1. Report on the 30th 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. WCRP – Quo vadis? SPARC – Quo vadis? • Report on the 30th 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

3. WCRP – Quo vadis? SPARC – Quo vadis? • Report on the 30th 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.

4. WCRP – Quo vadis? SPARC – Quo vadis? • 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!

5. WCRP – Quo vadis? SPARC – Quo vadis? • 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.