Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 14
Users of Marine Forecasts
The cornerstone of the operation of the committee was the detailed
examination of the needs of the community using or deriving significant
benefit from forecasts of the marine environment. While the providing
federal agencies are called upon to give lengthy account of their programs
to Congress and the Administration on a yearly or biannual basis, the user
has little or no forum. The user community is broadly based and represents
diverse segments of the public and private industry. As with many federal
services, users of marine environmental information often take what they
get with little leverage in directing or participating in any change.
The committee sought to alter that condition by actively seeking the
views of the user community. Two primary mechanisms were used for this.
First, a questionnaire was sent to a wide number of representatives of user
communities. Second, a national workshop was conducted with invited
papers and participants. The workshop was organized based on the returns
of the questionnaire. Findings of the participants in the workshop were
spelled out in five working group reports, found in Appendixes E-I. While
it obviously was not possible to sample the views of all users of marine
weather and ocean weather information, the committee believes that a
broadly based representative sample has been taken and the major issues
have been identified.
The early steps in the year-long process of identifying user needs were
highly conditioned to well-known needs and traditional services. Later,
especially at the workshop, users became aware of promising new tech-
nolog~y applications, especially the forecasting of internal ocean weather.
14
OCR for page 15
15
TABLE 2-1 Questionnaire Response Categories
User Categones
Shipping
tankships, bulk carriers
cargo, containerships
coastal tug, barges
Oil and gas
offshore oil operators,
offshore supply, transport
construction, drilling, support
marine helicopters
Fisheries and recreation
commercial fishermen,
recreational boating,
oceanographic and fisheries research
Others
Total
Responses
33
21
43
4
101
This growth in users' understanding of the opportunities associated with
advances in marine forecasting is chronicled in this chapter.
RESPONSES TO COMMITTEE SURVEY
In March 1988, 415 questionnaires were sent to a wide variety of users
of marine forecast products. The intent was to obtain as broad a distribution
as possible, both geographically and functionally. Several members of the
committee participated in the process of selecting individuals and groups to
whom the questionnaire was addressed. The questionnaire and statistical
compilations of the responses are shown in Appendix B. Approximately 100
responses were received, showing that 90 percent of commercial users of
the ocean and coastal waters utilize marine weather forecasts. It is evident
that virtually all the responses can be conveniently grouped for analysis
purposes into three major user categories, as summarized in liable 2-1.
The oil and gas responses are heavily biased toward Gulf of Mexico
operations; responses from other geographic areas are very sparse. On
the other hand, fisheries and recreation responses are widely distributed
geographically.
The following discussions provide a summary of the responses of these
major groups by question.
OCR for page 16
16
90 _
80 _
_
70
Oh
In
oh
Z 60
o
oh
LL
CI:
IL
o
m
at
50
40
30
20
10
o
I//A National Weather Service/U.S. Coast Guard
:1 Commercial
Radio/Television
. ~
::
.:: .
~ in_
.
..:.. .
·.. --.:
·.:...
....
.:.:.--:
·.:...
.. ::
....... : .
Shipping Oiland Gas Fish/Recreation Other All
FIGURE 2-1 Sources of manne weather forecast.
Question 1: Are You Using Marine Forecasting Services?
This question was designed to establish whether or not marine fore-
casting services are used, and if so, what are the sources of weather and
ocean conditions information, the methods of receiving the forecast, and
the perceived reliability of the information. Overall utilization of marine
forecasting services was high, about 90 percent of the respondents use
them.
The three major sources of marine forecasts identified were U.S.
Coast Guard and National Weather Service (NWS), commercial services,
and radio and television. The utilization distribution for these services was
not uniform among the user categories. For example, the fisheries and
recreation users made the least use of commercial services and the most
use of radio and television. This information is displayed graphically in
Figure 2-1.
The method of receiving weather and ocean conditions forecasts was
concentrated in three areas: voice, radiotelegraphy (COO, telex), and Weath-
erfax. The fisheries and recreation users reported virtually no utilization of
radiotelegraphy in their operations. This information is displayed graphi-
cally in Figure 2-2.
The overall rating of reliability on the numerical scale of 0 to 3 was
"reasonably reliable" (2.0~. There was a consistent trend among all user
categories to rate commercial services somewhat ahead of NWS services,
OCR for page 17
17
80
70
60
Oh
ILJ
In
0 50
In
tr
o
cr
~ 30
Ad
20
40
10
o
- l//~l Voice
CW/TELE)(
\~l Facsimile
~F
ma.
Shipping
. ... ,
:.:..:.:,
::::
·. ::.:,
.
A.
_ , ,
Oiland Gas Fish/Recreation Other All
FIGURE 2-2 Method of receiving forecasts.
and both of them ahead of radio and television. This information is
displayed graphically in Figure 2-3.
Question 2: What Services Beyond Those Presently Available
Would You Find Useful
This question was designed to elicit information regarding the need
for services beyond those presently available. Approximately 50 percent of
the questionnaires received contained such comments. These have been
consolidated and are reported by major user group.
Shipping
The responses are dominated by cargo and containerships operators.
The most useful services would be better access to satellite weather data
through telex or high speed (1,200 Bd) modem, more frequent forecast
updates, and improvements in the 12- to 18-hour forecasts. Some tankship
and bunk carrier operators would find ice forecasts useful, and coastal tug
and barge operators would find telephone access useful.
Oil and Gas
The responses are dominated by offshore oil operators. In the Gulf of
OCR for page 18
18
Extremely
Reliable
Reasonably
Reliable
Rarely
Reliable
Unusable
National Weather Service/U.S. Coast Guard
= Commercial
[\\\\1 Radio/Television
it.
.
.
L
,.........
,.......
....
: .: .-'
...... hi.
..... .
...:..
·.:.:
.....
:~:
. ~.
,~
. it,
:.: :.
A:......
::
it..
·::::
·:.:.:..
·-:.:.:.:
...........
·:: -:
.......
.........
NY
Shipping Oiland Gas Fish/Recreation Other All
FIGURE 2-3 Reliability of marine weather forecasts.
Mexico, site-specific forecasting to at least 150 miles offshore and improved
coverage of offshore VHF to 100 miles or greater would be useful. More
updates during times of rapid change and the ability to track or forecast
strong currents (loop or Gulf Stream) would be useful. Marine helicopter
operators could use automated weather systems with real-time communica-
tion capability. On the West Coast, atmospheric stability and air pollutant
concentration forecasts would be useful; offshore Alaska, ice thickness and
growth forecasts and storm development offshore Siberia would be useful
(when drilling operations are under way).
Fisheries and Recreation
1
The responses are widely spread over a variety of userse Sugges-
tions were made for improved range of VHF coverage for "distant water"
fishermen, access to offshore weather buoy information, more frequent
(6-hour) updates, more satellites for weather data as well as navigation,
and larger-scale area coverage. More information on ocean temperature
and its variations would be useful to oceanographic and fisheries research.
Question 3: Do You Supply Observations of Marine Weather andIor
Ocean Conditions to Any Organization?
This question was designed to identify how prevalent is the practice of
OCR for page 19
19
50
40
Oh
llJ
An
An
o
en 30
a:
11
o
m ^^
~ Hi.,
in
10
o
Yes
No
Fife:: .:3
Oil and Gas Fish/Recreation Other
Shipping
FIGURE 2 - Supplies of marine observations.
All
reporting observations of marine weather conditions to other organizations.
The responses were split about 50-50 in this regard. Shipping users provide
the greatest proportion of marine observations and the fisheries and recre-
ation users the least. This information is shown graphically in Figure 2-4.
The recipients of these observations are quite varied and include forecast
agencies as well as other operators in the immediate area.
Of those responses stating they did not supply observations of weather
conditions, 50 percent said they would be willing to and 50 percent said
they would not.
Question 4: Which of These Forecasted Parameters
Affect Your Decisions in Marine Operations?
This question was designed to determine the priority in which fore-
casted parameters of marine weather and ocean conditions are important to
the user's operations. A consistent pattern emerged from these responses
that applies over all user groups. The summarized data focused on the five
highest priority forecasted parameters for each of the several groups for
which responses could be tabulated. Weighing the priorities according to
the number of responses in the top five categories, the following rank order
of importance to the forecast user is shown in Able 2-2. None of the user
OCR for page 20
20
TABLE 2-2 Importance of Forecasted Parameters to Marine Operators
Parameter
Wind conditions
Tropical storm movement
Wave height and period
Swell height and period
Fog and visibility
Storm surge
Precipitation
Ice hazards
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
groups identified currents or sea temperature in the top five parameters
affecting their operating decisions.
Question 5: Can You Quantify the Benefits that Would Accrue to
Your Segment of the Marine Industry as a Result of
Improved Marine Forecasts, and/or New Forecast Services?
Question 6: Can You Describe and Quantify Losses that Have Occurred
in Your Segment of the Marine Industry as a Result of Inadequate
Marine Forecasts?
These questions were designed to determine whether or not there is a
basis to quantify benefits that would accrue as a result of improved marine
forecasts, and to quantify losses that have occurred as a result of inadequate
marine forecasts. A majority of responses indicated that benefits can be
quantified (about a 3:1 margin) and that losses can be quantified (about a
2:1 margin). Descriptive examples of benefits and/or losses were provided,
but no quantitative monetary value was assigned or volunteered.
WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION
On September 27-29, 1988, a national meeting was convened on
`'Improvements in Marine Observations and Forecasting Services: Users'
Needs and Development Opportunities" at the Beckman Center of the
National Academy of Sciences in Irvine, California. The national workshop
was sponsored by the committee to
develop clear statements of user requirements for improved obser-
vations and forecasts;
· identify key issues and supporting facts relating to the need for and
provision of improved marine observations and forecasts; and
OCR for page 21
21
TABLE 2-3 Types of Participants at Committee Workshops
Category
Number of Inherited
Participants
Provider
academic
commercial
government
military
Users
coastal managers
fisheries and recreation
marine Board liaison
oil and gas industry
ports and harbors
. .
5 hipping
U.S. Coast Guard
Total
3
4
12
1
4
5
2
45
· stimulate dialogue among all who are involved with the process of
developing, providing, and using marine observations and forecasts.
The national meeting was attended by 45 invited guests in addition
to the committee members. A representative cross-section of major user
groups was present, as well as a cross-section of the government, academic
and private sector prodders of marine forecast technology, as shown in
Table 2-3. A list of participants in the national meeting is provided as
Appendix C.
1b stimulate discussion and establish a baseline for dialogue, the first
day of the meeting was devoted to a series of papers on technical capabilities
and requirements as well as the state of practice concerning observations
and predictions (see Appendix D).
Open discussion and clear supported statements of fact about needs
and opportunities were the hallmark of the meeting. The following issues
were discussed:
What is needed in marine observations and forecasting?
What is available?
· If what is available is not adequate, what else is needed?
· Who should meet the needs and how?
On the second day of the meeting, all participants convened in five
working groups, which met concurrently.
1. Wind, Wave, and Swell Jon Klein, consultant, group leader.
OCR for page 22
22
2. Tropical, Extratropical Storms Kenneth Blenkarn, consultant,
group leader.
3. Currents, Ocean Processes, and Ice Allan Robinson, Harvard Uni-
versity, group leader.
4. Nearsh ore Forecasting William Gordon, New Jersey Marine Sci-
ences Consortium, group leader.
5. Collection, Repordng' Dissemination, and Display- Richard Wag-
oner, National Weather Service, group leader.
Attendees were carefully assigned to one of the five working groups
based on their interest, professional expertise, and the committee's need
to maintain a balanced discussion among users and providers of marine
forecasts. The goal of each working group was to extract the wisdom and
perspective of users of marine forecasts on needs for improvement. Each
group prepared a report that addresses the status and adequacy of marine
forecasting and prediction services in the United States. Statements of fact
and supporting arguments were developed in the following areas:
.
specific observing and forecasting capabilities addressed both cur-
rent products and services and available data and technologies;
.
needs for improvement addressed new applications of existing
technology, new technologies and data needed, and justification and costs
and benefits of needed developments; and
priorities for developments addressed research and development,
observations, operational capabilities, new technologies, and new products
and services.
Membership lists for the working groups are included in Appendixes
E-I. On the third day of the workshop, the leaders of each working group
orally presented their results. Their reports (see Appendixes E-I) are
an independent source of information for the committee and contributed
materially to the development of the committee's findings.
RECONCILIATION OF QUESTIONAIRE A}II) WORKSHOP RESULTS
The workshop certainly achieved its objective and provided the com-
mittee with substantially more information than could be gleaned from
the questionnaire responses alone. The dialogue between the providers
and users of marine observations and forecasts was especially valuable and
is well documented in the group reports. Some of the workshop results
appear to be in conflict with or introduce topics that were not evident
from the questionnaire responses. Discussion of the relationship between
questionnaire responses and workshop results follows.
OCR for page 23
23
Question 1: Reconciliation
As expected, there was no conflict between the questionnaire and the
workshop here. Participants were invited from a subset of users identified
by the questionnaire. The major sources of marine forecasts identified
in the questionnaire were reviewed and discussed in Working Groups 1
and 2. The method of receiving weather and ocean conditions forecasts
was extensively discussed by Working Group 5, where several points were
made regarding potential for improvements in the dissemination of weather
products to the marine user. There was no evidence from the workshop to
refute the overall assessment of "reasonably reliable" for presently available
forecast services.
Question 2: Reconciliation
Very little tangible information on the need for improved services was
elicited from the questionnaire. In contrast, the workshop proved to be of
great benefit to the committee in this regard. For example, Working Group
1 was able to subdivide and very specifically quantify user requirements
for wind, wave, and swell forecasts that exceed those presently provided.
Working Group 2 took little exception to present tropical storm forecasts
and warnings, but identified a significant need of the shipping industry
to have better resolution of extratropical storms in the open ocean and
warnings of explosive cyclogenesis. The need for warnings of episodic waves
was also developed in the working groups. Working Group 3 found that
there is a significant interest in and need for nowcasting and forecasting
velocity, temperature, and related fields in the ocean. This information
was simply not revealed by the questionnaire. The committee believes
that the questionnaire responses were highly conditioned to traditionally
available marine forecast products. Since ocean forecasts have been largely
a military product to date, their technical feasibility, and certainly their
potential availability, is unknown to the vast majority of the user community.
Working Group 4 identified the special needs of the coastal or nearshore
user community.
Question 3: Reconciliation
The questionnaire revealed a significant commitment to reporting ma-
rine observations by the user community. However, it also identified a
substantial source of observations that are not being utilized. This theme
was further emphasized in discussions of Working Group 5 concerning the
lack of utilization of observations that are now provided. Working Group 2
also discussed more concentrated reporting of observations from the open
ocean, particularly in the vicinity of extratropical storms.
OCR for page 24
24
Question 4: Reconciliation
The importance of wind, wave, and swell and tropical storm forecasts
as discussed throughout the workshop certainly supports the high priority
placed by the questionnaire respondents on these forecast parameters. The
absence of user emphasis on currents or sea temperature in the highest
priority forecasted parameters is an anomaly. It is not consistent with the
findings of Working Group 3, as discussed above under question 2.
Questions 5 and 6: Reconciliation
Although a majority of questionnaire respondents claimed that benefits
and losses can be quantified, the committee was unable to develop any
significant documented evidence either through the workshop process or
interviews with selected members of the user community. It concluded that
while such quantitative benefits analyses do exist, they are rare, specific to
a particular project or company, and are considered of high competitive
value and hence are not generally available. If they were available, it is
unlikely that they could be extrapolated to an entire segment of the user
community. However, the workshop process did identify a broad range of
benefits that would be achieved by improvements in the quality and method
of delivery of marine weather forecasts, as well as the introduction of new
forecast products and services such as those related to ocean forecasting.
These benefits are summarized in the last section of this chapter, "Expected
Benefits of Forecasting Improvements."
ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE
The contribution of the ocean business sector to the U.S. economy
can be developed in terms of value added. Data that are an extension of
data traditionally used by the U.S. Department of Commerce have been
developed by Pontecorvo and colleagues of Columbia University.iThese
data have been updated recently to establish estimated values for calendar
year 1987.2They show that the ocean sector contributes about 2.6 percent
to the total U.S. gross national product (GNP) of $4.527 trillion in 1987.
Of the ocean sector as defined by PontecoIvo, the government accounts for
approximately one-third; virtually all of this is attributable to the U.S. Navy.
~ Pontecorvo, Giulio. 1989. Contribution of the ocean sector to the United States econ-
omy: Estimated values for 1987-A technical note. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 23~2~:7-14.
2 Pontecorvo, G. et al. 1980. Contribution of the ocean sector to the United States econ-
omy. Science May 30, 1980.
OCR for page 25
25
TABLE 2-4
User Category
Contribution Total to
U.S. GNP (billions)
1972 1987
Shipping $ 3.7 $10.9
Oil and gas 2.3 11.4
Fisheries and recreation 12.2 48.0
Other 1.2 5.4
Total (commercial) S19.4 S75.7
Source: Adapted from Pontecorvo et al. (1980~; Pontecor~ro (1989~.
As noted in Chapter 1, the Navy Fleet Numerical Oceanography Center
synthesizes marine observations and makes environmental predictions to
satisfy the Navy's needs, and many of their products are provided for
NOAA public distribution. Consequently the committee does not treat the
government sector as a "user" in the context of Chapter 2.
In 1987, the commercial (nongovernment) ocean sector contributed
about $76 billion, or 1.7 percent, to the total GNP. The magnitude of this
contribution is in approximately the same scale as other well-recognized
segments of the U.S. economy, such as all farms ($76 billion), all mining
excluding offshore oil and gas ($74 billion), transportation other than water
($131 billion), and communications ($121 billion). Pontecorvo and his
colleagues created an "ocean account" according to several criteria. On
the supply side, they include extractive activities that involve extracting
living or inanimate objects from the ocean and spatial activities where
the primary activity uses the ocean water as a significant element in the
production process and transportation over the water. On the demand
side, they include demand attributable to the ocean and to geographic
proximity to the ocean. Rearranging their data yields Table 2-4, which is
approximately aligned according to the user community categories defined
previously in this chapter.
Shipping includes marine transportation, marine cargo handling and
related services, and ship and boat building. Oil and gas includes oil and
gas extraction and heavy construction in the ocean sector. Fisheries and
recreation includes commercial fishing and all of the retail trade, finance,
insurance, and real estate associated with Me ocean sector. The reason the
committee includes the coastal zone infrastructure items with fisheries and
recreation is because they are population intensive. Shipping and offshore
oil and gas in themselves do not demand high population in the 'coastal
OCR for page 26
26
zone. Less than 10 percent of the commercial ocean sector added value
is attributable to dredging and miscellaneous services that are not easily
assigned to the three major user categories.
Thus the committee concludes that of the $76 billion in 1987 of
commercial added value, $48 billion or almost two-thirds (63 percent) is
attributable directly to activities and residents in the coastal zone. Approxi-
mately $11 billion each are attributable to shipping and oil and gas activities
for a total of an additional 30 percent. The magnitude of these numbers is
impressive. They emphasize the contribution made by the ocean sector to
the total U.S. GNP. The magnitude of the contribution to the U.S. economy
of the coastal zone indicated in the economic data is consistent with the
user community emphasis of this report. Of course, these activities depend
in one way or another on dependable marine observations and forecasting
of weather conditions over the ocean.
EXPECTED BENEFITS OF FORECASTING IMPROVEMENTS
Representatives of the user community participating in each working
group helped identify benefits associated with improvements in the fore-
casting of marine conditions and delivery of the forecasts. Specific benefits
were also identified by some of the presenters of topics at the workshop
(Appendix D). Table 2-5 summarizes the way in which improvements in
forecasted phenomena will benefit various segments of the user community.
For purposes of this summary, forecast phenomena are naturally divided
into two main categories: those related to atmospheric weather and those
related to internal ocean weather. In addition to tabulating the nature of
the benefit, the committee has grouped the benefits according to the three
major user communities previously defined, that is, shipping, offshore oil
and gas, and fisheries and recreation. An additional category of benefits
identified is associated with coastal and Exclusive Economic Zone manage-
ment. This fourth category reflects the importance that forecasting marine
conditions has to residents of the coastal zone.
While somewhat subjective, the committee has identified specific phe-
nomena that have a primary role in producing the benefit identified in Table
2-5 by l's and those phenomena that have a secondary role in producing
the benefit by 2's. Thus it is easy to see that improvements in each of
the forecasted phenomena are expected to produce a benefit over a broad
spectrum of user communities. It is also evident that the nature of the
benefits are not solely economic. The specific benefits identified span safety
at sea and environmental management, as well as efficiency improvements
and economic loss avoidance. These factors, plus the established impor-
tance of the ocean sector to the total U.S. GNP, are ample justification for
improvements in forecasting of marine conditions.
OCR for page 27
27
o
._
._
o
v
._
._
of
v
o
._
o
._
._
v
o
CO
m
U:
al ~
I,4
C
at
it_
I C.
Ill C
3
c
CS
v
o
a'
Cal ~ ~
~ U] V
-
-
1
E g o
is
V
._ ~
co Q.
Cal of
on_
~ s.c
o ~ 5,
c
m
o
~7
_I
en
en en
~ en
-4 ~ ~ ~ ~ en
en en ~ en ~ en
~0
.0 o ~ bO
~ O ~. C) ~
c ~ ~ ~ c
; g, ,,, c ~ bE = .= =
d ~ d d o D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ d
== ~ ~ ~ O ~ —
4,,, ~ ~ ,',_ ~ O
~ ~ _
·c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 o ~ ~0 ~0 ~ 0
=~-C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C ~ ~ == 0
~ q, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
·— Le ~V L~ ~ ~ ._ ~ S~ ._ ._ S~ ._
U) O
OCR for page 28
28
"4
en
en en
en ~ en ~ en
cat en cat en ~ en
~4
In
co
:> m
·
.~
so
os
·c
-
O ° ~
~ ~ .=
I.,
CO ~ ~
t,-
._
.
:S 00 a, TIC
~ ~ ~ ~ C.1 so
C) ~ O
A CL O S _
~ ~ O He P''
O ~ ~ ~q ~ ~ C: O
~ be) 4) o° ~ ~ ~ 3.~ _ o
E ~c ~ . ~ ~ E
V Cal
a'
o
o
._ C
~ ~ 3
C.
o
o ~ 3
.°
al
o
~ ~ ~,
,~ ~ b4
~ oq o5
c) ~ ~
~ o ~
a~
L.
~4
£
a'
_ ~ ~
_ _ C.
3 ~._ ~
=: ~ ~ al
~ o—.5 ~
b. ~ O
o C, o o
._ ._
rQ
bO
be -5
._ ~
~ o
o
Q.
._ _
~,
o
~ o
·_ C)
~ CQ
11 11
~ e~
Representative terms from entire chapter:
marine observations
