Conveners:
Jan J. Sojka (fasojka@sojka.cass.usu.edu),
Cesar Valladares (valladar@bc.edu),
Lie Zhu (zhu@cc.usu.edu)
2004 Monday 28 June 0130-0330 PM
The workshop was help on Monday, 28 June 2004 in the Anasazi room from 1:30 to 3:30. The workshop had a registered attendance of 40. This workshop was held prior to the Polar Aeronomy workshop which highlighted sciences pursuits for the new AMISRs. Our HLPS workshop similarly directed discussions and presentations towards the future AMISR capabilities. One question was open throughout the session, namely, "What were the science rationales for pointing the Resolute Bay AMISR bores in specific directions?" This question is still open and input is being sought, if you have suggestions please e-mail them to us (Sojka, Valladares, and Zhu) or to the SRI AMISR team (Heinselman, Doe).
Five formal and 3 informal presentations were made. The working group had extended discussions on several topics that were generated by these presentations. The need for a systems level science approach in addressing science questions was voiced by all speakers. In the HLPS context, system level science means using all available observational techniques to complement AMISR observations. Marc Hairston began the session with a presentation of how DMSP satellites provide unique topside plasma observations for the 30-day HLPS October-November 2002 campaign. His focus was on how to present a month long data set from up to four satellites over the polar regions. To help simplify this task only orbits that passed over (near) the Svalbard EISCAT ISR were shown grouped into an orbit pass and day of campaign color plot of specific observed parameters (Ni, Ti, Te, Vx, Vy, Vz, and Mi). Jan Sojka showed a few transparencies of the USU Time Dependent Ionospheric Model simulations for the same campaign, for the DMSP Ni, in the identical format. From the extensive discussions it was clear that this first attempt at reducing a thirty day data base in order to compare climatology and weather is perhaps more confusing than helpful. This is an open question for the HLPS team, "How do we represent 30 days in a way that is easy to exchange and easy to read?"
Gary Bust presented results from tomographic reconstructions of the polar cap F-region using TEC observations as input to a 4D-var model. His results were compared with EISCAT-Svalbard ISR data showing excellent agreement with F-region patches as they drift into the ISR field-of-view. AMISR at resolute Bay would be particularly relevant for these studies given its central polar cap location and high spatial-temporal resolution. Parvez Guzdar presented modeling work of polar cap plasma instabilities that were 3-D as well as whose boundary conditions evolved in time. This work is a theoretical prediction that the AMISR at Resolute Bay will have both adequate spatial and temporal resolution to test. Ray Greenwald presented a few viewgraphs to provide evidence for how rapidly the polar cap convection electric field can change; from polar cap potential drops of 50Kv to 120Kv in 8 minutes. Cesar Valladares presented results and questions for AMISR to address that pertained to polar cap arcs. These results again showed that the cutting edge of observations need to focus on resolving scales less than a 100km associated with arc structures that were non-stationary.
The session ended on a presentation by Rick Doe on AMISR followed by a discussion of AMISR and HLPS science. Michael Ruohoniemi presented an overview of AMISR and SuperDARN coverage giving suggestions on possible AMISR face bore directions. Ray Greenwald pointed out that one direction for a face bore sight direction is towards Manitoba. In this direction the AMISR observations would be made through a region of Canada that is heavily instrumented. These complementary observations would be an ideal `systems level' attack on science questions. However, Roger Smith was concerned that the AMISR coverage was at its lowest elevations which means that the ISR ray paths are crossing plasma structures and hence not resolving them. From the earlier HLPS presentations much of the AMISR work will be to emphasize overhead and along the near vertical field lines so as to get very high spatial resolution across field lines. Hence these studies would not emphasize low elevation capability.