Based on the results from CAMEX-3 and 4 (including the presentations at the meeting) it was pretty clear that the data from the first two experiments are starting to show some really great results and are leading to new questions about the role of ice microphysics and thermodynamics (particularly moisture), both in the analyses and the model results as only the NASA data sets could. There are some fundamental issues about the microphysical representation in models, particularly in the mixed-phase region and the high altitudes, brought out by Rob Rogers, Bob Black, Greg McFarquar, Andy Helmsfield, etc that only the CAMEX data can address Also the role of moisture in the mid-levels as denoted by LASE and GPS dropsondes is having impacts on Krish's track and intensity forecasts (they are comparable), suggesting that some targeting of moisture may be important. It was clear that the data from high altitude, "that only NASA can make" is important to our understanding, and provides critical data for the community to address the intensity and rainfall issues. These data are also essential pieces of the validation data sets for the new high resolution operational models. Based on the results to date the CAMEX science team outlined goals for CAMEX-5 which were pretty clearly delineated: Need for a better understanding of the vertical distribution of hydrometeors and moisture effects on hurricane intensity, intensity change and rainfall. These issues also strongly effect radiation and rainfall retrievals for all of the satellite microwave remote sensing. It was felt that the microphysics issue, while not that important to the operational models right now, will become more important as we go to higher resolution models and assimilating satellite remote sensed information into them.

I presented the CBLAST and Paul Chang's Scatterometer experiment objectives, and outlined the issues that you outlined about the need for collaboration as part of a second USWRP HL experiment (I also pointed out that there was a good chance that the NRL P-3 and ELDORA might be funded to fly rainbands in 2004 as well). We also had presentations on Crystal FACE (a NASA radiation and microphysics experiment held in FL last summer) planning to go to the tropical Pacific (east or west) in 2005, NAMEX (North American Monsoon Experiment) to be held in NW Mexico in 2004, and AMMA in 2005. All of these groups were looking toward CAMEX for potential partnerships as well. A key issue of discussion was the importance of the different opportunities to NASA's new mission outlined by Ramesh. Ramesh let us know clearly that the mission could certainly support an experiment in hurricanes (including overlapping our effort with validating a number of NASA satellites with instruments that needed the type of data CAMEX can deliver - TRMM, Aqua, Terra, ADEOS, etc), but if we wanted to do something in 2004 we had to act now (the deadline to prepare a NASA Research Announcement, NRA, for a 2004 experiment is now). If 2005 was desired we still had time to talk.

The science team discussed options for a CAMEX-5/CBLAST match. The discussion centered around whether there was anything that CBLAST could do for NASA versus what CBLAST wanted from NASA (any specific observations, or instruments). I pointed out that one aspect that CAMEX has overlooked is the boundary layer fluxes and the total moisture flux. Dalin made a plea for that type of information for the model validation. We discussed the issues with respect to the CAMEX-5 goals we had outlined. One issue was the fact that the CBLAST team already has an experiment plan and instrumentation specified. Given that there are 30 CAMEX science team members and about 20 CBLAST science team members (including Paul Chang) there was some concern about mission objectives, priorities for mission selection, instrumentation etc. There were questions about how flexible they would be to CAMEX's mission objectives and instrumentation needs (one P-3 flying near the melting level to make detailed microphysics observations, etc.). After discussing the pluses and minuses of a CBLAST merger there was no clear consensus. Being as AMMA and Crystal are both 2005 experiments we table those discussions until after we deal with CBLAST. I volunteered to initiate a dialogue with the CBLAST science team to see whether we had sufficient overlap of objectives to convince the CAMEX folks. Being as HRD is right in the middle of these issues I think we can try to do the work to synthesize these various science issues and come up with a strategy to do this. But we will have to convince both CBLAST (including Paul Chang) and CAMEX folks to compromise.

Frank Marks
Hurricane Research Division
Nov. 24, 2002