This is an old revision of the document!
Go back to the main core experiment design page.
Go back to the main working group page.
Please note, this page is a work in progress and is not ready for discussion yet.
Please use the Discussion section below to specifically comment on the choice of ice sheet reconstructions for the core experiment.
For the core experiment, there is a choice of two global ice sheet reconstructions:
Please one of these reconstructions for your Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) experiment, as per the LGM working group requirements, and continue to use the same reconstruction through the transient last deglaciation core simulation.
Those groups that are able may wish to carry out two simulations; one with each ice sheet reconstruction.
Key references:
Argus, D. F., Peltier, W. R., Drummond, R. & Moore, A. W. The Antarctica component of postglacial rebound model ICE-6G_C (VM5a) based on GPS positioning, exposure age dating of ice thicknesses, and relative sea level histories. Geophys. J. Int. ggu140 (2014).
Peltier, W. R., Argus, D. F. & Drummond, R. Space geodesy constrains ice age terminal deglaciation: The global ICE-6G_C (VM5a) model. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2014JB011176 (2015).
The ice mask used in these animations is > 80 % ice cover per grid cell.1)
Provided by Dick Peltier et al., October 2014:
Time dependent ice-equivalent contribution to eustatic sea level rise [from present] from each of the primary geographical regions from which grounded ice loss occurred during the [last] deglaciation process.
\\ \\
—-
[ PMIP3 Wiki Home ] - [ Help! ] - [ Wiki syntax ]
Discussion on core experiment ice sheets
In answer to your question:
Should ICE-6G_C be provided here in its smoothed format, as offered by Dick Peltier (above; smoothed_fields), its original unsmoothed format, or both?
For CESM, we would like both the smoothed and original unsmoothed versions of ICE-6G_C.
Dick has provided us with 10 arcminute resolution data. Will this suffice instead of the smoothed fields? Which he says will take longer to provide.
Yes, this works very well for CESM. We need as input not only the topography but also estimates of its subgrid variability.