Witness the Arctic - Spring 2014, Volume 18 Number 2

ARCTIC Chronicles of the NSF Arctic Science Section Spring 2014, Volume 18 Number 2 Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] Interagency Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) (pgs 2-7) • Brief SEARCH Update • Sea Ice Prediction has Easy and Difficult Years Arctic Natural Sciences Program (pgs 8-11) • New Insights on Ice Dynamics Arctic Social Sciences Program (pgs 12-15) • International Congress of Arctic Social Sciences Hits New Milestones • Extensive Plan of Activities for the Arctic-FROST Research Network Arctic Research Support and Logistics (pgs 16-17) • NSF Logistics Workshop Prepublication Report Available Data Management (pgs 18-19) • NSF Recommends Fourth Year of Funding for ACADIS Science News (pgs 20-23) • Influences of Arctic Climate Changes on Weather Patterns in the Mid-latitudes Science Education News (pgs 24-31) • A Week as an Arctic Council Delegate in Arkhangelsk, Russia • U.S. and Chile Initiate Antarctic Science Education Effort National Science Foundation News (pgs 32-34) • Córdova Sworn in as 14th Director of NSF • Committee of Visitors Offers Recommendations to NSF’s Arctic Sciences Section Interagency News (pgs 35-41) • Reflections on Arctic Research Coordination • NOAA Launches Arctic Action Plan • NASA Cryospheric Sciences MVP Awarded to Joseph MacGregor U.S. Arctic Research Commission (pgs 42-44) • USARC Delegation Visits Finland Polar Research Board (pgs 45-53) •PRB Report Released—The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions • Recent Reports from the National Academy of Sciences International News (pgs 54-56) • Recommendations from 2014 Arctic Observing Summit From the ARCUS Board (pgs 55-60) • New ARCUS Vision and Mission Statements • Meet the Board of Directors — Jay Gulledge • Meet the Board of Directors — John Payne • Meet the Board of Directors — David Cairns In this Issue Interagency Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) Brief SEARCH Update Since the last SEARCH update in late February (http://www.arcus.org/witness-the-arctic/2014/1 /article/20429) , the SEARCH Science Steering Committee (SSC) (http://www.arcus.org/searchprogram) has focused on communications with the National Science Foundation (NSF) on a pending proposal to support SEARCH activities and a new organizational structure (see the main SEARCH website for a PDF for "Summary of the new SEARCH framework"). The SEARCH SSC hopes to be able to announce news soon. Other activities over the past few months include: Members of the SEARCH SSC and Observing Change Panel (http://www.arcus.org/search-program /sciencecoordination/observing) have participated in NSF's webinar series on Long Term Observing Management (https://www.arctichub.net/groups/longtermobservingmgt/webinar_recordings), and have been actively discussing the topics posed via the webinars. A SEARCH position paper that responds to many of these topics is under initial development. The Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW) (http://www.assw2014.fi/) and Arctic Observing Summit (AOS) (http://www.arcticobservingsummit.org/) meetings in April had strong participation from SEARCH. SEARCH representatives are involved in the initial planning for the next AOS planned for 2016 in Fairbanks, Alaska and will seek broad input from the research community on goals and topics for the Summit. The 2014 Sea Ice Outlook (now managed under the Sea Ice Prediction Network project) and Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook activities have been launched. Both projects have evolved this year as a result of input from the research and stakeholder communities. See the Sea Ice for Walrus website (http://www.arcus.org/search-program/siwo) and the Sea Ice Prediction Network website (http://www.arcus.org/sipn) for more information. For more information about SEARCH activities, see the SEARCH website or contact Hajo Eicken, UAF (SEARCH SSC Chair) at [email protected] or Helen Wiggins, ARCUS (SEARCH Project Office) at [email protected]. Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 2 Interagency Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) Sea Ice Prediction has Easy and Difficult Years By: Lawrence C. Hamilton, University of New Hampshire; Cecilia M. Bitz, University of Washington; Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, University of Washington; Matthew Cutler, University of New Hampshire; Jennifer Kay, National Center for Atmospheric Research; Walt Meier, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center; and Helen Wiggins, Arctic Research Consor tium of the U.S. Arctic sea ice follows an annual cycle, reaching its low point in September each year . The extent of sea ice remaining at this low point has been trending downwards for decades as the Arctic warms. Around the long-term downward trend, however, there is significant variation in the minimum extent from one year to the ne xt. Accurate forecasts of yearly conditions would have great value to Arctic residents, shipping companies, and other stakeholders and are the subject of much current research. Since 2008 the Sea Ice Outlook (SIO) (http://www.arcus.org/search-program/seaiceoutlook) organized by the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) (http://www.arcus.org/search-program) has invited predictions of the September Arctic sea ice minimum extent, which are contributed fro m the Arctic research community. Individual predictions, based on a variety of approaches, are solicited in three cycles each year in early June, July, and August. (SEARCH 2013). In a recent study done by our team, data from six years of past SIO predictions were compiled and analyzed for overall success in predicting the actual observed minimum ice extent. The analysis revealed t hat in some years the predictions were very successful. In other years, however, they were not. The years 2008, 2010, a nd 2011 were relatively easy to predict. Late-summer sea ice followed its long-term downward trend and scientific pre dictions of September extent averaged out close to the true final values. The years 2009, 2012, and 2013 proved mo re difficult. Sea ice extent made abrupt one-year excursions above or below its trend, which the predictions often miss ed. These findings are detailed in our paper, "Predicting September sea ice: Ensemble skill of the SEARCH Sea Ice Outloo k," published in Geophysical Research Letters (Stroeve et al. 2014). The main analysis in our study involved more than 300 predictions and comparisons of those predictions with the observed September ice extent. Figure 1 graphs the median (50th percentile) and inter quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) of July SIO predictions. Red lines mark the distance from median predicti ons to the observed September mean extent. Median SIO predictions are close to the observed ice extent in 2008, 201 0, and 2011. In 2009, 2012, and 2013, on the other hand, the median predictions are off by a large margin. June and A ugust SIO predictions followed similar patterns. 3 Figure 1: Median and interquartile range of July SIO predictions, compared with observed September mean sea ice extent. Image courtesy of Stroeve et al. (2014) Two less formal sets of predictions also show this pattern. Since 2008, workers at th e National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (http://ncar.ucar.edu/) have conducted their own early-summer competition to guess the September mean sea ice extent. Losers buy ice cream for the winners. Because this pool is condu cted for fun but also engages researchers, the competition could be described as well-informed though not strictly scientific. The left-hand plot in Figure 2 graphs median and interquartile range of 15 to 26 NCAR pool predictions each year. Again, red lines mark distance from median predictions to the observed September extent. This graph repeats the pattern of Figure 1. Median NCAR guesses fall close to the observed September extent in 2008, 2010, and 2011, but far from the observed values in 2009, 2012 and 2013. 4 Figure 2: Median and interquartile range of NCAR and NSIDC pool predictions, compared with observed September mean or one-day minimum sea ice extent. Image courtesy of Stroeve et al. (2014) The right-hand plot in Figure 2 depicts another informal but well-informed office com petition, this one from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) (http://nsidc.org/). In early summer, the first to third week of July, employees make guesses about the minimum daily ice extent, which is a slightly lower number than the monthly mean extent targeted by SIO and NCAR. Personnel at NSIDC closely follow sea ice conditions and their office calculates the widely used extent statistics. The NSIDC competition includes scientists directly inv olved with this research, but other colleagues, family, and friends can participate as well. The NSIDC graph summarizes 1 7 to 61 predictions each year, beginning in 2007. Again we see a familiar pattern: the median predictions are far fr om observed values in 2009, 2012, and 2013, but closer in other years. The informal NCAR and NSIDC data agree with our SIO finding that a wide variety of pr ediction approaches collectively succeed in certain years, but fail in others. The well-predicted years t urn out to be those in which sea ice extent lies close to its long-term downward trend. The difficult-to-predict years occ ur with abrupt variations above (2009, 2013) or below (2012) this overall trend. The trend reflects climate change, w ell established by many kinds of data. Variations around that trend at least partly reflect weather events, such as su mmer temperatures and wind 5 conditions, which are much harder to forecast. However, new research incorporating additional information, such as the fraction of ice covered by melt ponds in the spring, shows promise for improved futur e predictions (Schroder et al. 2014). After the minimum, a new freeze cycle begins: early October sea ice forming near Kotzebue, Alaska. Image courtesy of Larry Hamilton. On 1-2 April 2014, the Sea Ice Prediction Network (SIPN) (http://www.arcus.org/sipn)—a research effort jointly supported by the NSF, Office of Naval Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admi nistration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Department of Energy—organized a workshop o n Sea Ice Prediction. More than 50 international scientists gathered in Boulder, Colorado to discuss the state o f the art and ways forward. The meta-analysis of past sea ice predictions described above highlights the challenge re maining as sea ice prediction looks beyond the multi-year downward trend, driven by climate, and focuses on season-to-sea son variations where weather plays a large role. The SIPN website will post news and information about this initia tive. 6 Lawrence C. Hamilton References SEARCH (Study of Environmental Arctic Change). 2013. Sea Ice Outlook. http://www.arcus.org/search-program /seaiceoutlook accessed 4/3/2014. SIPN (Sea Ice Prediction Network). 2014. Networking scientists and stakeholders to im prove sea ice prediction in a changing Arctic. http://www.arcus.org/sipn accessed 4/5/2014. Schroder, D., D.L. Feltham, D. Flocco and M. Tsamados. 2014. "September Arctic sea-ic e minimum predicted by spring melt-pond fraction." Nature Climate Change. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2203. Stroeve, J., L.C. Hamilton, C.M. Bitz, E. Blanchard-Wrigglesworth. 2014. "Predicting September sea ice: Ensemble skill of the SEARCH Sea Ice Outlook." Geophysical Research Letters. doi: 10.1002/2014 GL059388. Lawrence Hamilton is professor and senior fellow in the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. His interdisciplinary research concerns societyenvironment interactions in the Arctic. Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 7 Figure 1. Ben Linhoff (right) and Jemma Wadham collecting groundwater samples for later chemical analysis at the terminus of the Leverett Glacier. Photo courtesy of Matt Charette, WHOI. Arctic Natural Sciences Program New Insights on Ice Dynamics By: Matthew A. Charette, Senior Scientist in Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Introduction During the second week of July 2012, satellite-derived estimates of the aerial extent of surface-ice melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) increased from 40% to 97%. Although this event received wi despread media attention and public interest, the scientific community lacked direct observations of meltwater con trols on ice sheet movement and meltwater geochemistry for such a large-scale melting event. Matt Charette, Senior Sc ientist of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI), secured funding through NS F's Rapid Response Research (RAPID) (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09034/nsf09034.jsp) program to quantify, under a short time-frame, the impact of this large-scale melting event on the ice sheet dynamics an d meltwater biogeochemistry of the Leverett Glacier, a large land-terminating ice stream along the southwestern coas t of Greenland. The project included analysis and synthesis of GrIS dynamics and of samples collected during previous field seasons (2011-12) from the Leverett Glacier catchment. One objective was to help interpret changes driven by the historic melt event of 8-12 July 2012. In addition, Charette and PhD student Ben Linhoff collected a high-resolution time series of radon concentrations in meltwater during the course of the melting season. Radon is produced from the radioactive decay of naturally occurring uranium in sediments and rocks. Surface snow and ice are assumed to be devoid of radon due to lack of sediment on the ice sheet surface 8 Figure 2. Late season meltwater discharge from the Leverett Glacier. The river's brown color comes from a high load of suspended sediments. Photo courtesy of Ben Linhoff. from which it could be derived; consequently it is assumed that all radon in glacial meltwater must be derived from contact with terrestrial material beneath the ice, a process analogous to recharge of groundwater aquifers via precipitation. Based on these assumptions, Charette and Linhoff hypothesized that rad on concentrations in glacial meltwater would be elevated during periods when water was under pressure at the bed ( high glacier velocity) and that radon would be low during periods of low pressure (low glacier velocity). Preliminary Results Preliminary results based on radon measured in the Leverett proglacial river suggest that meltwater contains a mix of high radon sourced from subglacial groundwater and low radon from water transported q uickly through channels at the ice bed interface. The former was enriched during the early season, April and May, wh en the drainage network beneath the ice was poorly developed. As the melting season progressed during June and July, a series of large, radon-rich meltwater outbursts presumably led to an efficient channelized drainage network that persisted through the remainder of the summer as evidenced by relatively low river radon concentrations. In addition to the contrast between early and late season subglacial meltwater dynamics, interannual variability was of interest given possible enhanced ice sheet melting associated with climate change. The WHOI team was in Greenland when the major melting event took place: between 8-12 July 2012. During this event, the size of the Leverett River swelled to four times the size of the peak flow observed during 2011. Despite this intense warming event, annually averaged Leverett Glacier sliding rates were not appreciably different between the two years as reported by Charette and Linhoff's colleagues at the University of Edinburgh (Tedstone et al. 2013). These findings have important implications for the effects of surface melt-induced ac celeration of land terminating glaciers. There may also be consequences of enhanced melting on trace element and iso tope fluxes to the ocean; 9 Arctic Research Support and Logistics NSF Logistics Workshop Prepublication Report Available In October 2013, the NSF Arctic Research Support and Logistics (RSL) program funded a workshop on strategies and recommendations for Arctic research support and logistics. A pre-publication draft of the workshop report is now available online (http://www.arcus.org/logistics/2013-workshop/report). The final publication will be released by the end of June and announced via ArcticInfo (http://www.arcus.org/arctic-info) and other information channels. The 2013 Workshop on Future Directions for Arctic Research Logistics (see Witness the Arctic - Fall 2013 (http://www.arcus.org/witness-the-arctic/2013/3/article/20195) ) was organized by ARCUS, with guidance from an Organizing Committee whose membership is listed at right. The workshop was structured as a working meeting, and its topics and agenda were developed using relevant reports and a survey circulated to th e Arctic community in July 2013. Those reports—the 1997 and 2003 Logistics Reports and the 2011 CRREL Analysis of Logi stics Recommendations—and other background information are available on the workshop website (http://www.arcus.org /logistics/2013-workshop) . The report summarizes workshop discussions and highlights organized sets of specific, actionable recommendations. It was deliberately kept to a moderate length in order to make the material more easily accessible. The contents are broken down into three major sections: (1) Sustaining and Expanding Logistics Resourc es, (2) Capacity Building, and (3) Opportunities for Improved Coordination of Resources. For more information, see the 2013 Logistics Workshop webpage ( http://www.arcus.org/logistics/2013-workshop) or contact Kristina Creek at ARCUS ( [email protected]g). 16 Workshop Organizing Committee Members Peter Griffith, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA Carbon Cycle & Ecosystems Office James Morison, Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory-University of Washington Steven Oberbauer, Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University Sophia Perdikaris, Anthropology and Archaeology, The City University of New York Jackie Richter-Menge, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Matthew Shupe, University of Colorado and NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Craig Tweedie, University of Texas at El Paso Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 17 ACADIS Data Management NSF Recommends Fourth Year of Funding for ACADIS By: ACADIS Community Support Team members Karen Andersen, Toni Rosati, Lynn Yarmey, L isa Booker, Don Stott, Janet Scannell, Eric Nienhouse, and Sean Arms The Advanced Cooperative Arctic Data and Information Service (ACADIS) (http://nsidc.org/acadis/) project, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), recently completed an NSF panel review of third year accomplishments and progress. ACADIS has been recommended for a fourth year of funding. ACADIS provides sustainable data management, preservation, and leadership services for the NSF Arctic research community through open data sharing, adherence t o best practices and standards, and community support and engagement. ACADIS leverages other pertinent projects, capi talizes on appropriate emerging technologies, and participates in emerging cyberinfrastructure initiatives. Accessible tools and data are available on the ACADIS Gateway (http://www.aoncadis.org/). The ACADIS team continues to support data management for projects funded by NSF's Div ision of Polar Programs (PLR) Arctic Sciences Section with data submission, preservation, and sharing service s. Recent ACADIS service improvements include: Data Citations - Data citations are recognized research 'products' to be included in the biographical sketch section of NSF proposals. They are increasingly encouraged in paper references and enable tracking the reuse and broader impact of dataset(s) directly related to project proposals. ACADIS has implemented a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) system for persistent identification, managing intellectual content, and dataset citation tracking. Contact ACADIS to request a data citation. The Arctic Data Explorer (ADE) has increased scope to include over 16,000 Arctic datasets in its search. The ADE, a service of ACADIS, enables users to search for interdisciplinary data across multiple repositories, including: The ACADIS Gateway (https://www.aoncadis.org/home.htm) National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) (http://nsidc.org/) The Earth Observing Laboratory (EOL) (https://www.eol.ucar.edu/) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (http://ncar.ucar.edu/) NCAR Research Data Archive (http://www2.ucar.edu/research-resources/data-archive-services) NASA's Earth Observing System Clearing House (ECHO) (https://earthdata.nasa.gov/echo) 18 The National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/) Norwegian Meteorological Institute (http://met.no/English/) International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (http://www.ices.dk/Pages/default.aspx) Examples of available archived Arctic data can be found on the ADE website (http://www.nsidc.org/acadis/search). Initial clean up of ACADIS metadata has been completed. Researchers contributing data to ACADIS are encouraged to check the accuracy of their project online via the ACADIS Gateway. ACADIS, funded by NSF, is a joint effort by the National Center for Atmospheric Resea rch (NCAR) (http://ncar.ucar.edu/) , the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) (https://www2.ucar.edu/), and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) (http://nsidc.org/). For more information about ACADIS; to send feedback; or to submit, retrieve and searc h data; please visit the ACADIS Gateway (http://www.aoncadis.org/), contact members of the support team ([email protected]g), or call 720-443-1409. Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 19 Science News Influences of Arctic Climate Changes on Weather Patterns in the Mid-latitudes By: John Walsh, President's Professor of Global Change and Chief Scientist at the Int ernational Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks Several decades ago, the Arctic was an afterthought in climate change research. Today it is at the forefront. The recent acceleration of research on Arctic climate, together with widespread coverage by the media and interest by the public, has come in response to rapid changes in the Arctic over the past few decades. By som e measures, these changes are unprecedented. While the changes are driven by warming of the ocean and atmosphere, t hey are manifested in sea ice, glaciers, ice sheets, permafrost, and other components of the Arctic system. The Arct ic changes are even more intriguing because they are expected to play, and may already be playing, a role in f urther changes that impact middle latitudes and the rest of the globe. For the first time, the U.S. National Climate As sessment (NCA2014) (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/melting-ice) has called attention to the Arctic's possible role in variations of the jet stream (now referred to as the "polar vortex") and asso ciated extremes of weather over the contiguous United States. As evidence of the increased public awareness of this topic, Hamilton and Lemcke-Stampone (2013) have recently reported results showing that a clear majority (60%) of surveyed members of the public now accepts that there is a connection between Arctic warming and mid-latitude weather. P resident Obama's Science and Technology Advisor, John Holdren, invoked the Arctic as a player in the past winter's severe cold and snow over much of the central and eastern United States (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLEccFhNanU). Is such acceptance of the Arctic connection justified? The present state of the science provides mixed answers to such questions about Arcti c-mid-latitude linkages. On the one hand, there is indisputable evidence that the Arctic has warmed over the past sev eral decades at more than double the global rate of warming, and Arctic sea ice coverage has declined precipitously, e specially in the past decade. The warming of the Arctic atmosphere (relative to the mid-latitude atmosphere) has led to changes in the configuration of upper-air pressures in the Arctic, as shown by Overland and Wang (2010) and others. U pper-air pressures drive the winds in the atmosphere, and the jet stream (polar vortex) is a prominent feature of the upper air winds. But are the regional changes in Arctic upper-air pressures linked to the extremes of weather in m iddle latitudes? Here is where we encounter the scientific debate. In a landmark paper on this topic, Francis and Vavru s (2012) presented results supporting the argument that Arctic warming favors increased waviness of the jet stre am and that the larger-amplitude waves move more slowly. "Waviness" in the jet stream can refer to either the north-so uth extent of the waves or to the ratio of the north-south (meridional) wind to the west-to-east (zonal) wind. The larg er this ratio becomes, the more 20 prominent the waves or the greater the "waviness." The slower movement of the larger amplitude waves would favor periods of extreme cold or extreme warmth¸ depending on whether a particular location is under a southward dip (trough) or a northward bulge (ridge) in the jet stream. (See Figure 1 (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research /news/20120313/629341main_Earth_jet_stream.jpg) However, subsequent studies by Elizabeth Barnes (2013), James Screen and Ian Simmonds (2013) have found that this conclusion is very sensitive to t he metrics of atmospheric "waviness," so the robustness of the linkage to mid-latitude weather is open to quest ion. Part of the problem is that there is no widely accepted measure of atmospheric "blocking," in which atmospheric c irculation features become locked in place. However, even when alternative definitions of blocking are used, tre nds in blocking are elusive to detection (Barnes et al., 2014). "Blocking," as used by Barnes and collaborators, inv olves the number of persistent reversals of atmospheric (mid-tropospheric) pressure, either for a particular longitu de or over a band between two prescribed latitudes. An additional obstacle to firm conclusions about the Arctic's i mpacts on mid-latitudes is the absence of a known dynamical mechanism linking Arctic warming to mid-latitude circula tion anomalies. As example, Arctic warming is strongest in September-November and the extreme weather over the co ntiguous United States (and Eurasia, as well) has occurred primarily in January and February. Finally, the "new r egime" of a largely seasonal sea ice cover has only been prominent since 2007, and a seven-year period may be simply t oo short for the detection of a robust statistical signal. The latter problem is compounded by the large natural vari ability that characterizes the atmospheric circulation, especially in the winter season. 21 Figure 1. Schematic depiction of the jet stream, with troughs (southward excursions above cold air at the surface) and ridges (northward excursions above warm air at the surface) that amplify in regimes of atmospheric "blocking". The pattern of waves normally progresses from west to east, but becomes nearly stationary in instances of blocking. Image courtesy of NASA. The notion of mid-latitude weather and climate impacts arising from the changing Arct ic is appealing to the Arctic research community, but it essential that we "get the science right" before the Arcti c/mid-latitude connection can be widely accepted and used in applications such as seasonal forecasting. The need for f urther scientific research on this topic has been recognized in recent "Arctic linkages" workshops held by the National Research Council (NRC) (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18727) in 2014 and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/events/2014/arctic-predictions-science/). What is now clear is that this high-visibility topic has created exciting opportunities for scientific research and new challenges in communication with the public and the media. For further information, contact John Walsh ( [email protected]). 22 John Walsh References Barnes, E.A., 2013. Revisiting the evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme w eather in middle latitudes. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 4734-4739. Barnes, E.A., Dunn-Sigouin, E., Masato, G., Woolings, T., 2014. Exploring recent tren ds in Northern Hemisphere blocking. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, doi:10.1002/2013GL058745. Hamilton, L.C., Lemcke-Stampone, M., 2013. Arctic warming and your weather: public be lief in the connection. International J. Climatology, Wiley Online Library, DOI: 10.1002/joc.3796. Francis, J.A., Vavrus, S.J., 2012. Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme w eather in mid-latitudes. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L06801, doi:10.1029/2012GL051000. NRC, 2014. Linkages Between Arctic Warming and Mid-Latitude Weather Patterns: Summary of a Workshop. National Research Council, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 79 pp. Overland, J.E., Wang, M., 2010. Large-scale atmospheric circulation changes are assoc iated with the recent loss of Arctic sea ice. Tellus, 62A, 1-9. Screen, J.A., Simmonds, I., 2013. Exploring links between Arctic amplification and mi d-latitude weather. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 959-964. John Walsh has been active in Arctic climate research for the past 40 years. He is presently a Research Professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, which he joined in 2001 after several decades at the University of Illinois. His particular interests are weather-climate linkages and the interactions among different components of the Arctic system. Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 23 Alexandra L. Giese, U.S. student delegate to the 2014 Model Arctic Forum in Arkhangelsk, Russia. Photo courtesy of Alexandra L. Giese. Science Education News A Week as an Arctic Council Delegate in Arkhangelsk, Russia By: Alexandra L. Giese, PhD Candidate in Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College During the last week of February 2014, I had the privilege of representing the United States and Dartmouth College (http://dartmouth.edu/) at the 2014 Model Arctic Council (http://narfu.ru/en/projects/mac/), a role-playing program with the same goals as the better-known Model UN: to expose students to high-level policy negotiations through experience and participation. The Model Arctic Council was held at the Northern Arctic Federal University (NArFU) (http://narfu.ru/en/) in Arkhangelsk, Russia. Thirty graduate students from more than ten countries participated in simulated proceedings of the Arctic Council (http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/) , a high-level intergovernmental forum for promoting cooperation, coordination, and interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of Arctic indigenous communities, on common Arctic issues. The four-day program (http://narfu.ru/en/projects/mac/) of the Model Arctic Council began with a day of lectures and round-table diplomacy discussions led by prominent government figures, including U.S. Embassy Public Affairs Officer Steven Labensky; Russian International Affairs Council Deputy Program Director Timur Makhmutov; and Lev Levit, senior researcher at the Arkhangelsk Scienti fic Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Other lectures covered the history of the Arctic Council, intern ational relations, and security strategies. The following days involved simulations of the three types of meetings run by the Cou ncil: a biannual meeting for one of the six Working Groups (http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/working-groups), which implement research and projects related to specific interests such as sustainable development; the biannual meeting of Senior Arctic Officials; and the biennial meeting of Arctic Ministers (http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/events /meetings-overview/kiruna-ministerial-2013) (the Secretary of State represents the U.S. in this meeting). Each was a progressively higher-level meeting to which participants passed along information dis cussed and resolved at the lower-level meeting the previous day. The Arctic Council's Rules of Procedures were f ollowed by student participants as they represented delegates from the eight Arctic Member States (http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about24 us/member-states) , six Permanent Participants (http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/permanentparticipants) groups, four of the six Working Groups (http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/workinggroups) , and three of the twelve non-Arctic Observers (http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/arcticcouncil/observers) . Each role was assigned prior to the meeting, and students prepared written position papers as well as oral statements or presentations for the meetings. In my role as chair of the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) (http://www.pame.is/) working group, I was responsible for ensuring that environmental management, pollution control, and ec osystem protection issues entered the conversations. Specifically, I updated Senior Arctic Officials on the pro gress of a new Arctic Marine Shipping Plan, a collaborative sustainable tourism initiative, and potential special designation of Arctic marine areas. The Model Council's task and final product was the "Arkhangelsk Declaration." Emulati ng those produced every two years at the Arctic Council Ministerial Meetings, this document highlighted progress and outlines future goals we agreed upon by consensus. The declaration summarized our work creating and designing initiatives to revitalize indigenous language, facilitate international electronic sharing of historical archiv es and data, stimulate product development within the reindeer herding industry, and address the incidence of suicid e in northern communities. Overall, the discussions were engaging, the negotiations successful, and the resultin g plan both compelling and achievable. The exercise was also characterized by some of the challenges the real Council faces: miscommunications resulting from varying levels of English proficiency, gridlock due to conflicting interests and opinions on financial obligations, and vastly different relevance of issues to each country or participant. At the end, I left with a far better understanding of the operating procedures and current priorities of the Arctic Council than I could have acquired through lectures or reading. More importantly, however, I departed Arkhangelsk with a profound, almost hu mbling, sense of optimism about the potential for even greater international collaboration and the commitment o f my generation of students to ensuring a profitable, peaceful, and thoughtfully developed future for the Arctic reg ion. I was able to attend the Model Arctic Council thanks to the generosity of Dartmouth's Institute of Arctic Studies (http://dickey.dartmouth.edu/research/arctic-studies) at the Dickey Center for International Understanding and NArFu. The Model Arctic Council program agenda is available as a pdf here (http://narfu.ru/upload/medialibrary /c1a/mac_program.pdf) . More information about the Arctic Council, its membership, and working groups is available here (http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/). Information about the Dartmouth IGERT program is available here (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~igert/) . For more information, contact ([email protected]). 25 NSF Director France A. Córdova. Photo courtesy of NSF/Sandy Schaeffer. National Science Foundation News Córdova Sworn in as 14th Director of NSF France A. Córdova was sworn in as the 14th director of the National Science Foundatio n (NSF) on 31 March 2014. President Obama nominated her to the six-year term in August 2013 and the U.S. Senate confirmed her nomination on 12 March 2014. She succeeds Subra Suresh, who stepped down in March 2013. Cora B. Mar rett was acting director at NSF during the interim. Córdova is president emerita of Purdue University, where she served from 2007 to 2012. From 2002 to 2007, she led the University of California at Riverside as chancellor and was a distinguished professor of physics and astronomy. Previously, Córdova was the vice chancellor for research and a professor of physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara from 1996 to 2002, and head of the astronomy and astrophysics department at the University of Pennsylvania from 1989 to 1993. She was NASA's chief scientist from 1993 to 1996 and on staff at Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1979 to 1989, the last two years as deputy group leader in the Earth and Space Science Division. Most recently, Córdova served as chair of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution and as a member of the National Science Board, where she chaired the Committee on Strategy and Budget. She received a Bachelor of Arts deg ree from Stanford University and a PhD from the California Institute of Technology. Córdova met with the NSF Advisory Committee for the Geosciences during the spring mee ting held 3-4 April 2014. According to a recent report in EOS , Advisory Committee members addressed several is sues including concerns regarding the progress of the reintegration of the Polar Program into the Directorate of Geosciences (GEO). A specific concern mentioned was the quick succession in NSF leadership since the merger of Pola r Programs with GEO and related uncertainty about how that may affect the polar research community. Director Córdova stated that the agency would take a close look at the merger to ensure it is the right approach. She noted t hat NSF has to be prepared to meet the broader concerns related to stewardship in the polar regions, that the hope is in corporating polar programs in GEO will benefit those programs, and that the agency will be flexible should it be necess ary to go a different direction. NSF's annual budget is about $7.2 billion. The agency's budget request for FY15 is $7 .3 billion, an increase of 1 % over the 2014 enacted level. NSF's annual budget represents 24% of the total federal budget for basic research conducted at U.S. colleges and universities, and this share increases to 60% when med ical research supported by the 32 National Institutes of Health is excluded. In many fields, NSF is the primary source of federal academic support. For further information, and to read source material for this article, please see: https://www.nsf.gov /news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=130931 and http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i31/Astrophysicist-Tapped-New-NSF-Directo... . Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 33 National Science Foundation News Committee of Visitors Offers Recommendations to NSF's Arctic Sciences Section According to NSF policy, each program that awards grants and cooperative agreements m ust be reviewed once every three years by a Committee of Visitors (COV) comprised of qualified external experts. The Committee reviews program portfolio activities and assesses the quality and integrity of the review pro cess and program management related to proposal funding decisions as well as providing comments on how the result s of funded research contribute to the advancement of NSF's mission and goals. Directorate advisory committees select members of each COV. Programs in the Directorate for Geosciences were reviewed in 2013. Arctic Science Section programs were reviewed 16-17 September 2013 by a COV which inc luded Chair Douglas MacAyeal, University of Chicago and members Paul Bierman, University of Vermont; John Farrell, U.S. Arctic Research Commission; Janet Intrieri, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory; Martha Mc Connell, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN); Liesel Ritchie, University of Colorado Bould er; and Rebecca Woodgate, University of Washington. They reviewed 120 proposal decisions during the review peri od to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the merit review process, the selection process of the reviewers, an d program management and responsiveness to recommendations from previous COVs. They also reviewed program mana gement for the Arctic System Science, Arctic Observing Network, and Arctic Research Support & Logistics pro grams. The FY 2014 COV report on the Arctic Sciences Section includes several recommendation s in response to specific questions. To download the full report, go to: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/adgeo/advcomm/fy2013_cov/geo-plr-arcticcov-2013.pdf . The formal response to these recommendations from NSF is available to download at: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/adgeo /advcomm/fy2013_cov/geo-plr-arctic-cov-respo... . For further information about the COV and to read recommendations from previous years , please go to: https://www.nsf.gov/od/iia/activities/cov/covs.jsp . Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 34 A favorite field assistant accompanies Brendan P. Kelly, whose research career has spanned three decades and included studies of Arctic marine mammals, their sea ice environment, and the cultural significance of the ecosystem to indigenous communities. Photo courtesy: Melanie Duchin. Interagency News Reflections on Arctic Research Coordination By: Brendan P. Kelly, currently Executive Director of the IARPC and Assistant Directo r for Polar Science in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy My friend and colleague John Farrell, Executive Director of the Arctic Research Commission (http://www.arctic.gov/) , recently surfaced a publication from a couple of decades back by a former Chair of that Commission. John noted that many of the same issues we are tackling now in Arctic research were current back then. On the other hand, I would argue that our understanding of many of the topics has advanced tremendously in the past couple of decades, because there are a lot of very talented people working hard on those issues. ARCUS (http://www.arcus.org/), the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (http://www.arcus.org/search-program) , the Arctic Research Commission, and other organizations have become more and more adept at promoting and coordinating the efforts of a creative and hard-working research community. What has changed even more, I think, is the degree of communication between disciplin es and the emphasis on integrating traditional knowledge and science. To be clear, we are far from proficien t at that integration, but its importance is more consistently appreciated even as we struggle to make it a reality. Within the Federal government, there have been substantial advances in coordination of research and other issues in the Arctic. The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) (http://www.arcus.org/iarpc-researchcollaborations) was given a great boost when the President's science advisor made it a subcommittee in the National Science and Technology Council (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/nstc) and when the National Science Foundation increased staffing support for the committee. With that boost, IAR PC produced the Arctic 35 Research Plan: FY2013 – 2017 (http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/arctic/iarpc/arc_res_plan_index.jsp) and stood up 12 teams to implement the plan. Thanks to cat herder par excellence, Sara Bowden (serving as I ARPC's Executive Secretary); Sandy Starkweather; and dedicated team leaders, the teams are advancing the milestone s spelled out in the research plan. There are somewhere on the order of 300 people (and growing) involved the effor t, and I forever marvel at what Sara and Sandy keep moving. Recently, we expanded the implementation teams to include non-Federal collaborators a nd have been convening meetings of these broader " collaboration teams (http://www.arcus.org/iarpc-research-collaborations/collaboration)." From time-to-time it is necessary, for reasons of fairness and legalities, to convene only the Federal implementation teams. For example, developing solicitations for Federal funding must not include peo ple from outside of the Federal government. Most often, however, the teams convene to communicate and coordinate all of the talent (Federal or otherwise) working in their topic area, and for those we want to harness all of the a vailable talent wherever it resides; hence, collaboration teams. We continue to seek involvement of researchers wanting to contribute to the combined efforts. The full list of teams can be seen online here (http://www.arcus.org/iarpc-research-collaborations). The website is soon to be enhanced to support the collaboration teams and communicate with wider audiences. Sara, Sandy, Helen Wiggins, and others on the ARCUS staff are doing excellent work to make the website a powerful tool. Research planning is necessarily iterative, and IARPC is planning to update its resea rch plan. To that end, IARPC agencies sponsored the recently released Polar Research Board study on emerging issue s in the Arctic (The Arctic in the Anthropocene: Emerging Research Questions) (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1872) . That excellent report will help bring the thinking of the greater research community in to IARPC pla nning. All of which is to say, this is a good time to sneak out of my role as Assistant Dire ctor for Polar Science in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). In that position, I have served as Executive Director of the IARPC and had the very great pleasure of seeing the Arctic research community make gr eat strides not only in understanding the Arctic system but also in pulling together so that they realize the benefits of coordination. I have used the analogy of harnessing dogs to sleds to describe what it takes to get scientists to coordinate their efforts (lest my colleagues not appreciate being likened to dogs, I hasten to point out that my best field companions were very smart Labrador retrievers, so I mean the analogy with the greatest respect). Tandem h itches—dogs harnessed closely to one another pulling in two parallel lines—are efficient in that they enforce pulling in one direction. Fan hitches, in contrast, have each dog on their own trace connected to the sled; the dogs are fanned out in front and pull only in the same general direction. The loss of efficiency in the fan hitch, however, tends to be compensated by the fact that the arrangement is more consistent with dog sociality. Dogs like to preserve some interpe rsonal distance. The independence of scientists, likewise, is preserved when they are not tied to a single direction. Forcing them along a single trajectory (as if anyone could!) would stifle important creativity. On the oth er hand, tough problems like many 36 of those faced in the Arctic are well served by groups pulling in the same general di rection. The person on the back of the sled generally gets a terrific ride, although occasionally finds him or her self untangling some traces. OSTP hopes to bring on a new Assistant Director for Polar Science soon, and in the me antime, Simon Stephenson, Section Head for Arctic Science at NSF (http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/arc/), will take on the role of Executive Director of IARPC. That is especially appropriate given that Simon has consistently provided t he big-picture vision for IARPC. And, he is adept at fan hitches. After June 20, 2014, I shall be at the address below and keen to aid the overall effo rts in a new role. Thanks for all of your patience and support. Brendan P. Kelly Director of Conservation Research and Chief Scientist Monterey Bay Aquarium 886 Cannery Row Monterey, CA 93940 [email protected]g 831-648-4934 Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 37 NOAA's Arctic Action Plan Interagency News NOAA Launches Arctic Action Plan The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (http://www.noaa.gov/) launched its Arctic Action Plan (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov /NOAAarcticactionplan2014.pdf) in April 2014. This plan provides an overview of NOAA's Arctic programs and describes how they implement NOAA's Arctic Vision and Strategy (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov /docs/NOAAArctic_V_S_2011.pdf) and the agency's roll in implementing the National Strategy for the Arctic Region (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013 /05/10/national-strategy-arctic-regionannounced) . NOAA's Arctic Action Plan targets six strategic goals identified in the Arctic Vision and Strategy. These goals advance NOAA's agency priorities of advancing U.S. security interests, enhancing Arctic region stewardship, and strengthening international cooperation. The strategic goals are to: Forecast sea ice.1. Strengthen foundational science to understand and detect Arctic climate and ecosystem changes.2. Improve weather and water forecasts and warnings.3. Enhance international and national partnerships.4. Improve stewardship and management of ocean and coastal resources in the Arctic.5. 38 Advance resilient and healthy Arctic communities and economies.6. The plan describes linkages to other agency and interagency plans including the National Ocean Policy (http://www.boem.gov/National-Ocean-Policy/) and the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) Five-Year Research Plan (http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/arctic/iarpc/arc_res_plan_index.jsp). It also identifies specific actions that NOAA will take in the next two years to support Arctic-related missions and mandates and to further scientific understanding of the Arctic region, which includes the Arctic Ocean and th e Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas as well as the terrestrial portions of northern and western Alaska. For more information about the National Strategy for the Arctic Region, see: "White House Announces National Strategy for the Arctic Region" (http://www.arcus.org/witness-the-arctic/2013/2/article/19962) in Witness the Arctic - Spring 2013 ). For more information about the NOAA Arctic Vision and Strategy, see: "NOAA Releases Final Arctic Vision and Strategy" (http://www.arcus.org/witness-the-arctic/2011/2/article/1659) in Witness the Arctic - Spring 2011. NOAA's Arctic Action Plan is available here (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/NOAAarcticactionplan2014.pdf). A fact sheet for the plan is available here (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/NOAAarcticactionplanflyer2014.pdf). For further information about the Arctic Action Plan and the source material for this article, see the NOAA announcement (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/features/action-plan.html). Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 39 Interagency News NASA Cryospheric Sciences MVP Awarded to Joseph MacGregor By: Tom Wagner, Cryosphere Program Manager, Earth Science Division, Science Mission D irectorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration The 2014 winner of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Cryospheric Sciences (http://ice.nasa.gov/) Most Valuable Player award is Joseph A. MacGregor of University of Texas at Austin's Jackson School of Geosciences (http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/) , for his work synthesizing ice penetrating radar (http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/gcatania/greenradar.html) records to produce a 3-dimensional age map of the Greenland Ice Sheet. The work represents a substantial contribution to Arctic research. The results will constrain ice sheet models and assi st in the interpretation of paleoclimate information to improve our understanding of the Greenland ice sheet's contribution to sea level change. Background The NASA Cryospheric Sciences program awards a Most Valuable Player award annually at its Program for Arctic Regional Climate Assessment (PARCA) meeting. The award recognizes outstanding individ ual accomplishment by a NASA-supported scientist working in the cryospheric sciences. It is intended to encou rage and celebrate creative or original work, especially that which exemplifies Thomas Edison's maxim "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration." The award considers any contribution, but especial ly those that involve synthesis of large or multidisciplinary data sets. 40 A radargram collected across northern Greenland on 29 May 2011 during NASA's Operation IceBridge. Colored lines indicate reflectors that are thousands to tens of thousands of years old, with deeper reflectors being older. Image courtesy of Joseph A. MacGregor. More information about MacGregor's project, "Radiostratigraphy of the Greenland Ice S heet" is available here (http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/gcatania/greenradar.html) or by contacting Joseph MacGregor ( [email protected]). Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 41 Enhancing Cooperation. No single agency, organization, or country can take on all research topics in the Arctic. Some research questions are too broad, or involve such extensive field efforts that they cannot be resolved solely by researchers from a single country, or supported by a single funding source. In some cases comprehensive data sets of numerous field processes must be collected simultaneously in coordinated expeditions or cruises requiring collaboration among many nations. Cooperation is essential: among researchers, between agencies, among nations, across disciplines, between Arctic residents and visiting scientists, and with the private sector. Sustaining Long-term Observations. Long-term observational data are essential for detecting change and for putting research findings into context. There are, however, insufficient long-term observation efforts underway and little coordination among those that do exist. Instead, available records are often a collection of ad hoc efforts conducted with different time scales, in different areas, and for different purposes. It is thus difficult to distinguish large-scale patterns from localized ones, or to connect findings in one discipline to those in another. Managing and Sharing Information. Data management requirements have often been underfunded, resulting in poor quality metadata, a lack of long-term archiving, or other shortcomings that greatly reduce the utility of data. Our understanding of the Arctic as a system has evolved through the ability to compare data sets from disparate fields and regions in order to see connections and commonalities. But data management is often left to individuals or to separate efforts depending on agency, program, discipline, or other parameters. Maintaining and Building Operational Capacity. New technologies allow new approaches to research in many fields. Among the most promising recent developments is a host of autonomous mobile sensors for the ocean and atmosphere that can be deployed relatively easily and inexpensively. At the same time, it is critical that current capabilities are sustained, including ships, satellites, and research stations. Growing Human Capacity. Arctic research depends on sufficient human capacity, including scientists trained in the necessary fields who are capable of interdisciplinary collaboration. During the International Polar Year, concerted efforts were made to involve young researchers, and those opportunities help to retain scientists in Arctic research. Additionally, Arctic residents can offer a great deal to research efforts. To avoid "research fatigue" it is important to make sure that Arctic residents have the chance to act on what is learned from research, and to use knowledge gained to enhance the adaptive capacity of their community. Investing in Research. Society's ability to address emerging research questions in the Arctic is closely tied to the way research funding is organized. Given the emerging research questions and implementation challenges identified in this report, pressures are growing for support of comprehensive systems and synthesis research, non-steady-state research, social science, stakeholder-initiated research, international research, and long-term observations. Other approaches are used in different countries, and the tradeoffs involved are worth considering to assess whether some of those approaches might be adopted or adapted in the United States. 48 Getting more from Arctic research may best be pursued by enhancing the ways we make u se of that research. To build knowledge and solve problems, collaboration is needed—not just among scientific disci plines, or between scientists and those who live in the Arctic, but also with and between decision makers to better understand what they require and how scientific results are factored with other considerations to produce decision out comes. Fostering a sense of shared purpose to manage change to the best of our abilities is essential, as is a continued commitment to studying what exists, what is emerging, and what awaits us in the Arctic. The report is available as a free PDF at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18726. To purchase paper copies, please contact the National Academies Press at: 800-624-6242. The PRB is a unit within the National Academies and is responsible for studies relate d to the Arctic, Antarctic, and cold regions in general. More information about the PRB and other related activities is available here (http://dels.nas.edu/prb/) or contact Lauren Everett ([email protected]). Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 49 Opportunities to Use Remote Sensing in Understanding Permafrost and Related Ecological Characteristics Polar Research Board Recent Reports from the National Academy of Sciences By: Lauren Everett, Associate Program Officer, National Academy of Sciences, Polar Re search Board In early April 2014 the Polar Research Board (PRB) and the Ocean Studies Board (OSB) of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released a number of reports related to Arctic issues. They are summarize d below. Opportunities to Use Remote Sensing in Understanding Permafrost and Related Ecological Characteristics (http://www.nap.edu /catalog.php?record_id=18711) Permafrost is a thermal condition—its formation, persistence and disappearance are highly dependent on climate. General circulation models predict that, for a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, mean annual air temperatures may rise several degrees over much of the Arctic. In the discontinuous permafrost region, where ground temperatures are within 1-2 degrees of thawing, permafrost will likely ultimately disappear as a result of ground thermal changes associated with global climate warming. Where ground ice contents are high, permafrost degradation will have associated physical impacts. Permafrost thaw stands to have wide-ranging impacts, such as the draining and drying of the tundra, erosion of riverbanks and coastline, and destabilization of infrastructure (roads, airports, buildings, etc.). There are also potentially significant implications for ecosystems and the carbon cycle in the high latitudes. Opportunities to Use Remote Sensing in Understanding Permafrost and Related Ecological Characteristics (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18711) is the summary of a workshop convened to explore opportunities for using remote sensing to advance our understanding of permafrost status and trends and the impacts of permafrost change, especially on ecosystems and the carbon cycle in the high latitudes. The work shop brought together experts 50 Linkages Between Arctic Warming and Mid-Latitude Weather Patterns from the remote sensing community with permafrost and ecosystem scientists. The works hop discussions articulated gaps in current understanding and potential opportunities to harness remote sensing t echniques to better understand permafrost, permafrost change, and implications for ecosystems in permafrost areas. T his report addresses questions such as how remote sensing might be used in innovative ways, how it might enhance our ability to document long-term trends, and whether it is possible to integrate remote sensing products with the grou nd-based observations and assimilate them into advanced Arctic system models. Additionally, the report consider s the expectations of the quality and spatial and temporal resolution possible through such approaches, and the prototy pe sensors that are available that could be used for detailed ground calibration of permafrost/high latitude carbon cycl e studies. Linkages Between Arctic Warming and Mid-Latitude Weather Patterns (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18727) The Arctic has been undergoing significant changes in recent years. Average temperatures are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. The extent and thickness of sea ice is rapidly declining. Such changes may have an impact on atmospheric conditions outside the region. Several hypotheses for how Arctic warming may be influencing mid-latitude weather patterns have been proposed recently. For example, Arctic warming could lead to a weakened jet stream resulting in more persistent weather patterns in the mid-latitudes. Or Arctic sea ice loss could lead to an increase of snow on high-latitude land, which in turn impacts the jet stream resulting in cold Eurasian and North American winters. These and other potential connections between a warming Arctic and mid-latitude weather are the subject of active research. Linkages Between Arctic Warming and Mid-Latitude Weather Patterns (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18727) is the summary of a workshop convened in September 2013 to review our current understanding and to discuss research needed to better understand proposed linkages. A diverse array of experts examined linkages between a warming Arctic and mid-latitude weather patterns. The workshop included presentations from 51 Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment leading researchers representing a range of views on this topic. The workshop was org anized to allow participants to take a global perspective and consider the influence of the Arctic in the context of forcing from other components of the climate system, such as changes in the tropics, ocean circulation, and mid-latitu de sea surface temperature. This report discusses our current understanding of the mechanisms that link declines in Ar ctic sea ice cover, loss of high-latitude snow cover, changes in Arctic-region energy fluxes, atmospheric circula tion patterns, and the occurrence of extreme weather events; possible implications of more severe loss of summer Arctic sea ice upon weather patterns at lower latitudes; major gaps in our understanding, and observational and/or modeling e fforts that are needed to fill those gaps; and current opportunities and limitations for using Arctic sea ice predictions to assess the risk of temperature/precipitation anomalies and extreme weather events over northern continen ts. Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18625) U.S. Arctic waters north of the Bering Strait and west of the Canadian border encompass a vast area that is usually ice covered for much of the year, but is increasingly experiencing longer periods and larger areas of open water due to climate change. Sparsely inhabited with a wide variety of ecosystems found nowhere else, this region is vulnerable to damage from human activities. As oil and gas, shipping, and tourism activities increase, the possibilities of an oil spill also increase. How can we best prepare to respond to such an event in this challenging environment? Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18625) assesses the current state of science and engineering regarding oil spill response in the Arctic region north of the Bering Strait, with emphasis on potential impacts in U.S. waters. This report describes the ecosystems and environmental conditions of the Arctic and makes recommendations to provide an effective response effort in these challenging conditions. According to Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment , a full range of oil spill response technologies is needed in order to 52 minimize impacts on people and sensitive ecosystems. This report identifies key oil s pill research priorities, critical data and monitoring needs, mitigation strategies, and important operational and logis tical issues. The Arctic acts as an integrating, regulating, and mediating component of the physica l, atmospheric, and cryospheric systems that govern life on Earth. Not only does the Arctic serve as regulator of man y of the Earth's large-scale systems and processes, but it is also an area where choices made have substantial imp act on life and choices everywhere on planet Earth. This report's recommendations will assist federal, state, local, and tribal policymakers; non-governmental organizations; industry; academia; and anyone interested in the futu re of this special region to protect it from the impacts of damaging oil spills. Theses reports are available as free PDFs here (http://www.nap.edu/). To purchase paper copies, please contact the National Academies Press at: 800-624-6242. The PRB and OSB are units within the National Academies Division on Earth and Life St udies. More information about the PRB and OSB and other related activities can be found here (http://dels.nas.edu/prb/) and here (http://dels.nas.edu/osb) or contact Lauren Everett ([email protected]). Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 53 International News Recommendations from 2014 Arctic Observing Summit By: Mikko Strahlendorff, Finnish Meteorological Institute The second Arctic Observing Summit (AOS) (http://www.arcticobservingsummit.org/) was held 9-11 April 2014 in conjunction with the Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW) (http://www.assw2014.fi/) in Helsinki, Finland. Both events surprised the organizers with more participants than expected. Attendance tota led 493 with almost half participating in AOS-2014. The feedback received and the high number of participants clearly showed that the integration of ASSW and AOS was well received. Following this model, the third AOS wi ll be arranged at the ASSW 2016. Discussions at the summit built on results from the first AOS, held spring of 2013 in Vancouver, British Columbia, and expanded to include new topics such as remote sensing and Arctic technology innovatio ns. Peter Schlosser, Co-Chair of the AOS Organizing Committee, along with Eva Krümmel and Mikko Strahlendorff, pres ented the following preliminary draft recommendations to a high-level panel of decision makers at the con clusion of the five AOS-2014 sessions: Stakeholders and Arctic Observation Create more inclusive and iterative communication platforms for planning Arctic observations. Establish improved dialogue between traditional knowledge holders and science. Example case from European Arctic: studying land-use history for Arctic observation information. Coordination for Improved Arctic Observing Establish internationally coordinated funding with common calls for research and common review of proposals. Use Belmont Forum as pilot for multi-nation project funding. Establish funding mechanisms for research and stakeholder observation campaigns. In addition, identify funding sources for sustained operational observations for climate time series. Technology and Innovation Share technology and technology development to reduce cost. There must be high-risk investments into technology and room for failure in development of new technology. Enhance cooperation between industry and scientific community in technology development. 54 Attendees enjoy coffee break during Arctic Observing Summit. Photo courtesy of Mikko Strahlendorff. Remote Sensing Solutions Arctic user requirements should be included in prioritizing Low Earth Orbit missions and to motivate specific polar missions. Start preparing for real-time service. Priorities: carbon cycle, permafrost, and snow cover monitoring. Data Management Open access to data in itself is not sufficient. Data uptake should be increased through appropriate easy-to-use data interfaces. Data system designers have to be informed better by needs of data holders and data users. Build on knowledge and data systems that already exists. Develop interoperable data infrastructures to save cost. The full report of the AOS will be published in summer 2014. It will also include the following recommendations from AOS-2013: Improve cross-sector and collaborative approaches to the collection and maintenance of data. Create a stakeholder advisory group to provide advice on observational need. Better utilize and adopt modern technology for Observing System Design to more closely cooperate with global systems observation initiatives during the design phase. Further information about the Arctic Observing Summits is available on the AOS website (http://www.arcticobservingsummit.org/aos-2014-0) or contact Mikko Strahlendorff (Mikko.Strahlendorf[email protected]). 55 Mikko Strahlendorff Mikko Strahlendorff works as space adviser for the Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) and the Ministry of Transport and Communications. He represents Finland in European Union space and research related committees guiding the development of remote and in-situ observation networks. Previously he worked for the European Commission planning the EU Earth Observation program Copernicus and before that he lead the Information System development at FMI. His research interests include global observation capabilities in relation to climate adaptation needs. Published by the Arctic Research Consortium of the United States • 3535 College Road - Suite 101 • Fairbanks, AK 99709 • [email protected] 56 From the ARCUS Board New ARCUS Vision and Mission Statements In January 2014 the Board of Directors adopted new Vision and Mission statements for ARCUS. These statements were the result of approximately 18 months' worth of discussions during which the boa rd and staff took a self-critical look at the organization. The board embarked on this mission as it became clear that a clean mission statement was needed to effectively focus ARCUS activities. This evaluation of ARCUS started with a facilitated discussion between the board and staff in the spring of 2012 to review the history of ARCUS, its strengt hs, and its perceived challenges. The outcome of that meeting was a summary document of the current state of and perspe ctives from the board for the future direction of the organization. A board sub-committee met with the staff in Fai rbanks in early 2013 to draft a Vision and Mission statement. The draft was refined during subsequent board meetings and the final version was approved in January 2014. The ARCUS Vision and Mission Statement (http://www.arcus.org/arcus) is publicly available. Rapid changes in the Arctic environment led to rapid increases in the scope and compl exity of activities in the Arctic. Several government agencies now have an increased presence in Arctic research, even a s industrial activities are increasing. The number of researchers interested in the Arctic is increasing, amongst them people from and communities in the Arctic. The board assessed ARCUS strengths in facilitating interdi sciplinary collaborative programs, education, and outreach. The new Vision and Mission statements seek to buil d on these strengths while somewhat adjusting the focus. ARCUS is envisioned as serving Arctic researchers, be they academic, agency, industry , or others. Our goal is for ARCUS to be the go-to place for researchers seeking to develop and manage interdiscip linary projects; support and enable their out-reach to Arctic communities, policymakers, industry, and other decis ion-makers; and support efforts to inform the Arctic literate public. To succeed in these goals ARCUS must have an activ ely engaged member population. The board is committed to working with the staff to strategically focus ARCUS activit ies so that ARCUS will be a catalyst for interdisciplinary thinking, acting, and education leading to the develop ment of highly collaborative partnerships. This is an exciting time for ARCUS. With the board fully engaged and a clear mission statement the excellent ARCUS staff can now focus on what they do best: bringing the Arctic research community toge ther in small and large interdisciplinary projects. Johannes (Hans) Verlinde Secretary, ARCUS Board of Directors 57