Latest Antarctic Ice Reports

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi P.P.,

Though not wishing to patronise (or appear to be doing so) how can you not take issue with someone complaining about you reporting ice melt during the 'melting' seasons in Antarctica?

As you all know I have concerns about the state of the planet and this (Antarctica) has to be one of the areas of greatest concern as it is the one area of climate change that can, over a very few years, cause catastrophic changes throughout the globe.

I have no real axe to grind about any 'extreme' growth in ice thickness/extent in the Antarctic region over the winter months ( only the shelf ice remains year round and this is a product of the continent and not a function of the southern oceans response to winter temps) though strongly suspect that the 'record ice extent' ,as reported by one site, is erroneous and have done the best I can to highlight why and how I feel that this is so.

As far as my few years experience of Antarctic ice melt is concerned (I'm more interested in the continent when the sea ice has gone to be honest) I have not seen such a rapid retreat as we are witnessing (courtesy of the MODIS suite of satellites) this melt season. This would truely be made even more remarkable if the ice thickness/extent had reached record levels prior to this southern spring thaw.

I am content to continue to cull the best images of the ice as it ablates as I can and post them here, if only to allow folk to see the stunning beauty of the Antarctic Continent (albeit only the coasts). By the time we hit 'high summer' down there I will also be searching out for 'meltwater lakes/pools' on the ice sheet/shelves themselves to further highlight how bad things are down there.

If A.F. cannot accept what the majority of the globe accepts about the state of the planet then surely that is his problem? but I will defend myself when 'wrong' information/assertions are cast my way and masqueraded as 'truths'.

EDIT: Todays sea levels are rising ,but not in the catastrophic way ,yet, as the did at the end of the last ice age with the final ablation of the continental ice sheets. As such their is no reason other than warming for the collapse of Larsen B in 2002 unlike it's collapse 12,000yrs ago when rapid sea level change, over a very few years, led to the breaking off, floating and mechanical erosion of the then Larsen ice shelf (which would have been frozen to the Peninsula at pre-inundation levels ,a good 10's of metres below our current sea level).

I do not see where my and A.F's understandings of this collapse compliment each other?

Edited October 10, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Though not wishing to patronise (or appear to be doing so) how can you not take issue with someone complaining about you reporting ice melt during the 'melting' seasons in Antarctica?

You don't report ice growth. Please report ice melt - that's very interesting. Report ice growth too - that's also interesting. Thanks.

I have no real axe to grind about any 'extreme' growth in ice thickness/extent in the Antarctic region over the winter months ( only the shelf ice remains year round and this is a product of the continent and not a function of the southern oceans response to winter temps) though strongly suspect that the 'record ice extent' ,as reported by one site, is erroneous and have done the best I can to highlight why and how I feel that this is so.

The satellite record shows otherwise. If the satellite record is consistent across years its error margin will be consistent across years and the output useful. It is therefore highly likely this year was a massive 1 million square miles of sea ice up on the average. Sorry if you disagree but one can hardly say with NASA I've consulted amateurs for my information.

As far as my few years experience of Antarctic ice melt is concerned (I'm more interested in the continent when the sea ice has gone to be honest) I have not seen such a rapid retreat as we are witnessing (courtesy of the MODIS suite of satellites) this melt season. This would truely be made even more remarkable if the ice thickness/extent had reached record levels prior to this southern spring thaw.

This has recently not shown up in the satellite record. This is opposite to the recent satellite record which shows greater concentration and area of sea ice in the southern hemisphere. Satellite records are presumably consistent in accuracy across years. The records are publically available from NASA and other professional scientific institutions and are a valid tool to use to analyse sea ice.

You have tended to disagree and would rather people did not post this information and instead looked at the MODIS visual record only. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am content to continue to cull the best images of the ice as it ablates as I can and post them here, if only to allow folk to see the stunning beauty of the Antarctic Continent (albeit only the coasts). By the time we hit 'high summer' down there I will also be searching out for 'meltwater lakes/pools' on the ice sheet/shelves themselves to further highlight how bad things are down there.

I enjoy your images.

I would enjoy images of where there is excess ice too.

If A.F. cannot accept what the majority of the globe accepts about the state of the planet then surely that is his problem? but I will defend myself when 'wrong' information/assertions are cast my way and masqueraded as 'truths'.

I take offence at this statement about me. Where did you get this from? There is global warming. Very few people deny this. I don't know anyone who denies this, in fact. Nobody on this forum does.

Please continue to post images. I encourage that. But I request a more balanced look at the data and tolerance for other data sources, such as NASA.

[Gray-Wolf]

Just came across this which may interest a few on here

This is Ross island and you can plainly see Mt. Erebus (and especially the shadow showing it's shape), our southernmost Volcano with it's permanent lave pool at the summit. The shadow points down towards the U.S. base at Mcmurdo.

EDIT: I've stretched the image so don't trust the scale/resolution compared to other images!

Edited October 10, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

And here's one just for A.F. (to show willing!) This is the center of the Ross Sea. The pack is about as contiguous as you will find around the coast but at least the Stratoform cloud has opened up instead of its normal 'blanketing' effect!

More later!

EDIT I just thought ,most folk won't have an idea of where places are so here is a map showing all the named areas

Edited October 10, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

MODIS does not cover 20% of total Antarctic sea ice. :

(I was thinking before I got on that it would not cover vast swathes of sea ice out at sea. Now I know it does not cover vast areas of coast too.)

There is no way one can monitor Antarctic sea using only MODIS visual images. I am surprised anyone would suggest otherwise.

The NASA, University of Brehmen and other sources of ice data in the Antarctic from professional institutions of scientists that study the Antarctic are valid source of information for this Antarctic Ice Reports thread.

Posters certainly should not be chastised otherwise.

Sea ice anomaly well above average but has fallen off to an excess of 750 million square kms.

Ed: edited to change 50% to 20%. Perhaps less. Astonishing.

Edited October 10, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Gray-Wolf]

A.F ,how silly are you?

The image is of all the ice shelves covered by

http://www.nsidc.org/data/iceshelves_images/index.html

Two global satellites with glaring blind spots!!! what are you on me boy!

This is the orbital track of the Terra Satellite.

And here is the orbit for the aqua satellite.

Don't you wish that ,at times you'd slowed down and thought for a minute?

.......orbiting satellites put up by NASA to study the planet with glaring blind spots??? I ask you.

Of course you could always have examined the site yourself on the links I provided at the beginning of this thread but.....'spose that's a bit like being told what to do eh?

EDIT: I suppose other viewers/readers will not be surprised at your outburst though, and I suppose it will not have affected the esteem they hold you in!

Edited October 10, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Sorry, I was going to write something similar before I came and saw your chart. The criticism stands.

Clouds, the track of the satellite and the images provided on the MODIS website all limit what can be studied.

The satellite images provided by other sources are valid tools. Nobody has objected to using MODIS data. To my knowledge only your good self have rejected all other sources of data.

Ed: not that anyone will let a single individual determine what is valid or not. however it creates friction and needless argument when one posts something only to have another person shoot the messenger.

Edited October 11, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Gray-Wolf]

A.F. Do you really think that the Guys at J.P.L. would put an 'ice watch suite of Sats. up without exploiting the full spectra available for observation? If you check out the 'shelf images' from the link I've posted you can then report back on ;

1/Type of imaging used.

2/ Suite of satellites used.

I think, if you care to check your major sites, that they will all buy their info/data from NSIDC who own the MODIS birds.

I do wish you'd take a little time to get your info correct before firing off half cocked. It jusyt leads to you looking foolish.

Back to business.

Here is an image (at the 2km resolution instead of the 250m I've been using) showing a storm brewing of the coast housing the 'Sabrina' shelf. This is another factor in the yearly ablation of ice with increased swells leading to more mechanical erosion of the fragments and the edge of the pack being drifted out into the Southern Ocean for it's final 'melt'.

[Gray-Wolf]

Couple of images from today. One behind (after) the storm over Sabrina and one with it approaching showing the impact on the fragmentation (smaller pieces which then ablate faster having a greater surface area in proportion to it's mass than large ones...think elephants and mice when maintaining body heat!)

This is the end of the 'Fimbul' shelf facing the eastern end of the Weddell sea. Note the outer fragmentation sizes.

And here is Mertz Glacier area (to open water) awaiting the storm.

Both images are from this a.m.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

All we want is 'current' updates/images/reports etc otherwise we might as well just go into the Enviro thread. Question: I've lost whether or not the record ice maxima was reached due to distractions, was this confirmed as reached?

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

From a quick scan of the NSIDC 'news releases' I can see nothing proclaiming such (record ice levels in Antarctica), just masses on the record ice loss up north. Maybe it's open for interpretation? Here's the NSIDC link so have a little looksee

http://www.nsidc.org/index.html

Edited October 12, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

d. Question: I've lost whether or not the record ice maxima was reached due to distractions, was this confirmed as reached?

BFTP

Yes, it was reached.

UPDATE: Monday, October 1, 2007 - Record SH sea ice maximum

Just when you thought this season's cryosphere couldn't be more strange .... The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area narrowly surpassed the previous historic maximum of 16.03 million sq. km to 16.17 million sq. km.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hmmmm, So I pop over to the NOAA (where cryosphere today derive their data sources) to find this 'record' and ,look as I might , The cupboard was bare!

http://www.noaa.gov/

check for yourselves!

As posted above I checked with NSIDC in Boulder,Colerado and Nix.

But the 'Cryosphere Today' group from

http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/index.html

declare a record (after scrapping one because they had software problems)

I then pop over to JPL

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/earth/

still no mention (even though it's all their equipment doing the science up there in space)

as a last ditch effort I checked out NASA

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/

and as you see, nothing.....just lots and lots on the North.

There seems to be a pattern emerging here.....

[Gray-Wolf]

Back to business;

These two are the Mertz Glacier and porpoise bay area taken yesterday at 14:10 UTC (on the opposite side of Antarctica from the Peninsula). You can see how the depressions/storms take away the outer edge (seaward edge) of the shatered pack allowing more freedom for the inner pack to drift out.

Here is the Sabrina shelf post storm for you to compare the pre and post ice levels.

And finally 'Fimbul' shelf area (eastern end of the Weddell sea).

More later!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Yes, it was reached.

Thanks AFF for an appropriate response.

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks AFF for an appropriate response.

BFTP

I take it that means one that meets with your approval and not necessarily one that reflects the truth.(LOL)

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I take it that means one that meets with your approval and not necessarily one that reflects the truth.(LOL)

Not at all. You know that the response you gave initially has been removed. But thanks for your subsequent appropriate responses. Nice to keep track of the Antarctic current ice set up guys

regards

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

Just to set things straight Blast here are my interpretations of the 'mistakes' that C.T. are making (and I don't recall any posts being 'pulled'?)

The level period around the 28th aug are just before the pack fragmentation and it's 'relaxation' into a wider area.

The weather conditions around the time of the 'renewed growth' do not add up to a Antarctic wide growth spurt but the 'relaxation' of a shatered pack does (remember the katabatic winds that push off the continent).

My posting images of the rapidity of the melt is in some part observation of the 'natural ablation process' but also to document an unprecedented decline in this C.T. 'record' ice extent (for it would be truely sensational if a record amount of ice ablated in the 'normal time period' as observed over the past 30 years of Satellite measurement).

Time alone will tell as to the rate of ablation but common sense should tell you which 'scenario' makes most sense.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[West is Best]

Why do I have this sense that we have a classic case of inconvenient facts forcing some people to try and move the goalposts?!

Record antarctic ice levels this year.

More on this tomorrow morning ...

[Gray-Wolf]

Why do I have this sense that we have a classic case of inconvenient facts forcing some people to try and move the goalposts?!

Record antarctic ice levels this year.

More on this tomorrow morning ...

Please just show me evidence other than C.T. assertions and (if you can use the major contributors and not 'in house varsity' experimental) I'll gladly concede that I am wrong in this!

Surely the major authorities would have had something to say on this (at least as quickly as they declared the northern anomalies) but there is nothing other than this one site claiming 'a record' (and if you note timings C.T. were well behind the major players in declaring an ice minimum up north!).

I have no axe to grind in all of this I would just like 'the facts', so far we have one small university outlet declaring 'record' and all of the folk that they buy their data from are quiet on the subject. Surely the 'providers' would have something to say if your claims are 'fact'?

[Gray-Wolf]

To me this needs a little explanation? Here is the C.T. (the site claiming a 'record ice extent') anomaly plot for southern ice levels

As you can see (even allowing for thick lines) it would appear that we are already 2 weeks ahead of last years ice levels?

To recap, C.T. post a record ice extent and then show an extremely fast melt taking place.

As I have maintained it appears to me that maximum ice extent (contiguous ice) was reached on ,or about, Aug 28th where after the ice underwent catastrophic fragmentation and outward drift (on the Katabatic winds blowing off the continent). You would then expect rapid disintegration and ablation of the pack (greater surface are of ice chunks compared to their mass leading to increased ablation) in line with what we have been seeing in my posts.

I would welcome other takes on this 'phenomena'.

Ian.

[Gray-Wolf]

Couple of images, one from 23:50 UTC last night and from 08:05 UTC this a.m.

as you can see we appear to be well advanced in this seasons melt compared to previous years.

[West is Best]

GW extrapolating like that from a satellite picture is terribly fraught with danger.

I'm not convinced by this '2 weeks ahead' argument in terms of melt. The anomaly on the CT site still looks to me to be above par, and this following a record maximum. Unless my eyesight is failing the anomaly is still above the 1971-2000 mean:

I'm slightly concerned by your reliance on ice levels as proof of AGW too to be truthful. It reminds me slightly of a Coptic priest I once knew who chastised some evangelical Christians because they had said if the Jews were forced back out of Israel it would destroy their faith. They were of the belief that the return of the Jews was down to fulfilled prophecy. His point was that their beliefs should rest on something more solid. In making that analogy I'm not being critical, it's just that I'd be genuinely concerned for you if ice levels didn't follow your script (well indeed they didn't this summer in antartica where record highs were set).

Whilst I'm on this thread, why is it that the environment threads are generating so much heat (and at times venom)? If it's all open scientific debate I just don't get it ...

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi West, nice to see you up here again, long time no see?

As I've just replied 'down below' I've asked our man Robert Grubine down at Mcmurdo for some clarification on this little spat (now we're into full melt down south) as to the 'official view on max. ice extents and also on the rate of this years ablation. I've told him you're having difficulty accepting the view of the experts so you may have a little personal 'explaination' (if you're lucky) as to where you're going wrong. Nothing like a teacher to put you right eh?

Edited October 14, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

GW extrapolating like that from a satellite picture is terribly fraught with danger.

Remind me how folk produce the 'ice extent' images West?

I'm slightly concerned by your reliance on ice levels as proof of AGW too to be truthful.Whilst I'm on this thread, why is it that the environment threads are generating so much heat (and at times venom)? If it's all open scientific debate I just don't get it ... :lol:

So melting ice ,both at the north and south poles, is no indicator of global warming (as forced by our insistance on burning 'fossil fuels') but is an indicator of...........what exactly?

Edited October 14, 2007 by Gray-Wolf