I’ve been thinking about submitting a session proposal focused on “ocean heat uptake in the Southern Ocean”. A few colleagues are also interested — Zhi Li, Sandeep Mohapatra, and Jiheum Lee (a new postdoc working in Nathan Bindoff’s Laureate project).
However, there will be some overlap with the session already proposed on “Ocean dynamics in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic Continental Shelf.” I wanted to check with you all (@JuliaN@wghuneke@adele-morrison and others) whether you think there is room to split this into two complementary sessions — one centred on Antarctic margin processes and another on large‑scale or open‑ocean Southern Ocean dynamics.
Does this seem sensible, or would it be better to keep everything together in a single session? If the latter, we’d be very happy to team up and contribute to the existing proposal.
We were thinking of heat uptake and transport as part of the suggested topics for the ocean dynamics session, it might be a bit specific for a session of its own? But I’m not sure and we can take it out if you wanted to submit a separate session. We have a draft proposal but haven’t submitted yet so still time for changes!
My preference is to not separate into shelf and open ocean so that we are not splitting up the community and the talks too much. Happy to hear other people’s thoughts tho
I think I agree – if already there is a scope for this in the current proposal, it should be better to not split it then. I was also unsure on how many submissions we would get as individual sessions…
Could I please have a look in the proposal draft?
Also, do you know how many conveners are needed? I can double-check others’ thoughts on this, but if we have too many, some of us could volunteer to help with the plenary session instead.
Following up on the discussions around a potential session on model–observation integration, I’ve put together a short draft concept after chatting with Helen about formats that have worked well in the past.
I’d really appreciate any feedback at this stage to help make sure the idea is relevant and useful. I’d also be keen to hear from anyone who might be interested in convening or co-convening the session.
What would be the best way to share the draft? I’m happy to provide access to the document or post it here, whichever people prefer.
I’ve struggled a bit to come up with a useful framing for a strategic discussion, especially given the imminent wind up of the current big Antarctic programs (should we focus on next few years or longer term.). So I think maybe Natalia’s focus on bringing obs and models together is more likely to bring tangible outcomes.
Just checking with @hrsdawson and @eliocamp ; are you still putting in a sea ice session?
Yes, I’m on vacation right now and being slow with emails. We are emailing with @hrsdawson and others. Will update once we have something more concrete.
Would people be interested in a focused session talking about tipping points in Antarctic sea ice?
The 2016 and 2023 record lows brought a lot of interest on the topic that has been looked at from a statistics point of view but I think we are missing the dynamics. There’s also the issue that the models do not simulate the same evolution as observations. It would be interesting to discuss how can we come up with better conceptual models of Antarctic sea ice that can be analysed in search of tipping points using tools from non-linear dynamics and how (or if) we can use current climate models to understand that.
In terms of format, I would envision something to encourage discussions. Maybe we could have a few “invited” talks from people working on the field to give a broad overview of the state of research and then we can spend most of the time in discussion, either as a single group or in smaller groups depending on the turnout.
Hi @eliocamp, I agree that tipping points would be a good discussion topic given the current ‘buzz’, myabe broaden it a bit “Tipping points, regime change and hysteresis” (or if you want to be particularly provocative “Hysteresis vs hysterics”…
I think a focus on sea ice is too narrow though and I would recommend broadening the scope. Or, if your focus is very much on sea ice, broaden the topic from tipping points specifically. How do we connect functional changes (less ice, more variability/persistence) to specific extreme events?
Yes, fair enough. It would be nice to have input from other areas with similar issues. The cyosphere community probably has a lot to say, with their glacial/interglacial cycles and all.
