http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/assets/downloads/Ice_Report_14_4_09.pdf

There actually seems very little actual data from the survey there, I only found that the snow depth had increased from 11cm to 16cm. Every other paragraph seemed to be background information.

Surprisingly, the story links to WUWT. It also reports:

Simon Harris-Ward, the survey’s director of operations, said no one should underestimate how challenging the expedition had been so far. “The extreme weather, even by Arctic standards has affected much of the team’s standard kit… Typical daily temperatures are still as low as minus 40C…

So the weather is colder than normal. Minus 40° in mid-April! That will no doubt cause even more ice to form.

But as we’re told by the alarmist contingent: global warming causes global cooling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/weather-arctic-climate-change

“The  second ‐year  ice  was  formed  from  the  area  of  first ‐year  
ice  that  did  not  melt  away  last  summer  as  predicted.”

Does that mean they predicted it would melt, or that it wouldn’t? (Or that they don’t know?)

Oh what a great picture on page two.
My wife and I as still laughing.

Mind you I have had a couple of bottles of wine where a bottle opener that size could have been very useful.

Brilliant picture another own goal for measuring thinning ice.

RE: D. King (16:41:51) :

“I don’t think any more money should be spent on these iceholes!”
Brilliant D. King, a gem!

http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/assets/downloads/Ice_Report_14_4_09.pdf

See picture on page two.

The main tab says the technology wasn’t working:

The results are from the ongoing drilling programme being carried out by Pen Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels after the conditions affected the deployment of high tech equipment. SPRITE, its pioneering Surface Penetrating Radar for Ice Thickness Establishment, and onboard sledge computer kit have, despite rigorous testing ahead of the expedition, both been disabled by the extreme conditions. A fault, not previously detected, has also prevented use of a SeaCat probe which measures the water column beneath the floating sea ice, although a new version will be despatched on the next re-supply flight.

http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/headline.aspx?postId=160

The ‘science’ tab says the tech shows thin ice.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/assets/downloads/Ice_Report_14_4_09.pdf

High resolution radar satellite imagery (Radarsat courtesy of MDA) of the area immediately around the team corroborates the information from the passive microwave sensors (see above). The fact that initial ice thickness results indicate that they have been travelling over first year ice, almost right from the start, indicates that the extent of the multi‐year ice is much reduced and is now confined to a narrow swath east of 130W along the northwest Canadian Arctic.

Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?
(And now I’m must get back to work!)

http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/

Team turns to traditional survey methods as technology battles force of nature
The Catlin Arctic Survey has now released its first set of ice and snow thickness measurements, showing the floating sea ice cover it has travelled over in the early stage is predominantly new ice, with an average thickness of 1.77m. The findings were obtained by manual drilling and are currently being analysed by science partners.

Finding ‘First Year Ice’ in this part of the Ocean was not what the Ice Team had expected at this stage of a route chosen, in conjunction with science advisors, to begin in an area where there would be multi-year ice…more

Can’t throw much light on the content of that link except to say that it appears to contradict the BBC story that started this tread

“Figures indicate an average ice thickness of 1.15-3.75m, much of which might be expected to melt between June and September.”

If we assume by ‘average’ they mean ‘work it out yourself’ and that 1.15 and 3.75 are the extremes, then the midpoint is 2.45, which (assuming I’ve been reading WUWT right) indicates there is more multi year ice than first year ice.

One other curious thing is that link was tucked away on the ‘science’ tab.

http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/science

Now why would a trail blazing jolly like this want to hide its ‘findings’ rather than shout them out on the main tab?

I’m also confident that they will report finding thin ice – which will further validate my new proxy.

Dead right: http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/assets/downloads/Ice_Report_14_4_09.pdf

Will they be able to drill through that? I’m still not convinced that they are drilling right through – we only hear how deep the holes are, which might just be the length of the bit…