By David Shukman
Science and environment correspondent, BBC News
Half-way through their expedition to survey the Arctic sea-ice, British explorers have been jinxed by yet more technical problems and are resorting to old-fashioned techniques to carry out research.
On Day 44 of the trek, both a radar device meant to measure the ice thickness and a satellite communications unit to relay the data are still not working – despite being brought back to the UK for repairs and then delivered to the team last week.
As a result, the explorers are now drilling more sampling holes than planned, which means they are progressing more slowly than hoped.
It now looks much less likely that the team will reach its destination of the North Pole.
The radar system, known as Sprite and meant to be dragged over the ice making millions measurements, is now being carried on a sledge instead.
Pen Hadow, leading the Catlin Arctic Survey, describes losing the use of the equipment as frustrating but concedes that the hostile conditions have overwhelmed the technology.
“It’s never wise to imagine that either man or technology has the upper hand in the natural world,” he said. “It’s truly brutal at times out here on the Arctic Ocean and a constant reminder that Mother Nature always has the final say.”
The expedition was blighted in the first few weeks by temperatures well below minus 40 Celsius, the equivalent of minus 70 allowing for the wind chill.
The failures are blamed on problems with power supplies, either with batteries not working or with cables snapping in the cold.
The loss of the hi-tech equipment has focused attention on the data gathered by the tried-and-tested method of drilling through the ice by hand.
One-hundred-and-two holes have been dug so far and 1,100 measurements have been made of ice thickness, snow density and other features – data deemed vital by scientists evaluating the future of the Arctic sea-ice.
The latest findings show that virtually all the ice surveyed is what is called first-year ice, ice that only grew this past winter, as opposed to tougher multi-year ice which survives the warmth of summer.
Figures indicate an average ice thickness of 1.15-3.75m, much of which might be expected to melt between June and September.
Organisers in London insist the expedition’s data-gathering is still important for research – despite the setbacks – and describe reaching the Pole as “largely irrelevant”.
According to Simon Harris-Ward, operations director, “what matters most is gathering the maximum amount of data possible over a scientifically interesting route.”
I think they thought it would be all balmy and nice up there.
Manfred (13:56:21) :
at least, the catlin arctic survey is a nice example of the quality of climate science presented by the BBC.
Could have been worse. Could have been the fascist The Guardian – propagator of authoritarianism and any radical movement they can get their mits on.
Want a laugh, look at the photo which accompanies this article today:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5359/picture1pth.png
“The Antarctic sea ice area anomaly is approximately +1.2 million squared kilometers (more ice than what is normal for the season), almost matching the peak reached in June 2008. Combined with a minor negative Northern sea ice area anomaly, the global sea ice area anomaly approaches huge +1.0 million squared kilometers.”
ref
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/giss-march-2009-coolest-march-in-this.html
John W 🙂
My thoughts exactly! David Shukman is just a journalist & therefore has no technical background, or if he had he’s forgotten it all. 1.15m – 3.75m is a range not an average. As already pointed out the average for those figures is 2.45m! Are there more figures at the higher end than the lower end, which will push the average depth up. What do the satellite data suggest?
AND what a fantastic observation from dear old Pen! I’ve never heard of anything built by man that stayed in good condition once it was abandoned – Mother nature takes over. He really has a knack for stating what we all know & that Mother Nature rules this planet.
Ken wrote:
“Is there really some sort of old ice that is “tougher” (harder to melt?) than young ice? Who knew?”
Yes. There is a meaningful difference between first-year ice and multi-year ice. A couple of good references to read up on are:
http://nsidc.org/seaice/
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html
I note that none of this excellent information supports AGW alarmism.
What we are seeing is a typical spin cycle: start with real-world supportable facts (there is a difference between first-year and multi-year ice), then subtract any relation to reality (“unprecedented,” never-before seen melting, etc.), churn out some good sound bites, have the “story” picked up and recycled — and the spin cycle is complete.
DISCLAIMER : CATLIN EXPEDITION: THIS IS FICTION.
Pen: We’ve been walking for hours. We should take a rest.
Ann (pointing to depression in ice): I agree. Let’s stop there in that depression in the ice. We’ll be partially shielded from the wind.
Martin: OK and while in there we can take a random measurement of ice thickness.
Pen (pointing to the open water within the depression in the ice): I’ll do the drilling this time. I’ll set up near the open water. That way, I can freshen up if I break into a sweat – y’know, the warming climate …
Pen (after drilling for 30 minutes): Gee! 3.5 meters deep and all I get is ice.
Ann: Stop. That’s abnormally thick ice. The science would be skewed by this deviant measurement. Don’t forget, we’re scientists. Try over here, the ice looks thinner.
Pen (after drilling new hole): There ! I got through. Pass the tape measure.
Martin (after Pen measures ice thickness at 2 meters): 2 meters ! Can’t be. It must have been a fish tugging on the tape. Let me try.
Martin (after measuring ice at 1 meter): 1 meter. That’s more like it. That’s what we expect from the science.
Ann: Come on. We’re scientists. It can’t be exactly 1 meter !
Martin: You’re right. It’s 1.0224433 meters thick.
Pen: Great work guys. Let’s move on.
“Larry Sheldon (12:15:12) :
I have two questions, one serious, one, not so much.[1]
…
[Below 32 and above some temperature (the heart of the question)] Water is a solid, but some of the water will sublimate (become a gas) if there is space around the solid. (And some of that may condense to become a liquid and refreeze (or “desublimate? and go directly from gas to solid?).)
[Presumably there is some temperature (above absolute zero?)] where sublimation stops and all water has become and stays a solid.”
Ice can sublimate all the way down to zero (well slightly above) as long as the gas above the ice is not saturated with water vapor. The rate will vary depending on how fast heat energy can transfer into the ice to drive the evaporation. In practicable terms the sublimation rate will become negligible below a certain temperature or above a certain humidity. The depositing of solid from the gas phase is deposition and will occur whenever the surface temperature of the solid is below freezing and below the temperature at which the gas becomes saturated with water vapor. (note it may be a little more complex than this, and I am answering from memory, you may not have to reach saturation, can’t remember exactly). So water vapor will deposit on a cold below freezing solid as frost or an a cold but above freezing solid as condensation. Cold being relative. Anyone who has had to remove dew from the car windows in the morning when the air temperature is above 70°F knows that.
With GISS once again leaving the experts on this site bemused one cannot imagine what spin the BBC will put on the “Catlin Adventures”
The sad thing is that they will cherry pick some data that will be aired on prime time news knowing that the gullible public will take it in and all will be well in “Guardian World”.
It beats me how how they will get away with it…but they will.
Articles in more rational news outlets will go un-reported as the mantra continues.
The Catlin debacle is highly amusing…the spin will be highly depressing.
The photograph shows ice that is thicker than 3m. Also I have iceblocks that have been in my freezer for more than 2 years and they melt at exactly the same rate as iceblocks made yesterday. When sea ice melts doesn’t the sea level fall?
Hmmm lets try for the simple explanation, how about a reflection of the sun off of internal fractures in the ice. I could easily be explained by double reflection off of an air/ice interface inside the ice wall, like when you get blinded by a reflection of the sun off of a crack in your windshield when the angles are right.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!
Larry
I’m fascinated to see next years team set out on the same expedition to replicate the results and provide a contribution to a growing dataset that can be used to establish a trend of just how quickly the arctic ice is thinning/melting away…
After all it is essential to know the truth about the impact of man made emissions of CO2 on the delicately balanced environment and pristine wilderness of the arctic.
If we are not able to ensure that the scarce resources of arctic ice are preserved for the denizens of the natural world, future generations will curse us for the despoilers that we have no doubt become.
(turns around and vomits in nearby office waste recepticle…)
I don’t think any more money should be spent on these iceholes!
So why are they continuing when the “science” is not happening?
Because the whole intent is to have dramatic video of the three being rescued from an ice floe surrounded by melting arctic ice in the late spring. Personally, I hope they screw up even more than they already have. These are mendacious people.
Ice will sublimate even when the air temperature is below freezing, if direct sunlight hits its surface. I live in Canada and I approve this statement.
MarcH @14:15:21
I just saw the Top Gear program last weekend; it was the Magnetic Pole they went for.
I love when mockery and sarcasm are all some people can bring to a “debate”.
“D. King (16:41:51) :
I don’t think any more money should be spent on these iceholes!”
Hmmmmm, quote of the week?
Graeme,
“If we are not able to ensure that the scarce resources of arctic ice are preserved for the denizens of the natural world, future generations will curse us for the despoilers that we have no doubt become.”
You are correct, sir. That ice is the only thing keeping the polar bears from swimming in endless circles within the Beaufort Gyre.
As someone who has experienced falling through the ice myself, I’d recommend Ernie Lyall’s excellent book “An Arctic Man: 65 years in Canada’s North” – that is if you want an authentic account of life, conditions and survival rather than the “stupidly cold” blog from a bunch of silly tourists…
Gerard wrote:
“Also I have iceblocks that have been in my freezer for more than 2 years and they melt at exactly the same rate as iceblocks made yesterday. When sea ice melts doesn’t the sea level fall?”
Check out the links I referred to above. The iceblocks in your freezer are *not* similar, either in formation or composition, to sea ice. Also, as to your second sentence, the answer is essentially “no.” There may be some extremely minor effects driven by temperature and salinity differentials, but as a general matter, floating ice displaces exactly the same amount of water as it does when melted — sea level will not be affected in any meaningful way, either up or down, by the melting of sea ice.
“And how does multi-year ice just melt away to nothing if even first-year ice doesn’t melt altogether?”
As indicated by some of my questions and comments, I am not a subject matter expert by a wide margin.
But here is what I think is going on.
At the temperatures found in the Arctic most of the year, the ice does not melt. Some of it sublimates, but I suspect the most fevered interpretation does not use that to account for any significant loss.
But the wind and wave action sometimes breaks it up, and sometimes (last year was one, I think) the wind blows the shattered ice out into the North Atlantic where it does get warm enough to melt it. I’ve been on a Navy man-of-war in the North Atlantic and it is hard for me to believe it ever gets warm enough to melt ice until you get well down in the Temperate zone, but that seems to be the story.
My contention (voiced somewhere above) is that all of the replacing ice will be “first year” ice. But it won’t (probably) all get blown out, that that remains will get new snow on it, will get ice ridges in it and so forth, converting the base to “second year” snow.
And so forth.
But I in my ignorance am not convinced that the age is as important as what kind of winds, going where are.
@Walt Stone (13:09:23) :
“WORST VACATION EVER.”
My hat’s off to you, sir. That is the most succinct summary of all the combined writings on this blog, the Catlin site, the British media, and any other source.
Those three words say it all.
And now it’s…
Springtime in the Arctic for Caitlin
England is happy and gay!
We’re marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Springtime in the Arctic for Caitlin
Britain’s a fine land once more!
Springtime in the Arctic for Caitlin
Watch out, Europe
We’re going on tour!
Springtime in the Arctic for Caitlin…
(credit: “The Producers”)
Article in Toronto “Globe & Mail”, 14th April. Quadriplegic conquers the Pole. David Shannon of Thunder Bay, became the first quadriplegic to reach the North Pole this weekend. He spent two years planning his trip and used a specially crafted sled using the power of his own triceps !
Whats up with these silly Brits ?
It appears to me that what we have here is 102 holes, each one being an individual data set of one with nothing else to compare it to. Does this mean they will repeat this expedition each year for years to come until they have sufficient data to compare each hole to? Is this possible on a sheet of floating ice that is moving in various directions each day? Which by the way might be the reason why the GPS shows that they headed a bit southward, the ice may have moved faster than they could walk, crawl, sit and lay.
After watching this expedition, who would volunteer for next year? I for one would prefer to join the WUWT Arctic Ice Couch Survey. I just hope it’s not BYOB!