Arctic Systems Modeling Workshop, Montreal July 2009 (notes by Elliott and Roberts) Afternoon Breakout Summaries: Day 2 Erika Key leads the International Aspect -Vocabulary -some prefer term “facilitation” to “coordination” -Perhaps “self-organization” rather than “committees” -Funding for working groups probably will be voluntary -More centralization detail -distribute data but organize a catalog -Metadata crucial for all, but especially the Human Dimension -Formatting a huge time sink -standardize necessarily -Components will vary in progress -right now biology lags -In general Arctic Systems Modeling a desirable goal -But is it achievable? -IARC may be best choice for data and output organization

Andrey Proshutinsky leads Output sharing and intercomparison -Suggest central data archive for sharing model output and observations similar to IPCC -But facility should also include a mechanism to share international expertise. -Standardizing of observational formats needs to be decided. -Appropriate comparison of in-situ data with simulations needs to be addressed in research -Recommend that IARC play a leading role since it can provide needed computing and storage facilities and science expertise.

Peter Larsen leads Human Dimension -Depend on downscaled results but these are very uncertain -A key issue -To integrate or not to integrate (HD into ASM) -Yes -feedbacks must be assessed even if at sensitivity level -Specific needs -population dynamics, migration, resource limits -Time scales range widely with respect to human involvement -Train new researchers through outreach/education -Extreme events are often drivers -storms, wildfires -Insurance companies have strong interest and are well funded -Initial projects should be concrete -Water resources always a good first choice -A vocal minority points to fisheries -biogeochemical links