For the last three years, the ALADIN project has undergone a series of transformations, driven both by scientific and political needs. The scientific changes certainly have been strongly motivated by the start of the development phase of Météo-France’s AROME NWP tool. The political changes have been recently inspired by the writing of the third Memorandum of Understanding, with additional inputs brought in by the convergence with the HIRLAM consortium. It is the author’s belief that the situation has led during those three years to a mixture of strongly reinforced coordination (in data assimilation, in dynamics, with more workshops and meetings) along with areas of more widespread activity (physics, project coordination). Our Slovakian colleagues summarized this state of confusion during the last workshop in Bratislava with the question mark: “Quo vadis, Aladin ?”. At the time when this foreword is written, we are in between our first “PAC” and our first “General Assembly”, as defined in the new policy of Aladin-2. We cannot anticipate what the new structures can bring us, whether “good” or “bad”, in scientific and technical achievements, or daily managerial questions. We certainly can, not only wish, but firmly expect, that the quality of human relationships and daily tolerance will remain a pillar of our project. They should help us keeping a reasonable control over our widespread operational activities and a watchful eye on our common long-term goals. Let this be my golden rule number 1.

Will our new structures remove all misunderstandings ? Most likely not. Misunderstandings (better say: differences of opinions) belong to a multi-sided project, as ALADIN actually always has been. The important thing is to give ourselves both the opportunities to identify and discuss them (a matter that can be considered as part of a governance), and possibly to leave them aside, waiting for better times to solve them without harming the overall run of the project. For about ten years, one could argue that ALADIN has lived happily under the misunderstanding that a project was one and the same thing as an NWP tool: consortium = model. This identity has been smashed into pieces with the context evaluation done for AROME: NWP centres at local level should concentrate on convective scale forecasts. The counter-analysis, stating that convective-scale NWP was not reachable by all partners before a decade or so, immediately opened the door for multiple scientific approaches, thus multiple software libraries, in the mid-term. Whatever the scientific wishes, political claims and national ambitions, I do state quite firmly my golden rule number 2. The major bet and constraint for all of us must be the “development quality” of our NWP tools: maintenance (phasing, but also software design and upstream scientific foundation of an idea), documentation, an improvement of our operational preparations, a more intense and objective usage of ECMWF resources (for boundary conditions, transversal activities like EPS).

Finally, before answering the “Quo vadis” question, another interrogation should come to (y)our minds: “Would Météo-France eventually always do the job for us(you) ?”. Météo-France is the historical driving force of the ALADIN project, in many respects. To what extent it would shrink the volume if its involvement depends both on aspects that scientists do not control, and on items that they do partially master: scientific and managerial initiatives, quality of the networking, self-criticism (and criticism towards Météo-France), acceptance for responsibility. The third golden rule might be that all of us are put at the challenge to be innovative, not only adaptive. Imagination and some free spirit certainly are not forbidden.

In the coming months, a number of meetings will help us to settle the new governance: the ALADIN workshop in Sofia, held most likely together with the Hirlam all staff meeting around mi-May, and along with the CSSI meeting; the traditional EWGLAM/SRNWP workshop; the thematic SRNWP workshops; the end of the year PAC and regular General Assembly. More information on all these meetings will be available in due time on the Aladin web site.

1.1.EVENTS

1.1.1.Policy Advisory Committee: Vienna Austria 26 January 2006.

1.1.2.General Assembly of ALADIN Partners: Brussels 23 February 2006.

1.1.3.LACE Steering Committee: Budapest 15-17 February 2006.

1.1.4.ARPEGE/IFS coordination meeting: Reading 23d March 2006.

1.2.ANNOUNCEMENTS

1.2.1.ALADIN CSSI & HIRLAM M.G. Meeting :Sofia Bulgaria 14 May 2006.

1.2.2.16^th ALADIN Workshop & HIRLAM All Staff Meeting: Sofia Bulgaria 16-19 May 2006.

1.2.3.3d SRNWP Meso scale verification workshop: Sofia Bulgaria 17-18 May 2006.

1.2.4.EWGLAM & SRNWP Meeting: Zurich Switzerland 9-12 October 2006.

1.2.5.ALADIN/HIRLAM practical training on ODB & 3 DVAR.6^th - 10^th JUNE 2006.

1.2.6.NetFAM summer school: St Peterbourg 11^th-17^thJUNE 2006.

1.2.7.LACE steering committee: Zagreb 14^th - 15^th September 2006.

1.2.8.Policy Advisory Committee: Lisbon 21^st – 22d September 2006.

1.2.9.Annual EWGLAM/SRNWP meeting: Zürich 9^th - 11^th October 2006.

1.2.10.Regular GA of ALADIN partners: Budapest 9^th - 10^th November 2006.

1.3.ALADIN 2

1.4.GOSSIP

2.1.Introduction

The general update of the climate and coupling files for all ARPEGE and ALADIN suites was scheduled for the end of 2005.

For physiography files, the purpose was to introduce new input climatological databases for orography and for climatological/relaxation surface fields. Moreover, this was an opportunity to get rid of some long-lasting known weaknesses (inconsistency of snow cover computation in c923 and e923), to update some very old physiography files, to redefine some model and/or post-processing domains, to retune orography smoothing etc.

For coupling files, new fields for physical parametrisations could be added (ozone, aerosols, new snow variables), vertical levels could be changed following , and new parameter for monitoring of the coupling update frequency could be used.

Besides that, the new eggx header (NCADFORM=1 in namelist & NAMOPH) was set as new default.

(Some work was scheduled, but not finished, on the optimization of the content of the coupling files and the second order packing.)

Partners were informed by many e-mails, presentations and (informal) meetings along workshops, article in the Newsletter.

2.1.1.Work:

The information about the operational domains, their horizontal and vertical resolution, orography tuning, and on the required content of the new files was collected. The new climate files were centrally produced in Toulouse (although some Partners prepared them themselves). A testing set of coupling files from the ARPEGE e-suite using those new climate files was prepared as well. All Partners were asked to test these files, fields and consequently all operational applications.

2.1.2.Encountered problems:

When evaluating the parallel suites, worse scores for 2m relative humidity (both in ARPEGE and ALADIN) and temperature (for ALADIN-France only), probably due to a model bias, previously unduly countered by poor surface condition, but now, with more accurate fields, more visisble, especially in assimilation mode.

In the new clim files, the surface is more wet, which leads to a too wet model through relaxation in soil assimilation surface.

After solving the majority of above mentioned problems (and despite some of them), the general switch was scheduled for 23/01/2006 00UTC long cut-off for assimilation, and 06UTC early cut-off for production. For Partners who were not ready to switch the provisional solution of using non-incremental interpolations in e927 procedure (to avoid potential problems when using inconsistent sets of climate files) was adopted.

2.1.3.Status on 15/02/2006:

ARPEGE, ALADIN/FRANCE and ALADIN/LACE have switched simultaneously on 23/01/2006. SELAM, Tunisia and Poland have switched on 30/01/2006, Morocco on 08/02/2006. Belgium is scheduled on 20/02/2006. The only remaining country to switch is Portugal.

2.1.4.Lesson for the future:

It took us all together almost one year from the first coordination e-mails to the switch!

Reading and answering coordination e-mails helps to make the work of concerned people more efficient, to avoid useless work duplication and to speed up whole process.

Do not forget that similar exercise (coordinated switch of operational suites) waits for us in the near future with SURFEX.

2.1.5.Acknowledgements:

Huge work to collect and spread all necessary information was done by D. Giard, with the help of M. Derkova. F. Taillefer debugged and upgraded e923 configuration, with help from F. Bouyssel. GCO team prepared all clim files and the set of coupling files for testing. After D. Giard left GMAP, C. Fischer took over the coordination work.

2.2.CYCLES

2.2.1.Bouteloup Y.: CY30T1

2.3.Transversal informations

2.4.Changes in the operational version of ARPEGE

2.4.1.Stein J.: Validation of the 3DVAR assimilation scheme (version 2005_02).

2.4.2.Fischer C.: Summary of the GMAP/COMPAS documentation on the E-suite.

2.4.3.Bouttier F.: The launch of the "Lopez/L46" parallel suite in Toulouse.

2.4.4.Gril J-D.: The new geometry routines in the ALADIN model – Janvier 2006.

2.5.AUSTRIA

2.6.BELGIUM

2.6.1.Main feature:

Midday run: Coupling with Aladin-France for 0-42 hours range and with Arpege for 42-60 hours range.

2.6.2.Model geometry:

Forecast settings:

The computer system:

We further refined some parts of the parametrizations, like the representation of the Bergeron effect.

The work on a simplified version developed for Alaro was the occasion for reviewing and rationalizing. The behaviour at 4 and 2km still requires further tuning.

2.7.BULGARIA

In March, operations were switched to the new integration domain with linear grid, which was implemented in the autumn of 2004. Domain characteristics look as follows:

Also was implemented latlon domain for post processing with resolution 0.1x0.1 degrees, using climatology files.

In April the scripts for retrieving coupling files were completely rewritten due to the change of the fire wall software at Meteo France.

During the autumn of 2004, the porting of the export of cy29t2 was done. The installation was done only for the model part, thus the routines concerning ODB were removed from the pack, leaving only the *.h files. There were no serious problems during the porting, but more or less usual things:

Successfull switching to the new coupling and climatology files happened on 30 of January 2006. It might happen earlier, but there were some problems with climatology files for the integration domain.

2.8.CROATIA

The operational suite has changed significantly. The “big” switch happened with the 00 UTC run on 1^st December 2005. The research on EPS has continued. NH dynamics and SLHD have been tested in high resolution (2 km).

1.1.1.Operational suite

ALADIN is operationally run twice a day, for 00 and 12 UTC. Coupling files are retrieved from ARPEGE (Meteo-France global model) via Internet and RETIM2000. Model resolution is 8 km for Croatian and 2 km for the high-resolution dynamical adaptation domains. The execution of the suite is controlled by the OpenPBS (Portable Batch System) as the queuing system.

Initialisation of ALADIN on Croatian domain is provided by Digital Filter Initialisation (DFI). Coupling frequency and frequency of output files is 3 hours. The forecast range is prolonged to 54 hours. The operational version of Aladin is AL28T3 including some additional modifications linked with SLHD and physics parametrizations.

Visualisation of numerous meteorological fields are done on LINUX PC. Comparison of forecasts with SYNOP data are done hourly for today's and yesterday’s forecast. Similar comparison with measurements from automatic stations has been introduced on 9^th January 2006. The products are available on the Intranet & Internet. Internet address with some of the ALADIN products, like total precipitation and 10 m wind: http://prognoza.hr/aladin_prognoza_e.html.

Horizontal resolution of the Croatian domain is 8 km, 37 levels in the vertical, time-step 327 sec, 229x205 grid points (240x216 with extension zone). Corners: SW (36.18,3.90), NE (50.68,26.90).

The only change related to the 6 domains for the dynamical adaptation of the wind field in the lower troposphere to 2-km resolution orography for mountainous parts of Croatia is the removal of envelope. Dynamical adaptation is run sequentially for each output file, with 3 hour interval. In the dynamical adaptation meteorological fields are first interpolated from input 8-km resolution to the dynamical adaptation 2-km resolution. The same file is used as a initial file and as a coupling file that contains boundary conditions for the model.

The operational version of Aladin is AL28T3 including the modifications introduced in Prague, mostly linked with physics parametrizations; orography is without envelope, modified gwd scheme is used, cloudiness and radiation packages and semi-Lagrangian horizontal diffusion.

Figure 2. Comparison of forecasts with to the measurements from automatic stations for 10m wind in Dubrovnik (left), temperature in Pazin (center) and pressure in Malinska (right), 8-km resolution forecast is in red, 2-km resolution average wind speed and gusts are in orange, measured 10-minute average is purple and measured 10-minute maximum is blue.

The new snow scheme will be used after the required fields become available in the coupling files. The forecast range will be prolonged if the range of coupling files will. The increase of the vertical resolution is being considered, but requires a stronger computer.

ALARO0 should be ported and run at least on a daily basis. The size of domain and forecast range will be set depending on the its cost.

A possibility to use smaller number of larger high resolution dynamical adaptation domains is considered. Also, using SLHD and NH dynamics in this part of the operational suite would be beneficial.

2.9.CZECH REPUBLIC

2.10.FRANCE

2.11.HUNGARY

Basically, the operational model version was kept unchanged in the second half of 2005 with the following characteristics:

2.12.MOROCCO

2.13.POLAND

2.14.PORTUGAL

Significant effort was devoted to the tuition of 2 new ALADIN team elements, in the last semester of 2005.

The AL28T3 cycle was installed by the end of the year. It was found that AL28T3 takes 2s longer per time step than the AL12_bf02.

The dissemination of ALADIN derived products was optimized and some meteorological applications were migrated from OpenVMS to UNIX.

2.15.ROMANIA

2.16.SLOVAKIA

2.17.SLOVENIA

Forecast length was prolongated up to 54h on 20/07/2005. The ALADIN operational suite was switched to cy29t2 on 07/12/2005. Changes in physical parameterization for cloudiness and radiation and SLHD were introduced.

The computer system and operational suite has been controlled by NAGIOS supervision system since the end of July. Failures and problems are reported to e-mails and via SMS messages to mobile phones. This has been found as very useful, number of cases with delays were reduced, although there is regular operational supervision only during working hours and voluntarily during the rest.

The transfer of coupling files from ARPEGE model via Internet from Toulouse was very stable. Few times in July happened that the transfer rate in the afternoon was slow (10kB/s) and three times during six months coupling files were not available because of the problems at Meteo-France. Files were significantly delayed (available after 4:30/16:30 UTC) 8 times.

Some efforts were devoted to the OpenMP version of ALADIN model. The OpenMP version is running but it has not been put in to the operational suite yet. It is planned to do so in forthcoming months due to decreased memory consumption and good execution efficiency.

2.18.TUNISIA

3.1.AUSTRIA

3.2.BELGIUM

3.3.BULGARIA

3.4.CROATIA

3.4.1.Impact of SLHD, NH dynamics and different orography representations on high resolution forecast

The study has been performed on one of the 6 domains for the dynamical adaptation of the wind field in the lower troposphere to 2-km resolution orography for mountainous parts of Croatia that are used operationally. The most thoroughly studied phenomenon in this context is bura, particularly one case of severe bura on 14^th November 2004.

3.4.2.LAM EPS

3.5.CZECH REPUBLIC

3.6.FRANCE

3.7.HUNGARY

The main scientific orientation of the Hungarian Meteorological Service for the ALADIN project is data assimilation, short range ensemble prediction and high resolution meso-gamma scale modelling (AROME model).

a) Shortly after the operational implementation of the three-dimensional variational data assimilation scheme the activities around its improvements had been continued:

b) The sensitivity of global singular vector computation with respect to its target domain and time was continued and completed until the end of 2005. The final results confirm that although the proper choice of the target domain and time can improve the global (and limited area) ensemble system, the studied limited area ensemble system cannot provide reasonable improvements by the direct downscaling of the gloabal system (see more detailed report in the same Newsletter).

c) The adaptation of the AROME prototype had been continued: several technical and practical hurdles were overtaken and the first case studies started to be investigated (see the report of László Kullmann in the same Newsletter).

3.8.MOROCCO

3.9.POLAND

3.10.PORTUGAL

3.11.ROMANIA

3.12.SLOVAKIA

3.13.SLOVENIA

Our group was mainly focused on two topics: the developments of physical parameterizations and common ALADIN verification project. Significant effort was also dedicated to the organization of the EWGLAM and SRNWP meetings.

During the Jure's Cedilnik stay in Prague first version of prognostic turbulent kinetic energy was coded and prepared for initial tests. A prognostic precipitation scheme (prognostic precipitating water and ice, use of the pseudo-fluxes between 5 water phases, collection, sedimentation of precipitation) prepared by Bart Carty was implemented into ALADIN cycle29 (modifications to data flow, corresponding interfaces were introduced) and tested (Dunja Drvar 3 weeks stay in Ljubljana).

Coding of consistent setup of GFL structure (for transparent use of GFLs and their attributes) for ALADIN/ARPEGE/AROME was done in Toulouse.

To continue work on the ALADIN verification project one student was engaged. Many developments were done in the application on the new server. To obtain better time performance some changes in table definitions and optimization of request to database were introduced and tested. Modification were done also in calculation and visualization part.

Lovro Kalin was working for 3 weeks (December) in Ljubljana. He prepared proposal for content of automatic monthly verification report. In the first step report will be prepared for each station, various graphs (2m temperature, maximum/minimum temperature, 10m wind, pmsl, ...) and contingency tables (precipitation, cloudiness) will be included. The coding is currently in a process.

Migration to the new server is still on going, main problems are with observation data flow which is going to be changed at our service.

3.14.TUNISIA

3.15.HIRLAM

4.1.Bouttier F., G. Hello, Y. Seity, S. Malardel and C. Lac: Status of the AROME project in MF in winter 2006.

4.2.Hágel E. and A. Horányi: Sensitivity experiments of global singular vectors at the Hungarian Meteorological Service.

4.3.Haiden T. and K. von der Emde: Verification of ALADIN global radiation forecasts.

4.4.Kullmann L.: Installation of AROME at HMS.

4.5.Rio J. and M. Belo Pereira: Snow fall event in South Portugal.

4.6.Randriamampianina R.: Use and impact of the full grid AMSU-B data in the ALADIN/HU model.

4.7.Spaniel O.: Local ALADIN&HIRLAM Operational Suite.

4.8.Spiridonov V., S. Somot and M. Déqué: ALADIN-Climate: from the origins to present date.

4.9.Vasiliu S.: An evaluation of the 3D-FGAT scheme for the ALADIN/Hungary model.

4.10.Wong Y. and A. Kann: ALADIN Limited Area Ensemble Forecasting (LAEF).

5.1.Margarida Belo-Pereira: Estimation and study of forecast error covariances using an ensemble method in a global NWP model.

5.2.Karim Bergaoui: Further improvement of a simplified 2d variational soil water analysis.

5.3.Vincent Guidard: Evaluation of assimilation cycles in a mesoscale limited area model.

5.4.Raluca Radu : Extensive study of the coupling problem for a high-resolution limited-area model.

5.5.Andre Simon : Study of the relationship between turbulent fluxes in deeply stable PBL situations and cyclogenetic activity

5.6.Simona E. Stefanescu: The modelling of the forecast error covariances for a 3D-Var data assimilation in an atmospheric limited-area model.

5.7.Malgorzata Szech-Gajewska: Use of IASI/AIRS observations over land.

5.8.Steluta Vasiliu: Scientific strategy for the implementation of a 3D-Var data assimilation scheme for a double-nested limited-area model.

The three reports necessary for defending my Ph.D thesis have been written and presented at the Faculty of Physics, University of Bucharest. Their titles are:

a) “Theoretical considerations about some data assimilation algorithms for the mesoscale numerical weather predictions models”;

b) “Implications of the three-dimensional data assimilation scheme on the results of the spectral mesoscale numerical weather prediction model ALADIN”;

“Considerations about the use of the explicit blending method with the three-dimensional data assimilation scheme for ALADIN model”.

5.9.Jozef VIVODA : Application of the predictor-corrector method to non-hydrostatic dynamics.

5.10.Fabrice VOITUS : A survey on well-posed and transparent lateral boundary conditions (LBCs) in spectral limited-area models

6.1.Berre L., S. E. Stefanescu and M. Belo Pereira, 2006: The representation of the analysis in three error simulation techniques.

6.2.Bouttier, F., G. Hello, Y. Seity and S. Malardel, 2006: Progress of the AROME mesoscale NWP project.

CAS/JSC WGNE "Blue Book" annual report "Research Activities in Atmospheric and Ocean Modelling", Ed. J. Côté.

6.3.Chapnik B., G. Desroziers, F. Rabier and O. Talagrand: Diagnosis and tuning of observational error in a quasi-operational data assimilation setting.

Quart. Jour. Roy. Meteor. Soc. N° 615 January 2006 Part B. Volume: 132 Number: 615 Page: pp. 543- 565. http://www.royalmetsoc.org/

6.4.Desroziers G., L. Berre, B. Chapnik and P. Poli: 2006: Diagnosis of error statistics in observation space.

CAS/JSC WGNE "Blue Book" annual report "Research Activities in Atmospheric and Ocean Modelling", Ed. J. Côté.

6.5.Gérard L., J-M. Piriou and J-F. Geleyn: 2006: Advances in the integration of deep convection and microphysics for the meso-scale.

CAS/JSC WGNE "Blue Book" annual report "Research Activities in Atmospheric and Ocean Modelling", Ed. J. Côté.

6.6.Hua, Z., F. Rabier, M. Sczech-Gajewska, N. Fourrié and T. Auligné, 2006: Impact study on the assimilation of the AIRS radiances over land.

6.7.Montmerle, T., J.-P. Lafore, L. Berre and C. Fischer, 2006 : Limited area model error statistics over Western Africa : comparisons with mid-latitude results.

6.8.Vasiliu, S., and A. Horanyi, 2005: An evaluation of the performance of the three-dimensional variational data assimilation scheme for the ALADIN/HU spectral limited area model,

In this paper, the three-dimensional variational (3D-Var) data assimilation scheme for the ALADIN/Hungary model is described and its performance is evaluated by comparing the resulting forecast scores with those from the reference model running in dynamical adaptation. Experiments with different assimilation strategies have been studied, in order to establish the general framework for further research. The verification scores show a better short-range performance of the 3D-Var system. More results are presented for two individual synoptic cases, corresponding to interesting meteorological situations. One was selected based on the poor performance of the reference model, where the model using the 3D-Var scheme is found to perform better. The other was an example, when the operational model did well, and it was shown that the 3D-Var scheme is able to keep the good performance of the reference model.

6.9.Tjernström, Michael; Žagar, Mark; Svensson, Gunilla; Cassano, John; Pfeifer, Susanne; Rinke, Annette; Wyser, Klaus; Dethloff, Klaus; Jones, Colin; Semmler, Tido; Shaw, Michael.

A primary climate change signal in the central Arctic is the melting of sea ice. This is dependent on the interplay between the atmosphere and the sea ice, which is critically dependent on the exchange of momentum, heat and moisture at the surface. In assessing the realism of climate change scenarios it is vital to know the quality by which these exchanges are modelled in climate simulations. Six state-of-the-art regional-climate models are run for one year in the western Arctic, on a common domain that encompasses the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean (SHEBA) experiment ice-drift track. Surface variables, surface fluxes and the vertical structure of the lower troposphere are evaluated using data from the SHEBA experiment. All the models are driven by the same lateral boundary conditions, sea-ice fraction and sea and sea-ice surface temperatures. Surface pressure, near-surface air temperature, specific humidity and wind speed agree well with observations, with a falling degree of accuracy in that order. Wind speeds have systematic biases in some models, by as much as a few metres per second. The surface radiation fluxes are also surprisingly accurate, given the complexity of the problem. The turbulent momentum flux is acceptable, on average, in most models, but the turbulent heat fluxes are, however, mostly unreliable. Their correlation with observed fluxes is, in principle, insignificant, and they accumulate over a year to values an order of magnitude larger than observed. Typical instantaneous errors are easily of the same order of magnitude as the observed net atmospheric heat flux. In the light of the sensitivity of the atmosphere–ice interaction to errors in these fluxes, the ice-melt in climate change scenarios must be viewed with considerable caution.

1.1.EVENTS

1.1.1.Policy Advisory Committee: Vienna Austria 26 January 2006.

1.1.2.General Assembly of ALADIN Partners: Brussels 23 February 2006.

1.1.3.LACE Steering Committee: Budapest 15-17 February 2006.

1.1.4.ARPEGE/IFS coordination meeting: Reading 23d March 2006.

1.2.ANNOUNCEMENTS

1.2.1.ALADIN CSSI & HIRLAM M.G. Meeting :Sofia Bulgaria 14 May 2006.

1.2.2.16th ALADIN Workshop & HIRLAM All Staff Meeting: Sofia Bulgaria 16-19 May 2006.

1.2.3.3d SRNWP Meso scale verification workshop: Sofia Bulgaria 17-18 May 2006.

1.2.4.EWGLAM & SRNWP Meeting: Zurich Switzerland 9-12 October 2006.

1.2.5.ALADIN/HIRLAM practical training on ODB & 3 DVAR.6th - 10th JUNE 2006.

1.2.6.NetFAM summer school: St Peterbourg 11th-17th JUNE 2006.

1.2.7.LACE steering committee: Zagreb 14th - 15th September 2006.

1.2.8.Policy Advisory Committee: Lisbon 21st – 22d September 2006.

1.2.9.Annual EWGLAM/SRNWP meeting: Zürich 9th - 11th October 2006.

1.2.10.Regular GA of ALADIN partners: Budapest 9th - 10th November 2006.

1.3.ALADIN 2

1.4.GOSSIP

2.1.Introduction

2.1.1.Work:

2.1.2.Encountered problems:

2.1.3.Status on 15/02/2006:

2.1.4.Lesson for the future:

2.1.5.Acknowledgements:

2.2.CYCLES

2.2.1.Bouteloup Y.: CY30T1

2.3.Transversal informations

2.4.Changes in the operational version of ARPEGE

2.4.1.Stein J.: Validation of the 3DVAR assimilation scheme (version 2005_02).

2.4.2.Fischer C.: Summary of the GMAP/COMPAS documentation on the E-suite.

2.4.3.Bouttier F.: The launch of the "Lopez/L46" parallel suite in Toulouse.

2.4.4.Gril J-D.: The new geometry routines in the ALADIN model – Janvier 2006.

2.5.AUSTRIA

2.6.BELGIUM

2.6.1.Main feature:

2.6.2.Model geometry:

Forecast settings:

The computer system:

Present:

Future (February 2006):

2.7.BULGARIA

2.8.CROATIA

1.1.1.Operational suite

Status

Domains

Operational model version

Plans

2.9.CZECH REPUBLIC

2.10.FRANCE

2.11.HUNGARY

2.12.MOROCCO

2.13.POLAND

2.14.PORTUGAL

2.15.ROMANIA

2.16.SLOVAKIA

2.17.SLOVENIA

2.18.TUNISIA

3.1.AUSTRIA

3.2.BELGIUM

3.3.BULGARIA

3.4.CROATIA

3.4.1.Impact of SLHD, NH dynamics and different orography representations on high resolution forecast

3.4.2.LAM EPS

3.5.CZECH REPUBLIC

3.6.FRANCE

3.7.HUNGARY

3.8.MOROCCO

3.9.POLAND

3.10.PORTUGAL

3.11.ROMANIA

3.12.SLOVAKIA

3.13.SLOVENIA

3.14.TUNISIA

3.15.HIRLAM

4.1.Bouttier F., G. Hello, Y. Seity, S. Malardel and C. Lac: Status of the AROME project in MF in winter 2006.

4.2.Hágel E. and A. Horányi: Sensitivity experiments of global singular vectors at the Hungarian Meteorological Service.

4.3.Haiden T. and K. von der Emde: Verification of ALADIN global radiation forecasts.

4.4.Kullmann L.: Installation of AROME at HMS.

4.5.Rio J. and M. Belo Pereira: Snow fall event in South Portugal.

4.6.Randriamampianina R.: Use and impact of the full grid AMSU-B data in the ALADIN/HU model.

1.2.2.16^th ALADIN Workshop & HIRLAM All Staff Meeting: Sofia Bulgaria 16-19 May 2006.

1.2.5.ALADIN/HIRLAM practical training on ODB & 3 DVAR.6^th - 10^th JUNE 2006.

1.2.6.NetFAM summer school: St Peterbourg 11^th-17^thJUNE 2006.

1.2.7.LACE steering committee: Zagreb 14^th - 15^th September 2006.

1.2.8.Policy Advisory Committee: Lisbon 21^st – 22d September 2006.

1.2.9.Annual EWGLAM/SRNWP meeting: Zürich 9^th - 11^th October 2006.

1.2.10.Regular GA of ALADIN partners: Budapest 9^th - 10^th November 2006.

6.3.`Chapnik B., G. Desroziers, F. Rabier and O. Talagrand: Diagnosis and tuning of observational error in a quasi-operational data assimilation setting.`