Freshwater Initiative Investigators Meeting by trendy3


									Arctic-CHAMP Science Steering Committee Meeting
AGU 2004 Fall Meeting
San Francisco Marriott Garden Terrace Restaurant Wednesday 15 December 2004 12-1:30 p.m.

Meeting Minutes and Agenda

SSC Members Present Roger Barry, NSIDC Mark Fahnestock, Univ. New Hampshire Larry Hinzman, Univ. Alaska Fairbanks Jim McClelland* (filling in for Bruce Peterson), Marine Biological Laboratory Kyle McDonald, JPL A. David McGuire, UAF/USGS Don Perovich, CRREL New Hampshire Michael Steele, Univ. Washington Charles Vörösmarty, Univ. New Hampshire John Walsh, Univ. Illinois / IARC Also present: Peter Schlosser, SEARCH SSC Chair Jonathan Pundsack, Arctic-CHAMP Science Management Office Executive Director SSC Members Absent: Henry Huntington, Rob Macdonald, Matthew Sturm, Robin Webb (Robin Webb submitted comments via email to Hinzman, Vörösmarty, and Pundsack) Agenda Original attached below.

Charlie Vörösmarty opened meeting and welcomed all members present, distributed copies of Agenda. Brief Overview on Where We Stand Charlie gave a brief overview on the current state of Arctic-CHAMP efforts. He stated that we are headed in the right direction and that we have made a lot of progress in the last year since we met. Group is getting to know each other and All-Hands Meetings

have been very productive and good venues for exchange of ideas. Results of studies are now filtering in (e.g. Craig Lee just contacted us and mentioned they have a couple of papers coming out, wanted to post on Arctic-CHAMP website). Arctic-CHAMP SMO needs to actively pursue getting results, findings, papers, etc. from other groups. We are moving towards synthesis, one of the upcoming challenges is to maintain momentum and continue documenting success / proving ‘value’ of Arctic-CHAMP and the FWI Projects. The Arctic-CHAMP website is becoming the focal point / heart and soul of ArcticCHAMP and FWI efforts. Website contains background information, history, FWI Project Overviews, Synthesis Efforts, Meeting Archives, Presentations, Newsworthy Items, Outreach, and Education Activities. Need to get people to use it is main conduit for information. Mike Steele noted that it is important to show interconnections between different disciplines (e.g., discussion that he had with Jim McClelland about river/ocean linkages). Other members stated that it is important to provide input into the International Polar Year (IPY) process. CV and JP agreed and said this would be discussed in greater detail later in the agenda.

Woods Hole FWI All-Hands Meeting (May 2004) Recap / Highlights JP – Woods Hole FWI Meeting very successful, good attendance (35 PIs and grad students / 6 via video-link), nice venue, excellent discussions and presentations. Wanted to convey to Arctic-CHAMP SSC that ideas generated from last SSC Meeting (Dec 2003 at SF AGU) were central to the 2004 FWI All-Hands Meeting in Woods Hole. JM – Need to branch beyond the working group chairs and make sure that we include input from broader FWI community. PS – Working groups need to be more that re-doing budget, important to emphasize changes in budget terms. Important to give Working Groups good ideas to focus on.

Undergraduate / Graduate Education Initiative LH- Provided update on IGERT and education synthesis efforts. Important to note that we lean heavily on ideas and input of SSC members, hope that several more good ideas will come out of the meeting this year. One idea that came out of SSC Meeting from December 2003 was to create a undergraduate and graduate education initiative to promote synthesis and integration training for scientists in Arctic research disciplines. LH was lead on IGERT pre-proposal submitted to NSF in April 2004. Prior to meeting LH circulated reviews to all SSC Members. Received ‘good’ ‘very good’ and ‘excellent’ reviews and was recommended for funding, but we were not invited to submit full proposal. Asked for feedback on next steps. Do we resubmit proposal? If so, what needs to be changed?

MS – Seems that biggest issue was logistical concerns, students shifting from institute to institute. JW – Has done 2-3 week summer institutes, have been very popular and successful. Lot of demand for doing these, has been good effort. LH – Should we have IGERT centered at just 1 university and then have a 2-6 week summer institute to get them in field with experts? PS – Some institutes may have issue with trying to get credit for taking courses elsewhere, noted this was a concern with IGERT at Columbia Univ. CV – Suggested working backwards from what we would hope to achieve with the IGERT, and then build up from there. Conceive of idea of team research, students involved in something a little bigger than their individual research projects. Build on ideas that brought them into Arctic science and expose them to leaders in field. LH – Can we achieve by sending students into field just one time per year? Challenge to develop interdisciplinarity. RB – Maybe do it in pairs of universities or locations. ADM – IGERT at UAF was successful because 1) didn’t start new degree program and 2) allowed other students from other universities to be ‘in-residence’ at UAF for 1 year increments.

Plans to Write Arctic-CHAMP / FWI Article for EOS Transactions CV – Goal of article would be to serve as community announcement and to highlight mid-term results and provide benchmark for where we stand. These articles are relatively short and have quick turn-around time and he has good relationship with editors. Thought would be to get key helpers to provide bullet-points for highlights. It would be nice to produce high profile interim project article that begins to recognize team efforts of CHAMP and FWI community. Additional benefit of doing this would be to simultaneous put together 3-6 bullets of progress and key findings and put on one PowerPoint slide to give to Neil Swanberg at NSF to document our success to date. LH – Lots of good material. Question whether PIs are ok with this – putting out some of key findings. CV – Incumbent on us to distill results, what we see as major ideas and themes. We would not be ‘scooping’ science of any project.

JW – Would the idea be to scope article around theme of intensifying hydrologic cycle, or would it be broader? LH – Thinking of results to-date, document what we’ve done so far. JW – Good idea to get key findings CV – Important for this to be more than just a list PS – Don’t have to go overboard with synthesis, goal to highlight what has been done to date. CV – Good idea to get voluntary information from the PIs, but also need to ‘speak up’ for those that don’t provide information. It should be a two-way process: 1) we will query researchers, and 2) they will also provide information and what they view to be key ideas and themes. MF – Cross-disciplinary results are key to this effort. ACTION ITEM – JP will send email to group next week to ask for ideas and help in process. Will be time commitment for those involved, probably 2-3 months of work to produce article.

Proposed Workshop on the Intensifying Hydrological Cycle LH – Idea for this generated at ACIA meeting in Iceland, had discussions with Peter Schlosser. Workshop would be hosted at UAF, but would be organized around strong field component. Noted that he received 50k commitment from IARC for the workshop, but will need additional funding. MS – Thinks this is a great idea. LH – Looking into taking bus to Tanana Flats then up to bus up to Prudhoe Bay, air back to Fairbanks. Big concern is in cost for getting people around, logistical issues. Is certain we can get many graduate students interested, but also need to bring in key scientists. RB – Perhaps we should submit proposal to NSF for funding support, at least for student participation. PS – Workshop would leave programmatics behind, should be driven by intellectual goals. LH – What would be product of this workshop? PS – Could produce EOS article that focuses on intellectual content and findings

RB – Q: how many participants for the workshop? LH – One bus holds ~50 people, so probably around that number. Key is to find funding to cover workshop costs including field visits. Has done preliminary cost calculations, but need to get more accurate estimate and determine where to get funding.

Outreach to Other Groups (SEARCH, USARC, IARC, others) RB – Encouraged group to go to next CLiC Meeting (spring in Bejing). PS – Also encouraged group to participate in GEWEX / CLiC / CLIVAR Workshops. Informed group that he has been actively working on providing Arctic-CHAMP and FWI input as part of overall SEARCH activities and efforts. Noted that SEARCH is now moving into IPY phase. LH – Q: Does SEARCH need any input from us? JP – Attended ‘Bridging the Poles Workshop’ in DC June 2004, put forward ArcticCHAMP and FWI findings as contribution to IPY activities. PS – Have been major announcements for IPY and funding – connectivity with SEARCH and input / proposal to IPY. CV – Q: Is IPY sufficiently hydrologic? PS – Q: What are initiatives put forward about IPY? MF – Q: Where does ice fall into for IPY? Is it articulated directly? PS – Said that ice is mentioned specifically, both in science and implementation plans. MF – There is a benefit of identifying international contributions to FWI projects. PS – Should look at ASOF ASB. There is also a website for those IPY projects that have been hand-picked. MF – An approach we could take going into IPY would be to ask the question: FWI could be better by making the following connections (x,y,z). Could come up with list of key issues or gaps that are not addressed by FWI projects.

Metrics for Arctic-CHAMP and FWI Success ACTION ITEM – JP to put together section on Arctic-CHAMP website. Words that are bullets on metric list could be links/sections on web page of metrics.

JM – Need to get PIs to provide list of papers submitted, in press, published. ADM – For LAII they had a designated computer at a workshop where PIs could type in their publications. Today may be more relevant to gather other ways, but that worked well for them. MF – Should get abstracts of FWI Investigators’ presentations, post on website. As lead up to next FWI All-Hands Meeting we should have this posted on the website, list of papers published and also submitted. JW – IARC is working on metric of impacts, being done on project office level. LH – Noted that in climate change research it is a little more difficult to point to specific impacts, since many things coupled. MF – Could also gather information on citations (# of times FWI papers cited elsewhere). Perhaps more fitting for year 5 of program after more papers are out. CV – Trying to make connections, perhaps self-classify discipline for this exercise. MF – Abstracts will reflect cooperation between different investigators.

SSC Composition ADM – Q: Does Arctic-CHAMP have terms of reference for term of SSC Members? Others answered that we do not. ADM – Noted that human dimensions not represented in current SSC composition. JM – Q: Does SSC represent Arctic-CHAMP or FWI? LH – Noted that Arctic-CHAMP is more than just FWI. There is more mentioned in Arctic-CHAMP document than is covered by current FWI projects. CV – Q: Should we draft terms of reference for SSC to formalize? Do we ask SSC members to volunteer to rotate off? What should be mechanism for this? DP – Need to figure out how long-term this effort is to answer that. CV – Now that things are rolling, SSC has done a great job contributing to efforts. Q: What is best way to keep this going and to include new members and input of ideas for SSC? LH – AGU would be a good time to rotate, bring in new members.

CV – Q: Is reasonable time to do this at time of FWI All-Hands Meeting? Probably not, not all SSC Members have gone to past FWI All-Hands Meetings. DP – Could email group, ask for their input and advice on this. ACTION ITEM- -before next AGU meeting we will circulate note to SSC Members and rotate some new Members in. Goal is to have 4-5 new members for next Fall AGU, we will rotate at that time. ACTION ITEM – JP to call National Academy of Sciences Conference Center in Irvine California for next FWI All-Hands Meeting, check on prices and availability for early May 2005. Will also check calendar for major meetings going on in May to choose best time. Meeting adjourned at 2:10 pm PST.

  Brief Overview on Where We Stand Woods Hole FWI All-Hands Meeting (May 2004) Recap / Highlights o Next All-Hands Meeting May 2005 Irvine NAS Center  Undergraduate / Graduate Education Initiative o 2004 NSF IGERT Proposal (unsuccessful) Discussion o Future strategy  Plans to Write Arctic-CHAMP / FWI Article for EOS Transactions o Built on Fall AGU Freshwater Session and Help of SSC Members     Proposed Workshop on the Intensifying Hydrological Cycle Outreach to Other Groups (SEARCH, USARC, IARC, others) IPY – Arctic CHAMP and FWI Contributions Metrics for Our Success o Demonstrable Outputs and Products from Effort

o Papers, Workshops Hosted, Outreach, Press, Databases Produced  SSC Composition o Committee and Program Co-evolution   Other Items Adjourn

To top