Ice Sheet Modeling for CMIP6 Meeting

Ice Sheet MIP for CMIP6 Meeting
Venue: NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, USA
Dates: 16-18th July, 2014

Meeting Organizers: Sophie Nowicki (GSFC), Tony Payne (University of Bristol), and Eric Larour (JPL).

The sea-level projections made by the glaciological community as part of the IPCC process have often been out of phase with the projections considered by the wider CMIP community. For instance in AR5, the ice2sea and SeaRISE ice sheet projects predominantly worked with AR4 scenarios, while the CMIP5 community used new RCP scenarios. A primary focus of this meeting is therefore to develop a plan that will allow ice sheet and glacier models to be better integrated in the CMIP6 initiative, in order to improve both sea level projections due to changes in the cryosphere and our understanding of the cryosphere in a changing climate. These goals map into the Cryosphere Grand Challenge and the Sea-Level Rise Grand Challenge relevant to CliC and the WCRP. Participation is by invitation only, and will primarily include ice sheet and Earth system model development and analysis leaders, representatives of MIPs that are relevant to the cryosphere and observation data set providers. If you would like to be invited to the meeting or if you would like to join the meeting remotely, the first session will be shared via webex for the images and telecom for the sound, please email Sophie Nowicki.

The meeting goal is to develop an Ice Sheet MIP proposal for participation in the CMIP6 initiative.

Meeting Objectives

Assess the utility of the current CMIP5 variables over ice sheets, including formatting, documentation, temporal and spatial resolution. Identify which variables are lacking in the current CMIP5 for our purpose and provide recommendation to CMIP6 for additional variables.
Identify which experiment in the proposed CMIP6 DECK experiment should become the primary focus of the MIP for fully coupled ice sheet – climate models (and how to include feedback for ice models that would be forced “offline”).
Identify whether additional experiments should be proposed in CMIP6.
Identify preliminary sensitivity experiments that focus on understanding the source of diversity in modeled responses and feedbacks, towards reducing the uncertainty in sea-level projections. (For examples, how do different beds of initialization methods affect the projections).
Identify valuable satellite observations and field measurements for model initialization, evaluation and process understanding.
Draft a MIP template for consideration into endorsement by CMIP6.

Agenda

Wednesday 16th July

Time	Event	Location
8.00-9.30	Registration and badge collection. Account for at least 30 min for your badge, and 10 min to get to B33. There will be coffee in the room adjacent to H114	Main Gate & Room H114, B33
9.30-12.00	Introduction and aims	H114, B33
12.00-13.00	Lunch
13.00-15.00 (1 hr breakout & 1 hr report back)	Breakout session on ‘A. Mechanics of coupled simulations’	H114, B33
15.00-15.30	Tea
15.30-17.30 (1hr breakout & 1 hr report back)	Breakout session on ‘B. Missing physics + numerics & their impact on cryospheric and SL projections’	H114, B33
18:00	IceBreaker	Chevy’s

Thursday 17th July

Time	Event	Location
8.30-10.30 (1hr breakout & 1 hr report back)	Breakout session on ‘C. MIP experimental design’ + report back from C.	H114, B33
10.30-11.00	Coffee
11.00-12.00	Breakout session on ‘D. Data sets’	H114, B33
12.30-13.00	Lunch
13.00-15.00	Report back from D + discussion of where we are + identify the experiments.	H114, B33
15.00-15.30	Tea
15.30-17.30	Breakout E: ‘More focussed experiment design + Links to CMIP’	A128,A109, A209 etc

Friday 18th July

Time	Event	Location
8.30-10.30	Report back from E. & Write up of MIP	H114, B33
10.30-11.00	Coffee
11.00-13.00	Governance + Continue Write up + Wrap up	H114, B33
	Meeting ends

Breakout sessions will run in parallel and consist of small groups ~6-10 participants. They will normally be split between Greenland, Antarctica and global glaciers, although for some topics other groupings may be necessary. Each breakout will be introduced in plenary by a couple of 10-15 minute talks to give background, highlight key issues and set objectives. Plenary report back sessions will contain a brief summary from each breakout group’s rapporteur followed by synthesis. We will also have additional rooms available, but our main home is H114 in Building 33

Sessions and Topics

Session	Topic
Introduction and aims	Welcome + Meeting objectives Introduction to CMIP Links to other activities: GRISO presented by Patrick Heimbach [Presentation] MISMIP+ presented by Gael Durand [Presentation] WAGOM presented by Ryan Walker [Presentation] PMIP presented by Allegra LeGrande [Presentation] CliC & ESMsnowMIP presented remotely by Greg Flato (11am) [Presentation] CORDEX presented by Ruth Mottram [Presentation] Lessons learnt from SEARISE and ice2sea
A. Mechanics of coupled simulations	How close are we to having models that could run as part of a CMIP-style ESM? And how suitable are CMIP models over the cryosphere? How many AOGCMs with coupled ice sheet could take part in a MIP? What intermediate configurations would work and how would feedbacks be included? (i.e.: driving ice sheet models “offline”) How would the ice sheet model be initialized? Is there scope for a separate AOGCM/RCM inter-comparison for SMB? or ocean circulation around the ice sheets? Should we have separate global glacier, Greenland and Antarctic efforts? Greenland – What do we do about fjords? etc Antarctica – Is the simulation of the Southern Ocean good enough to provide adequate forcing? etc What other AOGCM forcing will be required and how crucial is its quality, spatial and temporal resolutions? (i.e.: are there any variable lacking in the current CMIP5 output set for our purpose? Are they of the right spatial, temporal resolutions? Should AOGCMs fields be downscaled and how? (see: data described in Amon, Lmon, OImon and LImon at http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/data_description.html)
B. Missing physics + numerics & their impact on cryospheric and SL projections	What are the major obstacles to credible projections of the cryospheric components of sea level? What physics are missing from models that could be used for projections? Are there numerical issues that also need to be resolved in both ice-flow and climate models? Is there a role for parameterizations in bridging some of these gaps? How could these parameterizations be tested? Is there a need for preliminary inter-comparisons to test suitability of models for inclusion in full MIP? Greenland. Will we have a credible model of iceberg calving and marine melt of tidewater glaciers? How to cope with uncertainties in bedrock topography, ice rheology, basal slipperiness? Etc Antarctica. How to cope with uncertainties in bedrock topography, ice rheology, basal slipperiness, marine melt etc all of which may be important for grounding line retreat? Etc
C. MIP experimental design	What type of experiments could we tackle? Which experiment(s) out of the proposed 5 CMIP DECK experiments should become the focus of our effort? (i.e.: if running only one experiment with a fully-coupled system and repeating with ice sheets driven offline) Should we suggest an additional experiment to CMIP6? What are the synergies with other MIPs? What time scales are of most interest for future work? What periods would be of interest for simulations of past climate (pre-industrial, Eemian?) How can we augment on the suite of CMIP DECK experiments? How can we explore parameter uncertainty? Are there sensitivity experiments that can investigate the origin and consequence of systematic model bias? Should we have experiments that focus on understanding the source of diversity in modeled responses and feedbacks, towards reducing the uncertainty in sea-level projections? (For example: how do different beds and initialization methods affect the projections) How can we maximize the combination of whole ice sheet models & flowband models? What other approaches could be used for projecting changes in the cryosphere and sea-level?
D. Data sets	What data set are needed (model+observations)? What observational data should we use to initialize the models and for the experiments? (velocities, bedrock topography, geothermal heat-flux etc) What data should we use to test and validate the models? Both in terms of glaciological observations and climate forcing. Could we use reanalysis for driving “offline” simulations? How do we standardize the test data sets? What fields need to be saved from ice sheet models?
E. Links to CMIP & Write up of MIP	What type of experiments are we tackling, and how will this happen? Name for the project Governance Overview of proposed experiments design & evaluation & analysis. Science question –or gap- being addressed with these experiments. What climate variables would be predicted and what would be required from CMIP AOGCMs?

Participants

Tolly Aðalgeirsdóttir	University of Iceland, Iceland
Andy Aschwanden	University of Alaska, USA
Doug Brinkerhoff	The University of Montana, USA
Joel Brown	The University of Montana, USA
Bea Csatho	University of Buffalo, USA
Richard Cullather	NASA GSFC, USA
Gael Durand	LGGE, France [Presentation] [Presentation]
Tamsin Edwards	University of Bristol, UK
Jeremy Fyke	LANL, USA
Olivier Gagliardini	LGGE, France
Heiko Goezler Vrije	Universiteit Brissel, Belgium
Patrick Heimbach	MIT, USA [Presentation]
Hartmut Hellmer	AWI, Germany
Ute Herzfeld	University of Colorado, USA
Richard Hindmarsh	BAS, UK
Regine Hock	University of Alaska, USA
Charles Jackson	The University of Texas at Austin USA
Jesse Johnson	The University of Montana, USA
Eric Larour	NASA JPL, USA
Allegra LeGrande	NASA GISS, USA [Presentation]
Chris Little	Science and Technology, USA
Dan Martin	Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA
Ben Marzeiom	University of Innsbruck, AT
Ruth Mottram	DMI, DK [Presentation]
Sophie Nowicki	NASA GSFC, USA
Byron Parizek	PSU, USA
Tony Payne	University of Bristol, UK
Kristin Poinar	University of Washington, USA
Jeff Ridley	Met Office, UK
Olga Sergienko	Princeton University, USA
Helene Seroussi	NASA JPL, USA
Miren Vizcaino	University of Delft, NL
Tom Wagner	NASA HQ, USA
Ryan Walker	NASA GSFC, USA
Wei Li Wang	NASA GSFC, USA
Ricarda Winkelmann	PIK DE
Bin Zhao	NASA GSFC, USA

Participants interested in telecom/video-teleconferencing

Stephen Cornford	University of Bristol, UK
Jim Fastook	University of Maine, USA
Xavier Fettweis	Universite de Liege, Belguim
Bob Fischer	NASA GISS, USA
Greg Flato	CCCMA, CA [Presentation]
David Holland	NYU, USA [Presentation]
Gerhard Krinner	LGGE, France
Mathieu Morlinghem	University of California, Irvine, USA
Frank Pattyn	ULB, Belgium
Steve Price	LANL, USA
Catherine Ritz	LGGE, France
Christian Rodehacke	DMI, DK
Gavin Schmidt	NASA GISS, USA

Participants interested in being updated with the effort

Robert Bindschadler	NASA, USA
Ayako Abe-Ouchi	The University of Tokyo, Japan
Edward Bueler	University of Alaska, USA
Jonathan Gregory	University of Reading/Met Office, UK
Ralf Greve	Hokkaido University, Japan
Philippe Huybrechts	Vrije Universiteit Brissel, Belgium
Ian Joughin	University of Washington, USA
Jan Lenaert	IMAU, NL
Anders Levermann	Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany
William Lipscomb	LANL, USA
Maria Martin	Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany
David Pollard	PSU, USA
Valentina Radic	The University of British Columbia, CA
Eric Rignot	NASA JPL/ University of California, Irvine, USA
Fuyuki Saito	Japan Agency for Marine-Earth, Japan
Hakime Seddik	Hokkaido University, Japan
Andy Shepherd	University of Leeds, UK
Michiel van den Broeke	IMAU, NL

Local information

Where to stay and how to get there:

The closest hotel is the Holiday Inn Greenbelt (7200 Hanover Drive, Greenbelt MD 20770) http://www.ihg.com/holidayinn/hotels/us/en/greenbelt/wasgb/hoteldetail Cost varies from $90-135 USD per night. The hotel does not provide transportation from any of the three Washington DC area airports (Baltimore-Washington International, Reagan National and Dulles International). There are various cheaper/slower and expensive/faster options from each.

Recommendations are (with estimated time and cost):

Baltimore-Washington International/BWI: Super Shuttle (1 hr. @$33) or Taxi (30 min. @ $45), or Train from New Carrollton Station, or B30 Metro Express to Greenbelt Metro (50min @ $6), and the Holiday Inn shuttle picks up for free at the Metro station.

Reagan National/DCA: Metro to Greenbelt station, then taxi (90 min. @$25)

Washington DC Dulles International/IAD: Washington Flyer Bus to West Falls Church Metro station, then Metro to Greenbelt Metro station, then taxi. (2 hrs. $35), or Super Shuttle (??hr @ $39)

More details are given on the Holiday Inn’s website: http://www.ihg.com/holidayinn/hotels/us/en/greenbelt/wasgb/hoteldetail/directions

The Holiday Inn Greenbelt is about 5 min drive from NASA GSFC. The hotel can offer a free shuttle bus upon request to the main gate of GSFC, or participants will be able to share rides in rental cars/taxis.

No meals provided

No lunch will be provided during the meeting but there are cafeterias on the campus, and participants are welcome to bring their own food and eat at any of the picnic tables. There are several restaurants and other food options nearby on Greenbelt Road.

If you are renting a car, you can find driving directions to the NASA Goddard Visitor Center here

filler

{accordionfaq faqid=accordion890 active=item10}