*************************** ** THE GEM MESSENGER ** *************************** Volume 8, Number 20 June 1, 1998 ------------------------------------------------ Greenland Summit - Responces Requested by June 5 ------------------------------------------------ From: Bob Clauer Last year NSF conducted the successful operation of a winter-over station at the Greenland summit. Presently NSF is considering the need for undertaking continued year-round manned presence at the Greenland summit based on the scientific merit and need for such a station. A science plan is being formulated by Roger Bales and Torbin Joergensen. If there is interest in operating an experimental program at the Greenland summit, now is the time to state the nature of the experiment, argue the merit and the need for instruments at the Greenland summit. Further information about the summit site can be obtained from Roger Bales, or Bob Clauer (bob.clauer at umich.edu). --------------- At the Summit Meeting at the Danish Polar Center 26 February 1998, Professor Rodger Bales, USA and Dr. Torben Stockflet Joergensen, Denmark was assigned the task to write the Summit Science Plan. From Rodger Bales, the Danish Polar Center has just received the text given below. Your comments is urgently needed, so please before 5 June please e-mail your comments to Torben Stockflet Joergensen: tsj at dmi.min.dk with info copy to Naja Mikkelsen: nm at MEM.DK Tom Pyle at the U.S. National Science Foundation has asked me whether or not there is a "groundswell of enthusiasm" for the winter-over Summit station, because he has an opportunity to request funds as part of an "Environmental Observatories" program. There is no guarantee that he would receive the funds requested, but he has to decide if the Summit facility is his top priority or is less important than one or two other projects that have been proposed (in Alaska or Canada). I am just now beginning to contact people to try and assess priorities. Based on what you know now, what European scientific communities would place highest priority on Summit? Is there a likely to be enthusiasm for a Summit facility, or would it just be another site in a network? Also, did the European Polar board endorse the Summit facility at its 13 March meeting? Any other recent actions by European coordinating or funding bodies? Here are my thoughts so far, based mainly on what I think is the U.S. interest. What can you add/subtract/modify? I will keep contacting people in the U.S. to fill in some of the blanks, in advance of our preparing the science plan. 1. Ice core interpretation (transfer function): Very strong interest on the part of at least 6-10 PI's in having continuous measurements of snow and atmospheric properties. Recent work at South Pole illustrates the potential impact of sustained year-round measurements on ice-core interpretation. Results from the 1997-98 winter-over pilot project look very encouraging. Summit is the site of choice in the Northern Hemisphere for this work. 2. Tropospheric chemistry (separate from transfer function studies): Very strong interest in establishing and maintaining high-elevation NH measurements on the part of 5-10 PI's. Expect that more would join after the station was established. Agencies like NOAA have very little to offer in terms of facilities costs, but can make long-term commitment to run measurement programs. We should explore if NOAA personnel could help staff a winter-over facility, as they now do at South Pole station. 3. Radiation and energy balance: Very important measurement area, which would involve relatively few PI's. But potential user community for the data would be much larger. Applications for the data include modeling of arctic meteorology, ice-sheet balance, atmospheric chemistry, remote sensing ground truth. 4. Stratospheric observations: To monitor the ozone changes in the NH stratosphere, a microwave instrument is needed; it requires very low water content in the air and a high altitude location. Summit is therefor= e the only place possible for such an instrument. Number of PI's involve in making the measurements would be relatively small, but the user community for the data would be large. 5. Atmospheric electricity: Would be part of a network? Priority? 6. Polar aeronomy: Would be part of a network? Priority? 7. Seismic & geodetic measurements: Would be part of a network? Priority? 8. Ionosphere: ??? Regards, Roger Bales Internet: roger at hwr.arizona.edu Homepage: www.hwr.arizona.edu/~roger/roger_bales.html Kind Regards Iris Madsen Danish Polar Center Best regards Iris Madsen +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |To add name to the mailing list, send a message to: editor at igpp.ucla.edu | |For message to whole GEM mailing list, send to: gem at igpp.ucla.edu | | | |URL of GEM Home Page: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/gem/Welcome.html | |Please update your e-mail address. | |CAUTION: Do not send messages to gem at igpp.ucla.edu unless you want | | your message to go to everyone in the GEM mailing list! | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+