6

Recap of Day One

Day 2 opened with a recap of Day 1 to draw out crosscutting “umbrella” themes and prompt participants to contribute further ideas via the online Q&A platform. Planning committee chair Craig Lee framed the goal of the workshop as looking beyond specific projects to the larger structures that could anchor an International Polar Year (IPY)–scale effort.

LINKING SCIENCE TO SOCIETAL OUTCOMES

Lynn Talley, University of California—San Diego, provided a structured, personal summary of Day 1. Talley emphasized that IPY5 can explicitly connect polar science to services and products for society, such as, forecasts, decision tools, and sustained data streams, alongside foundational publications. She suggested weaving observations, modeling, and rapidly maturing artificial intelligence methods into one programmatic fabric, so that field campaigns, remote sensing, and model development iterate in near real time and yield decision-quality outputs. Talley’s summary captured research and monitoring areas addressed throughout Day 1, including sea-level and ice dynamics, space weather, permafrost carbon, and ecosystem change, where speakers repeatedly tied science advances to community needs and operational planning.

However, Talley flagged ecosystem shifts as one of the core science topics less represented during Day 1 and urged that IPY5 efforts fully incorporate ecosystems into Earth-system models so that forecasts and products connect physical change with ecological responses. Participants in the online chat also pointed to

the importance of circumpolar ecosystems, and large-scale impacts of both regions on global climate. Additionally, Talley also noted underrepresentation of atmospheric processes and atmospheric science perspectives during discussions at the workshop, a point echoed by several participants in the online chat. The following sections integrate Talley’s recap with comments occurring from the audience and in the online chat.

Big Questions and “Umbrella” Topics

During the recap, Tally noted that several “big-picture” research areas emerged as focal candidates for IPY5: (1) sea-level rise and grounding-zone processes; (2) sea-ice loss and coupled atmosphere–ocean responses; (3) permafrost thaw and the Arctic carbon budget; (4) fire in northern high-latitude ecosystems; and (5) space weather impacts on communications, power, and aviation. Participants in the online chat also pointed to ecosystem shifts and human dimensions—the translation of global results to local decisions, tourism, and other human activities in polar regions—as integral threads within these areas. Lee proposed that a small set of well-scoped umbrella topics could help align proposals, coordination mechanisms, and shared infrastructure during the compressed IPY5 window.

Approaches and Capabilities

Looking ahead to “how,” Talley highlighted three programmatic pillars: (1) sustaining and extending observing systems so that IPY5 acts as an intensive phase embedded in longer records; (2) accelerating model improvement—spanning process representation, ensembles, and systematic benchmarking—codeveloped with targeted observations; and (3) strengthening data management so that observations and model products are openly available and interoperable. She observed that many technologies and networks exist (e.g., autonomous platforms, acoustically enabled arrays, shelf/shelf-break and under-ice assets); the opportunity is to scale, connect, and standardize them for multidisciplinary use.

Participation, Inclusion, and Partnerships

Multiple comments from Talley and online participants during the recap underscored early, substantive roles for early-career researchers and Indigenous partners in shaping IPY5. Suggestions included tracking who participated in planning (e.g., career stage, discipline) to clarify which perspectives were included; embedding Indigenous data sovereignty practices; and bringing in communicators, artists, and policy liaisons as part of the core team to broaden reach and coproduce science. Several participants also pointed to funding and coordination models that

span agencies and sectors, noting that pooled or harmonized arrangements (e.g., international, interagency, public–private) can amplify observing and modeling investments beyond standard grant cycles.

Timing, Scale, and Realism

Talley said that several participants observed that 2032–2033 is fast approaching in program terms; IPY5 can build on existing assets and planning efforts (e.g., Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, Southern Ocean initiatives), expand what already works, and pilot pragmatic enhancements rather than relying on unproven technologies. Several unique near-term opportunities were also flagged (e.g., a strong solar maximum and total solar eclipse over Alaska in 2033) that could anchor compelling geospace and public-engagement activities. Links to planetary missions (e.g., Europa Clipper) were added as cross-community points of synergy.

Framing for Impact

Talley’s closing point was practical: IPY5 can provide tools—forecasts, warnings, shared situational awareness, and decision supports—for communities and sectors while advancing core science. In this framing, success could rest on selecting clear scientific foci, aligning observations and models to those foci, and ensuring the resulting systems persist beyond the 2-year IPY5 intensive phase through coordinated international follow-on activities.

Lee transitioned the meeting to the Day 2 focus on human capacity and collaboration, noting that the people, skills, and partnerships that sustain these systems are as important as the technologies themselves.