GEWEX is a Core Project of WCRP on Global Energy and Water Exchanges

Vol. 25 No. 3, August 2015

NASA NEWS Program Makes Significant Progress in Synthesis of aState-of-the-Art Global Water and Energy Cycle

Mean annual fluxes (1000 km3/yr) of the global water cycle, and associated uncertainties, during the first decade of the millennium. White numbers
are based on observational products and data integrating models. Blue numbers are estimates that have been optimized by forcing water and energy
budget closure and taking into account uncertainty in the original estimates (after Rodell et al., 2015). See article by R. A. Schiffer et al. on page 4.

Also Inside• The First Decade of Integrated NASA Energy and Water Cycle Studies (NEWS) (Page 4)• New GEWEX Soils and Water Initiative (Page 8)• 10 Years of NEESPI Accomplishments (Page 10)• Soil Moisture-Precipitation Coupling: Reconciling Spatial and Temporal Perspectives (Page 13)• GABLS-4 Intercomparison Results (Page 18)

20–23 October 2015 | ESA-ESRIN | Frascati, Italy

Commentary
Scratching At and Below the Surface
Peter van Oevelen
Director, International GEWEX Project Office

A little over a year ago, in July 2014, we held the International
Scientific Conference on the Global Water and Energy Cycle
in The Hague, which was a successful and fun event that welook back upon with pride and satisfaction. An importanttask of the International GEWEX Project Office is to organize scientific conferences, meetings and workshops, particularly to support the GEWEX Panels and working groups intheir activities. Today, with the enormous number of science
meetings held worldwide, it is a constant challenge to findbalance in determining the right number and kind of meetings needed to keep our community informed and actively
engaged. These gatherings serve as an important tool in ensuring that GEWEX, as a part of the World Climate Research
Programme (WCRP), stays relevant and provides the necessary inputs to adjust its goals and activities as needed. In addition to the above-mentioned activities, the IGPO, along with
the GEWEX Scientific Steering Group, has the task to ensurethat GEWEX research activities stay current and relevant.
One shift in the mission of GEWEX has arisen from Future
Earth’s emphasis on a much stronger social context to environmental change research. GEWEX and its counterparts inthe project must renew the push to connect science to applications. In the past, GEWEX activities, such as the Hydrological Applications Project (HAP) and its predecessor, the Water
Resources Applications Project (WRAP), met with varying
success. Part of making the transition from science to applications effective is a having a better understanding between theparties on their respective goals and objectives. For example,
some scientists want to incorporate better physical models
into numerical weather prediction (NWP) systems. This does
not necessarily lead to better predictions, and the NWP centers have limitations to consider before they can update theiroperational models. Implementing the physical models is notalways straightforward, and despite the best intentions, betterscience does not always lead directly to better applications.
In the past GEWEX focused primarily on the geophysical system, where human interactions were largely ignored. Hydrometeorological models have since improved and to keep themodels relevant, anthropogenic influences have to be taken
into account. GEWEX now includes the human component
as an active part of its activities through the WCRP Water
Grand Challenge and in the formulation of the GEWEX Science Questions. One of the bigger difficulties lies in the acquisition of data related to human activity, such as reservoir
management decisions, industrial water, and extraction. These
data are often not easily accessible, and when they are avail2

able, they are often not very reliable. The reasons for this canbe of a political nature, such as to avoid disputes over transboundary waters, or of a socio-economical nature, such as in
the case of irrigation practices. New and better Earth observation systems, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Surface Water and Ocean Topography
Mission (SWOT) or the follow-on to the Gravity Recovery
and Climate Experiment (GRACE-FO), may help alleviatesome, but not all of the difficulties in obtaining data for water
availability and extraction. The accounting of our global fresh
water resources remains a difficult but important challenge.
The article on page 4 provides a good example of how theNASA Energy and Water Cycle Study (NEWS) is helping
to improve the methodologies for using Earth observation
techniques to quantify global water and energy budgets. Because subsurface water is so difficult to quantify, GEWEX isexpanding its focus in this area through the new GEWEX
Soils and Water Initiative (see page 8), which aims to improveobservations, models, predictions and data assessments. Thislatter activity has been long overdue in my view and I am glad
to see it getting the attention it deserves.
Although the fundamental science questions related to thewater and energy cycle are still as valid today as they were during the formation of the GEWEX Project in the late 1980s, it
is important for programs such as GEWEX to keep evolving
to ensure that their research is relevant today in the broadsocial and scientific context. As a community, GEWEX mustensure that its priorities reflect that relevance.

Contents
Contents

Commentary: Scratching At and Below the Surface 22
Commentary: Looking Back on a Successful
INYearMEMORIAM—Paul
F. Twitchell3
for GEWEXInternationalPrize forDevelopment
New
WCRP Liaison
forModel
GEWEX

23

th
Join Students
and
to of
Discussthe33
Highlightsof the27Experts
Sessionthe GEWEX
California
Drought at
the 2015 AGU Fall Meeting
Scientific SteeringGroup

The First Decadeof forIntegrated
NASA
Energy and 5 4
Implementation
Plan
the WCRP
Grand
Water
Cycle
Challenge
onStudies
Understanding and Predicting
Weather and Climate Extremes
New GEWEX Soils and Water Initiative
8
7
First Workshop of the Grey Zone Project
10 Years of NEESPI Accomplishments and Future10
Plans Highlighted at Synthesis Workshop
Annual Meeting of the GEWEX Hydroclimatology 10
Panel
and Joint Session on
the Global
Drought
Soil
Moisture-Precipitation
Coupling:
Reconciling
13
Information
SystemSpatial and Temporal Perspectives
12
GEWEX/WCRP
CalendarMeeting/Workshop
Reports:– GLASS Panel Meeting16– 1st Workshop on the GABLS-4 Intercomparison 18
GEWEX/WCRP Calendar

20

August 2015

IN MEMORIAM
Paul F. TwitchellPaul F. Twitchell passed away on
July 6. He was the senior project
scientist and editor of GEWEXNews from 1990 until 2002, when
he and his wife Eunice moved
back to Wellesley, Massachusetts,
to be closer to family. Paul was a
dedicated and loyal member of
the International GEWEX Project
Office. He took on any task withgreat dedication and enthusiasm.
During his time at IGPO he assisted in developing and promoting GEWEX in a wide variety of venues. Having served
for many years as a program manager with the Office of Naval
Research (ONR), Paul received his Ph.D. in Oceanography
from the University of Wisconsin. He was a professor at theNaval Academy and also supported the U.S. Air Force Air
Weather Service as an Air Force Reservist, retiring as a Colonel. We will miss this special man.

International Prize forModel Development
Nominations Due October 1
As the demand for more accurate regional weather and seasonal predictions, as well as climate projections, increases, theneed to improve the weather and climate models that underpin those predictions and projections becomes more urgent.
In recognition of the essential role that model development
plays in weather and climate science, the World Climate
Research Programe and the Worldwide Weather Research
Programme are seeking nominations for the WCRP/WWRP
International Prize for Model Development. The prize will beawarded annually for an outstanding contribution to weather
and climate model development by an early- to mid-career
researcher (defined as within the first 10 years of their career).
It comprises a certificate signed by the Chairs of the WCRP
Joint Scientific Committee and WWRP Scientific Steering
Committee, and funding for the recipient to present theresults of his/her research at a major relevant conference or
meeting of their choice.
The deadline for nominations is 1 October 2015. For details
on eligibility, required nomination material and the selection
process, please see: http://www.wcrp-climate.org/wmac-activities/ipmd2015.
August 2015

Join Students and Experts to
Discuss the California Drought
at the 2015 AGU Fall Meeting
Sheila Saia
Graduate Student, Soil and Water Group, Biological & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York;on behalf of and affiliated with the Young Hydrologic Society
and the AGU Hydrology Section Student Subcommittee

The ongoing California drought will likely cost the state morethan $2 billion in agricultural revenue losses (Howitt et al.,2014) and has reduced surface water supplies for domestic andecological use (Famiglietti, 2015). Solving complex social, political, economic and environmental issues requires an interdisciplinary approach that promotes collaborations between
academic researchers, government agencies and private interests. Given the ongoing relevancy of complicated issues likethe California drought, it is important that students and early
career scientists receive training to help them initiate and carryout effective interdisciplinary collaborations.
Early career scientists are encouraged to attend the Meet theExpert Session entitled “California Drought: Current State
and Ways Forward” at the American Geophysical Union(AGU) Fall Meeting Student and Early Career Scientist Conference on 13 December 2015. At this session, attendees willlearn about the state of California’s water resources from apanel of experts and discuss the influence of drought on ecology, agriculture and economics. The goals of this session arefor students and early career scientists to discuss emerging
research and policies related to the California drought andbrainstorm collaborative approaches for solving multifacetedwater resources issues such as those in California. For more
information about this year’s Student and Early Career Scientist Conference, see: http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/students/
student-early-career-scientist-conference/.
This Meet the Expert Session and Student and Early Career
Scientist Conference is an initiative of the Young Hydrologic
Society (YHS). YHS board member and AGU Hydrology section student representative Tim van Emmerik discussed thebenefits of last year’s conference: “100 young scientists gathered to meet peers, participate in workshops to improve theiracademic skills and lay the foundations for lifelong academic
friendship.” The 2015 conference is a great opportunity foryoung scientists to get more out of the Fall Meeting.
References
Howitt, R. J. et al., 2014. Economic Analysis of the 2014 Drought for California Agriculture. California Department of Agriculture and Universityof California Davis. Available at: https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/files/biblio/
DroughtReport_23July2014_0.pdf.
Famiglietti, J., 2015. California has about one year of water stored. Will you
ration now? Los Angeles Times. Available at: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/
op-ed/la-oe-famiglietti-drought-california-20150313-story.html.

3

The First Decade of Integrated
NASA Energy and Water Cycle Studies
Robert A. Schiffer1, Paul R. Houser2, Deborah R.
Belvedere3, and Jared K. Entin4
1
Universities Space Research Association, Columbia,
Maryland, USA; 2George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA; 3Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland,
USA; 4NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC, USA

It is commonly acknowledged within the Earth science community that significant progress in understanding and predicting the complex processes controlling the global energy andwater cycle is beyond the capability of individual scientists
pursuing narrowly focused research agendas. It is also recognized that a coordinated crosscutting approach integrating
community research systematically leads to improved capabilities. In 2003, with encouragement by Ghassem Asrar and Jack
Kaye of NASA Headquarters, NASA began planning an integrated energy and water cycle study emphasizing observationally based advancements in process understanding, modeling,
prediction and consequences. The resulting NASA Energy andWater cycle Study (NEWS) Program was built upon existingNASA-supported basic research in atmospheric physics anddynamics, radiation, climate modeling and terrestrial hydrology to address how global precipitation, evaporation and thecycling of water are evolving in a changing climate.
The scientific framework for the water and energy cycle focus
area is outlined in the NASA Earth Science Enterprise Strategy
that was issued in October 2003. It is one of six focus areasthat define the scientific content of the NASA Earth Science
Program, and includes both research and technology components. Its implementation is planned through NEWS, whose
grand challenge is to document and enable improved, observationally based predictions of energy and water cycle consequencesof Earth system variability and change. It is well known thatwater cycle prediction skill in weather and climate models significantly lags behind temperature prediction skill, mostly due
to the issues of predicting clouds, boundary layer and surface
complexities. Therefore, the NEWS grand challenge should
introduce innovative knowledge and modeling advancementsthat lead to a breakthrough improvement in the nation’s energy and water cycle prediction capability.
The NEWS research linkage to the international science community is primarily through the World Climate Research
Programme (WCRP), particularly the GEWEX Project. It
includes complementary elements of the Climate and Ocean
Variability, Predictability and Change (CLIVAR) and Climate
and Cryosphere (CLIC) projects. GEWEX has overall WCRP
responsibility for providing an international interface with all
the national space agencies concerning energy and water cycle
related global climate research requirements, instruments, dataand science support. Other international connections include
the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and the International Human Dimensions Programme.
4NEWS has made significant progress on integrating NASA
results into a state-of-the-art global water and energy cycle
synthesis. The NEWS team initially focused on a coordinated description of the complete global energy and water cycle
using existing satellite and ground-based observations, andlaying the foundation for essential NEWS developments inmodel representations of atmospheric energy and water exchange processes. Many challenges still remain; to address theNEWS goal, a long-term commitment will be required alongwith continued partnerships with NASA mission and scienceteams, national observation and prediction systems, and withinternational programs.
Implementation of NEWSThe NEWS Program was initially planned in three phases,
with each successive phase being focused on a range of research
activities representing advances beyond the current status ofobservations, modeling and applications. The emphasis during
Phase-1 has been to exploit current capabilities and prepare for
future developments of NEWS Program elements.
Phase-2 will focus on addressing deficiencies and building aviable “prediction” system, and Phase-3 on the delivery of an
end-to-end system to address the NASA Earth Science Vision,
namely: (a) comprehensive observations to accurately quantify
the state and variability of the global water and energy cycle,
including time series data sets with no major gaps; (b) routine
analysis of variability in storage, transports and fluxes of water;(c) routine prediction of key water cycle parameters (including
clouds, precipitation, radiation interactions, energy budgets
and surface hydrological variables); and (d) improved forecasts
for use in water management and decision support. Along theway, NEWS observation plans were superseded by the 2007
NASA Decadal Survey, which redefined global observing system priorities, and by the establishment of the NASA Making
Earth System Data Records for Use in Research Environments(MEaSUREs) Program, which is focused on product generation, availability and utilization.
It was envisioned that the NEWS Program would build upon
existing NASA-supported basic research in atmospheric physics and dynamics, radiation, climate modeling and terrestrialhydrology. While these NASA programs fund research activities that address individual aspects of the global energy andwater cycles, they are not specifically designed to generate acoordinated result. The implementation concept for NEWSis specifically intended to promote innovative mechanisms
to work across these programmatic boundaries, based on theNEWS Implementation Plan central issue of assessing the key
uncertainties in seasonal-to-annual and longer-term energy
and water cycle predictions, and outlining model improvements needed to reduce these uncertainties.
The NEWS Team is organized into integration working
groups that identify and make the necessary connections topartner and coordinate with water and energy cycle research
and application activities within NASA, as well as nationallyand internationally.
August 2015

Accomplishments in Phase-I
NEWS compiled the first-ever satellite-based energy and water cycle climate data record, including continental and oceanic averages of the Earth’s radiation balance, as well as precipitation, evaporation and water vapor (Schlosser and Houser,
2007; Rodell et al., 2015; L’Ecuyer et al., 2015). The accompanying uncertainty evaluation adds a believability measure
for application of these data and is helping to guide futuresatellite technology decisions. This new integrated global water and energy assessment is being used in conjunction with
NASA’s Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research andApplications (MERRA) reanalysis, to study and improve predictions of weather and climate variability (Bosilovich et al.,2011 and Bosilovich, 2013). The integrated water and energy
satellite studies have provided insights into the mechanisms
and severity of mid-western U.S. floods and droughts, and canbe used to help in mitigating future damage caused by these
extremes (Wang et al., 2014a).
NEWS-sponsored research using satellite observations has
improved or created new estimates of water cycle variables,
both fluxes and reservoirs, including their relationship withother important environmental processes. MODIS data fromthe Terra and Aqua satellites have been used in multiple ways
to better understand snow and in-land water dynamics, especially in the climate-change-affected regions of the northernlatitudes. Additional satellite data from AQUA (AMSR-E instrument) and QuikScat have been combined with MODIS
to better assess snowmelt timing and dynamics. Multiple satellite data streams and hydrologic models have been used to better understand agriculture areas and drought dynamics (Wanget al., 2014a,b,c). Satellite data have also been used to better
understand and estimate the movement of water in the atmosphere, with some particular emphasis on the water flux fromthe world’s oceans. In many cases these advances represent astrong contribution towards improving climate model representation of water cycle attributes.
NEWS has facilitated the integration of NASA results into astate-of-the-art synthesis of the global water and energy cycles.
The NEWS team combines data from NASA observing missions to provide insights about how the Earth (and the human population) moves water and energy around, including
how the water cycle is accelerating. NEWS supported researchalso allows for an independent assessment of the range (or uncertainty) in global evapotranspiration estimates from remotesensing-driven models where the models were driven by common forcing data, based on EOS AQUA and TERRA sensor
data (MODIS, AIRS, CERES). Continued work using the
1984–2008 International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project(ISCCP) and Surface Radiation Budget (SRB) Project radiation data sets is ongoing. At the same time, NEWS has fostered the development of radically new model representationsof energy and water exchange processes that resolve significant process scales and spatial variability in ground boundary
conditions (Bosilovich et al., 2011). Such process-resolving
models may be first constructed as independent stand-alone
modules that can be tested against ad hoc field measurements
August 2015

and systematic observations at selected experimental sites.
The codes may be simplified through statistical sampling ofprocess-scale variables or otherwise reduced to generate integrated fluxes representative of each grid-element in a climate
model. This is supported by a broad exploration of potential
new observing techniques concerning all aspects of the energy
and water cycle, and initiating relevant technical feasibility
and scientific benefit studies.
NEWS teams and collaborations have produced excellent
science results with other groups. The NEWS Climatology
Working Group of about 20 Principal Investigators (PIs) andco-investigators integrated numerous satellite data sets to estimate the global and continental-scale means and variationsof both the water and energy cycles. All fields have associated errors attached and these are used to make adjustments
to achieve balance, if appropriate. This activity alone makes
NEWS worthwhile and unique. Individual instrument science teams create algorithms and analyze results from MEaSUREs to produce Climate Data Records (CDRs). The
NEWS activity is attempting to integrate all of the primarily satellite-based observations into a complete picture of theenergy and water cycles to show the means, and the seasonaland interannual variations and trends, using water and energy
cycle conservation equations as an additional constraint. Thisis a huge undertaking requiring significant resources over asustained period.
In addition to the climatology activity, NEWS has also madesubstantial integrative progress on water and energy cycle modeling, variability and extremes, latent heat fluxes and cloudradiation processes. This kind of integrated science is uniquely
challenging, and is critical to the NASA Earth science mission
and complements other areas of Earth science, including instrument science teams, climate data record development, andEarth system model development.
NEWS Working Groups
The working group structure reflects the scientific prioritiesof the investigators, while still adhering to the basic objectives
and goals of the NEWS Program. The current structure consists of the following working groups.
Cloud and Radiation Working Group–Links clouds, precipitation and the energy budget with an initial focus on thesoutheastern Pacific, stressing the importance of boundary
layer clouds to the radiative energy budget, the relationships
between clouds and radiative effects, and impacts of precipitation on cloud and radiative properties.
Extremes Working Group–Focus is on understanding severe
drought in the United States. The 2012 drought may not havebeen predictable based upon current schemes employed forsuch purposes; however, it may have been anticipated due toknowledge of key precursors such as favorable (remote) sea
surface temperature patterns and reduced regional soil moisture and winter snow packs. The Working Group will examine
the extent to which the 2012 drought could have been anticipated and how to put recent severe droughts in perspective.
5

Climate Shift Working Group–Examines and documents
the pre-1998 climate shift. During the last 25–30 years ofsatellite and reanalysis information, global warming of the
Earth’s surface and increases in ocean water vapor are evident,
primarily in the pre-1998 period, with a leveling off of theseincreases in the post-1998 period. This “climate shift” is similar to an earlier interdecadal change event in the late 1970s
and has been linked to changes in ocean-atmosphere interactions linked to Pacific Decadal Variability (PDV), althoughother processes (e.g., the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation,
aerosols) could also be involved. There is also evidence that
other components of the water (and energy) cycles show ashift at approximately the 1998–2000 point. However, not all
the global data sets and reanalyses agree or have homogeneity
issues. The objective of this working group is to understandand better document the “shift,” and the strengths and weaknesses of global data sets and reanalyses to build a group consensus as to “what happened,” which data sets and reanalyses
can be used, and with what level of confidence. This activity
will also point to possible actions to improve the data sets andreanalyses to enable more confident studies in the future.
Evaporation and Latent Heating Working Group–Evaluates latent heating over a selected region for the NEWS time
period of 1998–2007 in order to determine mean seasonal
flux, interannual variability and the statistical distribution of
events. This will lead to an analysis of extremes and other aspects of the distribution, and how they relate to surface variability and atmospheric transport variability. An analysis of
the extremes can then be tied to specific weather events, suchas atmospheric rivers or cyclonic events, and an analysis oftrends in the transport over the time period.
Examples of Significant NEWS Research Highlights
The Observed State of the Water Cycle in the Early 21stCentury–The first objectively balanced estimates of the water
cycle and energy budget were produced based primarily upon
the recent Golden Era (2000–2010) of NASA Earth observations (Rodell et al., 2015). Combining the available data sets
revealed that annual mean estimates of the net radiative flux tothe Earth’s surface exceeds corresponding turbulent heat flux
estimates by 13–24 Wm–2. This is more than an order of magnitude larger than the best estimates of the current forcing byincreased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
The largest imbalances occur over the global oceans wherecomponent flux algorithms operate independently in the absence of closure constraints. Unlike previous studies that havesought to correct these imbalances through primarily ad hoc
adjustments to specific fluxes, the NEWS team pioneered anovel approach to reintroduce energy and water cycle closure
information into independently derived flux data sets, thus
explicitly account for uncertainties in all component fluxes.
This approach has been applied to a 10-year record of satellite
observations to estimate all atmospheric and surface energy
fluxes and their seasonal cycles globally and for each of sevencontinents and nine ocean basins. These new benchmarks ofglobal and continental energy budgets and their seasonal variability will be critical for evaluating the energetic forcings and6water cycle consequences of climate change and evaluating
their representation in climate prediction models.
In the majority of cases, the observed annual surface andatmospheric water budgets over the continents and oceans
close with much less than 10% residual. Observed residuals
and optimized uncertainty estimates are considerably larger
for monthly surface and atmospheric water budget closure,often nearing or exceeding 20% in North America, Eurasia,
Australia and neighboring islands, and the Arctic and South
Atlantic Oceans. The residuals in South America and Africa
tend to be smaller, possibly because cold land processes are a
non-issue. Fluxes were poorly observed over the Arctic Ocean,certain seas, Antarctica and the Australasian and IndonesianIslands, leading to reliance on atmospheric analysis estimates.
Many of the satellite systems that contributed data have beenor will soon be replaced. Observation integrating models willbe critical for ameliorating gaps and discontinuities in the data
records caused by these transitions. Continued developmentof such models is essential for maximizing the value of remotesensing observations. Next generation observing systems are
the best hope for significantly improving global water budget
accounting (Rodell et al., 2015).
The Observed State of the Energy Budget in the Early 21stCentury–New observational benchmarks of global and continental energy budgets and their seasonal variability were documented using data from the recent Golden Era (2000–2010)of Earth observing satellites (L’Ecuyer et al., 2015). Comparisons of the data sets have revealed that the net radiative flux
received at the Earth’s surface exceeds turbulent heat flux estimates by 13–24 Wm–2 (see figure on next page). The largest
imbalances occur over oceanic regions where the component
algorithms operate independently of closure constraints. Rigorous assessment of the uncertainties in each data set suggeststhat these surface energy imbalances fall within anticipatederror bounds, but the systematic nature of the required adjustments across different regions, and the fact that their magnitudes often approach acceptable limits, suggest that biases
may be present in one or more data sets.
There are a few reasons to favor these new estimates over recently published alternatives. First, they derive from primarily
observational or observation-integrating data sets that incorporate state-of-the-art information from NASA’s network ofEarth observing satellites. In addition, they incorporate explicit estimates of the uncertainties in all component fluxes
obtained through rigorous comparisons against high-quality
direct measurements, product intercomparisons and sensitivity studies. Most importantly, the updated energy budget
simultaneously satisfies all relevant energy and water cycle
closure constraints using an objective variational optimization
approach (see figure on cover).
To reintroduce energy and water cycle closure into independently derived flux data sets, a novel variational method for
objectively imposing balance constraints was introduced that
explicitly accounts for uncertainties in all component fluxes.
Applying the analysis to a 10-year record of satellite obserAugust 2015

Probable causes of the abnormal ridge accompanying the
2013–2014 California drought were the El Niño–Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) precursor and anthropogenic warming
footprint. New research by Utah State University scientists
has shown evidence connecting the amplified wind patterns,
consisting of a strong high pressure in the west and a deep low
pressure in the east, to global warming. Evidence suggests thatthe amplification of the dipole can be traced to human influences. The 2013–2014 California drought was initiated byan anomalous high-amplitude ridge system. The anomalous
ridge was investigated using reanalysis data and the Community Earth System Model (CESM). It was found that the ridge
emerged from continual sources of Rossby wave energy in thenorthwestern Pacific starting in late summer and subsequently
intensified into winter. The ridge generated a surge of wave
energy downwind and further deepened the trough over thenortheast U.S., forming a dipole. The dipole and associatedcirculation pattern is not linked directly with either ENSO or
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation; instead, it is correlated with atype of ENSO precursor. The connection between the dipole
and ENSO precursor has become stronger since the 1970s,
and this is attributed to increased greenhouse gas loading as
simulated by the CESM. Therefore, there is a traceable anthropogenic-warming footprint in the enormous intensity of
the anomalous ridge during winter 2013–2014 and the associated drought (Wang et al., 2014b).

Annual mean flows of energy into and out of the Earth’s surface on continental scales derived from observations during the golden era of Earthobservation in the early 21st century. Net radiation absorbed at the surface
is shown in the upper map while latent and sensible heat transfer from thesurface to the atmosphere is shown in the middle two maps. The implied
surface energy imbalances when these fluxes are combined are highlighted
in the map at the bottom revealing the importance of the objective optimization procedure introduced by NEWS (L’Ecuyer et al., 2015).

vations suggests that, globally, 180 Wm–2 of atmosphericlongwave cooling is balanced by 74 Wm–2 of shortwave absorption and 106 Wm–2 of latent and sensible heating. At thesurface, 527 Wm–2 of downwelling radiation is balanced by
399 Wm–2 of thermal emission, 22 Wm−2 of shortwave reflection, and 106 Wm–2 of turbulent heat transfer. The results
imply that residual heat flux into the oceans (0.45 Wm–2) is
consistent with recent observations of changes in ocean heat
content. Budgets are also presented for each of the seven continents and nine ocean basins on annual and monthly scales(L’Ecuyer et al., 2015).
August 2015

Future NEWS Research
Significant progress has been made on addressing the NEWS
grand challenge and its associated research questions; however,the ultimate goal of a breakthrough improvement in the nation’s energy and water cycle prediction capability has not yet
been achieved. Through the integrated NEWS science program, we expect to demonstrate advanced global observation,
data assimilation, improved representation of physical processes in climate models and better prediction systems that canbe used to quantify the hydrologic consequences of climatechange and produce useful seasonal and longer-range hydrologic predictions based on observed initial values and changing boundary conditions. While the NEWS research programis expected to yield incremental advances and breakthroughs
over an extended period of time, progress in achieving its longterm objectives will be measured against its success in making
significant contributions to:• Developing and deploying an experimental integrated energy and water cycle global observing system.
• Documenting the global energy and water cycle throughobtaining a complete observational record of all associatedgeophysical parameters.
• Building a fully interactive global climate model thatencompasses the process-level forcings on and feedbacks
within the global energy and water cycle.
• Creating a global land and atmosphere data assimilation
system for energy and water variables.
7• Assessing the variability of the global energy and water cycleon time scales ranging from seasonal to decadal, and spacescales ranging from regional to continental to global.
• Supporting the application of climate prediction capabilities for estimating the impact of climate variability and climate changes on water resources over a variety of spatial
and temporal scales.
While NEWS has made significant advances during its first
decade, fundamental challenges remain. Addressing thesechallenges requires a long-term commitment to the NEWS
goal and requires continued long-term partnerships with
the NASA mission and science teams, national observationand prediction systems, and international programs, such as
GEWEX, CLIVAR, the Global Earth Observation System
of Systems (GEOSS) and the Global Water System Project(GWSP). For more information about NASA NEWS, see:
http://www.nasa-news.org.
References
Bosilovich, M. G., F. R. Robertson, and J. Chen, 2011. Global Energy andWater Budgets in MERRA. J. Clim., 24, 5721–5739. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1175/2011JCLI4175.1.
Bosilovich, M. G., 2013. Regional Climate and Variability of NASA
MERRA and Recent Reanalyses: U.S. Summertime Precipitation and Temperature. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 52, 1939–1951. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0291.1.
L’Ecuyer, T., H. K. Beaudoing, M. Rodell, W. Olson, B. Lin, S. Kato,
C. A. Clayson, E. Wood, E. Clark, R. Adler, G. Huffman, M. Bosilovich,
F. Robertson, J. S. Famiglietti, P. R. Houser, D. Chambers, E. Fetzer,
X. Gao, G. Gu, K. Hilburn, D. P. Lettenmaier, W. T. Liu, C. A. Schlosser,
and J. Sheffield, 2015. The observed state of the energy balance in the early
21st Century. Accepted for publication by J. Clim.
Rodell, M., H. K. Beaudoing, T. L’Ecuyer, W. Olson, J. S. Famiglietti,
P. R. Houser, R. Adler, M. Bosilovich, C. A. Clayson, D. Chambers,
E. Clark, E. Fetzer, X. Gao, G. Gu, K. Hilburn, G. Huffman, D. P.
Lettenmaier, W. T. Liu, F. R. Robertson, C. A. Schlosser, J. Sheffield, andE. F. Wood, 2015. The State of the Global Water Cycle at the Start of the
21st Century. Accepted for publication by J. Clim.
Schlosser, C. A., and P. Houser, 2007. Assessing a satellite-era perspective of
the global water cycle. J. Clim., 20: 1316–1338.
Wang, S.-Y., D. Barandiaran, K. Hilburn, P. Houser, et al., 2014a. Could
the 2012 drought in central U.S. have been anticipated? A review of NASAworking group research. J. Earth Sci. Engineering, 4, 428–437.
Wang, S.-Y., L. Hipps, R. R. Gillies, and J.-H. Yoon, 2014b. Probable causesof the abnormal ridge accompanying the 2013–2014 California drought:
ENSO precursor and anthropogenic warming footprint. Geophys. Res. Lett.,
41, 3220–3226, doi:10.1002/2014GL059748.
Wang, S.-Y.. Schubert, R. Koster, Y-G Ham, M. Suarez, 2014c. On the Roleof SST Forcing in the 2011 and 2012 Extreme U.S. Heat and Drought:
A Study in Contrasts. J. Hydrometeor., 15, 1255–1273. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1175/JHM-D-13-069.1.

8

New GEWEX Soils and Water Initiative
Dani Or1, Peter van Oevelen2, Gerrit de Rooij3, Harry
Vereecken4, Remko Uijlenhoet5, and Sonia Seneviratne1
ETH Zurich, Switzerland; 2International GEWEX Project
Office, Washington, DC, USA; 3Helmholtz Centre forEnvironmental Research, Leipzig, Germany; 4Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany; 5Wageningen University andResearch Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands
1

The soil science community has been exploring ways to broaden disciplinary participation and foster collaboration in addressing important societal challenges where soil is a key component (beyond the traditional agricultural scope). In 2012,
the Soil Systems and Critical Zone Processes (SSCZP) Technical Committee was established jointly by the Hydrology and
Biogeosciences sections of the American Geophysical Union(AGU). In 2013 this committee organized two conferences toinvolve other disciplines, such as ecology, atmospheric science,biogeochemistry and geological sciences. The first conference,
the Soil Systems and Critical Zone Processes–Integrating Life
Support Functions across Disciplines, was held in Monte Verita, Switzerland (http://www.intersoil2013.ethz.ch/). This wasfollowed by the AGU Chapman Conference on Soil-MediatedDrivers of Hydrological and Biogeochemical Processes AcrossScales, which was held in Tucson, Arizona (http://chapman.
agu.org/soil-mediated/). Additional meetings were organized in2014 and these and the follow-up discussions crystalized theneed to foster stronger links in the climate community for incorporating soil processes into land climate models. The needfor improving the parameterization and scaling of soil processes into regional and global climate models was also noted.
During this period the leadership within GEWEX became
more proactive in addressing a fundamental element mostly
missing in its activities related to global water and energy exchanges, namely subsurface water and its related processes atboth global and regional scales. This is particularly relevant to
GEWEX Global Land-Atmosphere System Studies (GLASS)
Panel process studies, GEWEX Data and Assessments Panel(GDAP) global observations, and GEWEX Hydroclimatology
Panel (GHP) regional hydrological activities. The GEWEXInternational Scientific Conference held in The Hague, The
Netherlands in 2014, provided an ideal forum for exploringthese topics of mutual interest to GEWEX and the soil community, and to develop plans for an initiative promoting thesynergistic inclusion of soil and near-surface water flows intosome of the GEWEX activities. This initiative is tentatively
called GEWEX Soils and Water (GSW) and as this activity isin the early planning stages, references to potential parties areindicated but formal relationships have not been establishedin most cases except for those directly involved in GEWEX.
Proposed Activities for GEWEX Soils and Water (GSW)
Initiative
In response to discussions following the 2014 GEWEX Science Conference, six potential activities for the GSW are underconsideration (names in brackets indicate potential leads).
August 2015

1. Integration of critical zone observatories (CZO) andother eco-hydrological observatories related to GEWEX
activities. These may include the Terrestrial Environmental
Observatories (TERENO), the Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS), and the Consortium of Universities
for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc. (CUAHSI). Activities may include design, sensor selection, monitoring protocols and creating a data repository. [GHP]
2. Formation of a global lysimeter network. The current
program to inventory, standardize and expand coverage oflysimeter observations would fit well within the GEWEX
platform and also link nicely with the protocols of some of
the newly developed CZOs. [FZ Julich and GHP]
3. Development of an International Soil Modeling (ISM)
Consortium (https://www.soil-modeling.org/). This would
provide coherence and better linkages between climate
and soil modelers with respect to available models andtheir capabilities, data sets for model testing and a model
repository. [FZ Julich and GLASS]
4. Development of linkages with the Global Soil Map Initiative (led by Dominique Arrouays and Alex Mbratney;www.globalsoilmap.net). A global consortium is producing
a global digital soil map to describe soil properties at finespatial resolution (approximately 100 m) supplemented byinterpretation and functionality options (for applications
ranging from food production to climate change and environmental degradation).
5. Expansion of simple and low cost soil moisture monitoring networks. The model of the Texas Soil Observation Network (TxSON; www.beg.utexas.edu/soilmoisture/)
would be expanded to other regions in the world to provide
timely and spatially distributed soil moisture information
for decision making, and remote sensing and hydroclimate
model calibration. [GHP and GDAP]
6. Incorporation of near-surface and point and microscalesoil processes in regional and global hydrologic and observational models (surface evaporation physics, plantssoil interactions, carbon and other nuanced biogeochemical processes). [GLASS]
Other Potential GSW Topics
The above topics provide a starting point for GSW. There aremany more that will probably be included in this activity, suchas the use of ground-based and laboratory-based data for interpretation and evaluation of remote sensing data. The 2016 Soil
Science Society of America Thematic Conference on Remote
Sensing of Soils (in coordination with GDAP) is an example
of an essential activity. GEWEX could also enhance the use of
global and regional soil moisture databases by operationalizing
and unifying them (e.g., https://ismn.geo.tuwien.ac.at/), for use
by stakeholders, water managers and scientific communities(in coordination with GHP, GLASS, and GDAP). This can be
expanded by systematic efforts to solve the soil water content
measurement challenge through establishing links with sensor
companies and water managers (potential relevance for the InAugust 2015

ternational Soil Moisture Network). Given the stronger attention to the human effects on the water cycle within GEWEX,
the human component in accelerating the agro-urban water
cycle should be addressed as well. For example, vast volumesof wastewater are modifying the water cycle near megacities
and in arid regions (e.g., 40% of irrigation water in Israel isrecycled wastewater).
Interested Entities for Engagement with the GSW Activities
The GSW Initiative will build upon collaboration with existing activities that have overlapping interests, such as the Soil
Science Society of America (SSSA), the AGU SSCZP, the Geological Society of America Soils and Soil Processes Interdisciplinary Interest Group, and the European Geophysical Union
Soil Systems Section. National agencies may include the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and National Science Foundation,and the European CZO Network and GlobalSoilMap Initiative. An important role is also envisioned for academic andprivate organizations, such as the Water for Food Institute at
the University of Nebraska, the World Food System Center at
ETH Zurich, the World Food Center at the University of California at Davis and water sensor manufacturers (e.g., Acclima,
Decagon, RainBird, Campbell Scientific and Eijkelkamp).
Steps for the Establishment of GSW Synergistic Activities
In February–March 2014, GEWEX distributed a document
outlining potential synergism between the soil and climate
communities for comment from a core group in the soil andwater community. The response was overwhelmingly positive.
A working group was formed that could readily become engaged and provide substantive value to the GEWEX effort.
A few of the representatives volunteered to pitch the idea tothe broader GEWEX community and beyond, and identify
potential relationships with existing climate-soil activities (inparticular with the GLASS, GHP and GDAP Panels). A white
paper will be developed to outline benefits and opportunities
for the respective communities, namely GEWEX, SSSA, theGeological Society of America, the AGU and the European
Geosciences Union. To communicate plans to the broader
community, joint sessions or discussion panels will be established at upcoming conferences. To better coordinate all these
activities, two major events will be organized in 2016. The
first, the Austin International Conference on Soil Modeling,
will be held March 29–1 April 1 2016 in Austin, Texas, andwill focus on establishing an International Soil Modeling Consortium. The second event will be an exploratory workshop
held in Leipzig, Germany to identify and prioritize topics andestablish working teams and a timeline for next steps of the
GSW activity.
Other issues that may be addressed are critical gaps in land
climate models, how detailed land surfaces should be represented, educational and communication challenges and capacity building. This is not meant as a complete list of potential
activities but as a first step in outlining activities of interest.
The GSW shows much promise and has garnered enthusiasm
and support from the community. That said, we welcome enthusiastic individuals to join us to shape this activity and makeit a success!
910 Years of NEESPI Accomplishments
and Future Plans
Highlighted at Synthesis Workshop

plied to supporting decision making for societal needs. With
more than 1480 peer-reviewed journal publications and 40
books to its credit, NEESPI’s activities have resulted in significant scientific outreach.

Pavel Groisman1,4, Garik Gutman2, Hank Shugart3,
Sergey Gulev4, Jiaguo Qi5, and Shamil Maksyutov6
1
University Corp. for Atmospheric Research at the NOAA
National Centers for Environmental Information, Asheville,
North Carolina, USA; 2NASA Headquarters, Washington,
DC, USA; 3University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia,
USA; 4Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia; 5Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA; 6National Institute for Environmental
Studies, Tsukuba, JapanNEESPI Synthesis Workshop“Ten Years of NEESPI: Synthesis and Future Plans” was heldat the Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic on 9–12
April 2015. The Workshop was organized and sponsored by
NEESPI, the World Meteorological Organization, NASA,
Charles University, P.P. Shirshov RAS Institute of Oceanology(Grant 14.B25.31.0026) and private companies. More than 70
invited participants from Japan, China, Russia, Ukraine, theEuropean Union and the U.S. attended. Students from theCharles University were welcomed along with early career scientists who had attended the “Transatlantic Training in East
European and Baltic Countries in the Area of Earth Observations,” that was held in Prague in parallel with the Workshop.

During the past 10 years, the Northern Eurasia Earth Science
Partnership Initiative (NEESPI), a GEWEX Regional Hydroclimate Project (RHP), has addressed large-scale and long-term
manifestations of climate and environmental changes over
Northern Eurasia (north of 40°N) and their impact on the
global Earth system. Originating from a bilateral U.S.-Russia
program between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS),NEESPI has truly become an international research programwith multi-agency support. The NEESPI Science Plan was
prepared in 2004 by a team of more than 100 geoscientists
from 11 countries (http://neespi.org/science/science.html). The
Plan’s Executive Summary was prepared in English, Russian,and Chinese and later published in Groisman and Bartalev(2007). Over the years, NEESPI progress has been reported inprogrammatic papers (e.g., Groisman et al., 2009, 2014; andGroisman and Soja, 2009), and several overview books (e.g.,
Gutman and Reissell, 2011; Groisman and Lyalko, 2012;
Groisman and Gutman, 2013; and Chen et al., 2013).
The implemenation of NEESPI has included 172 projects focusing on different environmental issues in Northern Eurasia,
each of them typically lasting 3 years and funded by various
national and international agencies. Over the years, NEESPI
engaged more than 750 scientists from over 200 institutionsin 30 countries. More than 80 Ph.D. students defended their
theses while conducting their research within the NEESPI
framework. The Initiative revitalized the scientific community
working on Earth studies over Northern Eurasia by convening NEESPI sessions at many international meetings, including the American Geophysical Union, European Geosciences
Union (EGU), and Japan Geoscience Union annual events,
and by organizing more than 30 NEESPI workshops. Since
2009, two training sessions at early career scientists’ summer
schools were convened with the intent not only to share cutting edge science with young researchers, but also to cultivate
a new generation of scientists.
NEESPI has created a new research realm through the selforganization of NEESPI scientists into a broad research
network, accumulation of knowledge while developing new
tools (observations, models and collaborative networks) andproducing new knowledge, some of which can be directly ap10

The Workshop included overview synthesis lectures and science planning for the orderly transition of NEESPI to theNorthern Eurasia Future Initiative (NEFI) Program (http://
neespi.org/meetings/). Additionally, 18 posters were presented
during the breaks. Results of the Workshop were delivered at
the dedicated public splinter meeting held during the EGU
Assembly in Austria on 16 April 2015. See: http://neespi.org/
web-content/PragueWorkshopSynthesisBriefing.pdf and http://
neespi.org/web-content/PragueWorkshopOutreachPlans.pdf.
Overview presentations at the Workshop included programmatic talks delivered by representatives of the NEESPI founding institutions. Drs. Gutman (NASA) and Georgiadi (RAS)
discussed the NEESPI achievements over the past decadeand how these organizations benefited from the project. R.
Lawford highlighted the NEESPI role in GEWEX as one of
its RHPs and discussed the potential links of future Northern Eurasia studies with the Group on Earth Observations(GEO) and Future Earth.
Studying biosphere dynamics in Northern Eurasia and understanding the impacts of the region’s terrestrial ecosystems
on the global carbon cycle have been key research efforts of
NEESPI. Results, synthesis of international efforts, current assessment and future projections of biospheric changes
in Northern Eurasia were presented in overview talks by
H. Shugart, A. Shvidenko, M. Heimann and A. Soja, as well as
in poster presentations by V. Kharuk and E. Kukavskaya. It was
shown that biospheric changes have already become visible andtheir projections (see figure on page 11) hint at the continentalwide shifts in ecosystems with global consequences on carbon,
energy and water cycles. Furthermore, terrestrial water cycle
and cryosphere changes over Northern Eurasia have strong interactions with the regional carbon cycle. Overviews of theseinteractions and the projections of their changes were provided
in presentations by D. Lettenmaier and V. Romanovsky.
Northern Eurasia is one of the largest land masses and theonly one that is substantially isolated from the tropical air
masses by mountain ranges and plateaus in the center of theAugust 2015

processes to investigating the consequencesof their changes, became a driving force inthe development of new approaches and fociwithin the NEESPI successor, NEFI. Interactions of environmental changes (naturaland human-induced) with societal activity
have not been well covered in past NEESPI
studies. However, these studies are gradually
moving to the forefront of regional researchdue to vulnerability of the regional environment triggered there by both intensificationof human activity and climatic changes thatare among the largest in the world.

Vegetation distribution over Northern Eurasia in current climate and by the year 2090 calculated by the RuBCliM ecosystem model (archive of Shuman et al., 2015) using the Coupled
Model Intercomparison Project Phase-5 ensemble global circulation model output for B1
and A2 scenarios (i.e., for corresponding greenhouse gases induced global warming to 2090
by 3–5°C and 6–8°C).

Synthesis of hydrological, biospheric, cryospheric, climatic and socio-economic models within a suite of interactive models empowered by expanded observational input
remains a key tool for understanding andprojecting dynamics in Northern Eurasia(Kicklighter et al., 2014). Presentations by
Q. Zhuang, D. Kicklighter, and E. Monier
examined the role of Earth system modelingwith foci on Northern Eurasia. Synthesis of
the current state of these models, their perspectives and their deliverables (projections)were discussed.

continent. Water supply into the western three quarters of
this region is provided by extratropical cyclones that comewith the westerlies. This is an unstable source and droughts
and floods frequently occur here with any deviation of the“normal” flow of weather events. The distribution and frequency of these extreme events have recently changed.
S. Gulev’s synthesis of extreme weather events over NorthernEurasia showed that changes in the seasonal cycle, particularly the earlier spring onsets and depletion in the frozen water
storage (glaciers, seasonal snow cover and permafrost), lead toa longer warm season and exaggerate the strength and duration of extreme events in this season.

Future Research Directions
Nine NEFI research foci emerged in discussions within the
NEESPI community during the past 12 months and a consensus was reached at the Workshop.

The NEESPI research domain can be loosely partitioned into
northern (the Arctic and boreal zones) and the Dry Latitudinal Belt of Extratropical Eurasia (DLB; see figure on nextpage). NEESPI research shows that the boundary between
two parts of this domain is dynamic, has changed in the past,and most probably will change in the near future (see figure
above). Changes in terrestrial cryosphere may reshape thelandscapes of the Arctic due to permafrost thaw and internal
continental dry regions related to the growing water deficit(weaker westerlies and retreating glaciers). The reshaping has
already affected socio-economic systems in the Arctic (reported by N. Shiklomanov) and in the DLB (reported by J. Qi). In
the latter, the natural dangers from inclement weather overlap
with growing direct anthropogenic pressure on ecosystems.
Population growth and economic development in large partsof DLB are considered more a cause concern than changes
to the climate. The growing demand to expand and redirect
research in Northern Eurasia, from studying mostly physical

4. Changes in the terrestrial water cycle (quantity and qualityof water supply available for societal needs)

August 2015

1. Global change, particularly the warming of the Arctic
2. Increasing frequency and intensity of extremes (intenserains, floods, droughts, and wild fires)
3. Retreat of the cryosphere (snow cover, sea ice, glaciers andpermafrost)

5. Biosphere changes (ecosystem shifts, changes in the carbon cycle, land cover degradation and dust storms)
6. Pressure on agriculture and pastoral production (growing
demand, changes in land use and food security)
7. Changes in infrastructure (roads, new routes, construction
codes, air, water and soil pollution, and strategic planning)
8. Societal actions to mitigate negative consequences of environmental changes and to benefit from positive consequences
9. Quantification of the role of Northern Eurasia in the global Earth and socioeconomic systems to advance researchtools with an emphasis on observations and models
11Moreover, during the past decade, further climate
and environmental changes have occurred, someof which now require direct responses on behalf ofsocietal well being and human health.
After the Workshop, the Initiative groups began
preparation of three documents: (1) a topical review paper to be published in the Environmental
Research Review Letters; (2) a succinct paper for astrong impact journal with key NEESPI findings
and planned NEFI work; and (3) a white paper
entitled “Northern Eurasia: Facing the Challenges and Pathways of Global Change in the 21stCentury” that will be distributed across the international science institutions and national sponsoring agencies.
References

The NEESPI study area is loosely defined as the region between 15°E in the west, thePacific Coast in the east, 40°N in the south, and the Arctic Ocean coastal zone in thenorth. The green corresponds to vegetated land and the light brown and yellow indicate sparse vegetation and arid areas, respectively. The Dry Latitudinal Belt of Northern Eurasia is sketched on the map by the dashed white line (Groisman et al., 2009).

Chen, J., S. Wan, G. Henebry, J. Qi, G. Gutman, G. Sun,and M. Kappas (eds), 2013. Dryland East Asia: Land Dynamics Amid Social and Climate Change. Beijing: Higher Education Press and Berlin: De Gruyter, 468 pp.
Groisman, P. Y., S. Gulev, and S. Maksyutov, 2014. Earth
System Studies in Northern Eurasia, EOS, 95, No. 16, 133–
135.

It was noted that during the past decade, the global Earth system has changed significantly, with changes in Northern Eurasia being substantially larger than the global average (Groisman and Gutman, 2013; Karl et al., 2015). However, not allcomponents of the Earth system follow global trends. Current
analyses show unexpected features and distributions, fromshifts of the seasonal cycle in various climatic characteristics
to changes in intensity, frequency and spatial and temporal
distributions of extreme events. These changes have alreadyoccurred but their impacts on (and feedbacks to) several components of the Earth system are ongoing. In many aspects,
this may be transitional but their development (especially therole of human activity) may define the future trajectory of regional changes and their feedbacks. This is especially important because socio-economic situations in the major nations ofNorthern Eurasia have significantly changed, including theirabilities to withstand and adapt to adverse manifestations ofenvironmental change.

Groisman, P. Y., and G. Gutman (eds.), 2013. Environmental Changes inSiberia: Regional Changes and their Global Consequences. Springer, 357 pp.

The primary NEESPI science question was: “How do Northern Eurasia’s terrestrial ecosystem dynamics interact withand alter the biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere of the
Earth?” For NEFI, this question has been expanded to: “Whatwill the changes in these dynamics and interactions mean forsocietal well-being, activities, health and decision making?”
The legacy of NEESPI is in its established connections, theongoing synthesis of previous studies and the new generation of scientists that emerged from the NEESPI projects. We
know much more, we acquired new tools (observations andmodels) and we can gradually switch from scientific research
to developing applications that directly address societal needs.

Karl T. R., A. Arguez, B. Huang, J. H. Lawrimore, J. R. McMahon,
M. J. Menne, T. C. Peterson, R. S. Vose, and H-M. Zhang, 2015. Possible
artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus. Science, 9July 2015, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa4521.

12

Groisman, P. Y., and V. I. Lyalko, 2012. Earth Systems Change over Eastern
Europe. Akademperiodyka, Kyiv, Ukraine, 487 pp.
Groisman, P. Y., and A. J. Soja, 2009. Ongoing climatic change in Northern Eurasia: justification for expedient research. Environ. Res. Lett., 4, doi:
10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045002.
Groisman, P. Y., and 27 Co-Authors, 2009. The Northern Eurasia Earth
Science Partnership: An Example of Science Applied to Societal Needs. Bull.
Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 671–688.
Groisman, P. Y., and S. A. Bartalev, 2007. Northern Eurasia Earth Science
Partnership Initiative (NEESPI): Science Plan Overview. Global and Planetary Change, 56, Issue 3-4, 215–234.
Gutman, G., and A. Reissell (eds.), 2011. Arctic land cover and land use ina changing climate: Focus on Eurasia. VI, Springer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 306 pp.

Kicklighter, D. W., Y. Cai, Q. Zhuang, E. I. Parfenova, S. Paltsev,
A. P. Sokolov, J. M. Melillo, J. M. Reilly, N. M. Tchebakova, and X. Lu,
2014. Potential influence of climate-induced vegetation shifts on future
land use and associated land carbon fluxes in Northern Eurasia. Environ.
Res. Lett. 9, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/035004.
Shuman, J. K., N. M. Tchebakova, E. I. Parfenova, A. J. Soja, H. H. Shugart,
D. Ershov, and K. Holcomb, 2015. Forest forecasting with vegetation models
across Russia. Can. J. For. Res. 45, 175–184, doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2014-0138.

August 2015

Soil Moisture-Precipitation Coupling:
Reconciling Spatial andTemporal Perspectives
Benoit P. Guillod1,5, Diego G. Miralles2,3, Adriaan J.
Teuling4, and Sonia I. Seneviratne1
1
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Departmentof Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland; 2Department of Earth Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 3Laboratory of Hydrology and Water
Management, Department of Forest and Water Management, Ghent University, Belgium; 4Hydrology and Quantitative Water Management Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, The Netherlands;
5
Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography andthe Environment, University of Oxford, UK

Soil moisture-precipitation feedback is a long-standing research topic, both within GEWEX [particularly the Global
Land/Atmosphere System Study (GLASS) Panel (e.g., Koster
et al., 2004; Santanello et al., 2009; and van den Hurk et al.,2011)] as well as in the broader research community. In recent years, various publications have suggested some apparently contradicting results regarding the sign of soil moistureprecipitation coupling—it has been identified as positive inseveral locations based on temporal relationships (e.g., Findell
et al., 2011), while negative relationships (rain falling on driersoils) were found in spatially based analyses (e.g., Taylor et al.,2012). A new publication in Nature Communications (Guillod
et al., 2015) provides a joint analysis of both spatial andtemporal soil moisture-precipitation coupling relationships,
pointing to a possible reconciliation between the reported spatial- and temporal-based findings.
Coupling Processes
An impact of soil moisture on precipitation can be expected from various considerations. First, the evaporation of soil
moisture is a direct source of water vapor into the atmosphere,
and thus can alter the occurrence of precipitation. This direct
effect, often termed moisture recycling (e.g., Eltahir and Bras,
1996), is generally considered a positive feedback, with wetter
soils increasing the likelihood of rainfall, both locally and at
downwind locations. Second, one-dimensional (1D) indirect
effects can be expected from the influence of the surface (sensible and latent) heat fluxes on the dynamics of the planetary
boundary layer, which can theoretically induce feedbacks ofeither sign, depending on the atmospheric conditions (Findelland Eltahair, 2003; Gentine et al., 2013). Third, a more recent
line of work has identified spatial indirect effects, whereby soil
moisture heterogeneity may favor the occurrence of rainfall
over locally drier patches through impacts on atmospheric circulation at the mesoscale (Taylor et al., 2011). GLASS activities have contributed to answering several of these questions,both in global climate modeling simulations as part of thevarious phases of the Global Land-Atmosphere Experiment(GLACE; Koster et al., 2004; Koster et al., 2011; Seneviratne
et al., 2013) and in the context of the Local Land-Atmosphere
August 2015

Coupling (LoCo) Working Group, which has focused on diurnal interactions, such as the impact of morning soil moisture and surface fluxes on afternoon (convective) precipitation(van den Hurk and Blyth, 2008; Santanello et al., 2009; andvan den Hurk et al., 2011).
DebateThe sign and the strength of the soil moisture-precipitation feedback has been a strongly debated topic for decades(Seneviratne et al., 2010). While several studies identified
positive temporal coupling mechanisms that are often basedon models or reanalysis products (Koster et al., 2004; Findell
et al., 2011), a more recent study (Taylor et al., 2012) based
upon spatial analyses has highlighted the strong dominanceof negative coupling in observations, which contrasts with astrong positive signal in global climate models. Other studies
have noted that soil moisture-precipitation feedback can bemodel dependent (e.g., Hohenegger et al., 2009). Hence, observational studies remain crucial to identifying relationships
and improving the representation of the underlying processes
in models.
Observational studies, however, have their own limitations. In
particular, the attribution of relationships to causality is difficult for two main reasons. First, the impact of precipitation on
soil moisture tends to dominate the relationship between thetwo variables. Second, atmospherically driven precipitation
persistence can obscure the effect of soil moisture on rainfall,and lead to spurious correlations, even when a time lag between soil moisture and rainfall is considered (Salvucci et al.,
2002; Guillod et al., 2014).
Spatial Approaches
To isolate the impacts of soil moisture from those of atmospheric persistence, the analysis from Taylor et al. (2012)
compares on a given day, the morning soil moisture values at
locations of maximum afternoon rainfall to those at nearby
locations without rain. This circumvents the obscuring effects
of atmospheric persistence, as the synoptic atmospheric conditions are very similar at neighboring locations. However,the focus on the spatial dimension might direct the analysis
towards processes related to induced mesoscale circulations(i.e., third category of coupling processes above), and one cannot ignore that these differ from the traditional understanding of soil moisture-precipitation feedbacks, as soil moisturegradients could be largely independent of larger-scale soil
moisture. This could explain the discrepancy between the results from Taylor et al. (2012) and those from earlier studies
that considered only the temporal dimension (e.g., Findell etal., 2011).
In fact, while negative coupling mechanisms via mesoscale
circulations could interact with moisture recycling and othereffects at the larger scale, the variety of diagnostic techniquesand data sets used in previous studies precludes direct comparison. Hence, in the here-presented new study (Guillod etal., 2015), a consistent framework was designed to compare
temporal and spatial relationships and was applied to remotesensing observations.
13Analysis Framework
We used a range of 3-hourly precipitation data sets (e.g.,
the Climate Prediction Center MORPHing Technique,
CMORPH; Joyce et al., 2004) and estimates of morning rootzone soil moisture anomalies from the Global Land Evaporation: the Amsterdam Methodology (GLEAM; Miralles et al.,2011), all of which are available at 0.25° latitude and longitude. Our analysis was conducted in two steps. First, following
Taylor et al. (2012), the location of rainfall maxima (Lmax) andrainfall minima (Lmin) within a domain (Levt) of 5x5 gridcells centered at locations of afternoon rainfall maxima wererecorded for each day. Various filters were applied to the events
to exclude complex topography, water bodies, non-convective
seasons, days with morning rainfall, or overlapping events.
Second, the pre-event soil moisture patterns corresponding toeach event were analyzed using three metrics: (1) a spatial metric, based on the difference in soil moisture between Lmax and
Lmin; (2) a temporal metric, based on soil moisture at Lmax;and (3) a heterogeneity metric, based on the standard deviation of the 25 (pre-event) soil moisture values within Levt. For
each metric, event values were compared to values on nonevent days at the same location, and the difference between
event and non-event values were expressed as quantiles on thenull distribution (see Guillod et al., 2015).
Spatial Relationships
Figure 1a shows the results of the spatial metric, the analysis by Taylor et al. (2012) applied to different data sets (seeabove). The dominance of small quantiles indicates that afternoon rain is more likely to occur over soils that are drier
than their surroundings. This confirms the results by Taylor
et al. (2012), and thus indicates that these do not depend on
the use of surface soil moisture as a surrogate for root-zone
soil moisture.
Temporal Relationships
Conversely, the results from our analysis of temporal dynamics (Figure 1b) show that in most regions, the analyzed precipitation events occur on days when soils are wetter thanusual. Even though this approach can be impacted by externally driven precipitation persistence (as described above),it still reveals useful information. Both spatial and temporal
metrics used in combination allow the conclusion that precipitation events tend to occur when soils are wet and wheresoils are drier than the surrounding regions. Thus, in termsof observed frequencies, both the perspective of a positive
temporal coupling (Figure 2a) and that of a negative spatial
coupling (Figure 2b) hold, leading to the joint perspective
proposed in Figure 2c.
The Role of Spatial Heterogeneity in Soil Wetness
The third metric, shown in Figure 1c, indicates that afternoon
precipitation events are more likely to be triggered over heterogeneous morning soil moisture conditions. This suggeststhat the temporal and spatial relationships described above areinterdependent because storms induced by spatial heterogeneity, via negative spatial coupling mechanisms, may in turn
instigate a positive temporal coupling.
14

Figure 1. Preferences for afternoon precipitation over soil moistureanomalies. (a) Spatial, (b) temporal and (c) heterogeneity preference.
Quantile of the coupling metrics in Guillod et al. (2015). High quantiles
indicate that (a) soils are wetter at Lmax than at Lmin , (b) soils at Lmax
are wet relative to the mean seasonal cycle, and (c) soils are heterogeneous. Horizontal black lines indicate the latitudes at which different
months are included in the analysis (see Guillod et al., 2015). Grey shading indicates nonsignificant relationships, grid cells with less than 25
events are white. From Guillod et al. (2015).

Persistence and Causality
There are various possible interpretations of the results. On the
one hand, the positive temporal relationships might relate toatmospheric persistence alone [i.e., the atmosphere may sustain persistent large-scale features that favor sequences of dry(or wet) days regardless of soil moisture conditions]. In thiscase, only the spatial metric eludes this issue and soil moistureprecipitation feedback is negative. However, it is also possiblethat at least part of the positive temporal relationship depicts a
causal link. This would imply that the feedback could be positive temporally while negative spatially—or in other words,
August 2015

Discussion and Conclusions
The findings presented reconcile the conclusions from previous studies on soil moisture-precipitation feedback. Negative
spatial and positive temporal coupling appear to be conceptually compatible, although it remains unclear as to what extent
positive correlations reflect a role of soil moisture or the effects
of atmospheric persistence. Similarly, the interpretation of thespatial metric of Taylor et al. (2012) depends on underlying assumptions: if rain events at Lmax and Lmin are assumed to occur independently, the metric investigates 1D indirect effects
after removal of persistence. However, if spatial (mesoscale)mechanisms are assumed to take place, the metric investigatesthese and does not disentangle them from 1D local effects. In
both cases, however, either negative spatial effect dominates
over local temporal effect via boundary-layer dynamics, or thelatter are also dominantly negative. Thus, our results suggestthat a positive temporal feedback might more likely occur atlarger (regional) scales than at local scales, pointing towards
moisture recycling, rather than indirect processes via boundary-layer dynamics.
We have shown that afternoon rain occurs more often whensoils are wet and where soils are dry. The disentangling of thevarious effects on soil moisture-precipitation relationships (atmospheric persistence, spatial coupling, indirect local effectfrom boundary-layer dynamics, moisture recycling) mightultimately have to rely on modeling experiments. Given theissues associated with the parameterization of convection (e.g.,
Hohenegger et al., 2009), improvement in the latter or studies using models with convection resolved explicitly will be
key to uncovering the remaining mysteries of soil moistureprecipitation feedbacks.
Figure 2. Representation of various perspectives on soil moisture precipitation coupling. Traditionally in the literature, temporal approaches(a) suggest that rain is more likely in wet conditions, while spatial approaches (b) emphasize rain over locally drier patches. The joint perspective presented here (c) highlights that both are valid, and thereby
rain is more likely in overall wet conditions but is located over drier (lesswet) patches. Shown here are typical soil moisture conditions preceding
afternoon rainfall events but do not necessarily imply causal relationships. From Guillod et al. (2015).

the feedback would enhance temporal persistence while homogenizing soil moisture spatially. For example, localized
precipitation events might induce soil moisture heterogeneity, which would generate further precipitation events on thenext day via spatial coupling mechanisms, although not at thesame locations as for the initial events, but in the drier patches.
These combined effects could thus lead to a positive feedback
at larger scales, which would be consistent with moisture recycling theories. However, their existence depends on multiple
spatiotemporal interactions that are affected by atmosphericand soil moisture memories.
August 2015

References
Eltahir, E. A. B., and R. L. Bras, 1996. Precipitation recycling. Rev. Geophys., 34, 367–378.
Findell, K. L., and E. A. B. Eltahir, 2003. Part I: Framework development. J. Hydrometeorol., 4, 552–569.
Findell, K. L., P. Gentine, B. R. Lintner, and C. Kerr, 2011. Probabilityof afternoon precipitation in eastern United States and Mexico enhancedby high evaporation. Nat. Geosci., 4, 434–439.
Gentine, P., A. A. M. Holtslag, F. D’Andrea, and M. Ek, 2013. Surface
and atmospheric controls on the onset of moist convection over land.
J. Hydrometeorol., 14, 1443–1462.
Guillod, B. P., B. Orlowsky, D. Miralles, A. J. Teuling, P. D. Blanken,
N. Buchmann, P. Ciais, M. Ek, K. L. Findell, P. Gentine, B. R. Lintner,
R. L. Scott, B. Van den Hurk, and S. I. Seneviratne, 2014. Land-surface controls on afternoon precipitation diagnosed from observational
data: uncertainties and confounding factors. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14,8343–8367.
Guillod, B. P., B. Orlowsky, D. G. Miralles, A. J. Teuling, and S. I. Seneviratne, 2015. Reconciling spatial and temporal soil moisture effects onafternoon rainfall. Nat. Commun., 6:6443.

15

Hohenegger, C., P. Brockhaus, C. S. Bretherton, C. and Schär, 2009.
The soil moisture-precipitation feedback in simulations with explicit andparameterized convection. J. Clim., 22, 5003-5020.
Joyce, R. J., J. E. Janowiak, P. A. Arkin, and P. Xie, 2004. CMORPH: A
method that produces global precipitation estimates from passive microwave and infrared data at high spatial and temporal resolution. J. Hydrometeorol., 5, 487–503.
Koster, R. D., P. A. Dirmeyer, Z. Guo, G. Bonan, E. Chan, P. Cox, C.
T. Gordon, S. Kanae, E. Kowalczyk, D. Lawrence, P. Liu, C.-H. Lu, S.
Malyshev, B. McAvaney, K. Mitchell, D. Mocko, T. Oki, K. Oleson,
A. Pitman, Y. C. Sud, C. M. Taylor, D. Verseghy, R. Vasic, Y. Xue, andT. Yamada, 2004. Regions of strong coupling between soil moisture andprecipitation. Science, 305, 1138–1140.
Koster, R. D., S. P. P. Mahanama, T. J. Yamada, G. Balsamo, M. Boisserie, P. Dirmeyer, F. Doblas‐Reyes, C. T. Gordon, Z. Guo, J. H. Jeong,
D. Lawrence, Z. Li, L. Luo, S. Malyshev, W. Merryfield, S. I. Seneviratne, T. Stanelle, B. van den Hurk, F. Vitart, and E. F. Wood, 2011. The
second phase of the Global Land-Atmosphere Coupling Experiment:
Soil moisture contributions to subseasonal forecast skill. J. Hydrometeorol., 12, 805–822.
Miralles, D. G., T. R. H. Holmes, R. A. M. De Jeu, J. H. Gash,
A. G. C. A. Meesters, and A. J. Dolman, 2011. Global land-surface
evaporation estimated from satellite-based observations. Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci., 15, 453–469.
Salvucci, G. D., J. A. Saleem, and R. Kaufmann, 2002. Investigating soil
moisture feedbacks on precipitation with tests of Granger causality. Adv.
Water Resour., 25, 1305–1312.
Santanello, J. A., C. D. Peters-Lidard, S. V. Kumar, C. Alonge, and
W.-K. Tao, 2009. A modeling and observational framework for diagnosing local land-atmosphere coupling on diurnal time scales. J. Hydrometeorol., 10(3), 577–599.
Seneviratne, S. I., T. Corti, E. L. Davin, M. Hirschi, E. B. Jaeger,
I. Lehner, B. Orlowsky, and A. J. Teuling, 2010. Investigating soil moisture-climate interactions in a changing climate: A review. Earth Sci. Rev.,99, 3-4, 125–161.
Seneviratne, S. I., M. Wilhelm, T. Stanelle, B. J. J. M. van den Hurk,
S. Hagemann, A. Berg, F. Cheruy, M. E. Higgins, A. Meier, V. Brovkin,
M. Claussen, A. Ducharne, J.-L. Dufresne, K. L. Findell, J. Ghattas,
D. M. Lawrence, S. Malyshev, M. Rummukainen, and B. Smith, 2013.
Impact of soil moisture-climate feedbacks on CMIP5 projections: First
results from the GLACE-CMIP5 experiment. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40(19), 5212–5217.
Taylor, C. M., A. Gounou, F. Guichard, P. P. Harris, R. J. Ellis,
F. Couvreux, and M. De Kauwe, 2011. Frequency of Sahelian storm
initiation enhanced over mesoscale soil-moisture patterns. Nat. Geosci.,
4(7), 430–433.
Taylor, C. M., R. A. M. de Jeu, F. Guichard, P. P. Harris, andW. A. Dorigo, 2012. Afternoon rain more likely over drier soils. Nature,489, 423–426.
Van den Hurk, B., and E. M. Blyth, 2008. Watch/LoCo workshop report. GEWEX News, No. 18, International GEWEX Project Office, Silver Spring, MD, 12–14.
Van den Hurk, B., M. Best, P. Dirmeyer, A. Pitman, J. Polcher, and
J. Santanello, 2011. Acceleration of land surface model development
over a decade of GLASS. Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc., 92(12), 1593–1600.

16

Meeting/Workshop Reports
GLASS Panel Meeting
Toulouse, France
18–19 May 2015
Michael Ek1 and Aaron Boone2
1
NCEP Environmental Modeling Center, College Park, Maryland, USA; 2CNRM-GAME, Centre National de Recherches
Météorologiques, Météo-France, Toulouse, France

The GEWEX Global Land/Atmosphere System Study(GLASS) Science Panel Meeting was held at Météo-France inconjunction with the GEWEX Atmospheric Boundary Layer
Study (GABLS-4) Workshop (see report on page 18). Community activities under the three GLASS Panel elements werereviewed and these included: (1) land model benchmarking
to improve understanding and representation of land-surface
processes; (2) understanding of land-atmosphere interaction
and feedbacks; and (3) the role of the land surface in predictability (data model fusion).
PALS/PLUMBER
Martin Best reviewed the Protocol for the Analysis of Land
Surface Models (PALS; material from Gab Abramowitz) and
the PALS Land Surface Model Benchmarking Evaluation Project (PLUMBER), where 13 land-surface models (LSMs) were
evaluated using data sets from 20 FLUXNET sites. The LSMs
did well in performance benchmarks against the PenmanMonteith Model (no soil moisture stress), the Manabe Bucket
Model, and simpler linear regression approaches. However,they had some problems in simulating sensible heat flux andin making full use of the atmospheric forcing information.
Results were published this year in the American MeteorologicalSociety Journal of Hydrometeorology.
Land-Atmosphere Interaction Activities
Land-atmosphere interaction under GLASS is addressed by
the Local Land-Atmosphere Coupling (LoCo) Project and theDiurnal land/atmosphere Coupling Experiment (DICE) incooperation with the GEWEX Global Atmosphere Systems
Studies (GASS) Panel. Joe Santanello summarized the latest
results under LoCo, specifically the evaluation of coupling
metrics for the soil moisture-evaporation and soil moistureprecipitation relationships (temporal/spatial) in mesoscalemodeling and for global climate models and reanalysis products and downscaling. The importance of using in situ andremotely sensed soil moisture observations [e.g., Soil Moisture
Active Passive (SMAP) Mission] was noted, as well as planetary
boundary layer (PBL) profiling, which remains a gap in Earthobservations. An intensive observational period is planned forthis summer at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program U.S. Southern Great Plains (SGP) test bed site that will
include surface flux measurements and enhanced soundings for
local coupling studies. In August 2016, the Land-Atmosphere
August 2015

Feedback Experiment (LAFE) will connect PALS and DICE
efforts in a single site and (atmospheric) single column model(SCM) framework. Martin Best reviewed DICE progress for
an initial 3-day SGP case study (i.e., evaluation compared withobservations) of: (1) uncoupled LSM (atmosphere-forced) andSCM (surface-forced) runs; (2) coupled LSM-SCM runs; and(3) LSM-SCM runs with variations in forcings provided byoutput from the other LSM and SCM models with large errors in evaporation dominating the signal in land-atmosphere
coupling. Also discussed was the effect of surface roughness
and surface stress, which has been largely ignored in studies
where the focus has been on energy and water fluxes.
PILDAS
Rolf Reichle reported on the Project for the Intercomparison of Land Data Assimilation Systems (PILDAS), which
will evaluate the different data assimilation (DA) algorithms
with several LSMs. Initially using synthetic observations, theevaluation will, in later phases, focus on coupled DA and useof actual satellite observations, such as the Soil Moisture andOcean Salinity (SMOS) Mission and SMAP. GLASS will takethe experimental plan and pilot results to the Working Groupon Numerical Experimentation (WGNE) where operational
centers of WGNE have a particular interest in DA.

the Assistance for Land-surface Modeling Activities (ALMA)
formatting standards were reviewed and it was recommended
that GLASS move towards CMIP Climate Model Output
Rewriter (CMOR) software. The coordination of GSWP3
with LS3MIP and CMIP6 was further discussed by Sonia
Seneviratne (via telecon), as well as with the GLASS Land
Use and Climate, Identification of Robust Impacts (LUCID) Project and the WCRP Working Group on Coupled
Modeling (WGCM) Land-Use Model Intercomparison
Project (LUMIP).
LUMIP and iLEAPS Connections to GLASSDavid Lawrence gave a presentation on LUMIP, noting that
LUMIP biogeophysical and biogeochemical metrics of land usechange integrated into the International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMB) Project can be used in evaluating the importance of natural and anthropogenic land use change, specificallyfor permafrost and carbon-permafrost feedbacks. Eleanor Blythprovided an overview of connections between GLASS andiLEAPS. Although both are intimately linked, most notably via
vegetation and carbon processes (e.g., PALS/PLUMBER is anatural link with iLEAPS, since carbon is one of the evaluation
metrics), GLASS has the GEWEX focus on energy and water
while iLEAPS focuses on biogeochemical cycles.

Global Soil Wetness Project Phase 3
Hyungjun Kim provided an update on current plans for the
Global Soil Wetness Project Phase 3 (GSWP3), which will
generate 150+ year land model runs. It includes connections
to the Land Surface, Snow, Soil-Moisture Model Intercomparison Project (LS3MIP) and the Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), where PLUMBER-likeevaluation can be used and requires coordination between
GLASS PALS and related Integrated Land Ecosystem Atmosphere Processes Study (iLEAPS) efforts. Relevant to this,Cross-Program Activities
In addition to the activities discussed above, the GLASS community is involved with a number of other cross-program efforts in WCRP, GEWEX and elsewhere. For example, Pere
Quintana Segui summarized the Hydrological Cycle in the
Mediterranean Experiment (HyMeX), which is a Regional
Hydroclimate Project (RHP) within the GEWEX Hydroclimatology Panel (GHP). In HyMeX, land models are important in examining the nature of drought in the region, withadditional information on groundwater, hydrometeorologicalextremes and water demands (societal impacts) required. The GHP
Changing Cold Regions Network(CCRN) RHP, led by Howard
Wheater, could be extended to include the Mackenzie River Basinwith GLASS involvement in land
surface and hydrology modeling,including cold season processes.
GLASS Co-Chair Aaron Boone
provided a brief update on the African Monsoon Multidisciplinary
Analysis (AMMA) Land Surface
Intercomparison Project Phase-2(ALMIP2), which was focused on
the local to mesoscale and whose
main goal was to improve understanding and modeling of key surface, vegetation and hydrological
Several models are performing “fast-track” simulations over all or parts of the historical period inprocesses over West Africa. Thisorder to evaluate the input forcing for GSWP3 and to identify any potential problems before the ofincludes, for example, the subtle
ficial simulations begin in late 2015. An example of the results is shown above. Long-term interannualhydrology and vegetation processes
variability of global evapotranspiration (1901–2009; global 0.5°, excluding Antarctica) based on mulin the region, such as large rooting
timodel offline fast-track simulations in GSWP3 and GSWP2 baseline (B0) multimodel ensemble exdepths, near-surface aquifers, soil
periment (1986–1995; global 1.0° excluding Antarctica) shown as black lines in subpanel (b) and (c).

August 201517

crusting, lateral transfer processes and strong runoff variability. In addition to GHP links to AMMA, it was suggested thatsensitivity to surface forcing could be further investigated byexpanding LoCo (or DICE) for the AMMA region. A new
GEWEX effort that will involve GLASS is an initiative on
soils to examine soil and soil heterogeneity effects (precipitation forcing, soil organics, influence of biota, depth to bedrock, etc.) first introduced by Dani Or at the 7th International
GEWEX Science Conference in July 2014.
Paul Dirmeyer reviewed the World Weather Research Programme (WWRP)/WCRP Subseasonal to Seasonal Prediction
Project (S2S), which may be a valuable resource for establishing and evaluating land-atmosphere coupling metrics overa range of operational forecast models. The Joint GEWEX/WCRP Monsoon Panel has strong overlap and cross-interestin S2S, with land-atmosphere interaction also playing an important role. Gerhard Krinner, co-chair of the WCRP Climate and Cryosphere (CliC) Project, provided a summary of
LS3MIP/SnowMIP, and a general overview of CliC activities
with the purpose of improving the understanding of the cryosphere and its interactions with the global climate system.
Future GLASS-CliC collaborative efforts will involve use ofcold season, cold regions and high-latitude observations (snowcover, surface fluxes over taiga and tundra, permafrost, etc.) to
improve land-surface and large-scale hydrology models for ice
and snow surfaces. The WWRP Polar Prediction Project (PPP)
Year of Polar Prediction (YOPP) is being planned with a number of activities of joint interest to CliC and GLASS. Michael
Ek, GLASS Co-Chair and member of WGNE, summarized
his report to WGNE on relevant GLASS activities, especiallyland model benchmarking (PALS/PLUMBER), land-atmosphere interaction (DICE and LoCo) and land data assimilation (PILDAS). Joseph Santanello, the GLASS representativeon the WCRP Modeling Advisory Council (WMAC), notedthat within WMAC, the issue of urban climate could build on
the GLASS Project for the Intercomparison of Land-surface
Parameterization Schemes (PILPS)-Urban Project, and the
GLASS community could be involved with future participation in a WCRP summer school on model development withfocus on LSMs and land-atmosphere interaction.
Next Pan-GLASS Meeting
A Pan-GLASS meeting is tentatively planned for mid-2016
that would feature the three GLASS elements of benchmarking, land-atmosphere interaction and model data fusion. The
meeting would have a number of joint sessions with other
GEWEX panels and groups on the various parts of the terrestrial water cycle, including: (i) GASS (surface fluxes, atmosphere feedbacks); (ii) iLEAPS (impact of vegetation andtranspiration, including seasonal changes); (iii) CliC (coldregions processes); (iv) GHP (regional hydrometeorology andclimate, river flows); (v) the GEWEX Data and Assessments
Panel (global remotely sensed data sets); (vi) the Climate andOcean: Variability, Predictability and Change (CLIVAR) Project (impact of fresh water fluxes on ocean circulations); (vii)soil scientists and groundwater (aquifer) modelers (soil water
stores); and (viii) human management of water and impacts,
embracing social science.
18

First Workshop on the
GABLS-4 Intercomparison
Météo-France, Toulouse, France
20–22 May 2015
Eric Bazile1, Fleur Couvreux1, Patrick Le Moigne,1 andChristophe Genthon2
1
CNRM/GAME Météo-France/CNRS, Toulouse, France; 2Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Geophysique de l’Environnement/
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Grenoble,
FranceThe GEWEX Atmospheric Boundary Layer Study (GABLS)
conducts intercomparison studies on boundary layer parameterization schemes used by numerical weather prediction(NWP) and climate models. The first three GABLS intercomparison studies dealt with moderately stable conditions. The
4th intercomparison case (GABLS-4) is focused on very stableconditions and is being conducted in collaboration with the
GEWEX Panel on Global Atmospheric Studies (GASS).
The goal of GABLS-4 is to study real-time diurnal cycles over
the Antarctic Plateau, focusing on the boundary layer and surface parameterization. In polar regions and under stable stratifications, models present large biases that are dependent upon
the parameterizations used for the surface and boundary layers(Holtslag et al., 2013). The intercomparison uses observations
collected at the Dome-Concordia (Dome-C) Research Stationin Antarctica during the summer, and in particular the boundary-layer observations with turbulent fluxes and meteorological variable measurements acquired from the 45-m tower.
Three types of numerical simulations were performed [single
column model (SCM), large eddy simulation (LES) and offline land-snow model (LSM)] and compared to Dome-C insitu measurements. LSMs and SCMs with interactive snow
schemes were run first, followed by SCMs and LESs that were
performed for the observed surface temperature.
The First Workshop on the GABLS-4 Intercomparison was
attended by 35 scientists and modelers from 21 institutes. The
workshop comprised 25 presentations as well as many fruitful
discussions. The purpose of the workshop was to: (i) present
an overview of the experimental results received from the different groups; (ii) identify potential issues encountered; (iii)
discuss the uncertainties in the observational measurements;and (iv) share general knowledge of the stable boundary layer.
An afternoon session was dedicated to the GEWEX Diurnal
Land-Atmosphere Coupling Experiment (DICE) Intercomparison Study, which shares a similar setup as GABLS-4.
The first day of the workshop was devoted to a general overview
of results. A large variability in surface fluxes computed by the
LSMs driven by atmospheric observations was highlighted.
For example, on the “golden day” (11 December 2009, when
all measurements were validated during at least 24 hours witha clear sky, low wind, a high Richardson number and a large
diurnal cycle), the sensible heat flux maximum nocturnal amAugust 2015

plitude computed by the LSMs was about
30 W/m2 (see top panel in figure below).
The high variability in the surface parameter settings, such as albedo, roughness
lengths or emissivity, combined with different parameterizations of the surface
layer and surface fluxes, can probably explain this large spread in the surface fluxes
and will be further investigated.
For the 1-dimensional intercomparison,
11 institutes submitted more than 40
experimental results with, among them,several sensitivity tests that focused on theParticipants at the First Workshop on the GABLS-4 Intercomparison.
atmospheric vertical resolution or on theboundary layer scheme. These tests werelevel jet below 50 m, with a first level at around 3 m (at a minbased on operational or research versions of NWP models
imum). However, this depends upon the planetary boundarywith snow schemes of varying complexity, from single snow
layer scheme used in the SCM (see bottom panel in figure).
layer schemes to multi-layer snow models that represent moredetailed physical processes.
The second day of the workshop focused on sensitivity studFirst results from the intercomparison show that a relatively
ies and observations. Discussions focused on the challenges infine vertical resolution is required for SCMs to obtain a lowmeasuring surface fluxes, especially sensible heat flux in very
stable conditions, but also on estimates of the turbulent kinetic energy. Surface sensible heat flux was estimated by two
methods: eddy covariance and the gradient relationship. The
uncertainty is probably about 5 W/m2 for a sensible heat fluxof 10 W/m2. The estimation of the roughness length was also
discussed, and a value around 0.0007 m for the momentum
was determined to be reasonable. Unfortunately, the estimation for the roughness of heat was more difficult to assess.
The preliminary LES results were presented on the last day of
the workshop, followed by a general discussion. Since LESs
have difficulties in reproducing the very stable layer close to
the surface, it was suggested that a finer resolution of 5 m
in the horizontal and 2 m in the vertical is needed. Thereis also a large variability in the sensible heat fluxes among
the different models even though the surface temperature isprescribed. Currently, only one LES has been run with aninteractive snow scheme, and it would be of great interest if
more LESs could be run in a coupled mode in order to get a
sufficiently large spread in results, which could be helpful forfurther SCM validation.
During the general discussion, several new experiments were
proposed and adopted in order to understand and more clearly explain the large variability between the models. For eachparticipant and all of the GABLS-4 stages, a reference simulation will be performed before October 2015 with several
common values for the roughness lengths, emissivity, albedo,
snow density, and atmospheric vertical grid. The workshop
program and presentations are available at: http://www.cnrm.
meteo.fr/aladin/meshtml/GABLS4/GABLS4.html.
Reference
Top Panel: Sensible heat flux computed by LSMs (Stage 0 Experiment).
X-axis time – Golden day 10–11.5. Bottom Panel: Wind speed (m/s) profile at 18TU (minimum of Ts ) for SCMs using a high vertical resolution.

August 2015

A. A. M. Holtslag et al., 2013. Stable Atmospheric Boundary Layers and Diurnal Cycles: Challenges for Weather and Climate Models. Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc., 94, 1691–1706. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00187.1.

19

GEWEX/WCRP Calendar
For the complete Calendar, see: http://www.gewex.org/

23–28 August 2015—14th International Swiss Climate Summer School–Extreme Events and Climate—Ascona, Switzerland
24–28 August 2015—SPARC Workshop on Storm Tracks—Grindelwald,
Switzerland
1–4 September 2015—ECMWF Seminar: Physical Processes in Present andFuture Large Scale Models—Reading, United Kingdom
2–4 September 2015—GEWEX Executive Meeting—Washington, DC,USA
14–18 September 2015—SOLAS Open Science Conference, Paris, France
15–17 September 2015—Third Space for Hydrology Workshop: Surface
Water Storage and Runoff: Modeling, In Situ Data and Remote Sensing—
Frascati, Italy
15–18 September 2015—Monsoons and ITCZ: The Annual Cycle in the
Holocene and the Future—New York, New York, USA
21–25 September 2015—9 HyMeX Workshop—Mykonos, Greeceth

29 September–2 October 2015—Annual GDAP Meeting—Xiamen, China
5–7 October 2015—Advancing Our Understanding and Modeling of Climate Extremes by Combining Physical Insights with Statistical Methodology—Oslo, Norway
5–9 October 2015—11 International Conference on Southern Hemisphere Meteorology and Oceanography—Santiago, Chileth

13–16 October 2015—International Conference on Water Resources Assessment and Seasonal Prediction—Koblenz, Germany
15–16 October 2015—Translating Process Understanding to Improve Climate Models—Princeton, New Jersey, USA
20–23 October 2015—Earth Observation for Water Cycle Science 2015—
Frascati, Italy
20–23 October 2015—WCRP/FP7 EMBRACE Workshop on CMIP5
Model Analysis and Scientific Plans for CMIP6—Dubrovnik, Croatia
26–28 October 2015—Land Modeling “LandMIP” Workshop—Zürich,
Switzerland
26–30 October 2015—Land Surface, Snow and Soil Moisture Model Intercomparison Project Workshop—Zürich, Switzerland
3–5 November 2015—Linkages between Arctic Climate Change and MidLatitude Weather Extremes Workshop—Sheffield, United Kingdom
4–5 November 2015—GEWEX Water Vapor Assessment Workshop—
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
9–11 November 2015—GEWEX Workshop on the Climate System of thePannonian Basin—Osijek, Croatia
9–13 November 2015—23rd SPARC Scientific Steering Group Meeting—
Boulder, Colorado, USA20

16–20 November 2015—GHP Meeting—Entebbe, Uganda
17–19 November 2015—International Conference on Water and Energy
Cycles in the Tropics—Paris, France
2 December 2015—Second Annual OzEWEX Workshop—Broadbeach,Queensland, Australia
14–16 December 2015—AGU Fall Meeting—San Francisco, California,
USA
10–14 January 2016—96th AMS Meeting—New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
25–29 January 2016—GEWEX SSG-29 Meeting—Zürich, Switzerland
15–19 February 2016—Conference on Understanding Clouds and Precipitation Through Highly Resolved Process Modeling and Observations—
Berlin, Germany
2–4 March 2016—Global Climate Observations: The Road to the Future—
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
29 March–1 April 2016—Austin International Conference on Soil Modeling—Austin, Texas, USA
5–15 April 2016—WWRP/WCRP/Bolin Centre School on Polar Prediction—Abisko Scientific Research Station, Sweden
25–30 April 2016—WGNE 31—CSIR, South Africa
9–13 May 2016—2016 ESA Living Planet Symposium—Prague, Czech
Republic
10–13 May 2016—Earth Observation
2016—Prague, Czech RepublicandCryosphere

Science

10–13 May 2016—Conference on Earth Observation and Cryosphere
Science—Frascati, Italy
17–20 May 2016—CORDEX 2016: International Conference on Regional
Climate Change—Stockholm, Sweden
16–18 September 2016—CLIVAR Early Career Scientists Symposium—
Qingdao, China
16–23 September 2016—CLIVAR Open Science Conference—Qingdao,
China
13–17 February 2017—International Symposium on Cryospheric Processes, Climate Drivers and Global Connections—Wellington, New Zealand

GEWEX NEWS
Published by the International GEWEX Project OfficePeter J. van Oevelen, Director
Dawn P. Erlich, Editor
Shannon F. Macken, Assistant Editor
International GEWEX Project Officec/o USRA
425 3rd Street SW, Suite 940
Washington, DC 20024 USA
Tel: 1-202-527-1827
E-mail: gewex@gewex.org
Website: http://www.gewex.org

August 2015