Surprise: Robot Sub Finds Much Thicker Than Expected Antarctic Sea Ice

From the British Antarctic Survey comes this press release which really isn’t a surprise to climate skeptics. In Antarctica, not only is the amount of sea ice increasing each year, but an underwater robot now shows the ice is also much thicker than was previously thought, a new study in Nature Geoscience reports.

Underwater robot sheds new light on Antarctic sea ice

The first detailed, high-resolution 3-D maps of Antarctic sea ice have been developed using an underwater robot.

Antarctic-robot
This is the AUV SeaBED robot under the Antarctic sea ice. Credit: WHOI

The first detailed, high-resolution 3-D maps of Antarctic sea ice have been developed using an underwater robot. Scientists from the UK, USA and Australia say the new technology provides accurate ice thickness measurements from areas that were previously too difficult to access.

The results, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience (Monday 24 November 2014), step up the pace of research in the polar regions aimed at understanding the dramatic sea ice changes in the context of climate change.

Scientists use a range of technologies and techniques to measure sea ice thickness. Satellite observations can measure large-scale thickness from space, but interpreting the data accurately can be difficult due to snow cover on the ice. Measurements made on the sea ice by drilling holes, together with visual observations from ships are critical for building a more complete picture, but difficulties in getting access to thicker areas of sea ice leaves gaps in the data. Now, with the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) known as SeaBED, scientists have an invaluable new tool to fill this gap.

While most oceanographic survey instruments look down at the seafloor, SeaBED was fitted with an upward-looking sonar in order to measure and map the underside of sea ice floes. The AUV operated at a depth of 20 to 30 meters and was driven in a lawnmower pattern. These lines of data were merged to form high-resolution 3D bathymetric surveys of the underside of the ice.

The yellow SeaBED robot, which is approximately two meters long and weighs nearly 200 kilograms, has a twin-hull design that gives the robot enhanced stability for low-speed photographic surveys.

“Putting an AUV together to map the underside of sea ice is challenging from a software, navigation and acoustic communications standpoint,” says Hanumant Singh, an engineering scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) whose lab designed, built and operated the AUV.

“SeaBED’s maneuverability and stability made it ideal for this application where we were doing detailed floe-scale mapping and deploying, as well as recovering in close-packed ice conditions. It would have been tough to do many of the missions we did, especially under the conditions we encountered, with some of the larger vehicles.”

Co-author Dr Guy Williams from Institute of Antarctic and Marine Science adds:

“The full 3-D topography of the underside of the ice provides a richness of new information about the structure of sea ice and the processes that created it. This is key to advancing our models particularly in showing the differences between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.”

The data from SeaBED, combined with airborne measurements of sea-ice surface elevation, ice coring surveys, and satellite observations, vastly improves scientists’ estimates of ice thickness and total sea ice volume.

Co-author Dr Jeremy Wilkinson from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) says, “The AUV missions have given us a real insight into the nature of Antarctic sea ice – like looking through a microscope. We can now measure ice in far greater detail and were excited to measure ice up to 17 metres thick.”

This is the AUV SeaBED being deployed from British Antarctic Survey’s RRS James Clark Ross.

The team deployed AUVs as part of two Antarctic cruises (IceBell and SIPEX-2) in 2010 and 2012 in the austral spring. First on the British Antarctic Survey’s RRS James Clark Ross and the second on the Australian icebreaker the RSV Aurora Australis. Three locations around the Antarctic Peninsula were mapped – the Weddell, Bellinghausen and Wilkes Land sectors covering an area of 500,000 square metres, the size of 100 football pitches.

The next steps are for the scientists to do large-scale surveys that can be compared to large-scale observations from aircraft and satellites.

“What this effort does is show that observations from AUVs under the ice are possible and there is a very rich data set that you can get from them,” says Ted Maksym, a WHOI scientist and co-author of the paper. “This work is an important step toward making the kinds of routine measurements we need in order to really monitor and understand what’s happening with the ice and the large scale changes that are occurring.”

###

The research was carried out by scientists at the Institute of Antarctic and Marine Science (Australia), Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre (Australia), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (USA) and British Antarctic Survey (UK).

Notes to Editors:

Still images and video of the SeaBED and Antarctica are available here: ftp://ftp.nerc-bas.ac.uk/pub/photo/Antarctic_sea_ice/ NB: to download do not use an FTP client, simply open in any web browser (firefox/IE etc) right click on the filename and select ‘save target/link/file as’ to begin the download or from the Press Offices listed above.

Thick and deformed Antarctic sea ice mapped with autonomous underwater vehicles by G. Williams, T. Maksym, J. Wilkinson, C. Kunz, C. Murphy, P. Kimball, H. Singh is published in Nature Geoscience on 24 November 2014.

The AUV captured extensive deformation, with the underside revealing large ‘rubble fields’ of sea ice, suggesting repeated, multi-directional collisions between ice floes through the winter period. This is in contrast to what scientists previously understood from the Arctic, where larger sections of sea ice, under constant pressure, produce longer linear ‘ridge’ features.

British Antarctic Survey (BAS), an institute of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), delivers and enables world-leading interdisciplinary research in the Polar Regions. Its skilled science and support staff based in Cambridge, Antarctica and the Arctic, work together to deliver research that uses the Polar Regions to advance our understanding of Earth as a sustainable planet. Through its extensive logistic capability and know-how BAS facilitates access for the British and international science community to the UK polar research operation. Numerous national and international collaborations, combined with an excellent infrastructure help sustain a world leading position for the UK in Antarctic affairs. For more information visit http://www.antarctica.ac.uk.

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, non-profit organization on Cape Cod, Mass., dedicated to marine research, engineering, and higher education. Established in 1930 on a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences, its primary mission is to understand the ocean and its interaction with the Earth as a whole, and to communicate a basic understanding of the ocean’s role in the changing global environment. For more information, please visit http://www.whoi.edu.

The Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre is a unique collaboration between the Australian Antarctic Division, CSIRO, the University of Tasmania, the Australian Government Department of the Environment, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (Germany), and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (New Zealand) plus a consortium of 13 other international participants. The Centre’s mission is to understand the crucial role played by Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in global climate, and the impacts of climate change on Australia and the world, and to inform governments, industry, the community and scientists about climate change to guide our future.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

173 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ken
November 24, 2014 1:10 pm

should humanity really tolerate uncooperative robots?! -;)

Reply to  Ken
November 24, 2014 2:00 pm

Especially skeptical denier robots who aren’t toeing the CAGW line.

BLACK PEARL
November 24, 2014 1:21 pm

I guess “These aren’t the ice thickness’s they’re looking for …. move on “

wally
November 24, 2014 1:24 pm

Oh no! More sea ice means sea levels will rise higher than they estimated when the big warm-up comes….
Oh dearie me…. what will we do?

Robert of Texas
November 24, 2014 1:27 pm

Oh nooo… =8-o This means that global warming is melting more ice than we thought so sea levels are rising much faster than we adjusted the measurements to… Quick, adjust the data and the models to 40 meters of sea level increase in the next 100 years and contact Al for a movie follow up! (Its kind of fun to try and think like an alarmist – unproductive – but fun)
So this has me wondering if the thickness of Antarctica ice is thicker than expected, how do we know that Arctic ice isn’t thicker also?

Stephen Richards
November 24, 2014 1:33 pm

Frightening. The world must be getting warmer than we thought.
Gavin.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Stephen Richards
November 24, 2014 1:35 pm

On Planet Gavin, wind piling up the ice would be evidence, nay, incontrovertible proof, of catastrophic man-made global warming.

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
November 24, 2014 2:02 pm

Of course, they said the same thing about the Arctic this year.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
November 24, 2014 2:04 pm

It’s always something. Any excuse will do, no matter how lame.

Gerald Machnee
November 24, 2014 1:34 pm

Doesn’t anyone see what is happening? The undersea volcanoes are pasting layers of ice to the bottom of the ice sheet.

November 24, 2014 1:37 pm

In the style of Marshall McLuhan.
This was in Nature Geoscience.
It was not in Nature Climate Change.
Funny how they need two journals; one for observations and one for models.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  MCourtney
November 24, 2014 1:39 pm

One for science and one for sciency fiction.

KNR
November 24, 2014 1:39 pm

cue claims that is too limited amount of data , while only a single ‘magic tree ‘ is more than enough to prove , and too limited a time span, while a one day flood is more than enough to prove , to disprove AGW.
In short the tails I win heads you lose approch to science that seem to be the standard approch in climate studies.

Reply to  KNR
November 25, 2014 1:18 pm

The cue already occurred. Just look upthread a bit.

markopanama
November 24, 2014 1:48 pm

This study and the comments is a great example of how science works and why we are skeptics.
Knowledge is fractal
Every thing we learn begets ten new questions.
The more you learn, the less you understand.
The more you learn, the more you know what you don’t know
The more you learn, the less confidence you have in previous models
Before this study, reality was clear to the modelers: The ice is thin and smooth underneath – it was a parameter. An assumption.
Now, there are lots of new facts that need to be empirically determined. How does the complexity of the under-ice topology effect melting? More surface area, but less (?) current flow, accounting for all the eddies, etc. A simple assumption has been transformed into a very complex problem that ripples through the models and begs for new empirical data and reveals how little was actually known.
Real scientists accept and welcome the fractal nature of the universe. Those peddling dogma do not. When the pope was invited to look through Galileo’s telescope, he refused. The empirical evidence of his eyes would have washed away hundreds of years of dogma, of which he was the highest representative.
So I would propose that skeptics be considered to be realists – willing to go wherever the empirical data leads and welcoming of new information and knowledge.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  markopanama
November 24, 2014 3:25 pm

Knowledge is fractal. “Reality is fractally complex.” Benoit Mandelbrot in one of collaborator Taleb’s books.

Catherine Ronconi
November 24, 2014 2:04 pm

Showing that robots make better scientists than the highly self-esteemed “consensus climate science” Team.

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
November 24, 2014 2:32 pm

I laughed. I agreed. And then I disagreed.
Yes robots are unbiased reporters of observations.
But they don’t make that leap to a creative, explanatory hypothesis.
And the Team, most assuredly, are creative.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  MCourtney
November 24, 2014 2:36 pm

What good though are hypothesis, no matter how creative, if they’re not testable and subject to being shown false?
So, while admittedly the robots are limited to being experimentalists, they’re still IMO better scientists than the fake, pseudo-scientists of the Team.
Rosalind Franklin was a great scientist, although she left the hypothesizing to her male colleagues.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 24, 2014 2:43 pm

Catherine Ronconi, you are quite right. Actually, Rosalind Franklin is somewhat a hero of mine – I used to be an analytical chemist.
Yet I fear you missed my British irony. My literary skills are not the greatest and I may have not conveyed every nuance of the word “creative”.
So much creativity is constrained by petty attachments to child-like honesty, prosaic reality and a mere fear of dishonour.
But the Team, most assuredly, are creative.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  MCourtney
November 24, 2014 2:52 pm

I knew what you meant. But creative excuse making without testable predictions doesn’t count as science, IMO.

Reply to  MCourtney
November 24, 2014 3:02 pm

Fair point.
Although I feel (not necessarily think) that wild speculation may be science. It’s not engineering as it doesn’t work. Of course, it’s no basis for policy.
But saying “If this then the observations mean that” is still science. It allows the building of testable hypotheses (e.g. the Tropical Hotspot, the computer models, the decline in polar ice, etc).
For me the Team ceased to be scientists when they ignored the unreality of the Tropical Hotspot.
And, by the way, They had lost my respect long before then.
It was back when they attacked peer review – as seen in Climategate.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  MCourtney
November 24, 2014 3:52 pm

As Feynman pointed out WAGs count as hypotheses, but they have to be testable. If Mother Nature says no, then it’s back the to wild a$s guess drawing board.

RiHo08
November 24, 2014 2:19 pm

When climate scientists encounter data that contradicts a particular closely held paradigm, the next phrase out of their mouths and pens: “but this doesn’t mean the catastrophic man made global warming isn’t happening”. Pointing to the Arctic Ocean and diminishing sea ice (and ignored recently growing sea ice extent), climate scientists have been insisting that Arctic sea ice loss was a sign of global warming as their models had predicted. More atmospheric CO2, more global warming (not counting the current hiatus in global warming). The problem comes up when the claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is a well mixed gas. This well mixed gas which climate scientists say is causing the Arctic ice to diminish, must also be well mixed in Antarctica, so…climate scientists had predicted that the extent and thickness of Antarctic Sea Ice should also be thinning and have less extent. The data shows that Antarctic sea ice extent has been growing and reached record (as far as the records go back), and now the ice thickness of 56 foot thick, says….the exact opposite of what is happening in the Arctic. Instead of saying to themselves that maybe their models and their emphasis on CO2 effects are the “control knob of climate”, maybe they should say that a greater extent and thickness of Antarctic Sea ice means we climate scientists don’t understand what is happening in either the Arctic or Antarctic. Could it be that CO2 is not the control knob nor the boogyman that climate scientist have claimed? Could we be wrong? “Nah, we’re climate scientists and we know all about climate, just ask us.”

LogosWrench
November 24, 2014 2:23 pm

Great now the story will change to CO2 causes dangerously thick sea ice. Lol.

RayG
November 24, 2014 2:28 pm

If anyone has a source or sources documenting the ice thicknesses used in or projected by the various models I will wager that a chart comparing the model thicknesses with observed data would make for entertaining reading.

November 24, 2014 2:30 pm

I wonder if these results can be used to better interpret the satellite data? As others have noted, getting enough coverage with underwater instruments is going to require a lot of them, and a lot of time. Plus I don’t think the tender ships can operate safely during the Antarctic winter, so we could only measure half of the seasonal freeze/melt cycle.

Ken L in Kelowna
November 24, 2014 2:37 pm

Reality’s a bitch. No climate modeler could have predicted this outcome. Perhaps the focus should be on the Climate Skeptic terminology. Is the sky falling? – Yes: You’re a “Climate Alarmist”, or – No, it isn’t: You’re a “Climate Realist”. Is climate changing? Yes, but in subtle ways that are certainly within normal parameters and cycles. I’m pleased to call myself a “Climate Realist”. It’s a great way to position yourself for a win when beginning any discussion with an Alarmist. You may be able to teach them something too.

SpeedOfDark
Reply to  Ken L in Kelowna
November 25, 2014 2:19 pm

I call myself a climate heretic, that really annoys them.

Latitude
November 24, 2014 2:50 pm

yea…now they have a new way of starting measuring from the peak….we’ll be able to see every small increment as it goes back to normal
snark/

BruceC
November 24, 2014 3:03 pm

The Australian Government has budgeted for and are seeking tenders (may have been tendered for by now) to build a bigger ice-breaker to replace the aging RSV Aurora Australis. They may have [to] reconsider:

observa
November 24, 2014 3:15 pm

Team news flash:
We tried an upside down proxy series and it’s a whole lot worse than we thought folks!

michael hart
November 24, 2014 3:21 pm

Shirley they should be able to tell the mass below the surface by looking at the mass projecting above the surface? Or are they just saying it is rougher underneath?

BruceC
Reply to  michael hart
November 24, 2014 3:24 pm

It’s surely………..and don’t call me Shirley…… 😉

somersetsteve
Reply to  BruceC
November 25, 2014 1:50 am

You can tell me, I’m a Doctor

Tom in Florida
Reply to  BruceC
November 25, 2014 10:04 am

somersetsteve
November 25, 2014 at 1:50 am
“You can tell me, I’m a Doctor”
You forgot to add the “Jim”.

somersetsteve
Reply to  BruceC
November 26, 2014 12:32 am

Tom in Florida….not sure where the Jim comes from?…I’m thinking Leslie Nielsen from Airplane….
Another one…’Its a diffent kind of ice sheet alltogether’!

somersetsteve
Reply to  BruceC
November 26, 2014 12:33 am

Different!

Billy Liar
November 24, 2014 3:30 pm

So, no diver in the Antarctic has ever noticed that the ice above him isn’t a smooth, even layer?

Reply to  Billy Liar
November 25, 2014 7:05 am

It’s not exactly a vacation destination for recreational diving.</sarc>
I can’t honestly remember ever reading about any below the ice dive work in Antarctica, and if done, I’d think, would have been at the edges, polynyas, or where the ice is thin already so not a very good sample to start with.

Billy Liar
Reply to  nielszoo
November 25, 2014 4:58 pm

http://www.peterbrueggeman.com/nsf/index.html
‘Click to Look’ and then click to see a ‘Thematic Photo Gallery’ (pdf) near the bottom of the page.

Mike the Morlock
November 24, 2014 3:44 pm

The paper is from 2014 but the study with the AUvs, two of them(?) appears from 2010 and 2012. I’m I reading something wrong here …Is this from ice from 2010 & 2012 and present conditions not included? Present conditions are greater then 2010 & 2012 are they not??
one confused Morlock
michael

James at 48
November 24, 2014 3:48 pm

This needs to be done in the Arctic as well, in order to calibrate current indirect thickness measurements we see in many maps / charts.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  James at 48
November 24, 2014 3:50 pm

The Arctic has the ice study advantage of nuclear submarine operations there.

Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
November 25, 2014 3:43 pm

http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaIce/
1999 paper says the subs did sparse measurements. I wonder how well the in situ measurements compare to the proxy/satellite/models? I’m sure it’s quite the same as Anarctica….the ice is thicker in the Arctic than the satellites say…

November 24, 2014 5:53 pm

They did try their best to find thinner ice than expected by surveying a small area (100 football fields indeed, they should have gone for a 1000 olympic sized swimming pools – the usual metric designed to wow us) off the Antarctic Peninsula with volcanoes bubbling away on and offshore.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 25, 2014 7:06 am

Afraid of melting their subs?

MattN
November 24, 2014 8:18 pm

So the models were wrong you say?!?!

Brandon Gates
November 24, 2014 9:19 pm

Climate researchers generate politically inconvenient results and publish them anyway. Shockingly nefarious behavior.

Editor
Reply to  Brandon Gates
November 25, 2014 2:09 am

There was a lot of funding involved, Brandon, likely including clauses about publishing their results.
Speaking of “politically inconvenient results”, has the climate science community been open with the public about how their climate models do not properly simulate global surface temperatures, precipitation or sea ice? Answer: No, they have not. Has the climate science community been open with the public about their models are not simulations of Earth’s climate? Answer: That’s two no answers right in a row.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 25, 2014 12:46 pm

Bob,
Apparently those speculated causes didn’t cover publishing results showing thicker sea ice than previously supposed. And of course the reason you know how badly off the GCMs are is because the data are published for anyone to download, review, investigate and analyze independently. Sure sounds like a conspiracy to me.

observa
Reply to  Brandon Gates
November 27, 2014 7:07 am

“What this effort does is show that observations from AUVs under the ice are possible and there is a very rich data set that you can get from them,” says Ted Maksym, a WHOI scientist and co-author of the paper. “This work is an important step toward making the kinds of routine measurements we need in order to really monitor and understand what’s happening with the ice and the large scale changes that are occurring.”
Tell us Brandon, where in that new research discovery of ice being thicker than any previous research had understood, does it come up with any understanding whatsoever of -‘the large scale changes that are occurring’?