Abstract: Polar regions have great sensitivity to climate forcing; however, understanding of the physical processes coupling the atmosphere and ocean in these regions is relatively poor. Improving our knowledge of high-latitude surface fluxes will require close collaboration among meteorologists, oceanographers, ice physicists, and climatologists, and between observationalists and modelers, as well as new combinations of in situ measurements and satellite remote sensing. This article describes the deficiencies in our current state of knowledge about air�sea surface fluxes in high latitudes, the sensitivity of various high-latitude processes to changes in surface fluxes, and the scientific requirements for surface fluxes at high latitudes. We inventory the reasons, both logistical and physical, why existing flux products do not meet these requirements. Capturing an annual cycle in fluxes requires that instruments function through long periods of cold polar darkness, often far from support services, in situations subject to icing and extreme wave conditions. Furthermore, frequent cloud cover at high latitudes restricts the availability of surface and atmospheric data from visible and infrared (IR) wavelength satellite sensors. Recommendations are made for improving high-latitude fluxes, including 1) acquiring more in situ observations, 2) developing improved satellite-flux-observing capabilities, 3) making observations and flux products more accessible, and 4) encouraging flux intercomparisons.

Abstract: Crop models are one of the most commonly used tools to assess the impact of climate variability and change on crop production. However, before the impact of projected climate changes on crop production can be addressed, a necessary first step is the assessment of the inherent uncertainty and limitations of the forcing data used in these crop models. In this paper, we evaluate the simulated crop production using separate crop models for maize (summer crop) and wheat (winter crop) over six different locations in the Southeastern United States forced with multiple sources of actual and simulated weather data. The paper compares the crop production simulated by a crop model for maize and wheat during a historical period, using daily weather data from three sources: station observations, dynamically downscaled global reanalysis, and dynamically downscaled historical climate model simulations from two global circulation models (GCMs). The same regional climate model is used to downscale the global reanalysis and both global circulation models’ historical simulation. The average simulated yield derived from bias-corrected downscaled reanalysis or bias-corrected downscaled GCMs were, in most cases, not statistically different from observations. Statistical differences of the average yields, generated from observed or downscaled GCM weather, were found in some locations under rainfed and irrigated scenarios, and more frequently in winter (wheat) than in summer (maize). The inter-annual variance of simulated crop yield using GCM downscaled data was frequently overestimated, especially in summer. An analysis of the bias-corrected climate data showed that despite the agreement between the modeled and the observed means of temperatures, solar radiation, and precipitation, their intra-seasonal variances were often significantly different from observations. Therefore, due to this high intra-seasonal variability, a cautious approach is required when using climate model data for historical yield analysis and future climate change impact assessments.

Abstract: Climate change research is an interdisciplinary field and understanding its social, political and environmental implications requires integration across fields of research where different tools may be used to address common concerns [Baerwald, 2010]. However, current academic training promotes specialization, which may hinder our ability to parse interactions between different scales of organization, limiting our ability to extrapolate to the multiple levels of organization critical for climate change research. A useful but underutilized solution to tackle this obstacle is to facilitate collaboration between scientists with different specializations [Root and Schneider, 2006]. This is particularly important for early career scientists where integration across subfields may influence the focus of research programs as they are established and will encourage a tradition of broad-scale interactions. One of the many advantages of interdisciplinary approaches is that it opens communication between complementary fields, filling knowledge gaps, and facilitating progression both within individual fields, and the broader field of climate change research [Ludwig et al., 2011]. Despite the clear benefit of interdisciplinary approaches [e.g. Williams et al. 2008], collaborations among scientists from the natural and social sciences are still relatively uncommon [Ceballos et al., 2010].