Breakout Summary Report

ARM/ASR User and PI Meeting

Breakout Description

The Atmospheric Systems Research (ASR) High-Latitude Processes Working Group (HLWG) is meant to support and accelerate research related to high-latitude processes. The HLWG fosters community, identification of key topics, coordination of future field campaigns, and advancement of common Working Group Session; Thursday 10:45 am–12:45 pm research directions. This breakout will include a limited number of invited presentations to focus discussion around key issues and provide information on the status of central activities that support high-latitude science. These presentations will foster community discussion on new and developing modeling, analysis, and field campaign activities, and will help to identify gaps in understanding, data products, sensor performance, and model shortcomings. The primary goal of this breakout session is to ensure working-group-wide awareness of ongoing work, advancement of work supporting common priorities, and brainstorming on community needs.

Main Discussion

The session started with about 30 minutes of group ice-breaker activities. The first included a “bi-polar mingle” where attendees were asked to stand up and put their hands on their head if they worked in the northern high latitudes, hands on their hips if they worked in the southern high latitudes, and hands at a T if they worked in both or neither. They were then asked to meet and talk to someone who they did not know in the other high latitude or neither. The second activity involved everyone in the room to line up in the highest absolute latitude they have visited and chat with someone near them in line who they did not know or talk to in the first activity. The range of the line was from Maryland to the North Pole. The activities were engaging, and attendees seemed keen to participate.

The session proceeded with two early career talks by Kelsey Barber and Neel Desai. Kelsey talked about using MARCUS/CAPRICORN data to evaluate cloud and precipitation properties, specifically looking at phase-specific precipitation properties below supercooled clouds. Neel’s talk involved looking at the performance of E3SM in representing northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere clouds as observed at ARM sites. He showed that COMBLE clouds were generally higher and thicker than MARCUS clouds. E3SMv2 produced significantly different phases simulated than observed, despite common macrophysical conditions.

Next, we received translator updates on COMBLE and MOSAiC by Damao Zhang. For both campaigns, many VAPs are ready to go, but some are still in production for MOSAiC. Several new VAPs are available at high-latitude sites (e.g., THERMOCLDPHASE). Some concern was expressed about cloud phase determination for MARCUS. Jessie Creamean also provided a quick mentor update on INP measurements available at OLI (for ~1 year) and that INP measurements will be starting at NSA next year.

Following a quick stretching break, we had three field campaign update talks by Roj Marchand, Tim Juliano, and Matthew Shupe. Roj provided an overview of CAPE-K campaign plans. Tim provided an overview on COMBLE modeling work, showing some highlights including results from Florian Tornow, Anne Fridland, and Chistian Lackner. There is a concerted effort to conduct meso-to-microscale simulations at NCAR down to 150 and 30 m LES scales. Work by Pung Wu was presented looking at the fetch dependence of cloud morphology, by Hazel Xia to compare MARCUS and COMBLE measurements, specifically looking at forcers of clouds versus their response, and by Zach Mages to look at turbulence associated with COMBLE clouds. Matthew gave an update on MOSAiC science activities, including a brief discussion on the campaign and data availability and science highlights across a variety of topics. He indicated that coordinated modeling activities for MOSAiC are still ongoing, but have gained traction via nudged climate model activity. He also announced the MOSAiC science conference in February in Germany.

The session finished with 30 minutes of general Q&A and discussion. There were questions about where MOSAiC data are distributed and MODFs (Merged Observatory Data Files). There was discussion on the 5th IPY (2032-2033) and if ARM should target polar campaigns during that window. One knowledge gap that was discussed that could be a focus is the MIZ (marginal ice zone) regions in the Southern Ocean and Arctic, specifically using vertical measurements. Discussion also included the need for Lagrangian sampling approaches to follow plumes and cloud transitions using crewed and uncrewed aircraft. There was a significant portion of the discussion and evident enthusiasm for the use of airships and blimps, which blimps are currently being tested by SNL!

Key Findings

The discussion section made it clear that attendees desire a future MIZ campaign(s), ideally in both poles but at least the Southern Ocean, during the next IPY. There was also significant interest in using new technologies such as airships for Langrangian sampling approaches in addition to having ships/stations as the home bases.

Issues

None, other than more time would have been ideal to continue the fruitful discussion on the use of airships for a potential future DOE ARM campaign during the 5th IPY.

Needs

• An online workshop to continue discussion on user needs for the next IPY


• More meeting time at the next Joint PI meeting

Decisions

Due to this interest, we plan to have a follow-up workshop with the HLWG to discuss these ideas further. The workshop would initially be virtual and prior to the next Joint PI meeting (likely early 2024). It would be open to members of the HLWG, and those interested in joining the HLWG. We could then continue discussions at the HLWG session at the next Joint PI meeting and plan for additional workshop(s) in the future.

Future Plans

Chairs will host a follow-on HLWG workshop.

Action Items

Chairs will host a follow-on HLWG workshop.