Jump to content
Join the Alien Search, login or register FREE on Aliens and Space Forum
Members Can Post Anonymously On This Site

GPM Celebrates Ten Years of Observing Precipitation for Science and Society

NASA

By NASA
in NASA

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Publishers
NASA Mentor

NASA

Posted
  • Publishers
Posted
Feature Article header

40 min read

GPM Celebrates Ten Years of Observing Precipitation for Science and Society

Introduction

On February 27, 2014, the four-ton Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Core Observatory (CO) spacecraft launched aboard a Japanese H-IIA rocket from Tanegashima Space Center in southern Japan. On that day, the GPM mission, a joint Earth-observing mission between NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), began its journey to provide the world with an unprecedented picture of global precipitation (i.e., rain and snow). GPM continues to observe important precipitation characteristics and gain physical insights into precipitation processes using an advanced radar and passive microwave (PMW) radiometer on the GPM–CO along with leveraging a constellation of satellites. (The Earth Observer reported on the GPM–CO launch and plans for the mission in its November–December 2013 issue – see GPM Core Observatory: Advancing Precipitation Instruments and Expanding Coverage.)

As GPM is now well into its 10th year in orbit, the time is fitting to reflect on and celebrate what this mission has accomplished and showcase its contributions to science and society. While occasionally dealing with equipment malfunction, the GPM–CO has operated nearly continuously over its lifetime and recently was put into a higher orbit to conserve station-keeping fuel. As a result, GPM remains in extended operations and continues its observations after 10 years, making significant advances in the precipitation field through improving sensor calibration, retrieval algorithms, and ground validation measurements. GPM data continues to further our understanding of the characteristics of liquid and frozen precipitation around the world and improving our scientific knowledge of Earth’s water and energy cycles. These advances have extended to numerous societal benefits related to operational weather prediction, situational awareness and prediction of extreme events, hydrological and climate model development, water resource and crop management activities, and public health alerts. Additionally, this information has informed the K–12 and post-secondary audiences, influencing the next generation of scientists. More information is available at NASA’s GPM website.

Advancing Precipitation Measurements: The Need for the GPM Mission

Precipitation is a vital component of global water and energy cycles and crucially impactful to life on Earth. The distribution, frequency, and extremes in precipitation affect everything from agriculture to the insurance industry, to travel and your weekend plans. Prior to the meteorological satellite era, precipitation observations were limited to populated areas leaving wide swaths of land and almost the entirety of the oceans (70% of Earth’s surface) unobserved. GPM builds on decades of advances in satellite precipitation observations.

Early precipitation observations from space (e.g., from the Nimbus series) used visible and infrared measurements that gave the first, approximate estimates. PMW radiometers, however, gave a next generation of more direct and improved precipitation measurement. The NASA–JAXA Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), launched in November 1997, significantly advanced the field with the addition of a Precipitation Radar (PR) alongside a wider-swath PMW radiometer. This was groundbreaking for precipitation research and advancement of measurement techniques, but was limited to the tropics and a single satellite in low Earth orbit. To move toward the goal of a globally distributed, high-frequency, physically consistent satellite precipitation product a new mission design was conceived in GPM.

The GPM Mission: Science Requirements, Objectives, and Instruments

The GPM–CO spacecraft is an advanced successor to the TRMM spacecraft, providing additional channels on both the Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) and the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) to enhance capabilities to sense light rain and falling snow. The GPM–CO, another NASA–JAXA partnership, operates in an inclined, non-Sun synchronous orbit that allows the spacecraft to sample precipitation across all hours of the day, as did TRMM. However, TRMM only covered tropical and subtropical regions, while the GPM–CO also covers middle and sub-polar latitudes.

The GPM mission has several key scientific objectives, including:

  1. advancing precipitation measurements from space;
  2. improving our knowledge of precipitation systems, water cycle variability, and freshwater availability;
  3. improving climate modeling and prediction;
  4. improving weather forecasting and four-dimensional [4D – i.e., three-dimensional (3D) spatial plus temporal] reanalysis; and
  5. improving hydrological modeling and prediction.

GPM Core Observatory Instruments

The GMI and DPR instruments together provide a powerful synergistic tool to assess precipitation structure, intensity, and phase globally at relatively high (regional) spatial resolutions. The DPR’s Ku-band (13.6 GHz) and Ka-band (35.5 GHz) channels provide 3D retrievals of precipitation structure with a vertical resolution of 250 m (~820 ft) and a horizontal resolution of ~5 km (~3 mi) across a swath up to 245 km (152 mi). The GMI is a 13-channel conically scanning PMW radiometer providing observations across a wide swath [885 km (~550 mi)] to estimate precipitation estimates at resolutions as fine as 5 km – see Figure 1.

When scientists and engineers collaborated on the design of GMI, they knew it would need to meet exacting requirements so that its data could be used both to support development of precipitation retrieval algorithms and to provide a calibration standard for the partner sensors in the GPM constellation. The attention to detail has paid off. To this day, GMI is deemed to be one of the best calibrated conically scanning PMW radiometers in space.

Together, these two well-calibrated GPM–CO instruments gather scientifically advanced observations of precipitation between 68°N and 68°S – which covers where the majority of the Earth’s population falls. This coverage allows opportunities to observe both surface precipitation rates and 3D precipitation structure and allows observations of diverse weather systems, including hurricanes and typhoons (e.g., from formation to their transition from the tropics to midlatitudes), severe convection, falling snow, light rain, and frontal systems over both land and ocean.

GPM Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the GPM Core Observatory’s Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) and GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) instruments.
Figure credit: GPM website

GPM Constellation

While the GPM–CO is a key component of the GPM mission, another fundamental component is the constellation of national and international partner satellites known as the GPM Constellation, which has numbers ~10 at any given time – with the current members listed at the link referenced above. Each GPM Constellation partner designed and operated the satellites for their own particular missions, but they agreed to share the data from their missions to enable the next-generation of unified global precipitation estimates. The combination of these partner satellites and the GPM–CO allow frequent intersections of their orbits, permitting colocated and cotemporal observations to be made, which are crucial to ensure effective intercalibration.

The GPM–CO serves as the “calibrator” to unify precipitation estimates across these different partners’ satellite sensors, ensuring that the observed microwave brightness temperatures (TB) are consistent among the sensors with expected differences after accounting for variations in the observing frequencies, bandwidths, polarizations, and view angles. The advanced calibration across the sensors is a remarkable achievement, and it allows the project to focus on the precipitation products rather than TB uncertainties. This careful calibration enables high-quality datasets that support and enable detailed investigations on the distribution of precipitation and how these patterns change over days, seasons, and years, enabling a breadth of science and societal applications at local and global scales.

Ground Validation Activities: Significant Contributions to the GPM Mission

An integral part of a successful satellite mission is a robust and active ground validation (GV) program. During the TRMM era, the TRMM PR, and/or the TRMM PMW radiometer instruments limited GV to simple comparisons of rain rates to surface measurements from radars and/or rain gauges, which is referred to as statistical validation. It soon became obvious that a more robust GV program would be needed to better aid future satellite algorithm developers to improve the physics of their algorithms rather than just justifying tweaking their outputs. As a result, unlike TRMM, GPM’s GV program has been part of the mission concept from its inception. The GPM team developed a three-tiered approach that uses:  statistical validation, as done during TRMM; physical validation, where the emphasis is on better understanding of the physics and microphysics of different precipitating systems; and hydrological validation, which emphasizes improving precipitation retrievals over large-scale areas (e.g., watersheds).

To address these goals, there have been several pre- and post-launch field campaigns conducted. In chronological order, these include the:

Each of these field campaigns were designed to provide insight into different precipitation regimes and types to improve GPM satellite observations. For example, MC3E allowed for comprehensive observations of intense convection over continental regions. The researchers deployed an extensive network of ground instruments (e.g., radars, disdrometers, rain gauges), in coordination with flights of NASA’s ER-2 and University of North Dakota’s Cessna Citation II research aircrafts, to sample varied precipitation types (e.g., severe thunderstorms, Mesoscale Convective Systems (MCS)). Data from MC3E allowed for improvement of both active (DPR) and passive (GMI) retrievals over land. GCPEx has allowed for sampling of snowing systems. During this campaign, NASA’s ER-2 flew high above the clouds in coordination with NASA’s DC-3 aircraft flying within the clouds. Here again, GCPEx participants deployed a vast network of ground instruments (e.g., snow gauges, disdrometers). The goal for GCPEx was to formulate and validate frozen/mixed precipitation retrievals from the GPM satellite. (Note that from 2011–2015, The Earth Observer published articles on five of the six GV campaigns described in this section; the reader can locate these articles on The Earth Observer Archives Page. Scroll down to the “Bibliography of Articles with Historical Context Published in The Earth Observer” listicle and look for Field Campaigns.)

While these large-scale campaigns were extremely beneficial for achieving GPM science objectives, the costs of deploying instruments and personnel in these remote regions can be substantial. In order to provide long-term measurements at reasonable costs, the GPM GV established the Precipitation Research Facility (PRF) at the Wallops Flight Facility (WFF). The goal of this facility was to provide long-term measurements from the myriad instruments that have been deployed at the various field campaigns and manage them with full-time GV personnel. The linchpin of the PRF is NASA’s S-band, Dual-Polarimetric Radar (NPOL) – see Photo 1. NPOL was deployed in a farm field about 38 km (~24 mi) northeast of WFF to provide areal estimates of surface precipitation as well as profiles of precipitating systems above other GV surface instruments (e.g., profiling radars, disdrometers, and rain gauges). To add to this effort, the PRF staff established a network of rain gauges and disdrometers, which are deployed over the eastern shore of Maryland. These data are telemetered so that an added benefit to this effort is that the GPM GV data provide valuable, near-real-time data to many of the numerous farmers on the Delmarva Peninsula. The PRF’s principal activity is to design new GV instruments, test new validation methods, and assess instrument uncertainties using the abundant infrastructure of the GPM GV validation program. This coordination between GPM GV instruments, WFF-based staff, and regional data collection, quality control, and analysis are the core components of the PRF.

GPM Photo 1
Photo 1. The NASA S-Band Dual Polarimetric Radar (NPOL) deployed in central Iowa in support of the IFloodS field campaign in Iowa during the spring of 2013. The radar, when disassembled, fits within the five, white sea-containers located around the radar in this photo; it can be transported via 18-wheelers. In addition to IFloodS, NPOL has also been deployed for field campaigns in Oklahoma (MC3E), North Carolina (IPHEx), and Washington (OLYMPEX) – all of which are mentioned in the text above.
Photo credit: David Wolff/WFF

GPM Data Products

GPM data products and services have played an important role in research, applications, and education. The Precipitation Processing System (PPS) housed at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) produces and distributes GPM products that are archived and distributed at the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) as well.

GES DISC is one of a dozen discipline-oriented Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) that NASA operates for processing the terabytes of data returns from its satellites, aircraft, field campaigns, and other sources. (To learn more about Earth Science Data Operations, which includes the DAACs, see Earth Science Data Operations: Acquiring, Distributing, and Delivering NASA Data for the Benefit of Society. The Earth Observer, Mar–Apr 2017, 29:2, 4–18.  A chart listing all the DAACs appears on pp. 7–8 of this article.)

In addition to precipitation estimates, users can access variables, such as calibrated TB, radar reflectivity, latent heating, and hydrometeor profiles in GPM products. See the Table 1 below for a listing of NASA GPM data products. 

Table 1. Overview of GPM data collection.

Product Level Products and Description
Level 1 (L1)1 1A – Reconstructed, unprocessed instrument data at full resolution for GPM GMI; TRMM TMI 1B – Brightness temperatures (Tb) for GPM GMI; and TRMM TMI, PR, and VIRS1C – Calibrated Tb for GPM GMI, TRMM TMI, and a constellation of PMW radiometers.
Level 2 (L2)2 2A Radar – Single-orbit radar rainfall estimates for GPM DPR, Ka, Ku; TRMM PR2A Radiometer (GPROF & PRPS) – Single-orbit PMW rainfall estimates from GPM GMI, TRMM TMI, and constellation radiometers; 2B Combined – Single-orbit rainfall estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (e.g., GPM GMI & DPR; and TRMM TMI & PR); and 2H CSH – Single-orbit cloud (latent) heating estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (GPM GMI & DPR, TRMM TMI & PR).
Level 3 (L3)3 IMERG Early Run – Near real-time, low-latency gridded global multi-satellite precipitation estimates; IMERG Late Run – Near real-time, gridded global multi-satellite precipitation estimates with quasi-Lagrangian time interpolation; and IMERG Final Run – Research-quality, gridded global multisatellite precipitation estimates with quasi-Lagrangian time interpolation, gauge data, and climatological adjustment. 3A Radar – Gridded rainfall estimates from radar data (GPM DPR, TRMM PR). 3A Radiometer (GPROF) – Gridded rainfall estimates from GPM GMI, TRMM TMI, and constellation PMW radiometers; 3B Combined – Gridded rainfall estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (GPM GMI & DPR, TRMM TMI & PR); 3G CSH – Gridded cloud (latent) heating estimates from combined radar/radiometer data (GPM GMI & DPR, TRMM TMI & PR).
Product Definitions: 1 Level 1 (L1): L1A data are reconstructed, unprocessed instrument data at full resolution, time referenced, and annotated with ancillary information, including radiometric and geometric calibration coefficients and georeferencing parameters (i.e., platform ephemeris), computed and appended – but not applied, to Level-0 (L0) data; L1B data are radiometrically corrected and geolocated L1A data that have been processed to sensor units; and L1C data are common intercalibrated brightness temperature (Tb) products that use the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) L1B data as a reference standard. 2Level 2 (L2) products are derived geophysical parameters at the same resolution and location as those of the L1 data. 3Level 3 (L3) products are geophysical parameters that have been spatially and/or temporally resampled from L1 or L2 data.
Black Separator Line

List of acronyms used in Table (in order of occurrence): GPM Microwave Imager (GMI); TRMM Microwave Imager (MI); TRMM Precipitation Radar (PR); Visible and Infrared Scanner (VIRS); Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR); Ku-band and Ka-band channels; GPM Profiling Algorithm (GPROF); Precipitation Retrieval and Profiling Scheme Algorithm (PRPS); Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG); Goddard Convective-Stratiform (CSH) (Latent) Heating Algorithm.

Black Separator Line

Detailed information of each product and links for data access and visualizations are available on NASA GPM Data Directory.

From the beginning, GPM was conceptualized as incorporating all available satellite data – not as a single-satellite mission. One of the key mission requirements of the PPS was to ensure that processing and reprocessing always include data from the TRMM era (starting in December 1997). Algorithm development would ensure that the same algorithm would be used to process both TRMM- and GPM-era data collected from the TRMM and GPM spacecrafts and the GPM constellation. As a result, an important part of this cross-mission processing is the intercalibration of PMW radiometers using GMI. Using data from the overlap period of GMI and TMI, TMI is intercalibrated to GMI and is then used to intercalibrate the radiometer data during the TRMM era. This intercalibration manifests itself in the intercalibrated brightness temperatures (Tc) provided in the Level 1C (L1C) product for each radiometer. The GPM Profiling Algorithm (GPROF) retrieval uses these intercalibrated L1C products and guarantees consistent mission intercalibrated precipitation retrievals. For example, the L2 product stage that converts TB into precipitation estimates applies the same GPROF to the GPM constellation of PMW radiometers.

Continued Improvement of GPM Algorithms

One important achievement of GPM is the continued improvements in GPM’s algorithms that produce the immense amount of precipitation data that are used by scientific researchers and stakeholders alike. GPM’s five algorithms – DPR-, GPROF-, Combined-, Convective-Stratiform Heating-, and Multisatellite – have all undergone version updates several times (e.g., Version 01–07), with additional updates planned for the next 1–4 years. Each update entails a tremendous amount of work behind the scenes from GPM’s algorithm developers to ensure that quality data are available to the public.

Each new version provides a complete reprocessing of the entire data record using the improved retrieval algorithms, based on validation against reliable GV data, feedback from users, new understanding of the processes, and improved techniques. This not only helps ensure a consistent data record and fair comparisons against past events but also helps refine and improve the data to capture precipitation phenomena more exactly. Just as an original photograph capturing a past event can be reanalyzed with new technology, reprocessing revisits the observed satellite instruments’ “raw” radiances and refines the process of converting them to the end product of precipitation quantities.

“We know more now about the global rain and snowfall in, say, 2010, than we did when it actually happened.” – George Huffman [GPM Project Scientist]

This process is an inverse problem that helps determine the physical quantities (e.g., precipitation rate) given the observed signal (e.g., microwave radiance). For precipitation, this retrieval process relies on complex algorithms and is by no means straightforward. This is an underconstrained problem where different combinations of physical quantities can give the same observed signal, especially for passive instruments. Thus it requires additional information or assumptions.

The aim of each version in GPM is to have “better” estimates of the precipitation variables than the previous version. However, what better means can involve trade-offs. An excellent example is a change implemented from V06 to V07 in one of GPM’s most widely-used products – the Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG) algorithm – which is NASA GPM’s multisatellite product that combines information from the GPM satellite constellation to estimate precipitation over the majority of the Earth’s surface. The resulting IMERG products provide near-global precipitation data at a resolution of 10 km (~6mi), every 30 minutes covering latitudes of 60°N–60°S, and are available at different latencies (Early, Late, and Final, as defined in Table 1) to cater to a range of end-user communities for operational and research applications. IMERG is particularly valuable over areas of Earth’s surface that lack ground-based, precipitation-measuring instruments, including oceans and remote areas. Specifically, this change to IMERG V07 resulted in improvements towards the distribution of precipitation rates, allowing for a better representation of precipitation areas and extremes. However, it reduced correlation against ground reference data. Another example is the gauge adjustment process in IMERG that offers a substantial improvement at the expense of higher random error.

The result of these intricate reprocessing cycles is a family of precipitation products that improves accuracy, a longer record, and expanding coverage, all while responding to feedback and requests from users. This is especially the case for downstream products like IMERG, which is widely used for science and applications due to its completeness and regularity, and inherits the improvements in each reprocessing cycle across the family.

Meeting User Needs

The number one requirement on PPS was to provide well-curated standard reference products with carefully curated provenience. For each data product version, a complete record is kept of spacecraft maneuvers and issues, data input issues, and data formats. This makes GPM data products a standard against which others can be compared and the standard products themselves improved.

The GPM mission also requires near-real-time (NRT) products. As a research agency, NASA does not generally specify operational NRT requirements. Instead, these NRT products are usually provided on a “best effort” basis. During its core mission (the first three years), PPS did have NRT requirements. Since then, PPS continues to fulfill these as budget permits. The half-hourly 0.1 x 0.1º L3 global IMERG products are provided in NRT with latency objectives for the IMERG Early (Late) run of 4+ (14+) hours after data collection.

To facilitate data interoperability and interdisciplinary science, the PPS and the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) have developed value-added data services and products since the TRMM era, including data subsetting (spatial and temporal), L3 data regridding, network common data form (NetCDF) format conversion, remote data access (e.g., via Open Data Access Protocol (OPeNDAP), Grid Analysis and Display System (GrADS) Data Server [GDS]), NASA GIS translation of GPM data for various accumulation periods, GPM Applications Programming Interface (API), and data visualization tools. For example, the more technical Hierarchical Data Formats (HDF) mission IMERG products are reformatted and accumulated to GIS-friendly additions in Geographic Tagged Image File Format (geoTIFF) format for both Early and Late Run IMERG products at 30-min, 3-hour, and 1-day temporal resolution. Other value-added products include the daily products for IMERG Early, Late, and Final Runs from GES DISC. Quick visualization tools, such as the IMERG Global Viewer, are freely available to the public to access and view the latest NRT GPM IMERG global precipitation datasets at 30-minute, 1-day, and 7-day intervals, on an interactive 3D globe in a web browser. User services and tutorials (e.g., Frequently Asked Questions, How-Tos, help desk, user forum) are also available across the GPM, PPS, and GES DISC webpages.

Along with the other DAACs, GES DISC is facilitating data access and use by migrating its products and services to NASA’s Earthdata cloud. Once the migration is finished, users will be able to access all NASA’s Earth data products from the 12 DAACs in one place, which can simplify interdisciplinary science studies. Over 50% of the archived GES DISC products have been migrated to the cloud as of this writing. Users can either access them directly in the NASA Earthdata cloud environment or download data in their own computing environment. 

To broaden the GPM user community – especially for users who are either non-technical or not familiar with NASA data – GES DISC has developed an online interactive tool called Giovanni, for viewing, analyzing, and downloading multiple Earth science datasets (including GPM) from within a web browser, allowing users to circumvent downloading data and software. At present, GPM L3 precipitation products (IMERG) along with over 2000 interdisciplinary variables from other NASA missions or projects are available in Giovanni. Over 20 plot types are included in Giovanni to facilitate data exploration, product comparison, and research. Links to results and data can be shared with colleagues. Data in different formats (e.g., NetCDF, comma separated values, or CSV) can be downloaded as well. A list of referral papers utilizing Giovanni is available. 

Data services continue to evolve to meet increasing user requirements, such as the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) guiding principles, open science, data integration, interdisciplinary science, and data democratization.

Science and Societal Application Highlights from 10 Years of Observing Precipitation with GPM

As scientists and stakeholder organizations have made use of GPM datasets for analysis and research over the past decade, myriad scientific discoveries have been made leading to the emergence of a wide variety of real-time and retrospective societal applications for GPM data. These GPM user communities continue to dig into scientific questions and provide time-critical decision support to the public. This portion of the article highlights several of the scientific and application achievements made possible since the mission launched in 2014. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather demonstrates GPM’s unique accomplishments and what the mission offers for science and society.

Capturing Microphysical Properties and Vertical Structure Information of Precipitating Systems

GPM Figure 2
Figure 2. Seasonal average cloud latent heating at a height of 6 km (~4 mi) derived from GSFC’s Goddard Convective–Stratiform (Latent) Heating Algorithm (CSH) algorithm for the period December 2020–November 2023. Heating arises from cloud and precipitation processes making its spatial distribution highly correlated with precipitation. CSH shows deep, intense cloud heating in the tropics within the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), west Pacific Ocean, and tropical land masses. Broad areas of heating at higher latitudes are associated with midlatitude storm tracks. Seasonal shifts in heating are most prominent over land.
Image credit: Steven Lang /GSFC/Science Systems and Applications, Inc. (SSAI)

One of GPM’s main charges was to provide microphysical properties and vertical structure information of precipitating systems using passive and active remote sensing techniques. Measurements of the vertical structure of clouds are fundamentally important to improving our understanding of how they affect both local- and large-scale environments. Achieving this goal has required considerable enhancement of the NASA GPM algorithms – including the DPR, GPROF, Combined (CMB), and Convective–Stratiform (Latent) Heating (CSH) algorithms – from their original capabilities at the time of launch.

The advanced instrumentation of GPM’s dual-frequency, Ku/Ka-band radar added new capabilities beyond the TRMM PR’s single Ku band. As a result, the DPR algorithms provide vertical hydrometeor profiles at the radar range bin level [~5 km (~3 mi) horizontal, 125 m (~410 ft) vertical]. Such detailed measurements are critical for classifying precipitation events (e.g., convective or stratiform) and characterizing the dominant types of precipitation particles, precipitation characteristics, and freezing level height. Additionally, these DPR algorithms have played a significant role in retrieving parameters of the particle size distribution (PSD) in rain. All of these factors help support and elucidate the understanding of storm systems and their impacts at local and regional scales.

More recently falling snow microphysics have received increasing attention. Characterizing snow remains a challenging problem for precipitation measuring/modeling due to varying particle habits, shapes, and snow mass densities. The higher frequencies added on both the DPR and GMI instruments have enabled improved observations of ice and snow, not only revealing new insights into the intensity and microphysical composition of cold-season precipitation but enabling an increased understanding of precipitation, clouds, and climate feedbacks.

Another important parameter that is derived from GPM vertical profile information is latent heating (LH), which is so named because it measures the “hidden” energy when water changes phase but doesn’t impact its temperature. The vertical structure of LH is a key parameter for understanding the coupling of the Earth’s water and energy cycles. Although it cannot be directly observed, GPM-derived precipitation estimates, microphysical properties, and vertical structure provide critical information for inferring the vertical structure of LH – see Figure 2. Researchers can access this information using the U.S. Science Team’s CSH datasets as well as the Japanese Science Team’s Spectral Latent Heating (LSH) datasets. GPM’s sampling of higher latitudes – not available from TRMM ­– has resulted in estimates of the intensity and variability of 3D LH structures of precipitation systems beyond the tropics. The CSH algorithm has advanced during the GPM era due to improvements in numerical cloud models and higher accuracy vertical precipitation structure profiles.

Improve knowledge of Precipitation Systems, Water Cycle Variability, and Freshwater Availability

A key success of GPM – both from information from the GPM–CO and from combining with the information from the constellation satellites – is the expansion of knowledge of precipitation systems both in the tropics and at middle and high latitudes. In addition, the program contributes to water availability and variations in time and space. The radar and PMW instruments on the GPM–CO lead to the most accurate surface precipitation rate estimates and vertical structure of the systems, allowing researchers to study key features of these systems on an instantaneous basis and then compile precipitation statistics over time for accurate climatological determinations. The inclined orbit of the GPM–CO results in sampling the entire diurnal (day–night) cycle of precipitation, which is key information for validating numerical models. By combining the “best estimate” data from the GPM–CO with more frequent precipitation estimates from GPM constellation satellites results in the IMERG analyses (30-min resolution), which has allowed for the examination of fine-scale variations in all types of systems, the application of the IMERG NRT analyses for monitoring precipitation systems, and the use in a multitude of applications  (e.g., hydrology, agriculture, and health) that depend on fresh water availability information.

In the tropics, the GPM–CO data have been combined with similar data from TRMM for a 25-year total observational record to study the rainfall structure and variations of tropical cyclones, the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), and the mean rainfall climate of the tropics. Tropical mesoscale systems have been tracked with the 30-minute IMERG data to understand their life cycles and contributions to climatological rainfall. Tropical cyclone precipitation has been analyzed to understand storm initiation and variations with time over various ocean basins. Hailstorms have been studied with specifically developed hail algorithms over various continents, with particular focus on the extremely intense storms over South America.

In midlatitudes, the structure of large-scale cyclonic systems, including atmospheric rivers (ARs), have been examined, as well as their relation to moisture source regions and impact in driving heavy precipitation events. At higher latitudes, GPM’s focus on better precipitation retrievals – especially related to snow detection and estimation – has led to improved knowledge of storm systems in this important, changing environment.

Looking across the globe, extreme precipitation events – often with accompanying flood and landslide events – have also been examined and cataloged, both on a local and regional basis, but with increasing ability on a quasi-global basis as the time record extends forward.

On longer timescales, the GPM–CO (and TRMM) data have contributed to our knowledge and estimates of mean climatological precipitation providing different estimates (from different products) for intercomparison and through “best estimate” ocean climatological values using combined radar data and passive microwave information from GPM, TRMM, and CloudSat. This best estimate is used to calibrate a new, long-term Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly analysis (1983–present), which has resulted in a refined estimate of the mean ocean climatological value, that fits global water and energy budget studies better – see Figure 3. The GPM IMERG analyses are also now used as a key input to the GPCP global daily analyses, enabling finer-resolution climatological studies.

GPM Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Daily Climate Data Record (CDR) for January 28, 2018. GPCP incorporates GPM–CO and IMERG information to produce maps like the one shown here.
Image credit: Bob Adler/University of Maryland, College Park, Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (ESSIC)]

GPM Precipitation Estimates Improving Climate Models and Constraining Predictions

The multifaceted, multiscale physical processes that affect precipitation locally and globally continue to be a challenge for climate models to accurately represent. Ongoing research and analysis reveals that the process-level representation is a much stronger constraint on climate model prediction fidelity than mean state climatological skill. Though high-quality climate models, such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), are currently not run at the resolution of GPM observations, they are increasingly simulating cloud and thunderstorm-scale rainfall as subcomponents within their lower-resolution grid boxes. This allows for the model-simulated rain intensity over thunderstorm areas to be compared with GPM precipitation estimates that are averaged over the equivalent GPM DPR-identified convective cloud types. This evaluation inevitably involves assessing extremes, and with 10 years and counting of GPM data now avaiable, such extremes in different weather regimes will be increasingly useful to study – see Figure 4.

GPM Figure 4
Figure 4. Average rainfall patterns from 2014–2020 in January using the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies’ (GISS) – E3 climate model [top] and precipitation estimates derived from GPM’s multisatellite product, IMERG [bottom]. Climate models such as the GISS-E3 must accurately simulate seasonal cycles observed by GPM for their predictions to be more reliable. Using the GPM rainfall magnitudes as benchmarks, new model equations are being developed to improve this area of rainfall simulation and improve climate projections.
Image credit: Greg Elsaesser/GISS

Additionally, the diurnal cycle of precipitation – another challenge for climate models to simulate – remains an important focus. Recent studies have suggested that the systematic differences in cloud occurrence across the diurnal cycle are crucially important for atmospheric water vapor changes as well as cloud feedbacks and their role in climate change. This expanded understanding provides even more motivation for improving diurnal cycle representation in models. With the long GPM record, diurnal precipitation composites can be made in varying weather or climate states (e.g., El Niño/Southern Oscillation), and additional novel analyses of regime-dependent diurnal cycle composites will be important for constraining processes.

GPM Figure 5
Figure 5. Schematic of GPM observed latent heating in convective cores (i.e., thunderstorms) relative to a larger thunderstorm complex (i.e., mesoscale convective system).
Image credit: Greg Elsaesser; model is from a May 2022 paper published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Availability of and improvements in GPM estimated stratiform rainfall will progressively enable addressing the longstanding deficiencies in simulating mesoscale convective systems – see Figure 5. Alongside use of “process-relevant” precipitation diagnostics, new efforts seek to use machine learning techniques to ensure that numerous climatological water and energy cycle diagnostics remain in good agreement with GPM and other satellite estimates. These joint efforts that leverage both mean-state global precipitation estimates plus the process-oriented precipitation diagnostics will ensure that coarser-resolution climate models that support numerous CMIP experiments will increase in predictive capability.

GPM Applications: Continuing to Grow and Enable Communities Across Local and Global Scales

As noted above, one GPM focus is the application of satellite precipitation estimates for societal decision-making. As a result, GPM data have supported applications such as weather forecasting, water resource management, agriculture and food security monitoring, public health, animal migration, tropical cyclone location and intensity estimation, hydropower management, flood and landslide monitoring and forecasting, and land system modeling – see Figure 6.

GPM Figure 6
Figure 6. GPM Applications icon highlights six thematic and primary societal application areas supported by GPM data: ecological management, water resources and agriculture, energy, disasters monitoring and response, public health, and weather and climate modeling.
Image credit: GPM website; Mike Marosy/GSFC/Global Science and Technology Inc. (GST)

To support this focus, the GPM Applications team strives to focus on engaging users through trainings and interviews, workshops, webinars, and programs, with the objective of guiding new and existing users to integrate GPM data into their systems and processes to drive actions that positively impact society. These activities help elucidate data needs and identify data barriers faced by stakeholders. The team also helps identify opportunities and gaps to create effective engagement and outreach resources and help facilitate the use of GPM data to support decision making and improve situational awareness across different sectors. All of these efforts have helped increase the visibility of GPM and attract new users from federal and state partners, academic institutions, international agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private and non-profit companies. A few examples of GPM Application engagement activities since launch include:

  • three GPM Mentorship Programs that bridge the gap between GPM scientists and application communities to promote operational applications;
  • seventeen GPM trainings to support new and existing users on data access and use for applications;
  • six GPM stakeholder-driven application workshops to facilitate discussions between scientists and end users of GPM data about how NASA data could be better leveraged to inform decision making for societal applications; and
  • three white papers that articulate and identify user needs and data requirements across communities.

The GPM Applications team has tabulated over 10,000+ unique users across 130 countries who have accessed or routinely access GPM data from NASA data archives. Additionally, the value of these activities can be seen in over 175 GPM case study application examples that have been publicized at NASA, featured on social media and posted at NASA GPM Applications webpage, over the last 5 years alone – see sampling of applications in Figure 7.

GPM Figure 7
Figure 7. Collage of GPM case study examples enabling societal applications, including weather forecasting, nowcasting of extremes, agricultural and drought monitoring, weather index insurance, and data management platforms.
Image credit: Andrea Portier /GSFC/ SSAI

Over the past decade of GPM observations, several themes have emerged with these efforts across the applications community. One key component of enabling GPM applications is the ability to access and download NRT data products that meet applications needs. About 40% of GPM end users rely on NRT GPM products for time-sensitive applications. Additionally, GPM’s global-gridded IMERG product plays a significant role for applications. It is used nearly 17 times more for research and applications compared to other GPM products, with ~30% of users accessing and downloading IMERG Early and Late NRT data and applying them towards operational uses. As noted earlier, the reprocessing of all TRMM precipitation-era data using the IMERG algorithm ensured a longer, continuous precipitation data record with consistent retrievals that are available from June 2000 to the present. The longer precipitation record has enabled new science research and data applications to benefit society across a diverse range of end-users, helping them to compare and contrast past and present data to support and develop more accurate climate and weather models, understand normal and anomalous extreme precipitation events, and strengthen the baseline information and situational awareness for applications, such as disasters, agriculture and food security, water resources, and energy production. Table 2 presents several broader examples of how these GPM data products are used for societal applications. The subsections that follow demonstrate the value of GPM data to facilitate research and applications even more through case studies.

Table 2. The table includes examples of user communities, by organizational sectors, that highlight how GPM data products are being used for situational awareness and decision-making. Application description includes type of GPM level products. For more information on level product definitions, see NASA Data Product Levels and GPM Data Directory.

User Community Topic Application of GPM Data
Meteorological agencies and organizations Numerical weather prediction Assimilation of Level 1 (L1) PMW TBs for initializing numerical weather prediction model runs to improve weather forecasts
Tropical cyclones Improved characterization of tropical cyclone track and intensity using GPM L1 and L2 products to improve weather forecasts and provide more accurate hurricane warnings
Subseasonal to seasonal and climate modeling Verification and validation of seasonal and climate modeling using L2 LH products and IMERG (Final) to improve understanding and predictability of climate behavior
Data-driven agriculture organizations Agricultural forecasting and food security Integration of IMERG (Early, Late) precipitation estimates within agricultural models to estimate growing season onset and crop productivity
Disaster risk management organizations Flooding Incorporation of IMERG (Early, Late) in hydrologic routing models for flood estimation
Disaster response and recovery Situational awareness of extreme precipitation using IMERG (Early, Late) in potentially affected areas to support disaster response and recovery efforts
Disaster risk management platforms Integration of IMERG (Early, Late, Final) into models to deliver real-time weather insights to customers
Energy infrastructure and management organizations Renewable energy infrastructure and management Assessment of freshwater inputs and quantification of water fluxes using IMERG (Early, Late, Final) as a precipitation data source for hydropower development, production, and flow forecasting
Reinsurance companies Parametric insurance and reinsurance modeling Definition of extreme precipitation thresholds using IMERG (Early, Late, Final) for developing multiperil index-based insurance products and improve situational awareness of rainfall to trigger policy payouts
Water resource management organizations and companies Water resources and drought Evaluation of precipitation anomalies using IMERG (Final) leveraging the extended temporal record, and assessment of freshwater input using IMERG (Early, Late) to basins and reservoirs to better quantify water fluxes
Public health Vector- and water-borne disease monitoring Tracking of precipitation variations using IMERG (Early, Late, Final) with other environmental variables to track and predict vector or water-borne diseases and issue public health alerts

Operational Numerical Weather and Hurricane Prediction

Looking towards the application of GPM L3 products, several agencies [e.g., the U.S. Air Force’s (USAF) Weather Agency (557th Weather Wing), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology] use IMERG to support reanalysis of NWP models to conduct data assimilation and validation activities and as inputs to numerical models. For example, the USAF ingests IMERG Early into its operational weather forecasts and advisories, supporting global land surface characterization capabilities. This information is then provided routinely to decision-makers across the military, agricultural, and research sectors.

Water Resources, Agricultural Forecasting and Food Security

GMI L1 TB products are operationally assimilated into numerical weather prediction (NWP) models across the globe to improve short- to long-term weather forecast quality (by tuning and developing microphysics and convection parameterizations) and correct the track forecasts for tropical cyclones. Agencies and organizations, such as NASA’s Global Modeling Assimilation Office (GMAO), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Hurricane Center (NHC), Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), and European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ingest GMI TB data to support their operational systems. For example, the all-sky assimilation of GMI Tb over ice-free ocean surfaces helps improve initial conditions and overall forecast quality to ECMWF’s 24-hour forecasts, increasing not only the number of satellite observations assimilated but also the types of variables analyzed, such as hydrometeors (e.g., liquid cloud, ice cloud, rain, and snow).

GPM’s L2 precipitation and L3 IMERG products are used as input into hydrological and land surface models to better understand the land–atmosphere interactions and better predict and monitor water resources and agricultural output on scales ranging from days to years. For example, IMERG serves as a key component to Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) Land Data Assimilation System hydrology products that are designed to enhance agricultural monitoring in data-sparse regions and support humanitarian response initiatives. IMERG Early products are actively used as a data source for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service operations where IMERG estimates are routinely evaluated against World Meteorological Organization station data above 50˚N latitude for consensus to produce crop assessments in those regions and support extratropical agrometeorological crop monitoring. In the private sector, companies, such as Nutrien Ag Solutions, use IMERG Early precipitation estimates to capture and evaluate extreme precipitation events. This information is part of Nutrien’s daily delivery of weather content to the company and their clients, where these efforts help the clients prepare for potential disruptions across the global supply chain.

Disaster Response and Insurance

The IMERG spatial and temporal resolution – as well as the availability of the data across more than two decades – has been invaluable for examining precipitation extremes that may result in flooding, landslides, drought, and fires. These data provide key situational awareness for disaster response and recovery. Rainfall information has been developed in Web Map Service (WMS) and ArcGIS formats with Representational State Transfer (REST) endpoints so that they can be pulled into geospatial portals at Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Army Geospatial Intelligence Unit and data management platform companies (e.g., CyStellar), and provided to the National Geospatial Agency, the State Department, and insurers. The IMERG product has also been critical to global disaster models, such as the near-global Landslide Hazard Assessment for Situational Awareness (LHASA) system, which uses NRT IMERG rainfall in a decision tree framework that issues a moderate or high landslide nowcast based on rainfall thresholds. The model is routinely updated with a latency of four hours. The LHASA versions are running routinely and used by U.S. agencies and international agencies and organizations, including the World Food Programme.

IMERG data are also being used at multiple reinsurance companies, including the Microinsurance Catastrophe Risk Organisation (MiCRO), to develop drought and rainfall indices using climatology data from IMERG.

Looking Across and Forward for Applications

Common themes that have emerged in stakeholder feedback include the need for continuity of data products, identifying uncertainty estimates, having easily accessible case study examples, and creating public trainings for data access and use. The Applications team works closely with GPM members and leadership to ensure that there are clear and open communication pathways across the GPM mission on engagement activities and to accelerate stakeholder feedback to GPM algorithm developers to aid in the improvement of GPM data products and services for the public. In addition, these insights can be used to formulate a framework for applications related to future mission planning, e.g., NASA’s Earth System Observatory missions.

Bridging the Gap Between Precipitation Measurements and the Public: A View into Outreach Efforts

Several years before the launch of GPM, the Education and Public Outreach (EPO) team was busy in the background, working to bring Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) into the classroom and taking advantage of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) that were being implemented in curriculums across the U.S. The launch of GPM offered a perfect opportunity to showcase and amplify the incredible science and technology behind the GPM mission and the myriad of potential applications that could stem from its data.

Early in the GPM mission’s development, the GPM EPO team curated existing NASA educational resources related to the themes of Earth’s water cycle, weather and climate, technology behind Earth Observing missions, and societal applications. The EPO team created a website, entitled Precipitation Education that has been wildly successful from its launch. The team also developed a Rain EnGAUGE toolkit and engaged both formal and informal educators from around the world to host “Family Science Night” programs and implement some of the interactive activities that the team developed for these events. Thus, even before the launch of GPM, the EPO effort had momentum as team members shared the incredible ways in which NASA’s Earth observation systems were helping us to better understand and protect our home planet.

After launch, the EPO Team worked annually with international teams of “GPM Master Teachers.” This process selected teachers, who participated throughout the school year and received a small stipend for their work. They helped to align the science behind the GPM mission and other NASA Earth observation systems with the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program and developed many lessons and activities that were made available to educators around the globe.

The EPO team also worked with NASA’s Earth to Sky program, training National Park Service and other interpreters to understand the science behind the GPM mission, and to find ways to share this information in meaningful and relevant ways with their audiences across the U.S.

Newer activities have been developed to enable the general public to interact with open science as they follow a very easy “data recipe” to retrieve GPM precipitation observations since 2000 for their location. They are encouraged to use the GLOBE program’s app, GLOBE Observer, and take an observation of either a tree height or clouds. Contributors input the latitude and longitude from that location and find out how much precipitation fell for that location since 2000. This gives the participants the opportunity to collect data from the ground, and then look at satellite data for that same location to better understand the impact of precipitation in their local environment. GLOBE Participants can share their Tree Stories and Water Stories and compare their data with others around the world.

In addition to providing a wide suite of online resources, the GPM Outreach team attends many public events each year, ranging from large NASA-sponsored Earth Day events to local family STEM nights – see Photos 2 and 3. The GPM Outreach team has developed many hands-on activities that help the public explore the varied amounts of precipitation falling in locations around the world. By interacting with these activities and learning how NASA is helping us better understand and protect our home planet, participants walk away with a richer understanding of how NASA’s Earth science programs are improving life around the world.

A decade after the launch of GPM, the “Precipitation Education” website continues to be incredibly popular, with an average of 90,000 visits per month. GPM education and outreach resources are considered the state of the art among practitioners, and the team updates existing and adds new resources as opportunities arise.

GPM Photo 2
Photo 2. Montgomery County’s (Maryland) Georgian Forest Family Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Night. Shown here is a triptych of parents and children using “Precipitation Towers” to explore precipitation patterns measured by GPM in different locations throughout the world.
Photo credit: Dorian Janney/GSFC/ ADNET Systems Inc. (ADNET)
GPM Photo 3
Photo 3. The GPM Outreach Team engaging the public at Maryland Day 2023, hosted by the University of Maryland (UMD), College Park on Saturday, April 29, 2023. The Team represented GPM at the NASA exhibit where they interacted with hundreds of attendees and highlighted the many benefits of using GPM data for research and societal applications.
Photo credit: Dorian Janney

Conclusion

In more than 10 years of operations, the GPM mission has made incredible contributions in our understanding of global precipitation, from scientific studies to real-world, societal impacts through applications of the data products. With a robust validation program and successive algorithm improvements, our knowledge of precipitation distribution across the globe continues to advance. This has had measurable effects on global modeling and weather forecasting, real-time severe weather monitoring, education, and many other areas. With hardware continuing to function – and a recent fuel-saving orbit boost – GPM continues to add to this valuable data record. The community’s experience with GPM helps illustrate what new observations or combinations of observations will be needed in coming decades to advance precipitation science and maintain needed global monitoring. GPM’s cohort of researchers, instrument specialists, mission operators, and other key personnel across the community are providing the backbone of future mission development efforts.

Black Separator Line

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge several contributing members of the Global Precipitation Measurement Science Team who played a part in writing this anniversary article. They include: Gerald Heymsfield, Dorian Janney, Chris Kidd,  Steven Lang, Zhong Liu, Adrian Loftus, Erich Stocker, and Jackson Tan [all at GSFC]; David Wolff [NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility (WFF)]; Gregory Elsaesser [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)/ Columbia University]; and Robert Adler [University of Maryland].

Black Separator Line

Andrea Portier
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Science Systems and Applications, Inc
andrea.m.portier@nasa.gov  

Sarah Ringerud
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
sarah.e.ringerud@nasa.gov

George J. Huffman
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
george.j.huffman@nasa.gov

Share

Details

Last Updated
Oct 03, 2024

Related Terms

View the full article

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Topics

    • NASA
      NASA Ames Science Directorate: Stars of the Month – September 2025
      By NASA
      Ames Science Directorate’s Stars of the Month: September 2025

      The NASA Ames Science Directorate recognizes the outstanding contributions of (pictured left to right) Taejin Park, Lydia Schweitzer, and Rachel Morgan. Their commitment to the NASA mission represents the entrepreneurial spirit, technical expertise, and collaborative disposition needed to explore this world and beyond.
      Earth Science Star: Taejin Park
      Taejin Park is a NASA Earth eXchange (NEX) research scientist within the Biospheric Science Branch, for the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute (BAERI). As the Project Scientist for the Wildfire, Ecosystem Resilience, & Risk Assessment (WERK) project, he has exhibited exemplary leadership and teamwork leading to this multi-year study with the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop tracking tools of statewide ecological condition, disturbance, and recovery efforts related to wildfires.
      Space Science and Astrobiology Star: Lydia Schweitzer
      Lydia Schweitzer is a research scientist within the Planetary Systems Branch for the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute (BAERI) as a member of the Neutron Spectrometer System (NSS) team with broad contributions in instrumentation, robotic rovers and lunar exploration. Lydia is recognized for her leadership on a collaborative project to design and build a complex interface unit that is crucial for NSS to communicate with the Japanese Space Agency’s Lunar Polar eXploration rover mission (LUPEX). In addition, she is recognized for her role as an instrument scientist for the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) and MoonRanger missions.
      Space Science and Astrobiology Star: Rachel Morgan
      Rachel Morgan is an optical scientist in the Astrophysics Branch for the SETI Institute. As AstroPIC’s lead experimentalist and the driving force behind the recently commissioned photonic testbed at NASA Ames, this month she achieved a record 92 dB on-chip suppression on a single photonic-integrated chip (PIC) output channel. This advances critical coronagraph technology and is a significant milestone relevant to the Habitable Worlds Observatory.
      View the full article
    • Space Force
      From Soldier to Guardian: honoring 50 years of service to the nation
      By Space Force
      The U.S. Space Force honored Ed Mornston, associate deputy chief of Space Operations for Intelligence, for his 50 years of combined military and civilian service.

      View the full article
    • NASA
      Summary of the 11th ABoVE Science Team Meeting
      By NASA
      Explore This Section Earth Earth Observer Editor’s Corner Feature Articles Meeting Summaries News Science in the News Calendars In Memoriam Announcements More Archives Conference Schedules Style Guide 21 min read
      Summary of the 11th ABoVE Science Team Meeting
      Introduction
      The NASA Arctic–Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) is a large-scale ecological study in the northern regions of North America (Alaska and western Canada) that was developed to understand environmental changes in the region and the implications of those changes for society. Funded primarily by the NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program, this 10-year campaign has included field, airborne, and satellite remote sensing research to address its overarching scientific question of how environmental change in the Arctic and boreal region of western North America will affect vulnerable ecosystems and society.
      ABoVE deployed in three phases: 1) ecosystem dynamics (2015–2018); 2) ecosystem services (2017–2022); and 3) analysis and synthesis (2023–present). Now in the last year of the third phase, the Science Team (ST) consists of 67 active NASA-funded projects with more than 1000 individuals participating. The ABoVE ST has met yearly to discuss the progress of individual teams, plan joint field work, and discuss synthesis activities. ABoVE was featured in a 2019 The Earth Observer article, titled “Summary of the 2019 ABoVE Science Team Meeting” [July–August 2019, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp. 19–22], as well as a 2022 The Earth Observer article, titled “Summary of the Eighth ABoVE Science Team Meeting” [September–October 2022, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp. 28–33].
      Meeting Overview
      The 11th – and final – ABoVE Science Team Meeting (ASTM11) was held May 12–15, 2025, with 96 registered in-person attendees meeting at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF) and 67 registered virtual attendees – see Photo 1. The meeting included presentations from Phase 3 projects and synthesis reports from thematic working groups (WGs). ABoVE partners, including collaborators [e.g., the Department of Energy’s Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment-Arctic (NGEE-Arctic), Polar Knowledge Canada (POLAR), the Canadian Forest Service (CFS), and the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT)] and representatives from upcoming NASA campaigns focusing on the Arctic, shared updates on their activities. Additionally, the meeting featured sessions highlighting cross-project activities, e.g., ABoVE’s participation in regional fire workshops. The meeting also focused on collaborations with the Scotty Creek Research Station in Canada, the many types of science communication activities during ABoVE, and projects conducting collaborative research with community or regional partners.
      Photo 1.The 11th Arctic–Boreal Vulnerability Experiment Science Team (ABoVE) meeting group photo of in-person and virtual participants. Photo credit: Peter Griffith, Leane Kending, and David Stroud The meeting included additional team activities designed to encourage collaboration and understanding between team members. There were opportunities for multiple field trips for in-person attendees, including visits to the Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) at the Geophysical Institute, the Permafrost Tunnel operated by the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), the Yankovich Road Fire Interpretive Trail, and the Arctic Research Open House at UAF – see ABove Field Trips section to learn more. The meeting offered early career researchers a chance to receive feedback on their posters and participate in an Early Career lunch event. The meeting even hosted an ABoVE bingo competition, which encouraged attendees to make new scientific and social connections – see Photo 2.
      Photo 2. Scott Goetz [University of Northern Arizona—ABoVE Science Team Lead] poses with ABoVE BINGO winner Wanwan Liang [University of Utah]. Photo credit: Wanwan Liang Meeting Opening
      The first day of the meeting began with a series of opening remarks from the ABoVE leadership team. Peter Griffith [NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Science Systems and Applications, Inc. (SSAI)—Chief Scientist, Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Office (CCEO)], Scott Goetz [Northern Arizona University (NAU)—ABoVE ST Lead], and Ryan Pavlick [NASA Headquarters (HQ)—ABoVE Program Manager] all noted the significance of this final meeting and discussed the major scientific advances of ABoVE made possible through the dedication of ST members, WG leads, planning committees, and contributors who have made ABoVE a success. Goetz reviewed the meeting goals and objectives:
      receive updates about currently funded projects; receive reports on Thematic WG advances with an emphasis on multiple WG and cross-phase synthesis activities; receive updates on research connections with partners and collaborators; discuss, reflect, and document the history of ABoVE, including major advances, lessons learned, and items to accomplish in the time remaining; and celebrate ABoVE success stories, with advice for potential future NASA large-scale coordinated campaigns. Working Group Presentations and Breakouts
      Throughout the first few days of the meeting, leads for the thematic working groups (WG) presented synthetic overviews of the research efforts of their group members, identified current gaps in planned or completed research, and discussed potential future work. Following these presentations, breakout groups convened to discuss future activities of the WGs. Short summaries of each presentation are available below. Together, these presentations demonstrate the highly interconnected nature of carbon cycles, hydrology, permafrost dynamics, and disturbance regimes in Arctic–boreal ecosystems. The presentations also showcase the substantial ongoing WG efforts to synthesize findings and identify critical knowledge gaps for future research priorities.
      Vegetation Dynamics Working Group
      WG Leads: Matthew Macander [Alaska Biological Research, Inc. (ABR)] and Paul Montesano [GSFC/ADNET Systems Inc.]
      The Vegetation Dynamics WG discussed new advances in understanding Arctic–boreal vegetation structure and function that have been made over the past 10 years through comprehensive biomass maps and multidecadal trend analyses. ABoVE research revealed a critical boreal forest biome shift with greening in nitrogen-rich northern forests and browning in drought-stressed southern forests. The group has identified key knowledge gaps in predicting post-fire vegetation recovery and detecting pervasive declines in vegetation resilience across southern boreal forests. The results suggest higher vulnerability to abrupt forest loss that could dampen the expected increase in carbon sequestration under future climate scenarios.
      Spectral Imaging Working Group
      WG Leads: Fred Huemmrich [GSFC/University of Maryland Baltimore County] and Peter Nelson [Laboratory of Ecological Spectroscopy (LECOSPEC)]
      Over the past year, the Spectral Imaging WG focused on the fundamental scale problem in Arctic ecology, which refers to the mismatch between observation scales and ecological process scales, which span spatial scales from leaf level to larger study areas and temporal scales from minutes to decades. The Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer – Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) and AVIRIS-3 datasets provide the first broad-area and high-spatial and spectral resolution coverage of high-latitude terrestrial ecosystems. The WG is now completing a scaling synthesis paper and preparing for the new era of data-rich spectral imaging with improved capabilities in data management, machine learning, and modeling applications for high-latitude research.
      Modeling Working Group
      WG Lead: Josh Fisher [Chapman University]
      The Modeling WG aims to reduce model uncertainties in simulations and projections in the Arctic–boreal region across all ABoVE ecosystem indicators. The WG had polled the ST to determine the variables most needed for their Earth system models and is now using the field, airborne, and satellite datasets to better constrain these models. This WG discussed the benefits to the modeling community of transforming the more than 100 ABoVE datasets into a common grid and projection format used by modelers.
      Carbon Dynamics Working Group
      WG Leads: Jonathan Wang [University of Utah] and Jennifer Watts [Woodwell Climate Research Center (WCRC)]
      The Carbon Dynamics WG has focused its recent work on three areas: decadal syntheses of carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes from eddy covariance towers, machine learning approaches to upscaling wetland and lake methane (CH4) emissions, and carbon flux modeling across the Arctic–boreal zone. The research integrated atmospheric CO2 observations to improve carbon flux estimates and examined wildfire impacts on both carbon emissions and albedo changes. A significant component of the work involved comparing top-down versus bottom-up carbon flux models, with particular attention to permafrost and peatland regions.
      Hydrology-Permafrost-Wetlands Working Group
      WG Leads: Laura Bourgeau-Chavez [Michigan Technological University], David Butman [University of Washington], John Kimball [University of Montana], and Melissa Schwab [University of California, Irvine]
      The Hydrology–Permafrost–Wetlands WG focused on the processes controlling changes in permafrost distribution and properties and their impacts. There was discussion about the nature, causes, and consequences of hydrologic change (e.g. water storage, mobility, and distribution) and about ecosystem water, energy, and carbon cycle linkages. The presenters mentioned integration of ABoVE datasets with NASA satellite missions [e.g., NASA–Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) and Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) missions]. WG members discussed the connections between ABoVE research and several crosscutting initiatives, including two NASA Arctic coastlines efforts [e.g., Frontlines Of Rapidly Transforming Ecosystems Earth Venture Suborbital (FORTE EVS) campaign and NASA’s Arctic-COastal Land Ocean InteRactionS (COLORS)] and the WCRC’s Permafrost Pathways.
      Disturbance Working Group
      WG Leads: Dong Chen [University of Maryland, College Park] and Jinhyuk Kim [University of California, Irvine]
      The Disturbance WG leads presented their decade-long perspective on disturbance-related research in the ABoVE domain. The presentation incorporated artificial intelligence (AI)-generated summaries of ABoVE-affiliated research across multiple disturbance types, including boreal wildfires, tundra wildfires, and thermokarst/permafrost degradation processes. Chen and Kim acknowledged the extensive contributions from researchers and WG members while outlining future directions for disturbance research.
      Success Stories
      Four “Success Story” presentations and panels took place during ASTM11, which showcased efforts of ABoVE ST members and the leadership team to create and coordinate engagement efforts that spanned individual projects.
      Success Story 1: ABoVE Participation in Regional Fire Workshops
      A substantial portion of ABoVE research has focused on wildfire, and many members of the ST have participated in domestic and international wildfire efforts, connecting researchers with land managers across Alaska and Canada. Randi Jandt [UAF] discussed the Alaska Fire Science Consortium workshops (held in 2017 and 2022). Jenn Baltzer [Wilfred Laurier University (WLU), Canada] discussed Northwest Territories workshops (held in 2014 and 2025), both of which occurred in response to extreme fire seasons in the region. Laura Bourgeau-Chavez outlined ABoVE’s participation in all of these workshops. The workshops facilitated knowledge exchange and collaboration on critical wildfire management priorities, including fire risk assessment, real-time modeling, post-fire effects, and climate change impacts on fire regimes. Key features included small focus groups, field trips to command centers and fire-affected areas, and integration of Indigenous knowledge with new technologies to inform management practices and climate preparedness strategies.
      Success Story 2: Collaborations with Scotty Creek Research Station (SCRS)
      ASTM11 participants watched the film, “Scotty Creek Research Community – The Spirit of Collaboration,” about the SCRS, Canada’s first and only Indigenous-led research station. Following the film, station team members participated in a panel discussion. Ramona Pearson [Ramona Pearson Consulting, Canada], Maude Auclair [WLU], Mason Dominico [WLU], Michael McPhee [Sambaa K’e First Nation, Canada], and William “Bill” Quinton [WLU] discussed their decade-long collaboration with ABoVE. The partnership involved ABoVE collecting airborne hyperspectral, lidar, and radar imagery, while SCRS researchers provided field data for calibration and validation. In 2022, management of the station transitioned to Łı́ı́dlı̨ı̨ Kų́ę́ First Nation (LKFN, Canada), and ABoVE continued collaborating through knowledge exchange, including with early-career researchers and interns. When a 2022 fire destroyed the field station and surrounding area, ABoVE flew additional flights to capture airborne imagery observations to allow comparison of pre- and post-fire conditions.
      Success Story 3: Science Communication
      During the ABoVE field campaign, ST members and CCEO staff engaged in multiple strategies to communicate research results to the public. The activities included interactive engagement through airborne open houses and guest flights, ST member narratives in the “Notes from the Field” blog posts on the NASA Earth Observatory website, and professional multimedia production, including Earth Observatory content and award-winning videos. This multifaceted strategy demonstrates effective scientific communication through direct public engagement and high-quality, multimedia storytelling, making complex research accessible to diverse audiences.
      Success Story 4: Engagement Activities
      This session highlighted several examples of community engagement across the ABoVE domain. Gerald “J.J.” Frost [ABR] discussed synthesizing ecosystem responses and elder observations in western Alaska for his ABoVE project. In another example, ABoVE researchers from Michigan Tech Research Institute (MTRI) partnered with Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) and local organizations. Dana Redhuis [MTRI] and Rebecca Edwards [DUC] described their on-the-land camps that provide hands-on training for Northwest Territories youth in wetlands education and ecological monitoring. Kevin Turner [Brock University, Canada] showcased his work with members of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation in Old Crow Flats, Yukon, evaluating how climate and land cover change influence water dynamics and carbon balance. These activities demonstrate collaborative research that integrates Indigenous and Western knowledge approaches to address climate change impacts.
      ABoVE Phase 3 Project Presentations
      Project leads of the 20 NASA-funded ABoVE Phase 3 projects presented updates that were organized by scientific theme. The presentations spanned multiple days of the meeting. Table 1 below provides all the project titles, presenter names, and links to each project and presentation. Science results from four of the presentations are shown in Figures 1–4 below as indicated in the table.
      Table 1. An overview ofABoVE Phase 3 projects and presenters. The Project name includes the last name of the Principal Investigator, NASA funding program (TE for Terrestrial Ecology), the year of the NASA solicitation funding the research, and provides a hyperlink to the Project Profile. A hyperlink to each presentation is provided as either PowerPoint (PPT) file or PDF.
      Project   Carbon Presenter(s) Bloom (TE 2021): Using CO2, CH4 and land-surface constraints to resolve sign and magnitude of northern high latitude carbon-climate feedbacks [PDF] Eren Bilir [NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)]; Principal Investigator (PI): Alexis (Anthony) Bloom [NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)] Butman (TE 2021): Do changing terrestrial-aquatic interfaces in Arctic-boreal landscapes control the form, processing, and fluxes of carbon? [PPT] David Butman [University of Washington] – see Figure 1 Watts (TE 2021): Contributions of tundra and boreal systems to radiative forcing in North America and Russia under contemporary and future conditions [PPT] Jennifer Watts [Woodwell Climate Research Center] Miller-S (TE 2021): A synthesis and reconciliation of greenhouse gas flux estimates across the ABoVE domain [PDF] Scot Miller [Johns Hopkins University] Michalak (TE 2021): Quantifying climate sensitivities of photosynthesis and respiration in Arctic and boreal ecosystems from top-down observational constraints [PDF] Wu Sun and Jiaming Wen [both Carnegie Institution for Science, CI]; PI: Anna Michalak, [Carnegie Institution for Science] Fire Presenter(s) Bourgeau-Chavez (TE 2021): Integrating remote sensing and modeling to better understand the vulnerability of boreal-taiga ecosystems to wildfire [PPT] Laura Bourgeau-Chavez [Michigan Technological University (MTU)] Walker (TE 2021): Drivers and Impacts of Reburning in boreal forest Ecosystems (DIRE) [PDF] Jeremy Forsythe [Northern Arizona University (NAU)]; PI: Xanthe Walker [NAU] Wang (TE 2021): Quantifying disturbance and global change impacts on multi-decadal trends in aboveground biomass and land cover across Arctic-boreal North America [PPT] Jonathan Wang [University of Utah]– see Figure 2  Wildlife Presenter(s) Boelman (TE 2021): The future of the Forest-Tundra Ecotone: A synthesis that adds interactions among snow, vegetation, and wildlife to the equation [PPT] Natalie Boelman [Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University] French (TE 2021): Informing wetland policy and management for waterfowl habitat and other ecosystem services using multi-frequency synthetic aperture radar [PPT] Nancy French [MTU] – see Figure 3 Hydrology / Permafrost Presenter(s) Du (TE 2021): High resolution mapping of surface soil freeze thaw status and active layer thickness for improving the understanding of permafrost dynamics and vulnerability [PPT] Jinyang Du [University of Montana] Miller (TE 2021): Enhanced methane emissions in transitional permafrost environments: An ABoVE phase 3 synthesis investigation [PPT] Charles “Chip” Miller [NASA/JPL] Tape (TE 2021): Characterizing a widespread disturbance regime in the ABoVE domain: Beaver engineering [PPT] Kenneth Tape [University of Alaska, Fairbanks] Zhuang (TE 2021): Role of linked hydrological, permafrost, ground ice, and land cover changes in regional carbon balance across boreal and Arctic landscapes [PDF] Qianlai Zhuang [Purdue University]  Vegetation Structure Presenter(s) Duncanson (TE 2021): Mapping boreal forest biomass recovery rates across gradients of vegetation structure and environmental change [PPT] Paul Montesano [GSFC/ADNET Systems Inc]; PI: Laura Duncanson [University of Maryland]—see Figure 4 Lara (TE 2021): ABoVE-Ground characterization of plant species succession in retrogressive thaw slumps using imaging spectroscopy [PPT] Mark Lara [University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign]  Vegetation Dynamics  Presenter(s) Frost (TE 2021): Towards a warmer, less frozen future Arctic: Synthesis of drivers, ecosystem responses, and elder observations along bioclimatic gradients in western Alaska [PPT] Gerald “J.J.” Frost [ABR] Goetz (TE 2021): Mapping and modeling attributes of an Arctic-boreal biome shift: Phase-3 applications within the ABoVE domain [PPT] Scott Goetz [NAU] Liu (TE 2021): Characterizing Arctic-boreal vegetation resilience under climate change and disturbances [PPT] Yanlan Liu [The Ohio State University] Townsend (TE 2021): Functional diversity as a driver of gross primary productivity variation across the ABoVE domain [PPT] Philip Townsend [University of Wisconsin] Determining Aboveground Biomass Density Using ICESat-2 Data and Modeling
      Figure 1. Despite their relatively small coverage, surface water extent across boreal and arctic lowlands significantly impacts landscape-scale estimates of carbon emissions. The red points on the map in the figure indicates locations of available lake chemistry data derived from ABoVE-supported research, from collaborators, and from a preliminary literature search. Figure credit. David Butman Figure 2. The Arctic-boreal carbon cycle is inextricably linked to vegetation composition and demography, both of which are being altered by climate change, rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and climate-induced changes in disturbance regimes. The map in the figure shows above-ground biomass (AGB) change across Arctic-boreal North America (2022–1984) created using a machine learning model of AGB trained on from more than 45,000 field plots and 200,000 km2 of airborne lidar data. Figure credit:  Wanwan Liang Figure 3.  Wetlands provide many ecosystem services, including waterfowl habitat, carbon sequestration, and water quality. Northern wetlands Iin the ABovE study area) are threatened from both land use expansion and climate change disruptions, prompting the need for informed management strategies.  Copernicus Sentinel 1 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data have been used to create this map of flooding (hydroperiod) in wetland areas around the Great Slave Lake in Canada  The color code on the map corresponds to the number of times the SAR imagery indicated a place was flooded (inundated). Such information is helpful for predicting within-season changes in wetland extent. Figure credit: Nancy French Figure 4. Advances have been made in mapping aboveground biomass density (AGBD). Shown here as an example is an AGBD map created using stata from the   ICESat-2 pan-Boreal 30-m (98-ft) tree height and biomass data product [left] and the ensemble mean of the standard deviation of AGBD, aggregated to modelling tiles [right]. Current research aims to expand these maps and understand regional vegetation changes.  Figure credit. Laura Duncanson/data from ORNL DAAC ASTM11 Poster Sessions
      ASTM11 featured 41 research posters across three sessions, organized by thematic area – see Table 3 and Photo 3. The Poster Session agenda details the range of topics that spanned airborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and satellite imagery to northern ecosystem fieldwork. Key research topics that emerged included CO2 and CH4 emissions from terrestrial and aquatic systems, ongoing permafrost thaw, fire impacts on carbon cycling, vegetation mapping and biomass estimation, and the impacts of wildlife on the landscape.
      Table 2. A breakdown of ASTM11 poster presentations by science theme.
      Poster Theme Poster Count Carbon Dynamics 5 Crosscutting, Modeling, or Other 6 Fire Disturbance 5 Permafrost, Hydrology, and Wetlands 13 Vegetation Dynamics and Distribution 7 Vegetation Structure and Function 4 Wildlife and Ecosystem Services 1 Photo 3. Poster presentations and sessions during ASTM11 offered opportunities for presenters to share their latest research findings with meeting participants. Photo credit: Elizabeth Hoy ABoVE Field Trips
      ASTM11 offered multiple field trip options across the Fairbanks region of Alaska. The fieldtrips provided ST members an opportunity to interact with the research community – see Photo 4.
      Trip to Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) and Geophysical Institute
      ASF is a data archive for many SAR datasets from a variety of sensors and has multiple ground station facilities. During the tour, participants visited the ASF operations room and ASF rooftop antenna. The Geophysical Institute tour also featured the Alaska Earthquake Center, Wilson Alaska Technical Center, and Alaska Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration.
      Trip to Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) Permafrost Tunnel
      The U.S. Army Core of Engineers CRREL Permafrost Tunnel is located in Fox, AK – about 15 km (9 mi) north of Fairbanks. Over 300 m (984 ft) of tunnel have been excavated, exposing Pleistocene ice and carbon-rich yedoma permafrost that ranges in age from 18,000 to 43,000 years old. The tunnel exposes mammoth and bison bones and a variety of permafrost soils. Ongoing projects in the tunnel cover a range of topics, including engineering and geophysical work, Mars analog studies, and biogeochemistry and microbiology of permafrost soils.
      Wildfire Walk: Yankovich Road Fire Interpretive Trail
      On July 11, 2021, a wildfire burned 3.5 acres (14,164 m2) of UAF land. In 2024, the UAF Alaska Fire Science Consortium, Bureau of Land Management Alaska Fire Service, and local artist Klara Maisch collaborated with others to develop the Wildfire Walk at the site. The interpretive trail is an outdoor learning experience with interpretive wayside markers that describe the fire incident, the relationship between wildfire and the boreal forest, fire science and environmental change, and wildfire prevention – see Figure 1.
      UAF Arctic Research Open House
      The UAF Arctic Research Open House was an opportunity for ST members and the public to explore the wide range of research happening at UAF and meet other scientists. ABoVE hosted an information table at the event.
      Photo 4: Collage of images collected during a series of field trips, including [top] the Wildfire Walk along the Alaska Fire Science Consortium, [middle] the Permafrost Tunnel with Tom Douglas [Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory], [bottom left] UAF Arctic Open House ABoVE Table with Margaret “Maggie” Wooton [NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Science System and Applications, Inc. (GSFC/SSAI)], Elizabeth Hoy [GSFC/Global Science & Technology Inc.], and Qiang Zhou [GSFC/SSAI], talking with Logan Berner [Northern Arizona University], [bottom right] the Alaska Satellite Facility ground receiving antenna. Photo credit: Elizabeth Hoy Research Connections
      The success of ABoVE as a large-scale research study over the Arctic and boreal regions within and outside the United States depended on collaboration with multiple organizations. Many of the ABoVE collaborators were able to present at ASTM11.
      Andrew Applejohn [Polar Knowledge Canada (POLAR)] provided details about the scope, mandate, and facilities available through POLAR, a Canadian government agency that has partnered with the ABoVE ST for the duration of the campaign.
      Ryan Connon [Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT)] discussed the decade-long collaboration between ABoVE and the GNWT, including knowledge sharing of wildlife collar data, field-data ground measurements, and remote sensing analyses.
      Gabrielle Gascon [Canadian Forest Service (CFS), Natural Resources Canada] explained the scope of Canada’s National Forest Inventory and the current CFS focus on wildfire and the CFS’s other areas of research related to the northern regions. Another presentation featured information about various vegetation mapping initiatives where Matthew Macander discussed an Alaska-based effort called AKVEG Map, a vegetation plot database, and Logan Berner [NAU] detailed a pan-Arctic plant aboveground biomass synthesis dataset.
      Brendan Rogers [WCRC] showcased research from Permafrost Pathways, designed to bring together permafrost-related science experts with local communities to inform Arctic policy and develop adaptation and mitigation strategies to address permafrost thaw. NGEE-Arctic is another U.S. government effort that partnered specifically with ABoVE for the duration of the two efforts, and Bob Bolton [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)] provided updates on the project.
      Tomoko Tanabe [Japan’s National Institute of Polar Research (JNIPR)] gave a presentation about NIPR to better inform ABoVE scientists about other international Arctic efforts, including a new Japanese Arctic research initiative called the Arctic Challenge for Sustainability III (ArCS III), designed to address social issues related to environmental and social changes in the Arctic.
      Additional Presentations
      An additional presentation aimed to keep the ABoVE ST informed of future NASA Arctic research efforts. Kelsey Bisson [NASA HQ—Program Scientist for the Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program] discussed NASA Arctic-COLORS and Maria Tzortziou [City University of New York/Columbia University, LDEO] discussed the FORTE EVS campaign. The proposed Arctic-COLORS field campaign would quantify the biogeochemical and ecological response of Arctic nearshore systems to rapid changes in terrestrial fluxes and ice conditions. The NASA FORTE EVS campaign will fill a critical gap in understanding Alaska’s northernmost ecosystems by investigating eroding coastlines, rivers, deltas, and estuaries that connect land and sea systems, using airborne platforms.
      Scott Goetz continued with a presentation on U.S. efforts to plan the International Polar Year, scheduled for 2032–2033. Ryan Pavlick provided details on the NISAR mission, which launched after the meeting on July 30, 2025, and discussed other possible future NASA missions.
      A Career Trajectory panel featured Jennifer Watts, Jonathan Wang, Brendan Rogers, and Xiaoran “Seamore” Zhu [Boston University]. The panelists discussed opportunities for researchers from different academic backgrounds and at different career stages, and they provided details about how ABoVE has impacted their careers. They also discussed how NASA campaigns offer opportunities for early career scientists to join a team of peers to grow their abilities throughout the duration of the decade-long research.
      Klara Maisch, a local artist, discussed her work creating science-informed artwork through interdisciplinary collaborations with scientists and other creators – see Figure 5. Maisch described the benefits of partnering with artists to share science with a broad audience and showcased artwork she has created.
      Figure 5. Lower Tanana Homelands – 2022 Yankovich Fire – Plot Painting [left], with original plot reference photograph [right]. Image Credit: Klara Maisch Overarching Presentations
      A series of presentations on the overall structure and outcomes of ABoVE were held during ASTM11. Charles “Chip” Miller [NASA/JPL—Deputy ABoVE ST Lead, ABoVE Airborne Lead] provided details about SAR, hyperspectral, and lidar airborne measurements collected between 2017 and 2024 for the ABoVE Airborne Campaign.
      ABoVE Logistics Office members Daniel Hodkinson [GSFC/SSAI], Sarah Dutton [GSFC/SSAI], and Leanne Kendig [GSFC/Global Science & Technology, Inc. (GST, Inc.)] discussed the many field teams and activities supported during ABoVE. Overall, more than 50 teams were trained in field safety topics, with more than 1,200 training certificates awarded. Elizabeth Hoy [NASA GSFC/GST, Inc.] and Debjani Singh [ORNL] discussed the more than 250 data products developed during the ABoVE program and how to access them through NASA Earthdata. Example visualizations of ABoVE data products can be found in Figure 6.
      Figure 6. ABoVE logo created with different data products from the campaign used to compose each letter.A: Active Layer Thickness from Remote Sensing Permafrost Model, Alaska, 2001-2015;. Tree (inside A): Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) Trends across Alaska and Canada from Landsat, 1984-2012;. B: Landsat-derived Annual Dominant Land Cover Across ABoVE Core Domain, 1984-2014;; O: Wildfire Carbon Emissions and Burned Plot Characteristics, NWT, CA, 2014-2016;; V: AVHRR-Derived Forest Fire Burned Area-Hot Spots, Alaska and Canada, 1989-2000;; E: Lake Bathymetry Maps derived from Landsat and Random Forest Modeling, North Slope, AK; and Underline (under O): Plot lines from the ABoVE Planning Tool visualizer. Figure credit: Caitlin LaNeve The Collaborations and Engagement WG held a plenary discussion to highlight the many activities that ABoVE researchers have been involved in over the past decade. The discussion highlighted the need for individual projects and campaign leadership to work together to ensure participation and understanding of planned research at local and regional levels.
      A highlight of the meeting was the “Legacy of ABoVE” panel discussion moderated by Nancy French [MTU]. Panelists included Eric Kasischke [MTU], Scott Goetz, Chip Miller, Peter Griffith, Libby Larson [NASA GSFC/SSAI], and Elizabeth Hoy. Each panelist reflected on their journey to develop ABoVE, which included an initial scoping study developed more than 15 years ago. Members of the panel – all a part of the ABoVE leadership team – joined the campaign at different stages of their career. Each panelist arrived with different backgrounds, bringing their unique perspective to the group that helped to frame the overall campaign development. Following the panel, all ST members who have been a part of ABoVE since its start over a decade ago came to the front for a group photo – see Photo 5.
      Following the panel, the ABoVE ST leads presented their overall thoughts on the meeting and facilitated a discussion with all participants at the meeting. Participants noted the important scientific discoveries made during ABoVE and enjoyed the collegial atmosphere during ASTM11.
      Photo 5. A group photo of participants who have been with ABoVE since its inception: [left to right] Ryan Pavlick, Chip Miller, Elizabeth Hoy, Libby Larson, Peter Griffith, Fred Huemmrich, Nancy French, Scott Goetz, Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, Eric Kasischke, and Larry Hinzman. Photo credit: Peter Griffith Conclusion 
      Overall, ASTM11 brought together an interdisciplinary team for a final team meeting that showcased the many accomplishments made over the past decade. The group outlined current gaps and needs in Arctic and boreal research and discussed possibilities for future NASA terrestrial ecology campaigns. The synthesis science presentations at ASTM11 highlighted the advances ABoVE has made in understanding carbon and ecosystem dynamics in Arctic and boreal regions. It also highlighted the need for further study of cold season and subsurface processes. While this was the last meeting of this ST, research for some projects will continue into 2026, and more publications and data products are expected from ST members in the near term.
      Elizabeth Hoy
      NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Global Science & Technology Inc. (GSFC/GST,Inc.)
      elizabeth.hoy@nasa.gov
      Libby Larson
      NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Science System and Applications, Inc. (GSFC/SSAI)
      libby.larson@nasa.gov
      Annabelle Sokolowski
      NASA GSFC Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM) Intern
      Caitlin LaNeve
      NASA GSFC Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM) Intern
      Share








      Details
      Last Updated Sep 10, 2025 Related Terms
      Earth Science View the full article
    • European Space Agency
      Estonia celebrates 10 years in ESA
      By European Space Agency
      Estonia marked its 10th anniversary in the European Space Agency alongside the plenary session of the European Interparliamentary Space Conference on 4 September.  
      View the full article
    • NASA
      Science Launching on Northrop Grumman's 23rd Cargo Resupply Mission to the Space Station
      By NASA
      Science Launching on Northrop Grumman's 23rd Cargo Resupply Mission to the Space Station

  • Check out these Videos

×
×
  • Create New...