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

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

2. IceBridge Timeline 2008: ICESat performance becoming progressively degraded; replacement not due until 2015. 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;

3. IceBridge Timeline -2 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 2010. 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;

4. IceBridge Timeline-3 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 (2009-2012) Phase 2 Antarctica Focus (2012-2015)

7. 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.

8. GRAPHIC OF FIELD DEPLOYMENTS AND SUPPORT

9. 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.

10. Flight line planning Instrument Priority Science Priority

11. 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.

12. Our Recommendations •  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

13. 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

14. Lessons learned 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.

15. Your new Job • 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

16. Questions? Edward Wilson, 1910

18. 2010 Autumn Antarctic Missions

19. 2010 Spring Arctic Missions