2.1.1 Dr. John Townshend, Chair of the Joint Scientific and Technical Committee of the GCOS, provided an update on GCOS status. He summarized the main objectives of GCOS and stressed its comprehensive responsibility with respect to climate, including not only the impact of land surface properties on climate but also the impacts of climate change on terrestrial characteristics. Its work is carried through various panels, all of which were joint panels either with other observing systems, or with the WCRP. No joint panels with IGBP (International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme) had yet been achieved which was to be regretted.
2.1.2 The first of the three main objectives of GCOS is to prepare a comprehensive set of plans. This work had gone through at least one phase and for some aspects two versions of plans have already been proposed. The second of GCOS's main objectives has been to implement the initial observing system and considerable progress has been made here in the form of several networks including the GCOS Upper Air Network and the GCOS Surface Network.
2.1.2 The third objective relates to the development of future plans and implementation beyond the Initial Observing System (IOS), which for space components is largely been carried through co-operation with the Committee for Earth Observing Satellites. The latter has led to a proposed strengthening of the role of the Global Observing Systems Space Panel (GOSSP) in assessing requirements for space observations.
2.1.3 The role of the Joint Data and Information Management Panel would likely be restricted to crosscutting issues leaving most specific data and management issues to the individual science panels.
2.1.4 A major activity for this year is the preparation of a report on the inadequacies of climate observations in support of the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the TOPC was encouraged to generate a submissions for inclusion in this document (refer to Section 8.0 below).
2.2.1 Dr. James Gosz, the Chair of the GTOS Steering Committee (GTSC) provided information on the current status and near-future plans for GTOS. Since the last TOPC meeting, several important developments have taken place, including:
the establishment of the GTOS Steering Committee;
preparation of several project proposals;
preparation of an implementation plan, based on the GTOS Planning Group report and SC discussions;
strengthening linkages with GCOS, GOOS and other global change initiatives;
cosponsoring a meeting on terrestrial ecosystem networks;
information dissemination.
2.2.2 The establishment of a network of terrestrial ecological observing sites is a key initial GTOS activity. The impetus for this initiative came from a meeting of representatives of ecosystem networks sponsored by GCOS, GTOS, and IGBP in Guernica, Spain, from 17 to 20 June 1997 (GCOS-38). At that meeting, the representatives of the participating networks endorsed the concept of, and expressed interest to participate in a global network of ecological sites. The proposed network, the GT-Net, would be consistent with the GHOST (Global Hierarchical Observing Strategy) sampling approach developed by the TOPC (GCOS 32).
2.2.3 At the Guernica meeting, critical need was identified for an activity that would (i) demonstrate the feasibility of a global terrestrial network and (ii) provide the means by which the practical aspects of establishing and operating the network could be developed and tested. The participants proposed a demonstration project on net primary productivity (NPP) of terrestrial ecosystems. NPP was chosen because of its ecological significance and the existing and future measurement capabilities, especially through space observations. Further information on the project and progress made at this meeting is presented in Sections 4.4 and 5.1.
2.2.4 The second meeting of the GTOS Steering Committee will take place in Santander, Spain, from 15 to 19 June 1998 and will be chaired by the new GTOS SC chairman, Dr. James Gosz of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. Dr. Gosz also chairs the U.S. LTER Network (a member of the GT-Net) and the International LTER Network. The main issues discussed at this meeting will be :
GTOS Implementation plan
Data and Information Management
Space Observations
Terrestrial Observations
Networks
Collaboration with other organizations and programmes
GTOS programme development
Functioning of GTOS
The TOPC and results of this meeting will be presented by Dr. Cihlar.
2.3.1 Dr. Ron Wilson, as a representative of the Global Observing Systems Information Centre (GOSIC), provided a brief report on the meeting of the Joint Data and Information Management (JDIMP) Panel in Manoa, Hawaii, 28 April - 1 May 1998. The JDIMP met in a joint session with the Atmospheric Observation Panel for Climate (AOPC).
2.3.2 The JDIMP discussed progress on the intersessional work plan, including: the drafting of new terms of reference and a plan reflecting the new responsibilities for ocean and terrestrial observations, the development of a metadata standard for G3OS data sets and, with the establishment of the GOSIC at the University of Delaware (refer to Section 10.1), an approach to co-ordinating data management aspects of the G3OS.
2.3.3 With respect to the JDIMP plan and terms of reference, the meeting noted that two previous JDIMP responsibilities (to identify data sets relevant to meeting G3OS objectives, and to identify and redress gaps in available G3OS data sets) were in fact being carried out by the scientific panels. The JDIMP meeting participants agreed that the expertise to carry out these tasks was generally available in the panels and not in the JDIMP. Thus it was recommended that these scientific activities should no longer be the responsibility of the JDIMP. The JDIMP will continue to be concerned with the definition of adequate metadata standards, with identifying cross-cutting data and information management issues, with the provision of advise and oversight on the performance of data and information systems, and with the development of the GOSIC.
2.3.4 The AOPC endorsed the new focus for the JDIMP, which in fact cleared up an area of duplication between the two panels in identifying data requirements and specifying some of the data management needs. The AOPC meeting also addressed the further development of the Global Upper Air Network (GUAN) and the Global Surface Network (GSN). Further, the AOPC concentrated on the development of the observation system for atmospheric constituents. No detailed information regarding the results of these discussions was available prior to the TOPC meeting.
2.4.1 Dr. Jurate Landwehr presented information about the 1997 workshop entitled "Workshop on Indices and Indicators for Climate Extremes" which was held on 3-6 June 1997 in Asheville, North Carolina. It was hosted by NCDC, sponsored by GCOS, WMO and CLIVAR, and chaired by Mr. Thomas Karl. Attending were about 200 people from around the world. Additional sponsors included several insurance and re-insurance companies who are interested in climate change and its effect on the probabilities of more frequent and/or larger future claims. These companies have very specific concerns with respect to quantifying the probabilities of natural disaster extremes. Munich Reinsurance provided a list of data items of concern to them, which included air temperature, precipitation, wind speed and hail and lightning frequency and severity. Many of these variables were needed at a high temporal resolution (such as hourly maximum) that is not usually considered necessary for climatic data sets.
2.4.2 The first part of the workshop was devoted to presentations related to the assessment of regional climate trends. Three observations can be made: (1) there is a need to adopt a long-term perspective when discussing climate trends -- a 20 or 30 years window may not be sufficient; (2) the quality and commensurability of measurements in long records are critical for trend analysis; and (3) it is necessary that the same label be used for the same phenomena. For example, flooding cannot be defined by high precipitation averages in one case/country and extreme flow events in another, if meaningful comparisons are to be made.
2.4.3 The second part was devoted to three breakout sessions, which discussed statistics, analytical methods, and indices appropriate for the study of trends in time series of various phenomena. The three sessions addressed a) storms, hurricanes, lightning, etc.; b) precipitation; and c) temperature. Reports and recommendations of the three committees, along with the presentations will be published as a book. In all cases, the increasing importance of extreme events (and their associated probabilities) was evident.
2.4.4 Data needs to address the above issues were also discussed at the workshop. It is anticipated that specific data collection activities will be initiated to provide the basis for studying the identified questions. These data sets will be highly useful to TOPC because of their high temporal resolution (current global data sets are mostly aimed at monthly means).
2.4.5 TOPC agreed that Dr. Landwehr would continue to be the Panel’s contact with these activities, and will ensure that the interests of the user community are represented as appropriate.
2.5.1 Dr. Townshend provided a description of the Integrated Global Observation Strategy (IGOS).
2.5.2 A single origin for the IGOS is impossible to identify. Indeed whatever origins of the recent discussions of the IGOS integrated systems of space and in situ observations had been successfully developed, especially in the field of weather forecasting through WMO’s World Weather Watch. Conceptually, IGOS is based on the simple recognition that the range of global observations needed to adequately understand Earth processes, monitor the Earth and assess impacts exceeds the capability - scientifically, technically and financially - of any one country. Hence co-operation is necessary. Such co-operation must be based on a clear understanding between partners of the overall needs and the respective roles of partners to enable priorities to be addressed such that issues are neither duplicated nor omitted. As such, IGOS would not replace the bottom-up scientifically driven approach to individual concerns but would rather provide the overall framework against which progress can be measured.
2.5.3 In terms of the current evolution of ideas about an overall strategy, the beginning of explicit international discussions can be traced back to the 1994 meeting of the GCOS/JSTC in Hamburg. Earlier than that at the CEOS Plenary in London in 1991 the British National Space Centre developed the initial database of all existing and planned activities. Although this was paper-based it did have the first assessment of the extent to which requirements were being met, and a document was produced and distributed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) meeting in Brazil. In Berlin at the 1993 CEOS plenary it was agreed to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between space capabilities and the requirements of users resulting in a Task Force. Responsibility for the data base of user needs was led by WMO and the compilation of space observing system capabilities was led by the European Space Agency. Today, WMO is still managing the database, which is available on the Internet.
2.5.4 In 1995 the NASDA (National Space Development Agency, Japan) brought forward proposals to a number of agencies that a so-called Integrated Global Observation System should be considered. At the 1995 CEOS Plenary in Ottawa a side bar discussion contained a series of presentations from NASDA, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, USA) EUMETSAT (European Organization for Meteorological Satellites) and GCOS. As a result of the latter meeting a CEOS-sponsored ad hoc meeting was held in Seattle in March, 1996. This focused on the Space component of an Integrated Global Observation Strategy (rather than a System). A follow-on meeting was held later that year in September, sponsored by the three global observing systems, on the development of an IGOS for In Situ observations. One immediate outcome of these meetings was to call IGOS a strategy, not a system. This was in recognition of the fact that systems already exist and that IGOS would in reality be the collective of existing and new systems.
2.5.4 At the CEOS Plenary held in Canberra in November of 1996, a decision was made to set up two parallel activities. One was directed towards setting up prototypical projects to demonstrate the value of an integrated approach, called the Strategic Implementation Team (SIT) and the other to carry out an improved analysis of the relation between capabilities and requirements in an Analysis Group.
2.5.6 SIT first met in Irvine in February of 1997, where six projects were set up including the Global Observation of Forest Cover project to be discussed later in this meeting. Subsequently SIT met in Oxford in October 1997 and in Paris in March 1998, having had its mandate renewed by the CEOS Plenary in Toulouse in 1997. The Analysis Group first met in Darmstadt, Germany in March 1997, in Tokyo in July 1997, and in Silver Spring, Maryland in September 1997.
2.5.7 In parallel with this activity, the Sponsors of the three global observing systems (G3OS) endorsed the concept of an IGOS and prepared a discussion paper addressing a number of key issues. Recently, it was agreed that the joint space panel (GOSSP) be the controlling body for communicating the G3OS requirements to the CEOS affiliates. This task will require a broadening of the role of the panel and involve obtaining the approval of the sponsoring bodies.
