NOTES FROM THE FIFTH FORMAL CEOP TELECONFERENCE ON MODEL OUTPUT
ISSUES HELD ON APRIL 28, 2003
(FINAL, MAY 31, 2003)
1.
INTRODUCTION
The fifth CEOP Teleconference call focused on CEOP model output requirements and
related issues particularly as a follow-up to the main points discussed at the CEOP
Implementation Planning Meeting that took place at Berlin, Germany from April 2-4, 2003. The
call took place on 28 April 2003 at all locations. The participants were:
Toshio Koike (CEOP Lead Scientist and Director of Implementation)
Hans Luthardt and Burkhardt Rockel (Hamburg, Germany; Representing Max Planck Institute)
Sean Milton (Bracknell, UK; Representing The Met Office in the UK)
Pedro Viterbo (Reading, UK; Representing ECMWF)
Michael G. Bosilovich (Greenbelt, Maryland, USA; Representing DAO at NASA GSFC)
Ken Mitchell (Camp Springs, Maryland, USA; Representing NCEP)
Steve Williams (Boulder, Colorado, USA; Representing UCAR/JOSS, CEOP/Data Mgmt)
John Roads (La Jolla, California, USA; Representing Scripps, CEOP/WESP)
Sam Benedict (San Diego, California, USA; Representing International CEOP)
Kamal Puri (Melbourne, Australia; Representing BMRC)
Hajime Nakamura and Takayuki Matsumura (Tokyo, Japan; Representing JMA)
Matt Rodell (Greenbelt, Maryland, USA; Representing GLDAS at NASA GSFC)
S. V. Singh and Gopal Raman Iyengar (New Delhi, India; Representing NCMRWF)
Jose Marengo at San Jose Dos Campos, Brazil the representative for CPTEC, and a CoChair of CEOP/WESP missed the call due to a possible technical difficulty in receiving the
incoming connection to his designated number.
2.
BACKGROUND
The call was made on behalf of Dr Toshio Koike, Lead Scientist for the Coordinated
Enhanced Observing Period (CEOP) initiative to thank all the participants for their attention to the
provision of model output products in support of CEOP analyses and to continue the process of
refining model output requirements in order to ensure the main objectives of CEOP will be met.
As background to this element of CEOP a draft guidance document to further clarify
CEOP requirements for model outputs has been provided through a link at the CEOP Data
Management Web Page: http://www.joss.ucar.edu/ghp/ceopdm/. An array of other related
information that is both general in nature and specific to each Center’s contributions to this aspect
of CEOP are also posted on the CEOP Model Outputs Page accessible at the referenced Page.
The most recent material related to CEOP model output issues were related to the
discussions and breakout sessions that took place at Berlin, Germany during the period from April
2-4, 2003 as part of the CEOP Second Implementation Planning Meeting. The recommendations
and actions related to CEOP Model Output development and the over all set of matters coming
out of the breakout sessions at the Berlin Meeting were distributed prior to the call and formed the
primary basis for the discussion on the conference call. The other element of the call was a
status of each Centers efforts in producing relevant Model Output products that are responsive to
the CEOP requirements for this element of the initiative.
3.
MODEL OUTPUT PRODUCTS ISSUES
There were a number of general issues covered during the call. The recommendations
related to those issues were accepted by all of the CEOP Model Output Center Spokespersons
on the call for action. In some cases an individual spokesperson took responsibility for work to be
undertaken only in relation to the contribution to be provided by their individual Center.
3.1
Main Recommendations
The following general agreements were reached during the call that underscored earlier
agreements or otherwise impacted or modified those agreements including those made at the
Berlin meeting:
(i)
It was agreed that network Common Data Form (netCDF) was an appropriate format for
MOLTS data and that MPI could accept and archive MOLTS products in that format.
(ii)
It was reiterated that gridded (2D-3D) fields are to be in a common GRIB format. The
principal issue in this matter is an action (A1) on MPI (Lautenschlager/Luthardt/Rockel) to
provide a “common GRIB code Table” to all the Center Spokespersons. The corollary action
(A1a) falls on each CEOP Model Output Center Spokespersons (Viterbo, Mitchell, Marengo,
Puri, Bosilovich, Rodell/Houser, Milton, Singh/Iyengar and Nakamura) to add a column to
the GRIB code Table provided by MPI that identifies its own GRIB nomenclature for the variables
identified in the MPI Table. This will allow the data at MPI to be archived with a CEOP “common”
scheme for users of the data, while at the same time making it unnecessary for each Center to
output their data in a manner different from their usual process. It would be opportune if the
Table from MPI could be ready for distribution by mid-May and if the response from the
Centers receiving the Table were responded to by the end of May.
(iii)
It was agreed that perhaps THE key action necessary for further success of the Model
Output element of CEOP was for each Center to contact MPI to establish an electronic
connection that would allow a transfer of a sample of their data that would ultimately reside in the
MPI CEOP archive. The action (A2) is on each Center Spokesperson (Viterbo, Mitchell,
Marengo, Puri, Bosilovich, Rodell/Houser, Milton, Singh/Iyengar and Nakamura) to make
this connection or to verify that they have already successfully transferred data to MPI. It was
understood at the time of the call that the Met Office, NCEP, DAO and ECPC had all provided
MPI with sample output of the data they would be contributing to the CEOP model output archive.
This leaves ECMWF, JMA, CPTEC and BMRC, among the Centers already committed to
provide Model products to CEOP, to take action to connect with MPI and submit an appropriate
data sample for verification of the link and definition of their data format. NCMRWF can be aware
of this action and take the initial steps to set up contact with MPI in due course as they have only
recently agreed to participate in CEOP.
In the ensuing conversation the agreement for each Center to provide one months worth
of data (November 2002) to MPI that was forged at the Berlin meeting was called into question.
The plan to accommodate MPI’s desire to have any data entered into the CEOP database to be
provided sequentially was also discussed. To expedite matters it was, therefore, decided that
because different Centers were implementing/initializing different data generation schemes, both
forecast and analysis, at different times to generate data for CEOP, there was no way to
synchronize the start of the data streams from every Center. The vision of a fully coordinated
Model Output database with data from all contributing Centers starting in unison from 1 October
2002 through the end of 2004 (EOP-3, 4 time period) was determined not to be practical.
The new vision is for all Centers to consider the CEOP requirements for data that span
the entire CEOP observational period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2004 (EOP 1-4) and to
begin providing data to MPI at the soonest time within that period that is practical for them and to
continue to provide data in sequence from that earliest starting point up to the latest date possible
up to and including the end of EOP-4 (31 December 2004). The expected outcome of this
process will be a CEOP Model Output database at MPI covering all CEOP EOP’s with a few up to
all Centers having data that cover any individual EOP.
The main issues associated with this new vision are the immediate compliance with
Action A2 above, for each Center that has not already done so, to connect with MPI immediately
and to provide to them a sample of the data they will be generating for CEOP. For the purpose of
this critical exercise, any amount of data is sufficient in order for MPI to understand and
attempt to accommodate the individual formats, especially the number of files and their
content. According to the discussion on the teleconference this action is specifically required of
Viterbo, Marengo, Puri, and Nakamura, on behalf of ECMWF, CPTEC, BMRC and JMA
respectively, by the end of May so that a report can be made at the time of the next CEOP
Model Output Issues Conference call in early June (see item 4. below).
The issue of accommodating the request by MPI to have data being submitted to them
provided in sequential time moving forward from an initial date must be kept in mind but should
not necessarily delay the action (A2, above) to submit to them as soon as possible a sample of
the data that will ultimately be coming in a sequential stream from any given Center. Clarification
of this stipulation is related to the need to weight the importance of showing that data can be
provided (pushed) to MPI by way of an FTP link, the need for MPI to know as soon as possible
the format of the data they will ultimately be receiving and the complication to MPI of going back
to fill in the database with data that is out of sequence.
Ideally, by the end of May, all of the Centers will have contacted MPI, sent them a
sample of their data from the beginning of the period where they can then continue to
“push”, or perhaps (in the case of ECMWF) to have “pulled”, data to/by MPI on a regular
basis, in sequence, from as far back in the CEOP observational period as possible (1 July
2001) and forward to as near to the end of the observational period as possible 31
December 2004.
(iv)
A critical factor in the usability of the database at MPI is the ability of users to access the
database in its planned form. MPI (Luthardt) has provided a new web-page accessible at MPI
that may serve as the interface their Climate and Environmental Data Retrieval and Archive
System (CERA) database. The URL is http://www.mad.zmaw.de/CEOP. After receiving a user
account (on request) you can explore the date base CERA using the (java-based) browser. Some
CEOP data (NCEP_MOLTS, 12/2002 -03/2003) are already available for direct download.
Action (A3) is for each CEOP Model Output Center Spokesperson (Viterbo, Mitchell, Marengo,
Puri, Bosilovich, Rodell/Houser, Milton, Singh/Iyengar and Nakamura) to access the URL
link and to verify that they are able to view and download the data that are currently there and to
report and issues with this process to Hans Luthardt, luthardt@dkrz.de.
3.2
Status at Contributing Centers
In addition to the documentation serving as a focus for the discussion, each Center
Representative on the call was asked to give a brief status of where they stand with regard to
implementing that baseline set of "requirements".
(i)
Puri noted that work had progressed on the development of both MOLTS and Gridded
products being provided by BMRC. MOLTS were being produced “on the fly” at the moment but
were due to be put into the operational stream in the near future. Connections with MPI to
provide sample data and to develop a routine mechanism for pushing data to MPI on a regular
basis from a starting point near the time of the start of EOP-2 (1 October 2002) were being
explored. Dr. Lawrie Rikus who is doing the CEOP MOLTS preparation work at BMRC has
been asked (Action A4) to contact MPI about the other relevant actions as noted during the call
and outlined above.
(ii)
Viterbo noted that ECMWF would contact MPI as soon as possible (Action A5) to work
out a link for making data available for the CEOP Model Output archive at MPI. This should be
accomplished before early June in time for a report during the next conference call. Viterbo
agreed that ECMWF would begin providing data starting with the beginning of EOP-1 (1 July
2001) and continue in sequence up to August 2002 if no other resources came available to
continue the ERA-40 data beyond that point (see below). Also, as long as the ECMWF data were
“pulled” into MPI and there was a stipulation in the database that they were for research purposes
only there would be no charge for their provision to CEOP.
ECMWF can not guarantee data from ERA-40 beyond August 2002 unless an additional
funding request is fulfilled. Knowledge of the status of this request will be provided by Viterbo in
due course. Any specific assistance that CEOP/WCRP/GEWEX can provide, such as a letter of
support for this effort beyond August 2002, will be requested by Viterbo if it is deemed
necessary.
ECMWF agreed to assist the NCMRWF with the provision of compression software
necessary for NCMRWF to participate fully in contributing to CEOP requirements for Model
products. The contact email is, data.services@ecmwf.int. Singh/Iyengar have the action (A6)
to contact this service and begin the process to receive the GRIB related software as soon as
possible and to advise Viterbo, Pedro.Viterbo@ecmwf.int if there are any complications with this
interaction. The ECMWF was commended for undertaking this effort.
(iii)
Mitchell, reported that NCEP connections with MPI had been established and that data
were flowing through a daily FTP process that was established on January 18 2003 and has
continued forward since then. This is an example of how it may be necessary to go back and fill
in the period from 1 October 2002 up to mid-January 2003 in order to get a complete EOP-3
dataset of NCEP model output for the CEOP archive. The issue will have to be faced by MPI with
support from the Centers in whatever way it can to be resolved and ensure the most complete
datasets are available in due course. Mitchell may wish to accept the action (A7) to begin to look
at how to work with MPI to “backfill” data that would arrive at MPI out of sequence. It may be that
if the data are only stored at MPI, rather than processed for archiving in any manner, during this
interim period, then data could be sent out of sequence for placement in the archive in sequence
at a future time.
(iv)
Milton reported that the Met Office was working closely with MPI to ensure that data
could be sent electronically as planned. It is expected that by the end of May (action A8)
arrangements will be made for the Met Office to send both MOLTS and gridded data to MPI
starting from October 1, 2002 and proceeding onward to cover EOP-3 and -4 time periods.
(v)
It was understood from Marengo that contact between CPTEC and MPI would be
established soon (action A9) that would allow CPTEC to begin to set up the necessary protocol
for a transfer of both the MOLTS and gridded data in due course.
(vi)
Roads reported that contact had been established between ECPC and MPI and that data
had begun to be transferred electronically. Procedures were being put in place (action A10) to
allow the connection and transfer of data to continue on a routine basis.
(vii)
Nakamura and Matsumura reported that JMA was ready to being a file transfer process
with MPI but there had been a delay in anticipation of the receipt of the questionnaire and sample
GRIB code table from MPI that might clarify further the FTP process and simplify the process of
connecting with MPI. There was agreement on the call that it was not necessary to delay further
at this time but to begin an effort to contact MPI and attempt to send sample data and to begin to
set up procedures to begin routine transfers soon. Action A11 was accepted to start the process
that would lead toward delivery of a sample set of data from JMA to MPI by the end of May 2003.
(viii)
Singh and Iyengar agreed to begin (action A12) producing MOLTS products by the end
of May and to contact MPI to set up procedures for transfer these products to the CEOP archive
by way of an FTP process. They also accepted an action (A6; see Item (ii) above) to get with the
technical services group at ECMWF, data.services@ecmwf.int to find a way to obtain the
software necessary to produce the gridded products and contribute them to the CEOP archive at
MPI. As soon as the necessary software is obtained production should begin and a sample of
the data sent to MPI (action A13) so that procedures can be established for routine transmittal of
the gridded data files as soon as possible.
(xi)
Rodell noted that the GLDAS effort was continuing at GSFC and that new considerations
for producing products at smaller spacial scales were being discussed. Two proposals have been
submitted for work that would enhance the current capabilities and that would allow for a greater
contribution to CEOP. Final decisions on these proposals have not been received but Rodell
agreed to keep the group informed of their progress, in due course.
(xi)
Bosilovich reported that DAO had the MOLTS and gridded data ready for transfer to
MPI and that a connection had already been established to ensure the data could be transmitted
electronically on a routine basis (action A14). It was assumed that the starting point for the data
would be the 1 October 2002 start of EOP-3 and that data would be available as a contribution to
the CEOP database at MPI from that date onward to the end of EOP-4.
In the ensuing discussion it was agreed that all the contributors to this aspect of CEOP
supported the concept of a CEOP article to be developed and published soon in an appropriate
technical publication. The updated outline of such a document provided by Drs Bosilovich and
Bollasina was discussed. All the Centers were asked to contribute to this work (action A15).
The leads for each section, as noted in the outline, are prepared to follow-up with the participants
on the call to obtain material that characterizes their specific contribution to the CEOP Model
Output effort and to organize this material into a common format for integration with the other
elements of article. Any comments related to this overall effort should be made directly to
Bosilovich, mikeb@dao.gsfc.nasa.gov.
4.
NEXT CONFERENCE CALL ON CEOP MODEL OUTPUT ISSUES
Although it was not agreed during the call when the next call would be scheduled it is
being proposed here that the next (sixth) CEOP conference call on Model Output issues would
take place on Monday June 2 2003. It is proposed that the call will take place again at the
following times: 0500 at San Diego, 0600 at Boulder, 0800 at Washington DC, 0900 at Sao
Paulo, 1300 in the UK, 1400 at Hamburg, 2100 at Tokyo, 2200 at Melbourne and 1730 at New
Delhi. Benedict has action (A16) to coordinate the origination of the call from the USA including
to address the status of pending action items, confirm participation and provide notification of the
final details of the call, in due course. The minimum list of participants is expected to be those on
the current call as listed in Item 1. above with Marengo.