Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SEPTEMBER 7 - 9 2016
LAMONT-DOHERTY EARTH OBSERVATORY
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Greenland
SURFACE MASS BALANCE
Citation:
Tedesco, M.; Alexander, P.; Bell, R.; Briggs K., Das I., MacFerrin, M.;Hanna, E.; Koenig , L.; Overeem, I.;
Rennermalm, A. (2016) Understanding the fundamental processes controlling the surface mass balance
of the Greenland ice sheet and improving estimates. Workshop Report, LDEO - Columbia University
Surface mass balance (SMB) plays a crucial role in modulating the contribution of the
Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) to sea level rise, and recent work suggests that the role of
SMB is becoming increasingly important. In this context, a NASA-sponsored workshop
was held at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) of Columbia University on
7-9 September 2016 to provide guidance to the scientific community and funding
agencies on actions to be undertaken for reducing uncertainties of SMB estimates of
the GrIS. Four themes emerged as priorities to be addressed: 1) meltwater production
and runoff; 2) albedo; 3) firn density and compaction; 4) accumulation. It was agreed
that major tasks in improving understanding and reducing uncertainties in GrIS
SMB include additional measurements in areas of sparse coverage, development of
new model schemes to capture poorly-represented processes, inter-comparison of
modeled SMB and surface energy quantities, and validation of models with in-situ
observations. The participants suggested that a possible measurement strategy
would also be to design a long-term monitoring mega-site or multiple mega-sites
where a set of complimentary observations are taken.
Executive
Summary
4 top
priorities
meltwater
production
& runoff
albedo
firn density
& compaction
accumulation
Executive
Summary
In the case of runoff, an identified challenge is the lack of suitable in-situ data from a
sufficient range of locations and timespans, particularly in the percolation zone and
at proglacial river discharge sites.
There was also consensus that most processes controlling albedo in the ablation area
of the GrIS are not well enough understood to allow their inclusion in current SMB
models. A need for additional continuous point-scale measurements of albedo at
a sub-daily resolution, measurements with a higher radiometric resolution, as well
as data collected from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or aircraft was also strongly
advocated.
Changes in firn density must be quantified in order to accurately convert laser/radar
derived volume changes into mass balance and sea level estimates. The workshop
participants recognized the need for process-based studies of snow and firn
density and compaction rates, especially those utilizing field-based and/or airborne
measurements and the need for more recent observations, in light of the recent meltand temperature-induced firn column changes.
The attendees agreed that shallow ice-core data from much of southeast Greenland
remain relatively sparse, and further sampling sites in this region should be regarded
as a clear measurement priority. There are also feedback effects between accumulation
and other SMB processes and consideration should be given to increasing the in-situ
observational coverage in ablation areas. The participants agreed that some of the
uncertainty in accumulation lies with boundary forcing datasets to regional climate
models. Interest was also expressed in formally collaborating with atmospheric
modelers and dynamicists, including cloud-physics specialists, to better understand
and represent the processes associated with snow accumulation in the presence of
the large topographic influence of the ice sheet.
Follow up, coordinated, continuous and sustained interaction among the SMB experts
was perceived as a key factor for continuing reducing the uncertainties on the SMB
of the GrIS.
Contents
Executive Summary 5
Contents 7
Introduction & background 8
Pre-workshop web survey* 12
Priorities & recommendations 14
Identification of overall challenges 14
Identification of priorities & recommendations 15
Meltwater production & runoff 16
Albedo 18
Firn Density & Compaction 22
Accumulation 24
Summary 26
References 32
Organizing Committee 34
Participants 35
Pre-workshop web survey responses 36
Abstracts submitted for poster session 45
Introduction &
background
Surface mass balance (SMB) over the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) is driven mostly by
accumulation and runoff and plays a crucial role in modulating the contribution of
the GrIS to sea level rise (van den Broeke et al., 2016). Therefore, understanding the
fundamental processes controlling SMB is crucial for improving the reconstruction
and projections of current and future sea level rise. The summer season over the
GrIS over the past two decades has been characterized by increased surface melting
(Tedesco et al., 2011, 2014; Nghiem et al., 2012) and net mass loss (Shepherd et al.,
2012, Hanna et al. 2013). Notably, the summer of 2012 set new records for surface
melt extent (Nghiem et al., 2012) and duration (Tedesco et al., 2013, Hanna et al. 2014),
resulting in a record 570 100 Gt in total mass loss, which was more than double the
average annual loss rate of 260 100 Gt for the 20032012 period (Tedesco et al.,
2014). Summer 2015 saw record melt propagating further north in Greenland than in
previous years (Tedesco et al., 2016). Moreover, the summers of 2013 and 2014 have
been characterized by higher summer snowfall anomalies (e.g., Tedesco et al., 2014).
Full energy-balance SMB modelling approaches based on regional climate models
(RCMs, e.g., Fettweis, 2007; Fettweis et al., 2011; van Angelen et al., 2012) have
been recently applied to study the spatio-temporal evolution of the GrIS SMB,
complemented by other models based on more traditional positive degree-day
models (PDD) or interpolation of sparse field data (e.g. Hanna et al. 2011, Wilton et
al. 2016). At the same time, the increased frequency of in-situ and spaceborne and
airborne remote sensing observations over Greenland (e.g., Operation IceBridge, OIB)
over the past decade offers an invaluable opportunity to assess RCM outputs. These
model outputs are in turn used to help translate remote sensing data (e.g., elevation
changes) into mass changes, through the use of modelled snow and firn density.
Despite the progress in physics parametrization in RCMs, the increasing computational
power and the growing volume of airborne and in-situ datasets collected over
Greenland, there are still many major challenges that limit our capability to estimate
current and project future SMB over the GrIS with the degree of accuracy that is required
to reduce the uncertainty of the GrIS contribution to current and future sea level rise.
A way to address this problem is through the improved understanding of specific
physical processes (e.g. retention of meltwater in firn, grain-size metamorphism and
densification) that drive the surface energy and mass balance of the ice sheet. Such
an understanding is crucial both for assessing and improving regional climate models
and to support the analysis of field observations, and best comes from a collective
effort rather than isolated efforts.
On September 7th 9th 2016, a NASA-sponsored workshop was held at the Monell
Auditorium of the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) of Columbia University
with the goal of providing guidance to the scientific community and funding agencies
on targeted modelling and field activities that would ultimately lead to improved
current estimates and projections and quantification of uncertainties of the GrIS SMB.
The workshop participants engaged in discussions to address key questions such as:
Which parameters most affect SMB and how well can we model their current and
Introduction &
background
The need for the workshop was first identified during the PARCA 2015 meeting at
the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC, http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/
index.php?section=268) where it became clear that such a workshop could be a
crucial tool to answer the following key outstanding questions: how do we separate
the uncertainties derived from the physics of the models and their forcing on SMB
estimates? How do we scale estimates of runoff to a larger scale? How do we interpret
elevation-change data and improve mass balance-change estimates by accounting
for densification and compaction processes? What is the spatial and temporal
variability of uncertainties of the quantities driving SMB? What targeted/organized
field measurements are needed to reach our goals? After PARCA 2015, the urgent
need for a workshop was further emphasized during follow-up telecons open to the
PARCA participants.
Greenland has been warming since the early 1990s, with around +5.5 C warming
around its margins in winter and +2.0 C in summer. This is partly related to a more
amplified meridional Northern Hemisphere jet flow and stronger Greenland blocking,
with more frequent propagations of warm air masses up over the ice sheet in the
past decade (Hanna et al. 2016), which culminated in the record Greenland surface
melt event of July 2012 (Ngheim et al. 2012, Tedesco et al. 2013). From 1960 to
2005 cumulative mass fluxes from SMB and discharge are considered to be roughly
equal but have increasingly diverged with ever-greater SMB losses since 2005 (van
den Broeke et al., 2016), with SMB now appearing to be the dominant component,
contributing ~60% to overall mass loss (van den Broeke et al., 2016).
Previous studies have shown convergence of results once the resolution gets down to
around 5 km or better. Until recently this was unattainable using RCMs for the entire
GrIS but some very recent work has allowed SMB to be dynamically downscaled
9
Introduction &
background
to as high as 2.2-km resolution for the southern half of the island (van den Broeke,
pers. comm., 2016). Modle Atmosphrique Rgional (MAR) outputs are currently
available from 1979-2015 at both 11- and 7.5-km resolution, and should shortly be
superseded with a 5-km resolution product. Recent MARv3.6.2 simulations take into
account blowing snow, which has some second-order but still significant impact on
SMB redistribution (~0.1 m yr-1) at the regional scale. Several efforts have used postprocessing of RCM or meteorological reanalysis data to statistically downscale to
1-km resolution RCM outputs for the whole ice sheet or on selected regions (e.g. Nol
et al. 2016, Wilton et al., in revision). Earth System Models such as the Community ESM
are also markedly improving their ability to simulate the GrIS SMB (are about were the
RCMs were ~1-2 decades ago), although in terms of spatial resolution they still lag
quite some way behind the RCMs.
By its very nature, SMB is challenging to model because its components, especially
runoff, are sensitive to slight changes in input data. However, the above innovations in
SMB modelling tools and meteorological datasets - and an ever-closer collaboration
between the SMB modellers and meteorologists - should together help to close the
GrIS SMB budget in terms of absolute annual SMB values and their regional distribution,
with a corresponding reduction in the mean magnitude of existing model differences
such as those presented in Vernon et al. (2013). From a remote sensing perspective,
recent elevation changes obtained from Cryosat-2 have shown increased thinning
rates in Greenland, confirming the existing reports of mass loss as estimated by other
satellite sensors including, for example, GRACE (e.g., Shepherd et al., 2012; Velicogna
and Wahr, 2006). Exceptionally warm summers after 2009, particularly in 2012, have
increased Greenland surface melt (Hanna et al., 2016; Nghiem, 2012; Tedesco et al.,
2016), leading to acceleration of many marine-terminating glaciers (e.g., Moon et al.,
2014, 2015). Remote sensing observations of melt water storage in lakes, ponds and
supraglacial channels, firn aquifers, proglacial river discharge and plumes, moulins
and crevasses are important as they demonstrate the state and fate of melt water on
the GrIS. However, the impact of these processes on the removal of melt water from
the ice surface remains hard to quantify. At places in Greenland where ice dynamics is
not considered a major source of mass loss, GRACE data can be used to compare with
the surface mass balance and its components (Velicogna et al., 2014 updated).
10
The first two days of the workshop were dedicated to organized discussions
and activities among the participants, interspersed with a few selected keynote
presentations and a poster session. The presentations were given at the start of the
workshop by members of the organizing committee (OC), based on input provided
by the registered participants beforehand, and were divided into three topics:
remote sensing, modeling, in-situ observations. The goal was to have an overview
of the current knowledge and limitations of the different tools from a communityperspective, without focusing too much on specific ongoing projects or activities.
Discussions, then, followed both in breakout groups and in plenary sessions. On the
last day (9 September), the organizing committee (OC) and scribers met to begin
synthesizing the outcomes of the workshop.
Introduction &
background
11
Pre-workshop
web survey*
Before the workshop, the OC arranged a series of questions as part of a web survey
that was distributed to all registered participants and requested feedback before
the workshop. The goal was to be able to gather feedback from as many colleagues
as possible, including those who were not able to attend in person, and to use an
alternative community-driven tool. In the following, we summarize the major
outcomes of the survey and refer the reader to Appendix for detailed results. The
survey was a mix of questions including multiple choices and free text questions.
A total of 33 people provided answers to the survey, of which ~ 50 % declared to be an
intermediate expert of the SMB of the GrIS, and ~ 35 % an expert. 50 % of the survey
participants declared not to be an expert in modeling of the SMB, and 25 % were
experts. Also, 50 % of the participants said they were expert in in situ measurements
and 40 % were intermediate experts. Lastly, 50 % of the respondent said they were
expert in remote sensing of the SMB and 40 % were intermediate experts. The
distribution of respondents in terms of years since their PhDs was well balanced, with
~ 30 % of them being within 5 years since their PhD, 30 % being between 5 and 10
years and 30 % being beyond 10 years.
87 % of respondents indicated that surface meltwater production is extremely
important for GrIS SMB, with difficulties in modeling and measuring this quantity both
being split between moderately (40 %) and extremely (40 %) difficult. Accumulation
also ranked high in terms of importance for SMB (~ 80 % voted it to be extremely
important). In this case, the answers indicated a Gaussian-like distribution centered
in the moderate option. A Gaussian-like distribution also surfaces concerning the
importance of firn-density for SMB, which was also centered in the moderate option.
Similarly, the difficulty in modeling and measuring this parameter also provided a
Gaussian-like distribution but was centered in the moderate option for measuring and
shifted toward relatively difficult for modeling (though the very difficult answer also
received 25 % of the survey answers vs. the 40 % of the relatively difficult one). Surface
albedo was considered to be relatively important by respondents, with measuring
albedo being considered not too difficult (~ 40 %) and relatively difficult (30 %) to
measure. About 35 % of the respondents considered albedo relatively difficult to
model and ~ 20 % considered it very difficult, with also 35 % of the respondents
considering it moderately difficult to model.
Other quantities included in the survey were blowing snow, atmospheric forcing,
snow/firn temperature profile, ocean/sea ice forcing processes. Results concerning
12
these quantities are reported in the appendix. The analysis of the open-ended
responses (e.g., text provided by respondents) has been summarized in Table 1 (all
answers are reported in the appendix).
Pre-workshop
web survey*
Where do you think SMB processes and quantities are BEST captured/measured (e.g.
accumulation in northwest, runoff in southwest, dry zone, etc.)?
SMB is better captured in the dry zone than in the ablation zone. Runoff is only
captured in the west-southwest and has remained untested in many other regions.
Satellite-derived estimates of Greenland wide mass loss (GRACE) and albedo.
Modelling: given the relative scarcity of observations it is difficult to say
where models do the best job. In general, higher elevations with little surface
hetrogeneity are easier to model.
The dry and accumulation area of northeast should be the test ground for "dry"
Greenlandic conditions, Whereas percolation and run-off should be measured in
the southwest.
Where do you think SMB processes and quantities are WORST captured/measured (e.g.
accumulation in northwest, runoff in southwest, dry zone, etc.)?
The SW is the most active region and should see more monitoring (AWS stations,
rivers, super-site?).
Accumulation southeast and north.
Melt water runoff/storage in the south and SE (no measurements currently
outside of the west/southwest).
Accumulation/density: there are few in situ measurements in ablation areas.
Low accumulation regions, particularly in the north, are difficult to measure.
Low ablation zone (i.e. southwest Greenland) where turbulent fluxes.runoff are
highly underestimated in models.
Runoff in the southwest.
Ablation in the southeast.
Which tools (modelling/remote sensing/in situ) do you think are needed to reduce the
uncertainty on Greenland SMB estimates and projections?
A joint effort with the 3 tools (modelling, remote sensing and in situ
measurements) are needed as they complement each other in space and time.
More in situ measurements are needed in general to help constrain/calibrate
modelling estimates and remote sensing observations.
High resolution climate models with advanced snow/ice modules, coupled to
ocean circulation and sea-ice models.
More in situ measurements, more communication between measurements and
modellers.
13
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of
overall challenges
The OC agreed to apply a method combining both individual and group work. At
the start of the first day of the workshop, all participants were asked to identify
three main challenges in modeling Greenland SMB and write down their answers on
separate sticky notes. These notes were placed on a large window wall (Fig. 1) where
participants worked collaboratively on reorganizing and moving everyones notes
into common themes. The outcome of this community-driven exercise is summarized
in the list below of identified themes, in no particular order:
14
Following the activities that led to the identification of the themes, the participants
were asked to regroup and answer the questions relating to the four main themes
discussed above, specifically: What current measurements exist? Are there any
historical datasets that could be exploited to meet these requirements? What
new measurements and technologies need to be developed to meet unfilled
requirements? The purpose of this portion of the workshop was to generate ideas for
practical means of addressing the identified challenges in measuring and modelling
GrIS SMB. These questions were addressed in a series of group discussions. The group
members were assigned randomly and shuffled between sessions to attempt to
minimize any biases associated with the process. The results of these exercises as well
as results of questions regarding observational tools asked in a survey of participants
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of priorities
& recommendations
The responses to the questions generally focused on filling gaps for processes and
in areas where observations were sparse and where models required improvement.
For some processes, measurements with a better spatial and temporal resolution are
needed, while for others, a few supersites where many types of measurements are
obtained in a single location were seen as being useful for understanding processes,
feedbacks between processes, and improving and developing parameterizations in
models. Needs and requirements specific to the four key priorities discussed above
are summarized below.
From the themes identified during Day 1, four priorities emerged to be addressed to
reduce uncertainty of GrIS SMB and improve current and future estimates. The four
themes are:
15
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of priorities &
recommendations
Meltwater
production & runoff
Greenland ice sheet meltwater runoff is here defined as the fraction of meltwater
and rain that drains off the ice sheet surface and represents a major loss term in
the overall ice sheet mass balance. The portion of liquid water that escapes travels
through a network of supraglacial streams and lakes before entering moulins and
being transported through en- and sub-glacial hydrological passages prior to
reaching the ice sheet margin. In most SMB models runoff in a grid cell is calculated
as the residual of meltwater production and refreezing. These models, with a couple
of notable exceptions, typically do not represent any subsequent transmission and
storage losses. In equilibrium conditions, runoff and ice discharge loss terms together
roughly balance snow accumulation. However, in recent years, the runoff volume
has been increasing, and may well have overtaken ice discharge in contributing to
mass loss (e.g., van den Broeke et al., 2016). While runoff occurs over large parts of the
Greenland ice sheet, the longest and most intense melt season occurs in Southwest
Greenland. Beside mass-balance applications, assessment of runoff as an influx to the
ocean enables the study of teleconnections in the coupled atmosphere-ice sheetocean system, and the impact of runoff freshwater, sediments and nutrients on ocean
circulation and marine ecosystems. Lastly, changes in the ice-sheets hydrological
system can also influence ice sheet dynamics (and vice-versa).
The group discussions focused on which aspects of meltwater runoff need better
understanding, what data are either currently available or needed, and lastly which
regions need the most attention. It was mentioned that while the total GrIS mass loss
may be assessed from GRACE gravity measurements, these measurements cannot
provide an understanding of meltwater runoff, routing and retention processes that
are essential for making future SMB and overall mass balance projections. Instead,
SMB models are essential tools for investigating these processes and making future
captured by several models, the melt intensity was not consistently simulated by the
different models.
A major challenge in validating and improving simulation of modelled runoff is
the lack of availability of suitable in situ data from an adequate range of locations
and timespans. Nevertheless, a few studies have involved comparison of in
situ measurements and modeled runoff, most notably using novel short-term
measurements of runoff in the supraglacial channel network on the ice sheet.
Recent efforts have focused on comparing accumulated runoff, i.e. outflow, with in
situ measurements of proglacial river discharge. These studies suggest retention
and delays along the transport but are hampered by the uncertainty in catchment
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of priorities
& recommendations
Meltwater production & runoff
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of priorities
& recommendations
Albedo
Surface albedo over the Greenland Ice Sheet regulates the amount of absorbed solar
radiation, and hence controls the surface mass balance through the modulation of
runoff and meltwater production (e.g., van den Broeke et al., 2008; Tedesco et al., 2011;
van Angelen et al., 2012). This is especially true along the margins of the ice sheet,
where melt has been increasing in recent decades (e.g., Tedesco et al., 2011). Ice-sheet
albedo is determined by a number of processes, including grain-size metamorphism
(Warren and Wiscombe, 1980), the concentration of near-surface light-absorbing
impurities (LAI), the presence of meltwater collecting at the surface (Tedesco and
Steiner, 2011), the presence of living organisms such as algae and bacteria (Lutz et al.,
2016; Benning et al., 2014), the albedo of bare ice in snow-free areas, crevasses and
degree of surface roughness (Pfeffer and Bretherton, 1987), solar zenith angle, and
the presence of clouds, which alter the spectrum of incoming solar radiation (Greuell
and Konzelman, 1994). Meltwater dispersed within the snowpack has a relatively
minor direct effect, but indirectly influences albedo through its impact on grain
growth (Warren and Wiscombe, 1980). Positive feedback processes associated with
albedo amplify melt and warming of the surface (Box et al., 2012; Tedesco et al., 2016).
For instance, increasing snowpack temperature leads to increases in grain size, which
reduces albedo (especially in the near-infrared region, NIR) and further increases
melting.The removal of seasonal snow or firn exposes low-albedo ice, dramatically
reducing albedo, increasing solar absorption and further enhancing melting.
Though the factors that influence surface albedo spatial and temporal variability
of snow-covered surfaces are known, most processes controlling albedo over the
Greenland ice sheet (such as the impact of biological activity on albedo, the spatiotemporal evolution of cryoconite, meltwater streams, and the spectral albedo of old,
dirty ice) are not understood to the point that allows their inclusion in current SMB
modeling. The importance of albedo (and associated processes) along the margins of
the Greenland ice sheet cannot and should not be underestimated, as these regions
are the major contributors to GrIS mass loss (e.g. Alexander et al., 2014). Limitations
exist also from a measurement perspective. Indeed, sensors collecting optical data
(e.g., MODIS, Sentinel-2, LANDSAT) do not have the required radiometric resolution
to resolve the processes that are poorly understood, hence allowing separation, for
example, of the impact of grain-size evolution from that from light absorbing impurities
(LAI) or the impact of LAI and biological activity, for example. In situ pyranometers
at automatic weather stations continuously record incoming and outgoing radiation
18
(e.g. GC-Net data, Steffen et al., 1996; K-Transect measurements, van de Wal et al., 2005;
PROMICE measurements, Citterio et al., 2015) at point scales. These are useful in that
they provide continuous measurements to assess models and remote-sensing data
but are limited in spectral resolution and spatial extent. Some field measurements
of albedo at high spatial and/or spectral resolution across transects also exist (e.g.
Moustafa et al., 2015; Ryan et al., 2016) but such measurements are limited.
Over the accumulation and percolation zones of the Greenland ice sheet, grain size,
surface impurities and living organisms contribute to variations in albedo, with grain
size likely to be the dominant factor (Tedesco et al., 2016). Over these regions, albedo
schemes and parameterizations have been employed within regional and global
climate models. In the low-elevation ablation areas, modeling albedo is complicated
by the absence of a physical model that can account for the evolution of albedo
of bare-ice regions and by the amount and timing of ablation and precipitation
events which can cover or expose the dark ice surface beneath the snow, as well as
by the high degree of spatial heterogeneity of albedo over bare ice (e.g. Chandler
et al., 2015). Impurity content is high on bare-ice surfaces, especially along the socalled dark band region of the southwestern ablation area, due to a combination
of outcropping layers (Wientjes and Oerlemans, 2010; Wientjes et al., 2012) and
consolidation of impurities as a result of melting (Doherty et al., 2013). In this regard,
models currently prescribe either a fixed albedo in the case of several GCMs (e.g.,
NASA GISS) or do not account for the evolution of LAI and biological activity, and
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of priorities
& recommendations
Albedo
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of priorities
& recommendations
Albedo
increased melting inducing bare ice exposure, and exposure and consolidation
of impurities (Tedesco et al., 2016). However, the contribution of changes
in algal and microbial populations is not well understood. Climate models
exhibit biases and errors in both the mean value of ablation area albedo and
trends, if only a fixed bare-ice albedo is used (Alexander et al., 2014; van
Angelen et al., 2012). While satellite measurements can be used to derive
a background bare-ice albedo value (as mentioned above), changes in ice
albedo associated with consolidation of impurities or other changes to bare
ice albedo are still missing from models (van Angelen et al., 2012; Tedesco
et al., 2016).
The participants indicated that further model development and observations are
required for surface albedo, with this requirement being second only to the need to
understand and quantify meltwater runoff and outflow from the GrIS. The need to
understand and improve simulations of albedo variations, especially in the ablation
area, was a key point of the discussion, with emphasis on the albedo of those areas
exhibiting bare-ice exposure during summer. Workshop participants perceived a
strong need for additional albedo measurements with respect to the current existing
observational automatic network, in order to characterize spatial and temporal
variations in surface albedo at a high spatial resolution. This, among other things, would
benefit the improvement and development of current parameterization schemes
for albedo models that can be included in regional and general climate models. The
need for a denser and extended set of albedo measurements is also driven by the
increasing spatial resolution of models, it was argued, supporting a much-needed
improved understanding of the spatial variations and physical causes of albedo
changes. Reanalysis tools are currently tested for spatial resolutions of the order of
a few kilometers, and the only impediment for regional models to be run at spatial
scales of hundreds of meters is mostly related to computational limitations. Moreover,
statistical downscaling techniques, supported by new digital elevation models of
Greenland with a horizontal resolution of a few meters based on commercial satellite
measurements, are already used to produce downscaled RCM and post processed
reanalysis outputs over Greenland of the order of 1 km for runoff.
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of priorities
& recommendations
Albedo
21
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of priorities
& recommendations
"The workshop participants recognized the need for processbased studies of snow and firn density and compaction rates, often
utilizing field-based and/or airborne measurements and the need
for more recent observations."
The density and structure of Greenlands firn have changed during several decades
of atmospheric warming. In recent years, the areas of the wet snow and percolation
regions have rapidly expanded to elevations >2500 meters, particularly in southern
Greenland (de la Pea et al., 2015). In these wet snow and percolation regions,
meltwater infiltrates into the firn and refreezes to form heterogeneous networks of ice
lenses and pipes. In high-accumulation regions such as coastal southeast Greenland,
where the annual snow layer is thick - effectively insulating the subsurface - meltwater
can saturate firn at depth without refreezing, forming perennial aquifers. Increases
in meltwater and refreezing have not only caused the ice sheets surface to lower in
elevation, but have also increased the heterogeneous refreezing in the firn column,
changing the stratigraphy and thermal structure of the firn while complicating
short-term calculations of firn density. In some regions of the lower accumulation
zone, increases in meltwater production have caused near-surface firn to saturate
and contribute to runoff (Machguth, et al. 2016, Mikkelson, et al. 2016). Given the
subsurface nature of these firn changes, they remain a challenge to measure directly
with spaceborne remote sensing techniques. Our understanding of recent changes in
Greenlands firn has been driven largely by process-based field and airborne studies,
as well as parameterized simulations from regional climate models. Such RCMs
22
utilize multi-layered firn density routines in their calculations to provide regional and
ice-sheet-wide simulations of firn processes. However, these routines often utilize
assumptions that can omit the actual conditions on the ice sheet. This is partially
because they operate at coarser resolutions than the processes that control them,
thereby lacking the parameterization needed for full simulation of the ice sheet
wide density profiles. Rigorous comparisons between regional climate models and
ground-based density profiles are difficult, particularly in regions of high melt and
refreeze activity such as the percolation zone of Greenland (e.g., Munneke et al., 2015).
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of priorities
& recommendations
Firn Density & Compaction
The workshop participants recognized the need for process-based studies of snow
and firn density and compaction rates, often utilizing field-based and/or airborne
measurements. In order, to maximize the utility and availability of field measurements
from a broad array of sources, the Surface Mass Balance and Snow on Sea Ice Working
Group (SumUp) has compiled available field-based measurements of density,
accumulation and other variables into a single common publicly available dataset,
which currently includes more than 60 locations from Greenlands accumulation
zone. However, there is a need for more recent observations, in light of the recent
Greenland warming and the altered firn column resulting from increased surface melt
and temperature impacts on the ice column. These activities should complement the
ongoing efforts currently funded by NASA and NSF (e.g., drilling repeat snow pits
and firn cores in order to better constrain recent short-term changes in compaction
rates; cosmic rays measurements; in situ GPR). The participants highlighted the
need to sustain these efforts that are advancing our abilities to measure density
and compaction rates in Greenlands rapidly changing firn and extend these efforts
23
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of priorities
& recommendations
Accumulation
accumulation. Recent work has found that accumulation records extending back for
many decades to centuries may be extracted from CReSIS. Other methods, including
automatic weather station sonic rangers, in situ GPS and the use of remote altimetry
measurements, are less widely used. Observed accumulation from these methods
may also be difficult to discern from ice sheet dynamics, firn compaction, and other
24
processes. For RCMs some of the uncertainty in accumulation lies with boundary
forcing datasets, including reanalyses and global climate models. The area-averaged
amount of PE within an RCMs domain must necessarily be consistent with the
moisture transports at the boundaries that are given by these other sources (e.g.
mass conservation). But the spatial distribution of modelled accumulation within the
domain is determined by a variety of factors including local cloud and atmospheric
moisture processes, resolution of the topography, and surface turbulent fluxes.
Many participants initially expressed the view that other components of SMB
especially runoff had greater priority than accumulation, but acknowledge that
uncertainty in accumulation values remains a substantial barrier to fully understand
Priorities &
recommendations
Identification of priorities
& recommendations
Accumulation
25
Summary
The workshop held at Lamont offered a unique opportunity to address the issues
related to reducing the uncertainty of SMB GrIS estimates. From the discussion, four
themes emerged as top priorities to be addressed: 1) meltwater production and
runoff; 2) albedo; 3) density and compaction; 4) accumulation.
The participants agreed that understanding meltwater runoff, routing and retention
processes is essential in order to make future projections, indicating an urgent need
to compare the outputs of SMB models and validate them using in-situ data. It was
agreed that a major challenge in validating and improving simulations of modelled
runoff is the lack of availability of suitable in-situ data from a sufficient range of
locations and timespans. It was therefore regarded as critical to collect and assess
more data on runoff, prioritizing the percolation zone where melt and retention are
rapidly changing and the most complete in-situ melt and runoff measurements are
currently collected. Furthermore, the participants indicated that existing proglacial
river discharge data records should be extended and efforts continued to make these
more readily available to the scientific community. The participants suggested that a
possible measurement strategy would be to design a long-term monitoring megasite
or multiple mega-sites.
26
The participants pointed out that most processes controlling albedo over the GrIS
(such as the impact of biological activity on albedo, the spatio-temporal evolution of
cryoconite, meltwater streams, and the spectral albedo of old, dirty ice) are not well
enough understood to allow their inclusion in current SMB models and that sensors
collecting optical data (e.g., MODIS, Sentinel-2, LANDSAT) do not have the required
radiometric resolution to resolve such processes. The participants also agreed that
modeling albedo is complicated by the absence of a physical model that can account
for the evolution of bare-ice exposure and by the amount and timing of ablation and
precipitation events which can cover or expose the dark ice surface beneath the snow.
The high degree of spatial heterogeneity of albedo over bare ice was also indicated
as a major problem. The workshop attendees noted that current major limitations
in models are driven by the fact that they prescribe either a fixed albedo (e.g. some
GCMs) or do not account for the evolution of impurities and biological activity. In
this context, the attendees indicated that the source and significance of satellitederived trends at high elevation need to be better understood, whereas at low
elevations albedo is indisputably declining but the contribution of changes in algal
and microbial populations, light-absorbing impurities and bare ice exposure is not
properly understood and partitioned. Further model development and observations
are required for surface albedo. In particular, the attendees perceived a strong need
for additional albedo measurements with respect to the current existing observational
automatic network, in order to characterize spatial and temporal variations in surface
albedo
high 2016
spatial and radiometric resolutions, with the need for a denser and
Photoat
by a
J. Harbeck,
extended set of albedo measurements being also driven by the increasing spatial
resolution of regional and climate models. A need for additional continuous point-
Summary
measurements, how best to exploit them and what new measurements or technology
the participants thought are necessary to meet unfilled requirements. Table 2 indicates
requirements that the participants identified concerning the four top priorities. The
responses synthesized in Table 2 should serve as a starting point for funding agencies
and the scientific for improving estimates of GrIS SMB. Obviously the outcomes of
the workshop are dependent on the participants who were able to attend, though
the correspondence between web-surveyed and attendees answers points to the
direction that the workshop participants captured some of the major issues to be
addressed. In view of this consideration, one follow-up action that was discussed at
the workshop was to request support for a sustained and continuous effort to refine
the outcomes of this workshop in the form of a Greenland Surface Mass Balance
Working Group. Four different subgroups (SGs) on the identified priority themes (e.g.,
runoff, albedo, densification and accumulation) can work collaboratively to expand
on the discussion at the workshop and provide improved guidance on the steps to
undertake. The groups will be co-led by two people, to reduce potential conflict of
interest and not to overload one single person with such commitment. Moreover,
there will be two liasons for timely communicating the ongoing work of the WG with
respect to atmospheric models and to focus on data sharing, collection and re-use.
The WG can interact on a monthly or bi-monthly basis via telecons, and will meet in
person at AGU and/or at the annual PARCA meeting (before or after the meeting).
28
Summary
Potential Additional
Measurements /
NewTechnologies
Underutilized historical
datasets
hydropower
measurements.
measurements)
Albedo
products
LandSat
Transects
Firn
probe density measurements
In situ:
archived data
compaction monitors
Accumulation
roving radars
data
GPS
GEUS archive
unmanned rovers
retrieval algorithms.
Table 2. Summary of currently available and future measurements needed for capturing GrIS SMB.
29
Meltwater
retention &
runoff
Albedo
Firn
Accumulation
Spatial
resolution
Multiple scales
from 1 m to basin
catchment (e.g. 5
x 5 km)
1 m (process)
and km (model)
scales
5 m 1 km
From km scale
to 5 km, though
5 m was also
suggested
Spatial
extent
Ablation and
percolation zones,
whole Ice sheet
Traverse,
accumulation
zone, sample
of different
conditions
Temporal
resolution
Hourly
(preferred) or
daily
Hourly or daily/
sub-daily
From daily to
seasonal
At least daily.
Weekly,
acceptable but
less preferable
Temporal
extent
Long term (+ 10
years) or whole
melt season
continously
Long term (+ 10
years) or year
around
Accuracy
5-20%
<0.5 % - 3 %
10 % or better
5 % preferably
(10 % as a second
choice)
Priority
regions
Percolation
and lower
accumulation
zone
Accumulation and
percolation zones
SE Greenland
below ELA or the
whole ice sheet
Table 3. Requirements for addressing key priorities in capturing GrIS SMB in models and measurements.
30
31
References
Alexander, P.M., M. Tedesco, X. Fettweis, R. Van De Wal, C.J.P.P. Smeets, M.R. Van Den Broeke. 2014. Assessing
spatio-temporal variability and trends in modelled and measured Greenland Ice Sheet albedo (20002013).
The Cryosphere 8: 2293-2312, doi:10.5194/tc-8-293-2014.
Benning, L.G., A.M. Anesio, S. Lutz and M. Tranter. 2014. Biological impact on Greenlands albedo. Nat.
Geosci. 7: 691.
Box, J. E., X. Fettweis, J. C. Stroeve, M. Tedesco, D. K. Hall, and K. Steffen. 2012. Greenland ice sheet albedo
feedback: thermodynamics and atmospheric drivers. The Cryosphere 6 (4): 821-839, doi: 10.5194/tc-6-8212012.
Citterio, M., D. van As, A. P. Ahlstrm, M. L. Andersen, S. B. Andersen, J. E. Box, C. Charalampidis, W. T. Colgan,
R. S. Fausto, S. Nielsen, and M. Veicherts (2015) Automatic weather stations for basic and applied research,
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin, 33, 69-72.
Fettweis, X. (2007), Reconstruction of the 1979-2006 Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance using the
regional climate model MAR, The Cryosphere, 1, 2140.Fettweis, X., M. van den Broeke, W. J. van de Berg, A.
Belleflamme, B. Franco, and M. Erpicum (2011), Evaluation of the Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance
simulated by a regional climate model forced by some selected IPCC AR5/CMIP5 AOGCMs over the current
climate.
Hanna, E., Huybrechts, P., Cappelen, J., Steffen, K., Bales, R.C., Burgess, E.W., McConnell, J.R., Steffensen, J. P.,
van den Broeke, M., Wake, L., Bigg, G.R., Griffiths, M. and Savas, D. (2011). Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass
balance 1870 to 2010 based on Twentieth Century Reanalysis, and links with global climate forcing. Journal
of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, 116, D24121.
Hanna, E., F.J. Navarro, F. Pattyn, C. Domingues, X. Fettweis, E. Ivins, R.J. Nicholls, C. Ritz, B. Smith, S. Tulaczyk,
P. Whitehouse & J. Zwally (2013) Ice-sheet mass balance and climate change. Nature 498, 51-59,
doi: 10.1038/nature12238
Hanna, E., Fettweis, X., Mernild, S. H., Cappelen, J., Ribergaard, M. H., Shuman, C. A., Steffen, K., Wood, L. and
Mote, T. L. (2014), Atmospheric and oceanic climate forcing of the exceptional Greenland ice sheet surface
melt in summer 2012. Int. J. Climatol., 34: 10221037. doi: 10.1002/joc.3743
Hanna, E., Cropper, T. E., Hall, R. J. and Cappelen, J. (2016), Greenland Blocking Index 18512015: a regional
climate change signal. Int. J. Climatol.. doi: 10.1002/joc.4673
Kuipers Munneke, P., S. R. M. Ligtenberg, B. P. Y. Nol, I. M. Howat, J. E. Box, E. Mosley-Thompson, J.
R. McConnell, K. Steffen, J. T. Harper, S. B. Das and M. R. van den Broeke. 2015. Elevation change of the
Greenland ice sheet due to surface mass balance and firn processes, 1960-2014. The Cryosphere, 9, 20092025. doi:10.5194/tc-9-2009-2015
Lutz, S., A.M. Anesio, R. Raiswell, A. Edwards, R.J. Newton, F. Gill, and L.G. Benning. 2016. The biogeography
of red snow microbiomes and their role in melting arctic glaciers. Nature Communications 7: 11968, doi:
10.1038/ncomms11968.
Moon, T, Joughin, I & Smith, B, 2015, Seasonal to multiyear variability of glacier surface velocity, terminus
position, and sea ice/ice mlange in northwest Greenland. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface,
vol 120., pp. 818-833
Moon, T, Joughin, I, Smith, B, Broeke, MR, Berg, WJ, Nol, B & Usher, M, 2014, Distinct patterns of seasonal
Greenland glacier velocity. Geophysical Research Letters, vol 41., pp. 7209-7216
Nghiem, S. V., D. K. Hall, T. L. Mote, M. Tedesco, M. R. Albert, K. Keegan, C. A. Shuman, N. E. DiGirolamo, and
G. Neumann (2012), The extreme melt across the Greenland ice sheet in 2012, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39(20),
L20502, doi:10.1029/2012GL053611.
32
Nol, B., van de Berg, W. J., Machguth, H., Lhermitte, S., Howat, I., Fettweis, X., and van den Broeke, M. R.: A
daily, 1 km resolution data set of downscaled Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance (19582015), The
Cryosphere, 10, 2361-2377, doi:10.5194/tc-10-2361-2016, 2016.
Pfeffer, W. T., and C. S. Bretherton, 1987: The effect of crevasses on the solar heating of a glacier surface.
The Physical Basis of Icesheet Modelling (Proceedings of the Vancouver Symposium, August, 1987), IAHS
Publication 170, 191-205.
Shepherd, A. et al. (2012), A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance, Science, 338(6111), 11831189,
doi:10.1126/science.1228102.
Steffen, K., J. E. Box, and W. Abdalati (1996) Greenland Climate Network, GC-Net, in: CRREL 96-27 Special
report on glaciers, ice sheets and volcanoes, trib. to M. Meier, edited by: S. C. Colbeck, US Army Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), Hanover, New Hampshire, USA, 98-103.
Tedesco, M., X. Fettweis, M. R. van den Broeke, R. S. W. van de Wal, C. J. P. P. Smeets, W. J. van de Berg, M. C.
Serreze, and J. E. Box (2011), The role of albedo and accumulation in the 2010 melting record in Greenland,
Environ. Res. Lett., 6(1), 014005, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014005.
Tedesco, M., X. Fettweis, T. Mote, J. Wahr, P. Alexander, J. E. Box, and B. Wouters (2013), Evidence and analysis
of 2012 Greenland records from spaceborne observations, a regional climate model and reanalysis data,
The Cryosphere, 7(2), 615630, doi:10.5194/tc-7-615-2013.
Tedesco, M., J. E. Box, T. S. Jensen, T. Mote, A. K. Rennermalm, L. C. Smith, R. S. W. Van de Wal, and J.
Wahr (2014), Greenland, in State of the Climate 2013, vol. 95, pp. S136S138, Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society.
Tedesco, M., T. Mote, X. Fettweis, E. Hanna, J. Jeyaratnam, J.F. Booth, R. Datta, K. Briggs (2016) Arctic cut-off
high drives the poleward shift of a new Greenland melting record. Nature Communications 7:11723,
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11723.
M. Tedesco and N. Steiner, In-situ multispectral and bathymetric measurements over a supraglacial lake in
western Greenland using a remotely controlled watercraft (2011), The Cryosphere, 5, 445-452
van Angelen, J. H., J. T. M. Lenaerts, S. Lhermitte, X. Fettweis, P. Kuipers Munneke, M. R. van den Broeke,
E. van Meijgaard, and C. J. P. P. Smeets (2012), Sensitivity of Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass balance to
surface albedo parameterization: a study with a regional climate model, The Cryosphere, 6(5), 11751186,
doi:10.5194/tc-6-1175-2012.
van den Broeke, M. R., Enderlin, E. M., Howat, I. M., Kuipers Munneke, P., Nol, B. P. Y., van de Berg, W. J., van
Meijgaard, E., and Wouters, B.: On the recent contribution of the Greenland ice sheet to sea level change,
The Cryosphere, 10, 1933-1946, doi:10.5194/tc-10-1933-2016, 2016.
van de Wal, R. S. W., W. Greuell, M. R. van dne Broeke, C. H. Reijmer, and J. Oerlemans (2005) Surface massbalance observations and automatic weather station data along a transect near Kangerlussuaq, West
Greeenland, Ann. Glaciol., 42, 311-316.
Velicogna, I. and J. Wahr, 2006. Significant acceleration of Greenland ice mass loss in spring, 2004. Nature,
022 Sep 2006; doi:10.1038/nature05168.
Vernon, C. L., Bamber, J. L., Box, J. E., van den Broeke, M. R., Fettweis, X., Hanna, E., and Huybrechts, P.: Surface
mass balance model intercomparison for the Greenland ice sheet, The Cryosphere, 7, 599-614, doi:10.5194/
tc-7-599-2013, 2013.
Warren S. and Wiscombe J, A model for the spectral albedo of snow. I: Pure snow, Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences, 1980
Wilton, D.J., A. Jowett, E. Hanna, G.R. Bigg, M.R. van den Broeke, X. Fettweis (2016) High-resolution (1 km)
positive degree-day modelling of Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance. J. Glaciol., in revision.
33
Organizing
Committee
34
Marco
Tedesco
Patrick
Alexander
Robin
Bell
LDEO
NASA
LDEO
Kate
Briggs
Indrani
Das
Mike
MacFerrin
University
of
Leeds
LDEO
CIRES/CU
Edward
Hanna
Lora
Koenig
sa
Rennermalm
University
of
Sheffield
NSIDC
Rutgers
University
Ahlstroem, Andreas
apa@geus.dk
Alexander, Patrick
tapat64@gmail.com
Anurag, Kumar
anurag2mnscoss@gmail.com
Briggs, Kate
k.h.briggs@leeds.ac.uk
Courville, Zoe
zoe.r.courville@usace.army.mil
Cullather, Richard
richard.cullather@nasa.gov
Das , Indrani
indrani@ldeo.columbia.edu
Delapena, Santiago
santiagodpr@gmail.com
Eyre, Jack
jeyre@email.arizona.edu
Fischer, Elizabeth
elizabeth.fischer@columbia.edu
Hanna, Edward
ehanna@sheffield.ac.uk
Hiester, Justin
hiester@utexas.edu
Leidman, Sasha
szleidman@ucdavis.edu
Lipovsky, Brad
brad_lipovsky@fas.harvard.edu
Lu, Qianyun
qlu@rsmas.miami.edu
MacFerrin, Michael
michael.macferrin@colorado.edu
MacGregor, Joseph
joseph.a.macgregor@nasa.gov
Madan, Gaurav
gaurav@iycn.in
Medley, Brooke
brooke.c.medley@nasa.gov
Muthyala, Rohi
rohireddy@gmail.com
Neumann, Tom
thomas.neumann@nasa.gov
Niwano, Masashi
mniwano@mri-jma.go.jp
Noel, Brice
b.p.y.noel@uu.nl
Osterberg, Erich
erich.c.osterberg@dartmouth.edu
Overeem, Irina
irina.overeem@colorado.edu
Overly, Thomas
thomas.b.overly@dartmouth.edu
Pitcher, Lincoln
lincolnpitcher@ucla.edu
Rack, Frank
frack2@unl.edu
Rajashree, Datta
tri.datta@gmail.com
Rathore, Saurabh
rohitsrb2020@gmail.com
Rennermalm, sa
asa.rennermalm@rutgers.edu
Sasgen, Ingo
ingo.sasgen@awi.de
Schlegel, Nicole
schlegel@jpl.nasa.gov
Simonsen, Sebastian
ssim@space.dtu.dk
Smith, Larry
lsmith@geog.ucla.edu
Stevens, Max
maxstev@uw.edu
Tedesco, Marco
mtedesco@ldeo.columbia.edu
van As, Dirk
dva@geus.dk
van de Wal, Roderik
r.s.w.vandewal@uu.nl
Velicogna, Isabella
isabella@uci.edu
Webb, Charles
charles.webb@nasa.gov
Yang, Kang
yangkangnju@gmail.com
Participants
35
Participant
demographics
N=33
36
Pre-workshop
web survey
responses
N=32
37
Pre-workshop
web survey
responses
N=32
38
Pre-workshop
web survey
responses
N=32
39
Pre-workshop
web survey
responses
N=32
40
Where do you think SMB processes and quantities are BEST captured/measured (e.g.
accumulation in northwest, runoff in southwest, dry zone, etc.)?
SMB is captured better in dry zone than in the ablation zone. Runoff is only
captured in the west-southwest and has remained untested in many other regions.
Runoff west.
Satellite derived estimates of Greenland wide mass loss (GRACE) and albedo.
Accumulation in the typically- dry snow zone.
Runoff: Best measurements in west/southwest where there are streams that feed
into moulins. Accumulation/Density: Best measurements are obtained at higher
elevations where ablation is minimal. Modelling: Given the relative scarcity of
observations it is difficult to say where models do the best job. In general, higher
elevations with little surface heterogeneity are easier to model.
Surface melt and runoff in southwest.
Dry snow zone (a shrinking area) is best for accumulation. The percolation zone,
particularly in the western slope of the ice sheet, is where changes in SMB trends
are most interesting.
First 4 points in 6 = SW-central Greenland (Dye2) at point scale, area wise along
the K transect, rest dry snow zone around summit .
I think the least unknown area is the dry snow zone due to the relative
homogeneity and the relative simplistic processes (in the absence of liquid water),
but there is also a lack of measurements in this area that could come into play with
warming temperatures.
Melt + accumulation best in Western Greenland. Accumulation in central
Greenland.
Overall, SMB is BEST captured in the DRY SNOW ZONE. Accumulation and
sublimation are all you need.
The dry and accumulation area of Northeast, should be the test ground for "dry"
greenlandic conditions. Whereas percolation and run-off should be measured in
the southwest.
SW: melt, run-off NW: accumulation.
Accumulation and runoff in southwest.
High ablation zone.
Accumulation in dry zone/northeast
Dry snow zone.
Southwest ablation zone.
SMB processes and quantities are regional by nature, so this would be a long list
of each process and their relative prominence in each region.
Ablation in Kangerlussuaq region.
K-transect
Meteorological and runoff processes in west and south.
Accumulation above 1800m, especially north of Summit.
Runoff in southwest, calving in the west.
Dry-snow zone: there are just fewer processes to consider!
Accumulation areas and the West.
Dry snow zone.
Accumulation southwest Melting in southwest.
Pre-workshop
web survey
responses
41
Pre-workshop
web survey
responses
Where do you think SMB processes and quantities are WORST captured/measured (e.g.
accumulation in northwest, runoff in southwest, dry zone, etc.)?
42
The SW is the most active region and should see more monitoring (AWS stations,
river, super-site?).
Accumulation southeast.
Accumulation in the north.
Melt water runoff/storage in the south and SE.
Runoff: No measurements currently outside of the west/southwest, especially
difficult along the southeast coast, where remote sensing can't help with
measuring runoff in streams, etc. Accumulation/density: There are few in situ
measurements in ablation areas. Models: In general, where there are more
processes involved, and more negative SMB, i.e. low elevations, there is more
uncertainty in the model results.
Northwest and northeast.
Low accumulation regions, particularly in the North, are difficult to measure. Same
with high accumulation areas like domes: besides the logistics, the relationship
between accumulation, temperature, and densification is non-linear.
Runoff in the southwest.
Accumulation in south west, melt in ablation zone in SW, accumulation in NE.
Runoff in the marginal zone (upper ablation, lower accumulation) all around the
ice sheet.
Snow on Tundra in SW.
Accumulation in southeast ablation zone.
Low ablation zone (i.e. southwest Greenland) where turbulent fluxes/runoff are
highly underestimated in models.
Runoff in south and southeast.
Water retention and accumulation in Southeast and melt water production in
southwest.
Interior and Southeast.
SMB processes and quantities are regional by nature, so this would be a long list
of each process and their relative prominence in each region.
Accumulation in Southwest, percolation anywhere
Southeast.
Accumulation in dry zone. Runoff in east and north.
Accumulation below 1800m, especially south of Summit and the whole southeast
region
Accumulation zone
Percolation zone: the combination of snow accumulation, melt production and
percolation, and eventual refreezing is largely too complex to model (and even
measure).
Ablation processes in the South East.
Probably in the southeast, and in the high-slope ablation zones.
Accumulation souheast.
Which tools (modelling/remote sensing/in situ) do you think are needed to reduce the
uncertainty on Greenland SMB estimates and projections?
Pre-workshop
web survey
responses
43
Pre-workshop
web survey
responses
Which tools (modelling/remote sensing/in situ) do you think are needed to reduce the
uncertainty on Greenland SMB estimates and projections? (contd.)
44
In terms of modeling, I would like to know how deep firn layers we should consider
to obtain realistic runoff rate. Also, I think we should have a realistic GrIS surface
type mask.
We need much better intercomparison between GrIS SMB model output from
different models, and validation/comparison with in situ/remote sensing data.
Thanks so much for putting this timely workshop together!
A focus on effects and importance of rain on ice sheet surface processes.
Fantastic opportunity to talk with everyone, thanks for helping host!
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
We present a validation of the Ice Sheet System Model (ISSM) new capability,
the Global Energy and Mass Balance (GEMB) surface model, over Greenland.
GEMB is a 1D vertical surface model whose recent implementation into ISSM
will allow it to compute its own surface mass balance (SMB) and firn properties
rather than depending on the outputs of other models as it was previously
the case. A vertical temperature profile resulting from thermal diffusion
and energy absorption (downward shortwave and longwave radiation and
turbulent heat fluxes) is computed for each firn column. The amount of melt
resulting from positive temperatures is then computed for each grid cell.
Percolation and refreezing through the firn column are modeled as well,
allowing for a computation of the amount of meltwater runoff. Evaporation
and condensation are computed in the turbulent fluxes module. The firn
densification and grain growth modules of GEMB compute firn properties
such as firn density, grain size, sphericity and dendricity in the firn column.
Here, we force GEMB at the surface with atmospheric forcings (temperature,
precipitation, wind velocity, longwave and shortwave radiation) coming from
regional climate models (MAR and RACMO2). We present a validation of
GEMB density profiles over Greenland against measured ones and modeled
profiles from various firn densification models. We also show a comparison
between the temporal and spatial variation of the simulated SMB and SMB
measurements as well as outputs from regional climate models.
This work was performed at the California Institute of Technologys Jet
Propulsion Laboratory under a contract with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administrations Cryosphere Science Program.
45
ON
THE
UTILIZATION
QUANTIFICATION
ESTIMATES OF
TO
OF
ICE
INTERPRET
FLOW
THE
MODELS
IMPACT
OF
AND
SMB
UNCERTAINTY
ERRORS
ON
During July of 2012, the percentage of the Greenland surface exposed to melt
was the largest in recorded history. How Greenland ice flow responds to such
an event or to increased frequencies of extreme melt events in the future is
unclear, as it requires detailed comprehension of Greenland surface climate
and the ice sheets sensitivity to associated uncertainties. With established
uncertainty quantification tools embedded within the Ice Sheet System
Model (ISSM), we conduct decadal-scale forward modeling experiments
to 1) quantify the spatial resolution needed to effectively force distinct
components of surface mass balance (SMB) in various regions of the ice sheet
and 2) determine the dynamic response of Greenland ice flow to variations
in SMB components. First, we perform sensitivity analyses to determine
how perturbations in various SMB components affect model output; these
model experiments allow us to predict where and on what spatial scale the
ice sheet is likely to dynamically respond to changes in SMB. Preliminary
results suggest that SMB should be forced at at least a resolution of 23 km
to properly capture dynamic ice response. In addition, Monte-Carlo style
sampling analyses reveals that the areas with the largest uncertainty in mass
flux are located near the equilibrium line altitude (ELA), upstream of major
outlet glaciers in the North and West of the ice sheet. Sensitivity analysis
indicates that these areas are also the most vulnerable on the ice sheet to
persistent, far-field shifts in SMB, suggesting that continued warming, and
upstream shift in the ELA, are likely to result in increased velocities, and
consequently SMB-induced thinning upstream of major outlet glaciers. Here,
we extend our investigation to consider each SMB component separately, in
order to determine how and where errors in these fields may independently
impact ice flow.
This work is performed at the California Institute of Technologys Jet
Propulsion Laboratory under a contract with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administrations Cryosphere Program.
46
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
GREENLAND
NEAR-SURFACE
AIR
TEMPERATURE
CLIMATE:
J. Eyre, X. Zeng
Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
The Greenland ice sheet is a key indicator of climate change and its melting
is a significant contribution to sea level rise. Near-surface air temperature
plays an important role in the ice sheet mass balance. In fact, it is directly
used in the simple Positive Degree Day (PDD) model to quantify surface
mass balance. While some reanalysis datasets have been assessed over
Greenland and used for PDD modeling, a number of datasets (reanalysis,
satellite, model and interpolated in situ) remain untested for this application.
Here we present a comprehensive assessment of mean climate, seasonal and
diurnal variations of air temperature in such datasets by comparing with in
situ measurements on and around the ice sheet.
47
AND
2013
The Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) experienced two years of extreme mass
balance in 2012 and 2013; while 2012 exhibited exceptionally vigorous ice
loss in summer, the ice sheet was close to balance in 2013. Here we analyse
the output of two GrIS surface-mass balance models and compare them to
GRACE and CryoSat-2 satellite observations. We show that the 2012 losses
were caused by enhanced melt production, mainly originating in the southwest of the ice sheet. In contrast, melt production was much lower in 2013
making this year similar to the conditions observed between the years 19601990, in which the ice sheet is considered to have been close to balance. To
a large extent, the observed mass variability is a consequence of the largescale North Atlantic atmospheric circulation, as reflected by the North
Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index; circulation either favors transporting heat
from the mid latitudes along the west coast of the GrIS or allows for more cold
air to flow from the Canadian Arctic. We show the level of agreement between
GRACE / CryoSat-2 and the atmospheric models, infer the snow, net melt
and ice dynamic contributions in the 2012 and 2013 mass balance anomalies,
and discuss whether pre-conditioning of the ice sheet in 2012 played a role
for the mass balance in 2013. The transition from extreme melt year to a
near-balance year is unprecedented in the multi-decadal records of the
atmospheric models; and both years are exceptional regarding the trends.
48
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
ON
GREENLAND
LEVEL CHANGE
We assess the recent contribution of the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) to sea
level change. We use the mass budget method, which quantifies ice sheet
mass balance (MB) as the difference between surface mass balance (SMB)
and solid ice discharge across the grounding line (D). A comparison with
independent gravity change observations from GRACE shows good agreement
for the overlapping period 2002-2015, giving confidence in the partitioning
of recent GrIS mass changes. The estimated 1995 value of D and the 19581995 average value of SMB are similar at 411 and 418 Gt yr-1, respectively,
suggesting that ice flow in the mid-nineties was well adjusted to the average
annual mass input, reminiscent of an ice sheet in approximate balance.
Starting in the early to mid-1990s, SMB decreased while D increased, leading
to quasi-persistent negative MB. About 60% of the associated mass loss since
1991 is caused by changes in SMB and the remainder by D. The decrease in
SMB is fully driven by an increase in surface melt and subsequent meltwater
runoff, which is slightly compensated by a small (< 3%) increase in snowfall.
The excess runoff originates from low-lying (< 2000 m a.s.l.) parts of the
ice sheet; higher up, increased refreezing prevents runoff of meltwater to
occur, at the expense of increased firn temperatures and depleted pore space.
With a 1991-2015 average annual mass loss of 0.47 +/- 0.23 mm sea level
equivalent (SLE) and a peak contribution of 1.2 mm SLE in 2012, the GrIS has
recently become a major source of global mean sea level rise.
49
IMPRINTS
RECORD.
OF
FIRN
CHANGES
IN
THE
CRYOSAT-2
RADAR
ALTIMETRY
50
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
WHAT
HAPPENS
DOWNSTREAM;
THE
EFFECTS
OF
GRIS
MASS
LOSS
51
MONITORING
GREENLAND
ICE
SHEET
SURFACE
MASS
BALANCE
COMPONENTS
D. van As, A.P. Ahlstrom, S.B. Andersen, M. Citterio, R.S. Fausto, A.M. Solgaard,
J.E. Box
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), Copenhagen, Denmark
52
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
DEGLACIATION-INDUCED
UPLIFT
OF
THE
PETERMANN
GLACIER
ICE
The Greenland ice sheet is rapidly shrinking with the fastest retreat and
thinning occurring at the ice sheet margin and near the outlet glaciers. The
changes of the ice mass cause an elastic response of the bedrock. Ice mass
loss during the summer months is associated with uplift whereas ice mass
increase during the winter months is associated with subsidence. The German
TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X satellites have systematically observed selected
sites along the Greenland Petermann ice sheet margin since summer 2012.
Here we present ground deformation observations obtained using an InSAR
time-series approach based on small baseline interferograms. Deformation
observed by InSAR is consistent with GPS vertical observations. The time
series displacement data reveal not only net uplift but also the seasonal
variations. There is no strong relative between displacement changes and
SMB ice mass change. The seasonal variations in local area may caused by
both nearby SMB changes and ice dynamic changes.
53
54
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
QUANTIFYING
FIRN-MODEL
CONTRIBUTION
TO
UNCERTAINTY
IN
M. Stevens
Firn-densification models are needed to correct altimetry-derived estimates
of ice-sheet mass balance for firn-air content and transient firn-thickness
changes. We have developed the Community Firn Model (CFM) that allows
users to run firn-densification physics from a suite of published models.
Here, we use the CFM to intercompare firn-model predictions using data from
regional climate models. The firn depth-density profiles and thickness changes
predicted by the different models vary significantly; for example, the models
do not agree in the sign of the change in depth-integrated porosity since
1960 at some sites. Many of the firn-densification models were developed
using a steady-state assumption and were tuned for the dry-snow zones of
Greenland and Antarctica. Our results help quantify the uncertainty that is
introduced by firn-model predictions in estimates of ice-sheet mass balance,
and they demonstrate the challenges of using these models to simulate firn
density in Greenlands expanding wet firn and percolation zones.
55
DENSITIES:
ROLE
56
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
USING ATM
ESTIMATES
SHEET
AND
SUPRAGLACIAL
HYDROLOGY
OF
THE
GREENLAND ICE
57
CONTINUOUS,
58
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
AND
LOSSES
MEASURED
(2004-
S.E. Moustafa1, A.K. Rennermalm1, M. Tedesco2, T. Mote3, L.S. Koenig4, L.C. Smith5,
B. Hagerdorn6, I. Overeem7, R. Sletten8, A.B. Mikkelsen9, B. Hasholt10, D.K. Hall11
Department of Geography, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 54 Joyce Kilmer Avenue,
Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA
2
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of the Columbia University, New York, Palisades, NY 10964,
USA
3
Department of Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
4
National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, 1540 30th Ave., Boulder, CO 80303,
USA
5
Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, 1255 Bunche Hall, P. O. Box
951524, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
6
Applied Science and Engineering and Technology Laboratory, University of Alaska, Anchorage,
Anchorage, AK 99508, USA
7
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
8
Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
9
Department of Geoscience and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen,
ster Voldgade 10, 1350 Kbenhavn K,Denmark
10
Institute of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen,
Copenhagen, Denmark
11
Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740,
USA
1
Increased surface meltwater runoff, that exits the Greenland ice sheet(GrIS)
margin via supra-, en-, and sub-glacial drainage networks into fjords, proglacial lakes and rivers, accounts for half or more of total mass loss. Despite
its importance, modeled meltwater runoff fluxes are poorly constrained,
primarily due to a lack of direct in situ observations. Here, we present the
first ever longitudinal (north-south) inter-comparison of a multi-year
dataset (2004-2014) of discharge for four drainage basinsWatson,
Akuliarusiarsuup Kuua,Naujat Kuat, and North Rivers-along West Greenland.
These in situ hydrologic measurements are compared with modeled runoff
output from Modle Atmosphrique Rgional (MAR) regional climate model,
and the performance of the model is examined. An analysis of the relationship
between modeled and actual ice sheet runoff patternsis assessed, and
provides insight into the models ability to capture inter-annual and intraannual variability, spatiotemporal patterns, and extreme melt events. This
studys findings will inform future development and parameterization of ice
sheet surface mass balance models.
59
INTERNALLY
DRAINED
CATCHMENTS
DOMINATE
SUPRAGLACIAL
60
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
SNOWFALL
ACROSS
MILLENNIUM FROM
THE
OVER
THE
PAST
61
We develop a regional climate model (RCM) for polar regions. The atmospheric
component of the RCM is JMA-NHM (Japanese Meteorological Agency
Non-Hydrostatic regional atmospheric Model), while temporal evolution
of physical conditions of snow and ice (including the surface mass balance;
SMB) is calculated by the physical snowpack model SMAP. The key feature
of the SMAP model is that it calculates the snow albedo by considering
effects of snow grain size and snow impurities explicitly. In addition, the
SMAP model calculates vertical water movement in snowpack by employing
the Richards equation to improve the SMB estimation. In this contribution,
we introduce and discuss the basic configuration and obtained performance
of the RCM forced by the Japanese 55-year reanalysis (JRA-55) applied in
the Greenland ice sheet. Model performance will be presented in terms of
surface meteorological conditions (simulation results are compared against
data from automated weather stations) as well as surface snow grain size
(inter-comparison against snow grain size retrieved from MODIS data will be
presented).
62
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
RADAR
TO
UNDERSTAND
63
OF
SURFACE
MASS
Surface Mass Balance (SMB) of the Greenland ice sheet has been estimated
using a number of different high resolution regional climate models
and statistical downscaling techniques. Comparing and evaluating these
simulations and estimating errors in them is however complicated by a lack
of observational data, particularly for regions that have high variability in
precipitation, high melt rates and/or are logistically inaccessible. In addition,
whereas most observations are point measurements, model outputs are from
grid cells which makes it hard to compare like with like reliably. However, new
datasets now available, including the SUMUP dataset (Koenig et al., 2016)
and the PROMICE historical SMB stake dataset (Machguth et al., 2016) allows
us to evaluate snow accumulation and surface mass balance rates over a
wide area and back through time for the first time. Combining these multiple
techniques with a small ensemble of simulations with the high resolution
(0.05) HIRHAM regional climate model allows us to derive much better
estimates of the uncertainty derived from the components in estimates of SMB
in Greenland. In addition, the application of the SIMEX statistical technique
allows us to pinpoint data-sparse regions that are particularly sensitive to
model errors. This is in particular useful for future observational campaigns
where scarce resources can be focused on areas of highest uncertainty.
64
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
SURFACE
MASS
BALANCE
MODEL
EVALUATION
FROM
SATELLITE
AND
65