August 2005

8

CEOP Phase 1 Successes Documented as Contributions to Water and Energy Cycle Studies
and a Basis for the Start of CEOP Phase 2: a view by the Chairman of the Joint ScientificCommittee for the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)Peter Lemke, Chair, WCRP Joint Scientific Committe (JSC)

The initial successes of CEOP, up to theend of 2004, have led its Science Steering
Committee, Chaired by Professor Hartmut
Grassl, and its Advisory and OversightCommittee, Co-Chaired by Drs. Jack Kaye andAkimasa Sumi, to endorse plans for a second
phase that will extend to the end of 2010.
This decision has also been welcomed andsupported by the broader WCRP climatePeter Lemke
research community.
The rationale for the extension of the CEOP effort comes directly fromthe success to date of the coordination of specially generated model output data products with in-situ and satellite data through the well organized CEOP integrated data archive system. The main elements of thesystem consist of the Model Output archive at the Max Planck Institutefor Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany, the in-situ data archive being managed by the University Cooperation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR),
Boulder Colorado, USA, and the satellite data archive provided by the
University of Tokyo (UT) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency(JAXA), Tokyo, Japan.
To facilitate the accessibility of the data collected from inhomogeneous information sources and maximize their use, international information sharing and dissemination have been established compliant withexisting standards and capabilities, such as ISO (International
Organization for Standardization). A Centralized Data Integration Systemadministered by UT and a Distributed Data Integration System developed
through a collaborative effort between UT, JAXA and the Committee on
Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) Working Group on Information
Systems and Services (WGISS) has as its aim to enable a broad group ofusers to easily access, browse and analyze the CEOP data. Prototypes ofboth of these Systems were opened to the CEOP community on 1 June2005.
I am pleased therefore to have this opportunity to stress that CEOP
has now become widely acknowledged within the international researchcommunity. In particular: it has been selected as the first element of theIntegrated Global Water Cycle Observations (IGWCO) theme under the
Integrated Global Observing Strategy Partnership (IGOS-P); it is an
important component of WCRP's scientific strategy as expressed in our
new COPES (Coordinated Observation and Prediction of the Earth
System) strategic framework for 2005-2015; and, it is also a demonstra-tion project within the new Global Earth Observation System of Systems(GEOSS) of the Group on Earth Observations (GEO). It is essential to theresearch communities of WCRP, especially for our Global Energy andWater Cycle Experiment (GEWEX), and to the Earth observation communities represented in the IGOS-P and CEOS that CEOP, through a Phase 2
initiative, remains a stable, internationally coordinated effort that continues to meet its data, observational and research goals.
A key attribute of the existing CEOP data set is that the data haveundergone additional quality control measures including visual inspectionof all data and that the format of the data is essentially uniform across allproviders. With these specific features, the CEOP data set is a uniquetool that can be successfully exploited to advance research into thewater and energy cycles as components of the global climate system aswell as to implement various model validation and intercomparison studies leading to improvements of modelled physics. A number of suchstudies have been presented at specific meetings that have demonstrated benefits arising from the CEOP data set, which integrates a large
amount of in-situ data from various reference sites with a common format and is easily accessible to users. A few specific examples are presented in this Newsletter along with special articles and diagrams thatare intended to provide the basis for the culmination of the first Phase of
CEOP and the starting point for Phase 2.
In this context, I appeal to all the contributing organizations and agencies for the continuation and extension of your help in providing yourmodel, in-situ, and satellite data products to the international researchcommunity in cooperation with the CEOP data management and analysis
scheme, at the present level and, to the extent possible, until 2010. The
continuing success of CEOP depends critically on the active participationof Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) and related global model andContents:• CEOP Phase 1 Successes Documented as Contributions to
Water and Energy Cycle Studies and a Basis for the Start of
CEOP Phase 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1,2• CEOP Phase 1 Achievements • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2,3• The Fourth CEOP Implementation/Science Planning
Meeting and the First IGWCO Workshop, Tokyo, Japan,
from 28 February – 4 March 2005 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3• Call for Papers to the CEOP Special Issue of JMSJ • • • • • 3• The Inter-CSE Transferability Study • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4,5• Characterizing Monsoon Systems using CEOP Data • 5-7• CEOP Phase 1 Achievements – Presentations at
CEOP/IGWCO Joint Meeting, Tokyo, March 2005 • • • • • • 8• Calendar of CEOP Meetings • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8

2

CEOP Newsletter No.8

data assimilation groups, reference site data collection processing centres and satellite instrument data handling agencies.
At this year’s session, the Joint Scientific Committee (JSC) for the
WCRP noted with appreciation the completion of CEOP’s main observation period and the on-going research and data collection activity.
Professor Toshio Koike’s role as CEOP Lead Scientist was highly
acknowledged. For my part as the Chairman of the JSC, I am glad that
the JSC has taken steps to ensure continued development of the unique
attributes of CEOP by inviting Professor Koike to report to the WCRP
Observations and Assimilation Panel (WOAP) on the progress of theobservation and data component. In a similar manner, the JSC plans toensure that the CEOP science focus remains closely integrated with andcomplementary to the overall objectives of GEWEX and the other core
projects of WCRP. For this reason, the JSC has asked that GEWEX maintain oversight of the research component of CEOP. For its part, CEOP will
provide a “next” draft of the Phase 2 Implementation/Science Plan that
includes criteria for measuring progress and a statement of resource
requirements, to be considered at JSC-XXVII, March 2006. It will be mypleasure to continue to work with CEOP in this way to provide the means
for it to continue to evolve as a fully functioning integrative component of
the WCRP and a leading contributor to water and energy cycle studies in
the global climate research community.

CEOP Phase 1 Achievements
Toshio Koike, CEOP Lead Scientist, University of Tokyo

In agreement with the Implementation Plan for Phase 1 CEOP has
established two sets of unique functional components:• components to integrate observations based on coordination among
field science groups, space agencies, and NWP centers in the local,
regional and global scales;• components to exchange and disseminate observational data andinformation including data management that encompasses functions
such as Quality Assessment/Quality Control, access to data, andarchiving of data, data integration and visualization, and information
fusion.
Key agreements were initiated to obtain in-situ data from 35 selected
globally distributed “reference” stations. These Reference Sites provide
enhanced observations of sub-surface (soil profiles), surface (standard
meteorological and radiation), near surface (flux tower), and atmospheric(rawinsonde and profiler) quantities, and also ancillary data sets (radar,
special observations). The CEOP Reference Site data is archived by the
UCAR/JOSS Central Data Archive (CDA).
The work associated with satellite data set development and integration has also progressed as planned. The satellite data sets that areaccommodated at the Satellite and Data Integration Center at the
University of Tokyo (UT), which is jointly administered by JAXA and UT,
consist of the main water cycle parameters generated at three scales:
250 km rectangular, monsoon regional and global scales that are associated with product levels 1b, 2 and 3.
Nine operational NWP and two data assimilation centers (NCEP,
UKMO, NASA-GMAO, NASA-GLDAS, JMA, BMRC, ECMWF, NCMRWF,
ECPC, CPTEC/INPE, and CMC) are currently providing two types of model
output: gridded global fields and site-specific time series designated as"Model Output Location Time Series" (MOLTS). The Max Planck Institutefor Meteorology (MPIM) and the German Climate Computing Center(DKRZ) with the ICSU World Data Center for Climate (WDCC) undertook toserve as the CEOP model output archive.
The total amount of CEOP Phase 1 data is estimated to be approximately 300 Terabytes. As originally produced by the various sources thedata was in a wide variety of formats and structures. In order to transform the observational data into scientifically and socially relevant infor-

mation and allow for sharing of this knowledge on an international basis,
CEOP has established two capabilities for data integration and information fusion one being a distributed data integration system developed by
JAXA and NASA at http://jaxa.ceos.org/wtf_ceop, and the other a centralized data integration system established by UT, at http://monsoon.t.utokyo.ac.jp/ceop-dc/ceop-dc_top.htm. For data description, data indexing, and data services such as data mining, the CEOP metadata scheme
has been developed to conform to the ISO TC/211 19115 standard.
The two overall science objectives of the Water and Energy Cycle
Simulation and Prediction (WESP) and Monsoon System Studies drove
the requirements for CEOP and its Phase 1 data sets. The WESP component of CEOP has begun to use these data sets to accomplish a comprehensive synoptic climatological case study of regional CSE and global
water and energy budgets as a guide to the interpretation of longer-term
global and regional analyses and data sets. Starting from the current
efforts to close simplified vertically integrated water and energy budgets
with observations and analyses and beginning efforts to simulate thesebudgets regionally, CEOP has commenced the effort to transfer thisknowledge to global scales, include more water and energy cycle
processes, and to examine special phenomena related to the land component and the vertical structure of the atmosphere.
For the Monsoon Systems Studies, CEOP Phase 1 requirements have
led to the subsetting of the data into four major monsoon regions aroundthe globe, namely the Asia-Australia Monsoon, North American Monsoon,
South American Monsoon, and West African Monsoon. A regional monsoon experiment is underway, in the form of a CEOP Inter-Monsoon
Study (CIMS) that considers all of these monsoon regions. The CEOP
Monsoon Systems Working Group has undertaken a demonstration project with the EOP-1 dataset that shows that the specific features of sucha dataset can be exploited in a process that will lead to meeting theobjectives of CIMS at the first level.
Moreover, soon after the delivery of the EOP-1 in-situ dataset in early
2004, modeling center and space agency participants in CEOP becameaware that the observations at CEOP reference sites could be used instudies to evaluate and validate land surface processes and other related
aspects of models and satellite sensor algorithms.

CEOP Newsletter No.8

In recognition of the unique benefits of the observation and data integration infrastructure that has evolved over CEOP Phase 1 CEOP is now
considered one of the key elements of the Global Earth Observation
System of Systems (GEOSS), as described in the GEOSS 10 Year
Implementation Plan Reference Document:

A prototype data integration system is being demonstrated by the
CEOP. An overall plan for in-situ and satellite water cycle observational
systems is needed so that data can be readily exchanged, standards
can be set, and data quality can be monitored.

The Fourth CEOP Implementation/Science Planning Meeting and the First IGWCO Workshop,
Tokyo, Japan, from 28 February – 4 March 2005
Sam Benedict, CEOP International Coordinator

The fourth international implementation/science planning meeting for
CEOP and the first Integrated Global Observing Strategy Partners (IGOSP) Integrated Global Water Cycle Observations Theme (IGWCO) Workshop,
were held jointly at the Sanjo Kaikan facility on the Hongo Campus, of the
University of Tokyo (UT), in Tokyo, Japan, from 28 February – 4 March
2005. The agenda and all of the presentation material including theposters presented and displayed at the meeting can be found through the
CEOP Home Page on the Internet at: http://www.ceop.net. The joint meeting was attended by a group of over 60 scientists from 15 countries.
The CEOP Lead Scientist reported that since CEOP had been identified
as the first element of the IGWCO theme within the framework of IGOS-P
the connections between the two communities had been strengthened
leading to the joint meeting.
The participants addressed several important issues including(a) endorsement of a concept for finalizing the CEOP Phase 2
Implementation Plan; (b) ideas for maximizing the science and technology
benefits from both CEOP and IGWCO; and (c) specific thoughts related to
the framework for oversight of the science, implementation plans andresults during the initial phase of IGWCO and CEOP Phase 2.
Of special interest were relationships to the World Climate Research
Programme Coordinated Observation and Prediction of the Earth System(COPES) strategy, which is being established as a unifying and integrating
experiment designed to capitalize on successes in the development ofspecialized observing networks that have been established around theglobe for measuring and monitoring climate related parameters.
Connections to the 10-year Implementation Plan for the Global Earth
Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) were also highlighted.
Because the CEOP initial (Phase 1) Data Collection Period was com-pleted, as planned, on 31 December 2004, a CEOP Phase 1 Science andData Results Workshop was organized at the meeting. Forty-two technicalpapers and a corresponding number of posters were presented at theworkshop and displayed during the meeting covering issues associatedwith model and satellite instrument algorithm validation; water and energy budget variations and their role in climate; monsoon characteristics
studies including diurnal variations; model intercomparison and transferability studies; and downscaling. Extended abstracts of these presentations have been published as a separate meeting document. A list of thepresentations has been summarized on page 8 of this Newsletter andplans for the technical papers to be published in a special issue of a peer
reviewed journal are also provided below.
Many of the studies presented at the workshop used the CEOP coordinated in-situ, satellite and model output data sets, others were examplesof research and data handling that need CEOP's unique capabilities tosucceed. These capabilities, highlighted as part of the legacy of CEOP
Phase 1, included:- A prototype of the global water cycle observation system of systems
based on the reference site network, the experimental and operational satellite systems, and the NWP model outputs.
- A well organized data archive system.
- A cooperative framework for providing distributed- and centralizeddata integration functions.
The actions and recommendations related to the discussions at themeeting are being drafted into a report. The next meeting, which is also
being planned as a joint CEOP/IGWCO event and will in addition include
representatives of COPES, will be held from 27 February to 3 March
2006 in Paris, France.

Call for Papers to the CEOP Special Issue of JMSJ
Toshio Koike, CEOP Lead Scientist, The University of Tokyo

As presented at the CEOP Tokyo Meeting in March 2005 (see page 8), many encouraging results have been achieved in all components of CEOP
through its initial phase. In this context, a special issue on CEOP of the Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan (JMSJ) has been proposed. It
is my great pleasure to invite you to publish your paper in this special issue of JMSJ. Currently, the following breakdown of topics is anticipated:
Water and Energy Simulation and Prediction (WESP) • Monsoon System Study (CIMS) • Data Archive, Interoperability, and Integration • Satellite
Remote Sensing and Data Assimilation • Model Intercomparison
Detailed information including a funding support policy and editorial board members will be announced through the CEOP home page in due
course. The paper submission due is 31 December 2005 and the submission guideline is available at:
http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/msj/JMSJ/JMSJ_contrib.html/. Please take notice that manuscripts for this special issue should be sent directly to:
Dr. Toshio KOIKE
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan

3

4

CEOP Newsletter No.8

The Inter-CSE Transferability Study
B. Rockel1, I. Meinke2, J. Roads2, W. J. Gutowski, Jr.3, R. W. Arritt4, E. S. Takle3,4, C. Jones5
1
GKSS Research Centre Geesthacht, Germany; 2 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD, USA; 3 Dept. of Agronomy,
Iowa State University, USA; 4 Dept. of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, Iowa State University, USA; 5 University ofQuebec at Montreal, Canada

Introduction
The Inter-CSE (Continental-Scale Experiment) Transferability Study(ICTS) http://w3.gkss.de/ICTS is a joint project of (1) CEOP, (2) the
Water and Energy Simulation and Prediction (WESP) and (3) the
GEWEX Hydrometeorology Panel (GHP) Transferability Working Group(TWG) http://rcmlab.agron.iastate.edu/twg/.
Controlled numerical simulations of regional climates are currently being conducted over areas having fundamentally different climate regimes (e.g., tropical, midlatitude, polar) focused on particularclimate characteristics (e.g., monsoons, low-level jets, mesoscaleconvective systems). In particular, ICTS contributes continuous multiple regional simulations to the CEOP model archive and in turn uses
the CEOP global analyses, in-situ, and satellite data to evaluate
these regional simulations.
Presently three centers are actively contributing to the ICTS: (i)GKSS is contributing output from a climate version of the German
Lokalmodell (CLM; e.g. Steppeler et al. 2003); (ii) the Experimental
Climate Prediction Center (ECPC) is providing output from theRegional Spectral Model (RSM; e.g. Roads et al. 2003); and (iii) theregional modeling group at Iowa State University provides output
from the Regional Climate Model (RegCM3; e.g. Takle et al. 1999).
The goal of ICTS is to understand the physical processes underpinning the global water and energy cycles through systematic intercomparisons of regional simulations of diverse climates to CEOP
observations and analyses. This way the best parameterizations will
be localized to simulate certain regional scale meteorological conditions, which we believe will also help to improve future global climate models.
Model Setup
For ICTS seven computation areas over the different CSEs were
defined (Figure 1). Several aspects were considered in this process(e.g. orography at the boundaries of the simulation areas; inclusionof main typical synoptic features). One area is over the MAGS
(Mackenzie GEWEX Study). The second covers GAPP (GEWEX
Americas Prediction Project) and was defined by the Project forIntercomparison of Regional Climate Simulations (PIRCS; Takle et al.
1999). Another area covering both the LBA (Large-Scale BiosphereAtmosphere Experiment in Amazonia) and the La Plata region wasused for a previous South America intercomparison (e.g. Roads et al.
2003). Over Europe we chose an area that includes the BALTEX
catchment, taken from the definition of the CLM area used for theEuropean Union Prediction of Regional scenarios and Uncertainties
for Defining EuropeaN Climate change risks and Effects (PRUDENCE)
project (e.g. Hesselberg Christensen et al. 2005). The area overAfrica covers the African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analysis (AMMA)
region. The area over Asia covers the GEWEX Asian Monsoon

Experiment (GAME) region, expanded to cover the Himalayan CEOP
reference site. The selection for the MDB (Murray-Darling-Basin
Water Budget Project) area was based on a previous case study
from the GEWEX Cloud System Study (Ryan et al. 2000).
The horizontal resolution of the regional models was initially chosen to be 50 km. The initial simulation period was from July 1999 to
December 2004. Although the desired CEOP time period only covers
Jul. 2001 – Dec. 2004, an additional two years were needed toensure the land surface model in the regional models had equilibrated. Currently the National Center for Environmental Prediction(NCEP) Department of Energy (DOE) Reanalysis II is being used forthe lateral boundary condition for these regional simulations.
Additional simulations with higher horizontal resolution and alternative global analyses will be eventually undertaken.
First Results
Figure 2 shows the mean monthly precipitation for July andAugust 2001 from several reference sites. For the models and the
GPCC (Global Precipitation Climatology Centre, e.g. Rudolf et al.
2003) data, the mean of the grid box containing the reference sites
and its eight adjacent grid boxes are shown. The lowest variations
between the five data sets occur at grid boxes surrounded by shallow orography like Cabauw, Lindenberg, BERMS, and Pantanal. Gridboxes surrounded by high orography or heterogeneous surface, like
Himalayas, Ft. Peck, Rondonia, and China Sea, have larger variations. Except for Rondonia and Himalayas the CEOP observations
and the GPCC data have similar precipitation amounts, which indicate that the uncertainty in the observations is probably much smaller than the model variations.
RSM simulated precipitation has mostly (77.7% cases) larger values than the observations, while CLM simulated precipitation has
mostly (66.6% cases) smaller values. RegCM3 simulations have thesmallest differences with respect to the measurements. At two sites
the values of the RegCM3 simulated precipitation are between CEOP
and GPCC measurements. At four sites the simulated values are
smaller (44.4%), and at three sites they are higher (33.3%) than theobserved values. At the China Sea reference site, the simulated precipitation amounts for all models are much smaller than theobserved precipitation, which is an indication that 50 km resolution
is too coarse for this region.
In Figure 3 global analyses (red) and regional simulations (blue,
green) are compared to CEOP and GPCC observations at the
Lindenberg reference site. The precipitation amounts of the global
models differ between 15 to 105 mm/month. In general, the global
models have larger variations than the regional climate simulations
and observations. Additional sites are currently being examined tosee if this is true in general.

CEOP Newsletter No.8

References
Hesselberg Christensen, J (Coordinator), 2005: PRUDENCE:
Prediction of Regional Scenarios and Uncertainties for defining
EuropeaN Climate Change Risks and Effects. Final Report, pp.
269.
Roads, J.O., S.-C. Chen, S. Cocke, L. Druyan, M. Fulakeza, T. LaRow,
P. Lonergan, J. Qian and S. Zebiak, 2003: The IRI/ARCs Regional
Model Intercomparison over South America. J. Geophys. Res.,108 (D14), 4425, doi:10.1029/2002JD003201.
Rudolf, B., T. Fuchs, U. Schneider and A. Meyer-Christoffer 2003:
Introduction of the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre(GPCC), Deutscher Wetterdienst, Offenbach a.M.; pp. 16.
Ryan, B., J. Katzfey, D.J. Abbs, C. Jakob, U. Lohmann, B. Rockel,
L.D. Rotstayn, R.E. Stewart, K.K. Szeto, G. Tselioudis and M.K.
Yau, 2000: Simulations of a cold front by cloud-resolving, limitedarea and large-scale models, and a model evaluation using in-situ
and satellite observations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128, 3218-3235.
Steppeler, J., G. Doms, U. Schättler, H. W. Bitzer, A. Gassmann, U.
Damrath, and G. Gregoric: 2003, Meso-gamma scale forecasts
using the nonhydrostatic model LM, Meteorol. Atm. Phys, 82, 7596.

Takle, E.S., W.J. Gutowski, R.W. Arritt, Z.T. Pan, C.J. Anderson, R.R.
da Silva, D. Caya, S-C. Chen, F. Giorgi, J.H. Christensen, S.Y.
Hong, H-M.H. Juang, J. Katzfey, W.M. Lapenta, R. Laprise, G.E.
Liston, P. Lopez, J. McGregor, R.A. Pielke, J.O. Roads, 1999:
Project to Intercompare Regional Climate Simulations (PIRCS):
Description and initial results. JGR-Atmospheres 104 (D 16),
19443-19461.

Figure 2: Monthly mean precipitation during CEOP EOP-1 (July - August 2001) at
CEOP reference sites, for CEOP observations, GPCC data and simulations (CLM simulations for the GAME reference sites Himalayas, Mongolia, and China Sea have notbeen finished yet).

Figure 1: Model areas (magenta outlines) and reference sites (red dots: 1 BERMS,
2 Ft. Peck, 3 Lindenberg, 4 Cabauw, 5 Himalayas, 6 Mongolia, 7 China Sea, 8Rondonia, 9 Pantanal).

Figure 3: Monthly precipitation during EOP-3 and EOP-4 at Lindenberg / BALTEX

Characterizing Monsoon Systems using CEOP Data
William K. M. Lau, and Kyu-Myong Kim, Laboratory for Atmospheres, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

The CEOP Inter-Monsoon Study (CIMS) is one of the two mainscience drivers of CEOP that aims to (a) provide better understanding of fundamental physical processes in monsoon regions aroundthe world, and (b) demonstrate the synergy and utility of CEOP data
in providing a pathway for model physics evaluation and improvement. As the data collection phase for EOP-3 and EOP-4 is being
completed, two full annual cycles (2003-2004) of research-quality
data sets from satellites, reference sites, and model output location
time series (MOLTS) have been processed and made available fordata analyses and model validation studies. This article presents

preliminary results of a CIMS study aimed at the characterizationand intercomparison of all major monsoon systems. The referencesite data provided by CEOP showed value in such exercises by
being a powerful tool to cross-validate the TRMM data, and to intercompare with multi-model results in ongoing work.
Six years (1998-2003) of pentad CEOP/TRMM data with 2º x
2.5º latitude-longitude grid, subsetted to the domain of interests
were used to define the monsoon climatological annual cycles for
the East Asian Monsoon (EAM), the South Asian Monsoon (SAM),
the West Africa Monsoon (WAM), the North America/Mexican

5

6

CEOP Newsletter No.8

Monsoon (NAM), the South American Summer Monsoon (SASM)
and the Australian Monsoon (AUM). As noted, the TRMM data usedin the study were cross-validated using CEOP reference site data,
where applicable.
Regional features
Figure 1 shows the latitude-time sections of climatological pentad rainfall from TRMM data, and from NASA NSIPP GCM simulation
for EAM, and SAM respectively. Clearly seen in Fig. 1a is an abrupt
northward propagation of the first summer dynamics-driven
Intraseasonal Oscillation (ISO) from 10ºN to 35ºN, signaling theonsets of EAM, starting in mid-May over the South China Sea, tothe Mei-yu [25-30ºN] in June, and the Baiu or Changma [35-40ºN]
in July. A distinct break is found immediately after the first major
ISO pulse, and then followed by less regular ISO along the latitudebelt 10-25ºN. A weaker second pulse of ISO reaching north of 25ºN
can be detected in August. The withdrawal phase occurs rather
slowly compared with the onset phase. In addition, there is a welldefined pre-monsoon rainy phase in southern China [25-30ºN] in
April-May. The model captures the broad features of the slow component of the annual cycle, i.e. onset and withdrawal, but is lesssuccessful in simulating the fast components. It produces excess
rainfall over the tropical western Pacific [10-20ºN] from June to
October (Fig. 1b).
In case of SAM (Fig. 1c), the first northward propagating ISO
occurs in May, followed by another one in June. The first ISO is
associated with the bifurcation of convection in the Bay of Bengal
preceding the onset of the South China Sea monsoon (Lau et al.
1998), and the second one is related to the Indian monsoon onset
over the west coast of India. Unlike EAM, which has a large latitudinal span, the monsoon rain of SAM is limited at the foothills of theHimalayas near 25ºN. Here, the ISO northward propagation signals
are detectable, but not as well-defined as in EAM. The NSIPP model
simulates relatively well the EAM evolution (Fig. 1d) but there aresome discrepancies including the too far north extent of the monsoon rain; lack of definition of ISO; and excessive rainfall in theIntertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) in other seasons.
Similar cross-sections (Fig. 2) for WAM and NAM yield very different characteristics compared to EAM and SAM. For WAM (Fig.
2a), the monsoon rainbelt in July-August-September (JAS) appears
at the tip of a bow-shaped ITCZ structure, which can be identified
with the northward migration of the rainbelt from the Gulf of Guinea
to the land region of the West Africa immediately to the North. While
there is an indication of an abrupt shift from oceanic to land convection in early July, there are no clear signals of monsoon breaks,
and ISO. These features are captured reasonably well by the NSIPP
model (Fig. 2b).
For NAM, the dominant feature is the ITCZ variation associatedwith the Mexico monsoon, which migrates northward to 10-15ºN
during JAS (Fig. 2c). The North American (NA) portion of NAM (>2530ºN) appears barely as perturbation. A 15-20 day ISO seems to bequite prominent along the axis of the ITCZ with some limited, but illdefined northward propagation. The NSIPP simulation of NAM is

reasonable, getting the ITCZ in the right latitude and reproducing
the northward bulge of the Mexican monsoon. However, an insufficient signal of the NA contribution (Fig. 2d) and a discrepancy in the
ISO pulse clearly indicate that the NA portion of NAM is not wellresolved by the coarse resolution of the model.
Figure 3a shows that SASM is governed by two major convective
systems: over the land and over the ocean. The land-driven component becomes active in November near 10-15ºS, and splits into anorthward and a southward propagating branch. The southernbranch consists of land convection, which penetrates to the extratropics up to the La Plata Basin (25-30ºS). The northern branchmerges with the Atlantic ITCZ and rainfall over northeastern Brazil in
March-April. ISO also appears in SASM but is rather intermittent
compared to EAM. Although there is not a major break over the land
during NDJ, rainfall lulls are present. The NSIPP model captures themain features comparatively well but the simulated ITCZ portion
appears to be more connected to the oceanic component throughout the year, but not as much to the land convection as theobserved (Fig. 3b).
Similar to SASM, AUM (Fig. 3c) shows strong control by an ITCZ
anchored to the maritime continent of Indonesia and Papua New
Guinea, and a land-driven rain system over northern Australia in
DJF. The ITCZ is active from November through May. The ISO signals propagating southward from the ITCZ to northern Australia areclearly visible in DJF. The model simulates the land-locked ITCZ
rainfall quite well and to a lesser degree the southward propagatingISOs, but underestimates the monsoon rainfall over northern
Australia (Fig. 3d).
Inter-monsoon comparisons
The above analyses show that common to all the monsoon systems is the presence of oceanic-driven ITCZ-type convection in the
deep tropics (10ºS-10ºN), and convective systems outside thetropics. The latter includes subtropical and extratropical atmospheric and land, as well as oceanic influences outside the tropics, stemming from the presence of the Continental Land Mass (CLM) outside the deep tropics. The monsoon characteristics appear to be
dependent on the degree by which the system is controlled by the
ITCZ vs. the CLM processes. While the former tends to confine themonsoon system within the deep tropics, the latter inclines to draw
it away from the tropics.
To quantify the relative strengths of these two controls, we define
the ITCZ convection as the seasonal mean rainfall between the zone
from equator to 10º N or S, and the CLM convection as thatbetween 10-35º N or S, on the same hemisphere as the monsoon
system in question. Figure 4 shows a scattered plot for all six monsoon systems as a function of the ITCZ and CLM strength. For comparison, data points for two pure ITCZ systems over the central
Pacific and the central Atlantic are also plotted. We also define acontinentality index Ω, as the ratio of the CLM to the ITCZ rainfall.
The grouping with respect to Ω is indicated by the regression
lines. Here, it is evident that SAM and EAM belong to a group thathave strong control from both CLM and ITCZ processes, but with

CEOP Newsletter No.8

slightly stronger contribution from the former, with Ω=1.34, and1.16 respectively. This is mostly likely associated with the large
Asian continent situated to the north of both monsoons, drawing themonsoon towards the continent. Interestingly the American monsoons, i.e. SASM and NAM have similar values of Ω =0.78 and0.87 respectively, indicating slightly stronger ITCZ compared to
CLM control. Here, the similarity may be connected to the relative
controls of low level jet produced by N-S oriented steep orography
in the Altiplano vs. Atlantic ITCZ for SASM, and the Sierra Madre
Occidental vs. eastern Pacific ITCZ for NAM. Compared to theothers, WAM (Ω=0.4) and AUM (Ω=0.53) have the least continentality. The similarity of the relative control of these two monsoons
may be related to the presence of the desert regions poleward of
the monsoon region, i.e. the great Sahara desert north of WAM, and
the Australian deserts south of AUM. These deserts are overlain by
low level anticyclonic flow with strong large scale subsidence,
which tend to inhibit the poleward extension of the monsoon. Itshould be stressed that a low continental index does not necessarily
imply a lack of continental influence, but expresses the fact that themonsoon has a limited meridional continental reach (e.g. Xie 2005).

It is obvious that there is much to be learned regarding individual
monsoons and the monsoon systems as a whole from inter-monsoon and intercomparison studies as proposed by CIMS. Further
studies are called for and CEOP data will be extremely useful to validate new findings, thereby, making the results as reliable as possible.

Figure 1 Time-latitude cross-sections from pentad rainfall data for EAM [110ºE130ºE]: (a) TRMM and (b) NSIPP GCM, and for SAM [70ºE-90ºE]: (c) TRMM and(d) NSIPP. Units are in mm/day.

Figure 3 Time-latitude cross-section from pentad rainfall data for SASM [60ºW40ºW]: (a) TRMM and (b) NSIPP GCM, and for AUM [125ºW-145ºW]: (a) TRMM
and (b) NSIPP GCM. Units are in mm/day.

References
Lau, K. M., H. T. Wu and S. Yang, 1998: Hydrologic processes associated with the first transition of the Asian summer monsoon: apilot satellite study. Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc., 79, 1871-1882.
Matsumoto, J., and H. Takahara, 2005: Inter-comparisons of seasonal changes between East Asian and South American monsoons. CEOP Newsletter, 7, 5-7.
Xie, S-P., 2005: The shape of continent, air-sea interaction, and therising branch of the Hadley Circulation. Chapter 4, The Hadley
Circulation: Present, Past and Future, Eds. H. F. Diaz and R. S.
Bradley, 173-202.

Figure 2 Time-latitude cross-section from pentad rainfall data for WAM [10ºW10ºE]: (a) TRMM and (b) NSIPP GCM, and for NAM [120ºW-100ºW]: (a) TRMM and(b) NSIPP GCM. Units are in mm/day
Figure 4 Scattered plot showing the strength rainfall intensity associated with ITCZtype control on the abscissa and CLM-control on the ordinate, of all six major monsoon systems (solid circles). For comparison, the data points for the same-size
domains over the central Pacific (CP) and the central Atlantic (CA) are also shown(open circles). Units are in mm/day. The continentality index (Ω) is shown in parenthesis.

78

CEOP Newsletter No.8

CEOP Phase 1 Achievements – Presentations at CEOP/IGWCO Joint Meeting, Tokyo, March 2005
Satellite and Data Integration Tools Development and Application

CEOP Water and Energy Simulation and Prediction (WESP) Results

The CEOP Model Data Archive at the World Data Center for Climate as Partof the CEOP Data Network,
M. Lautenschlager, F. Toussaint, H. Luthardt
Standardization Framework for CEOP Metadata Development andApplication,
R. Xie, R. Shibasaki
A Basic Study on a New Satellite Algorithm for Snow,
H. Tsutsui, T. Koike, T. Graf, K. Tamagawa, H. Fujii
A 2-D Process Study Through The Development of A Satellite Data
Assimilation By A Land-Atmosphere Coupled System,
S. Boussetta, T. Koike, M. Pathmathevan, K. Yang
Integrated Snow Observation During the Cold Land Processes Field
Experiment and its Application for the Development of Radiative
Transfer Model for Snow,
T. Graf, T. Koike, H. Fujii, R. Armstrong, M. J. Brodzik, M. Tedesco, E. J. Kim
Globally Distributed Evapotranspiration using Remote Sensing and CEOP
Data,
E. F. Wood, M. F. McCabe, H. Su, K. Tu
The Development of a 1-D Cloud Microphysics Data Assimilation System(CMDAS) by using AMSR-E Data,
M. Cyrus Raza, T. Koike, K. Yang, T. Graf
Production of CEOP Satellite Dataset by JAXA,
K. Umezawa, T. Mutoh, M. Miyake
Development of a Visual Data Mining Application for Earth Environmental
Data,
E. Ikoma, K. Taniguchi, T. Koike, M. Kitsuregawa
CEOP Data Server and Browse/Analysis Interface,
T. Nemoto, M. Kitsuregawa
CEOP Data Archive Distributed Data Mining System,
B. Burford, O. Ochiai, T. Koike, I. Hasegawa
WTF-CEOP Satellite Integration for Global Water Cycle,
JAXA

Characterizing the Diurnal Cycle in a Global Analysis/Forecast System,
A. Ruane, J. Roads, M. Kanamitsu
Hydrological Improvement of the Land Surface Process Scheme using the
CEOP Observation,
D. Yang, K. Tamagawa, T. Koike
Regional Climate Simulations over the US and the Role of Surface Water
in Atmospheric Predictability,
M. Bollasina, J. Roads, A. Nunes, M. Kanamitsu
The Water Cycle of North American Basins and Related Land SurfaceAtmosphere Interactions in the Regional Reanalysis Data,
Y. Luo, E. H. Berbery, K. E. Mitchell
Inter-CSE Transferability Study (ICTS),
B. Rockel, J. Roads, I. Meinke, W. J. Gutowski Jr., R. W. Arritt, E. S. Takle
Global Evaluation of the RSM Simulated Energy and Water Budgets
through Transferability Studies during CEOP,
I. Meinke, J. Roads, M. Kanamitsu
Study on Energy and Water Cycle over the Central Tibetan Plateau Area,
Y. Ma, T. Yao, T. Koike, H. Ishikawa, K. Ueno, O. Tsukamoto, J. Wang
Land-Atmosphere Interactions on the Tibetan Plateau: From Turbulence toMonsoon,J. Hong, J. Kim
Can We Derive Soil Moisture from Soil Temperature Data,
K. Yang, T. Koike
The Role of Vegetation Roots in Controlling Surface Soil State and Energy
Partition,
K. Yang, T. Koike, B. Ye, L. Bastidas

CEOP Model Output Data Development and Application
The Global Land Data Assimilation System and the Land Information
System: Overview of Current Status and Capabilities,
H. Kato, M. Rodell, P. Houser, C. Peters-Lidard, S. Kumar
Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) and Land Information
System (LIS) MOLTS Analyses of CEOP-EOP1,
H. KatoLand Surface in Numerical Weather Prediction Models: Surface andAtmospheric Evaluation,
S. Belair, F. Lemay, M. Roch
Implementation of Coupled Skin Temperature Analysis and Bias
Correction in a Global Atmospheric Data Assimilation System,
M.G. Bosilovich, J. D. Radakovich, J. Chern, A. da Silva, R. Todling, F. erter
Evaluating Parameterizations using CEOP Data,
S. Milton, P. Earnshaw
Evaluation of a New Land Surface Model for JMA-GSM- using CEOP
EOP-3 Reference Site Dataset,
M. Hirai, T. Sakashita, T. Matsumura
Land Surface Processes Simulated in the NCEP Global Model: A
Comparative Study using the CEOP Reference Site Observations,
C-H. Lu, K. Mitchell

CEOP Monsoon Systems Studies Milestones and Accomplishments
CEOP Inter-Monsoon Studies (CIMS),
W. Lau, J. Matsumoto, R. Mechoso, J. Marengo, H. Berbery, M. Bollasina,
T. Yasunari, Y. K. Xue, T. Satomura, P. Glecker, Y. Wang, J. Potter, B. K. Basu,
B. Burton
A Regional Atmospheric Inter-Model Evaluation Project (RAIMEP) with the
Focus on Sub-daily Variation of Clouds and Precipitation,
Y. Wang
Orography and Monsoons: Winter Snow-storms over the Himalayas,
M. Bollasina, L. Bertolani
Cloud Convection and Atmospheric Temperature Rising over the EasternPart of the Tibetan Plateau in Pre-monsoon season,
K. Taniguchi, T. Koike
Features of Indian Summer Monsoon 2004,
B. K. Basu, G. Iyengar
Numerical Experiments on the Diurnal Variation of Precipitation in the
Northeastern Bangladesh,
A. Kataoka, T. Satomura
Inter-comparisons of Seasonal Changes between East Asian and SouthAmerican Monsoons,J. Matsumoto, H. Takahara
Regional Circulations and the Diurnal Cycle of the American Monsoons,
E. H. Berbery, D. Gutzler, D. Gochis
La Plata Basin: CLIVAR/GEWEX CSE,
R.Mechoso

Calendar of CEOP Meetings:• The 5th CEOP Implementation Planning Meeting and the
2nd IGWCO Workshop will be held jointly with the support of
the WCRP/COPES Support Unit:
Paris, France 26 February – 3 March 2006

Brief timeline:
Sunday 26 February:
Monday 27 – Tuesday 28 February:
Wednesday 1 March:
Thursday 2 – Friday 3 March:

CEOP working group chairs meeting
CEOP sessions
CEOP and IGWCO joint session
IGWCO sessions

Newsletter Editorial Board: Robert SCHIFFER, Carlos R. MECHOSO, Paul D. TRY
Contact Address of International Coordination Body:
Sam BENEDICT (International Coordinator)
742 “H” Avenue
Coronado, CA, 92118, USA
Phone: +1-619-437-7904
Fax: +1-619-437-6814
E-mail: sam.benedict@gewex.org

Petra KOUDELOVA, Akiko GODA
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Tokyo
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan
Phone: +81-3-5841-6132
Fax: +81-3-5841-6130
E-mail: ceop@monsoon.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Supported by: Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)