A multivariable regression model forecasting the rapid intensification of hurricanes

Hurricane Gustav was one of two major hurricanes that occurred in the Atlantic basin during the 2008 hurricane season. The storm caused more than $6 billion U. S. dollars of damage in Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, and along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico from 25 August 2008 to 5 September 2008. The greatest amount of damage and highest number of casualties produced by the storm can be attributed to the rapid intensification of the hurricane. Rapid intensification (RI) of a tropical cyclone is defined as an increase in maximum sustained winds by 15.4 m s⁻¹ (30 kts) in a continuous 24 h period. Between 1200 UTC 29 August and 2200 UTC 30 August, the minimum pressure of Gustav decreased by 48 hPa and the maximum sustained winds increased by 80 kts from a tropical storm to a category four hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale. This increase in intensity exceeds the definition of RI. Traditionally, the parameters of ocean heat content, vertical wind shear, and atmospheric moisture content have been evaluated to assess changes in tropical cyclone intensity. Kaplan and DeMaria (2003) have shown that sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in excess of 28.4°C and low vertical wind shear values (approximately 5 m s⁻¹) are conducive for RI. A moist atmosphere (i.e., high values of relative humidity) also signals an atmospheric environment conducive to tropical cyclone intensification. The SST field from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Optimum Interpolation 1/4° Daily SST Analysis (NOAA-OISST) dataset was used to assess the ocean heat content in the vicinity of the storm during its lifespan. Data from the initialization of the Global Forecasting System (GFS) was used to evaluate 200-850 hPa vertical wind shear, 850-700 hPa layer averaged relative humidity, and 200 hPa divergence. Lightning flash data from the World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN) is used to investigate the role of convection in the RI of the storm. The SST and atmospheric relative humidity fields in the vicinity of Hurricane Gustav were conducive to the storm's intensification, but values of vertical wind shear in the vicinity of the storm were greater than 10 m s⁻¹, a magnitude typical of tropical cyclone weakening. A convective band formed 12 h prior to the onset of the storm's RI, which led to the broadening of a 200-hPa divergent area in the vicinity of the storm. It is hypothesized that the broadening of this area allowed for

Since the pioneering paper by Nastrom and Gage on aircraft-derived power spectra, significant progress has been made in understanding the wavenumber distribution of energy in Earth’s atmosphere and its implications for the intrinsic limits of weather forecasting. Improvements in tropical cyclone intensity predictions have lagged those of global weather forecasting, and limited intrinsic predictability may be partially responsible. In this study, we construct power spectra from aircraft data of over 1200 missions carried out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) Hurricane Hunters. Each mission is parsed into distinct flight legs, and legs meeting a specified set of criteria are used for spectral analysis. Here, we produce power spectra composites for each category of the Saffir–Simpson scale, revealing a systematic relationship between spectral slope and storm intensity. Specifically, as storm intensity increases, we find that 1) spectral slope becomes steeper across scales from 10 to 160 km and 2) the transition zone where spectral slope begins to steepen shifts downscale.

Marine Mammal ScienceVolume 29, Issue 2 p. E193-E202 Notes An investigation of sound use and behavior in a killer whale (Orcinus orca) population to inform passive acoustic monitoring studies Marla M. Holt, Corresponding Author Marla M. Holt Marine Mammal & Seabird Ecology Team, Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington, 98112 U.S.ACorresponding author (e-mail: marla.holt@noaa.gov).Search for more papers by this authorDawn P. Noren, Dawn P. Noren Marine Mammal & Seabird Ecology Team, Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington, 98112 U.S.ASearch for more papers by this authorCandice K. Emmons, Candice K. Emmons Marine Mammal & Seabird Ecology Team, Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington, 98112 U.S.ASearch for more papers by this author Marla M. Holt, Corresponding Author Marla M. Holt Marine Mammal & Seabird Ecology Team, Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington, 98112 U.S.ACorresponding author (e-mail: marla.holt@noaa.gov).Search for more papers by this authorDawn P. Noren, Dawn P. Noren Marine Mammal & Seabird Ecology Team, Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington, 98112 U.S.ASearch for more papers by this authorCandice K. Emmons, Candice K. Emmons Marine Mammal & Seabird Ecology Team, Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington, 98112 U.S.ASearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 September 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2012.00599.xCitations: 13Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume29, Issue2April 2013Pages E193-E202 RelatedInformation

The National Ocean Service, which I've headed since December 1983, is one of the major line components of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA, in turn, is part of the Department of Commerce and is the leading federal agency in the oceanic and atmospheric sciences. Other agencies are involved in the earth sciences, such as the Department of the Interior's Geological Survey, or are in the business of environmental regulations, like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but NOAA is the one federal agency charged specifically with analyzing and predicting oceanic and atmospheric components of the earth's environment as a whole. The importance of this global, integrated air‐sea approach is reflected in the five NOAA line offices.This past December, NOAA line offices were reorganized to consolidate programs as part of the Reagan Administration's general government‐wide belt tightening (see Figure 1). The idea was for NOAA to grow leaner but stronger. The main thrust of the work of the Weather Service and the Marine Fisheries Service remained the same. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research continued to provide research support to the other NOAA components. A trimmed down Environmental Data and Information Service merged with the National Environmental Satellite Service to become today's National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. Also, this past December the NOAA Office of Coastal Zone Management joined forces with the National Ocean Survey to become the National Ocean Service.

The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) is a key instrument onboard the Suomi NPP (S-NPP) and the NOAA-20 satellites that provides state-of-the-art Earth observations for ocean, land, aerosol, and cloud applications. VIIRS Reflective Solar Band (RSB) Sensor Data Records (SDR, or Level 1b products) are calibrated and produced independently by The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) VIIRS science teams. Multiple versions of S-NPP and NOAA-20 VIIRS SDRs are available to date. This study evaluates the long-term calibration stability, biases, and inter-channel consistency of S-NPP and NOAA-20 VIIRS SDRs generated by NOAA and NASA over Deep Convective Clouds (DCC) to support downstream applications, especially climate data record studies. Five VIIRS RSB SDRs were analyzed in this study: (1) NOAA version 2 S-NPP VIIRS reprocessed SDRs (NOAA-NPP-V2, 2012–2020), (2) NASA Collection 1 S-NPP VIIRS SDRs (NASA-NPP-C1, 2012–2021), (3) NASA Collection 2 S-NPP VIIRS SDRs (NASA-NPP-C2, 2012–2021), (4) NOAA constant F-factor calibrated NOAA-20 VIIRS SDRs (NOAA-N20-ConstF, 2018–2021), and (5) NASA Collection 2 NOAA-20 VIIRS SDRs (NASA-N20-C2, 2018–2021). The DCC time series analysis results indicate that the calibrations of the three S-NPP VIIRS RSB SDRs are generally stable, with trends within ±0.1%/year for all RSBs, except for M3–M4 (all three S-NPP SDRs) and I3 (NASA-NPP-C1 only). The calibration of NASA-NPP-C2 SDRs is more uniform at individual detector levels. NOAA-NPP-V2 and NASA-NPP-C1 SDRs exhibit non-negligible time-dependent detector level degradation in M1–M4 (up to 1.5% in 2020–2021), causing striping in the SDR imagery. The biases between NOAA and NASA S-NPP VIIRS RSB SDRs are from 0.1% to 2.4%. The calibrations of the two NOAA-20 VIIRS RSB SDRs are also generally stable, with trends within ±0.16%/year. Small downward trends were observed in the visible and near-infrared (VIS/NIR) bands, and small upward trends were observed in the shortwave infrared (SWIR) bands for both NOAA and NASA NOAA-20 SDRs. The biases between NOAA and NASA NOAA-20 VIIRS RSB SDRs are nearly constant over time and within ±0.2% for VIS/NIR bands and ±0.7% for SWIR bands. There exists large inter-satellite biases between S-NPP and NOAA-20 VIIRS SDRs, especially in the VIS/NIR bands (up to 4.5% for NOAA SDRs and up to 7% for NASA SDRs). In addition, the DCC reflectance of S-NPP VIIRS RSB spectral bands is more consistent with that of the SCanning Imaging Absorption SpectroMeter for Atmospheric CHartographY (SCIAMACHY) than that of NOAA-20. Bands M4 and M9 seem out of family in all five S-NPP and NOAA-20 RSB SDRs evaluated.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is in the process of developing acoustic guidelines for assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammal species under NOAA’s jurisdiction. The guidelines will provide a summary of past policies and updated basic science-based guidance. The guidelines are intended for use by NOAA analysts/managers and relevant stakeholders, including federal agencies, and will increase the transparency and consistency of how acoustic effects on marine mammals are assessed in the context of our authorizations, permits, consultations, and exemptions under the various environmental statutes NOAA administers (e.g., Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Marine Sanctuaries Act).

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is moving forward with an agency‐wide scientific integrity policy and has released a draft policy to all of NOAA's employees for their review and comment, NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco said on 8 February. The draft policy lays out guidance for scientific conduct at the agency, encourages scientists to publish their data and findings, provides whistle‐blower protection, encourages NOAA scientists to be leaders in the scientific community, and explicitly states that NOAA science managers and supervisors “must never suppress, alter or otherwise impede the timely release of scientific or technological findings or conclusions,” Lubchenco said at a meeting of the Union of Concerned Scientists' board of directors.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides daily reference evapotranspiration (ETref) maps for the contiguous United States using climatic data from North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS). This data provides large‐scale spatial representation of ETref, which is essential for regional scale water resources management. Data used in the development of NOAA daily ETref maps are derived from observations over surfaces that are different from short (grass — ETos) or tall (alfalfa — ETrs) reference crops, often in nonagricultural settings, which carries an unknown discrepancy between assumed and actual conditions. In this study, NOAA daily ETos and ETrs maps were evaluated for accuracy, using observed data from the Texas High Plains Evapotranspiration (TXHPET) network. Daily ETos, ETrs and the climatic data (air temperature, wind speed, and solar radiation) used for calculating ETref were extracted from the NOAA maps for TXHPET locations and compared against ground measurements on reference grass surfaces. NOAA ETref maps generally overestimated the TXHPET observations (1.4 and 2.2 mm/day ETos and ETrs, respectively), which may be attributed to errors in the NLDAS modeled air temperature and wind speed, to which reference ETref is most sensitive. Therefore, a bias correction to NLDAS modeled air temperature and wind speed data, or adjustment to the resulting NOAA ETref, may be needed to improve the accuracy of NOAA ETref maps.

Current climate observations are used to quantify the relationships between midlatitude storm strength and frequency and radiation and precipitation properties. Then, the derived radiation/precipitation‐storm relationships along with the midlatitude storm changes with climate‐warming predicted by a climate model are used to determine the radiation and precipitation changes resulting from an increase in midlatitude storm intensity and a decrease in midlatitude storm frequency. Increases in midlatitude storm intensity produce shortwave cooling and longwave warming while decreases in storm frequency produce the opposite effects. When the two changes are added together the increase in storm strength dominates producing a shortwave cooling effect of 0–3.5 W/m2 and a longwave warming effect of 0.1–2.2 W/m2. For precipitation, the increase in storm intensity also dominates the decrease in storm frequency and produces an increase in precipitation of 0.05–0.08 mm/day.

Emotional responses to climate change map framing using facial emotion recognition technology

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Technical Summary, A Report of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). 2. Exposure, in the context of global change, was defined in 2008 by R. M. Leichenko and K. L. O'Brien (in Environmental Change and Globalization: Double Exposures [Oxford: Oxford University Press]) as "prone or sensitive to change." Sensitivity leads to vulnerability, that is, the "negative outcomes from stresses and shocks." This conceptualization of global change in terms of context, response, and outcome explicitly considers social and environmental outcomes. 3. B. Smit and J. Wandel, "Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability," Global Environmental Change 16 (2006): 282–292. 4. W. N. Adger and P. M. Kelly, "Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and the Architecture of Entitlements," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4 (1999): 253–266. 5. Arid (including hyperarid) areas receive less than 250 mm of preciptation per year; semiarid areas receive 250 to 500 mm. C. F. Hutchinson, R. G. Varady, and S. Drake, "Old and New: Changing Paradigms in Arid Lands Water Management," in G. Schneier-Madanes and M. F. Courel, eds., Water and Sustainability in Arid Regions (Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 2009), pp. 311–332. We use "arid" to include semiarid, in that both imply water-short conditions. 6. The Water Center for Arid and Semi-Arid Zones in Latin America and the Caribbean (http://www.cazalac.org/eng/mision_eng.php, accessed on 19 January 2012) notes that aridity characterizes some 4.5 million sq km from Mexico to South America, where decisionmakers lack appropriate knowledge on water management and preservation. 7. World Economic Forum Water Initiative, Water Security: The Water-Food-Energy-Climate Nexus (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2011). 9. "Humans shoulder at least half the blame," according to Diana Liverman's reading of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, "From Uncertain to Unequivocal," in Environment 49, no. 8 (2007): 28–32. 9. H. Eakin and M. C. Lemos, "Institutions and Change: The Challenge of Building Adaptive Capacity in Latin America," Global Environmental Change 20 (2010): 1–3. 10. Ongoing support is provided by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (http://www.iai.int). 11. See related article: W. Laird-Benner and H. Ingram, "Sonoran Desert Network Weavers," Environment 53, no. 1 (2011): 6–16. 12. B. J. Morehouse, D. Ferguson, G. Owen, A. Browning-Aiken, P. Wong-Gonzales, N. Pineda, and R. G. Varady," Science and Socio-Ecological Sustainability: Examples From the Arizona-Sonora Border," Environmental Science and Policy 11, no. 3 (2008): 272–284. 13. G. Saliba and K. L. Jacobs, "Saving the San Pedro River: Science, Collaboration, and Water Sustainability in Arizona," Environment 50, no. 6(2008): 30–32. See also R. G. Varady, M. A. Moote, and R. Merideth, "Water Allocation Options for the Upper San Pedro Basin: Assessing the Social and Institutional Landscape," Natural Resources Journal 40, no. 2 (2000): 223–235. 14. R. G. Varady and E. Ward, "Transboundary Conservation in Context: What Drives Environmental Change?," in L. Lopez-Hoffman, E. McGovern, R. G. Varady, and K. W. Flessa, eds., Conservation of Shared Environments: Learning From the United States and Mexico (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2009), pp. 9–22. A. K. Gerlak and M. Wilder, "Exploring the Textured Landscape of Water Insecurity and the Human Right to Water," Environment 54, no. 2 (2012): (in press). 15. C. Pahl-Wostl, "The Implications of Complexity For Integrated Resources Management," Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007): 561–569. 16. R. E. Saunier and R. A. Meganck, Dictionary and Introduction to Global Environmental Governance (London: Earthscan, 2007). 17. C. A. Scott, S. Dall'erba, and R. Díaz, "Groundwater Rights in Mexican Agriculture: Spatial Distribution and Social and Economic Determinants," Professional Geographer 62, no. 1 (2010): 1–15. 18. H. A. Loaiciga, "Climate Change and Ground Water," Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93, no. 1 (2003): 30–41. 19. "Virtual water" is embedded or hidden water, as in irrigation to grow crops. The concept was developed by J. A. Allan in 1993. See Allan, J. A. "Virtual water - the water, food and trade nexus: useful concept or misleading metaphor?" Water International, 28 (2003): 4-11. 20. M. Wilder, C. A. Scott, N. Pineda Pablos, R. G. Varady, G. M. Garfin, and J. McEvoy, "Adapting Across Boundaries: Climate Change, Social Learning, and Resilience in the U.S.–Mexico Border Region," Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100, no. 4 (2010): 917–928. 21. C. A. Scott and M. J. Pasqualetti, "Energy and Water Resources Scarcity: Critical Infrastructure for Growth and Economic Development in Arizona and Sonora," Natural Resources Journal 50, no. 3 (2010): 645–682. 22. C. J. Bauer, "Dams and Markets: Rivers and Electric Power in Chile," Natural Resources Journal 49 (2009): 583–651. 23. F. J. Meza, D. S. Wilks, L. Gurovich, and N. Bambach, "Impacts of Climate Change on Irrigated Agriculture in the Maipo Basin, Chile: Reliability of Water Rights and Changes in the Demand for Irrigation," Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management (in press). 24. The critical need to "reconnect science and policy" is highlighted in a recent report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 21 Issues for the 21st Century: Results of the UNEP Foresight Process on Emerging Environmental Issues, Alcamo, J., Leonard, S.A. (Eds.). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, 56pp., 2012). Based on an extensive survey of scientists, decisionmakers, and other stakeholders, the report calls for "a new look at… how the science-society-policy interface can be improved." In addition, it addresses numerous key issues that the dialogue process presented in this article also focuses on, including freshwater, climate change, food, biodiversity, land, and energy. 25. These science-policy interactions have been generously funded by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Science Foundation, U.S. Geological Survey, Dialogue on Water and Climate (The Netherlands), and Morris K. and Stewart L. Udall Foundation. In Mexico the workshops were supported by the national water commission (CONAGUA), the Univesity of Sonora, El Colegio de Sonora, the national water research institute (IMTA), the national meteorological service (SMN), the Sonoran state water agency, and local governments. 26. Dialogues have been held in Hermosillo (2006, 2008, 2010), Guaymas (2006), Cuernavaca (2009), Mexico City (2005, 2006), Puerto Peñasco (2009), Tucson (2009, 2010), and Cabos (2011). Findings were promulgated at the World Water Forums (2003, 2006, and 2009), Hydrology for the Environment, Life and Policy meetings (Tucson 1999, 2008; Kalmar [Sweden] 2002; Dundee [Scotland] 2001, 2004; Guayaquil [Ecuador] 2005; Panama 2011), Internationally Shared Aquifer Resources Management Program (Paris 2010), and other fora. 27. See F. J. Meza, "Variability of Reference Evapotranspiration and Water Demands. Association to ENSO in the Maipo River Basin, Chile," Global and Planetary Change 47 (2005): 212–220; Meza et al. (in press), note 23, above. See also: http://cambioglobal.uc.cl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81&Itemid=62&lang=en 28. See http://www.planestrategico.mendoza.gob.ar. 29. R. G. Varady and A. Browning-Aiken, "The Birth of a Mexican Watershed Council in the San Pedro Basin in Sonora," in C. Fuentes-Flores and S. Peña-Medina, eds., Planeación y Cooperación Transfronteriza en la Frontera México-Estados Unidos (Transboundary Planning and Cooperation in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region) (Ciudad Juárez, Mexico: El Colegio de la Frontera Norte & Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Ambiente y Desarrollo, 2005), pp. 165–183. 30. U.S. Public Law 109-448, the United States–Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act, was approved in late 2006 and authorized up to $50 million; to date, $2 million has been appropriated. The intent is to provide scientific information useful to policymakers and water managers. 31. R. G. Varady, R. Salmón Castillo, and S. Eden, "Key Issues, Institutions, and Strategies for Managing Transboundary Water Resources in the Arizona–Mexico Border Region," in S. B. Megdal, R. G. Varady, and S. Eden, eds. Shared Borders, Shared Waters: Israeli-Palestinian and Colorado River Basin Water Challenges (Delft, The Netherlands: UNESCO-IHE Press in collaboration with Taylor & Francis, in press); C. A. Scott, S. Megdal, L. A. Oroz, J. Callegary, and P. Vandervoet, "Climate Change and Population Growth Impacts on the Transboundary Santa Cruz Aquifer," Climate Research 51 (2012):159-170, doi: 10.3354/cr01061. 51: 159–170, doi: 10.3354/cr01061 32. G. Young, H. Zavala, J. Wandel, B. Smit, S. Salas, E. Jimenez, M. Fiebig, R. Espinoza, H. Diaz, and J. Cepeda, "Vulnerability and Adaptation in a Dryland Community of the Elqui Valley, Chile," Climatic Change 98 (2010): 245–276, doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9665-4; E. Montaña, "Central Andean Foothill Farmers Facing Global Environmental Change," IHDP Update 2 (2008): 36–39. See http://www.ihdp.unu.edu/file/get/7724. 33. Young et al. (2010), note 32, above. 34. G. Schneier-Madanes and M. F. Courel, "Introduction," in G. Schneier-Madanes and M. F. Courel, eds., Water and Sustainability in Arid Regions (Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 2010), pp. xvii–xxii.

The Mg II core‐to‐wing index is a ratio of the Mg II chromospheric emission at 280 nm to the photospheric radiation in the line wings and is used as an indicator of solar activity. Since October 1991, the Solar‐Stellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment (SOLSTICE) has made daily irradiance measurements in the range 119–420 nm from the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS). A new Mg II index, based on the SOLSTICE observations at a spectral resolution of 0.24 nm, is presented and compared to previous measurements. Spectral irradiance measurements of the Mg II doublet at low spectral resolution (≈ 1 nm) have been made by the Solar Backscatter UltraViolet (SBUV) instrument on Nimbus 7 since November 1978 and subsequently by the SBUV2 instruments on NOAA 9 and NOAA 11 satellites. We compare the SOLSTICE data with the Mg II time series derived from SBUV2 data by the groups at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). SOLSTICE data are convolved to the lower SBUV2 resolution, and the NOAA and GSFC algorithms are then applied to this data set. The SOLSTICE Mg II indices constructed in this manner simulate the SBUV2 indices and can be used to validate the SBUV2 time series and identify data problems. From our analysis, we conclude that the NOAA Mg II time series is the most consistent during the period 1978–1994. The new GSFC Mg II time series has comparable accuracy for the period starting in 1989. We also derive the linear transformation equations required to put the high‐and low‐resolution time series onto common scales.

On 11 March 2011, a magnitude 9.0 Mw earthquake occurred near the east coast of Honshu Island, Japan. The earthquake generated a tsunami with wave heights up to 40 m triggering a response from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is the lead federal agency responsible for tsunami warnings issuance, technology innovation, research, and mitigation for the United States. These activities are matrixed across several closely integrated bureaus, including the National Weather Service National Data Buoy Center, Tsunami Warning Centers, and UNESCO/IOC – NOAA International Tsunami Information Center; the National Ocean Service Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory; and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC). Each of these bureaus work together to improve tsunami forecasting and thereby protect lives. Immediately following the March 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami, all NOAA offices were involved in complimentary tsunami activities. In this paper, we describe the status of data associated with this tsunami event, review the processing and availability of tide gauge and tsunameter data, including Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART®) and discuss the uses of these data in tsunami models. The basic data in the NGDC historical event databases include: date, time, event location, magnitude of the phenomenon, and socio-economic information such as the total number of fatalities and dollar damage estimates. The tsunami database includes additional information on runups (locations where tsunami waves were observed by eyewitnesses, post-tsunami field surveys, tide gauges, or deep ocean sensors). Therefore, an introduction and summary of the effects of the earthquake and tsunami is also included.KeywordsDamageEarthquakeRunupTide gaugeTsunameterTsunami2011 Tohoku Japan Tsunami

The approach of the new year is a traditional time to tally up successes, failures, and the path ahead. Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), examined some agency advances and significant challenges during the 7 December Union Agency Lecture at the AGU Fall Meeting, during a press briefing, and in an interview with Eos. Lubchenco focused on several key areas including the concern about monitoring, mitigating, and managing extreme events; budgetary pressures the agency faces in current fiscal year (FY) 2012 and in FY 2013, with President Barack Obama on 18 November having signed into law a bill, HR 2112, following congressional agreement on a budget legislation conference report; and NOAA's newly released scientific integrity policy (see “NOAA issues scientific integrity policy,” Eos Trans. AGU, 92(50), 467, doi:10.1029/2011EO500004, 2011).

Research across natural resource management disciplines has identified an implementation gap between researchers and managers, where institutional norms and practices limit integration of novel data and observations into decision-making. This gap has largely been addressed using one-way science communication tools such as publications and conference presentations. While these tools can be designed and delivered effectively, mounting evidence suggests two-way communication builds more trust, enhances engagement, and may lead to more active use of scientific information in decision-making. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Western Regional Collaboration Team’s West Watch webinar is a one-way communication tool that shares information about climate, weather, and ocean condition anomalies to an internal audience of NOAA experts and key partners. NOAA is interested in expanding this tool to improve information accessibility and use by communities of interest that NOAA serves. This research uses a mixed-methods approach to evaluate how West Watch could change to function as a two-way communication tool, facilitating bilateral information movement between research presenters and the audience. Research results, supported by literature, inform five best practices and recommendations for changes to West Watch, as well as the design and implementation of future science communication tools.