GCOS 2009 Progress Report, v0.4.1 (13 October 2008)
Progress Report on the Implementation of GCOS
Draft v0.4.1
13 October 2008
GCOS Secretariat
General comments:

Aim for no more than 30 pages of main body text

Cross-cutting:
o Regional aspects (Action C3):
 Reflect conclusions of final report to UNEP/GEF about RWP
o Note concerns and needs of RAs vis-à-vis GCOS
o Include rationale on the role of observatios in adaptation to impacts of climate change




Domain-based general assessments on progress, followed by action-by-action assessments
Consider 5-year milestones in GCOP IP; check how many have been met/addressed
Use all material from spreadsheet
Report Annexes: (i) Synthesis of national reports; (ii) Spreadsheet information
Use the following sources:
(i)
(ii)
performance reports from GCOS monitoring centres and partner observing systems and their
technical advisory bodies
information on national activities related to systematic observation (due by 15 September 2008),
Other sources of information:



CEOS progress report to SBSTA-29 (December 2008)
Final report GCOS Regional Workshop Programme
GCOS Implementation Progress Report (2005)
1
Progress Report on the Implementation of GCOS
Draft v0.4.1
13 October 2008
Executive Summary
Summaries of Contextual, Cross-cutting, and Domain progress sections
Conclusions & Recommendations
1. Background
The Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) was established in 1992 to ensure that the
observations and information needed to address climate-related issues are obtained and made
available to all potential users. GCOS is co-sponsored by the




Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO,
International Council for Science (ICSU),
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
GCOS involves the focused coordination of user-driven operational or quasi-operational systems
which together provide the comprehensive global observations required for monitoring the climate
system and for supporting research toward improved understanding, modelling and prediction of the
climate system. Global observations for climate are fundamental to detecting and attributing climate
change, and help assessing the impacts of climate variability and change in support of adaptation.
The GCOS seeks to address the total climate system including physical, chemical and biological
properties, and atmospheric, oceanic, terrestrial, hydrologic, and cryospheric components. GCOS has
been recognized as the climate observation component of the Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS).
GCOS builds, to the extent possible, on existing observing, data management and information
distribution systems, both operational and research-based, and on further enhancements of these
systems. These include the






WMO Global Observing System for atmospheric physical and dynamical properties;
WMO Global Atmosphere Watch for atmospheric constituent and chemical properties;
ICSU/IOC/WMO Global Ocean Observing System for physical, chemical and biological
properties;
FAO/ICSU/UNEP/WMO Global Terrestrial Observing System for land surface ecosystem,
hydrosphere, and cryosphere measurements;
IGBP and WCRP-sponsored research networks, for monitoring of terrestrial ecosystems, clouds
and the hydrological cycle, surface radiation budget, the earth's radiation budget, ice sheets and
precipitation over the oceans;
Data communication and other infrastructures necessary to support operational climate
forecasting, including the emerging WMO Information System (WIS), the WMO World Climate
Data and Monitoring Programme (WCDMP) and the WMO Climate Information and Prediction
Services Programme (CLIPS).
The WMO-related components of GCOS are part of the WMO Integrated Global Observing Systems
(WIGOS), as per the 2008 WIGOS concept of operations.
2
The evolution of GCOS has led to several milestone documents and plans during the last decade
including an initial “Report on the Adequacy of the Global Climate Observing Systems” (GCOS-48
1998); the “Second Report on the Adequacy of the Global Observing System for Climate in Support of
the UNFCCC” (GCOS- 82) which contained the definition of the Essential Climate Variables (ECVs);
and the “Implementation Plan for the Global Observing System for Climate in Support of the
UNFCCC” (GCOS-92), referred hereafter simply as the “GCOS IP”. Subsequently a more thorough
treatment of the requirements for satellite observations has been prepared as a supplement to the
GCOS IP in the document “Systematic Observation Requirements for Satellite-based Products for
Climate” (GCOS-107).
The global observing system for climate includes observations from all domains – terrestrial, oceanic,
and atmospheric – which are then transformed into products and information through analysis and
integration in both time and space. Since no single technology or source can provide all the needed
observations, measurements of the ECVs are provided by a composite system of in situ instruments
on the ground, on ships, buoys, floats, ocean profilers, balloons, samplers, and aircraft, as well as
from all forms of remote sensing including satellites. Meta-data (i.e., information on where and how
the observations are taken) are absolutely essential, as are historical and palaeo-climatic records that
set the context for the interpretation of current trends and variability. Although these individual
activities are to be coordinated internationally through a variety of programmes, organizations and
agencies, success will depend mainly on national1 and regional entities that will translate the GCOS
IP into reality. Collectively, all of these entities are referred to in the GCOS IP as the ‘Agents for
Implementation’. The successful implementation of GCOS depends directly upon the response of the
many Agents for Implementation to the overall coordinated plan.
This report responds to the request of UNFCCC SBSTA which, at its 23 rd session (Montreal, 2005),
invited the GCOS secretariat to “provide a comprehensive report at its thirtieth session (June 2009),
on progress with the GCOS implementation plan, in addition to the regular reporting requested by the
Conference of the Parties (COP) in decision 5/CP.10”. It addresses the progress over the last four
years (since late 2004) in implementation of the actions called for in the GCOS-IP. The time horizon
for many activities is long (for example to develop and launch a satellite system requires more than a
decade) but most of the actions proposed in the GCOS-IP have been enthusiastically embraced by
the identified Agents for Implementation, and significant steps have been taken to attain the specified
objectives. In some areas, however, progress since 2004 remains limited or absent.
This report will provide GCOS a benchmark upon which to base an updated GCOS IP. It used as
sources of information performance reports from GCOS monitoring centres and partner observing
systems and their technical advisory bodies, and information on national activities related to
systematic observation provided by Parties to the UNFCCC. No attempt has been made in this report
to estimate cost implications of particular actions in support of climate observations. In most cases,
the actions involve many national bodies, hence it would require a substantial effort to evaluate the
incremental cost incurred.
2. Contextual Developments since 2004
With the principal objective to enhance international coordination of Earth observation, the 1st Earth
Observation Summit in 2003 established the Group on Earth Observation (GEO)2, with the objective
to build the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) within ten years. The GEOSS 10Year Implementation Plan, adopted by GEO members in February 2005, describes a strategy for
coordinated comprehensive and sustained observations of the Earth system in order to improve
monitoring of the changing state of the planet, increase understanding of complex Earth processes,
and enhance the prediction of the impacts of environmental change, including climate change.
Implementation of GEOSS also includes end-user products for nine Societal Benefit Areas (SBAs) weather, climate, water, agriculture, disasters, biodiversity, ecosystems, energy, and health. Further,
the GEOSS strategy foresees building a comprehensive data architecture for a system of observing
systems. As of 1 October 2008, GEO has 75 national members and the European Commission. GEO
1
Whenever reference is made to “National activities” in the context of this report, this also includes activities by multigovernmental Agents for Implementation, such as ESA and EUMETSAT.
2 www.earthobservations.org
3
has been established outside the UN system, but with membership of a number of international
organizations. GEO “Communities of practice” have been established for SBAs, and provisions for
enhanced coordination of data exchange and access are being put in place.
WMO as a participating organization of GEO has started implementing the WMO Integrated Global
Observing Systems (WIGOS) as an effort to more effectively coordinate observing systems and
requirements under responsibility of WMO members. Pilot projects have been started to demonstrate
this and involve, in addition to core meteorological data, observations of some atmospheric
composition and oceanographic variables for particular applications. For data exchange within the
WIGOS, WMO is developing its WMO Information System (WIS), building on the existing Global
Telecommunication System (GTS) and other contributing systems. This development should benefit
both WMO and its partners who use the GTS.
As the value of reliable climate forecasts and information is being increasingly recognized, WMO,
along with many national and international partners, has started planning for the World Climate
Conference-3 in 2009, with a focus on climate prediction and information for decision-making:
focusing on scientific advances in seasonal to inter-annual time-scales, taking into account multidecadal prediction.
The five-year UNFCCC Nairobi Work Programme has been set up in 2005 to improve understanding
and assessment of impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change with a focus on developing
countries. The Programme , recognizes the importance of capacity building in relation to data and
observations, and their use in supporting informed decisions on practical adaptation actions within the
context of sustainable development..
The 2005 G-8 Summit in Gleneagles, UK, mentioned the desire of the G-8 to strengthen international
cooperation on global Earth observations. It also committed the G-8 to support efforts to help
developing countries and regions obtain full benefit from GEOSS and GCOS, including “placement of
observational systems to fill data gaps, developing of in country and regional capacity for analyzing
and interpreting observational data, and development of decision-support systems and tools relevant
to local needs”. It also noted that the G-8 would specifically work to strengthen the existing climate
institutions in Africa through GCOS.
As a follow-up to this call, the Climate for Development in Africa Programme (ClimDev Africa) was
conceived in 2006 as an integrated, multi-partner, Africa-led programme designed to mainstream
climate information into development practices throughout Africa, thereby promoting sustainable
development and helping to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). ClimDev Africa
addresses Africa-wide needs in four principal areas: climate observations, climate services, climate
risk management, and national policies related to climate information needs. Progress in ClimDev
Africa has been sought, facilitated by the GCOS secretariat, in collaboration with donors, countries,
and regional bodies, such as the African Union, the African Development Bank and the UN Economic
Commission for Africa. Despite endorsement by Heads of State of the African Union and by the
Conference of African Ministers of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development and despite
substantial interest on the part of prospective donors, this important programme has been slow to get
underway. As of October 2008, a programme proposal that is acceptable to the donors has not yet
been finalized
Furthermore, a joint GCOS-WCRP-WMO/CLW proposal for Climate Observations and Regional
Modelling in Support of Climate Risk Management and Sustainable Development, focussing on
capacity building in the Greater Horn of Africa region has been provisionally approved for funding by
the World Bank. The project, conceived as a sequence of three linked workshops, is designed to
demonstrate the key elements of an effective climate risk management strategy for the region. This is
based on the fact that reliable and detailed regional climate information, including current and future
assessments of climate variability and change, is essential in the design of effective strategies for
adaptation to climate change.
The 2008 G-8 Summit in Hokkaido Toyako, Japan, recognized in its final declaration the growing
demand for Earth observation data, and pledged to “accelerate efforts within the Global Earth
Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), which builds on the work of UN specialized agencies and
4
programs, in priority areas, inter alia, climate change and water resources management, by
strengthening observation, prediction and data sharing.”
The publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007, together with widespread
acknowledgment of the issue of climate change and the need to respond to its impacts, has
emphasized and strengthened national engagement on climate-related issues. In analogy with the
development of the GCOS 2AR following the TAR, and to ensure that GCOS, WCRP and IGBP
benefited from the insights gained from the AR4, the three international programmes organized a joint
workshop with 66 AR4 coordinating lead authors in Sydney, Australia, in October 2007. In terms of
observational needs, this workshop and a survey preceding the event, provided strong support for the
requirements and targets set in the GCOS IP. In addition, participants raised a few areas which
needed additional emphasis or new measurements. These extra needs involved:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
regionally-detailed surface networks measuring temperature and precipitation in
particular;
the possibility of a more systematic approach towards interconnecting geophysical
measurements for climate with measurements of biological systems, at least in specific
locations, for impact studies;
more detailed observations in the cryospheric domain, in particular measuring ice sheets
and their volume;
more comprehensive measurements of atmospheric composition, in particular relating to
the chemically-active GHG like methane, and trace gases from biomass burning and
combustion processes;
denser and more evenly distributed network of sustained in situ observations of carbon
on land, in the oceans and in the atmosphere;
improved specification of measurements relating to aerosols, clouds and radiation;
an explicit recognition of soil moisture as an ECV.
These issues will need to be considered in detail in an update of the GCOS IP. Full reference to
recommendations made is given by the workshop report (“Future Climate Change Research and
Observations: GCOS, WCRP and IGBP Learning from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report”, GCOS117).
5
3. Progress in Overarching and Cross-cutting Areas
Summary
The overarching and cross-cutting actions with the GCOS IP are of particular importance as they seek
to ensure wide recognition of climate needs, and full and effective use of all relevant current and past
observations. The actions encompass a broad range of activities, including planning, coordination,
adherence to the GCOS climate monitoring principles as well as data management, processing,
analysis, and archiving.. These actions are by themselves not very costly but require careful
adoption, sustained attention and long-term engagement. Progress since the publication of the
GCOS IP has been good and stems from the engagement of the GCOS IP by the agents for action at
all levels. In the nature of the actions many need continuous long term engagement.
Action C1
Action: Participating international and intergovernmental organizations are asked to respond to the actions in this Plan.
Who: International and intergovernmental organizations.
Time-Frame: Inclusion in plans by 2007 and continuing updates as appropriate.
Performance Indicator: Actions incorporated in plans
Cost Implications: Category I3.
International Planning (Action C1)
The Sponsors of GCOS, their subsidiary bodies and almost all of the international organizations
involved with climate have either formally or informally adopted the GCOS IP and have incorporated
the relevant components within their own planning processes. This commitment to action represents a
significant degree of international consensus and support for the GCOS IP. These decisions have
resulted in effectively establishing the necessary international framework for standards and
coordination for the collection of atmospheric and oceanic ECVs. In the terrestrial domain GTOS has
taken the initial steps in a process for establishing standards and has made progress in incorporating
these standards in much of its programme. With some of the in situ terrestrial observations it is
especially difficult to establish international planning because of a lack of international bodies with
appropriate technical responsibilities. Increasing national engagement, for example through the
establishment of national GCOS coordination mechanisms, would enable better coordination and
engagement of all national agencies and others bodies responsible for relevant observations. Since
the GCOS IP outlines a comprehensive programme that marshals contributions from virtually all
countries and organizations dealing with Earth observations, it requires continuing and strengthened
coordination and performance monitoring.
Since the GCOS IP was prepared, GEO has been established and started to take forwards plans
towards building a GEOSS within ten years (GEO, 2005). and action with GCOS IP and the GCOS
identified as its climate component. GEOSS has assisted in linking communities from the various
Societal Benefit Areas and helped focussing actions on enabling interoperability of data and analysis
products. GCOS Secretariat has made efforts to highlight the multi-purpose character of observations
for climate in almost all SBAs.
The Integrated Global Observing System (IGOS) Themes and their reports have provided valuable
community statements of needs. The Themes have been incorporated into the GEO process and
continue to inform the process as GEO communities of practice.
The Space Agencies working through CEOS, CGMS and WMO through the WMO Space Programme
have produced implementation plans that incorporate as appropriate the space-based actions called
for in the GCOS IP. Various other international science programs have also instituted programs
reflecting Actions called for in the GCOS IP. (see e.g., document FCCC/SBSTA/2005/MISC.14 for
reference).
3
See Annex Table XX for cost definitions (see section 2.8 Table 7 in the GCOS IP)
6
Action C2
Action: Undertake national coordination and produce national plans for contributions to the global observing system for
climate in the context of this Plan.
Who: Parties, in concert with the UNFCCC and international and intergovernmental organizations.
Time-Frame: Planning by 2007 with continuing updates as needed.
Performance Indicator: Number of national reports on climate observations submitted in national communications to
the UNFCCC.
Cost Implications: Category II.
National Planning (Action C2)
The importance of establishing effective national planning and coordination mechanisms cannot be
underestimated. To date, 14 countries have formally appointed a National GCOS Coordinator:
Australia, Canada, China, Finland, France, Germany, Mali, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Portugal, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, and the USA. In addition, most countries have
identified focal points for a range of atmospheric observations. A number of countries, e.g.
Switzerland and China, have also produced national plans for their contributions to GCOS. Many
countries, when considering their observation programs, have systematically used the GCOS IP as
guidance.
As noted in the 2008 Synthesis of UNFCCC National Reporting on Systematic Observation…
Action C3
Action: Complete development and alignment of Regional Action Plans for climate observations in the context of this
Plan.
Who: Regional organizations and associations in cooperation with GCOS.
Time-Frame: 2005.
Performance Indicator: Availability of Regional Action Plans for climate observations.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Completion and Alignment of Regional Action Plans (Action C3)
The various Regional Action Plans all call attention to elements of the GCOS IP, in particular the key
atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial observations needed to ensure global scale coverage, and
observations meeting regional and national priorities for particular types of information, e.g. for
agricultural applications. Such regional details will be important as countries and regions seek to
consider adaptation and to understand likely climate change impacts. Common needs of all regions
covered by Regional Action Plans4 include sustaining and improving operational observing networks;
recovering historical data; improving national and regional co-ordination; education, training, and
capacity building; and national planning and reporting. Some implementation progress has been
made in most regions, with greater progress generally in those regions in which the earliest
workshops were held. However, much remains to be done. Constraints to continued progress are
the need for donor engagement in project funding and for sustaining committed leadership at the
regional level.
Action C4 (CF18)
Action: Report to the UNFCCC on systematic climate observations using an updated Supplementary Reporting Format
and guidelines.
Who: Parties with the UNFCCC Secretariat.
Time-Frame: As soon as possible in conjunction with national communications.
Performance Indicator: Percentage of Parties reporting according to the required format.
Cost Implications: Category II.
National Reporting Under Updated National Reporting Format (Action C4)
The Updated National Reporting Format was recommended by UNFCCC SBSTA at its 23 rd session
(Montreal, 2005) and adopted at COP-13 (Bali, 2007) in decision 11/CP.13. For this report 15 Parties
(as of 2 October 2008) have responded using the updated format. From this valuable input, together
4
Final report of GCOS Regional Workshop Programme: GCOS-XXX (finalized and at hand, but yet to be published as a GCOS
report)
7
with reports from data and monitoring centers and partner observing systems, the GCOS Secretariat
has sought to provide this compilation of progress toward implementation of the GCOS IP.
Action C5 (CF18)
Action: Maintain oversight of implementation of national plans for systematic climate observations and products and
report on progress.
Who: GCOS with its partners.
Time-Frame: Third Adequacy Report 2010.
Performance Indicator: Completion of Third Adequacy Report.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Progress of Implementation (Action C5)
Consistent with Action C5 this Progress Report is intended to provide an overview of GCOS
implementation and an assessment of adequacy as reflected in the evolving needs of the UNFCCC.
Action C6
Action: Establish an International Project Office.
Who: GCOS Sponsors with advice from GCOS Steering Committee and with support from the Parties.
Time-Frame: Establish Office in 2005.
Performance Indicator: Establishment of an Office by GCOS Sponsors and resource support from Parties.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Establish an International GCOS Project Office (Action C6)
The GCOS Secretariat has basic core support from its sponsors, this allows support for the GCOS
Director an assistant and minor support for office activities. Donor support for some extra technical
staff, meetings, and some technical cooperation projects is vital but not stable from year to year. The
GCOS Steering Committee, wishes to stress the need for support to the GCOS Secretariat and also
for the Staff in its partner observational programmes, such as GOOS and GTOS, that deal with
coordination and oversight.
Action C7
Action: Ensure an orderly process for sustained operation of research-based networks and systems for ECVs.
Who: System operators and research entities in cooperation with the GCOS Secretariat and the relevant international
programmes (e.g., WCRP).
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Number of sustained networks and systems.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Sustained Operation of Research Networks and Systems (Action C7)
The GCOS hierarchy of networks provides a basis for the GCOS implementation strategy, where
each network addresses a particular need for climate data and derived information. This hierarchy of
networks ranges from globally sparse reference networks, through basic global coverage with
baseline networks to recognition and use of the comprehensive networks that are essential at a
national and regional scale. Amongst these networks, the research community is often heavily
involved, especially in the case of reference and baseline networks,. At the same time research
funding is often for strictly term activities and either a transion to operational support or regular
renewal of research funding is needed.
A few research networks have become quasi-operational (e.g., the TOGA buoy network, the Baseline
Surface Radiation Network), but many other research networks remain fully in the research category.
Institutions and programmes deploying these facilities have recognized their importance to GCOS and
have managed to sustain their operation. There has been increasing attention by space agencies to
transition research-based instruments to operational use (e.g., on the NASA-NOAA NPOESS
platform), but much remains to be done. As noted in the GCOS IP this requirement to effect the
requirement from research to a more sustainable operation of observing networks and systems will
continue to be and important GCOS objective.
8
Action C8
Action: Ensure all climate observing activities adhere to the GCMPs.
Who: Parties and agencies operating observing programmes.
Time-Frame: Continuous, urgent.
Performance Indicator: Extent to which GCMPs are applied.
Cost Implications: Covered in domains. Sum of costs5 Category IV. See Action C10 for satellite component.
Adherence the GCMPs (Action C8)
The wide consideration of the GCOS IP has improved progress in the adherence to the GCMPs by
observing system operators in all domains, for both in-situ and satellite-based observations. At the
same time there is an increasing realization that application of these principles gives needed benefit
to the application of the observations by all users, not just those directly applying the data to climate
specific applications (e.g. agriculture). This is due to the widespread value of records of change of
geophysical variables over all time scales. Overall the extent of adherence to the GCMP is partial,
although some operators have assessed the degree to which the observing networks and systems
under their responsibility were following those principles. Continued effort to apply the GCMPs to all
observations will be a continuing objective.
Action C9 (CF20)
Action: Support the implementation of the global observing system for climate in developing countries and countries with
economies in transition.
Who: Parties, through their participation in multinational and bilateral technical cooperation programmes, and the GCOS
Cooperation Mechanism.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Resources dedicated to climate observing system projects in developing countries and
countries with economies in transition.
Cost Implications: Covered in the domains. Sum of costs Category IV.
Support the implementation of the global observing system for climate in developing countries
and countries with economies in transition (Action C9)
Whilst some real progress has been made in assisting some developing countries and countries with
economies in transition, it is hard to judge whether the extent and level of sustained support for
capacity building has actually increased. The wide range of funding sources makes a comprehensive
assessment of global support toward GCOS objectives difficult. The Regional Actions Plans
developed under GCOS leadership were intended to assist and focus the strengthening of
observations in developing countries. This has happened to a limited degree with some engagement
of both additional national and donor support, but much more dedicated support is needed to
implement the projects delineated in these Plans (see Action C3). Under the GCOS Coordination
Mechanisms, regular meetings have been held to assist donors in coordinating their activities in
support of this Action.
Action C10
Action: Ensure continuity and over-lap of key satellite sensors; recording and archiving of all satellite meta-data;
maintaining currently adopted data formats for all archived data; providing data service systems that ensure accessibility;
undertaking reprocessing of all data relevant to climate for inclusion in integrated climate analyses and reanalyses.
Who: Parties operating satellite systems.
Time-Frame: Urgent, continuing.
Performance Indicator: Data and products conform to climate standards.
Cost Implications: Covered in domains. Sum of costs Category V.
Full and Effective Use of Earth Observation Satellites (Action C10)
During the period there have been some set backs in ensuring mission continuity but action by space
agencies has been prompt in undertaking actions to fill expected gaps between satellite missions.
Current plans still have some possible future gaps but these have identified by the space agencies
and they are looking at ways of avoiding them. Generally as noted the Space Agencies have been
5
Sum of costs includes estimates from all domain actions as appropriate.
9
very responsive to the GCOS IP and thay have developed their own matching Implementation Plans
detailing the coordinated response of individual Satellite Operators to the over-all GCOS objectives.
Significant initial progress has been made (detail in the domain sections below), but owing to the long
end-to-end time scales of satellite missions, full implementation will inevitably take some years to
establish. Separate from mission continuity and overlap the agencies are also given increased
emphasis to the calibration instruments and the inter-comparison of sensors between satellites. The
development of the GSICS jointly between WMO Space, CGMS and the CEOS WGCV meets many
of these needs. Attention to maintaining archives of the basic data records and metadata from past
and current missions and reprocessing of datasets is also being given increasing attention in many
agencies. For example, ESA is advancing a thorough approach dealing with all its past and future
missions; EUMETSAT has been leading the establishment of Regional/Specialized Satellite Centres
for Climate Monitoring (R/SSC-CM), which have a focus on systematic reprocessing of basic radiance
datasets to generate fundamental climate data records, the basis for the generation of long-term ECV
products.
With this very good progress there is and will remain an ongoing need for space agencies to achieve
funding needed to sustain both the needed future missions and the ability to maintain the needed
resulting fundamental data records.
Action C11
Action: Prepare the data sets and meta-data, including historic data records, for climate analyses and reanalyses.
Who: Parties with the International Data Centres (e.g., WDCs), working together with technical commissions and the
scientific community.
Time-Frame: Now and ongoing.
Performance Indicator: New or improved data sets available for analysis or reanalysis.
Cost Implications: Covered in domains. Sum of costs Category III.
Prepare the data sets and meta-data, including historic data records, for climate analyses and
reanalyses (Action C11)
Atmospheric reanalyses are progressing well and the inclusion of atmospheric constituent data is
becoming a new feature in the programmes. Progress is also being made in gaining new historical
data sets and using these more complete data sets in upgrading the reanalyses. Establishing ocean
reanalysis in the GODAE is continuing and improved ocean observing systems is important to
enabling modern .data assimilation methods to be viable.
Action C12 (CF3)
Action: Establish sustainable systems for the routine and regular analysis of the ECVs, as appropriate and feasible,
including measures of uncertainty.
Who: Parties sponsoring internationally-designated analysis centres with guidance from WCRP, IGBP and IPCC, with
oversight by GCOS.
Time-Frame: Now and ongoing, with most ECVs addressed by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Quality and range of analyses of the ECVs.
Cost Implications: Covered in domains. Sum of costs Category IV.
Establish sustainable systems for the routine and regular analysis of the ECVs, as appropriate
and feasible, including measures of uncertainty (Action C12)
Work toward the attainment of climate quality atmospheric and ocean ECV analyses is progressing.
The success for some terrestrial ECVs is more partial but significant effort is underway for others
especially those dependent on satellite data.
Action C13 (CF4)
Action: Establish a sustained capacity for global climate reanalysis and ensure coordination and collaboration between
reanalysis centres.
Who: National and international agencies, with coordination and oversight by GCOS and WCRP.
Time-Frame: Established programmes across all domains by 2009, ongoing activity thereafter.
Performance Indicator: Reanalysis centres established and/or endowed with long-term and coordinated programmes;
cyclical flow of products of improving quality and widening range.
Cost Implications: Covered in domains. Sum of costs Category III.
10
Establish a sustained capacity for global climate reanalysis and ensure coordination and
collaboration between reanalysis centres (Action C13)
Users of climate information require products that meet their requirements for quality, scope and
coverage. These products are almost invariably generated through the integration of data from
different sources. A key aspect of this integration is the process of reanalysis, which by incorporating
historical data with consistent algorithms provides the potential to yield homogeneous, consistent,
multivariate products with global coverage.
Sustained activity has been realized throughout the reporting period, and collaboration between
centres continues. Future funding for the reanalysis activity should recognize the need to maintain
technical competence and progressive improvement in the variables available for inclusion should be
realized.
Action C14 (CF7)
Action: Collect, digitize and analyze the historical atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial data records from the beginning
of instrumental observations in a region and submit to International Data Centres.
Who: Parties, working through the WMO Commission on Climatology (CCl), the WMO Commission for Hydrology (CHy),
other appropriate coordinating bodies (e.g., GCOS and GTOS), the appropriate national agencies, and designated
International Data Centres.
Time-Frame: Complete by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Data receipt at designated International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Collect, digitize and analyze the historical atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial data records
from the beginning of instrumental observations in a region and submit to International Data
Centres (Action C14)
Some good progress has occurred but the action will need sustained attention and take many years
to complete for all ECVs.
Action C15 (AF9)
Action: Undertake research initiatives to acquire high-resolution palaeo-climate data by extending spatial coverage into
new regions, extending temporal coverage back in time and exploiting new sources.
Who: Parties’ national research programmes in cooperation with WCRP and IGBP.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Reports in scientific literature.
Cost Implications: Category III.
[Request for information to Sandy Harrison, Lucka Kajfez-Bogataj, David Anderson (WDC
Paleoclimatology) sent 28 August / 29-30 September.]
Action C16 (AF9)
Action: Improve synthesis of palaeo-climate and palaeo-environmental data on multidecadal to millennial timescales,
including better chronologies for existing records, particularly from the tropics, Asia, the Southern Hemisphere and the
Southern Ocean.
Who: Parties’ national research programmes in cooperation with WCRP and IGBP.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Reports in scientific literature.
Cost Implications: Category III.
[Request for information to Sandy Harrison, Lucka Kajfez-Bogataj, David Anderson (WDC
Paleoclimatology) sent 28 August / 29-30 September.]
Action C17 (AF9)
Action: Preserve palaeo-climate and palaeo-environmental data in archival databases.
Who: World Data Centre for Paleoclimatology in cooperation with national research programmes.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Completeness of archival databases and availability of data to the research community through
International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category II.
11
[Request for information to Sandy Harrison, Lucka Kajfez-Bogataj, David Anderson (WDC
Paleoclimatology) sent 28 August / 29-30 September.]
Action C18 (CF12)
Action: Develop standards and procedures for meta-data and its storage and exchange.
Who: International technical commissions with scientific advisory bodies.
Time-Frame: Guidance complete by 2006.
Performance Indicator: Number of ECVs with standards.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Develop standards and procedures for meta-data and its storage and exchange (Action C18)
WMO working through its Comissions for Climatology and Basic Systems, together with the ISO have
developed standards and guidance for meta data acquisition and management. This work should
beapplied in GEOSS activities. In the framework of the WMO Information System and existing
recommendations for a WMO metadata standard, a draft metadata profile for hydrological data has
been developed by the Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC) which was subsequently endorsed by the
WMO Commission for Hydrology in November 2008.
Action C19 (CF9)
Action: Ensure timely, efficient and quality-controlled flow of all ECV data to International Data Centres.
Who: Parties with coordination by appropriate technical commissions and international programmes.
Time-Frame: Urgent, continuing.
Performance Indicator: Data receipt at centres and archives.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Ensure timely, efficient and quality-controlled flow of all ECV data to International Data
Centres (Action C19)
As shown in the domain reports progress has been good in the atmospheric and oceanic domains,
and less effective in the terrestrial domain where responsible agencies and bodies at the national and
international levels are more difficult to identify and engage.
Action C20 (CF9)
Action: Ensure that data policies facilitate the exchange and archiving of all ECV data.
Who: Parties and international agencies and appropriate technical commissions and international programmes.
Time-Frame: Urgent, continuing.
Performance Indicator: Data receipt at GCOS data centres.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Ensure that data policies facilitate the exchange and archiving of all ECV data (Action C20)
Consistent with C19 there has been progress in ensuring effective exchange and archiving of data
from most ECV categories. Some countries, based on their own national policies, continue to not
exchange data for certain ECVs but remain encouraged to at least exchange sufficient data to assist
in enabling basic global coverage.
Action C21 (CF10, CF13)
Action: Develop modern distributed data services that can handle the increasing volumes of data and which can allow
feedback to observing network management.
Who: Parties’ national services committing to International Data Centre operation and high data volume providers such
as Space Agencies through appropriate technical commissions and international programmes.
Time-Frame: Long-term objective, 2014.
Performance Indicator: Development of plans and initial steps at some centres.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
Develop modern distributed data services that can handle the increasing volumes of data and
which can allow feedback to observing network management (Action C21)
12
The WMO Information System, and the GEOSS Architecture Working Group are contributing to
current and future developments and planning in this area. With regard to satellite data the present
data service infrastructure will need substantial improvement to accommodate expected data volumes
from future satellite missions.
13
4. Atmospheric Climate Observing System
Summary of Progress
Overall, there has been steady progress in implementing and maintaining the atmospheric observing
systems for climate. This is largely based on efforts by the national operators of in-situ and spacebased components of the WMO WWW/GOS for surface and upper-air meteorological observations,
and the national contributions to WMO GAW and related satellite systems for measurements of
greenhouse gases and other aspects of atmospheric composition. The global trends of declining insitu network performance prevailing through the 1990s has been halted or reversed in all regions. In
spite of the overall progress, it must be stressed that some regions of the world have seen no
significant improvement in observational coverage.
One facet of the progress made has been improved reception of observational data in international
data centres. This is at least in part due to enhanced engagement by centres dedicated to monitoring
of in-situ network performance, acting in liaison with both the network operators and the programmes
responsible for the networks. For example, the work of the existing GSN and GUAN Monitoring,
Analysis and Archive Centres has been complemented by the establishment of nine CBS Lead
Centres for GCOS covering all regions worldwide. Nevertheless, there remain significant gaps in both
network coverage and the frequency of reporting from existing stations.
Regarding satellite systems, improved instrument performance, international coordination and
exploitation of datasets have led to an increasingly important contribution to global climate monitoring.
Reprocessing and analysis of satellite-based climate data records is an ongoing activity required to
improve the description of climate variability and trends. Observational capabilities of future satellite
systems need to ensure continuity of the climate record, as well as provide new or improved
measurements of some ECVs, such as cloud properties and greenhouse gases. [concluding
statement?]
Meeting the full range of objectives expressed in the GCOS IP will require much more attention, on
global and regional scales, to observational coverage and the use of climate data, with a focus on
building capacity in developing and least-developed countries.
Detailed Progress
Surface Observations
Observation of climate variables at the surface of the Earth characterize the part of atmosphere in
which we live and where virtually all land-based biodiversity exists. As such, measurements of these
variables are of particular importance for determining the impacts of climate change, and for taking
measures to counter or adapt to these impacts. Mitigation of climate change needs to be based upon
reliable determination of sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, which needs observations of the
changing distribution of these gases.
Action A1 (AF1)6
Action: Detailed analysis of causes of GSN faults, followed by full implementation of the GSN.
Who: National Meteorological Services, in coordination/cooperation with WMO CBS, with advice from the AOPC
Time-Frame: Complete operation of GSN by 2007 and receipt of all archival data by 2008.
Performance Indicator: Data archive statistics at WDC Asheville and National Communications to UNFCCC.
Cost Implications: Category III7.
[Progress against A1] Around 95% of GSN stations are collecting data and the number of transmitted
CLIMAT has grown from 60% (2001) to about 80% (2007). Great regional differences
6
Actions in this document relate to ‘Findings’ of the Second Adequacy Report, as listed in Appendix 2 herein. These are
identified as CF (Common Findings), AF, OF and TF (referring to Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Terrestrial Findings,
respectively).
7 See Section 2.8 Table 7 for cost definitions.
11
Fig. 1 Percentage of received GSN CLIMAT reports at DWD and JMA
remain, however (cf. Fig. 1). Upon receipt, data are quality-controlled by the GSN Monitoring Centres
at DWD and JMA, which regularly report to AOPC on progress. Further, 9 CBS Lead Centres hosted
by NMSs and covering all WMO Regions were established in 2007, providing an important
mechanism for improving the number and quality of GSN (and GUAN) data received by specific
contacts with station operators in countries. Another contributing factor has been support to GSN (and
GUAN, cf. A15) in developing countries through the GCOS system improvement programme.
The GSN Analysis and Archive Centre at NCDC provide further analysis of GSN data in the context of
larger synoptic network. Its activities also include the all-important collection of historical GSN data
from countries (see Fig. 2). Although the submission of historical data to the Archive Centre has
generally improved due to targeted contacting of countries by GCOS/WMO (letter) and the Archive
Centre, many records remain of limited duration or are unavailable (check with Tom/Matt for improved
figure(s))
Fig. 2 Length of climate time series for stations in GSN and the Global Historical Climatology
Network available at the GSN Archive Centre (Source: NCDC)
Action A2 (AF1, AF24)
Action: Obtain major progress in implementation and systematic operation of the full WWW/GOS RBSN in compliance
with the GCMPs.
Who: National Meteorological Services, in cooperation/coordination with WMO CBS, WMO CCl, WMO RAs and WMO
WWW.
Time-Frame: Continuous, with 10% improvement in receipt of RBSN data by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Data archive statistics at WDC Asheville.
Cost Implications: Category III.
[Progress against A2, A3] The GSN is a subset of the comprehensive WWW/GOS RBSN as well as
its regional climate component, the WWW/GOS RBCN, all operated by NMSs and coordinated by the
WMO CBS. Global reception rates at World Data Centres have improved for the WWW/GOS RBSN
from XX % in 2003 to 81% in 2007. Total WWW/GOS RBCN reception of CLIMAT reports increased
from 62% (2003) to 74% (2007)" (cf Tables XX and YY). For the RBCN, data submission from all
12
regions has improved, but significant differences in total reception are still apparent, ranging from
33% for RAI (Africa) to 95% for RAVI (Europe) in 2007.
Action A3 (AF24)
Action: Apply the GCMPs to all surface climate networks.
Who: National Meteorological Services, in coordination with WMO CBS, WMO CCl, WMO RAs and GCOS Secretariat.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Quality and homogeneity of data and meta-data submitted to International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Action A4 (AF24)
Action: Develop guidelines and procedures for the transition from manual to automatic surface observing stations that
incorporates the GCMPs.
Who: WMO CIMO in cooperation with the WMO CCl, WMO CBS, and the GCOS GSN Monitoring Centres through the
AOPC and the GCOS Secretariat.
Time-Frame: Complete by 2006.
Performance Indicator: Quality and homogeneity of data and meta-data submitted to International Data Centres;
adoption noted in National Communication.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Many observing facilities (over both land and ocean) are being changed from the traditional manual
operation to automatic or quasi-automatic operation. These changes have been demonstrated to
insert potential inconsistencies and inhomogeneities into the climate record, and are addressed as
one element of the GCMPs. To address this, “Guidelines and Procedures to Assist in the Transition
from Manual to Automatic Surface Observing Stations” have been developed by the WMO CBS
Expert Team on Requirements for Data from Automatic Weather Stations (ET-AWS) and published in
Annex 7 of the final report of its fifth session in May 2008.
ECV Surface temperature
The surface networks discussed above provide extensive measurements of the surface air
temperature ECV over land. These are complemented by the observation of sea-surface temperature,
air temperature over the ocean and sea ice (from VOS and buoys) (cf. Ocean section).
ECV Surface air pressure
Action A58 (AF3, AF6)
Action: Seek cooperation from organizations operating drifting buoy programmes to incorporate atmospheric pressure
sensors.
Who: Parties deploying drifting buoys and buoy-operating organizations, coordinated through JCOMM with OOPC and
AOPC.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Percentage of buoys with sea-level pressure (SLP) sensors.
Cost Implications: Category III.
[Progress against A5] The observation of surface air pressure from the synoptic networks discussed
above are complemented over the oceans by VOS and buoy measurements. As of May 2008, 567
buoys measure sea-level pressure (SLP) from a total of 1274 drifting surface buoys (see Fig. 4). This
is a significant improvement on the situation in 2003, when only 84 out of 913 drifters measured sealevel pressure. Furthermore, many of the buoys not measuring sea-level pressure are located in the
tropics where the measurement would be less useful anyway.
8
See also Action O10.
13
Fig. 4: Status of Global Drifting surface Buoy Array (as of May 2008; Source:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dac/gdp_maps.html)
Action A6 (AF5)
Action: Submit precipitation data from national networks to the International Data Centres.
Who: National Meteorological Services with coordination through the WMO CCl.
Time-Frame: Continuous with 20% improvement in receipt by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Percentage of nations providing all precipitation data to the International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category I.
[Progress against A6] Major progress has been made in the submission of precipitation data from
national networks to the international data centres, with 175 countries having delivered precipitation
data (see Figs. 5 and 6) . However, significant gaps in coverage remain. Moreover, efforts are
underway to encourage access to sub-daily (hourly if possible) precipitation data from all countries, in
order to support studies of climate variability and extreme events.
Fig. 5: Total number of stations with data received via GTS at GPCC (Status March 2008)
14
Fig. 6: Country contribution to GPCC data base (as of April 2008)
Action A7 (AF5)
Action: Ensure stable operation and processing of relevant operational satellite instruments for precipitation and the
continuity of associated products.9
Who: Space Agencies through CGMS and CEOS with WMO Space Programme and GCOS.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Long-term homogeneous satellite-based global precipitation products.
Cost Implications: Category V.
[Progress against A7] The Global Precipitation Mission (GPM) will combine active precipitation
measurements with a constellation of passive microwave imagers. The GPM core satellite is currently
planned for launch in spring 2013, three years later than indicated in the 2006 CEOS Response. This
implies high probability for a major gap in TRMM-type precipitation measurements from space, since
the TRMM mission is likely to end in 2009. There is a need for a long-term commitment beyond GPM.
Action A8 (AF5)
Action: Develop and deploy precipitation-measuring instruments on the Ocean Reference Mooring Network.
Who: Parties deploying moorings in cooperation with JCOMM and OOPC.
Time-Frame: Coordination finalized by 2005, implementation complete by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Number of instruments deployed and data submitted to International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category III.
[Progress against A8] 48% of the Global Reference Mooring Network has been established
measuring all feasible ECVs (including precipitation), 29 additional moorings are planned (cf. Fig. 7).
9
Specifically the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) and the NOAA Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU), as
well as sustained and institutional support of critical research instruments including the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
(JAXA) Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR), the NASA/JAXA Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM)
and the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission.
15
Fig. 7: Initial Global Ocean Observing System for Climate (status as of February 2008)
Action A9
Action: Develop and implement improved methods for observing precipitation that take into account advances in
technology and fulfil GCOS requirements.
Who: Parties’ national research programmes through WCRP in cooperation with GCOS.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Implemented methods; improved (in resolution, accuracy, time/space coverage) analyses of
global precipitation.
Cost Implications: Category II.
[Need to find out from WMO OBS]
Action A10 (AF7)
Action: Ensure availability of 3-hourly mean sea-level pressure and wind speed and direction data from GSN stations.
Who: National Meteorological Services with coordination from the AOPC, WMO CBS.
Time-Frame: Provide data by 2006.
Performance Indicator: Data availability in International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category II.
[Progress against A10] Efforts are underway to collect sub-daily data from GSN stations for the
analysis of climate variability and extreme events.
Action A1110 (AF7)
Action: Ensure continuous operation of AM and PM satellite scatterometer or equivalent observations.
Who: Space Agencies through CGMS and CEOS with WMO Space Programme and GCOS.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Long-term satellite observations of surface winds.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
[Progress against A11] Action A-1 of the CEOS response to the GCOS IP states that, in 2007, CEOS
agencies will review the capability of passive microwave sensors to make scatterometer-quality
measurements, and that the agencies will work to ensure AM and PM satellite coverage of surface
wind speed and direction by 2015. Launch of MetOp in October 2006 has provided operational
scatterometer data in the AM orbit. NESDIS have reprocessed the FCDR.
Action A12 (AF7)
Action: Submit water vapour data from national networks to the International Data Centres.
Who: National Meteorological Services through WMO CBS and GCOS Analysis and Monitoring Centres with input from
AOPC.
Time-Frame: Complete analysis of global-scale data by 2006.
Performance Indicator: Data availability in analysis centres and archive.
Cost Implications: Category I.
10
See also Action O23.
16
[Progress against A12] NCDC holds data from 3200 synoptic stations globally in its Integrated Surface
Dataset (ISD); these data have been used by Willett et al. (2007) who demonstrated that
climatological signals can be extracted for the period since 1974. The analysis has been made
available on a 5x5 degree grid. A considerably larger volume of data are available, in near real time,
for use in operational analysis and reanalysis centres. For example, ECMWF has available around 28
000 SYNOP humidity observations per six-hour period, which are used for both analyses of nearsurface and free troposphere humjdity. NCDC has historical records… [Include text from the following
article: ..
The paper is here with a posting date of April 9. This is the AMS online site for accepted papers
that at this stage have yet to be typeset and published.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-toc-aop&issn=1520-0442
Action A13 (AF8)
Action: Submit sunshine data from national networks to International Data Centres.
Who: National Meteorological Services and others, in cooperation with the GCOS GSN Analysis Centres.
Time-Frame: Submit national historical data by 2007.
Performance Indicator: Data availability in International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category I.
[Progress against A13] No concerted action has so far been undertaken, but efforts are underway to
establish a Global Surface Radiation Network (GSRN) of some 300 stations worldwide, including
stations maintained by GAW as well as by national services. The WRDC in St. Petersburg would likely
serve as the central data archive for such a network. The GAW ET on World Data Centres will meet in
October 2008 to discuss further steps in this regard.
Action A14 (AF8)
Action: Expand the BSRN network to obtain global coverage and establish formal analysis infrastructure.
Who: Parties’ national services and research programmes operating BSRN sites in cooperation with AOPC and the
WCRP/GEWEX Radiation Panel.
Time-Frame: Plan completed 2004, BSRN fully operational by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Published plan and the number of BSRN stations submitting data to International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category III.
[Progress against A12] In 2008, the BSRN archive was re-established at the Alfred Wegener Institute
(AWI) in Bremerhaven, Germany, following a period of uncertainty after 15 years of operation at ETH
Zurich. At present, there are 39 BSRN stations in operation. [N.B. BSRN could serve as a baseline for
a future GSRN, and planning has started …?
Upper Air Observations
Action A15 (AF10)
Action: Complete implementation of GUAN, including infrastructure and data management.
Who: National Meteorological Services operating GUAN stations in cooperation with GCOS Secretariat and WMO CBS.
Time-Frame: Complete 2006.
Performance Indicator: Percentage of data archived in WDC Asheville.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
[Progress against A15] Gradual improvement of data received from GUAN stations, with a significant
rise in the percentage reaching 10 hPa, has been shown by the GUAN Monitoring Centre at ECMWF
(see Figs 8 and 9). In 2007, only 2 out of 164 GUAN stations were truly silent, although data received
from some stations are infrequent. Continuous support to GUAN in developing countries has been
provided through the GCOS system improvement programme. Further, 9 CBS Lead Centres covering
all WMO Regions were established in 2007, providing an important mechanism for improving the
number and quality of GUAN (and GSN) data received by specific contacts with station operators in
countries.
17
Fig. 8: Receipt of radiosonde data at high altitudes (10 hPa) at GUAN Monitoring Centre
(Source: ECMWF)
Fig. 9: Receipt of GUAN data at Monitoring Centre (Source: ECMWF)
Action A16 (AF14)
Action: Specify and implement a Reference Network of high-altitude, high-quality radiosondes, including operational
requirements and data management, archiving and analysis.
Who: Parties’ National Meteorological Services and research agencies, in cooperation with AOPC and WMO CBS.
Time-Frame: Specification and plan by 2005. Implementation completed by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Plan published. Data management system in place. Network functioning. Data availability.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
[Progress against A16] GRUAN planning in Boulder and Seattle workshops in 2006 and 2007, leading
to a GRUAN planning document (GCOS-112); the concept of a GRUAN was expanded to include a
number of other reference measurements, such as ozone, GPS delay, lidars. Four centres
volunteered to be the Lead Centre for developing the GRUAN, and DWD with its Meteorological
Observatory Lindenberg was selected. The MOL provides 3.5 full-time staff in support of GRUAN. The
GRUAN Initiation Meeting was held in February 2008, leading to the selection of an initial set of 12
GRUAN sites (GCOS-121). Plans for implementation continue under the auspices of AOPC, its WG
ARO and the Lead Centre.
Action A17 (AF11)
Action: Improve implementation of the WWW/GOS radiosonde network compatible with the
compliance with coding conventions.
Who: National Meteorological Services in cooperation with WMO CBS and WMO RAs.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Percentage of real-time upper-air data with no quality problems.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
18
GCMPs and in full
[Progress against A17] For the GOS, receipt of radiosonde data has improved over the last eight
years and reached the 1994 level of about 600 ascents at 00 and 12 UTC (Fig. 11). There has been a
significant rise in the number of soundings reaching 10 hPa (see Fig. 10), indicating improvements in
radiosonde operation. No systematic application of the GCMPs can be noted, but the overall quality of
observations has been improved, for example through a reduction in bias of upper-level temperatures.
Coding errors of synoptic radiosonde data does not present a problem. AOPC concluded in 2007 that
the generation of CLIMAT TEMPs was no longer required for climate monitoring purposes.
Fig. 10:
Fig. 11:
Action A18 (AF11)
Action: Submit meta-data records and inter-comparisons for radiosonde observations to International Data Centres.
Who: National Meteorological Services in cooperation with WMO CBS, WMO CIMO and AOPC.
Time-Frame: 2009.
Performance Indicator: Percentage of sites giving meta-data to WDC Asheville.
Cost Implications: Category I.
[Progress against A18] Some progress; radiosonde metadata for Russia, including its Antarctic
stations, have been provided to NCDC.
Action A19 (AF12)
Action: Continue the system of satellites following the GCMPs to enable the continuation of MSU-like radiance data.
Who: Space Agencies.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Quality and quantity of data; availability of data; monthly maps and products.
Cost Implications: Category III.
19
[Progress against A19] Significant progress in ensuring the MSU-type record has been made. AMSU
(on Aqua, METOP, NOAA-K,L,N,N') has extended the MSU record (see Christy et al., 2003: Error
estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU/AMSU bulk atmospheric temperatures, J.Atmos.Oceanic.Technol,
20, 613-629). For NPP/NPOESS the ATMS is similar to AMSU but will require careful intercalibration
since the polarization and spatial sampling is different. There is hope that the Aqua AMSU will survive
until NPP launch, but this is highly unlikely given recent problems with Aqua AMSU channels (e.g.,
AMSU ch.4 has essentially failed due to high noise); the microwave sounders on FY-3 provide further
operational coverage in the morning and afternoon orbits for the coming decade or more; Post-EPS
will continue the record as a priority.
Action A20 (AF13)
Action: GPS RO measurements should be made available in real time, incorporated into operational data streams, and
sustained over the long-term. Protocols need to be developed for exchange and distribution of data.
Who: Space Agencies, in cooperation with CGMS, WMO CBS, the WMO Space Programme and AOPC.
Time-Frame: Exchange standards and protocols by 2006.
Performance Indicator Volume of data available and percentage of data exchanged.
Cost Implications: Category III.
[Progress against A20] GPS RO measurements are now routinely available in near real time and
assimilated into operational numerical weather prediction and reanalysis systems. More than 600
occultations are currently available per 6h period from different GPS receivers (COSMIC, GRAS,
CHAMP, GRACE) (see Fig. 12). A follow-on to COSMIC has yet to be confirmed.
Fig. 12:
Action A21 (AF15)
Action: Develop standards and protocols for exchange of data from the networks of ground-based GPS receivers.
Who: WMO CIMO and WMO CBS in cooperation with national agencies.
Time-Frame: Exchange standards and protocols finished by 2005. Implementation continuing (part exists already).
Performance Indicator: Number of sites providing data.
Cost Implications: Category I.
[No input so far]
Action A22 (AF16)
Action: Ensure continuation of a climate data record of visible and infrared radiances, e.g., from the International
Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, and include additional data streams as they become available.
Who: Space Agencies, for processing.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Long-term availability of global homogeneous data at high frequency.
Cost Implications: Category III.
[Progress against A22] CEOS response A-3: agencies will support in 2007 investigations of cloud
properties and cloud trends from combined imager and sounder measurements of clouds, using
Cloudsat/CALIPSO for validation; dedicated workshop on the AVHRR climate data record will be held
in December 2008. ISCCP is currently planned to continue up to June 2010.
20
GSICS is designed to ensure the generation of well-calibrated fundamental climate data records, the
R/SSC-CM are designed to generate ECV satellite products based on these records.
Action A23 (AF16)
Action: Research to improve cloud property observations in three dimensions.
Who: Parties’ national research and Space Agencies in cooperation with the WCRP.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: New cloud products.
Cost Implications: Category III.
[Progress against A23] MISR, Cloudsat, and Calipso are all flying, providing novel insight into threedimensional cloud properties.
Action A24 (AF17)
Action: Ensure continuation of Earth Radiation Budget observations.
Who: Space Agencies, coordinated through WMO Space Programme, CEOS and CGMS.
Time-Frame: Present.
Performance Indicator: Long-term data availability at archives.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
[Progress against A24] The TSIS instrument has been re-manifested on NPOESS C2, C4, as has
been suggested in the CEOS response 2006; CERES instrument is planned to fly on NPP, the
situation for NPOESS still needs to be determined; ERB prototype instrument will fly on FY-3A and 3B
in 2008 and 2009.
Atmospheric Composition Observations
Action A25 (AF18)
Action: Establish a plan for and implement a consistent surface- and satellite-based global observing system for the
atmospheric composition ECVs, based on common standards and procedures, and encourage data submission to
WDCs.
Who: Parties’ national services, research agencies and Space Agencies, under the guidance of WMO GAW in
coordination with AOPC.
Time-Frame: Plan ready by 2005, implementation 2006-2015.
Performance Indicator: Published plan, availability of globally-consistent data.
Cost Implications: Category IV11.
[Progress against A25] The climate component of the IGACO Theme Report in 2004 provides a
detailed set of requirements for measurements of atmospheric composition, including all relevant
ECVs (GAW Strategic Plan 2008-2015). The Satellite Supplement to the GCOS IP also provides a
consistent advance in specifying the needs for satellite observations related to atmospheric chemistry.
At the same as these requirements have been developed, progress has also occurred with available
and proposed satellite missions in addressing these needs.
Action A26 (AF20)
Action: Develop and implement a comprehensive plan to observe the vertical profiles of GHGs, ozone and aerosols
utilizing commercial and research aircraft, pilotless aircraft, balloon systems, kites, ground-based lidars and satellites.
Who: Parties’ national services, research agencies and Space Agencies, under the guidance of WMO GAW in
coordination with AOPC.
Time-Frame: Plan by 2005, implementation 2006-2015.
Performance Indicator: Published plan, availability of globally-consistent data.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
[Progress against A26] See GAW Strategic Plan 2008-2015.
11
See Section 2.8 Table 7 for cost definitions.
21
Action A27 (AF18)
Action: Establish the GCOS/GAW baseline network for CO2 and CH4, and fill the gaps.
Who: Parties’ national services, research agencies and Space Agencies under the guidance of WMO GAW and its
Scientific Advisory Group for Greenhouse Gases in cooperation with the AOPC.
Time-Frame: Specification by 2005 and implementation by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Plan.
Cost Implications: Category III.
[Progress against A27] WMO/GAW Global Atmospheric CO2 & CH4 Monitoring Networks established
in October 2005 by SC as a comprehensive networks of GCOS; WDCGG statistics indicate steady
increase of submitted station data to the archive; limited progress in network expansion, e.g. in polar
regions during the IPY;
Action A28 (AF18)
Action: Develop plans for an Integrated Data Analysis Centre (WIDAC) for CO2 and CH4.
Who: WMO GAW and its WDC-GG in consultation with the AOPC.
Time-Frame: 2007.
Performance Indicator: Establishment of data analysis centre.
Cost Implications: Category I.
[Progress against A28] Integration of greenhouse gas observations and their assimilation in models
has occurred within the NOAA Carbon Tracker system, as well as under the European Kopernikus
(aka GMES) initiative.
Action A29 (AF18)
Action: Complete an International Halocarbon Inter-comparison Study, linking measurement scales for CFCs of major
networks as an initial step in an ongoing quality assurance programme.
Who: Parties’ national research agencies and national services, through WMO GAW.
Time-Frame: Report in 2007; subsequent inter-comparisons 2007-2012.
Performance Indicator: Report of inter-comparison data.
Cost Implications: Category I.
[Progress against A29] AGAGE experiment.
Action A30 (AF19)
Action: Define and implement the Baseline Ozone Observing Network for balloon vertical profiles and total column
ozone and initiate implementation.
Who: Parties’ national research agencies and national services through WMO GAW and partners, in consultation with
AOPC.
Time-Frame: Agree on balloon sondes network by 2005, implementation thereafter.
Performance Indicator: Network specification. Percentage of data submitted to International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category III.
[Progress against A30] Recognized as 'GCOS Global Baseline Totale Ozone Network' and 'GCOS
Global Baseline Profile Ozone Network' in 2007 (AOPC-XIII, Doc. 25), Shadoz, GAW, NDACC 63
sites, 79% reporting; Dobson Ozone Network 110 sites, 57% reporting; Brewer Ozone Network, 60
sites, 85% reporting (as of Jan 2007).
Action A31 (AF20)
Action: Develop and implement a coordinated strategy to monitor and analyze the distribution of aerosols and aerosol
properties.
Who: Parties’ national services, research agencies and Space Agencies, with guidance from AOPC in cooperation with
WMO GAW, WCRP, IGBP.
Time-Frame: Define a baseline network for aerosol optical depth by 2006 with data archived at the WMO World Data
Centre for Aerosols (Ispra, Italy), with proposal for implementation by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Strategy document, followed by implementation of strategy, availability of globally-consistent
aerosol optical depth data.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
[Progress against A31] Progress has been made by WMO GAW in coordinating the diverse
communities engaged in aerosol observations; an “International experts workshop on coordination of
global aerosol observations and links to users” is planned by WMO and the GAW SAG on Aerosols
for early 2009. Quasi-operational availability of aerosol data (e.g., MODIS, AERONET) supports the
analysis of aerosol properties, and is being used in assimilation into models. GAW report on
observational strategy for aerosols available.
22
Action A32 (CF2, AF18)
Action: Develop and implement a strategy to enable use of satellite data on atmospheric composition for climate by
scientific users, regardless of source.
Who: Space Agencies, in conjunction with CEOS and CGMS, IGOS-P, and WMO Space Programme.
Time-Frame: 2005 for strategy, 2007 for facilitated use of data regardless of source.
Performance Indicator: Written strategy by 2005; straightforward use of data regardless of source by broad range of
scientific users.
Cost Implications: Category II.
[Progress against A32] Development of WIGOS, GEO Portal, and GEO Data Exchange Principles;
refer to Action C10; increasing recognition by space agencies of the importance of facilitating data
access (see CEOS Action C-10); progress in CEOS Virtual Constellation on Atmospheric Chemistry.
23
5. The Oceanic Climate Observing System

[Include ndicator of general progress, a kind of overview of the progress reported below – to
be written at the end]


[Mention sustained observation of the deep ocean]
[Monitoring of coral reefs]

[5 general actions – one to flag in particular is the coastal ocean observing system action O5]
5.1 Oceanic Domain – Surface
The ocean is the main reservoir for carbon and provides the thermal inertia of the climate system.
Coupling between the atmosphere and ocean gives rise climate variations on seasonal to interannual
time scales, such as El Niño. Tracking the heat stored and the exchanges of heat, moisture,
momentum and gas species with the atmosphere is vital for understanding and forecasting the
evolution of climate variability and change. Sea level is a critical variable for low-lying regions, and
globally is driven by volume expansion or contraction due to changes in subsurface ocean
temperature, and by exchange of water between the oceans and other reservoirs such as land-based
ice and the atmosphere. Local sea level changes are also strongly influenced by regional and local
circulation changes. Sea surface temperature is the most critical variable for the coupled atmosphereocean system. In addition to the surface atmospheric variables, others of note include sea-surface
salinity, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2). Ocean colour is used to indicate biological
activity. Ocean life is dependent on the biogeochemical status of the ocean, which is affected by
changes in its physical state and circulation. Sea ice is important as an indicator of climate change as
well as through its albedo feedback and its impact on polar ecosystems. Melting or forming sea ice
affects salinity and hence density and ocean currents. Special attention is needed in coastal regions,
and for boundary currents, narrow straits and shallow regions (choke points where flow is limited),
biogeochemical variables, and primary productivity.
The GCOS 2AR and IP describe composite surface and subsurface ocean observing networks and
data management arrangements needed for characterizing the state of the global climate system and
its variability, monitoring the forcing of the climate system (both natural and anthropogenic), and the
attribution of the causes of climate change. The IP describe further actions for the development of
integrated global analysis products needed to support the prediction of future changes in the climate
system. Progress against these actions to properly observe the ocean ECVs is reported below.
The composite surface and subsurface ocean observing networks include global continuous
monitoring of certain ECVs where this was feasible, and in some other cases depend on observations
from reference stations or sites or a decadal survey in the case of subsurface ocean carbon, nutrients,
and tracers. The global ocean observing system put in place for climate will also support global
weather prediction, global and coastal ocean prediction, and marine environmental monitoring among
other things, and thus merits sponsorship from a range of sources.
Downscaling, impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation [mainly in coastal regions; consider other data as
well, such as water quality, nutrient load]
The shelf and coastal seas have smaller space and time scales than the deep ocean. They respond
to open-ocean conditions, atmospheric conditions and to terrestrial inputs. Estimates of regional
marine impacts of climate change in the shelf and coastal seas will be dependent on information
about the open ocean to give the broader context, as well as on regional data sets and robust
dynamical or statistical models. These regionally-enhanced observations are critical to evaluating
projections of climate change and variability down to regional and national scales. The 2AR noted that
only a few regions in the world have appropriate shelf and coastal seas observing systems, and this
remains true today.
24
Similarly, characterization of ocean-related events important in impact assessment, assessing risk
and vulnerability, and to support adaptations decisions and actions, will require information about the
open ocean as well as regional data sets and models. The risk from extreme sea level events (storm
surges) will change as a result of changing sea level and/or changing meteorological forcing.
Evaluating the frequency and intensity of such events requires locally-available high-frequency tide
gauge data. Other extreme ocean events that may have different manifestations under climate
change include changes in sea temperature, sea ice extent and concentration, freshening and other
effects resulting in abrupt changes in regional upwelling, and other phenomena. Ecosystem
vulnerabilities to climate change, particularly to extreme conditions, may be considerable, and will
require regional and national observing networks appropriate to respond to potentially quite specific
local priorities, economic and societal interests.
The surface ocean is observed through a composite network of in situ and satellite measurements. A
number of specific actions of a general nature and supplementary ongoing actions were identified as
crucial for the realization of an effective system.
Surface observations from the Volunteer Observing Ship (VOS) fleet overall have declined in recent
years. However the number of ships recruited to the VOSClim programme, providing enhanced
metadata for climate purposes, has progressed to beyond the original goals (218 out of 200 ships).
[Action O6]
Commitments to the continuity of key satellite observations of the oceans have been improved
through interaction with CEOS and the UNFCCC reporting process, rather than using the tool of the
IGOS-P Ocean Theme report. [Action O7].
Individual
national
commitments
through
research
programmes
to
maintaining
a
Surface Reference Mooring Network have been of variable success, with overall fair progress. [Action
O8]
Specific Issues — Oceanic Surface ECVs
ECV – Sea surface temperature
[satellite Action O9 requires research from CEOS draft document]
The global surface drifting buoy array has maintained its target of 1250±50 since November 2005,
although even spatial coverage is still challenging in low ship traffic and surface divergent areas of the
oceans. The global tropical moored array had 75 of 119 planned moorings reporting in June 2008,
maintaining full arrays in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and beginning coverage in the
eastern tropical Indian Ocean. [Action O10]
ECV – Sea level
In 2007 there were 179 out of 290 GCOS/GLOSS network tide gauge stations considered operational
(data in archives through 2003), with 98 real-time reporting stations. [Action O11]
[satellite action O12 needs research from CEOS draft document]
[waiting for response from GLOSS secretariat for Action O13]
[need to write the conclusions in each section]
25
Action O1 (OF13)12
Action: Continue to seek national and multinational participation in the implementation of the global ocean observing
system for climate.
Who: IOC in consultation with GCOS, GOOS, and JCOMM.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicators: Extent of national and multinational participation in the recommend-ations of this Plan.
Cost Implications: Category II13.
There has been a slow but steady increase in overall in situ network density with an increase in the
number of countries participating in the tide gauge network and other in situ networks (source: Report
of I-GOOS-VIII (GOOS-165, June 2007), reports of the JCOMM Observations Programme Area).
Action O2 (OF1)
Action: Review relevance and effect of Plan, and revise the Oceanic Section of the Plan every 5 years.
Who: OOPC, in cooperation with participating partners.
Time-Frame: Report by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Report published.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Action is well under way to update the plan for 2009, via actions of GCOS and preparations for the
OceanObs'09 conference (source: GCOS documents in preparation; www.oceanobs09.net)
Action O3 (OF2)
Action: Promote and facilitate research and development (new improved technologies in particular), in support of the
global ocean observing system for climate.
Who: Parties’ national ocean research programmes and Space Agencies, in cooperation with GOOS, GCOS, and
WCRP.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: More cost-effective and efficient methods and networks; strong research efforts related to the
observing system; number of additional ECVs feasible for sustained observation; improved utility of ocean climate
products.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Actions have proceeded with for example development of possible additional variable measurements
on “Argo” floats and the many technical issues associated with the difficult task of ocean and marine
measurements. Satellite agencies are also entering a research phase with salinity measurements
from space. Attention to this action will be ongoing
Action O4 (OF2)
Action: Promote and build partnerships with ocean research institutions and science teams.
Who: OOPC with WCRP and SCOR science programmes, and with POGO and other marine research institutions.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Effective and productive partnerships, measured in terms of capacity delivered.
Cost Implications: Category II.
With the infancy of a coordinated global scale of observations in the ocean cooperation and
partnership between the programmes and agencies involved have have and are being steadily built.
Action O5 (OF16)
Action: Ensure the GOOS Coastal Ocean Observing System implementation plan is responsive to UNFCCC needs.
Who: GOOS Steering Committee with GOOS Regional Alliances and GOOS Panels.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Regional and coastal needs met.
Cost Implications: Category I.
12
Actions in this document relate to ‘Findings’ of the Second Adequacy Report, as listed in Appendix 2 herein. These are
identified as CF (Common Findings), AF, OF and TF (referring to Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Terrestrial Findings,
respectively).
13 See Section 2.8 Table 7 for cost definitions.
26
The GOOS Coastal Ocean Observing System implementation plan has been completed and is
intended to meet all societal needs for coastal zones information in including climate impacts and
adaptation. Taking forwards the plan in all countries will however be very challenging due to need for
Action O6 (OF3)
Action: Improve meta-data acquisition and management for a selected, expanding subset of VOS (VOSClim) together
with improved measurement systems.
Who: Parties’ national services and ocean research agencies through JCOMM VOSClim.
Time-Frame: VOSClim meta-database in place by 2006. Continuing improvement to data streams.
Performance Indicator: Greater use of VOS data in climate products. Successful completion of initial phase of
VOSClim.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Meta-database in place; but some difficulties with broad public access (WMO Pub. 47) and limited
increase in use of data in products (source: Liz Kent's papers and reports to OOPC presentations and
reports: http://ioc.unesco.org/oopc/)
Action O7 (OF3)
Action: IGOS-P Ocean Theme Team to publish update of the Ocean Theme and, as appropriate, restating the satellite
requirements and explicitly noting requirements for climate.
Who: IGOS-P through WMO Space Programme, CGMS, CEOS in consultation with OOPC and GCOS.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicators: Updated Ocean Theme document; Satellite agency commitments to oceanic climate
measurements.
Cost Implications: Category I.
IGOS-P merged with GEOSS and no update to Ocean Theme document; commitment by EU via
GMES to Sentinel satellite series; CEOS response indicating commitment (source: CEOS reports to
the UNFCCC)
Action O8 (OF4)
Action: Complete and maintain a globally-distributed network of ~29 surface moorings as part of a Surface Reference
Mooring Network.
Who: Parties’ national services and ocean research agencies responding to the OceanSITES plan.
Time-Frame: 15 moorings deployed by 2009, network complete by 2014.
Performance Indicator: Moorings operational and reporting to archives.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
Agreement on common data format and data archive centers for OceanSITES data; data not yet in
archives (source: April 2008 meeting report for OceanSITES Data Management)
Need to check details with Hester Viola (Albert, 1 July)
There are a number of Ocean-related actions involving the OceanSITES
network. They have a brand-new part-time technical coordinator,
Hester Viola at JCOMMOPS.
I suggest we send a consolidated request on the ocean and the one
atmosphere actions to OceanSITES through Hester to get their input.
(my question):
>> We wondered about the number (48% completed) in the chart showing the
>> implementation status of ocean networks. Are 29 moorings in total
>> planned
>> (white diamonds)? And do the yellow ones stand for moorings in place?
>> We
>> only found 2-3 of them on the map.
>>
Action O9 (OF5)
Action: Ensure a continuous mix of polar orbiting and geostationary IR measurements combined with passive
microwave coverage. To link with the comprehensive in situ networks noted in O10.
Who: Space Agencies coordinated through CGMS, CEOS, and WMO Space Programme.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Satellite plans and performance.
Cost Implications: Category III. See also Actions A7 and A19.
27
Action O1014 (OF5)
Action: Obtain global coverage, via an enhanced drifting buoy array (total array of 1250 drifting buoys equipped with
atmospheric pressure sensors as well as ocean temperature sensors), a complete Tropical Moored Buoy network (~120
moorings) and the improved VOSClim ship fleet.
Who: Parties’ national services and research programmes through JCOMM, Data Buoy Cooperation Panel, and Tropical
Mooring Implementation Panel.
Time-Frame: Complete by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Data submitted to analysis centres and archives.
Cost Implications: Category III.
1250±50 surface drifting buoys maintained since November 2005, although even coverage is still very
challenging in low-ship-traffic/divergent areas of oceans. Troopical mooring 75/119 planned buoys
reporting in June 2008. 218/250 ships recruited for VOSClim in April 2007 (The target for ships
participating in VOSClim was increased from 200 to 250). However, efforts remain to be made for
those ships to submit their all of their data according to the requirements and in appropriate format
and overall independent VOS observations are decreasing due to reduced resources, the use of
AWS, and ship security concerns; and increased investment in the archive (iCOADS) is needed)
(source: Drifting buoys: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dac/dacdata.html; Tropical moorings:
www.jcommops.org/network_status/; VOSClim: SOT-IV meeting report (JCOMM-MR-52) and Kent
report to OOPC-13)
Action O11 (OF8)
Action: Implement the GCOS subset of the GLOSS Core Network, with geocentrically-located high-accuracy gauges.
Ensure real-time exchange and archiving of data. Ensure historical sea-level records are recovered and exchanged.
Who: Parties’ national agencies coordinated through GLOSS of JCOMM.
Time-Frame: Complete by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Data availability at International Data Centres, global coverage.
Cost Implications: Category III.
2007 there were 179 out of 290 stations which were considered 'Operational' stations for which the
latest data is 2003 or later / in 2001: Data Archaeology Project, questionnary send out, feed back
received by 9 countries (status 2008) GLOSS website (http://www.gloss-sealevel.org/)
Action O12 (OF8)
Action: Ensure continuous coverage from one high-precision altimeter and two lower-precision but higher-resolution
altimeters.
Who: Space Agencies with coordination through CGMS, CEOS, and WMO Space Programme.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Satellites operating, and provision of data to analysis centres.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
Successful launch in June 2008 of Jason-2 to ensure high-resolution altimeter continuity, but planning
and commitments for Jason-3 still ongoing; increasing number of nations flying altimeter missions, but
uncertainty over data access arrangements (source: CEOS)
Action O13 (OF8, OF15)
Action: Ensure high-frequency sea-level observations are available for all coastal regions (including historical records)
and submitted to the international archive.
Who: National agencies coordinated through GLOSS and the GOOS Coastal Ocean Observations Panel.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Data availability at archives and national reports to UNFCCC.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Growing number of real-time reporting sea level stations, primarily funded for tsunami warning
purposes (source: GLOSS)
Action O14 (OF9)
Action: Include sea-level objectives in the capacity-building programmes of GOOS, JCOMM, WMO, other related
bodies, and the system improvement programme of GCOS.
Who: Parties providing capacity-building funds and programmes.
14
See also Action A5.
28
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Number of projects, global coverage.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Targeted sea level station work in Africa and Asia. (national programme in Chile) (source: GLOSS,
ODIN-Africa)
Action O15 (OF6)
Action: Develop a robust programme to observe sea-surface salinity to include VOS ships, research ships, reference
moorings, and drifting buoys.
Who: Parties’ national services and ocean research programmes through IODE and JCOMM in collaboration with
CLIVAR.
Time-Frame: Programme plan by 2007.
Performance Indicator: Plan published.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Action O16 (OF6)
Action: Research programmes to demonstrate feasibility of utilizing satellite data to help resolve global fields of SSS.
Who: Space Agencies in collaboration with the ocean research community.
Time-Frame: Feasibility studies complete by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Reports in literature and to OOPC.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Action O17 (OF6)
Action: Develop and implement an internationally-agreed strategy for measuring surface pCO2.
Who: IOCCP in consultation with OOPC, implementation through national services and research programmes.
Time-Frame: Implementation strategy for mid-2005; initial pilot network to begin early 2006.
Performance Indicator: Regular pCO2 flux maps produced beginning in 2006.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Global plan for surface CO2 data atlas with regional synthesis groups, established April 2007 (source:
IOCCP)
Action O18 (OF9)
Action: Implement plans for a sustained and continuous deployment of ocean colour satellite sensors together with
research and analysis.
Who: Space Agencies through the IGOS-P and in consultation with the IOCCG.
Time-Frame: Satellite programme implemented by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Global coverage with consistent sensors operating according to the GCMPs.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
Action O19 (OF13)
Action: Implement a wave measurement component as part of the Surface Reference Mooring Network.
Who: Parties operating moorings, coordinated through the JCOMM Expert Team on Waves and Surges.
Time-Frame: Deployed by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Sea state measurement in the International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Continuing dialogue between JCOMM ETWS and OceanSITES team as well as DBCP (alternative
platform for global wave observations), but no open-ocean reference sites established (source:
personal communication, chair ETWS V. Swail)
Action O2015 (OF10, OF11)
Action: Establish an international group to assemble surface drifting buoy motion data, ship drift current estimates,
current estimates based on wind stress and surface topography fields and to prepare an integrated analyses of the
surface current field.
Who: OOPC will work with JCOMM and WCRP.
Time-Frame: 2008.
Performance Indicator: Number of global current fields available routinely.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Action O21 (OF7)
Action: Establish improved interactions between existing sea-ice research programmes (e.g., WCRP/CliC) and
operational sea-ice groups (e.g., JCOMM Expert Team on Sea Ice).
Who: GCOS in consultation with JCOMM and WCRP.
15
See Action A11.
29
Time-Frame: By end of 2005.
Performance Indicators: Preparation of a quantitative summary comparison of sea-ice products.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Groups are aware of each other's work, but not well-coordinated. New sea ice group has been
established under CliC - not clear that it is linked to GCOS or JCOMM groups.
Action O22 (OF7)
Action: Establish an Arctic GOOS Regional Alliance (GRA).
Who: GOOS in cooperation with GCOS, WCRP (including CliC).
Time-Frame: 2005, 2007-09.
Performance Indicators: (a) development of an Arctic sustained observing and climate product plan (by end 2005); (b)
implementation of the plan during the IPY.
Cost Implications: Category I.
EuroGOOS has established a coordination mechanism for an Arctic Regional Ocean Observing
System (ROOS), but a number of countries oppose the immediate formation of an Arctic GRA,
preferring to wait until after the IPY (source: report of I-GOOS-VIII, IOC-EC-41)
Action O23 (OF7)
Action: Ensure sustained satellite (microwave, SAR, visible and IR) operations: improve the in situ observations from
sea-ice buoys, visual surveys (SOOP and Aircraft), and ULS. Implement observations in the Arctic and Antarctic.
Who: Parties’ national services, research programmes and Space Agencies, coordinated through the WMO Space
Programme, IGOS-P Cryosphere Theme, CGMS, and CEOS; National services for in situ systems coordinated through
JCOMM.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Sea-ice data in International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category III. Partial costing assuming planned operations for other applications.
Improvement in sea ice concentration algorithms from remote sensed data (source: CEOS report to
the UNFCCC (draft))
Action O24 (OF7)
Action: Promote development of integrated analysis products and reanalysis using historical data archives.
Who: JCOMM, WCRP/CliC, and IGOS-P Cryosphere Theme.
Time-Frame: Plan and commitment in place by 2007.
Performance Indicator: Improved sea-ice products.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Work plan for AOPC/OOPC sea ice working group in place, but chair left
Action O25 (OF10)
Action: Perform the systematic global full-depth water column sampling of 30 sections repeated every 10 years.
Who: National research programmes in cooperation with OOPC and CLIVAR and the International Ocean Carbon
Coordination Project.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Data submitted to archives. Percentage coverage of the sections.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
Good progress (% of the decadal survey complete), and planning process in place for a post-CLIVAR
hydrography programme (GO-SHIP), to be approved and presented at OceanObs'09
Action O26 (OF11)
Action: Perform the 41 Ship-of-Opportunity XBT/XCTD trans-oceanic sections.
Who: Parties’ national agencies coordinated through the Ship Observations Panel of JCOMM.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Data submitted to archive. Percentage coverage of the sections.
Cost Implications: Category III.
In 2007, 56% of the number of XBTs needed for the GCOS plan were dropped, with 35 of the 45 lines
having
been
sampled
(source:
SOT
semestrial
survey
2007:
http://www.jcommops.org/FTPRoot/SOT/SOOP/survey/2007-Final-Draft/PDF-2007-SOOP-finaldraftreport.pdf)
30
Action O27 (OF11)
Action: Deploy the planned 3000 Argo float array, reseeding the array with replacement floats to fill gaps and maintain
density (estimated 800 per year).
Who: Parties participating in the Argo Pilot Project and in cooperation with the Observations Coordination Group of
JCOMM.
Time-Frame: Complete 3000 float array attained by 2007.
Performance Indicator: Number of reporting floats. Percentage of network deployed.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
3111 floats in action (source: JCOMM OPA or Argo web sites)
Action O28 (OF11)
Action: Maintain the current Tropical Moored Buoy arrays, expand the Atlantic array, and develop the Indian array – total
array projected as ~120 moorings.
Who: Parties national agencies coordinated through the Tropical Mooring Panel of JCOMM.
Time-Frame: Array complete by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Data acquisition at International Data Centres.
Cost Implications: Category IV16.
75 of 119 planned moorings reporting data in real time in June 2008 (source: JCOMM OPA)
Action O29 (OF11)
Action: Develop and implement a pilot project designed to assemble the in situ and satellite altimetry data into a
composite data set and to assimilate the data into models and to create climate variability and trend analyses.
Who: Parties’ national ocean research programmes and space programmes through GODAE.
Time-Frame: Pilot project complete by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Plans and commitments.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Discussed at GODAE IGST (June 2007) but interest was in doing this on a regional scale, not global.
GODAE will end in 2008 (source: GODAE IGST report 2007 (www.godae.org))
Action O30 (OF3)
Action: Work with research programmes to develop autonomous capability for biogeochemical and ecological ECVs.
Who: Parties’ national ocean research programmes in cooperation with the Integrated Marine Biogeochemistry and
Ecosystem Research, Surface Ocean – Lower Atmosphere Study, and Land-Oceans Interactions in the Coastal Zone of
IGBP.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicators: Systems available for the ECV pCO2, nutrients, and phytoplankton with other ecosystem
parameters available for use in reference network applications.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Promising new sensors capable for extended moored or float deployment for oxygen, pH, pCO2
(source: OceanSensors08 workshop and report to OOPC-13 from T. Suga)
Action O31 (OF9, OF12)
Action: Develop and deploy in a reference network robust autonomous in situ instrumentation for biogeochemical and
ecosystem variables.
Who: Parties’ national research programmes in coordination with the IGBP and with the IOCCG.
Time-Frame: In situ observation capability developed as a matter of research priority and deployed by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Progress to global coverage with consistent sensors to GCMP.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Mixed progress: pilot programs submitted for oxygen on profiling floats, but 'Ferrybox'-type VOS lines
as envisaged by the GCOS IP are only operating in limited regional areas. But promising possibilities
raised by CoML and SAHFOS amongst others (source: reports to OOPC-13)
Action O32
Action: Monitoring the implementation of the IOC Data Policy.
Who: IOC.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Reports by the Executive Secretary (IOC) on the implementation of the IOC Data Policy.
Cost Implications: Category I.
16
See also Action O10.
31
Not aware of monitoring taking place at IOC level, but generally good progress in adherence to free
and open exchange of data
Action O33 (CF13)
Action: Develop and implement comprehensive data management procedures.
Who: IODE and JCOMM.
Time-Frame: Project plan by 2007.
Performance Indicator: Plan published.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Some progress with META-T project; pilot project via WIS for ocean data (source: report by R. Keeley
to OOPC-13)
Action O34 (CF6)
Action: Undertake a project to develop an international standard for ocean meta-data.
Who: IODE and JCOMM in collaboration with WMO CBS and ISO.
Time-Frame: Standard developed by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Publication of standard for an agreed initial set of the ECVs. Plan to progress to further ECV.
Cost Implications: Category II.
See above, but only progressing for ECV temperature
Action O35 (CF15)
Action: Undertake a project to apply the innovations emerging from the Future WMO Information System initiative, and
innovations such as OPeNDAP to develop an ocean data transport system for data exchange between centres and for
open use by the ocean community generally.
Who: JCOMM.
Time-Frame: Report by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Report published.
Cost Implications: Category II.
WMO-funded pilot project for WIS ocean data
Action O36 (CF3, CF4, CF19)
Action: Plan and implement a system of regional, specialized and global data and analysis centres.
Who: Parties’ national services under guidance from IODE and JCOMM.
Time-Frame: Plan finished by 2007, implementation following.
Performance Indicator: Plan published.
Cost Implications: Category III.
No formal progress
Action O37 (CF5)
Action: Support data rescue projects.
Who: Parties’ national services with coordination by IODE through its GODAR project.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Data sets in archive.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Action O38 (CF3)
Action: Develop enhanced and more cost-effective telecommunication capabilities, including two-way communications
for dynamic control of systems, instruments and sensors.
Who: Parties, coordinated through JCOMM.
Time-Frame: 2007.
Performance Indicator: Capacity to communicate data from ocean instrumentation to ocean data centres.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Good progress in pilot projects with Iridium telecommunications for Argo and surface drifting buoys
(source: reports by Argo and DBCP at their sessions)
Action O39 (CF3)
Action: Develop plans for and coordinate work on data assembly and analyses.
Who: JCOMM, in collaboration with CLIVAR, CliC, GODAE, and other relevant research and data management activities.
Time-Frame: Plan available by 2006.
Performance Indicator: Number of ocean climatologies and integrated data sets available.
32
Cost Implications: Category II.
Partial progress by various groups in the scientific community. Organized efforts include within
JCOMM/SOT/SOOP for XBT fall rates and within the Argo team dealing with the pressure problem in
floats in the N. Atlantic (source: report of XBT workshop (March 2008, AOML), reports in the scientific
literature)
Action O40 (CF4)
Action: Develop plans and pilot projects for the production of global products based on data assimilation into models. All
possible ECVs.
Who: Parties’ national services and ocean research agencies through CLIVAR, the CLIVAR Global Synthesis and
Observations Panel, and GODAE.
Time-Frame: 2008.
Performance Indicator: Number of global oceanic climate analysis centres.
Cost Implications: Category III.
A small number of the GODAE groups produce a global assimilated product, through the ocean
satellite era. Intercomparison efforts are underway, but to increase the number of scientific users
some measures of reliability should be developed. The major focus of GODAE has been shorter-term
ocean forecasts for non-climate purposes (Final IGST report (June 2008), reports of the GSOP
intercomparison meetings (www.clivar.org/organization/gsop/gsop.php))
Action O41 (CF5)
Action: Undertake pilot projects of reanalysis of ocean data.
Who: Parties’ national research programmes coordinated through OOPC and WCRP.
Time-Frame: 2010.
Performance Indicator: Number of global ocean reanalyses available.
Cost Implications: Category III.
About 10 different groups producing ocean climate reanalyses, organized around CLIVAR GSOP,
with regular intercomparison exercises; a half-dozen published studies on initiation of coupled oceanatmosphere forecasts with ocean reanalyses. The efforts are often underfunded (source: D. Stammer
report to last GSOP meeting)
33
6. The Terrestrial Observing System for Climate
General
[Points to consider, for both Progress Report and Update]
Soil moisture:
 Recommended to become an ECV in the Update
 Produced routinely from ERS 50km grid size (2002-2010); comparison with MeteoFrance in-situ
products very good;
 SMOS to fly in 2008
Carbon concentrations and fluxes:
 The question has been raised whether carbon fluxes should become an ECV: in this section, CO2
should be re-stated as an ECV, as well as the key objective to determine fluxes
 Numerous FLUXNET sites measuring a range of variables (with poor spatial representation);
variable quality of sites (“gold standard sites”); can be used to test process studies
 Carbon concentrations: accuracy of atmospheric inversions insufficient in large parts of the world;
satellite profiles from OCO, SCIAMACHY; should change landscape, but only useful when used in
a atmospheric transport scheme;
 Link validation sites for LAI and fAPAR with FLUXNET sites; create reference/supersites
REDD:
 possible mechanism by FCCC in post-Kyoto, would require data on
o Annual deforestation area
o Annual degraded forest area (can this be mapped as a different class of land cover; is
imagery at high resolution?)
o Annual undegraded forest area
 Relationship between REDD and land cover needs to be made clear; be not too prescriptive since
FCCC still needs to decide
Fire disturbance:
o Note that Fire Radiative Power is now available as a global product
o More attention on uncertainty estimates is needed
LAI, fAPAR, Biomass:
o Validation of LAI a real challenge, since in-situ measurements vary enormously in magnitude
o Ecosystem community develops land surface models that underscore climate models; maintain
LAI as a research-based variable
o fAPAR a radiation-based variable, probably more mature
o Biomass: standardized methods do exist (current GCOS IP Action misconstrued)
Action T1 (TF1)17
Action: Create of an intergovernmental mechanism for terrestrial observations.
Who: WMO, in consultation with FAO, ICSU, UNEP and UNESCO will form an inter-agency working group and explore
options and propose a mechanism (e.g., an intergovernmental technical commission for terrestrial observations).
Time-Frame: Develop proposal by 2006.
Performance Indicator: Presentation of plan to governing bodies of participating organizations.
Cost Implications: Category I18 increasing to II.
17
Actions in this document relate to ‘Findings’ of the Second Adequacy Report, as listed in Appendix 2 herein. These are
identified as CF (Common Findings), AF, OF and TF (referring to Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Terrestrial Findings,
respectively).
18 See Section 2.8 Table 7 for cost definitions.
34
[Progress against T1] Recognition of WMO by ISO as a standard-setting body; agreement between
WMO and FAO to favour the ISO-based mechanism for setting and maintaining standards; proposal
letters by ISO technical working group chairs (?) to ISO secretariat to set up a joint steering group for
such standards (?check drafts and their status); WMO, FAO and co-sponsored bodies (GTOS, TOPC)
proposed as members; progress in developing hydrological standards (guide; draft metadata profile
put forth by GRDC).
Action T2 (TF2)
Action: Find sponsors and a host for the GTN-H.
Who: TOPC, in cooperation with WMO CHy and National Hydrological Services.
Time-Frame: 2006.
Performance Indicator: Contact names and location for the GTN-H secretariat.
Cost Implications: Category I increasing to II.
[Progress against T2] The GTN-H has been sponsored by HWR/WMO and GCOS since 2001; it
serves as a forum for institutions with an interest in global-scale hydrological observations for the
purpose of climate research, climate applications and studies of the hydrological cycle.; integration of
different hydrological datasets for the generation of products … ; GTN-H has been recognized as the
observational arm in the IGOS Water strategy; since 2008, GTN-H is chiefly coordinated by WMO and
GCOS, with assistance by the State University New York under the new coordinator Charles
Vörösmarty; this institution also hosts the GTN-H website (www.gtn-h.net).
Action T319 (TF12, TF15)
Action: Develop a global network of some 30 sites based on a progressive evolution of existing reference sites to
monitor key biomes and provide the observations required for the calibration and validation of satellite data.
Who: Parties’ national services and research agencies, in cooperation with the IGBP, WCRP and in association with
TOPC and GTOS.
Time-frame: Plan prepared by 2007 with progressive establishment of sites thereafter.
Performance Indicator: Preparation of a plan and the establishment of sites.
Cost Implications: Category I increasing to IV.
[Progress against T3] Some activities are ongoing but they are not specifically linked to GOCS IP. I.e
list validation sites, GEO/CEOS criteria, quality assurance workshop in June 2008 . Needs wider brief
for carbon and water exchange and needs to be closer linked with TOPC. Soil moisture and soil
carbon. However the definitive list of 30 have not been selected nor what measurements should be
made. TOPC needs to follow this up.
Comments:
T3 and T29 should be combined. It is recommended that the sites would be build on a subset of the
FLUXNET sites, with additional sites established in ecosystems where sites are missing (e.g. tropics
and boreal). This is likely to require enhancement of the instrumentation and set of measurements
being undertaken at some sites.
ECV-specific issues
Action T4 (TF2)
Action: Confirm locations of GTN-R sites, determine operational status of gauges at all GTN-R sites, ensure that the
GRDC receive daily river discharge data from all 380 sites within one year of their observation (including measurement
and data transmission technology used).
Who: National Hydrological Services, through WMO CHy in cooperation with TOPC, GTOS and the GRDC.
Time-Frame: 2006 for finalization of network and reporting of any historical records, complete compliance, i.e., one-year
time lag by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Reports to WMO CHy on the completeness of the GTN-R record held in the GRDC including
the number of stations and nations submitting data to the GRDC, National Communication to UNFCCC.
Cost Implications: Category II increasing to III.
ECV River discharge
Observational importance
19
See also Actions A16, A27, A30.
35
The monitoring of river discharge is ideally suited to detecting and monitoring changes resulting from
climate change. At the same time, the freshwater discharge from rivers into the oceans plays a role in
driving the climate system, through its possible influence on oceanic circulation patterns.
Status
[Progress against T4] The Global Terrestrial Network for River Discharge (GTN-R) project was
launched by the Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC) with the aim of enabling access to near-real-time
river discharge data for selected gauging stations around the world, thereby capturing the majority of
the freshwater flux into the oceans. GRDC has proposed a priority network of river discharge
reference stations. This network is now being adjusted in consultation with national hydrological
services, and a total of 185 stations have been confirmed, with the status of another 265 stations not
yet clarified. Only 25 percent of the national hydrological services identified for participation in GTN-R
have responded, and further efforts are needed to finalize the baseline network.
Issues and priorities
Need to highlight that parties need to release current and historic data.
The efficient operation of the GTN-R depends on additional resources to implement and manage the
network. These funds would cover salaries for network coordination and computer programming,
infrastructure and travel expenses. These funds do not cover the costs borne by the national
hydrological services to operate and maintain the river discharge monitoring infrastructure.
Action T5 (TF2)
Action: Create a lake information data centre.
Who: TOPC in consultation with WMO CHy and National Hydrological Services.
Time-Frame: Operational by 2006.
Performance Indicator: Commitment by host country.
Cost Implications: Category II.
HYDROLARE: Status and plans
Action T6 (TF2)
Action: Submit weekly/monthly lake level/area data for the 150 GTN-L lakes to the International Data Centre;
submission of weekly/monthly altimeter-derived lake levels by Space Agencies to the International Data Centre.
Who: National Hydrological Services, through WMO CHy; Space Agencies; the new global lake information data centre.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Completeness of database: National Communications to UNFCCC.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Prototype database until February 2008 (GCOS-115) [see below]
Action T7 (TF2)
Action: Submit weekly/monthly lake level and area data measured during the19 th and 20th centuries for the 150 GTN-L
lakes to International Data Centre.
Who: National Hydrological Services, in cooperation with WMO CHy and the new global lake information data centre.
Time-Frame: Completion of archive by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Completeness of database, National Communications to UNFCCC.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Foreseen in the milestones agreed by the HYDROLARE SC [see below]
Action T8 (TF2)
Action: Submit weekly surface and sub-surface water temperature, date of freeze-up and date of break-up of 150
priority lakes in GTN-L.
Who: National Hydrological Services; Space Agencies in response to request from TOPC through the WMO.
Time-frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Completeness of database, reporting to UNFCCC.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Foreseen in the milestones agreed by the HYDROLARE SC [see below]
36
ECV Lake and Reservoir Levels and Volumes
Observational importance
Lakes and reservoirs data and information are indispensable for water resources management and
regional and global water cycle studies. Likewise, information on water volume changes in lakes can
be critical indicators of regional climate change.
Status
[Progress against T5, T6, T7, T8] The Federal Service of Russia for Hydrometeorology &
Environmental Monitoring (ROSHYDROMET) is in the process of developing an international data
centre on lakes and reservoirs (HYDROLARE). The Centre will be hosted by SHI and will operate
under the auspices of WMO. Its purposes include the establishment of a database of long-term time
series of lakes and reservoirs having permanent hydrological observations and undertaking analysis
and assessment of spatial and temporal trends in the area and volume of lakes and reservoirs. The
first meeting of the International Steering Committee of HYDROLARE took place in June 2007, with
participation from WMO, GCOS …. By March 2008, the prototype database system should be
operational and contain lake and reservoir data from Russia and the former Soviet Union, as well as
additional data from other countries, based on a priority list of major lakes and reservoirs. Likewise,
the database system will be fully established and WMO member countries will be requested to
contribute data and information on lakes and reservoirs. The Centre will undertake to cooperate with
international organizations and institutions, including those holding information relevant for the Centre.
HYDROLARE will establish the observational requirements of stakeholders and will undertake
activities using agreed methodologies and standards, which, when possible, will be based on existing
protocols. ROSHYDROMET is providing financial support to SHI to support HYDROLARE at the
national level, but additional donor support will be required to establish an operational global system.
Formal establishment of the International Data Centre on the Hydrology of Lakes and Reservoirs
(HYDROLARE), hosted by the State Hydrological Institute in St Petersburg, by agreement on MoU
between WMO and ROSHYDROMET on HYDROLARE in XXX 2008. First steering committee
meeting in June 2007, which developed a work plan (WMO-TD/No. – XXX). Next pending steps:
contact of national focal points to populate database; demonstration test operations of the Centre etc.
So far, prototype database contains data from Russia and other countries of the Former Soviet Union
only. Alternatives in Canada excluded for serious budget problems of GEMS/Water database hosted
by Environment Canada.
The HYDROLARE progress report in June 2008 showed …
Action T9 (TF2)
Action: Archive and disseminate information related to irrigation and water resources through FAO’s on-line
AQUASTAT database and other means.
Who: FAO.
Time-Frame: By 2010.
Performance Indicator: Availability of AQUASTAT database.
Cost Implications: Category II.
[Progress against T9] (Completed) Database on water resources and irrigation is available on the
AQUASTAT website http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/main/index.stm
No evidence of QC/QA in the Aquastat datasets. Most products are incomplete but two global
products at 10km are available namely the International Water Management Institute has developed a
Global Irrigated Area Map (GIAM)(May 2007 update) and FAO/University of Frankfurt. Finer
resolution products are available for some regional and national. Quality control is an issue for all
known products.
Action T10 (TF2)
Action: Strengthen and maintain existing snow-cover, snowfall observing sites and recover historical data.
Who: National Meteorological and Hydrological Services and research agencies, in cooperation with WMO CHy, WMO
CBS and WCRP, with oversight by TOPC and AOPC.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
37
Performance Indicator: Data submission to national centres such as the National Snow and Ice Data Center (USA).
Cost Implications: Category II.
Action T11 (TF2)
Action: Obtain integrated analyses of snow cover over both hemispheres.
Who: Space Agencies through CliC and IGOS–P Cryosphere, with advice from TOPC and AOPC.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Availability of snow-cover products for both hemispheres.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Action T12 (TF3)
Action: For snow cover and snow water equivalent, establish standards and protocols, design an optimum procedure
and designate International Data Centre responsibilities.
Who: TOPC/AOPC, with WCRP, WMO and IGOS-P Cryosphere.
Time-Frame: Planning complete by 2007.
Performance Indicator: The completed SWE network and a functioning inclusion of remote sensing measurements will
be the main indication of successful implementation.
Cost Implications: Category I.
ECV Snow cover
Observational importance
Snow can cover up to 50 percent of the Earth’s land surface during the Northern Hemisphere winter.
It has major effects on surface albedo and energy balance, and modifies the overlying atmospheric
thickness and surface temperature. Snow characteristics, such as thickness, seasonal and interannual variability and snow-cover duration, affect permafrost thermal state, the depth and timing of
seasonal freeze and thaw of the ground, as well as ablation of glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice. The
snow water equivalent (SWE) of the snow pack is important for hydrological modelling and runoff
prediction. Snowmelt plays a major role in seasonal energy exchanges between the atmosphere and
ground, affecting soil moisture and runoff, and thereby water resources. Snowfall as a fraction of total
precipitation is important in hydroclimatic models and in monitoring climate change.
Available analysis products
Snow cover extent
[Progress against T11] Daily Northern Hemisphere extent maps exist since May 1999 and gridded
(1024 by 1024 box grid, ca. 25 km) monthly statistics (frequency, anomaly) for the Northern
Hemisphere, North America and Asia (since May 1999??). Also available is the Interactive
Multisensor Snow and Ice Mapping System Daily Northern Hemisphere Snow & Ice Analysis. The
Northern Hemisphere EASE-Grid Weekly Snow Cover and Sea Ice Extent product, combines snow
cover and sea ice extent at weekly intervals since 1978, and snow cover alone for October 1966 to
October 1978. Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) products include level-2
swath data at 500-m resolution, gridded daily and 8-day composites at 500-m resolution, and daily
and 8-day global maps.
Global snow depth
[Progress against T10?] Operational global daily snow depth analysis is undertaken by the Canadian
Meteorological Centre. In addition, many national snow depth products exist.
T12?
there is no globally complete archive for in situ data of snow cover. NSIDC attempts to fill this need"
GCOS-115,
Comment:
Have plans for standards and protocols been established?
Action T13 (TF4)
Action: Maintain current glacier observing sites and add additional sites and infrastructure in South America, Africa, the
Himalayas and New Zealand; ensure continued functioning of WGMS.
Who: Parties’ national services and agencies coordinated by GTN-G, WGMS, USGS and IGOS-P Cryosphere.
Time-Frame: Continuing, new sites by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Completeness of database held at WGMS.
Cost Implications: Category III.
38
Progress?
Still missing measurements for southern hemisphere. Concern is funding and support to the global
network
Action T14 (TF5)
Action: Ensure continuity of current spaceborne cryosphere missions.
Who: Space agencies, in cooperation with IGOS-P Cryosphere.
Time-Frame: New sensors to be launched following demise of ICESat and CryoSat in next 3-5 years.
Performance Indicator: Appropriate follow-on missions agreed.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
Cryosat II will be launched 2009. ICESat 2 under discussion.
Action T15 (TF5)
Action: Define, publish and apply international observing standards and practices for borehole measurements.
Who: GTN-P and International Permafrost Association.
Time-Frame: Complete by 2005.
Performance Indicator: Published guidelines.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Guidelines given on the GTN-P website refer to GCOS Monitoring Principles and GTOS hierarchical
structure http://www.gtnp.org/guides_e.html
Need a review in light of IPY, including archiving of data, data access, whats next. Get reports on
standards etc.
Have the international observing standards been developed?
Action T16 (TF5)
Action: Maintain the current 125 CALM sites, ensure that all the other 287 boreholes in the GTN-P are active and
reporting; add 150 additional sites as identified by GTN-P including the high mountains of Asia, Europe, Southern
Hemisphere and North American alpine and lowlands as part of the IPY Thermal State of Permafrost campaign, ensure
that all use standards as defined by the IPA and provide data to the NSIDC.
Who: Parties’ national services/research institutions, with coordination through GTN-P and International Permafrost
Association, data holding by Geological Survey of Canada and NSIDC. IGOS-P cryosphere to ensure continuity and
associated Earth observation derived variables.
Time-Frame: Continuing. Addition of new sites during the IPY by 2008 with subsequent follow-on.
Performance Indicator: Completeness of database. Initiation of new sites.
Cost Implications: Category III.



125 CALM sites exist (http://www.udel.edu/Geography/calm/)
How many GTN-P boreholes are active and reporting? How many additional boreholes
been added under IPY?
Consider planning for Global Cryosphere Watch; IPY legacy
Action T17 (TF5)
Action: Implement operational mapping of seasonal soil freeze/thaw.
Who: Parties’ national services and NSIDC, with guidance from GTN-P and International Permafrost Association with
IGOS-P Cryosphere.
Time-Frame: Complete by 2010.
Performance Indicator: Actions using published guidelines.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Action T18 (TF7)
Action: Test prototype algorithms to retrieve the directional hemispherical reflectance factor (or black sky albedo) from
geostationary satellites on a daily and global basis.
Who: Space Agencies, especially EUMETSAT, in cooperation with the algorithm developers and the CEOS WGCV.
Time-Frame: Complete algorithm testing by 2005.
Performance Indicator: Availability of full suite of algorithms and associated processing chains that apply these
algorithms.
Cost Implications: Category II.

WMO R/SSC-CM foresee production of albedo ECV products; CM-SAF?
39

Only one global prototype product as been produced. Note plans of to produce Albedo from the
RSSC-CM
Action T19 (TF6)
Action: Obtain in situ calibration/validation measurements and collocated albedo products from all Space Agencies
generating such products.
Who: Space Agencies in cooperation with CEOS/WGCV.
Time-Frame: Full benchmarking/intercomparison by 2007.
Performance
Indicator:
Publication
of
inter-comparison/validation
reports.
Cost Implications: Category II.
EOS publication on global Albedo + reference to GTOS ECV report; Intercomparison is ongoing
(under the auspices of the WGCV-land product validation subgroup)
Action T20 (TF6)
Action: Identify the most appropriate satellite derived albedo for specific climate models.
Who: CEOS WGCV, in cooperation with GEWEX and the Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization
Schemes.
Time-Frame: Testing by 2007/8.
Performance Indicator: Data available to analysis centres.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Not yet undertaken
Action T21 (TF7)
Action: Implement globally coordinated and linked data processing to retrieve the directional hemispherical reflectance
factor (or black sky albedo) from geostationary satellites on a daily and global basis from archived (and current) satellite
data.
Who: Space Agencies, through the CGMS and WMO Space Programme.
Time-Frame: Back-process archived data by 2009, then continuous.
Performance Indicator: Completeness of archive.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Products are already being developed but intercomparison has yet to be undertaken. So difficult to
ascertain which is the best one. EOS product has been compared with MODIS product.
Action T22 (TF1)
Action: Establish international standards and specifications for the production of land-cover characterization maps.
Who: FAO, UNEP, GLCN and ISO (TC-211) in collaboration with GOFC-GOLD.
Time-Frame: Standards and specifications by 2005. Operation continuing.
Performance Indicator: Publication of standards.
Cost Implications: Category I.
LCCS version 3 (under ISO) for the class/legend. However no standard system developed for actual
map production.
Action T23 (TF8, TF9, TF10)
Action: Produce reliable accepted methods for land-cover map accuracy assessment.
Who: CEOS WGCV, in collaboration with GOFC-GOLD and GLCN.
Time-Frame: By 2005 then continuously.
Performance Indicator: Protocol availability.
Cost Implications: Category I.
Protocols and methods have been developed, however they are not often applied to the land cover
maps generated also metadata not provided with the map. Publication: GOFC-GOLD 25, March 2006
Action T24 (TF8, TF9, TF10)
Action: Commit to continuous 10-30m resolution optical satellite systems with data acquisition strategies at least
equivalent to the Landsat 7 mission for land cover.
Who: Space Agencies.
Time-Frame: Continuing.
Performance Indicator: Operational plans, data availability.
Cost Implications: Category IV.
40
Landsat continuation and Sentinel 2 mission approved. In addition CBERS 3 and 4 in planning.
Action T25 (TF8, TF9, TF10)
Action: Develop an in situ reference network and apply CEOS WGCV validation protocols for land cover.
Who: Parties’ national services, research institutes and Space Agencies, in cooperation with GOFC-GOLD,
CEOS/WGCV, FAO GLCN and the GTOS web-based data system TEMS.
Time-Frame: Network established by 2009.
Performance Indicator: Availability of validation statistics.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Very limited progress but in the humid tropics a forest/non-forest analysis network will be established
for FRA2010, capacity building provided for national staff to undertake the interpretation
Comment:
Validation of land cover even more important now for issues such as REDD (no agreement yet on
baseline). Source GOFC-GOLD source book. Bali Road Map. Issues such as REDD: ALOS PALSAR
sensor is considered as optimal sensor for undertaking this type of monitoring. There is a need for
agency to coordinate (FAO)
Action T26 (TF8, TF9, TF10)
Action: Generate annual products documenting global land-cover characteristics at resolutions between 250m and 1km,
according to internationally-agreed standards and accompanied by statistical descriptions of the maps’ accuracy.
Who: Parties’ national services, research institutes and Space Agencies through GLCN in collaboration with GOFCGOLD research partners, and the IGOS land theme (IGOL).
Time-Frame: By 2005, then continuously.
Performance Indicator: Data set availability
Cost Implications: Category III.
Globcover, 300 meter resolution (for 2005), but not validated. 250 meter not available.
Mod12Q1+M32 (2000 and 2001, modis 12 month , 1km dataset) -> has validation protocol and
confusion matrix
Comment: validation of the recent product not available
Action T27 (TF8, TF9, TF10)
Action: Generate maps documenting global land cover at resolutions between 10m and 30m every 5 years, according to
internationally-agreed standards and accompanied by statistical descriptions of the maps’ accuracy.
Who: Space Agencies, in cooperation with GCOS, GTOS, GLCN and other members of CEOS.
Time-Frame: First by 2005, then continuously.
Performance Indicator: Availability of operational plans, funding mechanisms and eventually maps.
Cost Implications: Category III.
No global product at that resolution, however GMES land monitoring core service is planning a
(approx 200 meter) res for Europe and higher res (approx 100 meter) for urban areas. USA: national
land imaging programme (aug 2007). Maybe other countries may have something similar (Australia,
Canada, etc.). Indians also have high res. SO VERY FAR FROM BEING ACHIEVED
Comment: Although the rules for REDD implementation are not yet finalized new land cover
categories need to be addressed (undisturbed forest baseline, deforestation and forest degradation).
Will need to be done annually.
Action T28 (TF11)
Action: Make fAPAR and LAI products available as gridded products at 250m to 1km resolution.
Who: Space Agencies, coordinated through CEOS WGCV, with advice from GCOS/GTOS.
Time-Frame: 2005.
Performance Indicator: Agreement on operational product.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Products are available from e.g. MODIS, SeaWIFS, MERIS, VGT, but products are quite different
when compared. Main supplier from ESA and NASA + Geoland also produces some products +
GLOBcarbon also produces a product. But no idea on validity/accuracy of each product.
41
Action T29 (TF12)
Action: Establish a calibration/validation network of in situ observing sites for fAPAR and LAI (reference sites).
Who: Parties’ national and regional research centres, in cooperation with Space Agencies coordinated by CEOS WGCV,
GCOS and GTOS.
Time-Fame: Network operational by 2006.
Performance Indicator: Data available to analysis centres.
Cost Implications: Category III.
No full validation network established but under development. Some ecological research sites (e.g.
Fluxnet, LTER). PAR monitored as a standard protocol but few sites generate reliable measurements
of FAPAR (e.g. BigFoot - but only has 7 sites all in USA).
Action T30 (TF11)
Action: Evaluate the various LAI satellite products and benchmark against ground truth to arrive at an agreed
operational product.
Who: Parties’ national and regional research centres, in cooperation with Space Agencies and CEOS WGCV and TOPC.
Time-Frame: Benchmark by 2006/7.
Performance Indicator: Agreement on operational product.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Some validation is undertaken by both national research groups and international entities, such as the
Land Product Validation (LPV) Subgroup of the CEOS WGCV (needs to be improved considerably)
Comment: Not a very stable measurement even in situ. LAI production is not at the same level as
fAPAR
Action T31 (TF11)
Action: Develop methodology for forest inventory information and begin acquisition of data.
Who: Parties and FAO.
Time-Frame: By 2009.
Performance Indicator: Availability of consistent statistical information.
Cost Implications: Category II.
New FRA2010 assessment has new methodologies for assessment (check). FRA2010 should be
encouraged to include accuracy / bias information for each country. + state methodologies used to
derive the information.
Comment: This action needs to be reformulated (is wrongly worded).
Action T32 (TF14)
Action: Reanalyze the historical fire disturbance satellite data (1982 to present).
Who: Space Agencies, working with research groups coordinated by GOFC-GOLD.
Time-Frame: By 2010.
Performance Indicator: Establishment of a consistent data set.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Not done
Action T33 (TF14)
Action: Continue the generation of active fire and burnt area products.
Who: Space Agencies, in collaboration with GOFC-GOLD.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Availability of data.
Cost Implications: Category III.
Active fire: ESA (ATSR World Fire Atlas) and NASA (TRMM and MODIS), Geostationary fire
monitoring has been undertaken using GOES (WF-ABBA) and MSG SEVIRI (EUMESAT Active fire
monitoring) . Future systems such as NPP/NPOESS-VIIRS. Burnt areas GFDE2 and true multi-year
burnt area products are being released (MODIS, L3JRC, Globcarbon)
Comment: Fire radiative power products are reaching maturity. EUMETSAT's land-SAF should
continue FRP production and a mechanism should be sought to extend to a global coverage, e.g.
through the CGMS.
42
Action T34 (TF13, TF14)
Action: Apply CEOS WGCV and GOFC-GOLD validation protocol to fire disturbance data.
Who: Space Agencies and research organizations.
Time-Frame: By 2006.
Performance Indicator: Publication of accuracy statistics.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Uneven application of validation. MODIS collection 5 very good. Vigorous intercomparison remains a
requirement
Action T35 (TF13)
Action: Make gridded fire and burnt area products available through a single International Data Centre.
Who: United Nations-affiliated Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), through GOFC-GOLD.
Time-Frame: Continuous.
Performance Indicator: Continued operation of the GFMC.
Cost Implications: Category II.
There is central portal which provides metadata and information on all available fire products
(including metadata and catalogue of product suppliers). Portal has been created at GFMC
Comment: Action needs to be modified. Existing work on fire radiant power needs to be continued
and extended to global coverage. and link to trace gas emissions should be developed further.
Action T36 (CF6)
Action: Expand TEMS to support the meta-data collection, collation and publication needs of the terrestrial ECVs and
associated data centres.
Who: Parties’ national services and research programmes contributing to TEMS, in cooperation with GTOS, GOSIC, and
GCMD, and in consultation with the GCOS Secretariat.
Time-Frame: By 2006.
Performance Indicator: Number of stations and nations submitting data to TEMS, Communication to UNFCCC.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Has been done (combined with GOSIC and other data portals). But TEMS needs to be further
populated.
Action T37 (TF1)
Action: Develop an experimental soil-moisture product from existing networks and satellite observations.
Who: Parties’ national services and research programmes, through IGWCO and TOPC in collaboration with Space
Agencies.
Time-Frame: 2009: development of an experimental product; 2011: quasi-operational production of a soil-moisture
product.
Performance Indicator: Availability of validated global satellite derived product and functioning GTN-SM providing
observations to an associated archive centre.
Cost Implications: Category II.
Products are available and routinely produced from scatterometers and radiometers (SMOS will be
launched in 2009)
Conclusions
Synthesis of National Reports:
(submit as separate document; UNFCCC Guidelines tables to be
used for global assessment?)
43