Goddard IceBridge Science Definition Team meeting September 26, 2010 Seelye Martin Lora Koenig Seelye Martin, Kangerlussuaq, May 2007.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Future Directions and Initiatives in the Use of Remote Sensing for Water Quality.
Advertisements

Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Data Management and Communication (DMAC) Standards Process Julie Bosch NOAA National Coastal Data Development.
(Mt/Ag/EnSc/EnSt 404/504 - Global Change) Observed Snow & Ice (from IPCC WG-I, Chapter 4) Observed Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground Primary Source:
Monitoring polar climate change from space Thorsten Markus Cryospheric Sciences Branch NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD.
Draft Ice Sheet Science Goals, Objectives and Requirements plus Draft Science Team Terms of Reference Strawman by KCJ and derived from the draft Project.
Ocean-Ice Interaction beneath the Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Ice Shelf: The Key to Ice-Sheet Stability Global sea level will likely rise 1 meter by 2100.
The ICESat-2 Mission: Laser altimetry of ice, clouds and land elevation T. Markus, T. Neumann NASA Goddard Space Flight Center W. Abdalati Earth Science.
IceBridge Science Objectives The following are the major science objectives of Operation IceBridge in priority.
OIB Long Range Planning Luthcke and Jezek. OIB Long Term Observation Goals OIB is meant to provide data to improve our understanding of the mass evolution.
Sea Ice Thickness from Satellite, Aircraft, and Model Data Xuanji Wang 1 and Jeffrey R. Key 1 Cooperative.
Michael Studinger & IceBridge Science Team & Instrument Teams.
Team Updated Draft Ice Sheet Science Goals and Assignments September 27.
IceBridge Program Overview Tom Wagner IceBridge Program Scientist.
IceBridge Science Team Meeting Agenda Thursday January 20, :00 Science Team Progress (2 min, one vu-graph summary from each team member) 1:30 Cryosat.
ICESat dH/dt Thinning Thickening ICESat key findings.
IceBridge Science Team Meeting September 27, 2010 Goddard Space Flight Center.
IceBridge Science Team Meeting September 27, 2010 Goddard Space Flight Center.
7/14/2015 IceBridge Observations of Sea Ice Thickness, Structure, and Volume Change: Bringing a NOAA Viewpoint Update Summary: Jan 19, 2011 PI: Dave McAdoo,
IPY Satellite Data Legacy Vision: Use the full international constellation of remote sensing satellites to acquire spaceborne ‘snapshots’ of processes.
1 NASA’s future science needs in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean Waleed Abdalati NASA Headquarters January 24, 2012.
A Multi-Sensor, Multi-Parameter Approach to Studying Sea Ice: A Case-Study with EOS Data Walt Meier 2 March 2005IGOS Cryosphere Theme Workshop.
Global Inter-agency IPY Polar Snapshot Year (GIIPSY): Goals and Accomplishments Katy Farness & Ken Jezek, The Ohio State University Mark Drinkwater, European.
Science at the Ends of the Earth GLACIER STUDIES PROJECT U.S. Geological Survey Earth Surface Dynamics Program U.S. Climate Change Science Program Books,
NANC Report Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) January 19, 2005 Co-Chairs: Rosemary Emmer, Nextel Karen Riepenkroger, Sprint.
Field Project Planning, Operations and Data Services Jim Moore, EOL Field Project Services (FPS) Mike Daniels, EOL Computing, Data and Software (CDS) Facility.
Cuff Account Dashboard
Atlanta Public Schools Project Management Framework Proposed to the Atlanta Board of Education to Complete AdvancED/SACS “Required Actions” January 24,
The Future of Arctic Sea Ice Authors: Wieslaw Maslowski, Jaclyn Clement Kinney, Matthew Higgins, and Andrew Roberts Brian Rosa – Atmospheric Sciences.
23 rd CEOS Plenary I Phuket, Thailand I 3-5 November 2009 Status of the ESA Earth Observation Programmes Dr. Simonetta Cheli Head of Earth Observation.
Richard Lane, Natural History Museum, London Science Collections International An international coordinating mechanism OECD Global Science Forum, April.
1PoDAG XXX: IceBridge October 12, 2011 PoDAG XXX: IceBridge Marilyn Kaminski IceBridge Project Manager October 12, 2011.
Arctic Sea Ice and the Ice-Albedo Feedback Harry Stern, Polar Science Center, University of Washington, Seattle Climate Complexity Workshop 2012 May 9,
Special Evening Session: The Business of NASA Research August 22, 2006 Evening Session.
Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) Review 09 – 11 March 2010 Image: MODIS Land Group, NASA GSFC March 2000 Center for Satellite Applications.
Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) Review 09 – 11 March 2010 Image: MODIS Land Group, NASA GSFC March 2000 Center for Satellite Applications.
International Polar “Year” - March 1, March 1, 2009.
GHP and Extremes. GHP SCIENCE ISSUES 1995 How do water and energy processes operate over different land areas? Sub-Issues include: What is the relative.
Davenport University Strategic Planning, Goal Development and Budget Process December 15, 2009.
Slide: 1 Osamu Ochiai Water SBA Coordinator The GEO Water Strategy Report – The CEOS Contribution Presentation to the 26 th CEOS Plenary at Bengaluru,
Ice Sheet Mass Changes and Contribution to Sea Level Rise  Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were close to balance 1992 to  Net only 1% of annual.
IPY STG SAR Workshop Day 1 Summary GIIPSY thematic science objectives presented along with a strawman acquisition strategy Agency representatives from.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Monitoring our Dynamic Planet The Global Fiducials Program Bruce F. Molnia July 25, 2012 ARCTIC.
Thoughts on OIB Science Team KCJ. Acquisition Strategies OIB developed 3, basic acquisition strategies February 2011 I. Establish once the bedrock topography.
Using instrumented aircraft to bridge the observational gap between ICESat and ICESat-2.
Climate and Cryosphere (CliC): Legacy for 2013 and Beyond Jeff Key NOAA/NESDIS Chair, CliC Observation and Products Panel (Agenda item )
Forward Observer In-Flight Dual Copy System Richard Knepper, Matthew Standish NASA Operation Ice Bridge Field Support Research Technologies Indiana University.
Polar Ice Sheets and Ice Shelves: Mass Balance, Uncertainties, and Potential Improvements Robert H Thomas…etc.
University of Kansas S. Gogineni, P. Kanagaratnam, R. Parthasarathy, V. Ramasami & D. Braaten The University of Kansas Wideband Radars for Mapping of Near.
Educator Resources Lauren Ritter, NASA Education Pathways Intern Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentinel (HS3) Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Soil.
10/25/2007GlueX Collaboration Meeting1 October 25-27, 2007 Jefferson Lab This is approximately our 20’th such meeting.
Science Team Objectives K. Jezek and J. Richter-Menge Science Team Co-leads.
Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) Review 09 – 11 March Arctic Aircraft Altimeter (AAA) Experiment Envisat and ICESat underflights.
IPY International Polar Year Progress report to STG 2.
Data Activities at NSIDC DAAC September April 2001 Mark Parsons 25 April 2001.
LISA News from ESA O. Jennrich LISA Project Scientist.
1 An Overview of Recent Actions/Events to Assure a Continued OSVW Capability.
SPC Advisory Committee Training - TAC Fall 2015 Institutional Research President’s Office 1 Abridged from the SPC Advisory Committee Training on October.
SPC Advisory Committee Training Fall 2015 Institutional Research President’s Office SPC 10/9/20151.
Understanding and Predicting Arctic Land-ice Loss and its impacts Fiamma Straneo (WHOI), Ted Scambos (NSIDC) 1 Greenland Ice Sheet (6.5 m SLR) Arctic Ice.
NSIDC—Enhancing NASA’s Contribution to Polar Science A response to the NRC Polar Research Board’s review of NASA’s polar geophysical data sets Mark Parsons.
Cryospheric Community Contribution to Decadal Survey Compiled from correspondence (about 50 participants) WAIS Meeting Presentation.
Long Term Archival of ECS Data Held at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Global Ice Coverage Claire L. Parkinson NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Presentation to the Earth Ambassador program, meeting at NASA Goddard Space Flight.
Project Parkway Timeline to 2011 April 1, 2010 Town Hall Meeting Steering Committee Schools February 2009 May 18, 2009 Project Parkway Community Kick-
Ice Loss Signs of Change. The Cryosphere  Earth has many frozen features including – sea, lake, and river ice; – snow cover; – glaciers, – ice caps;
“Operation IceBridge, CryoSat-2, ICESat”
CEOS & Work Plan Status Steven Hosford WGISS-46 22nd October 2018
AMPS DMSP WMC CReSIS IREP Program at Univ. of Tasmania - Dan Steinhoff
NASA Polar Program Kim Partington 27 April 2019 Polar Program.
Lunar Calibration Workshop Status of the preparation
Presentation transcript:

Goddard IceBridge Science Definition Team meeting September 26, 2010 Seelye Martin Lora Koenig Seelye Martin, Kangerlussuaq, May 2007

IceBridge Timeline 2008: ICESat performance becoming progressively degraded; replacement not due until Management asks, how to fill the observational gap? Oct 2008: SM asked as program manager to organize report for aircraft alternative to ICESat; works with Airborne Sciences (Randy Albertson, Andrew Roberts) and Ames; Dec 2008: report delivered, SM returns to Seattle; Jan 2009: Other options too expensive, IceBridge given go-ahead; SM asked to serve as mission scientist; Steve Volz envisions mission as a “virtual’ satellite program. Feb 2009: planning begins for Greenland flights, based on existing P-3 ATM flights; Feb 17: Tom Wagner starts at NASA; March-May 09: Greenland flights; March 09: Andy Roberts steps down, Randy takes over as acting head of Airborne Sciences;

July 09: Goddard workshop on planning for IceBridge Antarctica 2010; July-Aug 09: IceBridge Alaska flights take place (supported also by NSF) Sept 09: PARCA meeting at Univ Wash combined with final flight line review; Oct-Nov 09: DC-8 IceBridge Antarctic flights, highly successful; Dec 09: Lora Koenig takes over as project scientist; SM remains head of ad hoc science team; Michael Studinger is hired as project scientist, starts work ~March Fall 09: ESPO (Kent Shiffer et al.) begins work on logistic planning for Greenland-2 flights. Dec-Jan 10: UT ICECAP flights take place; partially supported by IceBridge funds; and w/o IceBridge review. Jan 10-12: Greenland flight planning meeting, Goddard. Both P-3 and DC-8 used in deployment; IceBridge Timeline -2

Feb 10: Science advisory group for NSIDC selected by Tom Wagner; which is official IceBridge archive. April 10: Bruce Tagg hired as Airborne program scientist; Mar-May 10: Greenland field deployment, run by Michael Studinger/ John Sonntag; Mike Cropper moves to Goddard, works on money, logistics. June-July 10: Seattle planning meeting June 30-July 1, 2 for IceBridge Antarctic-2 flights. July 10: Tom runs panel meetings to choose IceBridge Science Definition Team. Sept 10: SDT team members announced, Antarctic planning concluded; Greenland-3 logistics meeting planned for October, SDT Greenland -3 flight line meeting planned for January. ICECAP flights planned for Dec-Jan have not yet been reviewed. IceBridge Timeline-3

History of the IceBridge documentation- First Report Dec 2008 An analysis and summary of options for collecting ICESat-like data from aircraft - Fladerland and Martin editors- input from community “The purpose of this gap filler mission is not to attempt to repeat all of the ICESat tracks over the sea ice and ice sheets, rather it is to carefully employ aircraft resources to follow what is happening in the most sensitive and critical parts of the sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers, such as the coastal glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica.” “Extend current P-3 program to include DC-8 and Global Hawk” “The combination of the laser surface and sounder depth measurements will provide critical data for the development of numerical models of the outflow glaciers of the ice sheets” critical areas: coastal Greenland coastal Antarctica including the Antarctic Peninsula interior Antarctica, in particular the sub-glacial lakes and certain fast moving glaciers southeast Alaskan glaciers Antarctic and Arctic sea ice thicknesses.

History of the IceBridge documentation- Jan 2010 ROSES A.42 and A.43 Call for Proposals –T. Wagner “Linking the measurements made by ICESat, ICESat-2, and CryoSat-2 to allow accurate comparison and production of a long-term, ice altimetry record”. “In conjunction with altimetry measurements, collecting other remotely sensed data to improve predictive models of sea level rise and sea ice cover, especially the following” o Ice thickness and structure; o Bed topography underlying land-based ice; o Bathymetry beneath floating ice shelves; o Snow accumulation and firn structure; and o Other geophysical constraints that will improve estimates of the geothermal and oceanic heat flux. Phase 1 Arctic Focus ( ) Phase 2 Antarctica Focus ( )

History of the IceBridge documentation Feb 2010 ICESat, ICESat-2 project offices asked to provide input Bridging ICESat and ICESat-2: Suggestions for Greenland IceBridge flights in 2010 and beyond Cross-calibration between altimetry measurements Continue time series of elevation change Generation of reference surfaces for instrument development First Flight plan document compiled by J. Sonntag for use during Arctic 2010 Campaign. Jan-June 2010 Continued to write IceBridge documentation: slight modifications to science objectives stated in the ROSES call, science traceability matrix developed. Martin, Koenig, Studinger, Wagner IceBridge Project plan document was written and compiled by ESPO and D. Easmunt. Still in draft form and is not a science document but has science objectives, logistics, org charts, Etc. August 2010 Draft of Level 1’s written with community input by T. Wagner Today- Time for the Science to team to improve and approve Level 1’s.

GRAPHIC OF FIELD DEPLOYMENTS AND SUPPORT DATEJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULYAUGSEPTOCTNOVDECJANFEBMAR LOGISTICS SDT DC-8 / P-3 ICECAP ALASKA

Flight Planning- Before Science Team Alaska and ICECAP flight lines were developed by PI’s and flown Arctic and Antarctic Campaigns Community input gathered through conferences/telecons/AGU town hall meetings Flight lines developed, iterated, modified, finalized List of relevant field projects kept for overflights meeting science objectives and/or instrument validation Time consuming and messy but in general lead to good flight lines and community feedback that IceBridge listened to the community and acted on recommendations.

Instrument Priority Science Priority Flight line planning

Critique/Lessons Learned We have 3-4 missions per year; Arctic, Antarctica, the IceBridge component of ICECAP, and IceBridge Alaska, all of which must be reviewed. Instrument, aircraft, and flight management teams spend ~3.5 months in field, March-May; Oct-Nov, so only 3-4 month gaps between missions. Mission Accomplished: We now have a program scientist, A data archive and data/ science advisory team at NSIDC; Rules on submission of data within 60 days of completing flights; A Science Definition Team; At Headquarters, a Program Scientist (Tom Wagner) and an equivalent to a Program Executive (Bruce Tagg. Airborne Sciences); Virtual satellite program is in place. Mission Needs: 1. faster turn-around on data submission and spreading the word to the community that the data is available for analysis (Note that with ICESat, headquarters got upset about year 3 that there were insufficient publications) 2. Oversight of ICECAP and IceBridge Alaska; 3. Long term Vision: Break out of the cycle of only working on flight lines for the next mission once previous mission is done.

What we would like to Science Team: Continue/Start View IceBridge’s as a mission to gather data for all in the polar communities, plus provide input to IPCC -No one gets a pet project Flights developed that represent a synthesis of inputs from the cryospheric community, including the numerical modelers Provide oversight for SE Alaska and ICECAP flights funded by IceBridge Encourage analysis and publication of results Encourage participation of junior scientists Our Recommendations

Lessons learned Six years of back-to-back Arctic and Antarctic field seasons is tiring Problems with workload distribution for science/instrument participants Science Team should think about the best way tor the team to deal with distribution of work

Flight line planning has been time consuming. J. Sonntag is a great asset. The science team should consider having members gain expertise in flight line planning for the different aircraft involved in IceBridge. Lessons learned

Science team decisions to make based on Level 1’s: Determination/clearly written documentation of the time each instrument flies; Determination/clearly written documentation of the amount of time devoted to sea ice and ice sheet research; How to balance science objectives and aircraft logistics- weight limits on P-3 Science team deliverables: Complete the writing of official IceBridge Level 1 requirements Construct flight lines and alternates with science justification for each campaign Your new Job

16 Questions? Edward Wilson, 1910

2010 Autumn Antarctic Missions

2010 Spring Arctic Missions