Ice Bridge Science Team Meeting
January 20-21
Goddard Space Flight Center
The OIB-ST meeting began at 1 PM on Thursday Jan 20. The meeting followed a full day of
PARCA presentation and a half day of reports from international partners.
Jezek began the meeting by reviewing the agenda. This was followed by brief presentation by
the science team members on progress (presentations will be posted on the OIB-ST web site).
Research highlights included: report from Bell that several OIB publications are nearing
completion; Larour’s work on using models to rapidly inform OIB on flight planning decisions;
Luthcke work to distribute GRACE mascons to team; McAdoo investigation of geoid slope
across arctic basin; Farrell report on successful Cryosat comparisons; Csatho measurements of
ice elevation change for an ICESat cycle; Fahnestock demonstration of web-based planning tool;
Lindsay report on sea ice thickness climate data record; Rignot report on ice surface velocities;
Joughin report on GIMP project and availability of new DEM; Smith report on ATM/LVIS intercomparisons; Jezek discussion of ice sheet transfer functions.
Following the September presentation by Thorsten Markus, Duncan Wingham presented a
Cryosat perspective on optimizing OIB research activities. He began by giving a mission
overview and reporting that data will soon be available via the ESA web site without restrictions.
He discussed data inter-comparisons and recommended this be done at the geophysical product
level, which for ice sheet altimetry are elevation change measurements. He also suggested that
the key issue to resolve is how the dh/dt record from several instruments can best be interpreted
in terms of mass change. Wingham went on to discuss Cryovex activities and indicated there
could be a mechanism for OIB to obtain Cryovex data. He reported that Cryovex activities are
primarily aimed at investigating errors related to geophysical phenomena rather than instrument
properties. Consequently Cryovex includes a robust field measurement component and
recommended that OIB integrate itself with similar surface based campaigns. Richter-Menge
subsequently noted that OIB should also consider developing a set of geophysical uncertainties
to clarify how well the instrument data actually meet the science objectives in the context of all
of the unknowns.
Marilyn Kaminski from NSIDC followed with an update about data received at NSIDC. OIB
will be relying on NSIDC for routine information about timely data flow from the instrument
teams to the data center. She noted that Univ of Texas is providing data but in a format different
than that of other teams. This may be an issue for the science team to review for
recommendation on similar if not standard formats. Ted Scambos continued with a discussion of
derived products to be constructed by NSIDC. Key issues were the definition of these products,
assuring that the products were unique, and the timeliness of product delivery. In particular, the
science team was keen on certain products and product updates (eg dh/dt) for developing annual
mission plans.
John Sonntag concluded the day with a thorough discussion of flight line planning to date.
Several issues arose including coordinating with ESA to guarantee same coordinates for the
EGIG line, specifying the Cryosat underpass for the Devon Island camp, and coordinating with
sea ice camps out of Alert.
The science team convened in loose executive session on Friday morning. Richter-Menge began
the discussion with a series of points, primarily focused on the pressing need to find more
effective ways to coordinate among the various elements of OIB. These include the Project
Office, Instrument Team, Science Team, and Science Working Group. It is recommended that
this be a topic of discussion at the next science team telecom.
Duncan Young joined via telecon from Casey Station. He also reported on UT data release and
coordination between UT and NERC in Greenland. Release of Greenland data is subject to
NERC restrictions.
There was an extended discussion on the snow radar and how best to investigate snow thickness
accuracy over sea ice. There was some debate between Farrell and Kwok about how best to
collect OIB snow radar data in conjunction with surface camps and also whether there was
duplication with Cryovex activities. The discussion then extended to accumulation radar on ice
sheets and where the measurement is likely achievable and where it is problematic.
The sea ice and ice sheet teams then broke for detailed flight planning. Observing the course of
the discussion Luthcke suggested that it would be worthwhile to develop a strategy for flight
planning that optimized instrument use, satisfied requirements, and put OIB in position to make a
solid science contribution to ICESat-2 shortly after satellite launch.
In other discussions, Larsen offered to provide Alaska flight line information to Fahnestock so as
to enable science team discussion of glacier plans. Jezek put forward the idea about forming
data/product teams as the next task for the ST to address (see Jezek vu-graphs). The question of
whether there should be science team executive sessions was raised repeatedly and should be
revisited during the next science team telecon.
The meeting concluded with a brief discussion of scheduling the next full team meeting. The
suggestion is to have the meeting on the West Coast (JPL? Irvine?). Dates ranged from mid
May to mid to late June. Final date will be decided based on availability of information on
instrument performance from the Arctic flights and the project scheduling requirements on when
to have a solid draft of Antarctic flight lines.
Summary: The OIB-ST meetings were successful in part because of the substantial work done
prior to the meetings via telecon. The project now has a good basis for assessing Arctic 2011
flight plans. Flight plans also highlighted places where additional support may be needed, such
as increasing the number of deployment locations around the Arctic. In the future, the science
team needs a more standardized approach to developing flight lines that includes a statement of
objective and a justification based on science requirements.