1. Status report from the Lead Centre for Surface Processes and Assimilation E. Rodríguez-Camino (INM) and S. Gollvik (SMHI)

2. Outline Next Workshop on Surface issues (4th): Activities at different centres Recent comparison and evaluation exercises New physiography: proposal of evaluation Preferent fields of activity for the near future

3. 3rd SRNWP Workshop on surface processes and assimilation (Madrid, 22-24 Oct.2001): short term recommendations Improvement of snow formulation Minimum number of predictive equations to describe snowpack evolution: T, H, LW, Alb Improvement of the snow depth analysis Implementation of satellite based vegetation properties in climate files Review of definition and use of roughness length for heat and momentum

4. 3rd SRNWP Workshop on surface processes and assimilation (Madrid, 22-24 Oct.2001): medium-term recommendations Increase the number of surface layers: 4-5 Separate energy budget for the canopy Review roughness length averaging for momentum exchange Variational approach to soil moisture assimilation Use of SYNOP soil temperature for validation Use of satellite data for validation Improvement of run-off formulation

5. 4th workshop on surface processes and assimilation: SMHI, Norrköping around spring 2004 depending on HIRLAM internal arrangements.

9. RECENT COMPARISON AND EVALUATION EXERCISES Rhone AGGregation experiment (http://www.cnrm.meteo.fr/mc2/projects/rhoneagg/) ELDAS (http://www.knmi.nl/samenw/eldas/)

18. precipitation radiation evaporation Soil moisture correction scheme Soil moisture content (sub)surface runoff Observations driving soil moisture correction Synops data METEOSAT or MSG Land surface parameterization scheme

29. How to assess a new physiographic database? Introduce in a model and compare scores?  Models are usually tuned to their climatic files! Some surface parameters are frequently tuned (e.g., Zo) and others not (e.g., veg). Compare against point measurements? Good, but restricted to certain land uses and climatic conditions. Compare against other databases? Good, but which one is the “truth” Compare data and algorithms used to classify ecosystems? Locals have the best knowledge of landscape features  Distribute the evaluation work!

32. Preferent fields of activity for the near future Runoff description is rather crude (field capacity?). Use of soil moisture subgrid variability, subgrid topography, subgrid precipitation,...  RhoneAggr Exp. Soil moisture assimilation: comparison of different methods  ELDAS

33. Preferent fields of activity for the near future Winter conditions are still a source of problems for surface schemes. A better snow description needed: a) ageing of albedo, density, emissivity, etc; b) snow albedo in forests and complex orography; c) effect of water retained by melting snow; d) freezing and melting of soil moisture, lakes; e) sea ice description.

34. Preferents fields of activity for the near future Substitution of land-use and look-up tables for vegetation parameters for directly measured (from satellite) vegetation parameters: veg, LAI, alb. The frequency of updating should also be reviewed (1 week?)  ECOCLIMAP