http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/in-case-you-missed-it-going-by-car-to-the-north-pole/
http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=44335&cid=219&p=27.04.2009

Russian motorists drive to North Pole

Catlin should have called the Russkies for a rescue.

Actually what they said was that “floating sea ice now starting to break up around Ward Hunt Island, it is only a matter of time before the summer melt begins further out into the ocean, including around the Ice Team’s location”.
” It will be the pilots’ decision as to when exactly the team will be extracted.” The reason for extraction would be the state of the ice in the vicinity of the on ice team, which is exactly what Keith and I were discussing, your misdirecting to the state of the ice at the periphery of the ice pack is an irrelevancy.

Missing swathes aren’t going to cause any problems, they show up ~everyday on AMSR-E. The problem that occurred with the SSMI imager was rather different.

or not?

It’s there but rather fragmented:

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2009141/crefl1_143.A2009141212500-2009141213000.1km.jpg

Hmmm is the sea ice at the central east coast of Greenland there:

http://saf.met.no/p/ice/nh/conc/conc.shtml

or not?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html

Looks like we have satellite problems again. There are also other missing swaths…

Mike

Included is an explanation of the june glitch.

While there you can also control thier camera accessed from this page:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/webcam.htm

Method for calculating sea-ice extent
The sea-ice extent is calculated as the areal sum of sea ice covering the ocean where sea-ice concentration (SIC) exceeds 15%. SIC data of JAXA’s AMSR-E standard products are used for this purpose (http://sharaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/AMSR/products/pdf/alg_des.pdf). The algorithm for calculating SIC was developed and provided by Dr. Comiso of NASA GSFC through a cooperative relationship between NASA and JAXA.

The black dot seen at the North Pole is an area lacking data where AMSR-E cannot observe the Earth’s surface due to the limit of its observational coverage (i.e., orbit inclination of 98deg. and swath width of 1600km). Please note that this area is also counted as sea-ice cover in our estimation of sea-ice extent. We may change the policy (i.e., filling the gap with full coverage of sea ice) in the near future due to the recent drastic reduction of Arctic sea ice. We will announce this if it is implemented.
　
The current version of data processing produces an erroneous blip of sea-ice extent on June 1 and October 15, which is seen in the graph of sea-ice extent as a small peak on these dates. The apparent blip arises due to switching of some parameters in the processing on those dates. The parameter switching is needed because the surface of the Arctic sea ice becomes wet in summer due to the melting of ice, drastically changing the satellite-observed signatures of sea ice. We will soon improve the processing to make the graph much smoother.
　
In principle, SIC data could have errors of 10% at most, particularly for the area of thin sea ice seen around the edge of sea-ice cover and melted sea ice seen in summer. Also, SIC along coastal lines could also have errors due to sub-pixel contamination of land cover in an instantaneous field of view of AMSR-E data.
　
Averaging period and the update timing of daily data
In general, sea-ice extent is defined as a temporal average of several days (e.g., five days) in order to eliminate calculation errors due to a lack of data (e.g., for traditional microwave sensors such as SMMR and SSM/I). However, we adopt the average of two days to achieve rapid data release. The wider spatial coverage of AMSR-E enables reducing the data-production period.

Usually the latest value of daily sea-ice extent is fixed and updated at around 1 p.m. (4 a.m.) JST (UT). Before the value is fixed, we also assign a preliminary value of daily sea-ice extent several times (usually three to four times) as an early report, which is determined without the full two-day observation coverage. (The fixed values of sea-ice extent are determined with the full coverage of observation data.)
　
Definition of sea-ice cover (extent and area)
The area of sea-ice cover is often defined in two ways, i.e., sea-ice “extent” and sea-ice “area.” These multiple definitions of sea-ice cover may sometimes confuse data users. The former is defined as the areal sum of sea ice covering the ocean (sea ice + open ocean), whereas the latter “area” definition counts only sea ice covering a fraction of the ocean (sea ice only). Thus, the sea-ice extent is always larger than the sea-ice area. Because of the possible errors in SIC mentioned above, satellite-derived sea-ice concentration can be underestimated, particularly in summer. In such a case, the sea-ice area is more susceptible to errors than the sea-ice extent. Thus, we adopt the definition of sea-ice extent to monitor the variation of the Arctic sea ice on this site.

This comment was made in 2003 about a completely separate polar expedition of haddow

They waited well beyond April 30th and apparently had no problem with the pickup. So who is telling the truth? It seems that the slow melt allowed greater time on the ice.

The group were presumably listening to the advice of the pilots. If they said dangerous to pick if not now; catlin accept and get picked up. Isn’t this what every one on this blog hoped for – no danger to the pilots?

“…You guys juggle with words, graphs, lie about what scientists say. – Why ?? You can’t bear someone else to be right ? You want your grandchildren to suffer ?”

actually, the response to you has been pretty much based on uninterpreted, empirical fact, founded on raw data.

as to your last point (though, unfortunately, it seems you may have already beat a hasty, silent retreat), our unborn grand-children, great-grand-children and……. were they to learn in advance of of the crushing debt burden already facing them, might well opt not to come forth into this world in the first place, if they could so choose.

debt slavery in a potential ice age.

enticing, no?

jeez has a better sense of humor than charles… but rebuke acknowledged. Eugenics is NO laughing matter.

Reply: Different roles, sorry, but…I…can…be…funny…you mean meany. ~ ctmakajinhoh

Yeah, the leads show up all over the area which is consistent with the AMSR-E images.

David Ball (10:55:50) :
Phil, if you are suggesting that SPRING thaw wasn’t taken into account, and they were “surprised by melting ice” IN THE SPRING, I have to firmly disagree.

If you’re suggesting that the number and extent of the leads in that vicinity which I and Keith are referring to are predictable spring behavior in that part of the Arctic then I have to disagree with you. The normal spring melt is from the outside-in, notably Bering, Baffin and Greenland seas at this time of year. The AMSR-E and sat images seem to suggest a lot of stressed, thin ice in the vicinity of the pole, probably related to the strong drift in that area this spring.

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Drift-1.jpg

Shukman is poor. A few years back he cost the BBC a great deal of money by reporting a fraudulent mining story in Africa. They then put him on climate change stories, but it still seems like he has a penchant for ‘frauds’:-)

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2009139/crefl1_143.A2009139015500-2009139020000.1km.jpg