WGCV 12, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany 4th - 6th December 1996 DRAFT Meeting Minutes Wednesday, 4th December 1996 (09:00) 1. Welcome Wolfgang Noak 2 Chair's report Alan Belward, Chairman WGCV12 2.1 Minutes Review 2.2 Review of agenda 2.3 Actions from WGCV11 2.4 IGOS meetings 2.5 Report from CEOS plenary 3 Dossier Status James Dodge 4 Reports from Subgroups 4.1 SAR Calibration Yves-Louis Desnos 4.2 Microwave Sensors James Shiue 4.3 Infrared and Visible Optical Sensors Ian Barton 4.4 Terrain Mapping (see Friday 6 Dec) 5 IOCCG (Ocean Colour) Activities Mike Rast for John Withrow 6 Country Reports 6.1 Norway Lasse Pettersson 6.2 NASA Agency Report Jim Dodge 6.3 Eumetsat Stephen Tjemkes 6.4 ESA Evertt Attema 6.5 NOAA - N Rao 7 Action Plans - Terms of Reference Alan Belward 6. Country Reports (cont) 6.6 Germany/DARA Klaus-Dieter Rockweitz 8 Special Presentation Calibration of Interferometrically Derived DEMs A. Roth 9 Tour of DLR Facilities Thursday, 5th December, 09.00 10 Three Year Work Plan Alan Belward 10.1 - Communications - WWW 10.2 Identify Key Conferences 10.3 Specialist Sessions 10.4 Cal/Val Slide Set 10.5 Build Key Bibliographic References 10.6 Pre launch Information 10.7 Co-ordinate with WGISS 10.8 Linkages to External Groups 10.9 Involve External Experts 10.10 Dossier 10.11 Test Sites 10.12 Dictionary 10.13 Ad Hoc Validation Groups 10.14 Validation Activities 10.15 Ongoing CalVal Assessment 10.16 Data Continuity Recommendations 10.17 Annual Review DARA-Hosted Tour of Deutsches Museum and Airfield Friday, 6th December, 09.00 11 Newsletter Status Mark Hutchins 4.4 (Cont.) Terrain Mapping Subgroup Report Ian Dowman 12 GCOS Presentation David Croom 6. Country Reports (cont) 6.7 Australia Country Report Ian Barton 6.8 Canada Phil Teillet 6.9 European Commission Guisseppe Zibordi 6.10 India Kiran Kumar 13 NASDA Report and Special Presentation OCTS Calibration and Validation Hiromi Oaku 14 Summary Session Alan Belward 14.1 Action Item Summary 14.2 Next Meeting 14.3 Adjourn Annex A - WGCV12 Agenda Annex B - Attendance List Wednesday, 4th December 1996 (09:00) The meeting began with brief introductions around the room. 29 Attendees representing 18 different agencies were in attendance the beginning of the meeting. 1. WELCOME WOLFGANG NOAK W Noak welcomed WGCV12 attendees with a short presentation describing the remote sensing data centre. Activities include data acquisition, user-oriented data pre-processing, archiving and storage, data distribution, and promotion of data usage/technology transfer. Staff are located both locally in Oberpfaffenhofen and in Neustreiltz. The Earth Observation activities are currently focused on two areas; SAR data and atmospheric sensors. Noak described the ground infrastrucutre at DFD and noted that they operate several X-band receiving stations including those in Gabon, Antarctica and Neustrelitz. Additional receiving stations are planned for Russia and S America. Noack also reviewed the structure and responsibilities at DFD. Following this there was a brief description of local logistics. 2 CHAIR'S REPORT ALAN BELWARD, CHAIRMAN WGCV12 A Belward welcomed the participants to the meeting and thanked DARA and DFD-DLR for hosting the meeting. 2.1 Minutes Review The minutes from WGCV11 were noted and no comments were made and the minutes were accepted as written. 2.2 Review of agenda Belward reviewed the agenda for WGCV12. A few changes to the draft agenda were noted specifically the addition of a tour of the DFD-DLR facility and the shifting of some presentations. Two time periods were available for presentation of country reports, and these were assigned based on individual preference and travel schedule. The WGCV12 Agenda Attached as Annex A. 2.3 Actions from WGCV11 Belward reviewed selected outstanding action items from WGCV12 and notes about selected actions are described below. All other WGCV11 actions not mentioned are either closed or have been superseded by new actions from WGCV12. 11.1 Chair to distribute IGOS paper. The paper was not distributed but a description of IGOS will be presented during the Chair's Report from Plenary. Closed. 11.1 Chair to invite participation from IOCCG. John Withrow will be the WGCV representative from IOCCG. Unfortunately he was not able to attend WGCV12 but is represented by M Rast and G Zibordi and a report from the IOCCG will be provided. Closed. 11.1 Various actions pertaining to the COES-GCOS report . As this item has been outstanding within WGCV and IVOS, A Belward took a new action to determine if the report exists and is available. All previous actions related to this item will be considered closed. 11.2 Secretariat to amend Strategic Vision document dates. The Strategic Vision document will stand as released for the time being and will be augmented by the 3-year Work Plan which will be developed as a result of WGCV12. 11.6 SAR CAL Subgroup Plans. Y Desnos is the new chair of the subgroup and will be working with the group to review plans and strategies. Closed. 11.9 WGCV members to review Atmospheric Chemistry Representation. This action remains open. It was recommended that this issue should be raised with the CEOS affiliates. 11.12 Strategic Vision Document - The Sept 96 version is last available in current format. This meeting will discuss how to proceed in the future. Closed. 11.12 Recommendations regarding CEOS-initiated responses to AOs - Plenary indicated that proposals should not be submitted under the CEOS name - rather as multilateral collaborations. 2.4 IGOS meetings There have been two IGOS-related meetings since the last WGCV meeting. One in Seattle focusing on strategy and one in Geneva focusing on In Situ data needs of the GxOS groups. (Note GxOS refers to GCOS, GTOS, and GOOS and their related panels and work groups). The Geneva meeting resulted in several recommendations for WGCV which will be discussed at this meeting. In response to a question it was explained that IGOS was formed as an action from CEOS Plenary 9 for off-line co-ordination of strategic issues related to CEOS agencies and missions. 2.5 Report from CEOS plenary The 10th CEOS Plenary Meeting was held 13-15 November in Canberra Australia. CNES is the new CEOS Chair and the next plenary meeting is scheduled for Nov 19-21 in Toulouse. At the plenary meeting, the CEOS Terms of Reference were modified to authorise broader participation by CEOS Affiliates and Observers. Attema commented that the affiliates should recognise that full participation in CEOS brings with it certain obligations and commitments. In particular, participation in the working groups is seen as highly important The WGISS Five Year Plan was approved and WGISS was asked to expand plans to address GIS and spatial data issues. G Morgan noted that while the WGCV has no or very little GIS use at present, the TM subgroup in particular are affected by data exchange format standards. It was noted that issues of in-situ data formats is important to Cal/Val activities and that there is an action item in the strategic vision document to give input to WGISS for in-site data formats. This will be discussed in relation to the 3-year Work Plan. The plenary also focused on the issue of protecting required frequencies for EO in preparation for the 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference. The Plenary endorsed the IGBP request to provide high resolution data at essentially no cost to continue the IGBP high resolution project for the next 5 years. The Plenary directed ESA and WMO, in conjunction with members of the original task force team, to harmonised their user data bases. CSRIO presented a CD-ROM titled "Resources in Earth Observation" for education and outreach which was generated with CEOS backing. In addition, the Plenary accepted a EUMETSAT offer to compile an annual report on CEOS agency activities with developing countries. IGOS Belward reported that the plenary endorsed the concept of an Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS). This is a framework for coherent development of activities in response to prioritised requirements which embrace space and surface observations. CEOS will address the space-based observation programmes needed to meet the needs of affiliates. This will include surface based measurements needed for Cal/Val and Cal/Val activities should interact closely with existing in situ programmes. It was noted that CEOS looks after the space segment of an IGOS and GxOS focus on ground segment including in-situ data and end user. The Plenary endorsed the creation of a Strategic Implementation Team (SIT) to develop an overall IGOS strategy. The SIT members are senior principle members of CEOS. Brian Embleton will chair the SIT and they will hold their first meeting in Feb 6-7 in Long Beach California. The Plenary also endorsed the concept of an Analysis Group made up of programmatic and technical experts from CEOS participants. The IGOS AG links to the GxOS groups. This will be chaired by Yukio Haruyama of NSADA and will meet in March 1997. WGCV Recommendations The WGCV Recommendations from WGCV11 were also presented to plenary. Recommendation 1 requesting more interferrometric SAR collection was endorsed, however Plenary asked WGCV to provide feedback on how, specifically, the provision of this data helps the members. This request was felt to extend to all recommendations from the working group(s) to Plenary. Morgan noted that the Terrain Mapping Subgroup has been able to initiate some investigations as a result of the provision of data from CEOS participants. Attema asked that at the next plenary the CEOS plenary representatives provide details on what data have been provided / collected in response to this (and other) recommendation(s). The recommendation that more test site data be collected and campaigns undertaken was not accepted as written. The Plenary would not "undertake, establish and operate", however they agreed to "SUPPORT the undertaking…" etc. Several members said that "support" does not imply funding, but J Dodge noted that support does not exclude funding however it implies that a "fair share" is contributed by all. The Plenary made a recommendation to WGCV to follow up on GxOS Geneva meeting recommendations. At the Geneva meeting it was noted that Cal and Val sites are often mutually exclusive as calibration calls for spatial and temporal homogeneity and stability and validation is often associated with diversity and dynamic conditions. It was also noted that methodologies for validation of higher level products are generally poorly developed and the responsibilities for Cal Val are not allocated to specific individuals and as such may become the responsibility of anyone from the satellite operator to the end user. Geneva also noted that In-Situ requirements for CALVAL vary across discipline/parameter/sensor and few standards for sampling etc exist. Since access to in-situ data is vital for Cal/Val, mechanisms for exchanging data are needed. Specific CEOS recommendations include: The Global Observing Systems should co-ordinate their participation in CEOS through the Space Panel to optimise input to members. The GxOS Space Panel should develop a scheme for identifying priorities in validation issues. On the basis of priorities these priorities WGCV should consider developing pilot projects to address issues such as measurement protocols, test regimes and data management. CEOS should consider enhancing the activities of WGCV to address strategically important calibration and validation of satellite products. Belward noted that no affiliates (and that all GxOS now have affiliate status) were present at the opening of the meeting, and Dodge suggested that all WGCV information should be forwarded to the GxOS members. Action: Secretariat to forward all available information to GxOS Space Panel. Attema said that since many of these panels (IGOS, GxOS Space Panel) are not involved in direct work but rather co-ordination WGCV need to clarify how these groups will work together - it was suggested that we include the Space Panel as part of a subgroup but it was agreed that this would be based on individual members and their area of specialisation. All noted that the Space Panel do have current representation within WGCV and that this must continue. At plenary WGCV noted that the Geneva recommendations cover issues addressed by the WGCV strategic vision document and that this document contains pertinent actions, guiding principles, and recommendations. The actions from this document have been re-worked into a list of proposed elements of a new 3-year work plan. 3-Year Work Plan Belward then briefly reviewed the proposed Work Plan Tasks which will be discussed over the next three days. These items are: A. OUTREACH ACTIVITIES 1 - Communications 2 - Identify Key Conferences 3 - Specialist Conferences 4 - Cal/Val Slide Set 5 - Build Key References 6 - Pre launch Information 7 - Co-ordinate with WGISS 8 - Linkages to External Groups 9 - Involve External Experts B DATA BASES 10 - Dossier 11 - Test Sites 12 - Dictionary C WGCV TERMS OF REFERENCE 13 - Ad Hoc Validation Groups 14 - Validation Activities 15 - Ongoing CalVal Assessment 16 - Data Continuity Recommendations 17 - Annual Review For item 1, Belward noted that the WWW site will provide improved communications. P Teillet suggested having a user-friendly primer to cal and val as part of the WWW site and all agreed that WGCV should be more proactive in community outreach. Attema noted that the SARCAL subgroup has a bibliography on line and Rao described NOAAs approach to communicating pre-launch information to users. Action : All members to forward URLs for any cal and val related www sites to the secretariat. Teillet to provide suitable text for a primer. In conclusion Belward stated that the change in CEOS terms of reference with respect to the role of affiliates will result in giving greater emphasis on the needs of the end users. The WGCV needs to look at outstanding actions in the Strategic Vision Document, form these into specific actions over the next three years and ensure that there leads are identified. M Hutchins inquired why we were developing a 3 year and not 5 year plan. Alan says the guidelines are to develop a 3-5 year plan and three years has been chosen since the chair has a 3 year commitment and can follow through with updates to this. The Work Plan will be reviewed at each WGCV meeting and revised as necessary. 3 DOSSIER STATUS JAMES DODGE NASA HQ Dodge began by making some general comments regarding the strategic vision document. As a newcomer to the group, he felt the document contained many good concepts however many of the ideas were very broad and specific actions were not clear. Dodge noted that the change of NASA representative from Ray Roberts, who was more focused on calibration, particularly of AM1 instruments, to Dodge reflects a change in NASA and EOS's programmatic focus more toward validations. This includes a shift in funding, development, and emphasis as EOS moves closer to launch of their first platforms. Dodge reviewed the chronology of dossier activities noting that work began in Spring 95. http://spso.gsc.nasa.gov/calval/homepage.html is the new site for the NASA/CEOS Cal/Val Dossier. I Barton indicated that a lot of information collected in early 95 appears to have not been incorporated. Dodge indicated that if information is not submitted on line via the specified format, NASA will not be able to put the information into the database right away. Attema commented that a committed individual is required in order to get the information into the Dossier, and Dodge agreed that Cal/Val members must follow up with their colleagues to ensure that information is submitted. Dodge listed the people who responded to the questionnaire and noted that few outside the US have responded though many were contacted for input. A total of 183 Questionnaires mailed and 20 responses received. G. Morgan commented that this should be an ongoing action to solicit input from colleagues and there was general agreement. Action: Secretariat will remind (and re-remind) all folks in their own organisations to respond. The recommendation for CEOS WGCV from the NASA team is : To increase the information content and thus the ultimate value of the CEOS CalVal Dossier, CEOS and CEOS WGCV must take an active role in promoting participation of managers and scientists in their respective countries in providing information on calibration laboratories, validation test sites, and instruments that are not yet represented in the database. CEOS WGCV should approve the CalVal Dossier as it presently exists and provide authorisation for a link from the WGCV homepage to the Cal/Val Dossier homepage. These recommendations were accepted by the group. Discussion:: Dodge commented that NASA is limited in its ability to develop tutorial and historical information as mentioned on page 16 of strategic vision document and will not be able to increase the scope of the dossier beyond its current form. Regarding co-ordination of CALVAL programmes Dodge suggested that WGCV should host an international scientific meeting (e.g. Summer 99) which brings together CALVAL expertise from throughout the world. This could get information on history of CALVAL, intercalibration of like sensors, and future campaigns. NASA would be willing to help sponsor this meeting. C Mutlow noted that the Arlington meeting (CEOS-GCOS CALVAL ) did discuss this type of information and the report has yet to be distributed to the participants. Several attendees indicated that '99 would be perhaps too late as other satellites have much more time critical requirements. Several people indicated that NASA participation on subgroups would help on the general co-ordination issues and that specialist workshops sponsored by the subgroups may better be able to provide this interaction. Action: The status of the report of the COES GCOS CalVal meeting in Arlington MUST be resolved. Belward to take the lead. All attendees at WGCV indicated that they were pleased with the progress of the dossier and were glad to have the new address. An opportunity for a fresh start to contributions from the group to the dossier was welcomed by all and all agreed to submit outstanding items. Action: J Dodge to provide dossier information for the Cal/Val newsletter. 4 REPORTS FROM SUBGROUPS 4.1 SAR Calibration Yves-Louis Desnos The SARCAL report began with Belward's introduction of Yves-Louis Desnos who is taking over chairmanship from Tony Freeman. Desnos briefly reported that many activities are underway within the group and new activities are being undertaken. There are significant Cal/Val actions related to Radarsat, and the next meeting of SARCAL is planned for February in Montreal to focus on Radarsat issues. Work on new active SAR antennae is also ongoing and more validation of SAR products (e.g. ocean wave information from SAR) needs to be addressed. Campaigns are coming up on PIRODA and SARCAL will sponsor activities to address Cal/Val related issues.. Belward asks if SARCAL requires more official attendance from representatives of CEOS members. Desnos suggested that the it was best to wait and see how the next meeting goes before taking any specific action, but comments that the key to success of SARCAL work is to have a nucleus of committed specialists. 4.2 Microwave Sensors James Shiue J Shiue noted that the MS has held one specialist meeting per year with the primary focus to co-ordinate activities and exchange information. Their most recent meeting was in August in Frascati, and the next meeting is planned for Moscow next year. Shiue noted that originally the group focused on passive microwave sensors, however they now include some active sensors work particularly scatterometers and altimeters. Dr Okamoto from Japan, the TRMM Precipitation Radar PI, has formally joined the group. With tight resources however, participation from other experts has been somewhat limited. Shiue also noted that NSCAT will probably be represented by JPL. Action Item: New members are needed from agencies - Belward to send note to Principles requesting participation. Shiue noted that the group has added one expert in Limb Sounding, however few other Atmospheric Chemistry participants have been added. It was suggested that if the group can not get support in the form of participants then we need to drop this requirement. Attema says we need to request Plenary to reaffirm support for this activity, and Belward agreed noting that we need to show how agencies benefit from improved atmospheric chemistry Cal/Val. C Mutlow noted that UK and Germany have individuals who are active in sounding instruments who have not been contacted. Additional MS activities MS Subgroup would like to work on terminology as it is used in their group and they will continue terminology for the future. Starting to get into more detail on passive sensor calibration methodologies - would like to someday set a 'standard' for calibration methodology. Frequency management and allocation. This is a particular problem for passive microwave sounders as there is a great deal of interference. Action: Shiue to send Belward specific information on critical frequency allocation problems to forward to CEOS Secretariat and Plenary members so they will understand how critical this is to passive microwave sensors. Belward will ask that the CEOS representative to the World Radiocommunications Conference to forward the detailed concerns. In addition, Shiue noted that TRMM PR pre-launch calibration has been complete . AMSU for NOAA-K is ready and calibrated. Action: Shuie will provide names and contact points for pre-launch calibration information. 4.3 Infrared and Visible Optical Sensors Ian Barton IVOS met the 2 days preceding the WGCV12. The meeting included General business and special sessions on calibration issues. Day 1 included a discussion of an IVOS data set initiative for collecting data over selected test sites. The Dossier was discussed and there was concern at slow development (however Ian noted that the information J Dodge presented addressed these concerns). IVOS identified members with specific actions to submit information on specific test sites to the dossier by 1 March 97 and are requesting that the information is on the web site no later than 1 July. The IVOS group also suggested that the IVOS plans in the strategic vision document be updated prior to the next IVOS meeting. Day 2 featured a presentation from the National Physics Lab in the UK who described new techniques for transfer standards for radiometer calibration which generally showed greater improvement in the accuracy. A special session on Validation Plans for Future Sensors included presentations from EOS (P Slater) ESA (M Rast) Vegetation (Maracci) and AATSR (Mutlow). A need for co-ordinated plan for VICAL was noted and options discussed. A plan was adopted to activate an IVOS data set. This will include collecting all short-wave satellite data collected over a single site for selected periods and these data along with other available calibration information (e.g. aircraft underflights) will be compared. Results of this activity will be presented at the next IVOS meeting and C Mutlow will co-ordinate the activity. The group is also developing plans to acquire Solar Irradiance Spectrum calibration information and circulate this for use and analysis. The next meeting will have a special session on on-board calibration. Chris Mutlow is the new chair of the IVOS and Belward thanked Barton for his excellent leadership in the past. 4.4 Terrain Mapping The Terrain Mapping Subgroup report was emailed to the WGCV group prior to the meeting, and discussion is scheduled for Friday. 5 IOCCG (OCEAN COLOUR) ACTIVITIES MIKE RAST FOR JOHN WITHROW International Ocean Colour Co-ordination Group (IOCCG) was founded under the auspices of IOC. The first meeting took place in March 96 in Toulouse and the next meeting is scheduled for early 97. The Toulouse meeting was a useful broad-based exchange of information. The objectives of IOCCG are: emphasise the priority of RS ocean colour data for understanding of ocean ecosystems. focus on imminent availability of OC sensors and prepare user community for new data. initiate activities for co-ordination of international and national activities. promote cross-calibration of sensors (pre-launch) and initiate joint Cal/Vall activities. Terms of reference of IOCCG include co-operation with WGCV and WGISS, work closely with CEOS for OC user community feedback, and develop international ocean colour activities geared towards expanded use of ocean colour data. (CSA, CNES, NASA, ESA, EC, NASDA, and National Agencies. John Withrow and M Rast will keep the WGCV updated on IOCCG activities. 6 COUNTRY REPORTS 6.1 Norway Lasse Pettersson Petterson discussed several activities; Sea Ice Information from SAR, Wind Retrieval from SAR, Surface Film and Oil Slicks and the ALOMAR field station. Much work has been done on verification studies for sea ice using high resolution SAR, DMSP SSM/I and in-situ data. They are also working in the ICEWATCH project or real time sea ice monitoring of the Northern Sea route using satellite radar data. Using field monitoring and SLR data along with ERS1 in operational sea ice processing has helped build up a characterisation of backscatter values for various sea ice types. They have also undertaken an experiment with coincident ERS-1 and 2 SAR and AVHRR data and hope to include Russian data in future work. Pettersson also described work on wind field retrieval from ERS SAR images and oil slick (natural and man-made) detection. They have conducted several campaigns to sample slicks detected in the SAR image using in-situ collection and a ship mounted C band Doppler Radar to characterise the slick. This has also lead to characterisation of slick signatures. The ALOMAR facility was then described. It is located at 69N and provides detailed atmospheric parameter measurements for year-round studies. Data collected include ozone lidar, rayleigh, resonance lidar collected at a variety of altitudes. These data have been used in a GOME validation exercise as well as for routine monitoring. The ALOMAR facility is available for other validation campaigns. Discussion : Noack asked: how much time they require to generate an ice map? At the moment takes about 1 hour once data have been received or roughly 2.5 hours post-pass. Desnos asked if they use standard ERS power spectra algorithm and noted that there are new algorithms available which should be considered. Action: Pettersson to forward names of SARCAL contacts to Y Desnos. 6.2 NASA Agency Report Jim Dodge J Dodge's presentation focused on the EOS Validation Program. They are currently involved in documentation and campaign planning, and plans for launch of EOS AM-1 (Jun 98) and TRMM CERES and LIS (Aug 97) are well underway. Dodge showed a summary of the launch profile for the next 5 years and reviewed the types of data which will be collected. They have identified 24 key geophysical parameters and all require comprehensive validation. Originally, Cal/Val was to be done by sensor teams, however now will be done by investigators. Cal/Val exercises were submitted as part of the Algorithm Theoretical Basis Documents (ATBDs) and NASA is now looking at funding the various exercises proposed… Jim suggests everyone review the EOS Project Science pages at http://eosspso.gsfc.nasa.govs and link to the validation and calibration pages (these links are also available from the WGCV pages). These pages include documents, field experiment descriptions, test site information, links to other sites, and summary charts describing instruments and data sets. Airborne campaign information is also available from the EOS Project Science Pages. In addition, the Algorithm Theoretical Basis Documents are available on-line, and these document contain calibration and validation information. The EOS Validation Program funding and science impetus is provided mainly through instrument science teams. The EOS Project Science Office supports most validation exercises. A Calibration-Validation Program NASA Research Announcement is pending - this will focus on intercalibration among multiple satellites and measurement accuracy as well as product validation. Discussion Belward noted that the Geneva meeting stated that different parameters require different validation approaches and Dodge indicated that within a science discipline many common sites and procedures can be used. Belward noted that there were no recognised protocols and methodology for Validation of the higher level products from Earth Observation, and that WGCV should be a significant contributor to the development of some of these. Dodge indicated that their current time scale probably doesn't allow time wait for methodology recommendations from WGCV but that such work was important. Attema noted that programs were often agency specific and that CEOS provides limited opportunities for joint activities, however the contacts are important. G Zibordi noted that the SeaWiFS draft methodology for ocean colour is a good example though it is optimised for open ocean 6.3 Eumetsat Stephen Tjemkes The current operational satellite is Meteosat 5 with Meteosat 6 in standby mode. Meteosat 7 launch is planned for next year. A vicarious calibration method for Meteosat 5 has been developed and successfully applied. This method is based on accurate radiative transfer calculations, and will be used to support future calibration campaigns. The next generation Meteosat is under development with the space segment development in phase C/D. For METOP, the opening of the programme resolution is due for a vote this week. Discussions on Metop Cal/Val are underway, and recommendations by the WGCV are appreciated by Eumetsat. 6.4 ESA Evertt Attema The ESA agency report was placed on the web site prior to the meeting, so E Attema described some selected, specific technical activities. The validation of Ozone from GOME has been completed and this included participation and data from many countries. Attema noted that validation of just this one parameter took a great deal of effort. Action: Attema to provide a reference for the Ozone validation experiment. Attema also presented information from the Atmospheric Chemistry Validation Team (ACTV). They have been working with GOME, MIPAS, GOMOS & Sciamachy. They currently have planned actions to inventory validation methods, select a data centre and informatics infrastructure, and identify participants. Plans include: Feb 97; identification of ACTV members Summer 97; plenary ACTV meeting Summer 98 rehearsal campaign Autumn 99; Envisat commissioning. 6.5 NOAA N Rao Rao described the mission of the NOAA/NESDIS Office of Research and Applications calibration group and noted that the instrumentation/calibration activities impact two elements of the NOAA strategic plan: environmental assessment and prediction, and cross-cutting technology, including convergence of the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite(POES) system with the Department of Defence systems. Rao noted that he has mandate to link Cal/Val activities to direct benefit to NOAA mission. Principal activities of the group include calibration and characterization of various sensors on operational satellites[POES and Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite(GOES)], and research and development. Several examples of activities were presented, including the post-launch calibration of the visible and near-infrared(VISNIR) channels of the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer(AVHRR) on NOAA-7, -9, and -11, and non-linearity corrections for the thermal infrared channels. Also, near-real time calibration update capability for the VISNIR channels of the AVHRR on NOAA-14 has been developed; the calibration coefficients are being updated on a monthly basis in the 1b data stream, starting November 12, 1996 and the capability exists to update them every 9 days, if desired. An exercise in the cross-calibration of the AVHRR and the Along Track Scanning Radiometer(ATSR) is underway. Rao described the activity to utilize a site in the Gobi desert as a calibration target. He also listed many US national and international users of the AVHRR calibration information. NOAA calibration activity information is available on WWW at: http://orbit-net.nesdis.noaa.gov/ora/ and http://140.90.207.25:8080/EBB/ml/niccal.html. Rao is also organizing a special session on calibration at the upcoming AGR meeting in San Francisco(December 1996). Rao listed challenges to instrumentation/calibration as: 1)design of instruments with multi-platform adaptability and interchangeability; 2) resolution of the impact of trade-offs necessitated by the convergence requirements; and 3) intercalibration of different instruments designed to yield the same geophysical product to ensure long-term continuity and accuracy. During summary discussion, P. Teillet(Canada Center for Remote Sensing) commented on behalf of the community that the NOAA efforts in calibration of AVHRR, under the direction Rao, and making the information available have proven highly successful and have greatly helped users. The entire group agreed that NOAA’s efforts should be applauded. 7 ACTION PLANS - TERMS OF REFERENCE ALAN BELWARD A Belward opened the discussion of the 3 year action plan by noting that the plan is not intended to replace the strategic vision. Rather, the plan takes elements from the vision and puts down a plan of specific actions which were described in the document. Essentially the principles behind the plan should be: The WGCV should establish a three year work plan in response to: Changes in CEOS membership Terms of Reference endorsed at the 10th Plenary meeting. The endorsement of the IGOS at the 10th Plenary. A long standing request from Plenary to up-date working group work plans on an annual basis. This plan should adhere to the overall CEOS Strategy which dictates that the: Primary focus is on Space missions, resultant data flows, including the integration of other data sets. And that actions: should improve co-operation of space missions and ensure they meet user needs. should benefit CEOS Participants. should assist, not direct, member agencies. should be such that the members will support the action. Belward began the discussion by describing proposed actions 13 & 14 related to validation activities. As this is one of the more controversial issues he wanted some introductory discussion so participants could consider this difficult issue while we discuss other aspects of the plan. The validation activity needs a lead and defined objectives, but validation is key to many items discussed over the previous few days. The strategic vision document recommends forming ad hoc groups, however there is no clear statement of what needs to be done and who will be the lead. Attema noted that the Ozone validation exercise in many respects is such an ad hoc group but the overhead of running it as an international exercise is too great. While it's a nice part of a vision, Attema argues that this is not practicable. The strategic vision document contains a specific action to compile a list of validation data sets and activities which should receive priority attention from funding agencies and data and information system activities. Attema indicated that information exchange is adequate to prevent duplication. G Morgan thinks this is a key activity since validating geophysical parameters is a key requirement from several agencies. I Barton indicated that in Australia, as a key southern hemisphere site for cal and val for land and ocean applications, are developing sites specifically for vicarious Cal and validation and would like to see work including validation promoted through the WGCV. H Oaku says that validation is particularly important for OCTS and that both should be considered. Barton noted that ADEOS2 GLI instrument requires co-ordinating validation with NASDA and NASA. Eumetsat has a strong requirement for validation of current data and has plans to expand their efforts. P Teillet indicated that Canada wants to participate and agrees with the sentiment of the actions but is uncertain about who coordinates activities. They have had very good collaboration with CEOS SARCAL but have limited optical activity at this time focusing primarily on joint activities with the US. Phil says if they don't have a real potential benefit to Canada however they won't participate. N Armand said that Russia is interested in working in co-operation with these activities but funding may be a problem. J Dodge gave examples of where non-US sites are needed to validate global EOS data sets and that foreign participants are invited to collaborate with US colleagues on proposals. C Rockwietz says the WGCV can not do the work of individual agencies and Rao suggested that this should tie back to the GxOS and IGOS strategy. L Pettersson said that validation is important but the Norwegian space centre do not generally perform their own validation; most are done under contract to other agencies. However if they can benefit the Norwegians would like to participate. G Zibordi described EC bilateral work on-going but noted that they can not make any commitment for recommendations from WGCV except where suggestions match current directions. K Kumar says that validation is a clear requirement in order to make sure that users needs are met, but there are problems in the space segment as well which should be addressed. C Mutlow says the RAL group want to undertake Cal/Val exercised with other groups but with limited budgets they can best add to ongoing campaigns which other people organise rather than organising their own campaign. M Hutchins says validation is part of the end goal of seeing products being validated and made available for the user and that BNSC see this as important. Dennis noted that EDC would be supportive since a key requirement for them is to work with the end user produces (e.g. land cover mapping). In addition, validation justifies why the data are collected and archived. Alan noted that this provides a cross reference to the CEOS plenary endorsed IGBP-DIS high resolution data project. Attema noted that historical precedents abound, as the group was concerned with validation of wind speed and wave height / direction products during early activities. Belward summarised by asking members to consider the options for validation activities within WGCV for discussion during the Thursday WGCV sessions. 6. COUNTRY REPORTS (CONT) 6.6 Germany/DARA Klaus-Dieter Rockweitz This year's highlights of DARA's Earth Observation Programme were listed as: launch of MOS and MOMS-2P instrument onboard PIRODA preparation of a third SIR-C/X-SAR mission (SRTM) operational of the ground segment of ERS-2 PRARE extension of data utilisation and application programme initiation of new series of scientific and application pilot projects related to MOMS-2P. For current missions, MOMS-2P has almost completed technical checkout phase and initial calibration and data takes have been performed (see http://www.nz.dlr.de/moms2p for more information). Two versions of the MOS instrument (Modular Optoelectronic Scanning Spectrometer) have been launched on IRS and PIRODA this year (see http://www.ba.dlr.de/NE-WS/ws5/mos.html for more information). DARA have continued operation of the German Processing and Archiving Facility for ERS data and have been responsible for GOME ground segment implementation and operation. More information on the GOME instrument and data is available at http://www.dfd.dlr.de/education/glossar/gome.htm. 8 SPECIAL PRESENTATION CALIBRATION OF INTERFEROMETRICALLY DERIVED DEMS A. ROTH W. Noack gave a short introduction to DARA's work on the validation of DEMs noting that they have a large amount of tandem data collected at Neustrelitz and are also working on SIR-C/X-SAR in order to generate global DEMs from X band radar. Using ERS Tandem data and SIR-C/X-SAR data, they are generating a DEM database in order to allow users to request DEM generation in the future. They are collaborating with JPL in validating these models. A Roth then presented the calibration and validation of interferometrically derived DEMs. Roth described interferometric SAR and how using two views of the same area enable height determination using the determination of phase differences (and interferogram). Error sources in this process include: limited knowledge of spacecraft position phase noise timing errors in azimuth and range temporal decorrelation geometric decorrelation atmospheric effects pass point determination accuracy The goals of Cal/Val activities for DEMs were listed as: improvement of baseline determination and elimination of timing errors determine and reduce geometric decorrelation determination of data sets distributed by atmospheric effects determination of the InSAR-DEM accuracy M Roth gave a detailed distribution of the decorellation effect coherence and fringe visibility problems with several illustrations and examples. Validation activities include consistency checks, baseline improvement, comparison to reference DEMs and multi-temporal mosaicing. They have used test data from several locations and examples in Germany and Hungary were given showing in particular the comparison with reference DEMs. In response to questions, Roth noted that this approach to DEM generation uses differential interferrometry which does not work with movement (for example glaciers and volcanic deformation). Height of vegetation does not affect the DEM, however wind effects on vegetation causes problems. This approach can be used to improve coarse resolution DEMs however the approach being used here only uses selected tie points. 9 TOUR OF DLR FACILITIES WGCV12 participants were then given a guided tour of the DLR Facilities with special presentations of Earth Observation activities. Thursday, 5th December, 09.00 10 3-YEAR WORK PLAN ALAN BELWARD WGCV12 discussions on day 2 were focused on discussion of the items in the proposed three year work plan. 10.1 - Communications - WWW The secretariat has agreed to host and maintain the web page for communication. All agreed that this should be maintained and used increasingly for communication and outreach. This page is located at http://www.wgcvceos.org. As was discussed earlier, WGCV12 attendees requested that web site include introductory information. P Teillet offered to provide some introductory text, and Attema suggested that some of the text from the strategic vision should be included in the web site general information. Attema and other participants requested that when something is added to the Cal/Val WWW site an announcement should be forwarded to WGCV participants. Action : Teillet to provide introductory text by 1 March 97. M James inquired if the participants were happy using the WGCV email exploder for communication, and the answer generally was yes. As a reminder, to subscribe to the WGCV email list, send a message to ceos-wgcv@nsipo.nasa.gov and include in the body of the message the line subscribe ceos-wgcv. 10.2 Identify Key Conferences Belward said that a few conferences have been identified and cited Rao's special session at the upcoming AGU conference as a good example. Rao suggested that a meetings calendar be maintained on the WWW site, and all were asked as an ongoing task to send meeting announcements to the secretariat. 10.3 Specialist Sessions This item was also directed by the plenary, and most subgroup meetings already feature one specialist session. It was agreed that this will be included part of the work plan and will continue to be an action for the subgroup chairs. 10.4 Cal/Val Slide Set Belward noted that the secretariat can provide some support for the production of the set, however it needs an expert to put a coherent story together and to get inputs from colleagues. Rao suggested that past presentations from WGCV meetings and subgroup meetings contain a great deal of background information which can be reviewed and from which some of background information can be taken. However Belward noted that a lead individual is required to put together a comprehensive story line. Belward raised the idea of using the IVOS proposed intercalibration activity as a test case for developing a slide set and perhaps a CD ROM. Attema suggested that it would be a good idea to use test cases to put together a comprehensive story of Calibration and Validation. Dodge indicated that yesterdays presentation on validation of I-SAR derived DEMs would be a good 'story' of validation and that similar presentations should be maintained on the web site and generated as needed for slides. H Ziemann asked how big a slide set was needed and several members suggested that 12-15 slides would form a good introduction with some slides describing the WGCV and some with detailed examples of calibration and validation. Ziemann says putting together a comprehensive overview is needed and he could help put this together given guidance from the WGCV members. It was agreed that having a common set of introductory slides for the CEOS WGCV would help provide a consistent picture of WGCV. The lack of a consistent and positive description of WGCV was cited as one reason many plenary level participants have the impression that WGCV is not terribly active. It was agreed that H Ziemann will take the lead in developing and slide set. The initial aim is for 15 slides which describe the work of the WGCV and a few colourful example slides. Attema suggested that the definitions of Cal and Val should be included as well. It was suggested that following the initial slide set, slide sets related to specific calibration and validation topics should also be developed. There was brief discussion on how to produce the slide set, and at a minimum it was agreed that the set should be hosted on the WWW site as gif images as well as a downloadable presentation in PowerPoint format. Action: All members to provide to H Ziemann copies of presentations given describing WGCV. Action: Belward to provide a letter indicating the importance of the slide set to DARA to ensure Ziemann's participation. 10.5 Build Key Bibliographic References Need lead and to put it on the web. IVOS has an outstanding action on B Guenther to provide a set of reference regarding on-board calibration, and Yves noted that the SARCAL group already has a list of references and this could be their contribution. Belward suggested that all members review their list of key references over the next three months and forward to secretariat. J Shuie suggested that this should be done in each subgroup and collated there. After some discussion it was agreed that Subgroup Chairs should collect references from their members and forward these to the secretariat. The preference is for the Subgroup Chairs to do some categorisation or sorting of the references by topic, however no specific categories will be imposed. Action: Subgroup chairs to forward reference lists to secretariat by 28 March. 10.6 Pre launch Information The Strategic Vision document contains a statement that "Within 18 months of new launches, the CEOS member agency will provide pre launch calibration information." This action is on member agencies and not WGCV. WGCV12 attendees discussed taking greater responsibility for disseminating this information however it was agreed that this would be done by agencies as a matter of course so it may be redundant. WGCV can advocate for the community in cases where this information is needed but is not being adequately provided. This will not be included in the three WGCV Work Plan as a distinct activity. 10.7 Co-ordinate with WGISS The Strategic Vision document states that WGCV should "Provide WGISS with a list of validation data sets which should be included in the design or implementation of any data and information systems." Attendees discussed this issue and agreed that this was a more appropriate activity for the IGOS Strategic Implementation Team to consider and should not be included in the WGCV action plan. Action: Belward to pass this action on to B Embelton. 10.8 Linkages to External Groups 10.9 Involve External Experts Items 10.8 and 10.9 were discussed together as related items. Participants were asked to list institutions with whom they work however many noted that there would simply be too many to name and there would be a great deal of overlap. I Barton noted that already people attending CEOS meetings don't represent their whole institute but rather just their own interests within the institution. Belward suggested considering the example of the UK National Physics Lab (NPL) who presented useful calibration information to the IVOS Subgroup meeting. It was asked if they should be included as participants and most participants suggested that they are technical experts and should be included on a mission- or issue-specific basis. There is a danger if we expand to include too many standards labs WGCV meetings could devolve into another forum for instrumentation standards. Rockweitz says such participants should be invited to subgroup meetings but perhaps not the WGCV. Attema says some of these groups are interested in the strategic issues of our community rather than just the technical details. Others noted that there may be some political implications of inviting individual institutions to meetings and not others, particularly with labs which provide commercial calibration and instrumentation services. Resolution: on a case by case basis such groups should be invited to WGCV meetings as technical experts. Subgroup chairs to invited as needed for special sessions. The issue of involving developing countries who are not CEOS members was also considered. This is particularly important when validation activities are considered and local expertise is needed world-wide. Barton suggested that UNEP may be able to provide pointers to relevant groups. The strategic vision document indicated that WGCV members should identify experts & institutes in developing countries… Attema says if experts come forward they would certainly be welcome and Rao noted that since funding is a problem for many of these individuals to participate it would be difficult. Kumar said that if people were invited in the context of a special session perhaps funding would be easier to find. Ziemann suggested that CEOS Affiliates (e.g. GCOS) may have more visibility of developing country experts and that they should include people. Resolution: focus on experts as needed particularly for special sessions. Regarding participation from the private section and/or the commercial sector. Resolution: invite as needed for technical experts for a special session. Attema said that when a private concern is running a satellite they will likely be treated as a CEOS member in their own right. 10.10 Dossier 10.11 Test Sites Related items 10.10 and 10.11 were discussed together. NASA is taking the lead in the Dossier development as indicated during J Dodge's presentation. It was agreed that the present scope of the Dossier was adequate to meet most near term requirements. NASA committed to supporting the dossier in its present form for the next three years. The WGCV members committed to working to ensure comprehensive population of the Dossier. Recommendations on specific test sites will continue to be made as WGCV recommendations to Plenary and agencies, however no specific additional activity for the Work Plan was identified. 10.12 Dictionary It was agreed that the definitions as they stand now in the WGCV dictionary are adequate and no future WGCV effort will be spent on discussing detailed terms. The Microwave Subgroup is working on a set of definitions for terms which are important to their work, and it was agreed that any results of this, and other subgroup, terminology efforts should be communicated via the WGCV web pages and should be referenced in the WGCV dictionary. 10.13 Ad Hoc Validation Groups 10.14 Validation Activities Related items 10.13 and 10.14 were discussed together. The strategic Vision document makes two recommendations related to validation: Form ad hoc groups with common interests in the validation of specific geophysical parameters and encourage inter-comparison of parameters as derived from different instruments. Compile a list of validation data sets and activities which should receive priority attention from funding agencies and data and information systems activities with a proposed completion by end of 1997. In addition, recommendations related to validation have been received from GCOS as described earlier. Belward began the discussion by noting that key validation details needed can be identified. First, a priority list of L2 & L3 products (which GxOS have currently described as LAI/FPAR) would need to be identified, and for each of these several things need to be defined including; accuracy requirements, measurement and sampling protocols, test site(s), data management requirements, and pilot projects. Essentially, during a long, wide-ranging discussion several issues were discussed including; selection of parameters, pilot projects, developing general validation methodology, and WGCV's role in validation activities. Key points of the discussion are summarised below. Parameter Selection Regarding parameter selection, it was noted that there was a nearly infinite list of L2/L3 parameters which need to be defined. It should not up to WGCV to tell others what they should be measuring and how and to what accuracy. Attema suggested that a first step would be to list geophysical parameters which are being derived and for each list applicable instruments, how calibrated and validated and an estimated accuracy. It was noted however that much of this information would be found in references described in the Cal/Val bibliography. LAI/FPAR have been identified by the GCOS Space Panel as important parameters requiring validation, however SST and Wind Speed are also important and require validation and characterisation. It was suggested future mission planning should not be within the WGCV mandate, rather they should be considered by the Strategic Implementation Team. The WGCV should focus on Cal/Val once instruments and data are available or in development. There was some discussion that WGCV could advise on calibration and validation strategies for instruments in development and several participants expressed concern that on-board calibration systems were being increasingly overlooked by agencies given that vicarious calibration was seen as a cheap and adequate option. Pilot Projects Barton noted that there is an IVOS pilot project focused on vicarious calibration of TOA radiances/reflectances rather than validation details of derived parameters, and Belward suggested that within subgroups the focus should expand as needed (e.g. IVOS to include VIS/NIR surface reflectance validation) and look to subgroups for additional activities. Rao notes that SST is being addressed by RAL and NOAA and NASA and this could be a pilot product. This will need to be considered within IVOS. WGCV's Role in Validation Activities Regarding WGCV's role in validation activities, Attema reminded attendees that several years ago WGCV was involved with collaboration on wind and wave measurements for validation. One of the key benefits of this exercise was to get input from the end users for consideration by lead agencies. Belward noted that the Terrain Mapping subgroup is heavily involved in validation of high level products. Teillet noted that many validation activities already occur, particularly in the context of NASA's EOS, and WGCV should consider this. Teillet recommended that the WGCV should look for groups in which there is a ground swell of activity related to parameters and use that as a basis for a subgroup. Dodge asked what the role of WGCV was: debate philosophy of Cal/Val or review and debate plans for Cal/Val and identify additional sources of validation? The latter provides a real benefit to the community while the former does not. Dodge offered to bring scientists to the next meeting and have them describe their peer-reviewed plans for Cal/Val and what they have decided is critical. However, Shuie noted that the WGCV group does not have the specialisation necessary to review the work of PIs who have developed peer-reviewed Cal/Val plans. General Validation Methodology Attendees discussed if WGCV should prepare a basic document on validation strategy and methodology for specific parameters. Zibordi says what is missing is sampling and measurement accuracy protocols in order to support validation. For example in ocean colour IOCCG is already co-ordinating activities related to ocean colour, and this example involves a large level of effort. NASA offered to provide experts and information for and in advance of the next meeting and Rockweitz noted that Envisat has scientific experts panels which should be included in any effort. Discussion Summary It was resolved that validation is a key aspect of the activities of WGCV however the work will continue to take place within the subgroups. Specific activities proposed or underway within the subgroups will be itemised in the Work Plan, and new validation activities will be included as appropriate. It was also agreed that the WGCV response to the GCOS Space Panel should indicate that it welcomes selected lists of parameters from the Space Panel, but that these cannot be the only parameters considered. 10.15 Ongoing CalVal Assessment Assess on an ongoing basis calibration, validation, and homogeneity issues associated with long term data continuity. This is considered to be a fundamental basis for subgroup and WGCV activities and as such no specific action needs to be identified. 10.16 Data Continuity Recommendations Recommend standard procedures for collecting continuous measurements of key parameters and from key instruments. Many attendees felt that this would be specific to individual geophysical parameters and instruments. Attema asked if this should been done by the GxOS Space Panel. P Teillet cited the SeaWiFS Protocol document as a good example even though it is specific to ocean data. It was resolved that continuity issues should be addressed by the IGOS SIT and that detailed procedures would be addressed on a case by case basis by agencies or, if appropriate, by WGCV subgroups. 10.17 Annual Review It was agreed that all WGCV meetings will include a review of the Work Plan and ensure that the critical needs of the international community are being met by the CEOS activity. Friday, 6th December, 09.00 11 NEWSLETTER STATUS MARK HUTCHINS Newsletter issue 6 was distributed prior to the meeting. If WGCV participants, especially subgroup participants, did not receive the most recent Newsletter, please inform M Hutchins. if The Newsletter distribution list currently contains around 300 users. Originally, the newsletter was envisioned as a twice per year publication and a key aspect of the newsletter was to provide up to date news. However, now that the WWW provides the ability to quickly disseminate information, it may be useful to have the newsletter focus on more technical and detailed articles. For the next Newsletter issue, requested input items are: WGCV Chairman's introduction and message National Physics Lab Report ISRO report on Indian missions and Cal/Val plans Update on dossier - call for inputs Phil T article on the new paradigm on Cal/Val Reports from subgroup chairs -with introductions of the new chairs for SARCAL and IVOS. Summaries of recent subgroup and WGCV meetings An article from RSA about PIRODA which was received too late for inclusion in the last issue. All inputs are needed by February. Hutchins asked if the newsletter distribution list contained people who already know about CEOS. Most people on the distribution are somehow affiliated with CEOS and it was suggested that we should use the newsletter for more outreach. It was agreed that the list should be expanded to include more investigators involved in Cal/Val. Members of the GOSSP IGOS SIT and AG should also be added. Action: Croom to provide membership list of the GOSSP. Action: Dodge to provide a list of EOS Investigators. There was some discussion at plenary about ISPRS involvement in CEOS as a "dialogue partner" and all agreed that strengthening links to ISPRS commissions would be good. Action: Dowman action to identify suitable groups from ISPRS to be included in the Newsletter distribution list. Action: Hutchins to pass last 6 issues of the newsletter to Secretariat for inclusion on the WGCV WWW site. 4.4 (Cont.) Terrain Mapping Subgroup Report Ian Dowman The most recent TM Subgroup meeting was held 19th and 20th September 1996, in Sioux Falls in conjunction with a CEOS WIGSS meeting at Eros Data Center. Holding the meeting at the same time as WGISS was helpful in that individuals involved in GLOBE and cartographic developments and standards were available to participate. In addition to IfSAR DEMS, high resolution (10m to 1m) optical sensors are being used to generate DEMs, and these will create a new set of problems which mean new problems. Other instruments which need to be considered include scanning laser profilers which can be very useful in validating terrain mapping produce Several data testing activities are underway. To test of ESA Tandem data 10 scenes were requested. The following sites have been identified as being the most suitable: Drum Mountain, Lucky Rise (Fort Irwin), Marseille and Montagne Ste Victoire, and Walnut Gulch. Eight groups have indicated that they would take part in the test and will be provided with the data. Members will do their own analysis and present results at the ERS meeting in Florence in March. Testing with IRS stereoscopic data is also planned and the ISRO have agreed to collect and provide data for test and validation. This will provide a nice comparison validation to the previous DEM validation activities. It was also agreed that a similar test with RADARSAT data would be advantageous, and acquisition of test data is being pursued by UCL. At the meeting in Sioux Falls the following future activities were agreed: Revise the evaluation guide carry out tests of ERS tandem and IRS1C data continue to develop and test methods for DEM generation from all sources Consider special requirements of high resolution data Proposed that a central data base of reference data be set up with on line access Collect and update data for the test site dossier The subgroup also formed the following key recommendation: Recognising the increasing importance of DEMS s essential data for analysis and correction of satellite image data and the need for high accuracy of the data and the need for understanding the causes and distribution of errors, The Terrain Mapping Subgroup recommends: that space agencies recognise and support new and existing test sites for validating DEMS generated from satellite data that high accuracy data sets for validation be generated and made available, together with full information about the accuracy and source of the data Dowman noted that sites are different for IfSAR and IRS work, however several sites have been identified. Alan says that any request to plenary should identify specific sites for which data are requested. Dowman suggests that data from some sites may be useful for other groups (e.g. vegetated areas for terrain mapping as well as LAI/FPAR work). Morgan requested that the TM group hold meetings in coincidence with the WGCV general meetings, however Dowman explained that there were other factors to be considered. The next meeting will be held in conjunction with the ERS meeting in Florence. Belward reminded the group that M Rast suggested that the subgroups will need to meet more frequently than the WGCV in order to move forward on specific scientific and technical work which is being undertaken. All agreed that the TM group test sites should be included in the consideration of test site data requests from other groups. Attema noted that ESA has collected data including AIRSAR data over Indonesia and this can be contributed to the TM Subgroup. H Ziemann asked if some of the JRC's European sites might overlap with some of the sites needed by TM subgroup Action: Zibordi to make sure that the JRC MARS sites are described in the dossier. 12 GCOS PRESENTATION DAVID CROOM D Croom described the relationship between GOOS, GCOS and GTOS noting the key international scientific organisation involved in their creation and support. GCOS is overseen by a Joint Scientific and technical Committee (JSTC) which is made up primarily of representatives of the funding bodies, space agencies, the chairs of the GCOS Panels and invited experts. The JSTC meets once a year to formulate policy and to approve the following year's programme of work. The work of GCOS is managed by the Joint Planning Office in Geneva, under the Director Dr Tom Spence. To aid the Director GCOS has established 6 Panels : Socio-Economic Benefits, Atmospheric Observations, Ocean Observations (joint with GOOS and WCRP), Terrestrial Observations (joint with GTOS) and Space and Data Panels. (Note that GOOS and GTOS have their own equivalents to the GCOS JSTC). The GxOS organisations are participants in the International Global Observing Strategy (IGOS) planning (see 2.5). GCOS, and the Space, Data and Terrestrial Panels have all produced strategic plans which are available on request from the JPO in Geneva or via the World Wide Web (http://www.wmo.ch/web/gcos/gcoshome.html). In October 1996 the GCOS Space Panel was replaced with a new GxOS Pane linvolving GCOS, GOOS and GTOS. The new panel is called the Global Observing Systems Space panel (GOSSP) and it will concentrate on long-time-series observational requirements. It is chaired by John Morgan and its membership includes representatives from space agencies, from appropriate GxOS Panels, from developing counties and invited experts. A similar Joint Data Panel is being established Recommendations from the first GOSSP meeting relevant to the CEOS Cal/Val WG include: Continue global AVHRR data acquisition and provide overlap with new satellites Continue maintenance of accurate knowledge of post-launch sensor calibration, especially for active AVHRR sensors and for Landsat. Initiate a global validation programme in respect of Leaf Area Index (LAI) and of Fractional Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FPAR) The latter is the subject of a detailed paper circulated to members.  Basically it calls for: selection of representative ecosystems, selection of sites definition of methodology (sensors, procedures, timing) carrying out of campaigns data reduction and analysis, publication and dissemination of results. The time scale proposed is: 1997 Planning, preparation, funding, initial tests 1998/99 Two annual campaigns 2000 Analysis and completion. It was noted that the task in Item (1) above is a current WGISS activity, and was re-endorsed at the 10th CEOS Plenary, and that Item (2) was being handled by NOAA and EDC and that this information was available from the WWW sites referred to earlier. In respect of the third Item GOSSP requests: endorsement of the project by WGCV co-operation in the definition of the overall structure co-operation in the organisation of an international team to carry out the programme WGCV agrees to endorse the plans, however WGCV will not actively define strategies or organise international teams concerning this activity at this time. The WGCV requests the GOSSP experts concerned with LAI and FPAR measurements to examine the measurement, sampling and test site implications on validation of these products, and to present these at the next WGCV meeting. WGCV members will then be in a position to consider inter-agency collaboration, for example in the form of provision of imagery or access to national test sites and or test site data sets. This would have to be an independent activity (a la IOCCG), however WGCV will continue to exchange information and WGCV members will likely participate independently in the GOSSP evaluation process. 6. COUNTRY REPORTS (CONT) 6.7 Australia Country Report Ian Barton The Australian country report was placed on the WWW before the meeting, so Barton summarised the activities noting the following. CSIRO continues to operate two ground based measurement sites over uniform inland areas. These sites are instrumented to continually measure the radiation balances at the earth's surface and are ideal for the vicarious calibration. CSIRO Division of Oceanography, with assistance from COSSA and Australia's National Tidal facility (NTF) has been operating an altimeter calibration site for Topex/Poseidon since the start of the mission in September, 1992 at Burnie in northern Tasmania. CSIRO plans to establish a World Wide Web (WWW) page containing calibration information for the solar reflectance channels of AVHRR. A joint program between the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre (CRC) and NASA GSFC has been established, with a key focus being to validate results from a new algorithm to characterise East Antarctic sea ice. This uses data from SSM/I, SAR, and AVHRR as well as aerial photography. CSIRO has undertaken an extensive series of cruises studying pigment distribution and photosynthetic (PvsI) parameters in the Western Equatorial Pacific, Australian slope waters, and the Southern Ocean, as part of Australian JGOFS research.(Southern Oceans and Spectroradiometer) The Physics Department at the University of NSW is planning a validation campaign for POLDER data in the Australian region. CSIRO is planning a project that aims to develop techniques for the precise validation of SST as determined from data provided by environmental satellites. This project will develop a long term SST validation data set for assessing the accuracy of SST as measured by several instruments including AVHRR, ATSR-2, AATSR, MODIS and GLI. CSIRO are also sponsoring SARCAL activities at several sites (Mt Bundey and Gunn Point, New Territories) 6.8 Canada Phil Teillet The Canadian country report was placed on the WWW before the meeting, and Teillet referenced the following activities which are described in the report. CCRS has escalated its efforts in hyperspectral remote sensing and has acquired several data sets in 1996 that encompass hyperspectral components and require attention to cal/val issues. A workshop on Canadian Earth Observation Calibration and Validation (cal/val) was held in conjunction with the 18th Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing and the 26th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment. A joint activity with CCRS and CSA for Radarsat image data calibration. Canadian MERIS initiatives. Several Canadian research initiatives taking place in academia and industry. One urgent topic was discussed. Consideration is being given to future activities involving the BOREAS test sites and related infrastructures. Some of the BOREAS sites (Southern Study Area (SSA): Old Black Spruce (OBS), Old Aspen (OA), Old Jack Pine(OJP)) will be maintained by Canadian agencies for a period of at least three years to meet Canadian needs and there is a possibility that NASA will maintain the Northern Study Area (NSA) OBS site for a similar period of time. The other BOREAS sites will be decommissioned this winter or next spring. Expressions of interest are hereby solicited from the members of CEOS and its Working Group on Calibration and Validation with respect to the use of the BOREAS sites for cal/val activities. A final decision regarding the BOREAS sites will be made by the Canadian BOREAS Coordination Committee and NASA in December 1996, therefore, expressions of interest are needed immediately. Attema asked if FPAR/LAI is being studied at the BOREAS site and suggested that GCOS should be notified so their members can be notified. 6.9 European Commission Guisseppe Zibordi G. Zibordi discussed the CoASTS project - Coastal Atmosphere and Sea Time Series project. This involves the collection of measurements over the north Adriatic Sea to support SeaWiFS and OCTS. This has also involved evaluating bio-fouling of underwater radiometers as well as intercomparison of atmospheric and marine radiometers. He also briefly described the Concentration on European Validation Experiments for coastal/shelf water remote sensing (CEVEx). G Morgan asks if the EC are interested in non-European sites for data validation, and Zibordi indicated that exchanged of data for scientific needs was always useful however no specific field activities outside Europe are planned at this time. 6.10 India Kiran Kumar K Kumar briefly highlighted ISRO activities listing the many polar orbiting and geosynchronous satellites currently in operation. Significant calibration and validation activities were also noted including validation plans for ocean colour data. ISRO launch plans for 1997 include IRS 1D (same as 1C) and Insat 2e which will include a water vapour channel at 8km plus VIS and TIR channels. In 1998 the Ocean Colour Monitor will launch. The Ocean Colour Monitor has a 2 day repeat cycle with 720 KM swath and 360 M IFOV. The instrument is a pushbroom radiometer with refractive optics, 12 bit quantitisation and includes 8 channels to SeaWiFS. Beyond this there are additional plans for an ocean scatterometer. 13 NASDA REPORT AND SPECIAL PRESENTATION OCTS CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION HIROMI OAKU H Oaku presented the status of the ADEOS Calibration and Validation activities. Following the successful launch of ADEOS the collection of OCTS data is now underway. Several example images of SST and Chlorophyll concentration were shown, and Oaku illustrated. In addition to OCTS data, it was noted that the AVNIR data has compared favourably with SPOT data. NASDA has initiated a comprehensive check of the calibration of OCTS data. Prelaunch characterisation of the 10 detectors of the OCTS instrument is available, but detector variability results in a normalisation problem which requires significant correction and results in overall variability of roughly 0.3%. Initial analysis of on-board calibration has found the following: Electrical calibration data was good and the gain ratio was not changed. Inner Lamp Calibration Data - radiance is increased after launch. Solar Calibration Data - output level is changed. OCTS does not have a diffuser for solar calibration but rather a small window for solar calibration. Vicarious calibration exercises are also underway. An AVIRIS under flight was carried out on Nov 7 and NASDA are awaiting the data in order to begin analysis. Vicarious calibration is also underway using Yamato bank buoy data. NASDA have also been validating data products comparing a CZCS-like algorithm and an OCTS algorithm. There are significant differences in the results, however the algorithm comparisons are on-going. On aspect of the differences appears to be unrelated to the unbalanced output of band 6 and 8. In addition there are problems possibly due to aerosol out of range; CZCS algorithm does not have this problem though OCTS algorithm (similar to SeaWiFS algorithm) does. The plan near term plans for OCT calibration and validation are Address detector normalisation - need accuracy greater than .3%. Acquire on-board calibration data 2 times per month. Vicarious calibration through AVIRIS underflights data 2 times per year Many validation exercises using Japanese bouy data, CALCOFI cruise data, and JFA/Institute/University cruise) and other truth data. Belward asked Oaku to forward the names and contact information for ADEOS PIs so that they may be included in the newsletter and WGCV information distribution lists. 14 SUMMARY SESSION ALAN BELWARD The discussions of the previous days were summarised. The working group reached consensus that: Validation should be considered as a key element of a 3 year action plan. Specific parameters for validation should be considered. Not all parameters identified by the group, (e.g., the 24 parameters from the EOS programme) are at the same level of maturity. Priority parameters should be identified, and that all CEOS Members, Affiliates and Observers need to be involved in the process of identifying this priority list. Affiliates should strengthen their involvement in the WGCV activities which would help in future discussions of specific validation activities. The Working Group will examine a set of parameters identified during WGCV12 as pilot projects, in line with the Geneva recommendations. These parameters be examined within the framework of existing sub groups, rather than creation of a new sub group at present- - due in part to the diversity of validation methodologies for different parameters. As a result the Working Group agreed to the following pilot projects. First results will be presented at WGCV13. Terrain Mapping ESA Tandem & IRS 1C Tests for Digital Terrain Model generation. IVOS VIS/NIR Top of Atmosphere reflectance as measured by multiple sensors.. Validated VIS/NIR reflectance measurements are a critical first step to creation of derived parameters such as LAI. This pilot project is initially targeting one test site, multiple sensors with a limited time period. A second IVOS Pilot Project will examine Sea Surface Temperature (Multi-sensor) validation. This builds on previous IVOS projects cross calibrating SST measuring sensors, and intercomparison of SST generation algorithms. The validation study will concentrate on an analysis of measurement and sampling issues. SARCAL & MS Wind Speed, Significant Wave Height, Wave Frequency and Direction validation will all be examined. Regarding the recommendation from the GOSSP, the WGCV12 participants agreed to endorse their proposed actions and recommend the IOCCG model for the validation LAI/FPAR (i.e. an expert group should be organised to address the specific details and plan and carry out necessary field campaigns). It should be noted however that technical concerns related to calibration of VIS/NIR reflectances are being addressed in the IVOS subgroup, and participation of users of these data are welcome to participate in IVOS activities. 14.1 Action Item Summary All members to forward information on Cal/Val related sites to secretariat by 17 January All members to submit outstanding responses to Dossier by 28th March. Belward to resolve status of CEOS/GCOS Arlington Workshop report & circulate if available. Dodge to send report on dossier to Hutchins for Newsletter by Feb 10th. Belward to send letter to CEOS members encouraging participation in MS Subgroup. By 17 January. Shiue to provide Belward with technical details on frequency allocation and interference by 18 December. Shiue to provide names for contacts for TRMM/PR and NOAA-K/AMSU pre-launch calibration information to the secretariat for circulation by 28 March. Pettersson to nominate someone for participation in SARCAL by 18 December. Belward to draft 3-Year Work Plan, reflecting WGCV12 discussions, and circulate a draft by end of January. - Members to respond to Secretariat no later than 28th March. Teillet to provide introductory information to secretariat by 28 March. Belward to send official WGCV response to GOSSP by 17 January. MJ to notify group of availability. All members to send notice of upcoming meetings to secretariat for inclusion on WWW site. Notice of upcoming subgroup meetings will also be listed on WWW site. Croom to provide GOSSP membership to Hutchins and Secretariat by 10t February Dowman to identify suitable ISPRS groups for inclusion in newsletter and WGCV distribution lists. Group identification due 10 February. All to provide secretariat with validation PI contact names by 28 March. Subgroup Chairs to send "sorted" bibliography inputs to secretariat by 28th March. All to provide H Zeimann with data/input for cal/val slide set by 28 March. Belward to invite NPL to attend WGCV13 as expert members. Also to invite Chinese National Labs or similar groups. Subgroup Chairs to confirm if subgroup will be meeting before WGCV13. Belward to inform CEOS secretariat of Validation data set requirements by 17th January. - NEED SST Test Site, Significant Wave Height (Darwin Australia), Terrain Mapping sites. Expressions of interest in BOREAS Northern Study area to be sent to Phil Teillet by 18 December. Newletter input actions as described in minutes section 11 due to Mark Hutchins no later than 10 February. 14.2 Next Meeting WGCV 13 will be held 3-5 September in Shanghai - Prof. Peifen Mao is organisation contact and she can be reached at Fax 86 21 63248028. Zhimin Zhang is the technical contact, and he can be reached via email at Zhimin@fudan.ihep.ac.cn 14.3 Adjourn Belward thanked DLR/DARA for hosting the meeting and the group expressed appreciation to Noack and Ms von Roehl for organising the meeting and making the participants feel so welcome. Annex A - WGCV12 Agenda CEOS Working Group on Calibration and Validation WGCV 12, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany 4th - 6th December 1996 Final Agenda 1. Welcome Wolfgang Noak 2 Chair's report Alan Belward, Chairman WGCV12 2.1 Minutes Review 2.2 Review of agenda 2.3 Actions from WGCV11 2.4 IGOS meetings 2.5 Report from CEOS plenary 3 Dossier Status James Dodge 4 Reports from Subgroups 4.1 SAR Calibration Yves-Louis Desnos 4.2 Microwave Sensors James Shiue 4.3 Infrared and Visible Optical Sensors Ian Barton 4.4 Terrain Mapping (see Friday 6 Dec) 5 IOCCG (Ocean Colour) Activities Mike Rast for John Withrow 6 Country Reports 6.1 Norway Lasse Pettersson 6.2 NASA Agency Report Jim Dodge 6.3 Eumetsat Stephen Tjemkes 6.4 ESA Evertt Attema 6.5 NOAA - N Rao 7 Action Plans - Terms of Reference Alan Belward 6. Country Reports (cont) 6.6 Germany/DARA Klaus-Dieter Rockweitz 8 Special Presentation Calibration of Interferometrically Derived DEMs A. Roth 9 Tour of DLR Facilities Thursday, 5th December, 09.00 10 Three Year Work Plan Alan Belward 10.1 - Communications - WWW 10.2 Identify Key Conferences 10.3 Specialist Sessions 10.4 Cal/Val Slide Set 10.5 Build Key Bibliographic References 10.6 Pre launch Information 10.7 Co-ordinate with WGISS 10.8 Linkages to External Groups 10.9 Involve External Experts 10.10 Dossier 10.11 Test Sites 10.12 Dictionary 10.13 Ad Hoc Validation Groups 10.14 Validation Activities 10.15 Ongoing CalVal Assessment 10.16 Data Continuity Recommendations 10.17 Annual Review DARA-Hosted Tour of Deutsches Museum and Airfield Friday, 6th December, 09.00 11 Newsletter Status Mark Hutchins 4.4 (Cont.) Terrain Mapping Subgroup Report Ian Dowman 12 GCOS Presentation David Croom 6. Country Reports (cont) 6.7 Australia Country Report Ian Barton 6.8 Canada Phil Teillet 6.9 European Commission Guisseppe Zibordi 6.10 India Kiran Kumar 13 NASDA Report and Special Presentation OCTS Calibration and Validation Hiromi Oaku 14 Summary Session Alan Belward 14.1 Action Item Summary 14.2 Next Meeting 14.3 Adjourn Annex B - Attendance List WGCV 12 4th - 6th December 1996 Attendees Contact List NAME AFFILIATION EMAIL FAX Neon ARMAND IRE/RAS armand@ire.rssi.ru 007 095 2038414 Evert ATTEMA ESA eattema@jw.estec.esa.nl 31 715655675 Ian BARTON CSIRO ijb@ml.csiro.au 61 3 62 325123 Alan BELWARD JRC/SAI alan.belward@jrc.it 39 332 87336 David CROOM RAL d.l.croom@rl.ac.uk 44 1235 851 247 Yves-Louis DESNOS ESA ydesnos@jw.estec.esa.nl 31 715655675 Jim DODGE NASA jdodge@hq.nasa.gov 01 202 358 2771 Ian DOWMAN UCL idowman@ps.ucl.ac.uk 44-171-380-0453 Dennis HELDER SDSU/EDC helderd@mg.sdstate.edu 01 605 688 5880 Charlie HERSOM ISTS hersom@isl.ists.ca 01 416 665 1815 Mark HUTCHINS DRA/BNSC M_S_Hutchins@scs.dra.hmg.gb 44 1252 396310 Mary JAMES EOS Ltd maryj@eos.co.uk 44 1252 712552 A. S. Kiran KUMAR ISRO kiran@sac.ernet.in 91 79 6751752 Giancarlo MARACCI JRC/SAI giancarlo.maracci@jrc.it 49 443 785461 Garth MORGAN ACTE garth.morgan@unisa.edu.au 61 8 8302 53444 Chris MUTLOW RAL/BNSC c.t.mutlow@rl.ac.uk 44 1235 446525 Wolfgang NOACK DLR noack@dfd.dlr.de 49 8153 281446 Hiromi OAKU NASDA oaku@eorc.nasda.go.jp 81 3 3224 7052 Lasse PETTERSSON NERSC/NSC lasse.pettersson@nrsc.no 47 55 20 0050 Michael RAST ESA/ESTEC mrast@jw.estec.esa.nl 31 71 565 5675 C R Nagaraja RAO NOAA nrao@nesdis.noaa.gov 01 301 763 8136 Klaus-Dieter ROCKWITZ DARA 49 228 447 580 Manfred SCHROEDER DLR ms@zeus.oe.op.dlr.de 49 8153 282790 Phil SLATER Univ Arizona philip.slater@opt-sci.arizona.edu 01 520 621 8292 James SHIUE NASA/GSFC jcshiue@meneg.gsfc.nasa.gov 01 301 286 0294 Phil TEILLET CCRS teillet@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca 01 613 947 1383 Stephen TJEMKES EUMETSAT tjemkes@eumetsat.de Giuseppe ZIBORDI JRC giuseppe.zibordi@jrc.it 39 332 789034 Hartmut ZIEMANN College Anhalt/DARA hzeimann@vw.fh-anhalt.de 49 340 6514200 Manfred ZINK DLR manfred.zink@dlr.de 49 8153 281449

http://www.wgcvceos.org