NOTES FROM THE SEVENTH FORMAL GEWEX HYDROCLIMATOLOGY PANEL (GHP)(formerly CEOP) TELECONFERENCE ON AMERICAS REGIONAL HYDROCLIMATEPROJECTS AND REFERENCE SITE ISSUES HELD ON
19 OCTOBER 2010
Final DRAFT, 19 December 2010
1.

INTRODUCTIONth

The 7 Americas RHP and Reference Sites Teleconference related to the GEWEXHydroclimatology Panel (GHP, formerly CEOP) took place on Tuesday 19 October 2010 at 20:00
UTC.
The issues that were discussed on the subject conference call included:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

The Pan-GEWEX Meeting in Seattle, USA, 23 – 28 August and its Outcomes
Overview of all site data at CEOP Reference Site Data Archive;
RHP/Reference Site data providers/managers reports;

Participants
Hugo Berbery
Luiz Horta
Steve Williams
Scot Loehrer
Sam Benedict
Petra Koudelova
2.

(LPB Representative)(LBA reference site data manager)(CEOP Reference Site Data Archive manager)(CEOP Reference Site Data Archive manager)(GHP International Coordination Function)(GHP International Coordination Function)

NEXT CONFERENCE CALLth

The next, 8 GHP Americas RHP and Reference Sites Teleconference is proposed to takeplace on Tuesday 15 February 2011 at 20:00 UTC. Benedict and Koudelova have the action(A1) to inform the group of the details of the next call nearer to the time of the call and tocoordinate the origination of the call (action A1a). In this context, a calendar of the dates andtimes of all the CEOP conference calls for 2010-2011 was distributed to the participants for their
future reference that is also available through the CEOP homepage at: http://monsoon.t.utokyo.ac.jp/ceop2/calls.html.
3.

GHP AND CEOP DATA GROUP GENERAL ISSUES

3.1 WCRP and GEWEX related issues(3.1a) Benedict reported on the Pan-GEWEX meeting in Seattle, USA, on 23 – 28 August2010 and its outcomes (http://www.gewex.org/2010pangewex/home.html). That event included a
Business Meeting of CEOP and it was held in parallel with meetings of the other GEWEX Panels,
namely, the GEWEX Modeling and Prediction Panel (GMPP) and the GEWEX Radiation Panel(GRP). Following the Plenary sessions and the parallel Panel meetings the GEWEX Scientific
Steering Group (SSG) also met.
The outcome of these events included a number of decisions, recommendations andactions specifically associated with CEOP as well as a set of general (Pan-GEWEX) actions for
all the Panels. A still preliminary summary of key events that took place at both the PGM and the
SSG Meeting as submitted by the SSG Chairman Dr Kevin Trenberth is attached below(ATTACHMENT1). This document was distributed to the broader CEOP community subsequently
after the call together with a list of actions drafted at the end of the SSG Meeting.
The main changes that have taken place recently with respect to CEOP include:1. The SSG accepted Prof Toshio Koike’s decision to step down as Co-Chair of CEOP
effective at the close of the PGM at Seattle. This action, followed Dr Ron Stewart’s
resignation, which was taken at the close of the SSG meeting at New Delhi India, 25-29
January 2010,
2. Dr Dennis Lettenmaier was named Co-Chair of CEOP to replace Dr Stewart, effective at
the end of the SSG meeting at India (25-29 January 2010),
3. There is a search team being organized to find a Co-Chair to work with Dr Lettenmaier.
4. The SSG agreed to change the name of CEOP to the GEWEX Hydroclimatology Panel(GHP), effective immediately following the end of the PGM.
Also a new set of criteria for GEWEX RHPs was proposed at the meeting that were circulated
prior to the call and that should be reviewed by RHPs.
In addition, Benedict voiced that with regards to the changes resulting from the Pan-GEWEX
meeting discussions, the data collecting and reporting scheme may need some restructuring,
however the urgent need for a high quality data as a basis for scientific activities that are key for
the GEWEX Imperatives was confirmed at the meeting and the reference site data activities aresupposed to continue in a certain manner. The in-situ data from the CEOP reference sites wereacknowledged and studies based on these data were presented at the meeting.
(3.1b) The group was informed that efforts to develop a new RHP in USA/Northern America had
been initiated and preliminary planning was ongoing. The idea is to build on the success of the
GCIP/GAPP/CPPA legacy, while entraining the vast array of interdisciplinary observational andmodeling resources available in this region. Through smart coordination and integration, it isintended to coalesce an interdisciplinary, interagency, and potentially international effort thatwill make significant contributions to continental-scale hydroclimate science and solutions. It isseen as a contribution to not only GEWEX but also the broader climate, carbon, ecology, andapplications communities. A town hall meeting on this matter is scheduled at the AGU Fall
meeting in San Francisco, Wednesday 15 December, 1230h–1330h and anybody attending the
AGU meeting and interested in this idea is welcome to this event.
(3.1c) It was reiterated that a 10-Year Dataset project had been initiated in response to theclimate modeling community need of a high quality observation data of a sufficient length forevaluation of climate models under the CMIP5 project and quantification of model projections
uncertainties. This activity was proposed by the WCRP Observation and Assimilation Panelrd(WOAP) and is compliant with the CEOP commitment taken at the 3 Annual CEOP Meeting in
Melbourne in August 2009 to develop the CEOP 10-year dataset as well as with the GEWEX
post 2013 Imperatives (http://www.gewex.org/2010pangewex/Draft_Imperatives.pdf). The
WOAP suggested activity is envisioned as a collaborative effort of a broader observation andclimate modeling communities including GEWEX/CEOP, LandFlux-EVAL, GSWP, AsiaFlux, fromthe observation side. The targeted dataset will consists of in-situ as well as satellite
observations from multiple providers including GHP (CEOP), FLUXNET, AsiaFlux, iLEAPS.
The 10-Year Dataset project was discussed with the LandFlux-EVAL, FLUXNET, AsiaFlux, and
GSWP representatives at the occasion of the HESSS2 Meeting in Tokyo in June andsubsequently a White Paper was developed and submitted for discussion at the Pan-GEWEX
meeting in August (see ATTACHMENT 2). The activity was accepted as one of the new GHPs
efforts. The White Paper is now being discussed with the CMIP group and the GHP (CEOP)
community will be informed of the further development of the activity in due course.
With regards to the 10-year period, the actual years have not been confirmed yet. In this context,
it was mentioned that processing the data prior 2001 would mean a non-negligible additional
effort, which should be considered when deciding the actual 10-year period. Williams also addedthat the nomination of sites would be done by an advisory group that is to be formed and that thegeographical and climate aspect of the sites will also be considered together with thecompleteness of the data record for the selected 10-year period.

(3.1d) It was announced that the 2010 CEOP Special Issue of GEWEX News was published at
the beginning of September and was available for download at:
http://www.gewex.org/2010pangewex/home.html.
(3.1e) The group was informed that the data portal of the Data Integration and Analysis System(DIAS) of Japan was opened to public on 1 October 2010 that can be accessed at:
http://www.editoria.u-tokyo.ac.jp/dias/link/portal/english_index.html.
4.

RHP and Reference Site Reports

4.1 Overall status of the CEOP reference site data archive and related issues
Williams provided overall updated status of the Americas reference sites that can also
be accessed on the Internet at:
http://data.eol.ucar.edu/master_list/?project=CEOP/EOP-3/4.
4.2 CPPA and BERMS sites by Steve Williams(4.2a) Williams reported that all the ARM sites data including SGP, NSA, and WTP werecomplete up to 2009. Nevertheless, he reiterated that there had been substantial changes interms of individual station locations within the SGP reference site (number of stations had been
shut down and new would be installed in 2011) in order to better fit to higher model resolutions.
This needs to be considered when if the SGP site is nominated for contribution to the 10-YDP. It
may require that a subset of stations is selected that have been in operation at the same location
since the beginning of the CEOP (or 10-YDP) period.
(4.2b) Williams further mentioned that Dr. Meyers had informed him that the work on the CPPA
reference site data was progressing. The quality control and data gap filling was ongoing. Thesesites data were also available through the FLUXNET channels but the datasets were preliminary
as they have not been quality checked.
(4.2c) Williams also voiced that the BERMS sites datasets up to 2009 would be submitted to
the NCAR archive by early 2011 as reported by Dr. Barr in writing.
4.3 LPB by Hugo Berbery(4.3a) Berbery reiterated that the LPB reference site Cruz Alta was working well and data werebeing collected. Debora Roberti, CPTEC, the Cruz Alta site representative for GHP (CEOP) was
working on the data to prepare them for submission to the NCAR archive. However, their group
was currently working on a publication using the data and thus the data will not be submitted prior
finalizing this publication.
(4.3b) Berbery also reiterated that an idea of a filed campaign in the basin had emerged andbeen discussed among the US and Argentinean scientists, who were much interested in suchactivity. Berbery will inform the group of progress on this matter in due course.
4.4 LBA by Luiz Horta(4.4a) Horta reiterated that the new person hired on a full-time position for the LBA referencesite data processing had begun the work on the LBA data using a fully operational program andthus further data submissions from LBA might be expected in the near future.
He also voiced that there had been certain updates in Manaus. The site equipment ismonitored on-line, providing thus immediate information on the status of sensors. In addition, adata archive center is under consideration at CPTEC, that would be tele-connected to theobservation sites and thus the data would be transmitted to the center on a real time basis. The
data center may be implemented in 2011.
Regarding the data, Dr. Araujo is preparing a next set of the Manaus site data forsubmission. It still requires a lot of manual work and is also hindered by a slow internet
connection at Manaus but the new system should improve the situation considerably.
(4.4b) Horta further voiced that there were presidential elections in Brazil and based on the
results, certain changes in the LBA scheme might take place. He will advise the group of theresults and possible impacts on the LBA activities.
ATTACHMENT 1 Outcome and prospects from the August 2010 pan-GEWEX and SSG
meetings, Seattle.

6 Sept 2010
Outcome and prospects from the August 2010 pan-GEWEX and SSG meetings, Seattle.
Kevin E Trenberth
GEWEX held a “pan-GEWEX” meeting in Seattle for a week in late August 2010. The “pan-GEWEX”
connotation means that it was an opportunity for all of the working groups and panels within GEWEX tomeet together and exchange views while interacting to formulate future plans. Accordingly, the Scientific
Steering Group (SSG) attended and participated fully, and we took the opportunity to have an SSG meeting
after the full meeting closed. In addition, a number of program managers from different nations attended,
and we were fortunate to be able to involve a number of young scientists in the process (see report
elsewhere).
This pan-GEWEX meeting was especially eventful owing to a number of challenges before the community informulating plans for the new post-2013 phase of the WCRP, guided by the JSC. In particular, the guidancesuggested that core projects would be retained but with revised responsibilities to facilitate climate system
research at the interface of the physical Earth system components. The suggested four new core projects
should be: 1) Ocean-atmosphere (think CLIVAR); 2) Land-atmosphere (think GEWEX); 3) Cryosphere (thinkCliC); and 4) Stratosphere-troposphere (think SPARC). Then within each core project there should be acommon set of basic “themes” including 1) Observations and analysis; 2) Model development, evaluationand experiments; 3) Processes and understanding; 4) Applications and services; and 5) Capacity building.
Coordination across projects on these themes would be via WCRP Modeling and Observations Councils.
In preparation for the forthcoming changes, prior to the last JSC meeting, the GEWEX SSG met in January2010 in New Delhi and began formulating plans for the future via a new mission statement, a set ofimperatives (things that must be done), and a set of frontier challenges for the future. The draft set of thesewas published in the May 2010 GEWEX newsletter as a basis for the pan-GEWEX discussions.
At the January meeting, I had challenged the SSG to say why the three GEWEX panels: Radiation (GRP),
Modeling (GMPP), and CEOP should be together. The arguments were strong and convinced me that weshould continue with similar components in any future GEWEX. Figure 1 illustrates the points from thestandpoint of the hydrological cycle, featuring radiation, atmospheric processes and land surface hydrology
and processes. The original motivation for these being together is that they correspond to the “fast”
processes in the climate system, and this still applies. Following the JSC meeting in February, key
questions were “how much science falls under land-atmosphere” and “what about those that do not?”Accordingly, the approach taken in the pan-GEWEX meeting was that while the future GEWEX should
indeed be the place where land-atmosphere interactions were featured, it should be much more. In
particular, it should retain the global energy and water cycle as a core focus while adding regional aspects. It
should indeed also feature hydrological and land surface processes and modeling, and interactions with theatmosphere. However, it should further retain a strong atmospheric component related to the water andenergy cycles, and hence scientific issues related to radiation, clouds, convection, precipitation, boundary
layers, surface fluxes, runoff, and human influences which should also be included in terms of observations,process understanding and modeling.

Fig. 1 depicts the hydrological cycle schematically and thus the driving by radiation and energy, theatmospheric dynamics that move water and energy around and produce clouds which block the sun, thecomplex land surface complete with human influences and the interactions with the atmosphere, and thesurface and below surface processes that complete the water cycle (adapted from Trenberth et al. 2007).
The meeting provided a venue for vigorous discussions of the draft imperatives and the future directions for
GEWEX. Following the meeting, the SSG has decided on the following. 1) While the old GEWEX name was
liked by many for its uniqueness (e.g., in a google search) and name recognition, no-one has come up witha viable alternative for the “EX” part that is clearly obsolete. Accordingly, the new name post-2013 issuggested to be: “Global and Regional Energy and Water” (GREW). This has many aspects in common
with the old name and the two should be used together for a period of time. The revised mission statement
is:
To measure and predict global and regional energy and water variations, trends, and extremes (suchas heat waves, floods and droughts), through improved observations and modeling of land,
atmosphere and their interactions; thereby providing the scientific underpinnings of climate
services.
There were strong sentiments for fewer more succinct imperatives, and the following seven have been
approved by the SSG:
Datasets: Foster development of climate data records of atmosphere, water, land, and energy-related
quantities, including metadata and uncertainty estimates.
Analysis: Describe and analyze observed variations, trends and extremes (such as heat waves,
floods and droughts) in water and energy-related quantities.
Processes: Develop approaches to improve process-level understanding of energy and water cycles
in support of improved land and atmosphere models.
Modeling: Improve global and regional simulations and predictions of precipitation, clouds, and landhydrology, and thus the entire climate system, through accelerated development of models of theland and atmosphere.
Applications: Attribute causes of variability, trends and extremes, and determine the predictability ofenergy and water cycles on global and regional bases in collaboration with the wider WCRP
community.
Technology transfer: Develop diagnostic tools and methods, new observations, models, data
management, and other research products for multiple uses and transition to operational
applications in partnership with climate and hydro-meteorological service providers.
Capacity building: Promote and foster capacity building through training of scientists and outreachto the user community.

The header in each case highlights the link between the imperative and the themes outlined by the JSC.
There is still much to be done to flesh out these imperatives with more details about what they mean interms of the actions to be taken, the lead groups in GEWEX and interactions with other parts of WCRP, andthe other organizations involved.
Modeling
Prior to the pan-GEWEX meeting, extensive discussions had been held by email that set the stage for the
discussions in Seattle. These arose in particular from a desire for the chair of GMPP (Christian Jakob) tostep down and a proposal to remove the layer of GMPP, as well as the need to address the future structureof GEWEX and GEWEX modeling post-2013. The many questions and statements that arose weresummarized as a series of questions, mostly related to modeling, that were appended to the pan-GEWEX
meeting agenda. Based on those discussions, I offered some proposals for how this may move forwardthat turn out to be similar to those adopted.
The proposal of removing the GMPP layer between GCSS, GABLS and GLASS with the SSG met withstrong approval. Instead GCSS/GABLS will be combined and, along with GLASS, will report to and takeadvice from the SSG directly.
This proposal was subsequently approved by the SSG.
As a consequence of the removal of the GMPP layer there is a need for GCSS/GABLS to undergo somereorganization. This will also pave the way for the post-2013 transition. As a result of the discussions it was
proposed that GCSS abandons its current Working Group structure. Instead, the group will operate throughprojects. Those can be initiated by any member of the community. A Science Steering Committee (SSC),
which will form the GCSS/GABLS Panel, will be responsible for the successful running of the program. This
includes the approval of proposals as well as engagement with the community to explore new opportunities.
The GABLS activities will be fully integrated into this structure through GABLS-specific projects as well as
GABLS membership on the SSC. The GCSS and GABLS brand names will be maintained. This proposal
was also subsequently approved by the SSG.
Most of the discussion in the group was about the extension of the current atmospheric model development
activities in the post-2013 structure. This resulted in the proposal for a Framework for Atmospheric Model
Enhancement (FAME). The mission of FAME is proposed as: Improving the representation of physical anddynamical processes in the troposphere in models for all purposes and especially weather and climate
services. Its main focus would be the improvement of the representation of clouds and precipitation inatmospheric models, which can only be achieved by improving our understanding of the intricate coupling ofphysical and dynamical processes associated with clouds and precipitation at various scales.
FAME was proposed in recognition of need expressed by the IPCC in several reports which highlighted thesignificant shortcomings in models in the simulation of clouds and precipitation with consequences for thesimulation of important climate feedbacks and climate sensitivity. Other important factors included the recent
revolution in the ability to observe clouds and precipitation, especially from space, and improvements inability to model the processes involved at the process-scale. The experience of more than 15 years of the
GCSS program and almost 10 years of the GABLS program makes the time right for a more concerted effort
in atmospheric model improvement that builds on the existing strengths and adds to them the important new
research area of physics-dynamics coupling.
The envisaged ingredients of FAME would be programs on the PBL (GABLS), clouds, convection andprecipitation (GCSS), radiation (currently residing in GRP and SPARC), coupling to dynamical processes(new) and potentially also coupling to numerics (new). FAME will be built around the core approaches
identified by the WCRP JSC, e.g., observations, modeling, data analysis and model diagnosis, and process
studies. Through the direct involvement of operational modeling centers in FAME as well as through theengagement of scientists throughout the world, the activities in FAME will make major contributions tocapacity building and services.
As FAME is tightly focused on providing a means for the improvement of the representation of core physicalprocesses in atmospheric models, it will partner with many other programs to contribute to the research on
phenomena that go beyond the physics-dynamics coupling in the atmosphere. Those include partnerships
with the land (e.g., GLASS, GHP), ocean (e.g., CLIVAR), aerosol (e.g., ACPC, iLEAPS), atmosphericchemistry (e.g., SPARC, IGAC), stratosphere (e.g., SPARC), and cryosphere (e.g., CliC) communities.
Necessarily, these go well beyond GEWEX alone.

FAME could be seen as a natural extension to the existing GCSS/GABLS panel described above, if the
post-2013 GEWEX structure still allows for such an activity. This would maintain continuity, provide close
links to the land and limited area modeling communities and ensure FAME’s natural focus on the energy andwater cycles. These activities were originally grouped together to provide a focus on relatively “fastprocesses” as compared with those involving the ocean or cryosphere. FAME could also make a major
contribution to a potential cross-WCRP effort on atmospheric model development.
This proposal was subsequently discussed by the SSG who strongly recommend keeping FAME within the
post-2013 GEWEX structure. Questions include how FAME goes forward, whether as a panel or working
group. Many of the other modeling activities in WCRP come under working groups. WGSIP is an example
where the WG reports to the CLIVAR SSG but acts on behalf of the WCRP to deal with seasonal tointerannual prediction. A new group, integrating FAME and possibly called WGAP, short for WG on
Atmospheric Processes and modeling for climate, could operate similarly within the new post-2013 GEWEX.
However, as the activities relate to the established WGs, especially WGNE, this aspect is yet to be decided
after broad consultation with the community.
Land surface and hydrological science
Major changes were also underway in the realm of the regional hydrological projects at the pan-GEWEX
meeting. In part these came about naturally from the evolution of the program, and given extra nudge by thechange in leadership. Under the leadership of Toshio Koike, CEOP developed an impressive and extensive
program, including the Regional Hydrometeorological Programs (RHPs), associated modeling and database development, and the Hydrologic Applications Project (HAP). CEOP remains at the core of the
GEWEX mission, includes more than a thousand researchers, and provides important regional data,
modeling and a valuable end-user interface.
The brief history is that the Continental Scale Experiment (CSE) concept was developed in the 1990s. Its
purpose was the development, diagnosis, and testing of coupled land-atmosphere models with a focus onwater and energy budget closure at near-continental scales. An example was the GEWEX Continental
Scale International Project (GCIP) for the Mississippi basin as a well instrumented and analyzed region.
This led in turn to the development of RHPs to extend this concept to other regions: MAGS, BALTEX, GAME,
LBA, AMMA; and even more recent RHPs, see Figure 2. The panel set up to provide coordination andoversight was the GEWEX Hydrometeorological Panel (GHP). Then to take advantage of many newsatellite and other observations the Coordinated Enhanced Observing Period (CEOP) was begun in 1995
and continued into the second phase of GEWEX for 2001-2006. This activity, which also developed
extensive data management activities, led by Toshio Koike in Japan, also led to some similar panels to
those in GHP and some duplication of effort. Accordingly, this first CEOP activity was combined with GHP
and evolved to become the Coordinated Energy and Water Cycle Observations Project with the sameacronym, CEOP, in 2007-2008. The initial observing period grew to become a move to produce a 10 year
dataset and archive especially set up for the regional projects. However, other developments had alreadyoccurred in observations and data management, which suggested the activity should be wrapped up andrefocused, even as it is utilized and hopefully becomes part of the heritage of GEWEX. In particular, thedevelopment of the many flux towers around the globe provide alternatives to the CEOP reference sites for
local studies of energy, water and biogeochemistry.
Accordingly, the community began what might be called a “back to basics” movement, with recognition of
the need to reinvigorate the regional hydrological projects. In particular there was a call by the new co-chair,Dennis Lettenmaeir, for stronger hydrological activities which would foster the next generation ofhydrologically realistic land surface schemes and provide a home for projects like PILPS. The
recommendation to the SSG was along these lines and thus a new GEWEX Hydroclimatology Panel(GHP: note the change in the name from the first version) has been formed to replace CEOP, effective
immediately. The SSG also followed up on the recommendation from CEOP to approve a new RHP called
the HYdrological cycle in the Mediterranean Experiment (HyMeX), focused on the 20 countries around theMediterranean Sea and the fresh water and salinity of the Sea itself.
GHP is thus the home for hydrologic science and modeling within WCRP and there is considerable scopefor developments in this area, e.g. in seasonal forecasting, the detection and attribution of change, and thedevelopment and analysis of climate projections. Challenges remain in dealing with monsoons and to help
coordinate the multitude of national initiatives in this area. There are also opportunities for linkage withGLASS in bringing disciplines together in the development of next generation Land Surface Models as wellas increasing interactions with CORDEX. Changes in the management structure are likely to accompany
the new consolidation of efforts as GHP realizes its considerable potential.

Fig. 2: The GEWEX RHPs as of 2008(??).
GEWEX Datasets
The original GEWEX datasets were developed under the auspices of the GEWEX Radiation Panel (GRP)
which continues, but is also looking for a name change as it does a lot more than radiation. It does deal withall of the global satellite data related to energy and water and their synthesis into products, and is currently
leading and promoting reprocessing of the datasets with a goal of creating climate data records of sufficientquality to be useful for examining trends. Some of the datasets, such as GPCP and ISCCP, are well known
and already used extensively, but the scientists are confident that they can be made much better and moreconsistent with each other, and with better estimates of uncertainties.
In general GRP is working well toward the new goals and has produced simulators, that take into accountthe sampling and characteristics (such as thresholds) of the observations to enable intercomparisons ofsatellite products with model data. Interactions with other parts of GEWEX were fostered by the panGEWEX meeting, and the GEWEX datasets have potential for great use in evaluating and improving models
on issues such as clouds and indirect effects of aerosols, precipitation frequency, intensity and amount, andin providing the context for the RHPs.
Extremes
The recent summer record breaking flooding in Pakistan, India and China, and heat-waves and wildfires in
Russia highlight the extremes of the hydrological cycle of drought and floods that are changing from humanactivities. Dealing with extremes in WCRP is a cross-cutting activity that involves all projects although
GEWEX plays a leading role. Olga Zolina, who is a member of the GEWEX SSG, led the WCRP extremes
workshop involving some 150 people at UNESCO in late September. Breakout groups were held on issuesof 1) data requirements and availability (such as the need for hourly precipitation data to properly
characterize extremes); 2) representation of extremes in models, including scaling and spatial issues (howstation data relate to grid squares, comparing apples to apples); and 3) methodologies for estimating
extremes across areas and disciplines, including statistical methods. Continuing issues are sorting out thehuman changes in extremes and how to best communicate with the general public on such technicalattribution issues.
For instance, it is likely that the southeast Asian floods and the Russian drought were linked by themonsoonal circulation and teleconnections linked to the anomalous latent heating of the atmosphereassociated with the heavy rains. The pattern of the rains was related to the rapidly developing La Niña but
the previous El Niño had left behind a residue of abnormally high sea surface temperatures in theIndonesian-northern Indian Ocean region that provided an enhanced supply of moisture to the monsoon
rains. No doubt those elevated temperatures have a global warming component. The persistent “blockinghigh” over Russia led to drought that was no doubt more intense and longer lasting owing to global warming,with increased risk of heat waves and wild fires. While these connections are very likely, they are hard toprove as models do not reproduce monsoon rains very well, and blocking is poorly simulated. Thesescientific challenges extend across the WCRP.
Closing remarks
The above is but a sample of the goings on and developments from the pan-GEWEX meeting. What I have
tried to do is provide a sense that we are looking forward to the future with considerable excitement at thescience we can achieve through collaboration and friendly competition, with the help of coordination through
GEWEX and, in the future, GREW. I would like to thank all of those who attended and participated.

ATTACHMENT 2
Whitepaper on 10-year dataset development(Draft ver. 0.2, 23 July 2010)
1. Background
Climate change poses a fundamental threat to the well-being of the people all over the world. This threat
encompasses security in water, food, energy and health. Climate change is not hypothetical, and its impacts
are already evident, as both scientific observations and the experiences of the region’s inhabitants confirm.
And in confronting the risks and challenges posed by changing climate, we must acknowledge thefundamental uncertainty in our projections of future climatic and water resources conditions, and work to
improve our ability to identify effective responses while reducing this uncertainty.
2. Mission
To reduce the uncertainty, a simple framework to identify, organize and disseminate comprehensive, quality
and long-term observational datasets should be provided to modeling communities, e.g. Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), and analysis and impact study research groups.
In response to this need, the 10-year dataset project (Project) aims to develop a high-quality comprehensive
dataset of meteorological and hydrological variables for a selected 10-year period based on most advanced
and complex land reference sites distributed over the world and complemented with relevant satellite
observations. The targeted dataset will be “homogeneous” across data providers and individual sites, i.e. ofa standardized format, fulfilling high quality requirements in accordance with CEOP standards, and equippedwith appropriate metadata assuring full interoperability and “easy” use.
In this way, the Project mission is in concert with the GEWEX Post 2013 Mission Statement and Imperatives.
It responds to the imperative to develop climate data records of atmospheric and land variables, completewithmetadata
and
error
bars,
in
particularthroughdevelopmentof
appropriate
calibration/validation/evaluation datasets to confront models. The Project will build on the CEOP experiencein data management, archival and access, while devising robust ways of dealing with the more diverse,
complex, higher spatial and temporal resolution, and much greater volumes of data.
The targeted dataset contribution
1. Climate studies
Evaluation of the climate model output applicability for climate change impact assessment (CMIP5).
2. Societal needs
Quantification of uncertainties of model predictions/projections and thus making the model output
information useable for decision and policy makers.
3. Scientific community

The dataset will also be usable for scientific community to further advance research into energy and water
cycle processes. It will contribute to several GEWEX imperatives focusing on analysis and model
development and improvement. These include:- Increase understanding of energy and water cycle processes, quantify their contribution to climate
feedbacks, and develop improved hydrometeorological parameterizations.
- Accelerate developments in models of the land, atmosphere, and entire climate system:o Continue evaluation of developing earth system model products.
o Develop archives to support model development and intercomparison.
- Attribute causes of trends, and determine the predictability of energy and water cycles on a global andregional basis in collaboration with the wider WCRP community.
o Coordinate data set generation, process studies, and modelling- Diagnose model errors and exploit GEWEX datasets and focused process studies.
3. Objectives(i) To develop dataset that will be directly usable for evaluation of climate model outputs, i.e. will covervarious regions/climate conditions over the world, will allow for deriving climatologically sensible mean
diurnal cycles (sufficient length of observations), and will be convenient for use (format, metadata, easy
access, QC-ed).
(ii) Complement in-situ observations with satellite data to provide spatial coverage of observed variablesconsistent to the scale of climate models.
(iii) Use the dataset for quantification of uncertainties of CMIP5 climate model projections and producing
usable information for decision and policy makers.
(iv) To assure an easy access to the data for a wide community through a user-friendly on-line system –Date Integration and Analysis System (DIAS), that provides a set of data analysis, integration andvisualization tools, free of charge.
(v) Through a timely accomplishment of the above – to contribute to the IPCC AR5.
4. Merit-

real observational datacomprehensiveness of the dataset in terms of:o Spatial coverage – contributing sites will be nominated considering also their location withintention to cover as many regions and climatic conditions as possible. 2D, 2.5D and 3D
sites will be preferred (sites including more stations assuring spatial coverage of
observations and also those containing PBL towers as well as soil observations).
o Temporal coverage – sites covering the targeted 10-year period will be selectedo Variables – most advanced sites with complex observations will be preferredo Data sources – reference site data will be complemented with satellite observations forsquare areas of 250km x 250 km around the sites-

unified, standardized format
consistency in terms of observed parameters – also consistent with model outputs following
NetCDF CF conventions
interoperability – standardized metadata
accessibility – DIAS-

The targeted dataset has advantages over “reanalysis” datasets by providing (a) observational data and by(b) enabling a single commodity that includes all data in a standardized format and (c) the gap that exists
between observed parameters such as rainfall versus reanalysis values for example.
5. End Users(i) CMIP5 project – climate model output evaluation
CMIP5 promotes a standard set of model simulations (Taylor et al., 2009) in order to:
1. evaluate how realistic the models are in simulating the recent past,

2.

provide projections of future climate change on two time scales, near term (out to about 2035) andlong term (out to 2100 and beyond), and
3. understand some of the factors responsible for differences in model projections, including
quantifying some key feedbacks such as those involving clouds and the carbon cycle
Under the CMIP5 strategy there are two distinct foci of the model experiments: 1) near-term simulations (10to 30-years) and 2) long-term (century time-scale) simulations initialized from the end of freely evolving
simulations of the historical period. In addition, CMIP5 also admit so-called “time-slice” experiments thatinvolve simulations with unusually high resolution atmospheric models or models with more complete
treatments of atmospheric chemistry.
There are two core near-term CMIP5 experiments, one a set of 10 year hindcasts or predictions initialized
from climate states in the years 1960, 1965, 1970, and every five years to 2005, with this last simulation
representing the sole actual prediction beyond the present (i.e., beyond 2009). In these 10-year simulations,
it will be possible to assess model skill in forecasting climate change on time-scales when the initial climate
state may exert some influence. The other core experiment extends the 10-year simulations initialized in
1960, 1980, and 2005 by an additional 20 years. It is at this somewhat longer timescale that the external
forcing from increasing GHGs should become more important. “Time-slice” experiments fall into the CMIP5
near-term “Tier 1” group of experiments including both the present-day (AMIP period: 1979 - at least 2008)
and the future (specifically, the decade 2026-2035) simulations and offer opportunities to (for example) to:•
explore the implications of running climate models at high resolution,•
examine the regional effects of climate change at small scales where impacts are felt,•
study the air quality implications of climate change with models that include sophisticatedtreatments of atmospheric chemistry, and•obtain more robust statistics characterizing changes in climate, in particular the likelihood of rare or
extreme events.
The temporal resolution of the model output is 3 hours and the spatial resolution is 60 km in almost allmodels participating in the near-term experiments and as fine as 20 km in some models in the time-slice
experiments.
The targeted 10-year dataset will be applicable for evaluation of the CMIP5 near-term and time-slice
experiment simulations. The 10-year period dataset is sufficient to derive climatologically sensible mean
diurnal cycles, it is also useable for analyzing intra-seasonal variability or extreme events under the current
climate. On the other hand, it is not sufficient for analyzing inter-seasonal variability and evaluation of theCMIP5 long-term simulations.
It is proposed that evaluation and intercomparison studies are done in a collaborative manner between themodeling group (CMIP5) and relevant science groups who have experiences in carrying out similar studies
in specific fields. For example, the LandFlux-EVAL group will focus on the evapotranspiration fluxes
assessment, the GSWP groups will focus on soil moisture, etc.
(ii) IPCC AR5 – climate model output uncertainties quantification
To be specified(iii) Wider modeling community for model validations, developing improved parameterizations
To be specified(iv) Wider science community - local to regional to global energy and water cycle research
To be specified
6. Technical details
Data to be included- Data providers: FLUXNET, CEOP, GCOS, satellite data
- Number of sites to contribute – CEOP, FLUXNET groups will nominate the best candidates: FLUXNET“Golden sites”, CEOP sites contributing since the beginning of CEOP Phase 1. Suitability of a site will beassessed based on its compliance with prioritized characteristics. The value/priority of consistency of dataversus full decade availability, versus geographic distribution versus other related characteristics is to be
discussed and confirmed.
- Comprehensive dataset covering energy and water budgets is targeted that will be useable for multiple
purposes and thus the providers will be asked to provide as many parameters as possible. Basicrequirements for CMIP5 are given in the CMIP5 simulation protocol (Taylor et al. 2008).
- Data period is to be discussed and decided. There are two views: (i) some reference sites may havedifficulties to provide/process most recent data and may prefer earlier period, e.g.: 1998 – 2007, while (ii)other reference sites data and satellite data may not be available for that period yet (MODIS data from
2000).
Data processing, submission, and archiving
Each data provider will provide data in the required format and quality and will equip them with appropriate
metadata. The data and metadata formats will be based on/adopted from CEOP.
Data will be archived at the Data Integration and Analysis System at the University of Tokyo, Japan (DIAS),
the data integration, analysis, and dissemination system that was launched in 2006 as part of the Earth
Observation and ocean Exploration System and that is based on the CEOP scheme. CMIP5 Gateway
function in cooperation with PCMDI (CMIP5 Leader)
Data Policy
Data use policy is adopted from the CEOP Reference Site and Satellite Data Release and Use Guidelines
and adjusted to the specifics of the 10-YDP project. The full text of the 10-YDP Data Release and Use
Guidelines is provided in Appendix A.
7. Implementation
The Project is a collaborative effort among observing and modeling communities primarily involving GEWEX(CEOP, GRP, GMPP), FLUXNET, CMIP5, CEOS, WOAP, GCOS,… others?
Coordination will be lead by the CEOP International Coordination Function, regular teleconferences andworkshops will be held.
Implementation Steps
1. Whitepaper and implementation plan drafting – Project mission, objectives, plan…definition; discussion
at the Pan-GEWEX meeting.
2. Data format, data policy and processing details agreement
3. Nomination of the “First Track” sites, roughly 30 sites (15 FLUXNET, 15 CEOP).
4. Test datasets submission, check for consistency with agreed-to format led by CEOP reference site dataarchiving function, NCAR EOL.
5. Full submission of data from the First Track Sites to DIAS -> QC, Metadata -> using the data in
preliminary studies – showing possibilities/advantages of such dataset
6. GCOS sites nomination followed by data submission, further CEOP, FLUXNET sites (Second Track
Sites) -> QC, Metadata
7. Generation of satellite products for the selected reference sites.
8. Dataset fully opened

8. Schedule2010
10 July:
14 July:
22 July:
28 July:
31 July:
20 August:
23 – 27 August:
4 September:
30 September:
30 December:
2011

Whitepaper preliminary draft
First conf. call
2nd draft of WP
2nd conf. call
3rd draft of WP -> provide to wider community
Wide communities input -> Pan-GEWEX meeting
discussion at Pan-GEWEX meeting
3rd conf. call -> final draft
Tentative Implementation PlanFirst Track Data (FTD) Loading Due
QC, Format, Meta Data

30 March:
May-June:
20 June:30 September:
November-December

FTDS Open
1st Workshop
Second Track Data Loading Due
QC, Format, Meta Data
STDS Open
2nd Workshop

9. References
Taylor, Karl E., Ronald J. Stouffer, and Gerald A. Meehl: A Summary of the CMIP5 Experiment Design,
2009. (http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/Taylor_CMIP5_design.pdf)
Appendix A

Data Release and Use Guidelines

Executive Summary
All data users are strongly requested to follow these data release guidelines that are adopted from the
Coordinated Energy and Water Cycle Observation Project (CEOP) Reference Site Data Release Guidelines(http://www.eol.ucar.edu/projects/ceop/dm/documents/ceop_policy.html) and the CEOP Satellite Data
Release Guidelines (http://monsoon.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ceop2/satellite/guideline-info.html). The following six"golden rules" for a smooth and successful use of 10-YDP Data should particularly be noted and followed byany data user.
1. No financial implications are involved for the 10 Year Dataset Project (10-YDP) data exchange.
2. Commercial use and exploitation of 10-YDP data is prohibited.
3. Any re-export or transfer of the original data received from the 10-YDP archive to a third party is
prohibited.
4. The origin of 10-YDP data being used for publication of scientific results must be acknowledged andreferenced in the publication.
5. 10-YDP data users are strongly encouraged to establish direct contact with data providers for complete
interpretation and analysis of data for publication purposes.
6. Co-authorship of data users and 10-YDP Principle Investigators on papers making extensive use of 10YDP data is justifiable and highly recommended.
1. INTRODUCTION
The 10 Year Dataset Project was initiated as an international effort in 2010 by the World Climate Research
Programme (WCRP) Observation and Assimilation Panel (WOAP) and the WCRP Global Energy and Water
Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) and involves several projects, initiatives, organizations and agencies who
committed to provide their observation reference sites and/or satellite data per agreed to rules defined in thisWhitepaper above. 10-YDP satellite data providers also comply to the CEOS satellite data exchange
principles for research (http://monsoon.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ceop/policy1.html) and the CEOS data principles for
operational environmental data (http://monsoon.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ceop/policy2.html).
The time periods for which data will be archived will cover the (to be decided).
Archiving all 10-YDP data into one central archive, namely DIAS at the University of Tokyo, and creating
harmonized data formats is an essential element of the 10-YDP data policy in order to provide easy accessto the data for the targeted communities. The latter will be referred to as data users in the following data
release guidelines.

10-YDP contributing reference sites have been established and are being maintained by a variety of
institutions, organizations, national services, international and national research groups, and research
individuals. Henceforth, these and the national and international space agencies providing satellite data will
be referred to as data providers. Maintaining continuous, high-quality measurements, performing quality anderror checking procedures, and submitting data and related documentation to DIAS requires substantial
financial and logistical efforts of the data providers. The necessary support for these activities originate froma variety of international, national and institutional sources.
2. 10-YDP DATA RELEASE AND DISSEMINATION GUIDELINES
2.1 Free and unrestricted Release of Data
The no-restriction principle shall in particular mean that no financial implications are involved for the 10-YDP
data exchange. 10-YDP data providers shall transfer their measured data to the DIAS free of charge. Also,
10-YDP data files established at the DIAS shall be offered free of charge to 10-YDP data users.
2.2 No Commercial Use or Exploitation
It is understood that all 10-YDP data shall be delivered to data users only for research and scientificpurposes compliant with the objectives described in the 10-YDP Whitepaper. Commercial use andexploitation by neither the data users nor the DIAS is prohibited, unless specific permission has beenobtained from the data providers concerned in writing.
2.3 No Data Transfer to Third Parties
One restriction which will be imposed on all data users concerns the re-export or transfer of the original data
(as received from the DIAS archive) to a third party. Such restriction shall apply to all categories of 10-YDP
data, and is in the best interests of both the data providers and the potential users. Unrestricted copying of
the original data by multiple, independent users may lead to errors in the data and loss of identity of its data
provider-DIAS origin and is strictly prohibited.
DIAS will offer 10-YDP data files to potential data users through electronic means, (e.g. the internet). The
DIAS shall install technical means to keep protocol on all data transfers to data users thus maintaining acatalogue of all data users, and the data files they have obtained.
2.4 Acknowledgement and Citation
Whenever 10-YDP data distributed by DIAS are being used for publication of scientific results, the data's
origin must be acknowledged and referenced. A minimum requirement is to reference 10-YDP (or particular
project/database (CEOP, FLUXNET/AsiaFlux…)?) and DIAS. If only data from one data
provider/source/project? or a limited number of reference sites has been used, additional acknowledgement
to the data provider/source/project? or reference site(s) and its (their) maintaining institutions ororganizations shall be given.
Maintaining continuous, high-quality measurements, performing quality and error checking procedures, andsubmitting data and related documentation to the DIAS will require substantial financial and logistical effortsof the data providers. The necessary support for these activities originate from a variety of international,
national and institutional sources. The DIAS shall make proper reference to all 10-YDP data providers and, if
required, to their funding sources.
2.5 Co-operation between 10-YDP Data Users and Principal Investigators (PIs) at the 10-YDP Data
Providers
Data users of 10-YDP data are encouraged to establish direct contact with PIs at data providers for the
purpose of complete interpretation and analysis of data for publication purposes.
2.6 Co-Authorship for 10-YDP Principal Investigators (PIs)
Co-authorship of 10-YDP PIs on papers making extensive use of 10-YDP data is justifiable and highly
recommended, in particular, if a PI has responded to questions raised about the data's quality and/or
suitability for the specific study in question, or has been involved in directly contributing to the paper in otherways. It is highly recommended that any data user should contact the responsible PI and ask him/her if
he/she wants to become co-author, or if an acknowledgement (see section 2.4) would be sufficient. If coauthorship is requested, the PI and the data user should establish a basis for collaboration. A PI in thiscontext means the responsible site or instrument scientist or any person (student, collaborator) that he/she
may suggest.
2.7 CEOP Publication LibraryWhenever 10-YDP data distributed by DIAS are being used for publication of scientific results, the author(s)shall sent a copy of the respective publication, preferably in electronic form, to the DIAS (or 10-YDP point ofcontact?) in order to build up a 10-YDP publication library. DIAS (or 10-YDP?) will maintain this library andwill make it public, for example via DIAS (or 10-YDP?) web site, for a continuous monitoring of the 10-YDP
data applications and 10-YDP's achievements in general.