To create a framework for improved coordination of cryospheric observations conducted by research, long-term scientific monitoring, and operational programmes;
To achieve better availability and accessibility of data and information needed for both operational services and research;
To strengthen national and international institutional structures responsible for cryospheric observations;
To increase resources for ensuring the transition of research-based cryosphere observing projects to sustained observations.
Theme Team
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
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.
We did not start from scratch:
Development web site
Workshops
1st Workshop, Kananaskis, Canada, March 2005, supported by CSA, 22 participants
Blog
The Report
Chs 3-10: cryospheric elements
Ch 11: An Integrated and Coordinated System (1)
An Integrated and Coordinated System (2)
Ch 12: Implementation Actions (1)
Ch 12: Implementation (2)
Ch 12: Implementation* (3)
Ch 12: Implementation* (4)
Already Achieved an Impact
Already Achieved an Impact
Supplemental Slides
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
