About OAII
Steering Committee
Address Directory
Research Opportunities
Meetings & Workshops
Related Links
Projects
Publications
Data Policy
Contact OAII
HOME
|
About OAII |
Minutes of the OAII Science Steering Committee Meeting
30 November 1995 - 1 December 1995; Seattle, WA
OAII SSC MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, 30 November
Friday, 1 December
Final version of the SSC recommendation letter sent to NSF concerning prioritization of the projects from the SSC meeting Nov. 30-Dec.1 (Jackie M. Grebmeier, Chair)
L. Clark said that there may be a year-long sequence of continuing budget resolutions. For NSF, things are very uncertain, but not bleak.
M. Ledbetter informed the group that Tom Pyle is the new Arctic Section Head. He is a marine geologist and has a long track record as a successful long-term program manager. Pyle would like to increase the logistics budget for the Arctic.
NSIDC handles the data management for ARCSS. It was noted that the SSC should decide on a policy for OAII regarding how long a PI should retain the data before forwarding it to NSIDC. NSF will check with NSIDC.
Ledbetter also suggested that a member from HARC should be included as an SSC member. ARCUS will conduct workshops on the Human Dimensions of Global Change.
Thematic Perspectives are becoming more important than a disciplinary perspective for ARCSS (May meeting). ARCSS is now a Program, meaning that it is a long duration and not just an initiative.
Odile de la Beaujardiere is the new Arctic Natural Sciences Head at OPP.
Clark noted that SHEBA will "freeze out" nearly all other OAII initiatives if we follow current budget planning, and if it remains $4.5m/year. J. Walsh asked if there will be future shifts between the ARCSS programs, i.e., OAII, LAII, HEI, SIMS. It was noted that ONR my drop its High Latitude Program. ONR is scientifically on board with SHEBA, but SHEBA may take a $3M plus hit if this happens. The Arctic Natural Sciences Program, NSF ATM, (Pam Stephens) may provide aircraft and research facilities, which may provide additional resources for SHEBA. J. Walsh asked what the SSC or the PIs could do to entrain ATM into ARCSS. ATM will entertain proposals related to SHEBA based on scientific merit.
Pam Stephen's program on the Role of Clouds Energy and Water (RCEW) is relevant to SHEBA.
R. Moritz and J. Curry presented an update on SHEBA and requested that ARCSS-OAII reaffirm its support.
K. Aagaard stated that ARCSS is contributing a large proportion of the logistics. John Walsh noted that some coupled GCMs now exhibit largest errors in the Antarctic (Hydrology).
J. Deming presented the NOW project and stated that the rectification hypothesis is the basis of the NOW project.
J. Grebmeier requested that the OAII SSC evaluate and recommend the Shelf-Basin Report and a Program Announcement. The Science Management Office will edit, publish, and distribute the report ASAP. T. Whitledge said that this report fits nicely with the European Grand Challenge initiative. J. Curry asked if the SBI concept is for an integrated initiative, including physics, chemistry, and biology, or if it is focused (mainly biology). The answer is that it will be an integrated initiative. J. Walsh asked how is the priority assigned to narrow/broadening research projects? It was decided that the SSC should give its views about what the balance should be, when it advises NSF.
Canadian Basin Initiative (CBI)
J. Swift stated that planning is rapidly taking shape in the U.S. and Canada. The idea is to have a 45-50 day cruise and transit with one ship. The U.S. contribution might be the go/no-go increment, which may be a small suite of U.S. proposals, joint with Canadian colleagues. K. Aagaard asked if the SBI is mainly "shelf" and the CBI is mainly "basin," how do the two initiatives mesh? T. Whitledge stated that the focus of the SBI is more "shelf-edge" than shelf (slope). J. Swift said that $1m for U.S. science would be approximately 40% of the ship cost of the St. Laurent. Whitledge asked how this connects with SCICEX? Swift stated that the thermal field is relatively well known, and SCICEX will provide additional valuable data, but there is not enough salinity bottle data and a full suite of tracer measurements is needed. Curry asked if CBI can wait until 1999? Swift said it would be possible if the Canadians can wait.
J. Curry stated that she was not impressed with NOW, that it is not compelling science. NEW has had their turn and an AO is needed before proposals are submitted. The only justification for that is the human connection to the wildlife. T. Whitledge stated that new initiatives in OAII must have a strong connection to the Arctic System.
------------------------------------------------
Dan Lubin - cloud/radiation/Scripps, suggested by J. Curry.
Should ARCSS have a "U.S. ACSYS?" Tie - specifically climate part? Or NOAA?
SSC potential members
J. Curry suggested the list be whittled down. Sea ice/atmosphere is under represented and physical oceanography is over represented. J. Grebmeier suggested rotating people into the SSC at staggered intervals. Add a smaller number of new members now, and additional members later.
------------------------------------------------
Matt Cross reported that Dave McGinnis is now leading ARCSS at NSIDC. Cross discussed the roles of PIs, SMOs, and SICs with NSIDC. NSIDC needs us to get the data from the PIs, assist with making formats compatible and useful, and provide the best access tools (i.e., FTP, CD-ROM, WWW). NSIDC wants to use the ARCSS homepage to move data, using FTPDirect. A data policy statement is needed from OAII and from SHEBA. Once the policy is set, then a schedule can be set and the data level defined. Where is the agreement made between the data center and the PI to determine what the requirement is, to be turned over by 1-2 years? The current release time is two years. How do ARCSS PIs get model data? NSIDC will send out instructions for meta-data.
ARCSS Modeling Working Group Update
The Modeling Workshop will occur on 15-16 January 1996. The plan is to coordinate modeling in service of ARCSS goals, setting priorities, and to promote the development of system models. The outputs of this meeting will be reports with recommendations and a review paper.
J. Swift suggested D. Lubin as a potential candidate.
General Discussion of OAII Initiatives
J. Curry asked where the line is drawn for needing an AO? $300K/year, 5 PIs, no AO needed; $2m/year, 21 PIs, AO definitely? J. Deming said it would have been useful to know where the line is drawn. M. Ledbetter stated that they don't want to support more than 2 PI projects maximum that are not part of an AO. NOW is the first one. Clark mentioned that WAM has three. Weingartner stated that unusual opportunities need to be addressed. Warnick mentioned that AAC has advisory capacity for relevance. Deming stated that the NOW PIs are sensitive to the fact that they are operating outside of ARCSS, and hopes that the SSC doesn't judge NOW based only on her overview/update of the project.
P. Anderson stated that she was glad to hear Paleoceanography mentioned at this meeting. She also wondered why PALE isn't getting interest from Paleoceanographers. Is it possible to coordinate better the paleoceanographic efforts of PALE and OAII? Whitledge stated that the links should be made at the all ARCSS PI meeting in the Spring. Anderson suggested an extra effort on the part of the SSC's to make the connections happen.
R. Moritz distributed a memo on RASE from G. L. Johnson. Neal Sullivan was contacted by the Russian NSF. He thought it was a good idea to encourage the development of an NSF-type organization in Russia. M. Ledbetter has tried to mesh the two agencies. Steve Forman is the prime contact and Ledbetter would like the OAII SSC to give Forman the SSC's opinion of the RASE initiative. A letter should be sent to the ARCSS AAC, chaired by Barry Lyons, U. Alabama, stating what we think is the mode for ARCSS. OPP wants to play a role in the Russian Arctic.
The ACSYS goal is to clarify the role of the Arctic in the Global Climate, 1994-2003.
K. Aagaard briefed the group on ACSYS. There may be a Joint CLIVAR-ACSYS Workshop in 1997. ACSYS provides an international framework in concrete terms for data and resources. The WDC Runoff Center in Koblenz is becoming the Arctic Runoff Center. It will take another two years to get the Arctic Basin Hydrographic Stations (on grid). Producing a standard arctic surface forcing data set (thermo and stress) is an objective for ACSYS modeling.
ACSYS initiatives include: AITMP; IGAC (aerosols); EU Programs: VANES (a "cage" experiment in N. Atlantic N. with its Northern Boundary at Fram Strait), Grand Challenge.
J. Walsh stated that ARCSS OAII contributes SHEBA to ACSYS and ACSYS will contribute hydrology to ARCSS datasets (runoff, precipitation). Whitledge asked if there is a designated U.S. agency for ACSYS. Aagaard said there is not. Moritz commented on the "U.S. Arctic Climate Program," CRC presentation, and the thematic organization of ARCSS. ACSYS has visibility in Japan, Europe, and Canada. There is also a linkage to the Modeling Working Group.
Friday, 1 December
Regarding the Data Policy Statement, J. Swift recommended referring to the WOCE Data Sharing Guidelines.
It was suggested that another woman representative be added to the SSC list of potential members in view of the gender imbalance. Stephanie Pfirman; Susan Hill, Human Dimensions; Patricia Cochran, Alaska Native Science Committee, Anchorage Public Health (works with John Middaugh) were put forth for consideration.
OAII Charter, Terms of Reference
Modification to the SSC Terms of Reference was suggested. Add the Human Dimensions to item three. The OAII email address, and NSIDC, ARCSS, OAII WWW addresses should be added to item seven. Whitledge suggested adding updating the Science Plan in item ten. Ledbetter concurred with that suggestion. Warnick stated that the OAII section within the AAC/ARCSS document should be revised. Clark commented that the first paragraph of the Terms of Reference should be reworked to provide guidance which will, in turn, be the link to updating the Science Plan. Also, the section regarding Lake Arrowhead should be updated. Whitledge suggested an annual review of the Lake Arrowhead document, and updating in light of recent results.
Ledbetter stated that everything is in the Lake Arrowhead document. Therefore, if that document is too general, then the science plan needs to be more specific. Ledbetter stated that there isn't anything in the Lake Arrowhead document that has been completed. He suggested a more specific prioritization and focus. The OAII Science Plan needs to say what the priorities are; "what is the most important thing to attack." Walsh stated that the priorities should be in the Terms of Reference. Ledbetter commented that the information regarding Large Coordinated Projects and the role of smaller projects should be stated in the Terms of Reference. Battisti suggested having an annual report. Aagaard commented that a simpler idea might be to focus on the next five years. Given the current state and the underlying goals, what is the general priority over the next five to ten years? This could be stated briefly. Ledbetter suggested putting an annual review into the Terms of Reference. Ledbetter and Battisti commented on the need for an annual PI meeting. Anderson stated that holding a PI meeting at a national meeting does not work well. Grebmeier suggested putting an annual PI meeting into the Terms of Reference. (ACCP model is a good one). An action item was suggested, coordinate an OAII evening meeting at the All-ARCSS PI meeting 1-3 May 1996. Battisti asked if the Terms of Reference should include the status of coordination with ACSYS and CLIVAR. Aagaard responded that the Science Plan is the place to take account of the International Programs, such as, WCRP, IGBP, and HDGC.
Warnick solicited advice on how best to distribute the announcement regarding large meetings.
Clark commented on the need to communicate to the community the opportunities with CBI, NOW, and SIM. Interested people should contact J. Swift, etc.
Swift offered to provide a written synopsis of the CBI. The group wants a response by 31 December of how to make it happen with ARCSS support.
The Canada Group would like advice from the OAII SSC. The key to the response as far as priority and appropriateness is to advise on the relevance and priority.
Upcoming meetings are the MWG, 15-16 January 1996, in Boulder; AAC, 22 February 1996, in Seattle; and the AHW, 1-3 May 1996.
Battisti requested a list of all past projects and statistics on what OAII has done in order to fully understand OAII as a total package.
It was also suggested that it be added to the Terms of Reference that if a member of the SSC misses two meetings that they may be dropped from the group.
It was announced that J. Grebmeier will be the next Chair of the OAII SSC. It was noted that Lou Codispoti, ODU (Larry Atkinson, Director) CCPO, has a very supportive infrastructure. Grebmeier will contact Codispoti regarding moving the SMO office once Codispoti returns from sea.
Clark asked about the Arctic WOCE. Peter Minnett says after NOW, the USCG could go to E. Greenland. Aagaard responded that the Arctic WOCE will come back in CLIVAR.
Andersen requested revisiting RASE and the paleoceanography. The PALE SSC meeting one week from Saturday. Would it be possible for the OAII SSC to send something to the PALE SSC regarding RASE, Basin paleoceanography, NOW paleoceanography, and modeling? Aagaard asked if it is an extension of PALE to coring on the shelves.
Discussion of SHEBA Science Plan
There is a discrepancy between the amount of funding available and the proposed amount. A discrepancy was also found with the priorities and the amount of funding available. The priorities and measurements are unrealistic.
It was suggested rather than holding up all of the SHEBA project, to proceed with the portions that are ready to go. And leave the opportunity open for those who are not prepared to return with a better plan to address elements that are less "ready." But a clearer plan and relation to viable measurements is necessary.
If ARM and FIRE are major contributions, why is ARCSS spending so much money on atmosphere?
There must be a match between the measurements and modeling, it is not sufficiently clear at this time. The surface energy balance, mass balance, and radiative properties comprise the strongest research package and can stand alone. The cloud formation problem does not appear to be ready and it is partially addressed by FIRE and ARM.
Walsh suggested stripping excess text from the modeling section.
Advice
The bottom line is to do the project for $11m. It is necessary to set priorities. Either let FIRE and ARM carry the ball on clouds or pay for a significant share of SHEBA logistics.
SHEBA out-year, modeling in SIMS.
Regarding RASE, we already have the land/ocean problem (McKenzie).
SBI, the next thing is the slope edge/halocline.
CBI is needed to give far field information to SBI, the other role is to extend the coverage begun with AOS.
NOW, is not worth it to delay SHEBA. NOW is not seen as an 0(1) contribution to ARCSS.
Action Items