1. 1 Report on the 30 th Session of the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Programme 6-9 April 2009, Maryland, USA N. McFarlane, T. G. Shepherd, T. Peter, V. Ryabinin  2008 external review of the WCRP, commissioned by its Sponsors and the International Group of Funding Agencies of Global Change Research.  Key issues raised in the WCRP review to be addressed as part of the planning for the near future (up to 2013) and longer-term activities:  WCRP lacks visibility within key communities, notably user communities, and particularly within developing countries.  WCRP structural issues were the main overarching theme.  Fundamental research role of WCRP was pointed out as important particularly for the major science funding agencies (e.g. NERC, NOAA, NSF).

2. 2 Report on the 30 th Session of the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Programme  SPARC Plans to 2013 and beyond:  Legacy document: (a) chemistry-climate model validation, (b) assessment of key uncertainties in measurements, (c) linking various scientific communities.  Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate (AC&C): SPARC/WCRP: A. Ravishankara  Martyn Chipperfield IGAC/IGBP: Phil Rasch and Sarah Doherty WCRP – Quo vadis? SPARC – Quo vadis?

3. 3 Report on the 30 th Session of the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Programme  Future of the WCRP as discussed in 3 breakout groups:  Tasked to consider the same three questions: (1) What should be the function of WCRP? (2) What should be the main themes of WCRP? (3) What should be the structure of WCRP?  Result: Framework for restructuring WCRP beyond 2013:  Central structured activities analogous to the current core projects.  Broad disciplinary themes that recognize major couplings and processes in the climate system: Land /Atmosphere, Ocean/Atmosphere, Cryosphere, Stratosphere/Troposphere.  Applications, communications, and outreach will be addressed through a major interdisciplinary cross-cutting activity. WCRP – Quo vadis? SPARC – Quo vadis?

4. 4 Potential points for discussion: SPARC needs to “encompass the troposphere“! Does SPARC need to change its name? A central issue will be a good coordination with IGAC! Should we reconsider a merger IGAC&SPARC? Ensure lab studies stay a strong component in SPARC! AC&C: Intensify interaction between SPARC and IGAC! To this end benefit from the CCMVal and achieve real collaboration between CCMVal modelers and tropospheric modelers! WCRP – Quo vadis? SPARC – Quo vadis?

5. 5 SPARC needs to “encompass the troposphere“! “Encompass” does not mean “take over”. Dynamical and chemical aspects. Does SPARC need to change its name? Not necessarily. A central issue will be a good coordination with IGAC! Identify projects of mutual interest – or is this already exhausted by AC&C? Should we reconsider a merger IGAC&SPARC? No majority presently on SPARC-SSG; rather follow up on and intensify specific activities. Ensure lab studies stay a strong component in SPARC! Follow up on the good examples given during this meeting. AC&C: Intensify interaction between SPARC and IGAC! SPARC needs “heros”. Time-constraint by CCMVal will relax. WCRP – Quo vadis? SPARC – Quo vadis?

6. 6

7. 7