Radiation WG

IASOA Radiation 
Wed, Apr 5, 2017 9:00 AM - 10:00 AM MDT 

Date: 
Wednesday, April 5, 2017 -
09:00 to 10:00
Agenda: 

Agenda:

- Discuss Science Questions (Cox, Walden) – 15 minutes

- Discuss pan-Arctic net radiation/CRF project (Cox) – 30 minutes

Minutes: 

IASOA Radiation Working Group

April 5, 2017

 

Attendees: Sara Crepinsek, Chris Cox, Chuck Long, Bob Stone, Von Walden, Diane Stanitski, Allison McComiskey, Taneil Uttal

 

Introduction of group members

Discussion of Science Questions and Working Group Changes – merging the radiation group with clouds (which was an IASOA group that never came to fruition), therefore this group would be renamed to Radiation and Clouds Working Group, the dynamic of the group will change with the addition of clouds, don’t want to see radiation component get lost with a cloud addition, clouds can be distinct from radiation so it will be important to define goals of the group, can always reduce the group later on if issues become too broad, define a prospectus for the group to continue to capture the radiation elements, keep science questions broad enough so that action items or activities/goals of the group can link back to science questions, a big part of IASOA is coordinating experts and bringing awareness to international issues or consistent products so it is important to remember this, suggest altering the name to be radiation and cloud radiative forcing working group so that radiation is still a primary focus, if experts move toward a different type of cloud focus then another working group can tangentially part ways into a new group, suggestion of moving one of the current radiation chairs to a cloud expert, first step could be putting together an email to invite cloud participants to group and that we are moving the radiation group in this new direction

Overview of revised science questions:

  1. What is the role of the net radiation in Arctic change?
  2. Has the overall magnitude and/or variability of net radiation changed and what factors are responsible for the observed changes?
  3. What are the roles of the individual radiative components in variability in the net, and what is the fate of the energy involved in radiative anomalies?
  4. How are individual anomalies in the Arctic in the current year/season comparable to the historical context at each IASOA station?
  5. What differences in observed radiative properties between the IASOA stations likely reflect real regional difference and which are more likely explained by local variability?

Suggest involving cloud participants and they revise the revised science questions, see what focus or concerns of cloud experts are to revise questions, discuss drafting an invitation email to cloud participants by radiation participants, what would be goals of “new” group that could span both radiation and clouds, discussion of interest in keeping Summit radiation measurements, should we come up with science questions before hand and then let participants give input, mildly alter revised science questions to include clouds and then send out science questions to entire group for input (including cloud participants), this could impact which cloud experts are interested in participating in this group, think about how to include young career scientists into IASOA working groups, can IASOA find funding to support young career scientists involvement in field programs, can advertise IASOA data sets through this young career scientist involvement
 

Discuss pan-Arctic New Radiation/CRF Project – updating flux analysis for IASOA stations, for Tiksi and Alert have included a sub-BSRN station that includes another albedo rack also located on-site, overview of plot of monthly averages vs CRF of all BSRN stations, comparison between AERI and BSRN at Eureka, upwards of 25% of BSRN data could be impacted by icing issues or could be clouds that AERI is not catching since it is not zenith oriented, the two instruments are not co-located and not at same elevation so this could account for some of this difference between the two, strongly believe these are iced points that account for difference between two instruments, Eureka is noticeably different from other stations with regard to month and fractional cloud cover, use radar and ceilometer data to accurately identify cloud free periods, Eureka tends to notoriously have icing issues (why does it rime more at Eureka than other places in the Arctic), comparing iced vs ice-free albedo image conversions, Arctic DEM (digital elevation model) with MODIS to arrive at albedo, need to use satellite and observation data to validate each other and obtain much more data for a station, comparisons between Eureka and Alert as well as Barrow and Oliktok to see if they actually have the same cloud fraction between near stations

 

Action Items:

  • Add Lauren Candlish to Rad/Cloud WG (Crepinsek)
  • Invite cloud participants to Rad/Cloud WG (Uttal)
  • IASOA proposal to fund young career scientists (Uttal, Walden)
  • Send map of Tiksi JAMSTEC albedo rack location to Cox (Uttal)
  • Get Eureka CANDAC housing to test for D-ICE (Cox, Crepinsek)
Research Group: