Carinthian's Latest Arctic Reports Thread 2

[parmenides3]

Hi Pm3,

I know you are taking a keen interest in ice developments in the West Canadian Arctic zones. Can you please tell how far the polar ice edge is from Barrow Point? Looking on the latest images it does seem some way off ,although the Archorage reports state it to be closer to Barrow. Air temperatures are now dropping in the Basins, is that having any effect to reduce the polynya out in that unusual location?

Regards

C

'Fraid I can't do any better than Anchorage on the distances, Carinth., but the Polynya is definitely shrinking at the moment. At first I couldn't work out why the Arctic Basin/Beaufort Sea numbers weren't going up, until I realised that the concentration of ice around the polynya is still below 70% - in fact, a very large area of the ice is below 70-80%. Even so, I'd reckon we'll see it closing up completely by the end of next week, consistent with the cooling temperatures. I would also expect the CT graphs to take a sharp 'hike' or two upwards as the satellites/formulae adjust to the rapidly changing conditions - in fact, if you look at the overall extent (Paul), it's clear that the programme is struggling to make sense of the data on a day-to-day basis, so is fluctuating up and down like a yo-yo at the moment.

Having said all that, there is still the possibility that severe weather could disrupt the new ice badly, breaking it up in some places and compressing it in others, in which case the CT graphs could go quite 'silly' for a while.

:)P

Here is the most recent NATICE chart for the Chukchi; Barrow Point is on the far right of the map. Sorry, no scale, so you'll have to work it out from the Lat. lines: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/west_arctic...urrentcolor.jpg

Edit: this might be why the situation is unclear; the CIS chart, Barrow point on the far west - some low concentrations quite close to the shore on this one:

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS40CT/2..._0002774940.gif

Edited October 2, 2006 by parmenides3

[carinthian]

'Fraid I can't do any better than Anchorage on the distances, Carinth., but the Polynya is definitely shrinking at the moment. At first I couldn't work out why the Arctic Basin/Beaufort Sea numbers weren't going up, until I realised that the concentration of ice around the polynya is still below 70% - in fact, a very large area of the ice is below 70-80%. Even so, I'd reckon we'll see it closing up completely by the end of next week, consistent with the cooling temperatures. I would also expect the CT graphs to take a sharp 'hike' or two upwards as the satellites/formulae adjust to the rapidly changing conditions - in fact, if you look at the overall extent (Paul), it's clear that the programme is struggling to make sense of the data on a day-to-day basis, so is fluctuating up and down like a yo-yo at the moment.

Having said all that, there is still the possibility that severe weather could disrupt the new ice badly, breaking it up in some places and compressing it in others, in which case the CT graphs could go quite 'silly' for a while.

:)P

Here is the most recent NATICE chart for the Chukchi; Barrow Point is on the far right of the map. Sorry, no scale, so you'll have to work it out from the Lat. lines: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/west_arctic...urrentcolor.jpg

Edit: this might be why the situation is unclear; the CIS chart, Barrow point on the far west - some low concentrations quite close to the shore on this one:

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS40CT/2..._0002774940.gif

hI pm3.

Thanks for the reply. Obviously the situation is changing quickly. Perhaps they were referring to low concentration ice edge. Even with the evolution of high tech images from space, land based reports still remain the best accurate reports to the ice mappers ?

PS. Keep up the good work.

C

[parmenides3]

hI pm3.

Thanks for the reply. Obviously the situation is changing quickly. Perhaps they were referring to low concentration ice edge. Even with the evolution of high tech images from space, land based reports still remain the best accurate reports to the ice mappers ?

PS. Keep up the good work.

C

Now listen; if you and Dawlish start that up again we'll never get anything done...

More seriously. Paul is right, that we couldn't possibly map the entire Arctic without satellites. We can also have a pretty good (but imperfect) idea of where the ice is even when there is nobody there to see it, which is the vast majority of the time. But the ice services still put the proviso on their forecasts; 'if you know this forecast to be incorrect, please contact the ice desk': they know that surface observation is still a key part of the ice extent mix. Even now, the two go hand in glove, but nobody would ever have known that polynya existed before the advent of the satellite. And it is easy enough to see the near side of a chunk of ice, but very hard to know for sure what is on the far side...

I reiterate to both you and Paul, there is an important role to be played for human observers and for satellites. let that be an end to the subject. Please :)P

Sorry, am i being bossy?

:blink:

To make it up to you, this is nice: http://www.gi.alaska.edu/BRWICE/

Edited October 2, 2006 by parmenides3

[carinthian]

Now listen; if you and Dawlish start that up again we'll never get anything done...

More seriously. Paul is right, that we couldn't possibly map the entire Arctic without satellites. We can also have a pretty good (but imperfect) idea of where the ice is even when there is nobody there to see it, which is the vast majority of the time. But the ice services still put the proviso on their forecasts; 'if you know this forecast to be incorrect, please contact the ice desk': they know that surface observation is still a key part of the ice extent mix. Even now, the two go hand in glove, but nobody would ever have known that polynya existed before the advent of the satellite. And it is easy enough to see the near side of a chunk of ice, but very hard to know for sure what is on the far side...

I reiterate to both you and Paul, there is an important role to be played for human observers and for satellites. let that be an end to the subject. Please :)P

Sorry, am i being bossy?

:blink:

To make it up to you, this is nice: http://www.gi.alaska.edu/BRWICE/

hI PM3,

I have worked with ice mapping with satellite images since 1969 and am well aware of the importance of their contribution to mapping of ice extents, but what I question is the differential of recorded amounts. The example I mentioned on the previous post referred to the Anchorage Ice Report of the 29/9/06 which stated that the main ice edge off Barrow was 71 degrees N, this contravened the AMSRE-E Sea Ice map which was recording the polar edge to be further away. The coastal mapping of ice concentrations is contoured in 10ths and makes the satellite recordings controversus, hence my conundrum.

C

[parmenides3]

hI PM3,

I have worked with ice mapping with satellite images since 1969 and am well aware of the importance of their contribution to mapping of ice extents, but what I question is the differential of recorded amounts. The example I mentioned on the previous post referred to the Anchorage Ice Report of the 29/9/06 which stated that the main ice edge off Barrow was 71 degrees N, this contravened the AMSRE-E Sea Ice map which was recording the polar edge to be further away. The coastal mapping of ice concentrations is contoured in 10ths and makes the satellite recordings controversus, hence my conundrum.

C

I wasn't being disrespectful , honest, C. It's clear what you mean, just by comparing the different ice graphics pages; all of them are subtly different on screen, but it equates to tens of miles difference on the ground; clearly, best then to get eyes on for confirmation. I just didn't want you and Paul starting up an old discussion again. Anyway, never mind all that; take a look at the link two posts up: is that a big ice edge I can see?

:)P

[carinthian]

I wasn't being disrespectful , honest, C. It's clear what you mean, just by comparing the different ice graphics pages; all of them are subtly different on screen, but it equates to tens of miles difference on the ground; clearly, best then to get eyes on for confirmation. I just didn't want you and Paul starting up an old discussion again. Anyway, never mind all that; take a look at the link two posts up: is that a big ice edge I can see?

:)P

Pm3,

You are not disrespectful. I can't agree with much of what Dawlish has to report on The latest Arctic Report threads, however our differences are not insuperable.

It is rather difficult to make out any ice edge against that cloud laden horizon, but when it eventually makes landfall, will make for a spectacular sight !

Regards and good ice hunting .

C

[acbrixton]

Now listen; if you and Dawlish start that up again we'll never get anything done...

I reiterate to both you and Paul, there is an important role to be played for human observers and for satellites. let that be an end to the subject. Please :)P

Sorry, am i being bossy?

:blink:

To make it up to you, this is nice: http://www.gi.alaska.edu/BRWICE/

No pm3 you are being sensible: it is a little upsetting to see two knowledgeable men (for whom I have considerable respect) demean themselves...

Regards

ACB

[carinthian]

Nice shot this morning of the Hornsund Fjord on Spitsbergens spectacular southern coastline. Notice the bergy bits flowing out into the Greenland Sea. Probably breaking away from the 1000 m glacier mountains that lock into the eastern end of the fjord.

http://www.hornsund.com/

Should bring up the picture.

C

[parmenides3]

What a nice way to start the day: thanks, C. That'll be from the Polish research station then; where is it on the Map?

:)P

[carinthian]

What a nice way to start the day: thanks, C. That'll be from the Polish research station then; where is it on the Map?

:)P

hI pM3,

What an amazing place!

Would you believe its in Polar Bear Bay on SW Spitsbergen Island at 77N &13.33N.

There is a longwinded http ://hornsund.igf.edu.pl/index- best found on orange search engine

C

[Joneseye]

Some lovely shots on that site!

[carinthian]

Some lovely shots on that site!

Thanks Joneseye.

I did mean 13 degrees East.

Are you able to bring that connection of that site up? I can't as I am a bit thick with these things.

C

[parmenides3]

Thanks Joneseye.

I did mean 13 degrees East.

Are you able to bring that connection of that site up? I can't as I am a bit thick with these things.

C

Is this the place? http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/ram/ramcam.html

:)P

[carinthian]

Pm3,

What have you done with that hole in the Beaufort Basin ?

What an amazing transformation ! Its all happening live.

C

Is this the place? http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/ram/ramcam.html

:)P

hI pM3,

No , thats further north. Will try and bring up that full address. First one to bring it on wins a long life "snowman"

C

[parmenides3]

Pm3,

What have you done with that hole in the Beaufort Basin ?

What an amazing transformation ! Its all happening live.

C

:lol:

Yes, but still the overall extent graphic stays low! Note the low concentrations. Fun to follow, though. I'm also keeping an eye on the synoptics; a heavy storm might be interesting.

That other link was the wrong station. This one show where they all are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitsbergen

:)P

[Dawlish]

It'll freeze, C. Happens this time of year. Gets cold!

Paul

[carinthian]

hI pM3,

What an amazing place!

Would you believe its in Polar Bear Bay on SW Spitsbergen Island at 77N &13.33N.

There is a longwinded http ://hornsund.igf.edu.pl/index- best found on orange search engine

C

Try this one http:www.hornsund.igf.edu.pl/index_en.php.

C

[parmenides3]

Try this one http:www.hornsund.igf.edu.pl/index_en.php.

C

Try taking off the full-stop at the end, C.

:)P

[acbrixton]

No pm3 you are being sensible: it is a little upsetting to see two knowledgeable men (for whom I have considerable respect) demean themselves...

Regards

ACB

Mods: would you please delete post #113 made at 00:38 today from "Carinthian's Latest Arctic Reports Thread 2" as the criticism of both Dawlish and Carinthian was, on reflection, both unhelpful and excessive. Apologies for any unintended offence...

Regards

ACB

[carinthian]

Mods: would you please delete post #113 made at 00:38 today from "Carinthian's Latest Arctic Reports Thread 2" as the criticism of both Dawlish and Carinthian was, on reflection, both unhelpful and excessive. Apologies for any unintended offence...

Regards

ACB

Hi ACB,

No offence taken by me. Please keep posting on this thread, because I know you have shown a keen interest in proceeding. Yes, Dawlish and I differ but there is no real malice. I think it would be wiser to post our own thoughts and not try to score points !

Best Regards,

C

[carinthian]

Take a look at this http:wms.met.no/icechart/

The Polar view enlargement clearly shows the closed drift ice about 50km out in the Arctic Ocean and the open drift ice 30km.

C

[acbrixton]

Hi ACB,

No offence taken by me. Please keep posting on this thread, because I know you have shown a keen interest in proceeding. Yes, Dawlish and I differ but there is no real malice. I think it would be wiser to post our own thoughts and not try to score points !

Best Regards,

C

Carinthian: thanks!

Regards

ACB

[Joneseye]

Thanks Joneseye.

I did mean 13 degrees East.

Are you able to bring that connection of that site up? I can't as I am a bit thick with these things.

C

lol!

I was looking through all the shots of the scenary on the original link that you posted - they are absolutely stunning! Does Svalbard reach a point where it is in perpetual darkness?

Ian

Edited October 3, 2006 by Joneseye

[carinthian]

lol!

I was looking through all the shots of the scenary on the original link that you posted - they are absolutely stunning! Does Svalbard reach a point where it is in perpetual darkness?

Ian

hI Joneseye,

Stunning place. Land of mountains, fjiords, glaciers and snow. The twilight zone lasts for at most another 4 weeks before the sun disappears for up 100 days. Enjoy the webcams while you can, hopefully we should see some drift ice and ice formation before darkness takes over.

C

[Dawlish]

Hi ACB,

No offence taken by me. Please keep posting on this thread, because I know you have shown a keen interest in proceeding. Yes, Dawlish and I differ but there is no real malice. I think it would be wiser to post our own thoughts and not try to score points !

Best Regards,

C

Absolutely right, there is no malice whatsoever. You are right C, though I'm sure we'll return to that debate!

ACB - same from me, no offence taken whatsoever. Don't take our technical disagreement to heart at all and please don't let it reflect harshly on two people (among others) that have a real interest in what is happening in the Arctic. I know I'm an argumentative git, but it stems from passion for the subject. C is just a gentleman, with just as much passion, if not a bagful more!!

Best regards, Paul

Edited October 3, 2006 by Dawlish