What We Have Learned about Field Programs
Based on personal experience and input from colleagues, the natural history of a field program is discussed, from conception through data analysis and synthesis of results. For convenience, the life cycle of a field program is divided into three phases: the prefield phase, the field phase, and the aftermath. As described here, the prefield phase involves conceiving the idea, developing the scientific objectives, naming the program, obtaining support, and arranging the logistics. The field phase discussion highlights the decision making process, balancing input from data and numerical models, and human interactions. The data are merged, analyzed, and synthesized into knowledge mainly after the field effort.
Three major conclusions are drawn. First, it is the people most of all who make a field program successful, and cooperation and collegial consensus building are vital during all phases; good health and a sense of humor both help make this possible. Second, although numerical models are now playing a central role in all phases of a field program, not paying adequate attention to the observations can lead to problems. And finally, it cannot be overemphasized that both funding agencies and participants must recognize that it takes several years to fully exploit the datasets collected, with the corollary that high-quality datasets should be available long term.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Crawford, K. C., and H. R. Hudson, 1970: Behavior of winds in the lowest 1500 feet in Central Oklahoma: June 1966—May 1967. ESSA Tech. Memo. ERTLM-NSSL 48, 57 pp.Google Scholar
- Geisler, J. E., and E. B. Kraus, 1969: The well-mixed Ekman Boundary Layer. Deep-Sea Res., 16 (Suppl.), 73–84.Google Scholar
- Gorman, J., 1995: Ocean Enough and Time. HarperCollins, 190 pp. Gray, W. M., and B. R. Mendenhall, 1973: A statistical analysis of factors influencing the wind veering in the planetary boundary layer. Bonner Meteorol. Abhandl., 17, 167–194.Google Scholar
- LeMone, M. A., 1983: The time between a field experiment and its published results. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 64, 614–615.Google Scholar
- Lucas, C., and E. J. Zipser, 1996: The variability of vertical profiles of wind, temperature, and moisture, during TOGA COARE. Preprints, 7th Conf. on Mesoscale Processes, Reading, United Kingdom, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 125–127.Google Scholar
- Malkus, J. S., 1958: On the Structure of the Trade Wind Moist Layer. Papers in Physical Oceanography and Meteorology, No. 13, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 47 pp.Google Scholar
- Mildner, P. 1932: Uber the Reibung in Einer Speziellen Luftmasse in den Unterstehen der Atmosphare. Beitr. Phys. Freien. Atmos 19 151.Google Scholar
- Oreskes, N., 1999: The rejection of continental drift: Theory and method in American earth science. Oxford University Press, 420 pp.Google Scholar
- Simpson, J., 1976: The GATE aircraft program: A personal view. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 57, 27–30.Google Scholar
- Viterbo, E, and A. C. M. Beljaars, 1995: An improved land surface parameterization scheme in the ECMWF model and its validation. ECMWF Res. Dept. Tech. Rep. 75, 52 pp.Google Scholar
- Zipser, E. J., and R. H. Johnson, 1998: Systematic errors in radiosonde humidities: A global problem? Preprints, 10th Symp. on Measurements, Observations, and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 72–73.Google Scholar