Jeff Key NOAA/NESDIS Vladimir Ryabinin WCRP

1. Jeff Key NOAA/NESDISVladimir Ryabinin WCRP A presentation to the IGOS Partners IGOS-P-14, Paris, 30 May 2007

2. The cryosphere collectively describes elements of the earth system containing water in its frozen stateand includes sea ice, lake and river ice, snow cover, solid precipitation, glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets, permafrost and seasonally frozen ground. The cryosphere exists at all latitudes and in about one hundred countries.

3. Cryosphere Theme Goals To create a framework for improved coordinationof cryospheric observations conducted by research, long-term scientific monitoring, and operational programmes; To achieve better availability and accessibility of dataand information needed for both operational services and research; To strengthen national and international institutional structuresresponsible for cryospheric observations; To increase resourcesfor ensuring the transition of research-based cryosphere observing projects to sustained observations. The Cryosphere Theme proposal was approved at IGOSP-11, Rome, Italy, 27 May 2004

4. Theme Team Main authors: Jerry Brown, USA Don Cline, USA Josephino Comiso, USA Claude Duguay, Canada Guido Grosse, USA Ken Jezek, USA Paul Joe, Canada Boele Kuipers, Norway Rob Massom, Australia Walt Meier, USA Frank Paul, Switzerland Helmut Rott, Austria Sharon Smith, Canada Stein Tronstad, Norway Daqing Yang, USA Tingjun Zhang, USA Leadership: Jeff Key, Chair USA Mark Drinkwater, Vice-chair Netherlands Jinro Ukita, Vice-chair Japan Vladimir Ryabinin, WCRP Marzena Kaczmarska, SCAR Colin Summerhayes SCAR  Barry Goodison, Canada Victoria Lytle, CliC  Don Hinsman (liaison to IGOS) WMO Technical support: Angelique Prick, CliC Contributions from ~80 people in 17 countries throughout the development phase.

5. Approach • Determine our observational capabilities, • Define observational requirements, • Identify gaps, • Make recommendations based on the gaps, • Set the stage for implementation. Implementation itself is the second phase of the theme process.

6. We did not start from scratch: • Previous IGOS reports • GCOS Implementation Plan • CEOS/GCOS document on the satellite observations for UNFCCC • IPY documentation including project proposals • CliC project plans & documentation • Plans of various science and observing programs • WMO compendium of observational requirements

7. Developmentweb site http://igos-cryosphere.org

8. Workshops • 1st Workshop, Kananaskis, Canada, March 2005, supported by CSA, 22 participants • 2nd Workshop, hosted by JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan, April 2006, supported by JAXA and JAMSTEC, 36 participants • 3rd Workshop, hosted by ESA, ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, October 2006, supported by NOAA and NASA, 24 participants

9. Blog The report was open for public comment November 2006 - January 2007 The report represents a broad consensus on the development of cryospheric observations Forum

10. The Report Preface Foreword Executive Summary 1. The Cryosphere Theme 2. Applications of Cryospheric Data 3. Terrestrial Snow 4. Sea Ice 5. Lake and River Ice 6. Ice Sheets 7. Glaciers and Ice Caps 8. Surface Temperature and Albedo 9. Permafrost and Seasonally Frozen Ground 10. Solid Precipitation 11. An Integrated and Coordinated Observing System 12. Implementation App. A. References App. B. Observational Capabilities and Requirements App. C. Satellite Missions in Support of the Theme App. D. Acronyms App. E. Contributors

11. Disasters Health Energy Climate Water Weather Ecosystems Agriculture Biodiversity Cryosphere Ch 1: The CryosphereTheme Ch 2: Applications of Cryospheric Data Definition of the cryosphere Scope and Objectives Cryosphere, Weather, and Climate Importance of the Cryosphere for Society (including GEO SBAs)

12. Chs 3-10: cryospheric elements Terrestrial Snow Sea Ice Lake and River Ice Ice Sheets Glaciers and Ice Caps Surface Temperature and Albedo Permafrost and Seasonally Frozen Ground Solid Precipitation Role in Earth system Status of observations Shortcomings, gaps Concise element-specificrecommendations

13. Ch 11: An Integrated and Coordinated System (1) Ground based observations Satellite remote sensing • SAR • InSAR • PM • Altimetry • Radar Scatterometry • VIS to Thermal IR • Gravity • Ground control • Major Gaps (mostly NPOESS) Airborne observations Modelling, Data Assimilation, Reanalysis Data and Information Management Vision Related Systems

14. An Integrated and Coordinated System (2) Integrated near-real time products: CEOP-like approach More stations Cryo Obs Cryo Models Some stations In-Situ Data Archiving Center Model Output Data Archiving Center Data Integrating/Archiving Center Cryo Products! Joint with IGWCO, built around snow and precip

15. Ch 12: Implementation Actions (1) Table 12.1. Implementation actions in three timeframes. Space Infrastructure Near Surface: AUV/UAVs In Situ Infrastructure Data and Data Management Integrative Actions

16. Ch 12: Implementation (2) Phases: 1: 2007-2009, IPY. CliC IPY project “The State and Fate of the Cryosphere” (cluster lead). 2: 2010-2015. Preserve the legacy of the IPY observing and data and information management system; expand systemto the global cryosphere; realize plans or concepts for space observing systems for the cryosphere. 3: After 2015. Implement (hopefully) previously recommended space missions that fill key observational gaps, as well as routine in situ observations of such essential parameters as solid precipitation and/or snow water equivalent.

17. Ch 12: Implementation* (3) • Linkages • Implementation of CryOS as a stand-alone system would be nonsensical. Integration with other programs is essential. • Links within IGOS and IGOS Themes • Links to other international programs (GCOS, GTOS, etc.) • Cryospheric community of practice • Governance: • WCRP/CliC and ICSU/SCAR, together with reps of GEO and IPY. • Suggest that a permanent position or office to monitor and coordinate the implementation of CryOS be established. • CryOS implementation should be led by an oversight committee with expertise in the various cryosphere domains, as well as expertise in satellite and in situ systems. *This part of the report has been modified or added based on the CEOS SIT review.

18. Ch 12: Implementation* (4) • Commitments: • Support to date (travel, staff): • Space agencies - CSA, ESA, NOAA/NESDIS, NASA, JAXA • International bodies - ICSU/SCAR, WCRP/CliC • Research institutes - JAMSTEC • Capacity building and implementation might be undertaken as follows: • The IGOS Partners agree on the lead institution. • The IGOS Partners, and/or GEO, form a CryOS implementation group consisting of representatives from the major partners and stakeholders. • The CEOS Strategic Implementation Team (SIT) and WMO review the CryOS recommendations and indicate ways in which space and other agencies contribute to satellite and in situ observations of the cryosphere. • The lead institution and stakeholders works with national and international funding agencies to incorporate the Theme recommendations into existing programs or to develop new programs. • The CryOS implementation team works with the other IGOS Themes and relevant partners (GCOS, GTOS, etc.) to avoid duplication of effort. WMO Initiative: Global Cryospheric Watch *This part of the report has been modified or added based on the CEOS SIT review.

19. Contributions to IPY planning (multiple projects) IPY Task in GEO 10-year Work Plan (CL-06-05) Improved coverage of cryospheric elements in the GCOS Implementation Plan (autumn 2004) at the Theme initial phase Contribution to GCOS-CEOS plan of development of satellite-based products for UNFCCC (2006) Work with GEO, GCOS SC, OOPC, GTOS – increased awareness Support to CryoSat-2, re-launch 2009 Impact on ESA Earth Observation Programme: CoreH2O (snow hydrology) mission, possibility of secondary cryospheric objective on BIOMASS mission Team strengthening, awareness developing, community forming Already Achieved an Impact

21. Supplemental Slides

22. CEOS SIT Comments on the Report Overall: This is an extremely impressive piece of work which explores in detail the capabilities, requirements and gaps for observations of the Cryosphere. It says a lot about what agencies, frameworks, linkages and resources will be required for its implementation – but its hard to extract a clear message of: who exactly will be involved and how they will be resourced. Perhaps this is as far as the community can and should go at this stage, in particular given the evolution of IGOS-P. CryOS: Who will be involved? WMO, ICSU, IOC of UNESCO, WCRP through CliC and SCAR, GEO, and the IPY community. How will they be resourced? IPY has significant funding (indirect), WMO Congress 15 has resolved to initiate, with suitable partners, a Global Cryospheric Watch. Additional sources of direct support will be identified by CliC and SCAR as the next step of the process.

23. CEOS SIT Comments, cont. 1. Is the report suitably concise and clear? SIT: The report is extremely long at 138 pages but very well structured and presented in a way which makes the information accessible. The length perhaps reflects the multi-dimensional nature of the subject of the Cryosphere. The report is an impressive collection of information on the topic and will undoubtedly represent a milestone and reference document for the relevant communities over time. CryOS: This is a crosscutting theme and is unlike the other themes in terms of its scope. The many domains of the cryosphere – glaciers, ice sheets, sea ice, freshwater ice, snow, solid precipitation, and frozen ground - justify the level of detail without compromising the delivery of a robust set of recommendations for each domain. Nevertheless, since the SIT review the report length has been further reduced by 16 pages. 2. All the various stages of each process are fully described? SIT: Yes. The emphasis is very much on observations, and much lighter in terms of data integration, etc. CryOS: (No response necessary)

24. CEOS SIT Comments, cont. 3. Commitments: Details of commitments [requirements] which are in place, planned, and elements which are lacking? SIT: Substantial detail provided parameter by parameter in sections 3-10. CryOS: (No response necessary) 4. Objectives: “Measurable objectives” are addressed? SIT: Substantial detail provided - parameter by parameter and higher level (programmatic) milestones identified. 3 phases are proposed in order to better manage the process. CryOS: (No response necessary) 5. Feedback mechanisms to assess success? SIT: The following is the extent of the texts, from page 95 of the report: [text not repeated here] CryOS: The section on feedback has been expanded somewhat to include review workshops at three-year intervals, and dates for the first formal review and a Report update (2010-11). The cryosphere community of practice discussion was moved to the new Assessment and Feedback section.

25. CEOS SIT Comments, cont. 6. Data and information issues are addressed? SIT: Section 11.5 addresses these issues. It is not addressed in anywhere near as much detail as the observations. For example, on data integration CEOP is cited as a good example and the ‘digital globes’ technology is cited as being of interest. But there is no concrete specification or vision of the data and information aspects of the CryOS. An understanding of what will be necessary is presented. Perhaps its unrealistic in this report to expect too much. CryOS: Our vision is stated in the first sentence of that section: “CryOS envisions an integrative approach to processing and managing cryospheric data, where data from multiple sources are routinely combined to create higher-level products that can be easily used for integrated analyses.” The example of CEOP is appropriate. Our vision does not differ significantly from the CEOP model. This has been clarified (somewhat) in the report. 7. Delivered to IGOS-P Co-Chairs 5 weeks ahead of review meeting? SIT: Yes - received on 16 April. CryOS: (No response necessary) 8. Team leadership specified? SIT: Yes - WCRP/CliC and ICSU/SCAR. Other IGOS Partners are cited but there is no short and clear list of the intended team - or of intended participants by name. CryOS: The governance discussion has been put in a separate section and clarified.

26. CEOS SIT Comments, cont. 9. Roles and responsibilities: between users and providers clearly defined in considerable detail after appropriate consultations. SIT: There is considerable discussion within section 12 onthe various linkages required – including use of a cryospheric community of practice. It would be useful to hear in presentation a specific response from the team on this point. CryOS: All principal stakeholders for all cryosphere domains are identified in the report. The majority of them are involved now. We will work with the remaining groups in the coming months. Our integration vision includes all essential groups. 10. Resources clearly identified SIT: There is no estimate of required resources or specific sources identified for their provision…Perhaps this could be a further point to be explored in detail at P-14). CryOS: A section on commitments has been added, with implementation considerations. We envision the implementation of the report recommendations as the next step, resulting in an implementation plan that clearly identifies resources for each action/recommendation. We hope that the IGOS Partners will have suggestions in this regard at IGOS-P-14.