1. Doris Dransch, Christian Scharun, Christine Nam, Erik Nixdorf, Johannes Boog, Nicola Abraham, Mahyar Valizadeh, Kai Schröter, + inputs from Stefan Lüdtke
2. replicate for Methane showcase
3. WF status
3.1. WF1 Climate Change
3.1.1. 90% Frontend Features
3.1.1.1. Would like to add Raster map of spatial data (linked to time series; ensemble member).
3.1.2. 90% Backend Functionality
3.2. WF2 Smart Monitoring
3.2.1. 80% Backend Functionaility
3.2.2. 75% Frontend Features
3.3. WF3 Flood Similarity
3.3.1. 80% Backend Functionality
3.3.2. 75% Frontend features
3.3.2.1. currently under review by GFZ Hydrology section to collect feedback
3.4. WF4 Socio Economic Impact
3.4.1. 60% Backend Functionality
3.4.2. 40% frontend functionality (reuse of the stuff implemented for WF3)
3.4.2.1. visualisation not defined yet
3.5. WF5 River Plume
3.5.1. 85% Backend Functionality Frontend up to date with functionality
4. linked WF status
4.1. climate - smart monitoring
4.1.1. ideas formulated
4.1.1.1. demo for how collaboration could work
4.1.2. next step: Functionality for data exchange (Bundesland Fact Sheets available)
4.2. climate - flood similarity
4.2.1. Next Step: Projected ERAint_REMO data exchange by Feb. 15 to include 06.2013 flood.
4.2.2. ROI = Neu Darchau catchment
4.2.3. run selected events to obtain event precip and soil moisture indicators for observations
4.2.4. run selected events obtain event precip and soil moisture indicators for REMO reanalysis
4.2.5. compare indicators from both data sets to see if there is a link / coherent signal for extreme flood events
4.2.5.1. for selected glorious 6 events
4.2.5.2. compare frequency of indicator values for the entire reanalysis period
4.2.5.2.1. sampling of arbitrary points in time
4.2.6. screen for extremes (event precip threshold) in climate projections
4.2.6.1. RCPs 2.6, 4.5, 8.5
4.2.6.1.1. start with REMO
4.2.6.1.2. include model ensemble to represent projection uncertainty (CMIP5)
4.3. flood similarity - river plume
4.3.1. Flood similarity will present river plume with previous flood events to investigate
4.3.1.1. share list of flood events
5. TODOs for remainder
5.1. WF1 Climate Change
5.1.1. Debug plotting 'script'
5.1.2. Ensure workeflow related to default_ensemble combination.
5.1.3. Finalise default_ensemble
5.1.4. Contact DKRZ for information regarding faster data server access (virtual machine?)
5.1.5. Complete User documentation / Access to it.
5.2. WF2 Smart Monitoring
5.2.1. Worfklow is more or less in testing and bug fixing phase
5.2.2. Link workflows will probably require new functionality for data analysis to be implemented
5.3. WF3 Flood Similarity
5.3.1. testing (ongoing within section Hydrology GFZ)
5.3.2. bug fixing
5.3.3. improving user interaction
5.3.4. improving visualisation, routing order between gauges, processes *along* the river network
5.3.5. data, meta-data documentation, parsing metadata to the frontend
5.4. WF4 Socio Economic Impact
5.4.1. completion of input database
5.4.2. implementation of methods to quantify flood controls
5.4.3. implementation of functionality and visualisation for inundation mapping
5.5. WF5 River Plume
5.5.1. Currently in development: Moving to analyse real-time data
5.5.2. Complete documentation
5.6. external testing of WF needed
5.6.1. get feedback from the community
5.6.2. open the FEE and WFs to external (?) users
5.6.3. external currently means rather DE internally, across centers
5.6.3.1. otherwise we will have large overhead to make the tools accessible
6. holistic assessment of flood June 2013
6.1. WF1: Climate Change: would need API of 06.2013 to be translated to pr & smos values to determine how frequency changes in projections.
6.1.1. Discuss with Daniel if 'modules' of flood similarity tool can be applied to climate change explorer.
6.1.2. Is it sufficient to use a subset of regional climate models?
6.1.3. contribution to 2013 analysis consists of linked workflow application
6.2. WF2:SM Workflow: except of "old" weather forecasts, all data should be available
6.3. WF3: data mostly complete
6.4. WF4: REMO reanalysis data covering 2013 period
6.5. WF4: inundation depth map from RFM model output to be produced
6.6. WF5 River Plume - currently only focuses on the June 2013 Elbe flood event - all data available
6.7. WF linked climate change - similarity
6.8. WF similarity - river plume
6.9. new scientific insights
6.9.1. What makes a flood event exceptional?
6.9.2. What controls the generation, evolution and impacts of flood events?
6.9.3. WF2: improved data basis for campaign planning
6.9.3.1. which data has turned out to be really useful for this?
6.9.4. WF3 no new insights yet
6.9.5. WF4 no new insights yet
6.9.6. WF5 anomaly detection, and determining whether it originates from the Elbe
6.9.6.1. no link to any other workflow
6.9.7. linked climate change - similarity
6.9.7.1. can REMO provide a signal for flood events (event precip, wetnesss)?
6.9.7.1.1. link observations to REMO output
6.9.7.2. project into the future
6.9.7.3. how representative is REMO for CM ensemble?
6.10. benefits of using FEE for this analysis
6.10.1. exchange of data between workflows
6.10.1.1. e.g. outputs from WF3
6.10.1.2. re-use of input data from other WF (gauge locations, time series, ...)
6.10.2. accessibility to data
6.10.3. direct download of customized (variables of interest, ROI) climate data from ESGF
6.10.4. integrating data in one place
6.10.4.1. automatic import interface
6.10.5. capability to interactively explore data
6.10.6. reuse of interfaces, methods
6.10.7. customize ROI faster
6.10.7.1. faster extraction of geometries
6.10.8. new automatic anomaly detection, user guidance and comparison analyses
6.10.9. log file with reference number
6.10.9.1. debugging tool
6.10.10. how to evaluate this?
6.10.10.1. will pay off in the future and depends on the amount of use of FEE
6.10.10.2. Maybe Diana and Laurens know the answer?
6.10.11. provenance tracking not yet implemented
7. dry run for rapid flood assessment
7.1. River Plume - real-time analysis of anomalies in the marine environment in development.
7.2. How can the FEE support this activity?
8. paper outputs
8.1. key messages
8.1.1. How does science improve with the holisitic approach?
8.1.2. Do we learn from the integrated approach/view?
8.1.2.1. Collect examples from the application of the WFs to the June 2013 flood.
8.1.2.1.1. the FEE helps to explore data and find new questions
8.2. FEE implementation and 2013 flood use case
8.2.1. show that FEE enables the integrated view
8.3. potential journals
8.3.1. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science (Copernicus)
8.3.2. Journal of Digital Earth (Taylor&Francis)
8.3.2.1. for an additional more technical paper
8.3.3. Computer&Geosciences (Elsevier)
8.3.4. Environmental Modelling and Software (Elsevier)