1. Fluxes With input from: USCLIVAR Working Group on High-Latitude Fluxes: Ed Andreas, Cecelia Bitz, Dave Carlson, Ivana Cerovecki, Meghan Cronin‏, Will Drennan, Chris Fairall, Sarah Gille (co-chair)‏, Ross Hoffman, Gudrun Magnusdotti, Rachel Pinker, Ian Renfrew‏, Mark Serreze, Kevin Speer, Lynne Talley, Gary Wick Fluxes from Space: Carol Anne Clayson, Sarah Gille, Darren Jackson, Brent Roberts, Joel Scott, Shawn Smith, Gary Wick Ocean Modeling and Reanalysis Comparison: Dmitry Dukhovskoy and Paul Hughes Mark A. Bourassa COAPS & EOAS, Florida State University, bourassa@coaps.fsu.edu

2. Distribution of SHF is Inconsistent Among Products

3. Selected Motivations  Differences between flux products are much too large  Differences are reduced in modern products (Bourassa et al.)  It has been suggested that surface fluxes play a large role in several aspects of Arctic ice melt and growth  Links to oceanic deep convection  Deep water formation in the Southern Ocean might be influenced by fluxes – particularly latent heat flux (Speer)  Indian ocean dynamics very sensitive to surface fluxes  Large latent heat flux over water contributes to both the energy and water cycles  Observed changes in Hadley and Walker circulation should be associated with changes in surface fluxes  SST gradients near western boundary currents estimated to cause monthly averaged regional changes in latent heat flux of >30Wm -2  Surface moisture convergence linked to some clouds?

4. Accuracy Requirements  Fluxes are estimated through bulk formulas  Goal <5Wm -2 bias in sum of latent and sensible heat flux  Goal assessments were done by Chris Fairall  Wind spd: 0.4 m/s threshold; 0.2 m/s goal; 0.1 m/s outstanding  SST: 0.2 C threshold; 0.1 C goal; ? outstanding  Air Temp: 0.2 C threshold; 0.1 C goal; ? Outstanding  Spec humidity: 0.6 g/kg threshold; 0.3 g/kg goal; ? Outstanding  Goals on random error are not clear, as they are more relevant to short-lived and smaller area forcing  For the larger scale applications, sampling will overcome random error.  Both of the above statements assume that there is no cross correlation of errors between variables.

5. Comparison of Two Retrieval Techniques  Blue – Roberts et al. (SeaFlux)  Red – Jackson and Wick  Need more data to improve extremes

6. Discussion

7. The period for comparison (for which all products are available) is 03/1992 through 12/2000.  Black line is the track from Ryan Maue’s data set  Lack of retrieval in areas with too much rain

8. Input to Bulk Fluxes USCLIVAR/SeaFlux 8

9. CCMP NCEPR CFSR 0.004 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.15 Greenland ASR Exceedance Probability (U>17 m/s), winter 2005-2007

10. Evaluation of Satellite Retrievals of 10m Ta and Qa  Comparison to research vessel observations from SAMOS

11. Progress: Flux Accuracies and Applications 10m 100m 1km 10km 100km 10 3 km 10 4 km 10 5 km 1 hour 1 day 1 week 1 month 1 year 10 years 100 years Leads NWP High Impact Weather Conv. Clouds & Precip 50 Wm -2 10 Wm -2 1 Wm -2 0.1 Wm -2 0.01 Nm -2 5 Wm -2 Polynyas Climate Change Ocean Eddies and Fronts Dense Water Formation Shelf Processes Ice Breakup Atm. Rossby Wave Breaking Upper Ocean Heat Content & NH Hurricane Activity Stress for CO 2 Fluxes Annual Ocean Heat Flux Ice Sheet Evolution Open Ocean Upwelling Annual Ice Mass Budget Unknown Mesoscale and shorter scale physical-biological Interaction