The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has a history that stretches back almost 150 years, and international data sharing has been central to its activities from the very beginning. The organization was formed to facilitate international cooperation in the collection and exchange of meteorological data and products, and it has continued to emphasize the importance of free and unrestricted data exchange throughout its existence. When member nations began to explore commercial meteorological activities that required restrictions on data sharing, the WMO was the venue for international debates on the issue. The organization itself had an interest in maintaining free and open exchange, as this principle was at the foundation of its own key functions. The formal international compromise on this issue was laid out in 1995 in WMO Resolution 40, which ensured that free and unrestricted exchange of data essential for saving lives and property would continue, while restrictions on other, “nonessential,” data would be allowed.
WMO and its affiliated bodies were also actively involved in international debates and understandings related to climate change. WMO helped to form the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), which over the years has identified the key observations needed to adequately monitor climate change and advocated for greater international sharing of climate-relevant data. In 2015, WMO passed a new resolution—Resolution 60—officially calling on its members to support free and open exchange of essential climate data.
The study of climate change, free and open international data sharing, and even ideas about the environmental applications of satellites, predate the space age. The first large-scale international data sharing efforts began in the nineteenth century, focused on the issue of meteorology and enabled by one of the first innovations in communication technology: the telegraph. It had long been realized that information about weather in one country could be used to anticipate weather soon to occur in another. With the development and spread of telegraph technology in the mid-1800s, this knowledge could finally be used operationally.
In 1873, meteorologists around the world held the first International Meteorological Congress, and formed the nongovernmental International Meteorological Organization (IMO) to coordinate and facilitate data sharing. In addition to its efforts to coordinate day-to-day meteorological activities and data sharing, the IMO organized a number of major international endeavors to improve the state of knowledge in the field of meteorology. It coordinated the First International Polar Year (IPY) in 1882–1883 and the second IPY fifty years later from 1932 to 1933. These programs brought together nations from around the world to coordinate research and data collection regarding the Arctic and Antarctic. They led to the construction of new observing systems and important new discoveries.
In the 75 years following its formation, weather forecasting capabilities improved and meteorology grew in importance. In 1950, the IMO was replaced by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Nongovernmental representatives were replaced with government officials as the agency gained status as an intergovernmental organization under the auspices of the United Nations.1 The new organization was given five purposes, including facilitating worldwide cooperation in meteorological observations and promoting the establishment of systems for the rapid exchange of weather information.
The organization's main decision-making body was the WMO Congress, made up of the director of the meteorological service of each member nation. This group would meet every four years to determine regulations and policies for the WMO, and members were expected to “do their utmost to implement the decisions of the Congress.” WMO had more than 75 members when it began operations in 1950, and eventually grew to include nearly every country in the world.2
One of WMO's early activities was the third IPY, also known as the International Geophysical Year (IGY), organized together with the International Council of Scientific Unions. The IGY took place during 1957 and 1958 and involved nearly 70 countries.3 Data exchange was a key issue for the IGY. Recognizing the difficulties experienced in accessing data collected during the second IPY, the Special Committee for the IGY implemented a new system for global data sharing. This system was based on the creation of three World Data Centers (WDCs) located across the globe. WDC-A was located in the United States, WDC-B was located in the USSR, and WDC-C was comprised of specialized data centers in a variety of nations. All IGY observations were sent to at least one of these centers, which then provided copies to the others. According to the IGY data exchange agreements, data and information at the centers was to be made available to all countries and scientific bodies—this was perhaps one of the earliest open data policies, although it wasn't referred to as such.4 Among the many achievements of the IGY were the first systematic measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide, carried out by Charles David Keeling in Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and the first spacecraft, with both the United States and the Soviet Union launching their first civilian satellites in support of the IGY.5
The fact that the first satellites were launched in relation to an environmental and meteorological effort was no surprise; it had been clear for years that weather monitoring would be one of the first civil applications of satellites. In 1958, less than a year after the launch of Sputnik, the WMO established a panel of experts on artificial satellites, with members from the USSR and the United States, to explore the issue.6 Just two years later, NASA launched the first weather satellite, the Television Infrared Observing Satellite 1 (TIROS I), in April, 1960.7
While the space race and superpower competition was front page news, the international community was eager to find opportunities for peaceful cooperation in space, and meteorology seemed a promising option. In December, 1961, months after the first men were lofted into space, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 1721 on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space. This resolution included a request that the WMO investigate opportunities for international cooperation related to meteorological satellites.8 The WMO eagerly responded, drafting a report proposing the creation of the World Weather Watch (WWW), an ambitious cooperative global system to assist the meteorological services of the world. The proposed system included a global observing system to monitor the weather; a global data processing system to turn data into useful information products, including forecasts; and a global telecommunications system to distribute the data and information.9 The UN General Assembly endorsed these plans in November 1962, and in 1963, the World Weather Watch was officially established.10 Although the design of the program and its approval occurred rapidly—at least in international political terms—there was still significant work to be done in the detailed planning and implementation of the new program.
Satellites were expected to play a central role. A 1966 publication about progress toward the WWW stated, “It is quite clear that the advent of meteorological satellites marks a turning point in the science of meteorology and that their use will figure prominently in the World Weather Watch now being developed.”11 From the perspective of the meteorological community, satellites had two advantages over other techniques: satellites could provide a means of monitoring the weather from outside the atmosphere, and they could provide data promptly on a global scale. Even though the United States and Russia were the only countries capable of lofting these satellites at the time, the ability and willingness to share the data had already been demonstrated. The Automatic Picture Transmission (APT) system, developed by NASA and placed on its weather satellites beginning in the early 1960s, transmitted satellite imagery automatically to any location with the appropriate ground receiving equipment. This meant that any nation in the world that chose to acquire this equipment could access satellite data.
The WMO was not content to be a passive spectator in the development of these new technologies. In the 1970s, the WMO planned another large-scale endeavor, an alphabet soup of acronyms, alternatively referred to as the First Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP) Global Experiment (FGGE) or as the Global Weather Experiment (GWE). The goal of the one-year experiment was to determine the requirements of a global observing system that would allow routine, operational, long-range weather prediction.12 Satellites, including the relatively new geostationary weather satellites, first launched by the United States in 1966, were a major component of this effort. Europe and Japan developed and launched their first Earth observation satellites—both geostationary weather satellites—in support of the GWE. The geostationary satellites were located in a much higher orbit than the polar-orbiting weather satellites that had been developed earlier. This higher orbit allowed them to circle the globe at such a rate that they appeared to remain stationary over one area of the Earth. This meant that with just five geostationary satellites, it would be possible to have constant, global coverage of the entire world.
To coordinate their efforts to provide this full global coverage, officials from the United States, Japan, Europe, and the Soviet Union formed the Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites (CGMS) in 1972. When Russia announced in 1977 that it could not provide its planned satellite, the United States was able to adjust the position of one of its geostationary satellites to cover the gap, so that in the end, three of the five geostationary satellites were furnished by the United States.13 Russia contributed two polar-orbiting satellites, complementing two others provided by the United States. As expected, there was a surge of global meteorological observing activities during the GWE, which produced a massive amount of data. Datasets generated for the GWE were held at the World Data Centers in the United States and the Soviet Union and provided to any user that requested them at the cost of duplicating the data and postage.14
It's interesting to note that the CGMS, originally created for the GWE, proved important in later years as well. Working through this forum, operators of geostationary satellites provided backup support to each other on numerous occasions. When the European geostationary satellite, Meteosat-2, failed in 1984, the United States moved GOES-4 further east over the Atlantic to cover the area. When a Soviet geostationary satellite failed unexpectedly in 1989, Europe placed its satellite over the Indian Ocean to replace it. Europe also aided the United States when it was left with only one operational geostationary satellite in 1991, shifting its Meteosat-3 satellite west to cover the US east coast. In 2003, a Japanese satellite stopped operating, and the United States moved one of its satellites to cover the western Pacific.15 A policy of free and open data exchange among meteorological agencies enabled these types of arrangements—without such a policy, coverage would not have been useful or would have required significantly more complex negotiations.
Despite the fact that by the 1980s, free and open exchange of data had been the norm within the international meteorological community for more than 100 years, the practice was not destined to remain unchallenged. Some nations began to consider alternative policies, prompted largely by the rise of commercial meteorological organizations and national initiatives that aimed to reduce government spending by implementing market mechanisms and engaging in commercial activities within government agencies.
Facing tightening budgets and significant political pressure, a number of National Meteorological Services (NMSs), particularly in Europe, developed commercial branches within their government agencies and began selling weather data and products to help recover agency costs. These efforts were not consistent with free and open data sharing: data given away for free could not also be sold. This trend caused some alarm within the WMO, and participants at the Tenth World Meteorological Congress, held in 1987, determined that the issue needed careful consideration. In the meantime, the Congress released a resolution reiterating its long-standing belief that “the principle of free and unrestricted exchange of meteorological data between National Meteorological Services should be maintained.”16
In the following years, national activities continued to clash with international data sharing efforts. Agencies under pressure to recover costs through sales of meteorological data and products began to limit their own free distribution of some items, but would find their commercial efforts undermined when those same data or products were made freely available from another country. Government agencies engaging in commercial activities expressed frustration with what they viewed as unfair competition from transnational companies that received free data from one nation and used it to develop products sold in another nation. Agencies argued that these companies could undercut government prices, because government agencies were required to adopt prices high enough to recover the costs of expensive observing infrastructure, while the commercial entities didn't face these costs. Some developing countries voiced the concern that private meteorological companies could undercut and undermine the efforts of their national meteorological agencies altogether. Private-sector companies, in return, argued that government agencies that restricted data access were undermining private competitors by placing unreasonably high prices on data of interest to the private sector, or by not making data available at all.
It was clear that the issue of data sales and commercialization was not going away, and in the debates between government agencies and private-sector meteorological organizations, WMO saw a threat to its core functions. The Eleventh World Meteorological Congress, held in 1991, “noted with concern that commercial meteorological activities had the potential to undermine the free exchange of meteorological data and products between National Meteorological Services.” The Congress was determined to find an internationally agreeable solution that would ensure the continued operation of the international system. It recommended the establishment of a working group to study the issue in more depth and make proposals on future policies.17
In 1995, a compromise was finally reached. The Twelfth World Meteorological Congress passed Resolution 40, the “WMO policy and practice for the exchange of meteorological and related data and products including guidelines on relationships in commercial meteorological activities.” The resolution recognized the trend toward commercialization of meteorological activities and the pressure some meteorological agencies were under from their national governments, including “the requirement by some Members that their NMSs initiate or increase their commercial activities.” It recognized that national governments had the right to choose the extent to which they made data available for international exchange, and laid out a compromise: a tiered system for future data sharing. The new system required free and open sharing of “essential data” needed to support safety and security, but allowed members to restrict access to “nonessential” data. The nonessential data would be available for official use by National Meteorological Services and for noncommercial use by research and education communities, but could not be redistributed to third parties. Satellite data was included in the list of essential data, but only “those data and products agreed between WMO and satellite operators,” including data and products necessary for operations regarding severe weather warnings and tropical cyclone warnings.18
Despite the fact that the key element of Resolution 40 was the formal acceptance of some limitations on data sharing, WMO also attempted to use the resolution to encourage nations to continue the tradition of free and unrestricted data exchange, emphasizing this point multiple times and in multiple ways. It reminded Members that promoting the exchange of meteorological and related information was part of their obligation under Article 2 of the WMO Convention, the WMO's founding document. The resolution stated that the exchange of meteorological data and products among the elements of the World Weather Watch system was fundamental for the provision of meteorological services in all countries, and that these services provide safety, security, and economic benefits for the citizens of Member nations. It explained that the research and educational communities depend on access to meteorological data and products and noted that data exchanged with WMO was also important to WMO programs dealing with climate, the oceans, and other issues. It reminded Members that Parties to the UNFCCC had committed to promoting and cooperating in the full, open, and prompt exchange of climate information, and that world leaders at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development had called for increasing the commitment to exchanging scientific data and analysis.19
The Resolution went so far as to adopt a formal policy on international exchange of data that didn't mention restrictions at all, stating, “As a fundamental principle of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and in consonance with the expanding requirements for its scientific and technical expertise, WMO commits itself to broadening and enhancing the free and unrestricted international exchange of meteorological and related data and products.” The Congress urged members to “strengthen their commitment to the free and unrestricted exchange of meteorological and related data and products,” and to “increase the volume of data and products exchanged.”20 In 1999, WMO passed a similar policy covering hydrological data.21
While the WMO was struggling with the threats to free and open exchange of meteorological data in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was also recognizing and examining ways to address the growing need to collect and share data related to climate change.
WMO involvement on this issue stretched back at least to the GWE in the late 1970s. While the GWE had largely been seen as a success with respect to weather, some argued that it had not contributed sufficiently to the objective of studying the physical basis of climate.22 This issue was of growing importance for the WMO, which along with other international bodies, had sponsored the first World Climate Conference in 1979. The conference was attended by more than 300 scientists from 50 countries. Attendees acknowledged the importance of understanding and addressing climate change and called on nations to support the creation of the World Climate Program (WCP) within the WMO. The WCP included the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), and encouraged the use of in situ and satellite-based observations for climate research.23
Nearly a decade later, in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to collate and assess the evidence on global warming. In 1990, WMO and other international organizations held the Second World Climate Conference, and the results of the first IPCC Assessment Report were presented. The report stated that there was a greenhouse effect and that human activities were resulting in greenhouse gas emissions that were increasing that effect, leading to warming of the average temperature of the Earth. Two of their five key recommendations included the need to improve the systematic observation of climate variables with both satellite and surface-based instruments on a global basis and the need to facilitate international exchange of climate data.24
The Second World Climate Conference led to the creation of the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), a joint program of the WMO and other international organizations. GCOS was to coordinate among national and international entities and organizations to implement an observing system that would meet the monitoring needs of the World Climate Program—essentially aiming to duplicate in the area of climate the success of the WMO and its World Weather Watch.25 It also directly supported article five of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which required parties to support international and intergovernmental efforts to strengthen systematic observation and promote access to, and exchange of, data and analysis.26
Many meteorological services were receptive to this need. The European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) proposed an amendment to its convention in 1991 that explicitly added “operational monitoring of the climate and detection of global climatic changes” as part of its primary objective.27 The United States National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), announced in 1994, was expected to include new climate-monitoring instruments in addition to traditional meteorological instruments.28
In 1995, the same year the WMO Congress passed Resolution 40, GCOS also adopted a set of data principles. The principles stated that global environmental concerns were an overriding justification for the unrestricted international exchange of data and called for full and open sharing at the lowest possible cost to users. Recognizing the same challenges discussed with regard to meteorological data, the principles clarified that unrestricted access would apply only to noncommercial scientific and applications uses. They also acknowledged the GCOS policy was nonbinding and that each country would develop its own data policy.29
Despite the growing recognition of the global importance of climate change and the creation of a new organization, GCOS, to coordinate global observations, progress in this area remained slow. The IPCC released its second assessment report in 1995 and its third in 2001. In both reports, the IPCC called attention to the need for improved systematic observations. The third assessment report warned that observational networks in many parts of the world were in decline and stated that international cooperation, including free exchange of data among scientists, was crucial to better use of scientific, computational, and observational resources.30
Gaps in the satellite record were a particular concern. It is necessary to ensure new satellites are launched before existing satellites cease functioning to ensure continuity of the very precise measurements needed for climate. This overlap in satellite operation allows the instruments to be cross calibrated, measuring the same phenomenon at the same time. If this is not done, and the new satellite provides different readings than its predecessor, it is difficult to determine whether this change is due to differences in instrument functionality or the result of real changes in the environment. Potential gaps in satellite solar irradiance measurements were particularly worrisome, because this variable is critical to understanding climate change, requires very accurate measurement, and can only be observed with space-based sensors. GCOS stated that overlap between these spacecraft was more important than for any other environmental variable observed by satellites.31
To focus and facilitate climate data collection and sharing, in 2003 GCOS developed a set of 50 essential climate variables (ECVs). These variables were based on analysis of the underlying needs of the parties to the UNFCCC and the IPCC, and included data needed to characterize the state of the global climate system and its variability, attribute causes of climate change, and support prediction of climate change. The final set of essential variables chosen comprised those that would have a high impact on UNFCCC requirements and were dubbed technically and financially feasible for global implementation. It was expected that additional ECVs would be added as knowledge of climate change and technical capabilities advanced.32
GCOS stated that free and unrestricted exchange of all ECVs was urgently required, but this task was even more difficult than it appeared at first blush. In some ways, the list of essential climate variables oversimplified the requirements of climate monitoring. The ECVs were defined at a high level; adequate collection of a single essential climate variable often required collection of many types of specific measurements. For example, measuring the “cloud properties” ECV requires measurement of cloud cover, height, temperature, and composition. In all, collection of the ECVs required about 150 different types of measurements to be taken.33
The task was made even more challenging due to the fact that requirements and standards for climate data collection are generally much more demanding than those for other disciplines, such as weather. Data must be collected continuously over long time periods and large geographic areas, and high accuracy is required in order to separate small climatic changes from larger short-term dynamics. These requirements make global climate data collection a larger, more complex, and more expensive undertaking than data collection efforts for other needs.34
GCOS identified about half of the ECVs as largely dependent on satellite observations. The organization acknowledged that Earth observation from satellites is a costly activity to which only a small number of UNFCCC parties are able to contribute, but argued that the information derived from these satellites was a global utility that required global access. They also noted that every nation could contribute to the ground-based measurements that are critical for validating satellite records.35 The Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS), an organization that had been formed in 1984 to coordinate international Earth observation satellites, responded to the GCOS report in 2006. CEOS validated the satellite component of the plan and providing detailed analyses of required actions.36
The CEOS report also called attention to the fact that most satellite systems that could contribute to the GCOS plan were not intended or optimized for climate purposes. GCOS had included satellites from both research agencies, such as NASA, ESA, and JAXA, and operational agencies, such as NOAA, USGS, EUMETSAT, and JMA. Each type of agency posed particular challenges for climate monitoring. Research agencies, which develop the majority of the climate-relevant satellites, typically focus on cutting edge research and development activities, developing one-off Earth observing missions to help answer specific scientific questions. In most cases, they do not have a mandate or funding to support the long-term, continuous data collection, satellite overlap, or cross calibration needed for climate monitoring. Operational agencies are expected to maintain these types of continuous satellite observations. However, the satellite programs within these organizations are typically smaller than in research-oriented space agencies, and the satellites they operate are generally optimized for meteorological uses, not climate purposes, so they do not cover the full spectrum of climate needs and often do not meet accuracy or precision requirements that would be best for climate change uses.37
Table 5.1 Essential Climate Variables Largely Dependent on Satellites
| Domain | Essential Climate Variables |
| Atmospheric (over land, sea, and ice) |
Precipitation, Earth radiation budget (including solar irradiance), upper-air temperature, wind speed and direction, water vapor, cloud properties, carbon dioxide, ozone, aerosol properties |
| Oceanic | Sea-surface temperature, sea level, sea ice, ocean color (for biological activity), sea state, ocean salinity |
| Terrestrial | Lakes, snow cover, glaciers and ice caps, albedo, land cover (including vegetation type), fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (FAPAR), leaf area index (LAI), biomass, fire disturbance, soil moisture |
Following the fourth IPCC Assessment Report in 2007 and the Third World Climate Conference (WCC-3) in 2009, GCOS updated its implementation plan. The 2010 update noted that while much progress had been made, the Global Climate Observing System still fell short of the information needs of the UNFCCC and broader user communities. Yet the ambitions of the international community, and the corresponding need for data, continued to expand. The WCC-3 had created the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) within the UN framework, recognizing the need to provide not just observational data, but climate information and services, as well. These information products and services would need to be based on high-quality observations across the climate system. GCOS added support of this new activity to its plan. The list of ECVs had evolved, with new additions and changing designations reflecting new requirements and new technological developments.38 In 2011, GCOS updated the satellite supplement to its implementation plan, and CEOS issued a response in 2012.39 These organizations were working hard to identify what was needed, but there was still much work to be done in actually fulfilling these needs.
The GFCS released an implementation plan in 2014, identifying eight principles important to fulfilling its goals. Among these, it asserted that “climate information is primarily an international public good provided by governments, which will have a central role in its management.” The GFCS planned to “promote the free and open exchange of climate-relevant data, tools, and scientifically based methods while respecting national and international policies.” The implementation plan directly addressed data policy issues, stating that full and open access to climate data was an important requirement for implementing the Framework. It noted that WMO Resolution 40 did not sufficiently cover climate needs, and suggested that a WMO policy on the exchange of climate data and products could help promote the issue within the United Nations system.40
The WMO Congress obliged, passing Resolution 60, the “WMO policy for the international exchange of climate data and products to support the implementation of the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS),” the following year. The resolution stated that all climate data and products covered by Resolution 40 and Resolution 25 (which addressed hydrological data sharing) should continue to be governed by those resolutions, and that additional data, including the GCOS ECVs, would constitute an essential contribution to the GFCS and should therefore be made available through the GFCS Climate Services Information System on a free and unrestricted basis. It urged members to strengthen their commitment to the free and unrestricted exchange of GFCS-relevant data and products and to increase the volume of this data made accessible. As in Resolution 40, passed 20 years earlier, it identified a set of data considered essential for the implementation of GFCS, including “climate-relevant satellite data and products.”41
Resolution 60 reiterated a number of statements from Resolution 40, emphasizing the ethical importance of data sharing, existing international interdependencies, and the fundamental role of data exchange in enabling global awareness of environmental issues. It stated that NMSs “provide universal services in support of safety, security, and economic benefits for the peoples of their countries,” and that NMSs are dependent on “cooperative international exchange of meteorological and related data and products for discharging their responsibilities.” It noted that free and unrestricted exchange of GFCS-relevant data was of fundamental importance.
Like Resolution 40, Resolution 60 also recognized that reality did not match up with the organization's ideals. It acknowledged that different NMSs have different business models, including some that require cost recovery, and noted the right of governments to choose the manner by, and the extent to which, they share data and products. It reiterated that any conditions or restrictions on use should be respected by Members using the data. The resolution gave some indication that the WMO plans to continue pushing on this issue, however. The Congress requested that the WMO Secretary-General undertake a global survey of data policies, including cost recovery and public services models, to identify successful strategies and best practices that can assist meteorological agencies in making the case to their governments for new and continued funding for global climate monitoring.42
International data sharing underlies nearly everything the WMO does. Coordinating and growing this practice was a core element of IMO and WMO activities from the beginning. Major WMO programs, particularly the World Weather Watch, were predicated on the common provision of meteorological data. In the 1980s, the WMO saw commercial activities and the subsequent restrictions on data sharing as a threat to its core activities. Economic arguments about the mutual benefit to all members of free and unrestricted data sharing did not win over those who were convinced of the economic efficiency of commercialization and market mechanisms. Normative arguments about the long-standing practice of international data sharing and the role sharing plays in saving lives and property were also insufficient to prevent these policy changes.
The WMO and its member agencies did not have the political strength to reverse the trend toward cost recovery favored by national-level policy-makers. NMSs believed that failure to successfully sell their products would likely lead to a decrease in their budgets, and subsequently to a decrease in their ability to collect data and provide data, under any conditions, to the WMO. The WMO was put in a position in which it had to accept some limitations on data sharing in order to halt a trend that could otherwise undermine its ability to carry out its core functions. This pressure, and the desire to achieve this balance, can be seen in Resolution 40. Although the main purpose of the resolution is to formally accept limitations on data sharing, much of the preamble and even the core policy statements are arguments for the importance of maintaining free and unrestricted sharing.
Passed 20 years later, WMO's objective with regard to climate data in Resolution 60 was quite different. Rather than trying to protect a long-standing norm that was being threatened, WMO was trying to extend its existing policy to an area not previously explicitly included. The resolution provides WMO with a framework on which to build additional climate-related programs and services and gives member agencies a further tool for demonstrating the international importance of sharing climate data.
1. World Meteorological Organization (WMO), “IMO: The Origin of the WMO,” http://www.wmo.int/pages/about/wmo50/e/wmo/history_pages/origin_e.html.
2. “Convention of the World Meteorological Organization,” in Basic Documents No. 1 (2012).WMO, “Convention of the World Meteorological Organization” (1947).
3. Susan Barr and Cornelia Lüdecke, The History of the International Polar Years (IPYS) (Springer, 2010).
4. International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) Comité International de Géophysique, “Guide to International Data Exchange through the World Data Centers” (London, 1963).
5. ICSU, “The International Council for Science and Climate Change, 60 Years of Facilitating Climate Change Research and Informing Policy” (International Council for Science [ICSU], 2015).
6. Arthur Davies and Oliver M Ashford, Forty Years of Progress and Achievement: A Historical Review of WMO (World Meteorological Organization, 1990).
7. NASA, “TIROS,” http://science.nasa.gov/missions/tiros/.
8. United Nations General Assembly, “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly 1721 (XVI). International Co-Operation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,” ed. United Nations General Assembly (1961).
9. World Meteorological Organization, First Report on the Advancement of Atmospheric Sciences and Their Application in the Light of Developments in Outer Space [with maps] (Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, 1961).
10. United Nations General Assembly, “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly 1802 (XVII), International Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,” ed. United Nations General Assembly (1962).
11. World Meteorological Organization (WMO), “World Weather Watch” (Geneva, Switzerland, 1966).
12. Gerald S. Schatz, The Global Weather Experiment: An Informal History (National Academy of Sciences, 1978).
13. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “Satellite Activities of Noaa 1978” (Washington, DC, 1979).
14. United States Committee for the Global Atmospheric Research Program et al., The Global Weather Experiment, Perspectives on Its Implementation and Exploitation: Report of the FGGE Advisory Panel to the U.S. Committee for the Global Atmospheric Research Program, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences, 1978).
15. Tillmann Mohr, “International Cooperation of Meteorological/Earth Observing Satellites,” The Richard Hallgren Symposium (2008).
16. World Meteorological Organization (WMO), “Exchanging Meteorological Data Guidelines on Relationships in Commercial Meteorological Activities: WMO Policy and Practice” (Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization, 1996).
17. WMO, “Eleventh World Meteorological Congress Abridged Report with Resolutions” (Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization, 1991).
18. “Resolution 40 (Cg-XII) WMO Policy and Practice for the Exchange of Meteorological and Related Data and Products Including Guidelines on Relationships in Commercial Meteorological Activities,” ed. World Meteorological Organization (1995).
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. “Resolution 25 (Cg-XIII) Exchange of Hydrological Data and Products,” ed. World Meteorological Organization (Geneva, 1999).
22. R J Fleming, T M Kaneshige, and W E McGovern, “The Global Weather Experiment 1. The Observational Phase through the First Special Observing Period,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 60, no. 6 (1979).
23. International Council for Science (ICSU), “The International Council for Science and Climate Change, 60 Years of Facilitating Climate Change Research and Informing Policy” (2015).World Meteorological Organization (WMO), “Declaration of the World Climate Conference” (1979).
24. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change: The 1990 and 1992 IPCC Assessments: IPCC First Assessment Report, Overview and Policymaker Summaries, and 1992 IPCC Supplement (WMO, 1992).
25. Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), “Memorandum of Understanding between the World Meteorological Organization, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the International Council of Scientific Unions, and the United Nations Environment Program” (1992).
26. United Nations, “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)” (1992).
27. EUMETSAT, “Amendments to the Convention” (EUMETSAT, 1991).
28. National Research Council, “Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: Elements of a Strategy to Recover Measurement Capabilities Lost in Program Restructuring” (2008).
29. GCOS Data and Information Mangement Panel, “Data and Information Management Plan Version 1.0” (Global Climate Observing System, 1995).
30. J T Houghton and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 1996).R T Watson et al., Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report (World Meteorological Organization, 2001).
31. P J Mason et al., “The Second Report on the Adequacy of the Global Observing Systems for Climate in Support of the UNFCCC,” GCOS Report 82 (2003).
32. Ibid.
33. Mariel Borowitz, “International Cooperation in Global Satellite Climate Monitoring,” Astropolitics 13, nos. 2–3 (2015).
34. Ibid.
35. GCOS, “Systematic Observation Requirements for Satellite-Based Products for Climate” (Global Climate Observing System [GCOS], 2006).
36. CEOS, “Satellite Observation of the Climate System: The Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) Response to the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Implementation Plan (IP)” (Committee on Earth Observation Satellites [CEOS] 2006).
37. Ibid.
38. GCOS, “Implementation Plan for the Global Observing System for Climate in Support of the UNFCCC (2010 Update)” (Geneva, Switzerland: Global Climate Observation System [GCOS], 2010).
39. “Systematic Observation Requirements for Satellite-Based Data Products for Climate 2011 Update” (Geneva, Switzerland: Global Climate Observation System [GCOS], 2011).CEOS, “The Response of the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) to the Global Climate Observing System Implementation Plan 2010 (GCOS IP-10)” (Committee on Earth Observation Satellites [CEOS], 2012).
40. GFCS, “Implementation Plan of the Global Framework for Climate Services” (Geneva, Switzerland: Global Framework for Climate Services, 2014).
41. WMO, “Resolution 60 (Cg-17) WMO Policy for the International Exchange of Climate Data and Products to Support the Implementation of the Global Framework for Climate Services,” ed. World Meteorological Organization (Geneva, 2015).
42. Ibid.