This is a special Coordinated Energy and Water Cycle Observations Project (CEOP) issue of the GEWEX Newsletterand also serves as the CEOP Newsletter in cooperation with the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS).

Vol. 20, No. 3

August 2010

New Directions for CEOP
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, CEOP Co-Chair
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Washington

First, I would like to take this opportunity
to thank my co-chair, Toshio Koike, for
his long service to CEOP and GEWEX.
Toshio has been involved in CEOP since
its inception almost 10 years ago, and thecommunity owes him a great debt for his
hard work in establishing and fostering its
activities.
While many in the CEOP community are aware of its history, some
may not be, so I will attempt to give an abbreviated version. In theearly days of GEWEX, a central concept was that the Mississippi
River basin was to be a testbed (“Continental Scale Experiment,” orCSE) for development, diagnosis, and testing of coupled land-atmosphere models and continental scale data sets. The motivation forthis choice was that the Mississippi is well instrumented comparedto most river basins of its size, the hydroclimatological data are freely
available, almost all of the basin lies within one country, and the Next
Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) precipitation radar data were
becoming available over most of the basin. In retrospect, though, it
was probably naïve to expect participation from scientists globally ina U.S. river basin. It soon became apparent that the single river basinmodel would not work; the realities of international participation
dictated that there would have to be more than one CSE. Subsequently, four additional CSEs were formed. The GEWEX Hydrometeorology Panel (GHP) developed a set of criteria for a regionalhydrometeorological study to qualify as a CSE. These were:
1) Have the co-operation of a numerical weather prediction
center;2) Have a commitment of resources for the development of atmospheric-hydrological models, assimilation, and a program ofnumerical experimentation and climate change studies;
3) Have a regional scientific co-operation mechanism for collecting and managing hydrometeorological data sets;
4) Promote international exchange of scientific information anddata;5) Have interactions with water resource agencies or relatedgroups;6) Help in the evaluation of GEWEX global data products; and
7) Contribute to CEOP and transferability databases.

In the late 1990s, the first phase of GEWEX was completed, andthere was a need to “reinvent” the program. A new Coordinated Enhanced Observing Period (the original root of the CEOP acronym)
became part of the second phase of GEWEX. The seventh CSE
qualification criterion hints at its motivation. It was recognized thatthe regional land-atmosphere models that had been developed andapplied in the CSEs largely had been tailored to the host CSE, andtransferability had not been demonstrated. The CEOP concept was
to develop data sets, both in situ and satellite, for a fixed observing
period of several years’ duration. These data sets were to be used totest model transferability.
CEOP has evolved primarily as a data archive–one part is for “reference sites,” which basically are flux towers that measure land surface
radiative and surface fluxes (among other variables). Most, but notall, of these sites are also part of other continental and global networks like Ameriflux and FLUXNET. The larger part of the CEOP
archive hosts satellite data, mostly from the Earth Observing System(EOS) satellites, as well as other satellite data sources and global
weather analysis and reanalysis output. Unfortunately, transferability activities were never as prominent as originally hoped.
For completeness, CEOP developed other components related tomonsoons and regional modelling that turned out to have strong
overlap with GHP. As a result, the WCRP JSC requested a mergerof GHP and CEOP, which took effect in 2007. On its face, thedecision made sense–GHP had a focus on activities, like the Water
and Energy Balance Synthesis, that use available data sets to get atcore GEWEX issues (specifically, water and energy balance closure at
the CSE scale). Toshio Koike agreed to help lead what became the
new CEOP. Ron Stewart became its co-chair, and it was renamed
the Coordinated Energy and Water Cycle Observations Program.
The argument for the merger was made in part on the basis of data
issues [terms like “data interoperability,” “data integration and information fusion,” and “climate data flow” lace the 2007 backgroundContents
New Directions for CEOP …………………………………………… 1
Asian Summer Monsoon and Mediterranean Couplingin the Decadal Climate Modulation ………………………………… 3
Report on the 4th International HyMeX Workshop …………………… 4
Report on the CAS-CEOP Lhasa Workshop ………………………… 5
An Update on Extremes within CEOP ……………………………… 6
CEOP Reference Site Data Update ……………………………………7
10-Year Dataset Development ……………………………………… 7
Monitoring Flooding in Pakistan Using ALOS &GSMaP Data Provided by JAXA ………………………………………8

networks coincide (see Figure 1). As FLUXNET has evolved, we
find that some of the CEOP reference site archiving activities are
duplicative. Would we be better off to work with FLUXNET todesignate a subset of stations that pass certain minimum quality
control screens?

Figure 1: Locations of FLUXNET stations (circles) and CEOP reference
sites (triangles) within the continental U.S. with latent heat flux records.
Stations with two years or less of valid data are shown as black, and forstations with more than two years of data, the color indicates the fractionof reporting periods (half hour interval) with valid data. FLUXNET sites
generally have higher reporting ratios, and a more uniform spatial distribution, than do CEOP reference sites, even though most CEOP reference sites
are also FLUXNET stations. Figure courtesy of Ben Livneh, University ofWashington.

document (www.gewex.org/GHP-CEOPmerger-whitepaper.pdf)].
Much less is said about how the merged entity would address core
GEWEX issues.
Much has been accomplished by CEOP, which is now on track to
produce a decade-long data set that should be useful for diagnosisof climate models in particular. It has provided a template for data
management that is becoming a standard in other parts of WCRP.
We nonetheless now find ourselves at a crossroads. GEWEX isembarking on a new path, where a new set of “imperatives” (seeGEWEX News, May 2010) emphasize things like modelling ofenergy and water cycle processes, feedbacks, parameterizations,
attribution and predictability of regional energy and water cycles,
hydrological nonstationarity, climate extremes, land surface
modelling, and climate data records. Some of the existing CEOP
activities map well onto the new imperatives, but others do not.
The challenge before us is to evolve CEOP. In my view, it istime to wrap up some aspects of CEOP and look ahead. Below, I
suggest four major actions that I feel are essential.
1) Back to basics. The original GHP was closely aligned with
the CSEs and the needs of the weather services (so-called “fastclimate processes”). We now need a set of core activities thatalign CEOP much more closely with the new GEWEX imperatives. In some cases (e.g., the extremes activity) the alignment
is obvious. For the CEOP legacy activities however, especiallydata archiving, the links are much less apparent. As an example,
tower flux data have become the main source of land-atmospheremoisture and energy flux observations. There are good examplesof the use of these data to improve land-atmosphere models (Alan
Betts’s work with FIFE and BOREAS flux tower data comes immediately to mind). The CEOP reference site activity has focusedmore on data formats and processing than on record completeness and use of the data. Furthermore, the CEOP reference site
network density is much less than that of FLUXNET, as is data
record completeness even in cases where the stations in the two2) Change the name. As noted above, CEOP was originally
the Coordinated Enhanced Observing Period. The revised title
assigned following the CEOP/GHP merger (Coordinated Energy and Water Cycle Observations Project) sounds like all of
GEWEX. In my view, we would be better off with a name that
relates to what we actually do, or should be doing. Why not goback to GHP (perhaps the “H” should stand for hydroclimatology
rather than hydrometeorology)? CEOP has come to connote adata archive, and I think we need to separate ourselves from that
notion.
3) Revisit the RHP interaction. The Regional Hydroclimate
Projects (RHPs; the current name for the old CSEs) once were thecrown jewels of GHP, but this aspect of CEOP has fallen on hardtimes. The criteria that are supposed to be used to “qualify” RHPs
(see above) are not enforced, and in any event, are out of sync
with the new GEWEX imperatives. The relationships between
GEWEX and the RHPs are a two way street–the RHPs should
bring something to GEWEX, and GEWEX must provide a motivation for their participation. I suggest that we consider a twotier RHP system in the “new GHP.” The bar for tier two would
be relatively low–some agreement as to common interests, andperhaps minimal sharing of data and modelling results. Initially,
all RHPs would be assigned to tier two. Tier one would require
agreement that the RHP would address GEWEX goals related tothe imperatives. One example could be the provision of climate
data records for the key water and energy cycle variables over the
RHP domain.
4) Strengthen hydrological activities. Within WCRP, GEWEX
is the main home for land hydrology, and within GEWEX, GHP
was the center of most hydrological activities. With the GHP/
CEOP merger, some of that identity was lost. At present, there
are a range of hydrological process and prediction issues that do
not have a “home” within GEWEX. One example is land surface
model development–the PILPS experiments over a decade ago
showed that the hydrological process representations in land
surface models used in most weather and climate models arepoor. For the most part, the current generation of models isn’tmuch better. Yet these models are now used for a broader set of
purposes, such as climate change impact assessments. Shouldn’t
the new GHP be helping to foster the next generation of hydrologically realistic land surface schemes?
In closing, I want to applaud the hard work of many over the years
who have participated in GEWEX, CEOP/GHP, and its elements
such as the RHPs. At the same time, I do want to emphasizethat the time has come for a fundamental rethinking of CEOP
and its interactions with GEWEX. All programs are eventually
faced with the choice of being revitalized or dying. What I havesuggested here is what I consider an essential process of revitalization of a new GHP.

August 2010

Asian Summer Monsoon andMediterranean Coupling in the Decadal
Climate Modulation
Toru Tamura and Toshio Koike
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo

The remote influence of the Asian summer monsoon (ASM) on
the Mediterranean has been widely investigated (e.g., Rodwell and
Hoskins, 2001; Raicich, 2003). There is the significant anti-correlation, i.e., anomalous wet (dry) summer in the ASM is associatedwith the anomalous dry (wet) Mediterranean summer. Here, we will
be showing that the recent drier Mediterranean in early summer
over recent decades is closely related with the decadal oscillation of
the Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) under the ASM playing its
crucial role as a media for its teleconnection.
Figure 1 shows the time-series of the outgoing longwave radiation(OLR) over the ASM domain (60º–100ºE, 10º–20ºN) in May
and Mediterranean domain (0º–40ºE, 30º–45ºN) in June. We canfind not only the significant anti-correlation, but also the trendof the wetter ASM and the drier Mediterranean. There has been
increasing precipitation over the ASM associated with the enhanced
monsoon circulation especially in May, owing to the earlier shift ofthe monsoon onset. Even though previous studies implied that thedrier condition around the Mediterranean is related to the wetter
ASM in respect to interannual variability, the cause of such decadal
modulations has yet to be sufficiently understood.
Figure 2 shows the time series of upper-level potential temperature
at 200 hPa over the Tibetan Plateau and monsoon precipitation in
May. Precipitation data based on satellite observations have only
been available since 1979; nevertheless they indicate that upperlevel temperature reflects monsoon precipitation quite reasonably.
Even though temperature increase over the Tibetan Plateau has been
considered a result of its elevated land surface heating, our previous
study (Tamura et al., 2010) demonstrated that upper-level warming such as at 200 hPa around the Tibetan Plateau in early summer
results from compensating adiabatic warming in response to tropicalconvective heating.

Figure 1: Time-series of normalized OLR over the Mediterranean in June(red) and ASM in May (blue). Values departing from monthly climatology are normalized. Dashed lines indicate the linear regressed lines to show
trends.

Figure 2: Time series of the 200 hPa potential temperature (NCEP/NCAR
reanalysis data) around the TP (60º–100ºE, 20º–40ºN), GPCP monsoonal
precipitation (60º–100ºE, 10º–20ºN) in May, and the hindcast using the
SOI and PDO index (–0.25*SOI –0.23*PDO Index). All are normalized
values. The dotted lines are the linear trends.

Convection around the Maritime Continent is strongly relatedwith the Walker circulation that is influenced by the ENSO (Ju andSlingo, 1995) as well as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO; Mantua et al., 1998). Thus, the Pacific SST forcings are implied to be adominant controller of the decadal modulation of the ASM–Mediterranean system. To confirm that, we used the bilinear regressionof the upper-level temperature around the Tibetan Plateau in May
onto the Southern Oscillation Index and the PDO index. We cansee that the ENSO and PDO indices project well to the following
ASM (Fig. 2). Over recent decades, an increase in the monsoon
precipitation is found to be associated with the decreasing positive
phase of the PDO that is accompanied by the increasing La Nina

Tamura and Koike (2010) further demonstrated the crucial role ofconvective activity in the seasonal march of the ASM. For instance,
convective activity around the Maritime Continent before the monsoon onset plays an important role in inducing
the ASM initially around the Indochina Peninsula and Bay of Bengal, together with thewarming upper-layer around the southeastern
Tibetan Plateau. Subsequently, convective
activity around Southeast Asia produces afavorable condition for the Indian summer
monsoon onset, together with the warming
upper-layer to the southwest of the Tibetan
Plateau. Therefore, convection around the
Maritime Continent before monsoon onset isessential to drive the following seasonal march Figure 3: Longitude-time cross section of positive minus negative composites derived from the Pacific SST
indices. (a) 200 hPa potential temperature (color, unit; K) and geopotential height (contour, unit; m)of the ASM.
–2
averaged over 20º–40ºN. (b) OLR (unit; W m ) averaged over 0º–20ºN.

August 2010phases of the ENSO.
To illustrate the role of the SST forcings to induce interannual variations of the ASM and Mediterranean in early summer, we composed
positive (1989, 1999, 2006, 2008) and negative (1983, 1987, 1992,
1998) based on the Pacific SST indices in Figure 2. Results in Figure
3 clearly indicate that there is westward propagation of the warm
and anticyclonic anomalies in the upper troposphere (Fig. 3a), whichcauses drier conditions. The origin of the anomalies can be traced
back to those over the Tibetan Plateau (60º–100ºE) in April andMay. Meanwhile, over the ASM domain, there is westward propagation of the enhanced convection during May that can be traced
back to that around the Maritime Continent (100º–140ºE) in April(Fig. 3b). Thus it indicates that enhanced convection around the
Maritime Continent before monsoon onset owing to the Pacific SST
forcings results in enhanced activity of the ASM and drier condition
over the Mediterranean during the following early summer.

water cycle. Recent collaboration between the global observation
project of CEOP and the Mediterranean project of the Hydrologicalcycle in the Mediterranean Experiment (HyMeX) would contributeto these targets.
References
Ju, J. and J. M. Slingo, 1995. The Asian summer monsoon and ENSO.
Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc, 121, 1133–1168.
Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace, and R. C. Francis,
1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon
production. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 1069–1079.
Tamura, T., K. Taniguchi, and T. Koike, 2010. Mechanism of upper
tropospheric warming around the Tibetan Plateau at the onset phase of
the Asian summer monsoon. J. Geophys. Res, 115, D02106, doi:10.1029/
2008JD011678.
Tamura, T. and T. Koike, 2010. Role of convective heating in the seasonalevolution of the Asian summer monsoon, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D14103,
doi:10.1029/2009JD013418.

As indicated here, the Mediterranean climate is largely influenced
by the Pacific oscillations via the ASM. We need to consider not
only the local factors but also those of the global scale for better
understanding and projection of the Mediterranean climate and its

Raicich, F., N. Pinardi, and A. Navarra, 2003. Teleconnections between
Indian monsoon and Sahel rainfall and the Mediterranean. Int. J. Climatol., 23, 173–186.

Report on the 4th International HyMeX
Workshop

the long-observation period (2010-2020) in September 2010 basedon data collection from operational and research hydrometeorological sites and regional climate and process modelling.

P. Drobinski1, V. Ducrocq2 and P. Lionello3
Institut Pierre Simon Laplace/Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique, Palaiseau, France; 2Centre National deRecherches Météorologiques (CNRM), Toulouse, France;
3
University of Lecce, Italy1

The 4th international HyMeX workshop was held from June 8th to
10th, 2010 in Bologna (Italy). It was followed by a meeting of the
HyMeX ISSC (International Scientific Steering Committee) on
June 11th, 2010 and preceded on June 7th, 2010 by a meeting of theworking group and task team leaders in charge of the HyMeX international implementation plan, and a parallel coordination meetingof the Italian groups. It was the last meeting before the kick-off ofRodwell, M. R. and B. J. Hoskins, 2001. Subtropical anticyclones andmonsoons. J. Climate, 14, 3192–3211.

More than 180 participants attended the 3-day workshop, comingfrom France, Italy, Croatia, Spain, Germany, Greece, USA, Austria,
Switzerland, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Morocco, Japan,
and Ukraine (see picture). Representatives of WWRP (S. Nickovic)
and WCRP/GEWEX/CEOP (S. Williams), and the French funding agencies (S. Godin-Beekman) attended the workshop and gave
overview talks. After presenting the science plans of each of the fiveworking groups, 31 talks and 105 posters presented scientific resultson the main HyMeX topics (water budget of the Mediterraneanhydrological cycle, precipitating events and floods, air-sea interaction processes, and socio-economic impacts). A plenary session was

Picture of the participants to the 4th international HyMeX workshop held in Bologna (Italy) at ISAC-CNR from June 8th to 10th, 2010.

August 2010

devoted to the implementation plan with a presentation of theexperimental set-up for each of the three target areas: the NorthWestern Mediterranean, the Adriatic Sea, and the South-Eastern
Mediterranean. Finally, nine roundtables allowed discussions on
the long-term observations, on the instrument deployment for theenhanced and special observation periods, and on the modelling
strategies. The workshop program, oral presentations, and someposters are available on the HyMeX web site at http://www.hymex.
org/index.php?lang=english&page=workshops.
In the context of CEOP, three regions are covered by the HyMeX
RHP (Regional Hydroclimate Project), which are underway toprovide hydrometeorological data (France, Italy, and Israel) to the
CEOP database. The workshop was also an opportunity for discussing with G. Tartari the contribution of the Italian reference sites of
the CEOP high elevation element to the HyMeX program.
For more information about HyMeX, the general overview and status
of HyMeX are summarized in the presentation http://www.hymex.
org/global/documents/Presentation_HYMEX_23JUNE2010.ppt

Report on the CAS-CEOP Lhasa Workshop
Kun Yang1 and Xin Li2
1

TEL, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, CAS;
Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering
Research Institute, CASThe Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and CEOP jointly organized “The 2nd International Workshop on the Energy and Water
Cycle over the Tibetan Plateau and High-elevations” which was heldin Lhasa, China, on 19 - 21 July 2010. The workshop was in conjunction with “The Fourth International Workshop on Catchment-scale
Hydrological Modeling and Data Assimilation (CAHMDA-IV)”that took place in the same venue, on 21 -23 July 2010.
More than 150 participants, including 60 foreigners from 11 countries, joined this workshop. Among them were Prof. Toshio Koike,
CEOP co-chair, Dr. Adrian Simmons, WCRP/GCOS chair, Dr.

GEWEX NEWS
Published by the International GEWEX Project OfficePeter J. van Oevelen, Director
Dawn P. Erlich, Editor
Shannon Macken, Assistant Editor
International GEWEX Project Office
80 Colesville Rd, Suite 10
Silver Spring, MD 0910, USA
E-mail: gewex@gewex.org
GEWEX Web Site: http://www.gewex.org
This issue was published with support from theJapan Aerospace Exploration Agency, theUniversity of Tokyo, and the
CEOP International Coordination Office
CEOP International Coordination Function:
Sam Benedict (sam.benedict@gewex.org)
Petra Koudelova (petra@hydra.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
CEOP Web Site: http://www.ceop.net

Peter van Oevelen, GEWEX IPO director, Prof. Daqing Yang, CliC
IPO director, and many other Tibetan Plateau hydro-meteorologicalscientists.
More than 40 oral presentations and 20 posters were presented at
the meeting, covering five sessions: observing systems over highelevations, satellite remote sensing and data assimilation, land waterand energy processes, land-atmosphere interactions and their impact
on monsoon variability and extreme events, and climate change
and response of high altitude aquatic ecosystems and cryosphere.
This workshop provided a forum for scientists to strengthen theexchanges of the achievements and information and promote research cooperation. The workshop closed after a half-day intensive
discussion on future research foci, data exchange, and international
cooperation concerning the water and energy cycle over the Tibetan
Plateau and other high elevations. Video records of all oral presentations were taken by Prof. G. Greenwood of the Mountain Research
Initiative (MRI) of Switzerland. The records and the presentational
materials in PDF will soon beaccessible at the MRI webpage(http://mri.scnatweb.ch/).

Picture of the participants to the 2nd International Workshop on the Energy and Water Cycle over the Tibetan Plateau andHigh-elevations held in Lhasa, China, on 19 - 21 July 2010.

August 010

The workshop was sponsoredby the Chinese Academy of
Sciences, National Natural
Science Foundation of China,
and the Lhasa Branch of
Institute of Tibetan Plateau
Research. Two relevant CEOP
projects (WEBS and HE) and
CEOP-AEGIS (an EU FP7
project) office also greatly
contributed to the organization of the workshop.

An Update on Extremes within CEOP
Ronald E. Stewart
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba

Extreme events, particularly those associated with hydrometeorology,
are of special interest for CEOP. The objectives of extremes-related
activities within CEOP are to better document, understand andsimulate their occurrence, evolution, and structure; to contribute totheir better prediction at various time scales; and to address associated societal concerns.
Phenomena such as drought, heavy precipitation, floods and related
issues such as heat waves and fires occur essentially everywhere. The
specific issues being addressed include:• How are extremes defined?
• How do extremes develop, evolve, and end within the climate
system?
• Have extremes changed in occurrence and character and why
or why not?
• Given our progress, how can we contribute to assessing whether
extremes may change in the future?
Each of the Regional Hydrometeorology Projects (RHPs) and manyof the other components of CEOP are studying extremes (Table 1),
which are explicitly or implicitly part of the objectives of all of the
RHPs.
A great deal of progress is being made on extremes within these
individual components. A few illustrative examples follow:• A recent article summarized many extremes within the Mediterranean region (Diodato and Bellocchi, 2010) and addressed
for the first time hydrological extremes and their variations andtrends in this region. In general, autumn is the most hazardous
season for extremes in this region and there has been a shift
towards more intense rainfall (Figure 1).
• Some of the basic considerations surrounding drought need to

be assessed. For example, the notion of drought being a ‘hot’
phenomenon is not always the case (Figure 2). Periods of cold
air can also lead to far below normal precipitation, at least over
the Canadian Prairies.
• Prediction studies of extremes are ongoing in several of the
RHPs and these range from short-term to at least seasonalscales. Short-term predictions mainly focus on heavy precipitation and flooding although, even in a drought, such predictions
are very useful. Any improvements in seasonal-scale predictions
would have an enormous impact.
• Research in support of future extreme occurrence, and adaptation to these, is being carried out within several of the RHPs.
Collective work is also underway. A few illustrations are as follows:• A summary of extremes efforts within CEOP has recently been
completed.
• There are over 70 references to scientific publications on extremes
within CEOP available on the CEOP Extremes website.
• CEOP Extremes is jointly organizing the extremes symposium
at IUGG 2011 in Melbourne, Australia.
• A collective scientific article is expected to soon be started. A
key issue is understanding reasons for similarities and differences in extremes in different regions.
• These CEOP efforts are contributing to the larger issue ofExtremes within the World Climate Research Programme. A
new WCRP cross-cutting effort is being developed with myriad
implications worldwide.
References:
Diodato, N. and G. Bellocchi, 2010. Storminess and environmental
changes in the Mediterranean central area. Earth Interactions. 14, 1-16.
Stewart, R.E. et al., 2010. The 1999-2005 drought over the Canadian
Prairies: Part III: Key atmospheric and related issues. (In Preparation)

Table 1: Some of the extremes-related activities within CEOP. Phenomena include drought (D), heavy precipitation (HP), flooding (F), landslides (LS), glacial retreat (GR), temperature extremes (TE) and fire (FI).
Research-related activities underway include data collection (DC), data
integration (DI), definitions (DE), trends (T), science and simulation (S),prediction (PR), aquatic ecosystem impact (AQ), and research contributing
to or in support of adaptation (A). Drought Research Initiative (DRI) is a
Canadian regional activity. Some activities have undoubtedly been missed.
RHPs
Phenomena
AMMA
D
BALTEX
HP, F, TE
CPPA
D, HP, F, TE
HyMeX
D, HP, F, LS
LBA
D, HP, F
LPB
D, HP, F
MAHASRI
D, HP, F
MDB
D, HP, F, TE, FI
NEESPI
D, HP, F, FI
DRI
D, HP, F, FI
Other Components
Water Budgets
D, HP, FHigh Elevation
HP, GL, F
Isotopes
HP
Modelling
Monsoon
D, HP, F
Hydrologic Applications
D, HP, F

Studies
DI, S, PR
T, S, PR R, A
DI, DE, T, S, PR
D, PR, A
DI, S, PR
T, S, PR, A
DI, T, S, PR, A
T, S, PR, A
T, S, PR, A
DC, DI, T, S, PR, A
S
DC, DI, T, S, AQ
DI, SS
DI, T, S, PR
PR

Figure 1: The September trend of rainfall rate over Sicily from 1948 to2009. Adapted from Diodato and Bellocchi 2010.

Figure 2: Annual temperature and precipitation anomalies over Edmonton,
Alberta for every year of a recent 1999-2005 drought. Adapted from Stewart
et al., 2010.

August 2010

CEOP Reference Site Data Update
Steven Williams1, Scot Loehrer1, Linda Cully1, andKatsunori Tamagawa2
1
NCAR EOL, Boulder, Colorado, USA; 2University ofTokyo, JapanThe NCAR Earth Observing Laboratory (EOL) continues to provide
the archive for the CEOP Reference Site (RS) in-situ data undersponsorship from NOAA’s Climate Projects Office (CPO). Data
are archived and available in the standard CEOP column ASCII
format, organized by four file types: surface (SFC), Tower (TWR),
Soils (STM), and Flux (FLX). EOL is in the process of convertingthese data to NetCDF format (following CF conventions) for use
in data integration and comparison with model output and satellite
data. In addition, some supporting observations such as upper air
soundings and other ancillary measurement data are included in thearchive for some sites where available.
Some RS data holdings go back to 2002 and are complete and continuous through 2009. Current long-term RS archives include: (1)10-Year Dataset Development
Toshio Koike1, Petra Koudelova1, Sam Benedict2, andSteve Williams3
1
University of Tokyo, Japan; 2Coronado, CA, USA;
3
NCAR EOL, Boulder, CO, USA

In confronting the risks and challenges posed by changing climate,
we must acknowledge the fundamental uncertainty in projectionsof future climatic and water resources conditions, and work to improve the ability to identify effective responses while reducing thisuncertainty. For this, a simple framework to identify, organize, anddisseminate comprehensive, quality, and long-term observational
datasets should be provided to modelling communities and analysis
and impact study research groups as it is also stressed in the GEWEXPost 2013 Imperatives.
In response to this need, an idea of a collaborative effort among in-situ
and satellite earth observation groups and modelling communities
to develop a high-quality comprehensive dataset of meteorologicaland hydrological variables based on the most advanced and complex
land reference sites distributed over the world and complemented
with relevant satellite observations has emerged. The 10-year Dataset Project (10-YDP) activity was proposed at the WCRP Observation and Assimilation Panel (WOAP) Meeting in Hamburg, March
2010, at which achievements of CEOP and CMIP in providing
frameworks for access to observational and model datasets, including metadata standards, were acknowledged. At the occasion of the
2nd Hydrology delivers Earth System Science to Society (HESSS2)
international conference held in Tokyo, 22 – 25 June 2010, the rationale of the 10-YDP was introduced to representatives of relevant
observation and data evaluation and analysis communities including
FLUXNET/AsiaFlux, GSWP/GLASS, and LandFlux-EVAL and abasis for collaboration on this activity was formulated that has beenthen elaborated in the 10-YDP Whitepaper draft presented anddiscussed at the Pan-GEWEX meeting in Seattle.

August 2010

ARM Southern Great Plains, North Slope of Alaska, and TropicalWestern Pacific (Oct 2002 – Dec 2009); (2) Lindenberg, Cabauw,
and Sodankylä (Oct 2002-Dec 2008); (3) Himalayas and Murrumbidgee (Oct 2002-Dec 2007); and (4) BERMS (Oct 2002-Dec
2006). The CEOP Data Management web page is located at:
http://www.eol.ucar.edu/projects/ceop/dm/, from which you may
access RS documentation and available data. The “Reference Site
Data Gateway” is updated as new data become available. Site specificdocumentation includes contact information, site/station descriptions, maps (including Google Earth KMZ files), photographs,
vegetation, land use, soils characterization, climate, parameters/instrumentation, and references.
As CEOP begins a collaboration with the Hydrology cycle inMediterranean Experiment (HyMeX) Project (see Report in this issue
describing the 4th International HyMeX Workshop), discussions with
the HyMeX Project were initiated to include three new proposed
Reference Sites (Southern France, Italy, and Israel). These sites varyfrom single station to networks of precipitation and soils observations.

The envisioned dataset has advantages over “reanalysis” datasets byproviding (a) observational data and by (b) enabling a single commodity that includes all data in a standardized format, fulfillinghigh quality requirements in accordance with the CEOP standards,
and equipped with appropriate metadata assuring full interoperability and “easy” use. The 10-year period has been decided basedon the requirements for a minimum length of such a dataset fortargeted model output evaluations, while considering opportunities
provided by available in-situ and satellite observations. The 10-year
period is sufficient to derive climatologically sensible mean diurnal
cycles and is also useable for analyzing intra-seasonal variability or
extreme events under the current climate.
The main aims of the dataset include but are not limited to: (i)evaluation of the climate model output applicability for climatechange impact assessment, in particular evaluation of the CMIP5
near-term and time-slice experiment results; and (ii) quantificationof uncertainties of model predictions/projections and thus making
the model output information useable for decision and policy makers.
The Project is a collaborative effort among observing and modelling
communities primarily involving GEWEX (CEOP, GRP, GMPP),FLUXNET, CMIP5, CEOS, WOAP, GCOS, and possibly others.
It will build on the CEOP experience in data management, archival
and access and the data will be archived at the Data Integration andAnalysis System (DIAS) at the University of Tokyo taking advantage of its visualization and analysis capabilities. Data use policy isadopted from the CEOP Reference Site and Satellite Data Releaseand Use Guidelines and adjusted to the specifics of the 10-YDP
project.

Monitoring Flooding in Pakistan Using
ALOS & GSMaP Data Provided by JAXA
Takeo Tadono1, Masanobu Shimada1, Kentaro Aida2,
Katsunori Tamagawa2, Toshio Koike2, Kazuhiko Fukami3,
and Takahiro Kawakami3
1
Earth Observation Research Center, JAXA; 2Department
of Civil Engineering, The University of Tokyo; 3International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management under
the auspices of UNESCO (ICHARM)

Serious damage has occurred in Pakistan recently due to floods
and mudslides caused by heavy rain, which occurred continuously since July 29, 2010. The flood damage has spread from
north to south in Pakistan. The Japan Aerospace Exploration
Agency (JAXA) has made observations using the Advanced Land
Observing Satellite (ALOS, "Daichi") to monitor the state of thedamage.

Figure 1: Enlarged AVNIR-2 images of the swollen rivers at Hyderabad (left:
August 23, 2010; right: March 23, 2010).

Figure 1 shows images of Hyderabad, 1,200 km south-southwest
from Islamabad, which were taken after the disaster on August23, 2010 (left) and before the disaster on March 23, 2009 (right).
It is obvious that the flooded area along the Indus river basin has
greatly expanded.
Figure 2 shows the inundation area image obtained from dataacquired with the Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture
Radar (PALSAR) onboard ALOS on August 19, 2010. The
data was acquired using the ScanSAR observing mode (WB1);
therefore it covered an approximately 350 km wide strip at 100
m spatial resolution. The blue color on the topographical map
derived from the ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model (ASTER GDEM) shows the inundation area, which was identified
by analyzing the backscattering coefficients observed before andafter the flood.

Figure 3: Comparison of preliminary IFAS-PDHM simulations using the corrected GSMaP data with the observed in-situ river discharge data at Nowshera,
Kabul River (from July 25, 0:00 to August 6, 0:00 GMT)A preliminary runoff analysis was done at the Nowshera hydrological station of the Kabul River, which is one of the major
tributaries of the Indus River, using the Integrated Flood Analysis System (IFAS) - Public Work Research Institute (PWRI)
Distributed-parameter Hydrologic
Model (PDHM, grid-size 4 km) and
the Global Satellite Mapping ofPrecipitation (GSMaP) as shown in
Figure 3. The GSMaP data correctedby the ICHARM’s correction method
based solely on rainfall-area movement information, without regarding
ground-based rainfall data, was usedas the input to the IFAS-PDHM. According to the estimation of this preliminary simulation, the flash-flood
runoff peak at the Nowshera point(watershed area approximately 92,000km2) appeared to be over 16,000 m3/s
near the time of 0:00 (GMT) on July
31, but in reality, most of the highflow discharge must have been inundating the floodplains (valley plains)
along the Kabul River.

Figure 2: Inundation area on August 19, classified by using the PALSAR overlaid on the topographical map
derived from the ASTER GDEM. (JAXA, METI Analyzed by UT)August 2010