WMO Space Programme SP-8. Status of the availability and use of satellite data and products by WMO Members For the period WMO-TD No.

Transcription

1 WMO Space Programme SP-8 Status of the availability and use of satellite data and products by WMO Members For the period WMO-TD No. 1567

2 WMO Space Programme SP 8 Status of the availability and use of satellite data and products by WMO Members For the period WMO/TD No

3 World Meteorological Organization, 2009 The right of publication in print, electronic and any other form and in any language is reserved by WMO. Short extracts from WMO publications may be reproduced without authorization, provided that the complete source is clearly indicated. Editorial correspondence and requests to publish, reproduce or translate these publication in part or in whole should be addressed to: Chairperson, Publications Board World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 7 bis, avenue de la Paix Tel.: +41 (0) P.O. Box No Fax: +41 (0) CH 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland E mail: Publications@wmo.int

4 i Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW Changes that occurred in the period Identifying trends Approach to the analysis Regional Aspects PARTICIPATION IN THE SURVEY Participation Trends ACCESS TO SATELLITE DATA (Questionnaire Section 1) Data Access Trends (Question 4) Data Reception Mechanisms (Question 5) Digital data disseminated via the satellite itself (e.g. HRI, HRPT) Digital data disseminated via another satellite (e.g. EUMETCast) Digital data received from a third party data provider (e.g. within a bilateral agreement) Digital data obtained from the Internet (e.g. data downloaded from open FTP server) Analogue data disseminated via the satellite itself (e.g. WEFAX) Analogue data disseminated via another satellite Analogue data received from a third party Analogue data obtained from the Internet (e.g. downloaded graphical files) Data received via the GTS/RMDCN Data access by satellite name (Question 5) Operational geostationary satellites (GEO) Operational low Earth orbit satellites (LEO) Research and Development (R&D) and other environmental satellites Satellites which Members do not access but would like to receive (Question 5) USE OF SATELLITE DATA AND PRODUCTS (Questionnaire Section 2) Data processing and usage (Question 6) Distribution to Other Users (Question 7) Limiting Factors in the Use of Satellite Data and Products (Question 8) Change in usage by Region (Question 9) APPLICATIONS OF SATELLITE DATA AND PRODUCTS (Questionnaire Section 3) Most important of the available parameters (Question 10) Required but not available parameters (Question 10) TRAINING IN SATELLITE METEOROLOGY (Questionnaire Section 4) Training in each Region (Question 11) Number of staff trained by institution Number of staff trained by skill Training Methods (Question 11) Virtual Laboratory Usage Reported from each Region (Questions 12 and 13) Limiting Factors in Education and Training in each Region (Question 14) Changes in Education and Training in each Region (Question 15) GENERAL COMMENTS (Questionnaire Section 5) Suggested additional satellites (Question 5) Other factors limiting the usage of satellite data and products (Question 8) Suggested additional parameters (Question 10)...23 APPENDICES A Questionnaire B. Summary of Key Findings

5 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Commission for Basic Systems (CBS) Open Programme Area Group on Integrated Observing Systems (OPAG IOS) has the strategic goal to improve systematically the utilization of the capabilities of the space based component of the Global Observing System (GOS) with an emphasis on improving the utilization of satellite data and services in developing countries. Progress towards this goal is monitored and stimulated by means of information obtained from a biennial questionnaire. This document provides an analysis of the responses to the biennial questionnaire that was distributed to WMO Members in early 2010 in order to assess the status of the availability and use of satellite data and products during the period An overview of the approach adopted to analyze the responses is contained in Section 2. Section 3 provides information related to the participation of WMO Members in the questionnaire. Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 contain in depth analyses of the responses to the various sections of the questionnaire from the different WMO Regions. Key findings from the analyses are listed in Appendix B. In summary: The response rate (46%), while still relatively low, was higher than any previous edition of the questionnaire, reflecting the efforts of ET SUP and the WMO Space Programme to increase participation. A large majority of responding Members (73%) indicated an increase in access to, and use of, satellite data, once again reflecting the efforts of all concerned with maximizing this aspect. The trends of data reception mechanisms continue to reflect changes from analogue to digital data and the growing importance of data services utilizing DVB S broadcast technology. There is a clear signal from Members that data from R&D and other environmental satellites are of growing importance and that access to these data are widely requested. In common with the previous two editions, Members indicated that data describing precipitation is still the most significant required subject area that is currently not readily available from satellites. Members reported a very impressive number of staff trained in satellite meteorology over the two year period of the questionnaire. This is a very healthy sign for the future exploitation of satellite data and services.

6 1 1. INTRODUCTION The WMO Commission for Basic Systems (CBS) Open Programme Area Group on Integrated Observing Systems (OPAG IOS) has the strategic goal to improve systematically the utilization of the space based component of the Global Observing System s capabilities with emphasis on improving utilization of satellite data and services in developing countries. One of the means to achieve this is through active monitoring and review of the availability and use of satellite data. The CBS OPAG IOS Expert Team on Satellite Utilization and products (ET SUP) is mandated to implement such a monitoring and review process. At its 2009 meeting, ET SUP re affirmed that a targeted questionnaire continues to have great potential for this purpose and took action to generate a 2010 edition of the questionnaire. In January 2010, the WMO Secretariat distributed the questionnaire to all WMO Members. The potential of this approach is, however, best realized if the responses constitute a representative sample of WMO Members. A high level of participation in the survey is therefore the key for deriving a faithful picture of the situation and drawing constructive conclusions from the answers. In recognition of this, ET SUP has implemented measures designed to maximize participation in the questionnaire and facilitate efficient analysis of responses. These measures include: The questionnaire was translated into multiple WMO official languages; The questionnaire form was made available in electronic (downloadable) form as well as printed; A Helpdesk facility was made available to provide guidance and answer enquiries from Members related to the questionnaire; A largely automated data entry procedure to record questionnaire responses was implemented in the WMO Space Programme Office. A preliminary evaluation of the responses to the 2010 edition of the questionnaire was performed by ET SUP members and the results and conclusions from that evaluation form the basis for this report. The structure of the report reflects that of the questionnaire itself, which has been included as Appendix A. The series of biennial questionnaires provides a unique opportunity for Members to report not only on progress and achievements, but also, where relevant, on problems or deficiencies. It is then the responsibility of satellite operators, processing centres and training facilities to take note of the reported deficiencies and unfulfilled requirements and to look, as far as possible, for mitigation actions. This is the major benefit of the questionnaire, and therefore the major incentive for Members to complete and return it. WMO and the other members of the Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites (CGMS) take the findings of the questionnaire into account when planning future activities. In order to compare this analysis with that of previous editions it is important to clarify the association between the year a questionnaire was issued and the validity period of the responses. It should be noted that the year attributed to the questionnaire edition is the year the questionnaire was distributed, however, the period covered by the responses has, in the past, been somewhat notional. Only in the last three editions have WMO Members been explicitly asked to formulate their responses to be valid for a two year period. This fact somewhat limits the usefulness of drawing conclusions that refer to all editions. The editions issued so far are shown in Table 1. Year attributed to questionnaire edition in this document Period covered by the responses to to to to to to to 2009 Table 1 Questionnaire editions

7 2 2. OVERVIEW As stated above, the current 2010 edition of the questionnaire covered the two year period This period included several changes to the space based component of the Global Observing System (GOS) and also changes to the available means of data access. These changes, which are summarized in the following section, may have influenced some questionnaire responses. 2.1 Changes that occurred in the period Major changes introduced during the period covered by the questionnaire included: Increased usage of GOES for South America (operated at 60 W since December 2006); Launch of FY 3A (May 2008); Start of the 5 minute Rapid Scan Service (RSS) of Meteosat 8 on Europe (May 2008); Launch of Jason 2 (June 2008); Initial WMO involvement in Space Weather (EC LX decision, June 2008); Partial activation of the Metop HRPT service (September 2008); First training event in COE Argentina, in Spanish language (October 2008); Establishment of the RA II Pilot Project to enhance information on satellite data ( ); GEONETCast linking EUMETCast, FYCast and GEONETCast America; New Virtual Laboratory (VLab) Centres of Excellence in Moscow and Pretoria (April 2009); Satellite Data Requirements Task Team established for RA III and RA IV (June 2009); Appointment of a VLab Technical Support Officer in 2009; Third World Climate Conference (WCC 3) in August September 2009; Launch of Meteor M1 and Oceansat 2 (September 2009); Emphasis on integration of observing systems (WIGOS) serving multiple application areas. 2.2 Identifying trends A major aspect of the analysis of responses is the identification of trends. Such trends may provide evidence of the extent to which efforts to improve access and increase the utilization of satellite data and products have been successful, or otherwise. However, trends are only meaningful if the responding population is stable and if questions remain consistent from one edition of the questionnaire to the next, which is sometimes not the case given the need to adapt the questionnaire to the changing world of satellite utilization. Consequently, since the 2006 edition, specific questions have been included to ask users to evaluate themselves whether changes have occurred during the two year period of the questionnaire. Responses to these questions provide extremely valuable information and form key parts of the analysis. 2.3 Approach to the analysis In order to establish the relative significance of responses, wherever practical, the numbers assigned to a particular option were converted into percentages of the total responses to the question. This approach also facilitates comparisons with other editions for which the total number of responses were different. In addition, where a particular question involves an excessive number of possible selections, the responses were added and the selections assigned a ranking order, once again enabling a straightforward comparison across editions. The importance of recognizing patterns and trends is described above. When relevant this was achieved by comparing successive editions, yielding information about medium term trends, whereas short term variations were directly extracted from the targeted trend questions.

8 3 2.4 Regional Aspects The analysis of questionnaire responses is broken down into WMO Regions where possible and practical. This adds value to the conclusions by highlighting issues that are particularly relevant to certain regions and provides a basis for targeted follow up actions where these are appropriate. The location of WMO Regional Associations is shown in Figure 1. RA IV RA VI RA II RA III RA I RA V Figure 1 WMO Regional Associations 3. PARTICIPATION IN THE SURVEY 3.1 Participation Trends The total number of responses received was 100, originating from 86 WMO Members. The number of responses exceeded the number of Members due to the fact that Members were encouraged to circulate the questionnaire to relevant institutions within their country, resulting in multiple responses from some Members. Members that are represented in more than one WMO Region (Colombia, France, Kazakhstan, Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States of America, and Venezuela) were invited to submit one response for each of their regional participation in order to support an analysis at the regional level reflecting the actual membership of each Region. Most of the multi regional Members, however, did not break down their response per region. When such a multi regional Member submitted only one response, its response was assigned to one Region only. Therefore the responses from Colombia and Venezuela (present in RAs III and IV) were assigned to RA III, Kazakhstan (present in RAs II and VI) to RA II, the Russian Federation (present in RAs II and VI) to RA VI, the United Kingdom to RA VI, and the United States to RA IV. Table 2a and Figure 2 describe participation in percentage of total possible returns for all editions of the questionnaire, first broken down by WMO Region and then for the whole WMO.

9 4 WMO Region Number of Members (1) 2010 edition 2008 edition 2006 edition 2003 edition 2001 edition 1999 edition 1996 edition RA I (30%) 16 (31%) 18 (35%) 8 (15%) 9 (17%) 15 (29%) 14 (27%) RA II (57%) 15 (44%) 14 (41%) 13 (38%) 14 (41%) 14 (41%) 19 (56%) RA III (85%) 5 (42%) 8 (67%) 5 (42%) 6 (50%) 6 (50%) 7 (58%) RA IV (42%) 9 (41%) 9 (41%) 8 (36%) 6 (27%) 2 (9%) 6 (27%) RA V 22 5 (23%) 6 (32%) 6 (32%) 6 (32%) 7 (37%) 2 (11%) 8 (42%) RA VI (50%) 32 (65%) 21 (43%) 25 (51%) 27 (55%) 22 (45%) 31 (63%) All WMO (46%) 83 (44%) 76 (40%) 65 (35%) 69 (37%) 61 (32%) 85 (45%) Table 2a Participation trends across questionnaire editions in each Region Participation trends Percentage of WMO Members who responded RA I RA II RA III RA IV RA V RA VI TOTAL 2010 edition 2008 edition 2006 edition 2003 edition WMO Region Figure 2 Participation trends for last four editions The participation level for the 2010 edition was 86 Members out of a possible 189 (46%) which, while still relatively low, is the highest of any questionnaire edition to date. The total level of participation has risen slightly for each of the last three editions although there is significant variation across Regions. Table 2b below characterizes the stability of responding Members over the years. Number of Members who have responded to one or more of the seven issues of the questionnaire since 1998 WMO Region At least one At least two At least three At least four At least five At least six All seven RA I 38 (73%) 25 (48%) 16 (31%) 8 (15%) 6 (15%) 3 (6%) 0 (0%) RA II 29 (85%) 23 (68%) 19 (56%) 15 (44%) 10 (29%) 7 (21%) 4 (12%) RA III 12 (100%) 12 (100%) 10 (83%) 6 (50%) 4 (33%) 2 (17%) 1 (8%) RA IV 17 (77%) 12 (55%) 10 (45%) 6 (27%) 3 (14%) 2 (9%) 0 (0%) RA V 14 (70%) 10 (50%) 8 (40%) 4 (20%) 3 (15%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) RA VI 44 (90%) 38 (78%) 35 (71%) 30 (61%) 18 (37%) 13 (27%) 5 (10%) All WMO 154(81%) 120(63%) 98 (52%) 69 (37%) 44 (23%) 28 (15%) 10 (5%) Table 2b Participation trends across questionnaire editions in each Region Key finding: The participation was the highest ever reached for this questionnaire at the global level (46%), as well as for RA II, RA III with a peak of 83% and RA IV, but remains low in RAs I and V; it has decreased in RA VI. 1 The numbers of WMO Members reflect the WMO Membership in The total number of WMO Members (All WMO) is lower than the sum of Members per Region because of some multi regional membership. Similarly, the number of Member s replies in the All WMO row is not strictly the sum of the number of Member s replies per Region.

10 5 Key finding: 154 Members (81%) answered at least one edition while only 10 have answered all seven editions. An analysis of participation for each Region reveals the following findings. RA I The level of participation (30%) was in the average for this Region since 2006, which is still the second lowest for any Region, with only seven Members answering to the last two editions. This is surprising in view of the efforts made in the Region to raise the awareness on satellite matters through the EUMETSAT User Forum and to develop training, capacity building and to support satellite data access and applications through the PUMA and AMESD projects. RA II The level of participation (57%) was the second highest of any Region, and the highest level for RA II so far recorded for any edition. The level of participation from RA II Members has grown slightly for each of the last three editions, while keeping a stable backbone of Members regularly answering the questionnaires. The high participation might also reflect the role played by the regional Pilot Project to encourage Members participation. RA III The level of participation (85%) was the highest ever recorded for any Region for any edition. It should be noted that RA III has the lowest number of Members (13) and so small changes in numbers of responses are translated into large percentage figures. All Members answered at least two times and five of them (42%) participated in the last three surveys. The high participation may also reflect the increased attention paid to satellite matters in the Region through the relocation of a GOES satellite dedicated to South America s coverage, regional training events organized in the Centres of Excellence of Argentina and Brazil, and the creation of a Task Team on Satellite Data Requirements. RA IV The level of participation (42%) has stayed largely unchanged across recent editions. RA V The level of participation (23%) was the lowest of any Region. The number of responses from RA V has been consistently low across editions. RA VI The level of Participation (50%) was lower than the previous edition but still remains above the average as it has been the case across all editions. The responding Members are a stable sample of the population since 88% of the members that responded to the 2010 questionnaire also replied to the last two editions and 56% to the last three. 4. ACCESS TO SATELLITE DATA (Questionnaire Section 1) Questions 1 to 3 were intended to identify those Members who do not routinely obtain satellite data and to enquire about the reasons for this fact. Out of the 100 responses received just six indicated that they do not obtain satellite data from any source with just three of these having no plans to obtain data in the next two years. The (multiple) reasons given in these two responses were as follows: two had insufficient knowledge, one reported no reception capability, one indicated technical difficulties, two cited financial difficulties and one reported having problems with the serviceability of existing systems. 4.1 Data Access Trends (Question 4) Question 4 requested information about the extent to which access to satellite data and/or products has changed over the two year period Table 3 and Figure 3 show the responses broken down by WMO Region with totals compared with the last two editions. The percentage figures refer to the number of received responses to this question.

11 Significant increase in data access Slight increase in data access 6 No significant change in data access Slight decrease in data access Significant decrease in data access WMO Region RA I 2 (2%) 6 (7%) 3 (3%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) RA II 6 (7%) 12 (13%) 3 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) RA III 2 (2%) 3 (3%) 4 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) RA IV 3 (3%) 7 (8%) 5 (6%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) RA V 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) RA VI 10 (11%) 11 (12%) 5 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) TOTAL (2010) 24 (27%) 41 (46%) 22 (25%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%) TOTAL (2008) 38 (42%) 31 (34%) 19 (21%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) TOTAL (2006) 38 (60%) 12 (19%) 11 (17%) 0 (0%) 2 (3%) Table 3 Data access trends in each Region Data access trends Percentage of responses edition 2008 edition 2006 edition 0 Significant increase Slight increase No significant change Trend of past two years Slight decrease Figure 3 Data access trends Significant decrease In total, 73% of the responding Members indicated an increase in satellite data access of some degree while only two Members reported a decrease. This continues the very positive signal in previous editions, and reflects the efforts made over the past few years by several agencies to improve data access. Figure 3 shows however that the peak value of the replies has regularly shifted from significant increase to slight increase between 2006 and 2010, which could suggest a relative stabilization of data access growth rate as more Members have capabilities meeting their essential needs. Key finding: A large majority (73%) of the responding Members indicated an increase in satellite data access, qualified as a slight increase in most cases, while only two Members reported a decrease. 4.2 Data Reception Mechanisms (Question 5) Question 5 was focused on methods of data access. Information about the data reception mechanisms was analyzed first without reference to satellite type. Table 4 shows the number of Members in the various categories, with the figures broken down by WMO Region and compared with all previous editions and Figure 4 shows totals across all WMO Regions compared with the previous two editions.

12 7 Data reception mechanism WMO Region Digital data disseminated via RA I the satellite itself RA II (e.g. HRI, HRPT) RA III RA IV RA V RA VI Digital data disseminated via another satellite (e.g. EUMETCast) Digital data received from a third party (e.g. within a bilateral agreement) Digital data obtained from the Internet (e.g. data downloaded from open FTP server) Analogue data disseminated via the satellite itself (e.g. WEFAX) Analogue data disseminated via another satellite Analogue data received from a third party Analogue data obtained from the Internet (e.g. downloaded graphical files) Data received via the GTS/RMDCN All regions RA I RA II RA III RA IV RA V RA VI All regions RA I RA II RA III RA IV RA V RA VI All regions RA I RA II RA III RA IV RA V RA VI All regions RA I RA II RA III RA IV RA V RA VI All regions All regions All regions RA I RA II RA III RA IV RA V RA VI All regions RA I RA II RA III RA IV RA V RA VI All regions Table 4 Data reception mechanism trends (percentage of responding Members per Region)

13 8 An analysis of the data reception mechanisms in the different WMO Regions and across successive editions of the questionnaire reveals the following findings Digital data disseminated via the satellite itself (e.g. HRI, HRPT) The total number of Members responding in this category shows an overall increase from the 2008 edition with significant increases in RAs I, II and IV and a slight decrease in RAs V and VI Digital data disseminated via another satellite (e.g. EUMETCast) The significant increase from the previous edition confirms the overall trend observed for this mechanism over the past 10 years. The increase was observed in all Regions. This may imply that the take up for DVB based dissemination services has levelled off. Data reception mechanism edition 2008 edition 2006 edition 10 0 Digital data disseminated via the satellite itself Digital data disseminated via another satellite Digital data received from a third party Digital data obtained from the Internet Analogue data disseminated via the satellite itself Analogue data disseminated via another satellite Analogue data received from a third party Analogue data obtained from the Internet Data received via the GTS/RMDCN Figure 4 Data reception mechanism trends Digital data received from a third party data provider (e.g. within a bilateral agreement) There was a significant increase in the number of Members responding in this category compared with previous editions. It is noted however that such comparisons rely on a small number of responses, and that this question has sometimes been misunderstood in past editions Digital data obtained from the Internet (e.g. data downloaded from open FTP server) Once again there was a significant increase in the number of Members responding in this category compared with previous editions. This might reflect an increased use of R&D satellite data that are generally accessible through retrieval from data servers Analogue data disseminated via the satellite itself (e.g. WEFAX) Very few Members are reporting reception of analogue data by direct means. This shows the phasing out of this technology for professional use by WMO Members. The remaining use is mainly a complement to other mechanisms, possibly for back up purposes Analogue data disseminated via another satellite Marginal mechanism reported only by one Member.

14 Analogue data received from a third party Very few Members are reporting reception of analogue data by indirect means. It is sometimes a complement to other mechanisms, possibly for back up purposes Analogue data obtained from the Internet (e.g. downloaded graphical files) The number of responses in this category remains stable. It is assumed that Members are browsing satellite imagery from satellite operators web sites to access qualitative information from remote satellites for which they have no dedicated receiving mechanism, as a complementary source of information, or for data discovery Data received via the GTS/RMDCN The response level in this category reverted to the level from the 2006 edition (with the 2008 edition being somewhat lower). The relatively low levels are surprising, given that the GTS/RMTCN is usually the primary distribution mechanism for Level 2 products. It may reflect a shift towards the access to products via DVB S broadcast services. Key Finding: The trends of data reception mechanisms continue to reflect changes from analogue to digital data and the growing importance of data services utilizing DVB S broadcast technology. 4.3 Data access by satellite name (Question 5) The use of the different data reception mechanisms has been analyzed with respect to satellites and satellite types. Table 5 shows response totals across all Regions with the values for the 2008 edition listed alongside. Satellite type (2) Satellite name Digital data disseminated via the satellite itself Digital data disseminated via another satellite Digital data received from a third party Digital data obtained from the Internet Analogue data disseminated via the Analogue data disseminated via another Analogue data received from a third party Analogue data obtained from the Internet Data received via the GTS/RMDCN TOTAL 2010 PERCENTAGES 2010 TOTAL 2008 PERCENTAGES 2008 I METEOSAT (0 ) % 67 81% I METEOSAT % N/A N/A I (9.5 E) METEOSAT % 42 51% (57.5 E) I GOES E (75 W) % 52 63% I GOES W (135 W) % 43 52% I GOES SA (60 W) % N/A N/A I MTSAT 1R (140 E) % 35 42% I FY 2C (105 E) % 11 13% I FY 2D (86.5 E) % 4 5% I INSAT 3 (93.5 E) % 2 2% I KALPANA 1 (74 E) % 4 5% II NOAA series % 65 78% II METOP series % 34 41% II FY 1, FY 3 series % 11 13% III ERS series % 10 12% III DMSP series % 13 16% 2 Satellite types: I=operational geostationary satellite, II= operational low earth orbit satellite, III=R&D and other environmental (low earth orbit) satellites

15 10 Satellite type (2) Satellite name Digital data disseminated via the satellite itself Digital data disseminated via another satellite Digital data received from a third party Digital data obtained from the Internet Analogue data disseminated via the Analogue data disseminated via another Analogue data received from a third party Analogue data obtained from the Internet Data received via the GTS/RMDCN TOTAL 2010 PERCENTAGES 2010 TOTAL 2008 PERCENTAGES 2008 III SPOT series % 4 5% III ENVISAT % 17 20% III Quikscat % 19 23% III Terra / Aqua % 29 35% III TRMM % 8 10% III JASON % 9 11% III ALOS % 5 6% III CBERS series % 2 2% Table 5 Satellites received with associated reception mechanisms Key finding: For GEO satellites, there was a high increase in the data access for FY 2D. For LEO satellites, a small increase in data access. For R&D satellites, the highest increase in data access for QuikScat, TRMM, Terra/Aqua and JASON Operational geostationary satellites (GEO) For geostationary satellites the most commonly reported reception mechanism is via another satellite, such as with EUMETCAST. The only exceptions to this are INSAT 3 and KALPANA 1 for which only very few Members reported data reception. A relative decrease is reported for data from Meteosat Indian Ocean (57.5 E), GOES W and MTSAT 1R in comparison with the situation in the 2008 edition. This goes against the general trend of increased reception noted elsewhere and could be an effect of increased opportunities to access satellite data from other sources such as FY 2 C/D or GOES/60 W Operational low Earth orbit satellites (LEO) The numbers of responses for all operational LEO satellites indicates an increase in popularity in comparison with the previous edition; in particular, a significant increase is shown for the NOAA/POES series. Not unsurprisingly, Metop digital data are more often received via another satellite since the direct broadcast capability of Metop remained limited through the period Research and Development (R&D) and other environmental satellites Reception of data from most R&D satellites showed an increase from the previous edition, and in some cases this was very substantial. Of particular note are Quikscat, Terra/Aqua, TRMM and JASON 1 with the Internet being the most frequently used reception mechanism. 4.4 Satellites which Members do not access but would like to receive (Question 5) Question 5 gave Members the opportunity of indicating which satellites whose data they did not access but would like to receive. The results are shown in Table 6 and listed in order of the total responses provided. The rankings for the previous two editions are also shown for comparison although, of course, direct comparisons are complicated by new satellites reaching operational status.

16 11 Satellite(s) Total Responses Ranking (2010) Ranking (2008) Ranking (2006) Terra / Aqua = 4 ENVISAT 17 2= 6 5 METOP series 17 2= 1 Not in top 10 TRMM 15 4= 2= 1 NOAA series 15 4= 4 2 FY 1/FY 3 series 15 4= 7= 9= JASON series 15 4= Not in top 10 Not in top 10 Quikscat 14 8= 9= Not in top 10 INSAT = Not in top 10 Not in top 10 ERS series 10 10= 7= 3 KALPANA = Not in top 10 Not in top 10 Others <10 Table 6 Satellites that Members do not receive but would like to receive It is notable that three of the top ranked four satellite series that Members do not receive but would like to receive are from the R&D and other environmental satellite category. Furthermore the top seven satellites are all of the low Earth orbit type. This could illustrate the comparatively higher difficulty encountered by NMHSs to access data from these satellites for operational use. Key finding: There is a clear signal from Members that data from R&D and other environmental satellites are of growing importance and that access to these data is widely requested. Data from Terra/Aqua satellites were the most requested among the satellite data that are not readily accessed. JASON satellite series, not in top 10 in previous edition ranked four among the most requested satellites. 5. USE OF SATELLITE DATA AND PRODUCTS (Questionnaire Section 2) 5.1 Data processing and usage (Question 6) Question 6 invited Members to describe which satellite data/product types are currently in use and to qualify this by describing whether they are produced in their country or elsewhere and also whether they are used in NWP models. Table 7 shows numbers of responses on data processing and usage taken across all Regions with the totals for the previous edition shown alongside for comparison. Level 1 data Level 2 / level 3 products Data / product used Produced in your country TOTAL TOTAL (2010) (2008) Produced elsewhere TOTAL (2010) TOTAL (2008) Used in NWP model TOTAL TOTAL (2010) (2008) Image data rendered N/A N/A graphically Imager data used quantitatively Sounder data Other level 1 data Atmospheric Motion Vectors Temperature / humidity profiles Cloud products Sea surface products Land surface products Precipitation products Other level 2 / level 3 products Table 7 Data processing and usage

17 12 While the use of products generated elsewhere remains stable in average, the responses show a significant increase in the use of products generated locally, especially for quantitative imagery, sounder data, cloud, precipitation and sea surface products. This indicates a stronger capacity of WMO Members to process and use such products. Key finding: The increased use of locally generated products reveals a stronger product processing capability, especially as concerns quantitative imagery, sounder data, cloud, precipitation and sea surface products. 5.2 Distribution to Other Users (Question 7) Question 7 sought to identify the extent to which NMHSs are not only using satellite data and products for their own purposes but also routinely make them available to other users. A total of 58 responses indicated that data are being distributed to others and 34 responded that they are not (with seven blank responses). These figures are very similar to those obtained from the 2008 edition. 5.3 Limiting Factors in the Use of Satellite Data and Products (Question 8) Question 8 asked Members to identify the primary limiting factors influencing the usage of satellite data and products. Responses are summarized in Table 8 and Figure 5, broken down by WMO Region and compared with the previous two editions, with percentage values based on the total number of responses to this question. No significant limiting factors Insufficient knowledge Technical difficulties Financial difficulties Inadequate availability, quality or accuracy Other reasons WMO Region RA I 4 (2%) 8 (4%) 8 (4%) 8 (4%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) RA II 5 (3%) 11 (6%) 15 (8%) 11 (6%) 4 (2%) 2 (1%) RA III 2 (1%) 3 (2%) 5 (3%) 6 (3%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) RA IV 4 (2%) 6 (3%) 10 (6%) 9 (5%) 2 (1%) 3 (2%) RA V 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 4 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) RA VI 7 (4%) 7 (4%) 12 (7%) 16 (9%) 3 (2%) 1 (1%) TOTAL (2010) 22 (12%) 36 (20%) 54 (31%) 50 (28%) 10 (6%) 8 (5%) TOTAL (2008) 21 (13%) 35 (22%) 42 (26%) 49 (31%) N/A 12 (8%) TOTAL (2006) 11 (8%) 34 (24%) 51 (36%) 44 (31%) N/A N/A Table 8 Limiting factors in data usage for each Region Factors limiting data usage Percentage of responses edition 2008 edition 2006 edition 0 No significant limiting factors Insufficient knowledge Technical difficulties Financial difficulties Inadequate availability, quality or accuracy Other reasons Figure 5 Factors limiting data usage

18 13 The significance of technical difficulties as a limiting factor is clearly stated and shows an increase from the previous edition, overtaking financial difficulties as the most commonly reported factor. Indeed, insufficient knowledge and financial difficulties are both less prevalent in the current responses compared to the last two editions. However, inadequate availability, quality or accuracy was introduced as a factor for the first time in this edition and attracted 6% of responses. Key finding: Technical difficulties were again the most important limiting factor of data usage in most regions, and the financial limitations in other cases. 5.4 Change in usage by Region (Question 9) In this question, Members were asked to characterize the extent to which the use of satellite data and products has changed in their organization over the period Table 9 and Figure 6 show the responses broken down by WMO Region with totals compared with the last two editions. The percentage figures refer to the number of received responses to this question. Significant increase in data usage Slight increase in data usage No significant change in data usage Slight decrease in data usage Significant decrease in data usage WMO Region RA I 6 (7%) 3 (3%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) RA II 6 (7%) 11 (12%) 5 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) RA III 3 (3%) 2 (2%) 4 (4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) RA IV 4 (4%) 7 (8%) 6 (7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) RA V 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) RA VI 8 (9%) 13 (14%) 5 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) TOTAL (2010) 29 (32%) 37 (41%) 24 (27%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) TOTAL (2008) 44 (48%) 28 (31%) 17 (19%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) TOTAL (2006) 42 (53%) 22 (27%) 15 (19%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) Table 9 Change in data usage over the period of the questionnaire for each Region Data usage trends Percentage of responses edition 2008 edition 2006 edition 0 Significant increase Slight increase No significant change Trend of past two years Slight decrease Figure 6 Data usage trends Significant decrease A total of 73% of responses indicated an increase in data usage to some degree. Although lower than the previous two editions, this still represents significant progress in the objective of maximizing the use of satellite data. The responses from RAs I, II and VI were the biggest contributors to this conclusion. There were no responses that indicated any decrease in data usage. Key finding: A large majority (73%) of responding Members indicated an increase in data usage. The responses from RAs I, II and VI were the biggest contributors to the reported increase.

19 14 6. APPLICATIONS OF SATELLITE DATA AND PRODUCTS (Questionnaire Section 3) 6.1 Most important of the available parameters (Question 10) Question 10 sought to establish which geophysical parameters, derived from satellite data, are the most important for Members and which might be considered as required but not available. Members were presented with a table of geophysical parameters to select from and to indicate (in Section 5) if there were other important parameters that were not included in the table. For 12 different application areas, Members were asked to select up to three parameters. The results are summarized in Table 10 below with the number of responses for each parameter tabulated and the parameters ranked by popularity. These rankings are also compared with the past two editions of the questionnaire. To restrict the table size, parameters with less than 21 reports are not shown explicitly although these may nevertheless be significant in application areas with naturally low numbers of responses. However it should be noted that the parameters considered in the table (the most popular 30 of the listed parameters) accounted for more than 90% of the total number of responses. The ranking is based on the column TOTAL, where all applications are considered together. In the previous columns the best ranked parameter for each application is indicated in bold. Given that the totals reported are often very close between parameters (especially among the lower ranked parameters) the significance of precise rankings and changes in rankings should not be over estimated. However, it is immediately noticeable that the top six parameters have remained constant although in slightly different order across the last three editions, with cloud products occupying four of the top five positions. Other conclusions can be drawn as follows: Parameters that have shown a consistent increase in importance over the past three editions include: o Fires o Land surface temperature Parameters that show a marked increase in importance since the previous edition include: o Soil moisture o Specific humidity profile o Ozone total column o Vegetation type o Sea ice cover Parameters (still in the top 30) that have shown a consistent decrease in importance over the past three editions include: o Wind profile o NDVI o Wind speed over sea surface (possibly compensating increased interest in Wind vector over sea surface) o Cloud base height o Land cover Parameters that show a marked decrease in importance since the previous edition include: o Cloud top height o Aerosol total column o Imager radiances o Significant wave height (no longer in top 30) o Trace gases (no longer in top 30)

20 15 It should be borne in mind that these responses are provided by a wide spectrum of users profiles, which may have very different needs depending for instance on whether they are using satellite data for NWP or not. Key finding: the top six parameters have remained constant across the last three editions, with cloud products occupying four of the top five positions. An increased importance of the precipitation rate parameter was also recorded. Ranking (2010) Ranking (2008) Ranking (2006) Parameter Nowcasting & VSRF Synoptic meteorology Global and Regional NWP Aeronautical Meteorology Marine Meteorology Agricultural Meteorology Hydrology Atmospheric Chemistry Climatology & climate change Environmental Applications Disaster monitoring and security Research applications Public Weather Service (PWS) TOTAL Cloud imagery Cloud cover Precipitation rate Cloud type Cloud top temperature Sea surface temperature Fires = 8 16 Wind vector over sea surface = 11 9 Temperature profile = 23 Land surface temperature Cloud top height Wind profile = Snow cover = 10 Atmospheric Instability Index Norm. Diff. Veg. Index (NDVI) = Precipitation index = 27 25= Soil moisture Specific Humidity Profile = 14 19= Aerosol total column = 25= 14 Rain Profile = 28= 24 Ozone total column = 19 19= Ozone Profile Wind speed over sea surface = 18 19= Volcanic ash = Vegetation type = Sea ice cover = 25= Imager radiances = 28= Sounder radiances = 24 17= Cloud base height = 19= Land cover Others <21 Table 10 Most important parameters for each application area (top 30 parameters) 6.2 Required but not available parameters (Question 10)

21 16 Table 11 contains the number of responses for each required, but not available, parameter across all applications, with the 24 most reported parameters ranked by popularity. These rankings are also compared with the past two editions of the questionnaire. As above, to restrict the table size, parameters with few reports (in this case 26 or fewer) are not shown explicitly. Ranking (2010) Ranking (2008) Ranking (2006) Parameter Nowcasting & VSRF Synoptic Meteorology Global and Regional NWP Aeronautical Meteorology Marine Meteorology Agricultural Meteorology Hydrology Atmospheric Chemistry Climatology & Climate Change Environmental Applications Disaster Monitoring and Security Research Applications Public Weather Service (PWS) TOTAL Precipitation rate Lightning Detection = 3 Wind profile Soil moisture Temperature profile = 9 Cloud base height = 4 Atmospheric Instability Index = 6= Rain Profile = Specific humidity profile = 5= 6= Precipitation index = 11 11= Ozone Profile = Cloud water profile = Significant wave height Aerosol total column = 14 Snow melting conditions = 22= Vegetation type Leaf area index = Cloud top height = 19= 13 Fires = Salinity = Sea level / sea surface height = Dust = Ozone total column = 3 14= Trace gases Others <27 Table 11 Most required but not available parameters (top 24 parameters) Broadly speaking, the parameters that are most commonly reported as Required but not available are consistent with the outcome of the 2006 edition rather than the 2008 edition. The interest for precipitation related parameters (precipitation rate, rain profile, precipitation index, cloud water profile), and for lightning detection, instability index, cloud base height, specific humidity and ozone profile has been reaffirmed in responses across all recent editions. An increasing demand is reported for wind profile, soil moisture, temperature profile and significant wave height. Meanwhile, trace gases and wind speed over sea surface (no longer in the top 24) were reported in fewer responses. For the lowerranked parameters, the actual numbers of responses being small, the differences in ranking are however of little significance.

22 17 It is worth noting that some parameters such as Precipitation rate, which are mentioned in Table 10 as Most important of the available parameters are also mentioned in Table 11 as Required but not available. This apparent contradiction could be accounted for by the fact that the appreciation of availability or unavailability depends on the application and on the users. For instance a product may be available with a resolution and accuracy that are suitable for one application but insufficient for another. Or some users have technical means to access products, while other users don t. Finally, some products may be available and users unaware of it. Such aspects could be investigated in more detail in future enquiries, since they may reveal particular needs for refining products, improving their accessibility and raising users awareness. Key finding: Precipitation rate also continued to be the highest ranked required parameter, as it is not widely available and known, or does not meet the application requirements. 7. TRAINING IN SATELLITE METEOROLOGY (Questionnaire Section 4) 7.1 Training in each Region (Question 11) Question 11 requested information on the number of staff trained in satellite meteorology during the period and invited Members to indicate how these were distributed across training institutions and skills taught. The reported number of staff trained per institution per Region and the number of staff trained per skill per Region are summarized in Table 12 and Figure 7 and Table 13 and Figure 8 respectively. The percentage figures refer to the number of received responses to this question Number of staff trained by institution WMO (other than RTC) Bilateral Agreement other NMHSs Total staff trained University WMO Region RTC / Industry Internal Other RA I RA II RA III RA IV RA V RA VI TOTAL (2010) 1347 (25%) 211 (4%) 606 (11%) 2693 (51%) 160 (3%) 291 (6%) 5309 TOTAL (2008) 161 (5%) 147 (5%) 214 (7%) 2020 (64%) 259 (8%) 359 (11%) 3160 TOTAL (2006) 324 (5%) 145 (2%) 195 (3%) 6103 (86%) 173 (2%) 176 (2%) 7116 Table 12 Number of staff trained by institution for each Region