IPY - SPACE TASK GROUPSTG-6 Meeting Notes

Space Task Group (STG) of the IPY Subcommittee on Observations

Sixth Session

10 June, 2010,Longyearbyen Room,

IPY Oslo Science Conference, Oslo, Norway

  1. Review of minutes from last meeting (Drinkwater)

E. Sarukhanian and M. Drinkwater welcomed representatives of ASI, CSA, DLR, ESA, NASA, NOAA, GIIPSY, U. Washington and IPY JC to the sixth STG meeting. A Polar Space Task Group was proposed as the successor to the IPY=STG, and it was proposed to focus the meeting around developing the justification for the successor group as well as identifying the general principles which shall guide activities of such an interagency group in the future. It was recalled that the time-limited terms of reference of the current group expire at this meeting. Furthermore, E.S. reminded that as such the SCOBS – JCOMM IPY Sub-committee on Observations is terminated thus ending the official mandate of the STG.

Y.Crevier noted that we should identify what we wish to get out of the meeting. M. Drinkwater responded by suggesting that by the end of the day we shall endeavour to prepare a two page draft document containing a bullet form specification of the Polar Space Science Task Group, containing the potential mandate for the group, together with the policy framework for future activities, and identifying the key functional requirements and operating/implementing principles of the group.

The STG approved the proposed Agenda (see Appendix I).

  1. Review outstanding action items (Drinkwater)

The meeting members reviewed the status of all Action items from the STG5 meeting. All were closed except STG5-A7, for which a White Paper is in preparation as an EC-PORS Action.

STG5 – A1was completed with the production of the SAR coordination Group report (Doc 1).

STG5 – A2was closed with the list of supersites sent by K.Jezek to F. Battazza.

STG5 – A3waswith the proposal from I. Joughin for routine T-SAR-X acquisitions of ice streams around Greenlandwhich had been sent to D. Floriciou at DLR. It was noted by T. Wagner that regular data collections had already been made on Greenland ice streams since 2009 with NASA (via support from NASA Cryospheric Programme) paying 500 Dollars per scene for data. It is hoped that the science proposal made under the auspices of the IPY activity would allow a license agreement.

STG5 – A4 was closed after B. Ryan sent letter from the WMO Space Office to USGS to facilitate production of a circumpolar mosaic of Arctic. An informal action was placed on Y.Crevier to follow up with O. Trischckenko, R. Fernandes, and T.Wagner was requested to follow up with J. Mullins. Y. Crevier noted that CCRS should probably host the Canadian produced products.

STG5- A5 – OG completed a demonstration of plotting ECMWF data together with some IPY datasets. Action Closed.

STG5 – A6 – Closed- Document delivered by KJ on functional requirements of GIIPSY. The document is now hosted online at the GIIPSY Website.

STG5- A7 – Closed – draft White paper in preparation – will be circulated to STG for discussion

STG5 -A8–Closed – discussion at OSC meeting

STG5 – A9 – Closed – letters sent to Agencies

STG5 – A10 – Closed – suggestions made EOS published

STG5 – A11 – Space Art Exhibit specs distributed.

  1. Final report from SAR Working Group (Crevier)

Y.Creviernoted that a document had been produced as a high level summary of what had been accomplished in the Space Task Group SAR Coordination Group. A survey was performed to collect information on a per Agency basis via interviews. What should be considered in discussion about the future are captured on the last two pages.

Space Agencies are willing to respond as a group to satisfy EO data needs for Science objectives. However, it is recognised that a high-level policy framework (climate change, northern agenda – Arctic sovereignty, ice services) is important for securing Agency commitments. Space agencies are able to respond to clearly formulated requirements originating from the science community. We have R&D missions and commercial missions in between – which need to be considered and taken into account. We have an advantage in the cryosphere that the commercial value of the document.STG Members thanked YC for his effort in compiling the document, and for producing it prior to the OSC.

An Informal Action was given for all STG members to distribute copies of the Coordination Report.

Y.C. noted that a companion report would be welcomed on what products are being produced as a consequence of the acquired SAR datasets. The respective AO Projects of ASI, ESA and DLR will allow to collect results of highlights of use of the data products. The new Polar Space Task Group should maximise use of the dataset – and facilitate access to data products.

A high level summary of what was collected during IPY should be posted somewhere.

T. Wagner noted that to reach the majority of users, specific scientists would need to be funded to specifically address scientific user geophysical or derived product needs. Alternatively his recommendation was to take catalogues available for power users, and possibly make derived products distributed from a concentrated location. He suggested that the STG could identify a few problems to go after for such products.

Action – distribute document to PORS.

  1. IPY JC Summary Report and STG Conclusion (Sarukhanian)

E. Sarukhanian noted the JCOMM discussionswhich had taken place at the Oslo OSC venue. The original intent was to have only 2 years of IPY. Cosponsors had made an official prolongation of IPY until June 11th, 2010 in order to allow some national IPY programmes to continue in spite of delayed funding. JCOMM discussed having a Report to summarise how IPY was accomplished, including implementation, what kind of science was accomplished, as well as the way the future is being shaped for polar research. Various chapters will be finalise with different focus from physical to social sciences, and illustrated with first scientific results from IPY. The whole document may not be of interest to everyone, but some focus chapterswill be relevant to the space-related efforts. Shaping of polar future is last chapter – with areas of focus of different organizations such as ICSU, WMO, SCAR, etc.

The International Polar Decade was also reported at the JC meeting. E.S. noted that IPD is regarded as a logical continuation of IPY. It was nonetheless recognised that going and asking for more of the same will not work. We should focus on a few issues which can result in new discoveries.

E.S reported that the JC discussion was mixed regarding the title International Polar Decade. Some like I. Allison declared that it would be challenging to ask 10 yrs finances on a national level – particularly in Australia.NSF had also expressed concerned about budgeting issues.

Antarctic Council and Antarctic Treaty members met yesterday in Osloand discussed the legacy of IPY and long term research coordination. They agreed to prepare to leverage the success of IPY to prepare for more sustained funding. They alsoagreed to consider possibility of establishing a joint committee for IPD, should sufficient impulse be given to IPD.

It was clear that it was necessary to consult one by one with national funding Agencies to gauge interest in longer term commitment to IPD. There was some significant interest in the European community – with potential support from EC.

WMO Congress must agree on proceeding with IPD at its May 2012 Congress. Prior to that it will hold workshops with different WMO memberstates to prepare the strategic objectives and to gauge the support for the ideas. The intent will be to focus the objectives of the IPD.

B. Ryan had offered to provide the Space Task Group with a secretariat if we continue with the current group or with a refreshed scenario for the group after the WMO Congress.

T. Wagner suggested that a future Space Task Group should focus some significant attention on on climate prediction, and to guarantee certain high level strategic objectives are met in respect to delivering relevant satellite-based datasets.

  1. Summary of IPY Meeting Open Forum on GIIPSY/STG (Jezek/Drinkwater)

K.J. noted a few things from the discussion session after the GIIPSY Special Session at the OSC meeting. Some people had expressed their belief that the STG was superfluous and not necessary in order to get the data from individual agencies. Nevertheless, for those who recognised the efforts which had been made, particularly amongst the SAR user community, there was a significant degree of enthusiasm for what STG has done and that a further product focus was beneficial for the future.

In general the concept of STG was valued, and people felt like there are concrete results. But there were concerns about data availability and access to products. Clearly, the STG should facilitate access to datasets that would otherwise be very difficult to acquire.

Suggestion to use the IGOS-Cryosphere report as a means of collecting input for further future requirements – and D. Yang (CliC) proposed to consolidate 2nd edition of IGOS-Cryosphere as one way to retain a link to WCRP CliC initiatives. This update could consider the key future monitoring objectives and the next big issues including priorities for 2020.

It was also acknowledged that Near Real Time data and and live access to data (e.g. Webcam on Wilkins) had changed somewhat the perception that data can be accessed in a short time. Meanwhile, such visualizations of changes in the polar regions were recognized to have brought the public closer to the poles.

  1. Decision on reconstitution of STG in post-IPY timeframe (All)

The group discussed the basis for reestablishing a Polar Science Space Task Group to sustain the activities of IPY-STG. The motion to proceed with re-establishment of a group was agreed unanimously by members in attendance, including: DLR, ROSHYDROMET, CSA in writing. Formal responses were awaited in writing from NOAA, ESA, CMA, ASI, Eumetsat, USGS, JAXA, and INPE. It was suggested that we should later again try to approach KORDI.

During the discussion,.the following themes were touched on as being important considerations for a future Space Task Group:

  1. Strategic Scientific Goals
  2. Coordination amongst agencies acquiring similar data
  3. Improving access to data and data products
  4. Interface to Science Community
    WCRP CliC, Town Hall Meetings, Survey of needs,
  5. Terms and mandate of new STG group
  6. Coordination mechanisms
  7. Interfaces to CEOS, CGMS and WMO EC-PORS

Y.C. noted that the future Polar STG must respond to a policy framework (e.g. GEO, GEOSS, ECVs) which needs to be formalised. The group will also need to respond to a clearly defined set of science requirements as a driver for its activities. Meanwhile we need to define the time-frame for such a group (where issues of global significance determine the duration) and the satellite timeline defines the scope of what to focus on.

The following section reflects the discussion.

------

Polar Science Space Task Group

Members

Policy Framework:

Policy:

GEO, WMO

WMO (GCW) & IPD; GCOS (ECVs); WCRP (CliC and SPARC); SCAR/IASC; GEO (GEOSS).

Working group could be attached to WMO (Govt Org.), or an NGO such as SCAR (NGO).

Science: GCOS, WCRP, SCAR

STG is a conduit to allow scientists to respond to the policy framework.

In terms of timescale:

2-3 year timeframe initially – to assess whether correctly fulfilled needs – and to complement with new requirements. Identify gaps and holes in requirements. Reassess progress and status after a few years.

Chairmanship of Polar STG shall be nominated by PSTG members – and reconsidered on an interval of 2-3 years. Chairmanship shall be nominated by STG members.

PSTG shall be provided (TBC) Secretarial support, and by WMO Space Department

Secretariat is responsible for coordination of meetings, workshop activities, liaising with members, recording minutes and summary notes, providing status reports and communicating with other interested parties.

Meetings:

(PSTG and WG) may be coordinated in different locations, and time and opportunity allows. But a regular annual meeting shall be foreseen at WMO HQ in Geneva.

Members are encouraged to host meetings periodically at other venues.

Outreach:

Dissemination of data and products, and Outreach.Need to use this method to ensure broadest use of data. Develop indicators of success of broad data use.

Science:

Question posed as to whether we should we be polar as opposed to Cryosphere in general? Agreement was that scope should be polar as opposed to too broad.

In polar regions - Atmosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, solid earth physicsDecide where these fields require most coordination.

Mandate:

To facilitate access and use of space data in response to priority polar science issues. PSTG coordinates acquisition, best practices and use of existing satellite missions data products to address these priority issues. (Purpose of IPY-STG was to support the Space Agencies planning, acquisition, processing and archiving).

Facilitating Processing and archiving and distribution

- Who to seek mandate from WMO?

WMO Sec. General invited space Agencies to contribute to long term polar research (possibly ICSU comes on board later).

 Agreed that M. Drinkwater to try to seek Mandate from WMO, in context of existing scope of GCOS, GCW, (IPD), etc.

Operating/Implementing Principles:

Each of the committing Agencies will endeavour to establish different mechanisms to proceed in terms of their participation in this endeavour.

STG members recommended to reestablish but to retain some independence from EC-PORS, J.K and M.D retain linkby reporting to EC-PORS meetings.

Baseline one time per year with possibility for additional meetings (e.g. working groups), as needed.

Culling requirements from community and matching them to with agency capabilities.

Engage agencies in doing more collectively such that the whole is greater than the sum of the independent parts.

Organisation/Coordination of Agency calls on linked themes/specific topics.

Establish thematic or sensor based Working Groups such as SAR coordination.

Individual agencies continue to work on a best-effort basis within the bounds of their existing data policy.

Agencies will endeavour to respond to short term new priority needs as defined by the science community.

Coordination in order to avoid duplication and to distribute the load amongst agencies.

Functional Issues/Principles

  • Cooperation among members and with other organisations
  • Openness and flexibility and ability to respond to changing needs and priorities of the members
  • Consensus approach to action and recommendations (incl. use of subgroups).
  • Members to commit to contribute
  • Members are identified and paid by the Agencies
  • Membership of Polar Science STG to be comprised of Space Agencies with relevant space assets.

Ad-hoc Working Groups – to be formed (such as SAR or optical) – based on experience of SAR working group. To be comprised of members, or agency representatives, non-space agency people and scientists.

STG may elect to conduct part of its business through working groups. These are convened on an ad-hoc basis at the request of the STG;

Non-members may participate fully in the WG activities (at the invitation of WG). WGs report to STG, their conclusions and recommendations presented for approval; WG exist to address specific issues of the STG and disbanded when these issues are addressed to the satisfaction of the STG

  • Establish a Lead Scientist to act as interface with Polar Science community, which responds to lack of GIIPSY in this request.
  • This is to facilitate the science interface (yet to be consolidated – eg. to interface with IPD/GCW).
  • Nominated Lead Scientist would be Ken Jezek in this role
  • Also fundamental to have a Senior Policy Adviser on High Level Policy Working Group

------

It was agreed that M.D. should try to summarise the above discussion into two page document comprising draft Terms of Reference of the new Polar Space Task Group.

Agreed that it would be best to try to meet prior to EC-PORS if not possible, that MD will report at those meetings. The group noted that M.D. should reiterate that the Group should retain some independence from EC-PORS and that it should not be a sub-body of PORS.

Future meetings should be coordinated via Meetomatic.

  1. Publication of STG contributions (All)
  2. Expanded Journal paper

The members felt it may be useful to try to summarise the results of IPY in a more extended document than the existing EOS summary article prepared by K.J and M.D on behalf of STG. More inclusive authorship would be the intent of this article. Online journals such as “The Cryosphere” may be of interest.

It was also discussed that the STG should propagate a generic acknowledgement to be used in publications for tracking purposes. A statement should be included like “these data have been acquired via efforts of IPY Space Task Group.”

  1. Space Art Publication

K.J. noted that the Space Art Exhibition was so spectacular that the group could foresee publishing a coffee table book or at least to foresee an online collection. Assemble material and send to K. Jezek.

  1. Any Other Business

It was briefly discussed what should be done with the posters prepared for the Space Art Exhibit. M. Drinkwater proposed to raffle off the posters amongst the teachers and Educators who were attending the meeting. It was agreed not to transport the materials back, and M. Drinkwater agreed to dismount and distribute them from the ESA Exhibit to the teachers and who had registered to obtain the Space Art posters at the ESA stand.

1

STG6/Appendix I

Sixth IPY Space Task Group Meeting

09:00 – 17:00hrs - June, 2010

Longyearbyen Room, IPY OsloScience Conference, Oslo

  1. Review of minutes from last meeting (Drinkwater)
  2. Review outstanding action items (Drinkwater)
  3. Final report from SAR Coordination Group (Crevier)
  4. IPY JC Summary Report and STG Conclusion (Sarukhanian)
  5. Summary of IPY Meeting Open Forum on GIIPSY/STG (Jezek/Drinkwater)
  6. Decision on reconstitution of STG in post-IPY timeframe (All)
  7. Terms and mandate of new STG group
  8. Interfaces to CEOS, CGMS and WMO EC-PORS
  9. Interface to Science Community
  10. Publication of STG contributions (All)
  11. Expanded Journal paper (expand on EOS article)
  12. Space Art Publication
  13. AOB

1