Latest Antarctic Ice Reports

[Mr Sleet]

The actual extent of Antarctic ice cover can be seen on this global SST map:

I believe that the anomalous ice cover is located mainly on the Atlantic side of the southern hemisphere. As this is near the seasonal max at the end of southern winter, this probably points to a weaker storm track across the regions around the Antarctic peninsula in the past few months.

Just a few comments about the climate of Antarctica for the benefit of those who may not be that familiar with it. The continent is largely elevated well above 1,000 and even 2,000 metres, much like Greenland, so temperatures in the southern winter dive down to extremely low levels there. Current readings are between -20 or -30 near the coast, to -70 C in the deep interior. The pole of cold is located somewhat to the African side of the south pole due to geography, but essentially, Antarctica could warm up considerably and not be in much danger of losing ice in 95% of its terrain, only the marginal areas like the Antarctic peninsula and the Ross Sea are currently under any real threat of melting. And as some have speculated here, with a slight warming you could easily get more snowfall and thus more ice formation over the continent.

As for the sea margins, this area is subjected to the almost constant passage of very deep low pressure areas so that the ice margin can only advance if storminess moves further north or weakens substantially. The wind and wave action alone would prevent the southern ice from making very much progress northwards even if temperatures over the ice pack dropped, and normally they don't fall much below about -5 to -10 C around this region.

The matter of the asymmetric polar ice fluctuations is not that surprising, historically there have been global climate changes in sync and also of opposite sign from one polar region to the other, so there is no set pattern in this regard. You can see from the SST maps how considerable amounts of unusually cool water are flowing away from the ice margins in the southern hemisphere and circulating into both the Pacific (this is the strong La Nina avent) and the South Atlantic to a lesser extent. Of course these are not cold waters by the time they reach the equator, and if the southern circulation increases in equatorward negative heat transport, this could be reflected after a lag time in poleward heat transport in the northern hemisphere. This does not appear to be happening yet, the main feature in the northern hemisphere is the warmer than normal water seemingly flowing away from eastern Asia and up through the Bering Straits into the Arctic Ocean around Wrangel Island and northeast Siberia.

__________________

That link to SST maps, produced every 3-4 days, is

osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.9.13.2007.gif

[/quote

Good informative post there Roger, thanks.

[Mr Sleet]

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE....

Cryosphere today reports that due to a software glitch the SH winter ice maximum record has not been broken yet !

We are, I'm afraid, all doomed after all.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Edited September 18, 2007 by Mr Sleet

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

This shows clearly what a rigorous science cyrosphere monitoring has become. They managed to catch the error - over 200km2 of phantom ice - before the news got around the world the Antarctic ice record had been broken!

In the fullness of time the nature of the glitch will surely be made public and the results independently confirmed so the small group of nutters who still believe the record was broken can finally see their emperors clothes for what they are.

Come to think of it this May 2007 change to the NH chart wasn't strange at all either

More rigorous, publically available, independently confirmed science. This is the reason why I visit Cryosphere Today everyday.

[Optimus Prime]

We are, I'm afraid, all doomed after all.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Bit sensationalist? I hope you were joking;

"The timeseries have now been corrected and are showing that we are very close to, but not yet, a new historic maximum sea ice area for the Southern Hemisphere."

Only a slight change really. We weren't well above the previous record only, we only really just brokje it/almost equalled it. I would say the record will still fall at some point, if it hasn't already.

[Mr Sleet]

Bit sensationalist? I hope you were joking;

"The timeseries have now been corrected and are showing that we are very close to, but not yet, a new historic maximum sea ice area for the Southern Hemisphere."

Only a slight change really. We weren't well above the previous record only, we only really just brokje it/almost equalled it. I would say the record will still fall at some point, if it hasn't already.

Yes it was joke OP, should have used a smiley thing

Edited September 18, 2007 by Mr Sleet

[Optimus Prime]

In fact I was so suspicious about the record falling I saved it to my desktop about a week ago;

And today;

The difference isn't much.

[Duncan McAlister]

This shows clearly what a rigorous science cyrosphere monitoring has become. They managed to catch the error - over 200km2 of phantom ice - before the news got around the world the Antarctic ice record had been broken!

In the fullness of time the nature of the glitch will surely be made public and the results independently confirmed so the small group of nutters who still believe the record was broken can finally see their emperors clothes for what they are.

Come to think of it this May 2007 change to the NH chart wasn't strange at all either

More rigorous, publically available, independently confirmed science. This is the reason why I visit Cryosphere Today everyday.

Why do I get the feeling that any future record melt in the Arctic will never be attributed to a 'software glitch'?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

In fact I was so suspicious about the record falling I saved it to my desktop about a week ago;

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/7818/cu...reasouthkc5.jpg

And today;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....area.south.jpg

The difference isn't much.

Well done, did you save the other Antarctic graphs? It's difficult to make comparisons with those ones, although that's partly because they're not the same size image.

I'd like to know if only 2007 has changed or whether, like NH before, the trend line has shifted.

[Optimus Prime]

I'd like to know if only 2007 has changed or whether, like NH before, the trend line has shifted.

After exploring my recycling bin I did come across it (eventually)

Saved on the 13th September.

Compared to todays;

Doesn't really mean much to me. Indeed the line has been shiften upwards, not quite sure why but I know they've done it with the Arctic on numerous occasions where it was average but suddenly, for no explained reason came in below. Also looks as if the red line has been adjusted, possible due to the "small glitch in software"

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

That's only one year's worth. I wondered if you had the anomaly chart.

(I've tried searching for a historic one on the waybackmachine but none I found loaded up.)

Nonetheless, LET'S take a look at your chart

1. On the X-axis they've added another number - "17". On the previous version stopped at 16. (Now it looks like the SH ice total falls well short of potential SH ice totals)

2. The "small glitch" is a change on the area linearound[ b]

April/May 2007. Before it's about the same. Afterwards the area line is shifted considerably down below the anomaly bar.

The line is basically the same shape, except the rise at the begining of April has disappeared, shifting the anomaly down and taking with it into oblivion 250 km2 of ice.

This "glitch" is then not a recent thing related to recent ice amounts but something that happened April/May 2007 that they've decided to "fix" September 2007.

It's as if the April period of ice growth/retention did not exist.

April/May 2007 is, incidently, when we noticed the change in the Northern Hemisphere ice anomaly chart. Coincidence? Perhaps whatever magic dust was sprinkled over the NH chart to make it a hockey stick has now been applied to the SH chart. (Why the change wasn't applied to the SH chart when it was to the NH one back in April I don't know - if it is the same change.)

Whatever this change has caused an astonishing reduction in ice anomaly in Antarctica and wiped 250 km2 off the ice total. Before April 2007 to September 2007 was all well above average. A mountain range above the anomaly line. After the correction of this "small glitch" April 2007 to August 2007 has fallen below average ice anomaly.

This is a massive change. With thousands of people looking at these charts on the internet such a brazen shift in the anomaly line does not go unnoticed. It is a brazen shift. They've offered up no public explanation for it, let alone data - it's just a "small glitch."

3. The new chart has a neat double black anomaly line over half the chart.

4. You can see what the change has done to the "tale of the tape" chart here. Recent years now show a notable hockey stick. Does anyone have the image of the previous chart? It's not on waybackmachine. The previous version showed ice above the anomaly line.

So, feast your eyes on this, compliments to Octimus Prime

Guys, this is science at its finest! Look at those American tax dollars at work!

[Gray-Wolf]

Science my big fat bum!

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2007261/

I started my yearly trawl through the images now there is enough light down there and instead of finding complete pack ringing the continent moving into broken/shattered pack where it meets the sea I find the whole damn lot (all around Antarctica) as fragmented and shattered floes and bergs!

Last year the coastal ice remained intact until early Jan in some areas!

I'd noted the 'downturn' of ice around Aug 28th and posted the same on the Environment forum only to be thwarted by a rapid upturn in ice levels leading to the max. extent record falling. Now I find clear water (esp. if you zoom down to 250m images) between ice bergs/floes. How sensitive is the measuring gear being used when you can see (only 4hrs delayed) the true picture down there?

Could it be that the final 'growth spurt' is in fact the disintegration, up to the bloomin' coast, of the single year ice down there? Because of the fragmented nature of the pack now by the end of Nov. it will have drifted/ablated and folk will be scratching their heads saying 'duh?, how did that happen'.

Use your eyes guys not some fools erroneous data!

Edited September 18, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Which image/s are you refering too, specifically. Your link provides a link to 100 images. Which one's Antarctica?

Ice concentration from satelites displayed at Bremen is surely as good if not better than photographs - especially the false colour chart. They show thickness and extent with no clouds or fuzziness of visual resolution.

This chart shows high concentration of contiguous ice surrounding the entirety of Antarctica.

This evidence contradicts what you have just said about the ice being "scattered floes and bergs" all the way around. You can see the majority is dark purple, 90-100% ice. So what exactly was your point, Gray-Wolf? What are you bringing to the discussion?

Okay, here's the chart from this time in 2006. (The link above provides archives.)

Clearly Gray-Wolf, you're talking nonsense - you're all hype. Even if we ignore NOAA "fools'" stat juggling, compared to last year, ice thickness is up (and ice extent too).

For once, just base what you say on hard facts.

Edited September 18, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Gray-Wolf]

Should I bring my toilet roll just in case you need to go whilst I hold your hand and guide you through?

The Terra images are generally the early hours (for my area of the Ross) and so, conversely ,as the Aqua move in opposition it's Ross images are at the latter end of the day. The images are the visible spectrum (high quality visible images) and you'll not that there are a suite of other image types to choose from. If you'd care to have a look then you'll see quite plainly what is ice, what is crack and what is ocean/sea. Maybe ,to get your eye in , go 'previous a few times and have a look at the NW Passage today and familiarise yourself with 'how the real world looks' before applying your new found talent to the southern oceans.

The ice extent, I propose, is in no way as contiguous as you would suggest. Any 'increase is merely the breaking apart of contiguous ice into fragmented pack with the growth being the 'cracks' between floes.

If you still do not wish to believe your own senses (in near real time) then I'll await my apology when the relevant (to you) body declares the same.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

You might want to edit in light of my edit which posts an archive image that proves you are wrong.

My position with respect to the new NOAA charts is to accept the charts although the fact one "small glitch" can wipe out over 200 km2 of ice does make me more cautious as to both their current and historical accuracy. If -ve 250 km2 is a small glitch, what would a large one be like? Are there any more small glitchs?

Edited September 19, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Gray-Wolf]

I take it you still can't be bothered to pay me the basic courtesy of looking at the images yet?

Science is a useful guide but is not, and will never be, the last word. Time and tides move on and it becomes easier and easier to assimilate raw data in real time and draw your own conclusions.

Last year NOAA were still pooh ,poohing the possibility of ice melt in the Antarctic uplands whilst NASA (part of their own team) had data showing the snow melt on the mountains backing the Ross embayment from 2005. As far as I can gauge you'd have been arguing their case for them there even though they, this year, posted the revelations of rapid thaw on those 'upland' areas.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim...183000.250m.jpg

Obviously the camera is overhead and so the edges are distorted so pan into the middle. The map shows where you are on the continent. If you look by Roosevelt Island you'll see 'my Cracks' (behind where B15 calved from in 2002) clearly visible already this year (which is why I was peeping down there!)

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim...192500.250m.jpg

Here, at the bottom is one of yesterdays images of the NW Passage Can't yah guess what it is yet?

Edited September 19, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Science is a useful guide but is not, and will never be, the last word. Time and tides move on and it becomes easier and easier to assimilate raw data in real time and draw your own conclusions.

You have not demonstrated to anyone here that you actually use this data. All too often you do not provide images, links and charts in your posts. You seem to speak from a position of authority but we have yet to know whether you are an authority or a crackpot. Your reluctance to be open with data draws me to the more unfortunate of the two conclusions. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise but first you need to recognise your claims are extraordinary and need to be justified with good evidence before other people will believe you.

Last year NOAA were still pooh ,poohing the possibility of ice melt in the Antarctic uplands whilst NASA (part of their own team) had data showing the snow melt on the mountains backing the Ross embayment from 2005. As far as I can gauge you'd have been arguing their case for them there even though they, this year, posted the revelations of rapid thaw on those 'upland' areas.

It is winter in the southern hemisphere; there is no thaw right now, and has not been over the last few months. You must be referring to last year but you don't make this explicit. The Antarctic ice reports thread I believe is about the current state of the cyrosphere. If you want to talk about other years there are other boards that cater for your interest.

[Gray-Wolf]

Beatcha to it!

I had enough resident 'experts ' telling me that the rapid melt of the sunward slopes down there COULD not occur (temps always below -10c, yada,yada,yada) Not heard a peep since the NASA images showed the melt occurring as they told me, with authority, it couldn't happen! Fer christsales you can see open blue water pools in both the basins and the uplands over the southern summer! It doesn't take long to become as expert as the 'experts' at interpreting one side of the images present. If you look at objects/areas you know and get a feel for the various states (and upload the image and then zoom in closer.....the resolution allows 10m clarity!) you can 'know' what you are viewing, especially if you pick the 2 images that are directly overflown of your area,from each satellite, each day. The bugbear In the southern ocean is the propensity for cloud and fog which make 'visual' inspection impossible.

So, what do you make of the images of the Ross Sea area?

The U.S. 'freedom of information' laws allow us all the chance to see these things real-time (or at least 'near real-time) Why wait 2 years whilst the scientist peer review ,cross the 'T's' and dot the 'i's' to be told what to think?

Edited September 19, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Thanks for posting the images. Keep doing that. However next time warn us when the file size is as huge as those are. Those images crashed my browser. My broadband is not fast enough, and I'm sure I'm like many.

Can you take a screencap of the relevant part of the image, annotate and then upload the image to imageshack?

Otherwise you can just say anything and we still won't know any better.

[Gray-Wolf]

this image, cropped from the origional, is just north of 'my crack' (by Roosevelt island on the east Ross Ice shelf) in the middle of the ross sea taken yesterday morning.

and this is the East Ross ice Shelf last southern summer (showing 'My cracks' running off towards McMurdo and to the rear of where B15 'dropped off in 2002) The position of yesterday's piccie is at the top middle (or there abouts) of this area.

EDIT: if you save the images you'll be able to zoom in closer on your own browser.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Can you circle what you are referring to in paint or other image editor? Otherwise it's nearly impossible to know what to look at.

I'm none the wiser but the images looked pretty. Plus in both images the Antarctic looked very very cold.

BTW: to keep the thread up to date leave the historical comparisons for the Environmental Change board. you can make the points you want to make with the one image.

[Gray-Wolf]

A.F.! the top image clearly shows fragmented ice, with debris strewn channels, between the pack ice.

It's been bugging me as to how the whole of The Antarctic Sea ice could have been disrupted in this way so I've had to get up to get it off my mind!

Both north and south pole sea ice has been 'thinning' over the past 15yrs. At some point the integrity of the ice is so low that the 'High' Spring tides (and the bulge of water it is) would buckle and fragment the overlying ice 'skin' leading to such a disruption of the whole pack.

To check this out I went back to the 28th Aug (when I'd posted that I thought Ice extent had maxed out early) and loh and behold Aug 28th was a full moon. We are not at the highest 'Tides' of this end of the year yet but it would seem that the damage is already done!

I remember feeling a little sad when P3 told me 'not to jump the gun' as ,Aug for a max extent is very early, for me to then see this astronomic rise in sea ice extent over the following 3 or so weeks.

When I first looked at the images I was a tad shocked and so pawed through as many images as I could find from yesterdays runs (that were visible),the Peninsula, Ross, Weddell, Bellinghausen, Amundsen,Enderby, Kerguelen and the south Indian Basin only to find them all in a similar state. No refreeze visible and all broken into similar sizes.

When you think about the impact of the tide on a sheet that is 'welded' to the coast (be it ice shelf or 'natural coast' ) then you can imagine that , at a certain thickness , the tide will buckle the ice to the point of fracture. It maybe happens from the coast outwards, it maybe happens as the 'bulge' passes underneath the whole ice area but it makes sense to me that it would happen.

Check out the weather from the southern ocean over the last 3 weeks and tell me that looks like dandy weather for ice build !

I'm sorry it's not the NOAA telling you this (I'm sure that they eventually will!) but remember you heard, and saw it here first!

Edited September 19, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

A.F.! the top image clearly shows fragmented ice, with debris strewn channels, between the pack ice.

Both north and south pole sea ice has been 'thinning' over the past 15yrs. At some point the integrity of the ice is so low that the 'High' Spring tides (and the bulge of water it is) would buckle and fragment the overlying ice 'skin' leading to such a disruption of the whole pack.

When you think about the impact of the tide on a sheet that is 'welded' to the coast (be it ice shelf or 'natural coast' ) then you can imagine that , at a certain thickness , the tide will buckle the ice to the point of fracture. It maybe happens from the coast outwards, it maybe happens as the 'bulge' passes underneath the whole ice area but it makes sense to me that it would happen.

The sea ice has not thinned that much, not in the Southern Hemisphere.

This winter the sea ice is thicker than last year. Here's the proof -

2006

2007

What you describe has always happened, even with thick ice. Tides are very powerful. You could quadruple ice thickness and the sea ice nearer the land would bulge. Thicker, heavier ice would put more pressure on the ice sheets nearer the land.

[Gray-Wolf]

Time to pull in the big guns.

Last year I had cause to approach the U.S. antarctic survey team regarding 'my crack' on East Ross (see page 1 and 2 on the 'mechanical erosion thread over on environment).

Both Doug MacAyeal and Robert Grumbine replied to my queries but Bob, who is there sea ice specialist, was incredibly helpful. I take it you'll listen to what Mr Grumbine has to say A.F.?

I will be asking if, when comparing ice extent with ice extent the amount of 'open water' that the collapsed ice shelves (since2002) is subtracted from the figures or whether the 'replacement sea ice' where once shelf/glacier snout occupied is now part of the grand total.

I will also enquire as to the validity of my recent observations (on ice fragmentation since Aug 28th) and whether my proposed mechanism for achieving these results is in fact fact or fiction.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

In fact A.F. , when I look at the area of your images that represent East Ross (Roosevelt Island an' all that) you can see that it is a pretty inaccurate representation (in scale at least) when you compare it to the Sat. images. To look at that you'd think Roosevelt island is miles from the ice shelf edge whereas, as the photograph shows, it's northern tip IS at the ice edge. If you want to play a game of pedantry then you'd better know I'm a world class player!

Or is it that the map is older than 2002, before the collapse of B15 and the ice edge it dragged with it? if it is then you're missing quite a chunk of supposed 'new sea ice' covering where the berg used to be. Any ideas?

[Gray-Wolf]

So, todays images so far. A.F. complained at the size of these so be patient as they upload and then , from the map of where you are at on the left margin of the image, locate the sea ice (and strain through the intermittent cloud cover in places) and see what you make of the sea ice integrity;

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim...023959.250m.jpg

the above is part of the South India Basin and coast facing the basin. Pretty cloudy this one but shows open water at the coast (where visible)

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim...042000.250m.jpg

this one is a similar area (between 60 and 90E), again at the bottom of the image you can plainly see open waters at the coast and the rest of the visible pack fragmented.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim...060000.250m.jpg

the above is between 60and 30E and shows well the fragmented nature of the sea ice (and again open water at the coast)

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim...060000.250m.jpg

very cloudy this but you can see the ice pack below and it's fragmented nature (30e to 0 degrees)

The above are all from the Terra satellite and the next lot are from Aqua

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim...050000.250m.jpg

120E to 150E

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim...045500.250m.jpg

teeny bit of the ross sea and embayment

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim...032000.250m.jpg

Ross sea, pretty cloudy but you can see enough of it to see how smashed it is.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim...014000.250m.jpg

If you only look at 1 image then choose the above! Ross sea and embayment.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim...000000.250m.jpg

150W to 120W

Now tell me that isn't one heck of a mess down there with lots of open water between the cracks and coasts! Greatest extent ever recorded? Pah!

Edited September 19, 2007 by Gray-Wolf