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.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Randall Arnold (17:18:11) :
I love when mockery and sarcasm are all some people can bring to a “debate”.
…………………………
Actually, this thread is not the debate. Please, check out the many other threads on this site that are part of the debate.
This is locker-room gloating and it’s sure to be distasteful to the other team, whose change-room door is under the Real Climate sign.
As an aside, surely, your comment is laden with sarcasm and mockery. Is that all you can bring to the locker-room?
Hmm….Jabba does not see any peer reviews for the drilled ice holes. Protocol has not been followed, ergo results are invalid…lol.
Eric I was only joking about the iceblocks. This is nonsense mission that will find in favour of AGW no matter what data they collect
A recipie for AGW
102 holes
13 million square km’s of sea ice
a dash of statistical process
stir it up with a few dramatic pictures of melting ice
blend with a sprinkling of Pen and Ann on the all expenses paid post icecapade tour
and allow to simmer over some peer review before serving up to the faithful
a hearty feast
I think Pen Hadow has earned quote of the week!
Graeme Rodaughan (14:23:52) :
“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.”
Is this suprising. You start from the edge and walk towards the centre. The youngest ice will be at the edges – so of course your going to find the young ice first.
Not in the Canadian Arctic.
Anthony
As you have flagged before on this topic, this entire story has all the making of a hoax. An hour ago, the weather conditions were given as -25C and “sleet” [sic]. Where I come from sleet is a very heavy wet snow. At -25C?
Where I am sleet is frozen raindrops. Quite reasonable given the strong temperature inversion in the Arctic.
REPLY: Yeah I’ll have to second that. I didn’t see your original comment, but sleet can easily happen in that sort of situation. That doesn’t mean the biotelemetry and other issues are any better though. – Anthony
Phil [20:59:10] and Anthony
Phil, based on previous postings here and elsewhere I understand you are supportive of the Caitlin crowd. However, there are a whole slew of definitions for sleet [pls google it], mine included.
My experience is that sleet often is a mixture of melting rain [pellets or not] and snow – thus my description of “heavy wet snow”- caused when precipitation from a warm layer above falls through a cold underlying air mass.
Now, what is the likelihood of this happening in an overall very cold Arctic air mass [which is contributing to ice coverage tending towards 2001highs] and with surface temperatures at -25C? What relative humidity would you need at -25C for precipitation to fall as a mixture of melting rain and snow? And as an after thought, why, after this oddity was flagged by several observers [other than me] on different blogs, was the reading changed to “overcast” within an hour or so on the Caitlin site?
Forget about the last bit; I would much like to be educated on the relative humidity part of my question .
Phil. (20:52:11) :
Graeme Rodaughan (14:23:52) :
“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.”
Is this suprising. You start from the edge and walk towards the centre. The youngest ice will be at the edges – so of course your going to find the young ice first.
Not in the Canadian Arctic.
Phil – I must admit to knowing next to nothing about ice – my comment merely seemed plausible and could easily be wrong.
What’s the bet that later this year,
[1] A paper will be released by Steig, Mann, et al,
[2] Whereby 102+ data points (ice holes) are extrapolated over several million square kilometers of arctic ice, and
[3] Using specialist “unique” data infilling techniques to demonstrate that the ice has been thinning for at least 50 years and that the trend of thinning ice is accelerating, and
[4] The methods for the extrapolating and infilling will be discussed in a Supplementary Information (SI) paper that is not released at the same time as the main paper, and
[5] Three years after the main paper has been used to justify major political policy initiatives involving increased taxation and government control, the SI is published, and
[6] Three days later the SI is demolished and shown to be intellectually bankrupt by the sceptic blogocracy, with the result that the main paper is also debunked, and that the political policy initiatives were – in fact – not justified at all.
“Organisers in London insist the expedition’s data-gathering is … “largely irrelevant”.
But of course, it was really a PR stunt.
“They are poking random holes and claiming this is data. Anecdata is the new term for this kind of thing.”
Anecdata! I love it! That is the funniest thing that I heard all day. Good job Jeez!
So, if these guys are out of science, why are they still there? Chapter 7, the dramatic Navy helicopter rescue from crumbling ice live on CNN & BBC. Earth Day/Lennin’s birthday should be about right.
Hey Mo! Watch out for that yellow snow! Nyuk nyuk nyuk
-Younger-Dryas..Climate change you can believe in!
I have just discovered an important new proxy for measuring arctic ice thickness/thinness.
It goes as follows.
[1] Polar bears are heavy animals often weighing more than 600 kilograms.
[2] Thin ice is fragile.
Hence the more thin ice, the more Polar bears will crash through it and drown in the icy waters below.
[3] Using reports of low numbers of Polar bears in the media, and the addition of Polar bears to the lists of endangered species, it is an inevitable conclusion that the decline of Polar bears correlates with and is caused by the thinning ice.
Any statistical interpretation of the Polar bear population (declining) can therefore be used as a proxy for the thinning of the ice.
Brilliant, just brilliant – I’m happy to accept any applause that now may come my way.
I propose to call this important new innovation – “The Polar Bear on Thin Ice Proxy”.
Does anyone know a good peer reviewed journal that I could get this published in?
” Jeff (08:37:01) :
Does this mean they may also resort to old-fashioned cannibalism, all conveniently video recorded by BBC documentarians, if the support structure cannot get food to them? It might increase the ratings.”
I hope someone mentions that does have better meat than bucks…
Notice that the Catlin expedition have not encountered any Polar Bears, based on my “Polar Bear on Thin Ice Proxy” I am confident in asserting that they are on Thin ice.
I.e No Bears = Thin Ice.
I’m also confident that they will report finding thin ice – which will further validate my new proxy.
Hey – this agw climate science is not so hard – can I get a grant?
They never really needed ice measuring radar. A notebook, a pencil and a willingness to count polar bears would have sufficed.
I trust this “climate science” will be reported in the infamous “Journal of Irreproducible Results” as it deserves – being neither about climate nor science.
“tougher multi-year ice”
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…
Graeme Rodaughan (23:42:41)
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
Steve (03:58:22) According to the link you provide, they are now moving onto second year ice which is expectedly thicker. Looking at the barely discernable readings, the numbers at the south end are larger, implying they are moving north to south?!?
Steve Keohane (04:58:42) :
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?
They sure move quick…now its on the main tab
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
So what are we supposed to conclude?
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!)
even jeremy clarkson managed to get to the north pole 😀
Looking at the ice drill, it appears to be 5 meters long, however it must break down into shorter pieces in order to turn the crank on top and also to transport it. Why put the whole thing together if the ice is so thin?
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/assets/downloads/Ice_Report_14_4_09.pdf
See picture on page two.
Mike Bryant (06:03:21) :
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!
Re. page 2:
“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?)