Breakout Summary Report

N/A

The breakout session involved the use of Mentimeter to guide discussion and receive feedback regarding:

1. Where participants were from

2. Where participants conduct their High Latitude (HL) research

3. What topical area(s) the participants conduct their research in, including clouds, aerosols, precipitation, boundary layer, snowpack.ice, ocean, and/or other

4. What the participants thought that we know the least about in the HL regions based on topics in question 3

5. What their top three science questions are with regards to the next International Polar Year (IPY) 2032-33

6. Which model intercomparisons the DOE community should be pursuing

7. Which field projects would be needed to address their top three science questions

8. Which VAPs and additional measurements are needed from ARM/ASR at existing sites (NSA) or future AMF locations

The discussion highlighted the need for increased collaboration between different scientific communities, particularly glaciologists, oceanographers, and atmospheric scientists, to enhance understanding of cloud-aerosol interactions over the Arctic and Southern Ocean. A key challenge is the limited oceanographic expertise within the group, which underscores the necessity of engaging specialists and leveraging existing datasets. There was consensus on the importance of integrating air-sea interactions into Earth system models (ESMs) and ensuring that chemistry, such as DMS emissions and sulfate formation, is properly represented. Observational data from aircraft, Antarctic stations, and ship campaigns were emphasized as crucial components in addressing these gaps. However, there is a need to improve access to and usability of existing datasets, potentially through coordinated workshops or model inter-comparisons.

Another central theme was the importance of long-term, interdisciplinary efforts. There was discussion about preparing for the upcoming IPY by identifying key science questions and ensuring continuity in observations, particularly in under-sampled regions such as the Arctic, Antarctic, and Southern Ocean. Funding challenges were noted, with emphasis on the difficulty of securing long-term financial support beyond standard three-year grants. Participants also highlighted the need for flexibility in research priorities to align with evolving funding opportunities and national interests, such as those related to energy and shipping in the Arctic.

There was also a focus on data integration and accessibility, including compiling cloud statistics from ship-based observations, enhancing remote sensing capabilities, and ensuring consistency in long-term datasets. The potential for utilizing commercial shipping for atmospheric and oceanographic observations was explored, along with the need to better coordinate international efforts. The discussion concluded with reflections on interdisciplinary training, drawing lessons from past projects like MOSAiC and SHEBA. Participants emphasized the importance of fostering the next generation of scientists equipped to tackle complex, cross-disciplinary challenges in polar research.

Scientific questions and needs that were identified from Mentimeter were:

1. What are the key interactions and couplings between clouds, aerosols, and the ocean and how do these affect weather patterns in the polar regions?

2. What is the radiative impact of mixed-phase polar clouds?

3. What are the weather impacts from a summertime ice-free Arctic?

4. The need to resolve issues of scale (e.g., surface, 2m, 10m, up to satellite level) especially as it relates to the energy budget

5. Do high latitude PBL clouds evolve differently in the Drake Passage as compared to the Southern Indian Ocean where less land mass exists?

6. How do aerosols or energy mix across the stable boundary layer?

7. Can we do something like MOSAiC in the Antarctic?

8. The need to understand secondary ice processes in polar clouds

9. The need to understand precipitation processes in mixed-phase clouds with low versus high CDNC

10. The need to understand extratropical/polar cloud feedbacks, and aerosol-cloud-precipitation interactions, PIP (including INP sources), and SIP in polar mixed-phase clouds

11. Are the Antarctic ice sheets/ice shelves at a tipping point?

12. What is the contribution of local versus transported aerosol and their associated feedbacks on energetics?

13. To what extent does dynamics control cloud evolution (versus radiation, etc.)?

14. The need to understand vertical mixing of aerosols and cloud particles

15. What is the vertical distribution of mixed-phase clouds and aerosols?

16. What is the cloud response and feedback to aerosol and temperature changes and how are these interactions evolving over time?

17. What is the relative role of INPs and CCN in the maintenance of supercooled clouds?

18. The need to understand biological aerosol sources

19. What is the long-term trend of cloud, aerosol, and radiation over the polar regions?

20. How do we improve model simulations of clouds over polar regions?

21. The need for more uncrewed measurements, such as drones

N/A

N/A

N/A

We plan to host a follow-up workshop (likely virtual) in the upcoming year to continue discussions on IPY planning, including pre-IPY activities and ideal measurement news and location(s) during the IPY.

We will continue discussions with the HLWG members to determine the most pertinent needs and scientific questions for the upcoming IPY to guide ARM and ASR as to the needs of the scientific user community.