Interreg IIIB Measure 3: Co-operation in the field of natural risks METEORISK - An Alpine wide project to enhance collaboration between weather services

Interreg IIIB Measure 3: Co-operation in the field of natural risks

METEORISK - An Alpine wide project to enhance collaboration between weather services

[email protected]

Folie 2

John Kenneth Galbraith: convential wisdom

(The Affluent Society 1958)

“We associate truth with convenience, with what most closely accords with self-interest and personal well-being or promises best to avoid awkward effort or unwelcome dislocation of life. We also find highly acceptable what contributes most to self-esteem.”

Economic and social behavior, are complex, and to comprehend their character is mentally tiring. Therefore we adhere, as through to a raft, to those ideas which represent our understanding.”

Folie 3

convential wisdom – weather risks?

Basis for a risk analysis:

which groups are familiar with these risks:

Thunderstorms / floodings / storms / heat waves . . . .

tourists local population professionals (mountain guides, civil protection)

Folie 4

convential wisdom – weather risks?

risk analysis

which groups are familiar with these risks:

Thunderstorms / floodings / storms / heat waves

tourists local population professionals (mountain guides, civil protection)

very extreme events often surprise all groups!

Folie 5

What and how should warnings be?

Warnings often fail to reach the people concerned

Reactions to warnings are not appropriate

Folie 6



distribution too low due to technical & organisational handicaps false alarm rate too high unclear systems (danger levels)

Reactions to warnings are not appropriate

Folie 7



unclear systems (services involved, danger levels) false alarm rate too high distribution too low due to technical & organisational handicaps

Reactions to warnings are not appropriate no emotional impact no clear advice no „know how“ about the consequences of extreme situations

Folie 8


Folie 9

Is everybody neutral?

False alarm rate & probability of detection (Haechler 2003)

POD 1

FAR 1

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

(now)

(future)

Folie 10

Is everybody neutral?

False alarm rate & probability of detection

POD 1

FAR 1

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

(now)

(future)XXXXXX(media, other services)

Folie 11

Why and how should Weather services cooperate?

Fractioned producers / users in Europe and the Alps

unproportional high number of user live in boarder aereas

and hear warnings from neighbouring services

Coordinated warnings reduce the FAR and increase the POD

Commonly used warning systems draw more public attention

Communities in certain areas (like the Alps) develop strong

common sense about natural dangers (conventional wisdom)

Folie 12

Is language a problem?

Yes! e.g.

12 words in order of arousal strength (Wolgater and Silver 95)

Note Notice Prevent Alert Alarm Harmful Warning Urgent Severe Poison Fatal Deadly

Folie 13


Suggestions:

danger levels as uniform as possible (Alpine, EU wide)

Folie 14


Suggestions:


danger levels damage orientated (earthquake scales)

Folie 15


Suggestions:



distribution responding to customer preferences and possibilities

Folie 16


Suggestions:




parallel to the warnings structured PR work and offers for learning

Folie 17


Suggestions:




parallel to the warnings structured PR work and offers for learning

clear interfaces with other services in case of indirect meteorological dangers

Folie 18

What could METEORISK contribute?

• Homogenisation of forecasting work (warning levels etc.)

• Seminars and real time exchange of forecaster Know How

• Densification of observation network

• Common interpretation of model output

• Improved information of civil protection authorities

• Improved information of the public

Folie 19

Forecasting extreme weather

Severe weatherphenomena

in e.g. 24h

Weather service

Observations Forecasts

Civ. prot. / other servicesauthorities / media

recommendations

Society /

/ Behaviour

Folie 20

coping with extreme weather

Severe weatherphenomena

present

Weather service

Observations Forecasts

Society

Damages / Behaviour

Civ. prot. / other servicesauthorities / media

recommendations

Folie 21

Standardisation of alarm levels

Area related treshholds (e.g. wind in cities)

How often / extreme?

Damage What to do?

green - - - no danger

yellow > 60 km/h > 10 per year exposed objects

be alert

orange > 80 km/h 2-10 per year frequent damages

be very alert

red >100 km/h less or 1 per year

large scale damages

follow the advice

of authorities

Folie 22

Common observational network

Folie 23

Visualisation software

Folie 24

Exchange of CERAD - external radar data

Folie 25

forecasters discussion forum

Folie 26

forecasters discussion forum

Folie 27

Comparison of model behaviour (P. Bertolotto)

Folie 28

GIS tool

SOLUTION 1

SOLUTION 2 SOLUTION 3

METEORISK

Folie 29

GIS tool

Folie 30

Statistical tool

Rain: ~2378Snow: ~1643Shortrain: ~ 420

Folie 31

Statistical tool

Folie 32

Statistical tool

1 day period

Folie 33

Statistical tool

1 day period

15 day period

Folie 34

Homogenisation of forecasting work

Folie 35

Internal – external communication

Questions / problems:

• How can individually structured weather services be coordinated?

• How can user requirements be integrated?

(civil prot. – media – public)

• PR work is necessary inside and outside the net

• warnings (alert levels) have to be clear and concise enough

Folie 36


• was it all worth it?

The enemy of conventional wisdom is not ideas, but the march of events

(K. Galbraith 1958)

Folie 37


• Answers

• METEORISK brought more attention to individual weather services and the meteorological community

• links to NMS proved to be succesful

• homogenized individual informations for different user groups were feasible

Folie 38

Resume

Folie 39

Resume

make best use of all the data!

Documents

Interreg IIIB Measure 3: Co-operation in the field of natural risks METEORISK - An Alpine wide project to enhance collaboration between weather services