Final Report SMB Workshop

WORKSHOP REPORT
SEPTEMBER 7 - 9 2016
LAMONT-DOHERTY EARTH OBSERVATORY
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Greenland
SURFACE MASS BALANCE
Understanding the fundamental processes controlling the surface

mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet and improving estimates
This workshop was sponsored by:

NASA Grant # NNX16AH38G
Report design by Saskia van Manen
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
Photo by J. Harbeck, 2016
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
historical evolution? Which measurements are currently available to constrain

these parameters? What are the uncertainties associated with estimates of
the parameters identified above and how are they spatially and temporally
distributed? Which measurements are most needed and where?
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
"There are still many challenges that limit our capability to

estimate current and project future contributions of the
Greenland Ice Sheet to sea level rise with the degree of
accuracy that is required to reduce the uncertainty of the
GrIS contribution to current and future sea level rise."
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
"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."
*Surveys of this type can be highly

informative, but we must keep in mind the limitations of
the procedure. Particularly, the respondents
answers may have been a literal response to the question
asked, or their answers may have been influenced by their
prior knowledge of the goal of the workshop i.e. to identify
the major uncertainties in Greenland SMB components.
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.
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.
Table 1. Summary of pre-workshop survey responses.
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:
Model boundary conditions

Albedo
Meltwater routing
Meltwater retention
Model validation
Accumulation
Clouds
Spatial resolution and scales
Quantifying uncertainty
Model inter-comparison
"The participants suggested that a possible measurement strategy

would be to design a long-term monitoring site or multiple megasites."
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:
Meltwater production and runoff

Albedo
Density and compaction
Accumulation
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
"The workshop participants agreed that it is critical to collect

and assess more data on runoff and priority should be given
to areas in the percolation zone and that existing proglacial
river discharge data records should be extended and make
new and existing data available to the scientific community."
projections. Lengthy group discussions about SMB models confirmed that there is
an urgent need to intercompare these models to validate them using in situ data,
and to incorporate important processes that are currently ignored. A preliminary
intercomparison of modeled outputs, focusing mainly on the ice-sheet-wide scale,
was published by Vernon et al. (2013), showing, among other things, that the range of
predictions in annual mass balance loss across different models is about 100 Gt. The
participants agreed that further studies are needed to include more detailed localregional-scale comparisons. The melt year of 2012 provided a (so far) rare opportunity
to assess extreme conditions, and despite the fact that melt extent was fairly well16
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
& recommendations
Meltwater production & runoff
"There is an urgent need to intercompare these models to validate

them using in situ data, and to incorporate important processes
that are currently ignored. 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."
delineation. The workshop participants agreed that it is critical to collect and assess
more data on runoff and priority should be given toareas included in the percolation
zone, where melt and retention are rapidly changing. Furthermore, existing proglacial
river discharge data records should be extended and efforts continued to make
these more readily available to the scientific community. For example, there are now
several continuous multi-year river gauging sites, notably in West Greenland, near
Kangerlussuaq, Nuuk, and Thule (also from commercial and hydropower companies).
Some of these gauging records now approach some 10 years in duration but they are
not available to the scientific community. Additionally long-term records of proglacial
lake level fluctuations exist within the Greenland government archives.
Discussion on identifying the most important study regions revealed that the most
complete in situ melt and runoff measurements are currently collected in Southwest
Greenland, in the Kangerlussuaq region, including dense radar surveying, a transect of
AWS stations, and river gauging. However, it was recognized that these observations
are not coincident with GPR surveys focused on firn compaction and retention.
Additionally, NE Greenland shows particularly large discrepancies in the outputs of
different SMB models but there are no currently-available validation data from this
region. The participants suggested that a possible measurement strategy would be
to design a long-term monitoring site, at the basin-scale, to do more integrated data
collection to assess all mass balance components and outflow. Because no single site
could possibly be representative of the entire ice sheet, three or four carefully chosen
and well-distributed sites might be a reasonable compromise.
17
Priorities &
recommendations
& 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
"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."
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
& recommendations
Albedo
"The participants indicated that further model development and

observations are required for surface albedo understand and
improve simulations of albedo variations, especially over those
areas exhibiting bare-ice exposure during summer."
some use satellite-derived albedo spatially static fields over bare ice (Alexander et al.
2014; van Angelen et al. 2012).
Satellite measurements of albedo from the Advanced Very High Resolution
Radiometer (AVHRR) and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
(MODIS; Hall et al., 2012; Schaaf et al., 2002) have been used to show that ice
sheet albedo is declining across the ice sheet and they provide spatially and
temporally distributed estimates of cloud-free albedo that can be compared
against in situ measurements. The source and significance of satellite-derived
trends at high elevation needs to be better understood, with some studies
attributing changes to increased deposition of impurities (Dumont et al.,
2014), and others citing documented sensor degradation of MODIS sensors
as the primary source (Polashenski et al., 2015).
At lower elevations, albedo is indisputably declining, probably as a result of
19
Priorities &
recommendations
& 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
"Hyperspectral measurements are also required to understand the

contribution of different materials to albedo."
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.
The participants expressed a need for additional continuous point-scale

measurements of albedo at a sub-daily resolution to understand its evolution
in the ablation area, and measurements from sensors mounted on unmanned
areal vehicles (UAVs) or aircrafts to bridge the gap between point-scale
20
measurements and 500 m to 1 km satellite pixel estimates. Hyperspectral

measurements are also required to understand the contribution of different
materials to albedo.
With regard to remote-sensing measurements, MODIS is operating past its
lifetime, and it is crucial that efforts are made to ensure that a spatially and
temporally continuous record of albedo is maintained into the future. The
Sentinel and MERIS satellites of the European Space Agency (ESA) need
to be cross-calibrated with MODIS to ensure continuity of the record, and
future satellite missions making hyperspectral measurements should also be
considered.
Priorities &
recommendations
& recommendations
Albedo
The participants agreed that a better understanding of the role of clouds

in the net solar radiation change is also required. This was perceived as an
inappropriate point of discussion due to the absence of participants with
relevant cloud modeling and remote sensing expertise. However, it was
strongly advocated to arrange focus meetings with subgroups in which both
Greenland SMB and cloud (and other atmospheric) experts would identify
issues and solutions.
21
Priorities &
recommendations
& recommendations
Firn Density &

Compaction
As snow accumulates on the GrIS, it solidifies into porous firn, a process

known as firn compaction. This layer of porous snow and firn in Greenland
varies in thickness from zero at the bare-ice margins to ~100 meters in the dry
snow interior. Density profiles and rates of compaction in firn are critical to
accurately interpret airborne and satellite laser and radar altimetry. Changes
in firn density must be quantified to accurately convert laser/radar derived
volume changes into mass balance and sea level estimates, for improving
SMB surface elevation change estimates, for converting two-way signal travel
time to depth and for computing accumulation rates. The ice-core community
uses firn density and compaction rates to determine the age of trapped air in
ice cores. This age-depth information is also crucial for the shallow ice radar
community for determining the age of the internal layers and for assimilating
laser and radar data into ice sheet models. Unknown changes in near-surface
density resulting from recent warming, which can range from ~330-550 kg/
m3 in the upper elevations and ~ 850-917 kg/m3 elsewhere will result in
large uncertainties in altimetry-derived mass balance. With ESAs Cryosat-2
in operation and NASAs ICESat-2 scheduled for launch soon, comprehensive
knowledge of recent firn density and compaction rates is critical to assess
Greenlands recent contribution to sea level rise.
"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
& 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
"The participants also recognized a distinct and ongoing need to

fully integrate ground-based and process-based studies such as
these into the firn modeling community, most notably for the RCM
developers. "
over other critical regions of the ice sheet. The participants also recognized a distinct
and ongoing need to fully integrate ground-based and process-based studies such
as these into the efforts of the firn modeling community, most notably for the RCM
developers. RCMs have only rarely used field-based measurements of firn for model
forcing or validation. This is crucial in light of the recent warming of Greenland and to
improve accuracy of laser/radar altimetry-derived continent-wide estimates of mass
balance and sea level rise.
23
Priorities &
recommendations
& recommendations
Accumulation
Accumulation is broadly defined as a composite of all processes by which snow or

ice is added to a glacier or an ice sheet - including snowfall, wind-deposited snow,
freezing rain, and water-vapor deposition. Large-scale climate models approximate
accumulation as the net of precipitation minus evaporation (PE), where evaporation
is the net vertical flux of water vapor. The collection of surface snow is the principal
mass input for the GrIS, and is the main positive input term for SMB. Blowing snow can
be important for redistributing mass at local scales but is difficult to constrain in RCMs.
The general pattern of accumulation consists of the largest values (~1-3 m yr1) over
the southeastern GrIS, a zone of relatively larger values along the western periphery,
and smaller values (<0.3 m yr1) at the highest elevations and in the northeast. The
accumulation maximum in the southeast is directly associated with the North Atlantic
storm track. Synoptic systems may also traverse North through Baffin Bay, resulting in
precipitation over the western flank of the ice sheet. While accumulation in the south
and east is strongly regulated by wintertime Atlantic storm tracks, accumulation in the
northern GrIS is seasonally limited by the moisture holding capacity of the atmosphere
and available nearby open water, resulting in greater accumulation in summer. While
these qualitative features are captured in a variety of models, there is considerable
uncertainty in the actual values, especially over the data-sparse southeastern GrIS.
This is reflected by large differences in several different currently-available/-used icesheet-wide compilations of net accumulation. In general, modelled accumulation is
validated with in situ ice cores, snow pits, and other glaciological methods. Shallow icecore data from much of southeast Greenland remain relatively sparse, compared with
much of the rest of the ice sheet, and further sampling sites are clearly needed, which
should thus be regarded as a clear measurement priority. In addition, accumulation
rates vary markedly with topography. Therefore sparse point measurements (although
often based on averages from several cores to mitigate effects of spatial variability)
may not be representative of a whole region. The OIB CReSIS radar is considered
an important advance for obtaining greater spatial distribution information for
"The participants agreed that there are feedback effects between

accumulation and other SMB processes, e.g. uncertainty in surface
accumulation may also directly lead into uncertainty in runoff
through the impact on albedo and that that consideration should
be given to increasing the in situ observational coverage of
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
& recommendations
Accumulation
"Interest was also expressed in formally collaborating with

atmospheric modelers or cloud physics specialists to better
understand and represent the processes associated with snow
accumulation and albedo."
SMB. Additionally, there are feedback effects between accumulation and other
SMB processes, e.g. uncertainty in surface accumulation may also directly lead
into uncertainty in runoff through the impact on albedo. Similarly to the case of
densification and compaction, several participants expressed the view that the
controls on precipitation processes - such as the representation of cloud physics,
the treatment of atmospheric moisture, characterization of atmospheric-circulation
changes and the reliability of boundary-forcing fields (i.e. reanalyses) - were beyond
the purview of the workshop, but consideration should be given to increasing the in
situ observational coverage of accumulation and using existing model outputs to help
define where these extra validation points are most needed. Improved observations
of rainfall were also advocated, due to the implications of rain fraction changes in
affecting the surface energy balance and SMB. Great interest was also expressed in
formally collaborating with atmospheric modelers or 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. It is also important
to use methods to quantify accumulation in areas beyond the dry-snow zone:
particularly precipitation over bare-ice locations. The participants endorsed an effort
for data recovery through the re-examination of old glaciological observations such
as old stake measurements, cores and pit measurements possibly in the GEUS or
PARCA archives that could be integrated into modern datasets. Improved spatial and
temporal information on the evaporative/sublimation flux was also discussed.
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-
scale measurements of albedo at a sub-daily resolution to understand its evolution in

the ablation area were also strongly advocated as well as measurements from sensors
mounted on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or aircraft to bridge the gap between
point-scale measurements and 500 m to 1 km satellite pixel estimates.
Changes in firn density were also identified as an important aspect that must be
quantified in order to accurately convert laser/radar derived volume changes into
mass balance and sea level estimates and for converting two-way signal travel time
to depth and for computing accumulation rates. Given the subsurface nature of
these firn changes, they remain a challenge to measure directly with space-borne
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. However, these routines
often utilize assumptions that can omit the actual conditions on the ice sheet, partly
because they operate at coarser resolutions than the processes that control them.
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. 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 and the 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.
The participants also recognized a distinct and ongoing need to fully integrate
ground-based and process-based studies such as these into the firn modeling
community, most notably for the RCM developers. RCMs have only rarely used fieldbased measurements of firn for model forcing or validation.
Summary
While qualitative features of accumulation are captured in a variety of models, there

is considerable uncertainty in the actual values, especially over the data-sparse
southeastern GrIS. The attendees agreed that shallow ice-core data from much of
southeast Greenland remain relatively sparse, compared with much of the rest of
the ice sheet, and further sampling sites are clearly needed, which should thus be
regarded as a clear measurement priority. The participants also agreed that some
of the uncertainty in accumulation lies with boundary forcing datasets, including
reanalyses and global climate models. There are also feedback effects between
accumulation and other SMB processes (e.g. uncertainty in surface accumulation
may also directly lead into uncertainty in runoff through the impact on albedo) and
that consideration should be given to increasing the in situ observational coverage of
accumulation. 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.
Following the activities that led to the identification of the priorities, the participants
were asked to regroup and answer the questions on four themes reported in the
Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 shows the outcome of the workshop survey on existing
27
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
Current and planned measurements
Meltwater retention & runoff
Additional measurements of supra- and
proglacial stream discharge, more AWS
Satellite: MODIS, Landsat, GRACE, Passive
Lake-level records for
hydropower
Microwave (future: SWATH Ka Band)
derived from existing ice core
In situ: Stream gauge measurements of
proglacial and supraglacial streams
Firn liquid water storage
measurements.
Private gauge data
in the ablation zone/lower accumulation

zone, probe density measurements, upward
looking radar
Combined data techniques (e.g. gauge
plus remote sensing measurements), glacier

plumes, ocean salinity/density during melt
season peak
Supersite/observatory (one place for all
measurements)
Albedo
Satellite: MODIS daily and 16-day albedo
products
Old AWS records
LandSat
In situ: Automatic weather stations (AWS: GC-
hyperspectral, high resolution GRACEtype mission(??)
Net, K-Transect, PROMICE), field spectrometer
Continuity of MODIS-like data,
UAV/airborne measurements; solar zenith

angle dependency/diurnal cycles
Transects
Cosmic ray neutron density observations,
Firn
probe density measurements
Remote sensing: OIB radar, multi-offset radar
In situ:
(Density) deep cores, shallow cores, snow
pits, direct mass/volume measurements.
(Densification) strain meters, continuous
Additional techniques applied to radar
data to extract density and density changes.
Additional ice core, snow pit
archived data
Measurements from PARCA
compaction monitors
Continuous measurements of snow
density that relate volume changes with

mass and density changes
Potential combination of GRACE (mass)
and ICESat and CryoSat-2 (altimetry)

measurements.
Co-location with other in situ instruments
e.g. meteorological measurements.
Accumulation
Revisit shallow ice core sites to update
accumulation records from e.g. PARCA,
Remote Sensing: Airborne (ground based)
Old ice core, snow pit archived
roving radars
radar, OIB radar, GRACE, ICESat, CryoSat-2
data
High resolution GRACE type mission
Cosmic ray attenuation sensor,
In Situ: ice cores, snowpits, AWS sonic ranger,
GPS
Measurements from PARCA,
GEUS archive
unmanned rovers
More spatial coverage, improved radar
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
Whole ice sheet

or transects
Traverse,
accumulation
zone, sample
of different
conditions
Whole ice sheet
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
Long term (+10

yrs) or year round
Long term (e.g.,

+ 10 years) or at
least 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
Wet snow region/

Below ELA
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
Your expertise on the surface mass balance

of the Greenland ice sheet
Not an expert (n=6, 18,2%)
Intermediate (n=15, 45,4%)
Expert (n=12, 36,4%)
Your expertise on modeling of the SMB

of Greenland
Expert (n=8, 24,2%)
Your expertise on in-situ measurements

of the SMB of Greenland
Expert (n=16, 48,5%)
Your expertise on remote sensing

of the SMB of Greenland
Expert (n=8, 24,2%)
Years since obtaining your PhD

N/A (n=5, 15,2%)
<5 (n=10, 30,3%)
5-10 (n=9, 27,3%)
>10 (n=9, 27,3%)
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.
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.
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.
uncertainty on Greenland SMB estimates and projections?
In situ albedo studies in situ river monitoring in situ proglacial lakes.

Remote sensing and in situ.
Spatial insight in refreezing.
In situ data collection are needed to quantify uncertainties and inform model
improvements.
All 3 tools are needed as they complement each other in space and time.
More in situ measurements are needed in general to help constrain/calibrate
modeling estimates and remote sensing observations. Direct and continuous
measurements of in situ SMB and components are needed. Models need to be
improved with respect to representation of surface heterogeneity, especially
surface albedo and routing of meltwater to the ocean. Models of densification need
to be improved for pairing with remote sensing estimates of thickness change.
Future projections with climate models need to take into account dynamic changes
from ice dynamic models.
More attention should be paid to study the evolution of supraglacial drainage
systems on the Greenland Ice Sheet. This will help us make the models more
accurate.
In situ measurements are still sparse. Need an increase in spatial coverage to
improve models.
Remote sensing in combination with in situ to validate remote sensing results and
modeling.
I think a concerted effort with all three is needed to capture the spatial and
temporal variability that we are dealing with.
More observations in regions like the SW and far north, also observation stations
feeding into reanalysis
A JOINT effort between all methods. All three are needed to nail down changes
happening in these processes. A joint plan and coordinated implementation will be
needed.
One tool can not stand alone we need a strong component of them all.
(In situ or remote sensing) instruments that measure each SMB component
directly, if possible... From their measurement results, physical processes
incorporated in models can be updated and sophisticated more.
High-resolution climate models with advanced snow/ice modules, coupled to
ocean circulation and sea-ice models. Validated with ground-truth and remote
sensing data.
Higher resolution RCMs and Arctic meteorological reanalyses
Remote sensing and in situ measurements to evaluate models' performance for
present day in turn allowing relevant future projections
- In situ runoff measurement methods - improved atmospheric boundary forcing.
Improved modeling with the measurements that exist. A few additional AWS
stations need to be added as directed by modelers
Decreasing error in SMB modeling is essential, because these will be used directly
to make projections. Improved remote sensing will be needed to achieve this,
because SMB must be validated on a larger spatial scale, at relatively high spatial
and temporal resolutions. In situ is also important for interpretation and validation
of remote-sensing measurements.
I think that the in situ/modeling combo is where most is gained, as remote sensing
seems to be ahead at this point in time.
RCM calibration to observations.
Pre-workshop
web survey
responses
43
Pre-workshop
web survey
responses
uncertainty on Greenland SMB estimates and projections? (contd.)
To my mind runoff/hydrology studies have received less attention than some

other SMB components. Runoff losses already dominate greenland mass balance
and are expect to increase further, and the ultimate motivation for SMB research is
developing quality models for sea level rise prediction. For these reasons I believe
that improving models, RS, and in situ measurements of runoff (on the ice) and
outflow (leaving the ice) processes are really important.
Modeling - e.g., perturbed parameter ensembles, supported by in situ
measurements from geographically more diverse areas to understand spatial
variability of processes.
More in situ measurements, more communication between measurements and
modellers.
Surface albedo, subsurface topography, surface elevation.
The models are doing a good job already, but need field measurements to aid
in their evaluation. For ice sheet wide studies of Greenland mass balance, the
models are critical, but their uncertainty is not well quantified due to a lack of field
measurements.
At a guess (I'm not an expert here), broad scale observational datasets (remote
sensing) for individual processes (surface melting, accumulation rates) that
can capture both the spatial and temporal variability in processes, for model
evaluation, constraint and possibly, assimilation.
All of the above.
Better accumulation and runoff measurements.
Additional comments or suggestions
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
VALIDATION OF ISSM SURFACE MODEL OVER GREENLAND

C. Lang, E.Y. Larour1, A. Gardner1, N.-J. Schlegel2
Science Division, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, United States.
University of California at Los Angeles, Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and
Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, United States
1
2
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
GREENLAND ICE SHEET MASS BALANCE
OF
AND
SMB
UNCERTAINTY
ERRORS
ON
N.-J. Schlegel1, E.. Larour2, J.E. Box3

University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory - California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA
3
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), ster Voldgade
1
2
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:
INTERCOMPARISON OF MULTIPLE DATASETS
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
THE GREENLAND SURFACE-MASS BALANCE IN 2012

FROM GRACE, CRYOSAT-2 AND ATMOSPHERE MODELS
AND
2013
I.Sasgen1, B. Wouters2, X. Fettweis3, C. Dahle4, M.R. van den Broeke2, C. Vernon5,

J.E. Box6, V. Helm1
Alfred Wegener Institute Bremerhaven, Denmark
2
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
3
Universit de Lige, Belgium
4
German Research Centre for Geosciences GFZ, Germany
5
University of Bristol, UK
6
Geologic Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Denmark
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
THE RECENT CONTRIBUTION OF THE
GREENLAND
ICE SHEET TO SEA
LEVEL CHANGE
M.R. van den Broeke

Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
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
S.B. Simonsen, L. Sandberg Srensen and R. Forsberg

DTU Space, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Surface elevation change can be related to mass change through applying

estimates of firn compaction and appropriate density as shown for ICESat
laser altimetry. However, radar altimetry shows imprints of subsurface
processes, as the radar wavelength enables surface penetration and the
reflective surface changes. The change in the reflective surface can be
related to climate conditions, as was highlighted during the Greenland 2012
melt event. Here, contradicting in situ observations Cryosat-2 showed an
elevation increase of the interior ice sheet. If the physical surface (air-snow
interface) can be retrieved from radar measurements, the long time series
of radar altimetry can be used to derive Greenland mass balance. Advanced
retracking schemes have been shown to track a surface close to the physical
surface. However, as the Cryosat level-2 data, available from ESA, has been
recognized to contained significant imprints of surface penetration, models
of surface penetration have to be applied to derive elevation change of the
physical surface. Here, the HIRHAM5 regional climate model is used to force
a firn model, which then provides estimates of the subsurface properties
needed for correcting the radar altimetry data and relating elevation change
to mass change. Finally, evaluating the derived mass balance may provide
the level of confidence for the applied models. Potential biases may serve to
pinpoint gaps in the understanding of radar interaction with the firn.
50
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
WHAT
HAPPENS
DOWNSTREAM;
THE
EFFECTS
OF
GRIS
MASS
LOSS
ON THE RIVERS AND COASTAL OCEAN
I. Overeem1, B. Hudson2, M. Bendixen3

INSTAAR, University of Colorado, USA
2
AWL, University of Washington, USA
3
Department of Geography, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
In situ stations, remote-sensing measurements, and mass balance models all

indicate that the Greenland Ice Sheet has a negative surface mass balance.
Much of the meltwater runs off through proglacial rivers into coastal fjords
and ultimately the North Atlantic Ocean. Increased runoff and associated
increased sediment load potentially have profound impacts on the coastal
system and especially sediment loads have remained unquantified. We
reconstruct river discharge signals and sediment load from LandSat7 remotesensing data by linking reflectance to river suspended sediment concentration
(SSC). A robust SSC retrieval algorithms has been calibrated against field
samples collected from 2007-2012 in two study sites in West-Greenland;
the Naujat Kuat River near Nuuk and the Watson River near Kangerlussuaq.
We apply the retrieval algorithm to the entire LandSat7 image archive and
estimate mean SSC over the summer melt season for 100s of rivers around
the Greenland Ice Sheet margin. Local runoff, Q, from the RACMO surface
mass balance model is used to calculate sediment load, the product of Q and
SSC, for each of these rivers. In addition, we correlate upstream catchment
glacier velocities. Results indicate that the Greenland Ice Sheet produces
a disproportionally large amount of the total global river sediment load.
Interestingly, river systems with fast-flowing land-terminating glaciers
produce the highest sediment loads. Whereas the LandSat record is too sparse
to disentangle river dynamics trends over time, a more integrated signal of
decadal scale change can be derived from proglacial delta dynamics. Coastal
change maps from early aerial photographs are quantitatively compared to
more recent remote-sensing imagery and demonstrate rapid progradation
of many of Greenlands fjordhead river deltas. These reconstructions prompt
several questions on future river and sediment loads, which can only be
resolved with combined river data and mass balance and/or ice dynamics
models.
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
We present an overview of Greenland surface mass balance monitoring

efforts in the Programme for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet (20072016, www.PROMICE.dk) and related projects. A main component of PROMICE
is the network of 22 automatic weather stations, with primary objective to
measure melt in the ablation area, a region which is difficult to reach and
hard on instrumentation. The stations record meteorology, radiation, ablation,
accumulation and ice movement. Station transects provide the means to
accurately calculate the regional surface mass balance components. These
and other observations are crucial for validation/calibration of remote sensing
and regional climate model products. We also perform related activities such
as Watson river discharge monitoring (2006-2016) and firn coring (20122016), which allows us to constrain SMB calculations in terms of melting, the
melt-albedo feedback, refreezing, discharge delay, etc.
52
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
DEGLACIATION-INDUCED
UPLIFT
MARGIN OBSERVED WITH INSAR
OF
THE
PETERMANN
GLACIER
ICE
Q. Lu, F. Amelung, S. Wdowinski

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, USA
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
A DAILY, 1 KM RESOLUTION DATASET OF DOWNSCALED GREENLAND

ICE SHEET SURFACE MASS BALANCE (1958-2015)
B. Nol1, W. J. van de Berg1, H. Machguth2,3,4, S. Lhermitte5, I. Howat6, X. Fettweis7
and M.R. van den Broeke1
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric research Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The
Netherlands
2
Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Zurich Switzerland
3
Department of Geosciences, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
4
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland GEUS, Copenhagen Denmark
5
KU Leuven, Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
6
Byrd Polar Research Center and School of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA
7
Department of Geography, University of Lige, Lige, Belgium
1
The current spatial resolution in regional climate models (RCMs), i.e. 5 to

20 km, remains too coarse to reproduce the spatial variability in surface
mass balance (SMB) components over the narrow ablation zones, marginal
glaciers and ice caps of the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS). The relatively
low-resolution elevation and ice mask prescribed in RCMs contribute to
underestimate melt and runoff in these rough regions. Therefore, a near-km
resolution is essential to accurately resolve local SMB variations. We present
a 1 km resolution dataset of daily GrIS SMB covering the period 1958-2015.
RACMO2.3 data at 11 km are statistically downscaled to the topography and
ice mask of a down-sampled version of the GIMP DEM at 1 km, using a daily
specific elevation dependence. Runoff and melt are moreover corrected for
biases in bare ice albedo. Daily precipitation and drifting snow erosion are bilinearly interpolated to 1 km without elevation correction. Total precipitation
is also adjusted to compensate for the dry accumulation bias of RACMO2.3
in the ice sheet interior. The daily SMB dataset is then reconstructed at 1 km
by summing each individually downscaled SMB component. This method
provides more realistic SMB patterns over Greenland narrow ablation zones,
peripheral glaciers and ice caps, owing to enhanced runoff at their margins.
The evaluation of daily downscaled SMB against ablation measurements,
collected at in situ stake sites, shows improved agreement with observations
relative to RACMO2.3 at 11 km.
54
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
QUANTIFYING
FIRN-MODEL
CONTRIBUTION
TO
UNCERTAINTY
IN
CALCULATIONS OF ICE-SHEET MASS BALANCE
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
MODELING GREENLAND ICE SHEET SNOW AND FIRN

OF DRY SNOW DENSITY, LIQUID WATER, AND MODEL SETUP
DENSITIES:
ROLE
P. M. Alexander, L. S. Koenig, M. Tedesco, P. Kuipers Munneke, X. Fettweis, S. R.

M. Ligtenberg, B. Nol, M. R. van den Broeke, C. Mige
Snow and firn densities on the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) play an important
role in the surface mass balance (SMB), a key component of the ice sheets
contribution to sea level change. Snow and firn densities influence the storage
of liquid water, the exchange of heat between the atmosphere and the ice sheet,
and the transport of snow by wind. Density is also necessary for converting
altimetry and radar-derived thickness changes into mass changes. We
compare density profiles from the Modle Atmosphrique Rgionale (MAR)
and the Firn Densification Model of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric
Research, Utrecht (IMAU FDM) with in situ profiles from the Surface Mass
Balance Working Group (SUMup) community dataset. The IMAU FDM is
forced with atmospheric output from the RACMO2 regional climate model. In
dry snow areas the parameterization for initial snow density is responsible for
the largest MAR biases. In areas of melt and refreezing, parameterization for
liquid water and errors in accumulation play an important role in differences
between models and model biases. In ablation areas with a shallow snowpack,
accumulation errors affect the thickness of snow above ice, and influence the
density profile as a result. Model initialization and spinup time also influence
simulated profiles. In addition to comparison with observations, we investigate
the source of inter-model differences, local errors and biases by applying
the same atmospheric forcing to the two models, using model outputs and
weather station data from the Greenland Climate Network (GC-Net).
56
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
USING ATM
ESTIMATES
SHEET
LASER ALTIMETRY TO CONSTRAIN SURFACE MASS BALANCE
AND
SUPRAGLACIAL
HYDROLOGY
OF
THE
GREENLAND ICE
M. Studinger, S. Manizade, M. Linkswiler, R. Russell, J. Sonntag, and J. Yungel

Repeat airborne laser altimetry measurements can provide large-scale
field observations to better quantify spatial and temporal variability of
surface processes contributing to seasonal elevation change and therefore
surface mass balance. As part of NASAs Operation IceBridge the Airborne
Topographic Mapper (ATM) laser altimeter measured the surface elevation
of the Greenland Ice Sheet during spring (March - May) and fall (September
- October) of 2015. Comparison of the two surveys reveals a general trend
of thinning for outlet glaciers and for the ice sheet in a manner related to
elevation and latitude. In contrast, some thickening is observed on the west
(but not on the east) side of the ice divide above 2200 m elevation in the
southern half, below latitude 69N.The observed magnitude and spatial
patterns of the summer melt signal can be utilized as input into ice sheet
models and for validating reanalysis of regional climate models such as
RACMO and MAR. Aside from surface elevation change, runoff from meltwater
pooling in supraglacial lakes and meltwater channels accounts for at least
half of the total mass loss. The ability of the ATM laser altimeters to image
glacial hydrological features in 3-D and determine the depth of supraglacial
lakes could be used for process studies and for quantifying melt processes
over large scales. The 1-meter footprint diameter of ATM laser on the surface,
together with a high shot density, allows for the production of large-scale,
high-resolution, geodetic quality DEMs (50 x 50 cm) suitable for fine-scale
glacial hydrology research and as input to hydrological models quantifying
runoff.
57
CONTINUOUS,
AUTONOMOUS AND LOW COST SURFACE MASS BALANCE
OBSERVATIONS FROM COSMIC RAYS
I. Howat1, S. de la Pea2, D. Desilets3, G. Womack4

Department of Earth Sciences, The Ohio State University, USA
Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center, The Ohio State University, USA
3
Hydroinnova Inc., Albuquerque, USA
4
Quaesta Instruments, Tucson, USA
1
2
Direct, continuous measurements of ice sheet surface mass balance are

lacking, particularly in the accumulation zone where the surface snow and
firn varies in density. Nearly all of our knowledge of surface mass variability
comes from snow pit and ice core stratigraphy, providing annual resolution
with relatively large uncertainties that are inadequate for constraining
meteorological models. Further, little information is available on how the
density of the firn layer changes with time, hampering efforts to estimate
mass change from altimetry measurements. Recently, low-cost cosmic rays
sensors have been developed for environmental monitoring. These sensors
record the impact rate of neutrons generated from particle collisions with
cosmic rays, which attenuate predictably through water. To provide a proof of
concept, we deployed one cosmic ray sensor in the catchment of Jakobshavn
Isbrae on the Greenland Ice Sheet in 2015 and another at Summit Station in
2016. Here, we compare observed mass balance, reported as thickness water
equivalent thickness change, recorded by the sensors to other observations
and meteorological reanalysis model estimates in order to assess their
performance. Based on these results, we propose a network of in situ ice
sheet mass balance measurements to complement existing meteorological
observation and modeling efforts.
58
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
LONGITUDINAL INTER-COMPARISON OF MODELED

WEST GREENLAND ICE SHEET MELTWATER RUNOFF
2014)
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
HYDROLOGY OF THE SOUTHWEST
DOMINATE
SUPRAGLACIAL
GREENLAND ICE SHEET
K.Yang, L.C. Smith

Internally drained catchments (IDCs) are hydrologic units on the Greenland
ice sheet (GrIS) surface that collect and drain meltwater through supraglacial
stream/river networks to terminal moulins or lakes. Their areas and shapes
constrain the volumes and locations of supraglacial meltwater penetration into
the ice. We map IDCs of the southwest GrIS using Landsat-8 OLI panchromatic
imagery and a moderate-resolution digital elevation model (DEM). In total
919 IDCs are mapped between 400 m and 2000 m a.s.l.,together with their
associated supraglacial river networks (total length 21,129 km), supraglacial
lakes (436), and terminal moulins (872). A complex yet broadly predictable
surface drainage pattern is revealed, with both IDC areas (AIDC, averaging
17.0 22.8 km2, range 0.4 244.9 km2) and the optimal DEM depressionfilling threshold (Adep, varying from 0.2 1.0 km2) generally increasing with
ice surface elevation H (AIDC = 0.02H 6.51, R2 = 0.88; Adep = 0.001H 0.75,
R2 = 0.84). Historical air photos suggest possible transferability of the first
relationship over space and time. Intersection of IDC boundaries with MAR
(Modle Atmosphrique Rgional) regional climate model runoff simulations
shows >50 % of runoff modeled for elevations >1600 m is not transported
downstream to lower elevations, but instead drains to a small number (51 out
of 872) of terminal moulins, indicating modest but non-trivial penetration
of surface meltwater at high elevations. In sum, IDCs provide a new, finescale hydrologic unit for study of GrIS surface hydrologic processes and
are made freely available for our study area at [URL]. Internally drained
catchments (IDCs) provide an important new scale for studying surface
hydrologic processes on the Greenland Ice Sheet; 2. IDC areas increase with
elevation, and historical air photos suggest transferability of this elevationarea relationship over time and space; 3. High-elevation IDCs and moulins
indicate penetration of surface meltwater at surprisingly high elevations on
the ice sheet.
60
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
Abstracts
submitted for
poster session
SNOWFALL
ACROSS
MILLENNIUM FROM
THE
GREENLAND ICE SHEET
OVER
THE
PAST
UHF AIRBORNE RADAR SOUNDING
J.C. Hiester, J.A. MacGregor, G.A. Catania

A comprehensive record of the Greenland Ice Sheets (GrIS) recent surface
accumulation rates can help improve modeling of its present dynamics
and constrain its future evolution. Regional climate models (RCMs) resolve
this record over the last few decades across the entire ice sheet and can be
evaluated at ice cores, but the latter are sparse. Hence, a significant gap
exists in our knowledge of the recent spatial pattern of Greenland Ice Sheet
accumulation rates, particularly at centennial scales. To address this gap, we
comprehensively traced and dated the shallow (< ~500 m) radiostratigraphy
detected during five years (20102014) of airborne UHF accumulation
radar data collection by the Center for the Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets, as
part of Operation IceBridge. From the dated radiostratigraphy we estimated
accumulation rates over the past millennium and during the little ice age
(LIA). We compared our derived patterns with outputs from the Modle
Atmosphrique Rgional (MAR) RCM. Our results suggest that accumulation
rates were, on average, higher than at present during both the past millennium
and the LIA. The difference is attributed to a sustained negative phase of
the NAO during the LIA. Our results are consistent with what is known of
the prevailing climate during these periods. These results can also improve
modeling efforts for regions where RCM-estimated modern accumulation
rates are biased compared to long-term patterns.
61
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NHM-SMAP REGIONAL CLIMATE MODEL

M. Niwano1, T. Aoki1,2, A. Hashimoto1, T. Tanikawa1, M. Hosaka1, R. Shimada3, M.
Hori3
Meteorological Research Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, Tsukuba, Japan
Okayama University, Okayama, Japan
3
Earth Observation Research Center, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Tsukuba, Japan
1
2
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
USING ICEBRIDGE ACCUMULATION

GREENLAND ACCUMULATION VARIABILITY
RADAR
TO
UNDERSTAND
G.M. Lewis, E.C. Osterberg. R.L. Hawley, B.S. Whitmore
Understanding the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) in a

warming climate is of critical interest to scientists and the general public
in the context of future sea-level rise. An improved understanding of snow
accumulation temporal and spatial variability will reduce uncertainties in GIS
mass balance models and improve projections of Greenlands sea-level rise
contribution. Here we analyze 25 flight lines totaling >17,700 km from NASAs
Operation IceBridge Accumulation Radar from 2012-2014 to determine snow
accumulation throughout the dry snow zone spanning the past 200-300
years. IceBridge accumulation rates are then used to validate accumulation
rates from the Regional Atmospheric Climate MOdel (RACMO2), The
Polar Pennsylvania State University National Center for Atmospheric
Research Fifth-Generation Mesoscale Model (Polar MM5), and the Modle
Atmosphrique Rgional (MAR) climate model. Averaged over all 25 flight
lines spanning the GIS, the RMS difference between the models and IceBridge
accumulation is between 0.039 0.023 and 0.0467 0.033 m w.e. a-1,
although each model shows significantly larger differences from IceBridge
accumulation on a regional basis. For example, in the central northern region
the RACMO2 model underestimates by 0.0546 0.0162 m w.e. a-1, while in
the southeast region the MAR model overestimates by as much as 0.263
0.128 m w.e. a-1. Given a drainage basin surface mass balance of ~133 Gt a-1,
our results indicate that the total mass balance of this region could actually
be much more negative. Results from the accumulation radar capture recent
increases in accumulation, confirmed from field measurements, which are not
currently reflected in the regional climate models.
63
QUANTIFYING UNCERTAINTY IN ESTIMATES

BALANCE OF THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET
OF
SURFACE
MASS
R. Mottram, P. Langen, P. Thejll, F. Boberg, J. Hesselbjerg Christensen

Arctic and Climate Research, Danish Meteorological Institute, Lyngbyvej 100, Copenhagen,
Denmark
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
AIRBORNE LIDAR MAPPING
I. Velicogna1,2, T. Sutterley1, X. Fettweis3, M. van den Broeke4

University of California Irvine, Irvine CA, USA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, PAsadena CA, USA
3
University of Lige, Lige, Belgium
4
University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
1
2
We present estimates of Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) surface elevation

change from a novel combination of satellite and airborne laser altimetry
measurements. Our method combines measurements from the Airborne
Topographic Mapper (ATM), the Land, Vegetation and Ice Sensor (LVIS) and
ICESat-1 to generate elevation change rates at high spatial resolution. This
method allows to extend the records of each instrument, increases the overall
spatial coverage compared to a single instrument, and produces high-quality,
coherent maps of surface elevation change. In addition by combining the lidar
datasets, we are able to investigate seasonal and interannual surface elevation
change for years where Spring and Fall Operation IceBridge campaigns are
available. We validate our method by comparing with the standard NSIDC
elevation change product calculated using overlapping Level-1B ATM data.
We use the altimetry-derived mass changes to evaluate the uncertainty in
surface mass balance, particularly in the runoff component, from two Regional
Climate Models (RCMs), the Regional Atmospheric Climate Model (RACMO)
and the Modle Atmosphrique Rgional (MAR). We investigate locations
with low ice sheet surface velocities that are within the estimated ablation
zones of each regional climate model. We find that the surface mass balance
outputs from RACMO and MAR show good correspondence with mass changes
derived from surface elevation changes over long periods. At two sites in
Northeast Greenland (NEGIS), the MAR model has better correspondence
with the altimetry estimate. We find that the differences at these locations
are primarily due to the characterization of meltwater refreeze within the ice
sheet.
65

Final Report SMB Workshop

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Final Report SMB Workshop

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

WORKSHOP REPORT

Understanding the fundamental processes controlling the surface

This workshop was sponsored by:

Report design by Saskia van Manen

Photo by J. Harbeck, 2016

Photo by J. Harbeck, 2016

historical evolution? Which measurements are currently available to constrain

"There are still many challenges that limit our capability to

"A major challenge in validating and improving simulation of

*Surveys of this type can be highly

Table 1. Summary of pre-workshop survey responses.

Model boundary conditions

"The participants suggested that a possible measurement strategy

Meltwater production and runoff

Photo by J. Harbeck, 2016

"The workshop participants agreed that it is critical to collect

"There is an urgent need to intercompare these models to validate

"Most processes controlling albedo over the Greenland ice sheet

"The participants indicated that further model development and

"Hyperspectral measurements are also required to understand the

The participants expressed a need for additional continuous point-scale

measurements and 500 m to 1 km satellite pixel estimates. Hyperspectral

The participants agreed that a better understanding of the role of clouds

Photo by J. Harbeck, 2016

Firn Density &

As snow accumulates on the GrIS, it solidifies into porous firn, a process

"The participants also recognized a distinct and ongoing need to

Accumulation is broadly defined as a composite of all processes by which snow or

"The participants agreed that there are feedback effects between

"Interest was also expressed in formally collaborating with

Photo by J. Harbeck, 2016

scale measurements of albedo at a sub-daily resolution to understand its evolution in

While qualitative features of accumulation are captured in a variety of models, there

Current and planned measurements

Meltwater retention & runoff

Additional measurements of supra- and

pro- glacial stream discharge, more AWS

Satellite: MODIS, Landsat, GRACE, Passive

Lake-level records for

Microwave (future: SWATH Ka Band)

derived from existing ice core

In situ: Stream gauge measurements of

proglacial and supraglacial streams

Firn liquid water storage

Private gauge data

in the ablation zone/lower accumulation

Combined data techniques (e.g. gauge

plus remote sensing measurements), glacier

Supersite/observatory (one place for all

Satellite: MODIS daily and 16-day albedo

Old AWS records

In situ: Automatic weather stations (AWS: GC-

hyperspectral, high resolution GRACEtype mission(??)

Net, K-Transect, PROMICE), field spectrometer

Continuity of MODIS-like data,

UAV/airborne measurements; solar zenith

Cosmic ray neutron density observations,

Remote sensing: OIB radar, multi-offset radar

(Density) deep cores, shallow cores, snow

pits, direct mass/volume measurements.

(Densification) strain meters, continuous

Additional techniques applied to radar

data to extract density and density changes.