On both sides of the Atlantic MAP is progressing with energy and enthusiasm. At this time, preparation for MAP appears to be further advanced than in most contemporary field projects which tend to evolve on shorter and shorter time scales. Thorough planning early on results in fewer conflicts and surprises later during the field phase. We must use the available time to analyze and anticipate most of the eventualities that may face us in the field.
There are several factors that can facilitate the decision making process during the SOP: It should be understood and accepted in advance by every participant that the special observing systems contributed by the various countries, such as the aircraft, become joint assets of a composite observing system. Once in the field, the scientific control of these systems transfers to the international group in charge of the daily missions decisions, except, of course, for all safety and operational aspects, which remain under the control of the national operators.
Participating countries who wish to keep national control of their observing systems, can, of course, do so, but not as part of MAP. Taking advantage of all supporting data that will evolve from MAP, they may themselves contribute data of value to other MAP scientists. Each of the large international field programs had such "national subprograms" (GATE had about 300 of them). However, these national subprograms can operate only on a non-interference basis with the main project.
Another tool to facilitate quick and sound decision making is to carefully prepare a set of potential flight missions covering all scientific objectives and taking into account all known operational constraints. This effort transfers possible endless discussions from the field phase to the time before the field phase, i.e., to now. In actuality, these prepared individual flight missions are rarely flown exactly as described, but are modified or combined to fulfill several objectives according to the given atmospheric conditions. If started now it will accelerate the decisions later.
Due to the foresight of Thomas Gutermann, early integration of the European Weather Services with the University researchers is making MAP a unique program of basic research with direct applications to numerical mesoscale weather prediction. This in turn will lead to a new way in which the daily forecast briefings will be conducted. They will not be the usual synoptic overviews, but special predictions tailored to individual science objectives. For example, the forecasts may pinpoint the location and altitude of breaking waves to be probed by the lidar-equipped research aircraft. First intercomparison tests between different mesoscale models were conducted by the international MAP modeling working group (Evelyne Richard, chair) using selected case studies. In parallel, a new US modeling working group (Jim Doyle, chair) has obtained highly promising simulations of actually observed cases of wave breaking. The creation of a 2-year modeling phase prior to the field phase is a novel feature of MAP. It will help gauge the predictability of phenomena to be studied and will influence the observing strategy.
A challenging issue for MAP is the fact that the resolution of the latest operational models exceeds that of the observing systems. Instead of trying to understand and to model features observed in the atmosphere we are now faced with the opposite problem: to verify and understand features revealed by the models. A case in point is the discovery of the PV banners first seen in the Swiss model.
While many of the pledged observing systems are still in the "proposed" rather than the "firm" category, this is a reflection of the funding cycles of the various countries. We can be confident that the categories will change in the near future when next year's budgets become firm.
The recent international MAP meeting in Boulder, Colorado, USA, closed a possible gap between the European and the American aims and planning efforts. What usually happens only in the field phase happened already in that meeting. The "intercontinental" differences practically vanished. As it turns out, the US scientific objectives as discussed in the "US-MAP Overview Document" ("blue book") fit well into the general framework of the earlier agreed-upon international objectives, and the evolving composite observing system makes the national teams mutually interdependent.
The strong attendance of the Boulder meeting, especially from Europe, confirmed what is becoming more and more evident: While we all seem to live now in a world of climate research, the coincident arrival of highly advanced observing tools and of powerful numerical models has rekindled the interest in mountain-meteorology worldwide.
There is no doubt: a truly exciting field project is awaiting us at the end of this millennium.
Joachim Kuettner
Boulder, Colorado, USA