays for travel, etc.)
JC:  Make use of MAST students and Lab Research Students.
(Noted how many from HRD started as students -- Sim and Chris (Lab Research 
Students), Shirley, Steve F., etc.)

TURFæAREAS:
HEW:  No rules.  Just work out collaborations.  Design research program and work
it out.  Show respect and courtesy to your colleagues.  "If you feel you are 
right -- stick to your guns.  If wrong -- admit it!"
PB:  In areas like the sondes -- there have been YEARS of development and grunt 
work.  The people involved in the ground level work deserve special recognition 
for the fruit of their labor.  After success with something like the GPSæsondes,
how does one divide his time between processing (for which there is little or no
recognition) and writing/research to get recognition?
FM:  If you don't open up the area, it will never flourish.  (We can't keep the 
lid on all of the data because we are afraid that others will get recognition 
for it.)  "Open data policies are always much more productive in terms of 
science itself."
HEW:  BUT we need to make use of "best" stuff" first.

DATA ANDæSOFTWAREæSHARING:  
JF:  Noted that "cleaned-up, processed data" IS an analysis - i.e., a product!
FM:  In a sense, even what we send from the aircraft in real-time is also a 
product.
HEW:  Public archive data -- PI decides -- when it is cleaned up enough to make 
it public, but timing is still up to us.  The REAL-TIME data, i.e., drops, radar
composites, etc., they are up for grabs.
FM:  Noted that wind analyses, composites, etc. are on the web page. æWe need to
get our flight-level data on the web page as well.  We should archive all 
transmitted sondes automatically.
PB:  What about the non-transmitted, non-processed data from the plane?  
When/How are those data released?
(...):  Answer -- we can't process it ALL in flight.
HEW:  Receives many letters: "Send me ALL of the data."  We need to just let 
them access the web.
MB:  Noted that the actual transmitted radar composite is a GIF.  If people want
actual data, that is a different matter to get that to them.
MP:  If people ask for "all of the data" used in the analysis, he can see giving
them the gridded data, but not all of the data that went into the analysis -- he
doesn't want to have to become a data source and tutor!   
(...): For people to get the real-time data does NOT include the extra 
processing later on the ground.  The "level-0" data are available very rapidly. 
Flight-level data could be put out as array, i.e., ASDL data.
SF:  The flight-level data can be obtained via ftp by anyone from NWS.

(...):  At this point, an ARGUMENT ensued about the flight-level data.  HEW said
-- "release it!"  But "level-2 data", i.e., processed GPS data, doppler 
analyses, cloud physics, etc. -- these involve additional effort by someone to 
prepare it for dissemination.
HEW:  Historical stuff should be made available (with some degree of control).  
Some of the stuff that we have forgotten would be "gold" for other investigators
outside of HRD.  Make it available!

MP:  Doesn't want all of the flight-level-data released immediately.  Has a 
concern for what people would do with it and misinterpret it (and release 
through media) in real-time.
HEW:  ASDL does have it's limitations.  No problem to release it, but processed,
quality data take ~ 1 year!
MP:  Still does think it's a good idea to release stuff right away for everyone 
out there.
HF:  We do have propriety rights to look at data and publish results from data. 
(AMS oceanographers-- scientists wanted to use their data for three years.  
(...):  There can be a need to put a lag on real-time data.
JG:  Can we refuse to give a copy of radar data?
HEW/FM:  We MUST comply and rapidly give them all data.  HEW does it ASCII 
format on printout.
CL:  Suggested operationally putting out images right away, but delay data for 
1-2 years.
JF:  We need to delay somewhat.
HEW:  Our limited man-power JUSTIFIES delay!
FM:  BUT, we are government employees and we must release stuff ASAP.
[My comment in transcribing this stuff:  Summary -- Yes, we might be required to
release it -- but to do so we MUST get more resources to be able to handle the 
requests.]
JF:  BUT, there is a difference between what we "collect" and what we "produce" 
(i.e., post-processed).
HEW:  Our real concern is about someone who KNOWS what to ask for and wants out 
BEST data!  Solution can be, go ahead and give them dupes of tapes -- but no 
assistance.
RB:  What he does is, if a request comes for data, he gives them the tape and 
the format, and requests that he gets credit.  However, if they request his 
analysis, then he does it on the condition that he be made co-author!
FM:  We need to create more public archive data sets.
HEW:  It IS in our our interest to have others look at the data.  BUT, if they 
want current data, they should include us as collaborators.
MB:  What we really need at HRD is a DATAæMANAGER;  a person that could handle 
inside-outside requests and meets with PI's to decide what will be put on web, 
etc.
JG:  We really need some extra effort to reprocess old data because the products
were so primitive 15 years ago!
PW:  The issue is not always that we don't want others to have it, but rather of
not wanting to have to spend the effort required to handle the requests -- we 
need a data manger!  Others expect "all" of the data during CAMEX within one 
year!
JC:  What is our policy on GPS sonde data?
JF:  "My policy is"  -- processed soundings belong to PI to distribute as PI 
sees fit!  PI should have the right to look at products first.
FM:  What about the AF sondes?  (and CAMEX)
JF:  They belong to "me" since I am processing them!  I will do CAMEX in spare 
time!
PB:  Mentioned that Nick Shay has asked for couple of sondes to test some ideas.

DISTRIBUTINGæSOFTWARE (still mixed with other topics)
JF:  Has distributed GPS software to NSSL, etc.  It works okay if they have the 
same platform.  
(...):  Others in HRD have done the same.
SF:  Has received requests for spline analysis software.
MP:  Some requests for analysis HAVE been turned down!
HEW:  A possible solution is to copyright some of our software!
FM:  IFæGOVERNMENTæPRODUCED -- we MUST freely give!
MP:  The problem is that we are not getting credit!
PB:  We can patent it and receive royalties!  That has been done in government 
offices under certain circumstances.
MP:  An example of a problem is LJS' boundary-layer wind model software being 
used (for profit) for products used by insurance companies.
(...):  Do we know HOW to do it, i.e., patent, copyright?
HEW:  When we produce a paper, our stuff is in public domain, but the actual 
"image" of the paper is copyrighted by the AMS. The WORDS are in public domain!
(...):  MUCH misc. discussion took place on this stuff... yada,yada,yada!  It 
was finally decided that we don't know enough to talk about it further here.  
Suggested we consult John Proni, who has some experience in this kind of thing 
(patent, copyright, etc.)

ARCHIVINGæOURæDATA
AOML has a data base manager (Oscar).  We can feed him data for data rescue.
HEW:  But we need our OWN data manager.
MP:  We need a list of what data sets are around, i.e., an updated data 
inventory.
HEW:  We need an inventory of our old, unused data sets.  The inventory needs to
be posted on our web site-- "unloved data sets -- free to a good home".
PB:  Has lots of AXBT data and would love to make it public, but don't have 
enough time to handle it.
HEW:  HRD needs to write a proposal to get a data "coolie" to get our data in 
shape -- it is easy to get funding.
(...):  The consensus of the meeting is that getting the data in order, data 
manager, etc., is IMPORTANT!  We have to get the mission summary for all 
flights!

DATAæPROCESSING (Topic was already discussed except for the actual costs.)
JF:We used to charge $100/sonde for processing.
FM:  During TEXMEX, we charged for the tapes.
JG:  Copying tapes is cheap.
FM:  BUT, it takes time.  (Note:  When we needed data rescue, we were charged 
$2,500 for just one tape.)
MP:  Shouldn't others hare in the cost of our processing? æWhen others pay for 
sondes for an experiment, shouldn't that cost include the cost of postprocessing
in the proposal?
HEW:  Proposal writer should include (for processing time):  "GS-9, 255 of time 
+ overhead"

COMPUTERæSUPPORT (Note that previous JG's referred to John Gamache.  JGr = Joe 
Griffin)
JGr:  We need extra disk space.  We have the stuff already purchased.  Need to 
put in more orders for disk space for new machines.  Real problem was that 
AOML's optical network cost HRD >$60K, but Joe didn't really want it!  (Was 
forced on us.)
RB:  People can't process because disks are full.  Happens a lot!
FM:  People are screaming for more speed and for more space!
JGr:  His problem is that he has no real status in AOML.  ADP has not been 
responsive to his requests.  Wants and NEEDS some authority in the building to 
be able to properly run our system and properly interconnect with building 
resources.  He has properly planned and made requests far in advance and still 
had to end up scrambling to push ADP to get things done at the last minute 
because they effectively ignore his requests.  (Joe was very upset about all of 
this!) 
FM:  Other groups at AOML have similar problem.  It is hoped that Kohler's 
temporary position as ADP manager will will of some help.  We also have the 
problem that we have, in a sense, four groups of computer systems:  Joe, Luis, 
Kohler and Bill.
HEW:  Kohler WILL help!  HEWæwill bring requests to Judy and try and convince 
them that we are not playing power games.
SF:  The problem has been that ADP has resentment of us having our own network. 
REK is trying to change their mentality of "us and them".
JGr:  VERYæFRUSTRATING!!!  He wants it to be such that he just has to "tell" the
ADP students what he needs (not go and beg for it).
AS:  Note:  Bill will be upgrading Type 42 in the near future.
FM:  Room plans -- there is a problem with computers and four people in one 
room.  We need some cable to get the computers in the computer room.  [Or let's 
get them their own AC.]
SF:  Suggested that we really use REK while he is in the manager position.
HEW:  Need HAC meeting soon!
(...):  How do we keep "Joe's" and "Luis'"?  Answer = $$$.
HF:  We are VERY limited, unfortunately, in what we can give.

BRINGINGæSTAFFæUPæTOæSPEEDæONæLATESTæCOMPUTERæTRENDS
MP:  Lots of new stuff out there, but how do we get people interested in 
training?
HF:  Talk about it in GWAPAS meeting.  Talk to employees about extra training.
HEW:  Has found it better to SEND staff for training rather than bring someone, 
say IDL, here.  But people can request for someone to be brought here.  The 
other alternative is to draw from someone else's expertise in HRD.  Note that 
HEW is not intending to force any "standard" package on HRD.

MOREæDONEæWITHæLESS
JF:  WEæNEEDæHELPERS!!!  We can't just spend our $$$ for PI's!
FM:  Make better use of students.  It is a great benefit to the students as 
well.
JF:  But the problem is in the long-term benefit.  Can't afford to just help the
student -- need some quantity of work done now!
HEW:  People who feel strongly that they need help need to prepare an e-mail to 
HEW:  what kind of person (level of education), how long needed, etc.?  How long
to train.  Maybe HRD could get three people to be shared.
HF:  Let those in HRD who use GPS sonde data include in their proposals $$ for 
processing (to help pay for extra person(s)).
PB:  Needs lots of help to process remote sensing data.
FM:  Again encouraged taking advantage of Lab Research students, plus think of 
using UM/RSMAS undergraduate students.  There are many ways of getting them for 
the summer.

COLLOCATION
CL:  What about accepting the invitation to once again be co-located with NHC?
HEW:  If we bolt from AOML's building, there would be "blood on the floor".  He 
will NOT pursue it unless ERL gets carved up in some way.  But, we could rent 
some space at "FIU" (TPC?) to let people more readily work over there for 
various periods.  We really need to address the issue of our connection with 
NHC.  
CL:  We need MUCH more collaboration with NHC!
SG:  It would probably help for us to give more seminars over there.
JG: We could also take advantage of video conferencing.  (HEW... lukewarm to 
that idea.)

HASæTHISæRETREATæBEENæUSEFUL?
Consensus = YES!!!