Arctic ice

[Filski]

Looks to be a little bit of skin on the water. Not significant though, temps will ensure its demise.

[0000]

Looks to be a little bit of skin on the water. Not significant though, temps will ensure its demise.

Reminds me of South Shields in August

[Admiral_Bobski]

On a lighter note, check out this little gem:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_brief...ologists_secure

CB

[BARRY]

On a lighter note, check out this little gem:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_brief...ologists_secure

CB

bet the earth moves for them

[Chris Knight]

On a lighter note, check out this little gem:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_brief...ologists_secure

CB

I can't wait to see a baby glacier! Do they do puddles?

[J10]

I think the article may be 2 days early.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think the 'skin' has more to do with the windbreak the structure provides. Temps have been well above freezing since we started posting up the daily images. Though , in retrospect, it should still be below freezing at this time of year up there.....couldn't be global warming could it ????

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

.....couldn't be global warming could it ????

No Seriously though it looks like June is also to come in below at around -0.114c...so the decline continues for another month.

BFTP

Edited July 5, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Filski]

Looks to be a little bit of skin on the water. Not significant though, temps will ensure its demise.

I was wondering, but now I am 100% certain that things have begun to shift around, The bouys have started to shift in these images.

[Gray-Wolf]

Doesn't seem to want my images!! Anyhoo , you are right Filski, the orange buoy is relatively moved when compared to the camera mounting station. Seeing as we don't do 'ice quakes' it would suggest movement (relative to one another). Also ,check the 'wave' height in the puddle.Either a more vigorous wind or that is becoming one heck of a pond!

[Filski]

Yup, and even though temps are down and a skin has formed on smaller ponds its not freezing over.

I'm trying to work out if the camera position has moved or if the shifting is widespread. I suspect it's widespread.

Compare the 2. The bouy on the left has moved because the position of the station the camera is mounted on has rotated. Check some key points on the ice edge in the foreground.

However on the right the building has shifted out of picture. This may have been because the camer moved closer but in reality it hasn't. The building has moved in relation to the objects around it. I think this indicates that the ice is breaking up over a large area.

[Gray-Wolf]

Still no update on the image.

We already have the 'naysayers' telling us that this situation is neither novel or new. I have never seen a forecast for an ice free pole before but if it pans out then I guess 'they' are saying we can now trust the current predictions for the arctic??......or do they have more revelations to prove how 'ordinary' all of this is???....."thou complaineth too loud!......."

[jethro]

.."thou complaineth too loud!......."

Yup

[Filski]

It has updated if you see post #461.

I'm trying to work out what the new features on the horizon mean.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I have overlaid the two images posted above and done some measurements. Attached is the superimposed image. The relative positions of the objects in the background appear not to have changed, though the position of the object in the foreground has changed.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

So far as the 'background' is concerned there's a huge chunk of over-ridden multiyear appeared from the right hand side. It must of 'sailed in' so surely the ice edge is marked out by that 'berg'? Not far is it??

[Filski]

Have just done some photoshop comparisons. It is indeed the camera that has moved on the station. The location of the yellow bouy, the pole in the middle and the building on the right still align in both images.

However there are definitely new features on the horizon, most likely caused by a clash between ice sheets.

[Gray-Wolf]

Have just done some photoshop comparisons. It is indeed the camera that has moved on the station. The location of the yellow buoy, the pole in the middle and the building on the right still align in both images.

However there are definitely new features on the horizon, most likely caused by a clash between ice sheets.

How it seemed to me. if we have a big meltwater pool in front of the web cam then why not under? The big chunk/Berg is new and ,though foggy you can see it plough in yesterday. It would indicate open water, at least as big as the edge of the frame up to where the chunk is today!

[Gray-Wolf]

Better view of the changes.

We now have a 'shoreline' around the pools with wave cut beaches , go back to the previous image and you'll see them clearer. Does this mean the ice is now through to the sea and is 'floating'?.

You can also see the large chunk of multiyear that has floated in (middle distance to the right) suggesting a more mobile pack. The camera position seems to have twisted a little to the right so that the orange buoy, weather station, anemometer have all swung around a bit.

I think it is slipping into the pond!

Edited July 7, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

I've compared this morning's image (Monday) with the Saturday morning and Saturday evening images. Interestingly it would appear that the chunk in the middle distance on the right moved across some time on Saturday, between the morning and evening snapshots.

Since Saturday evening there has been no noticable change to the landscape (except the blueness of the sky and, consequently, the visibility). The camera has not moved at all since Saturday evening, and the landmarks in the middle distance are all still in precisely the same relative position.

The chunk in the middle distance is a little hard to make out on the Saturday evening image, but it is there and in precisely the same place as it currently rests.

:o

CB

[millennia]

I've compared this morning's image (Monday) with the Saturday morning and Saturday evening images. Interestingly it would appear that the chunk in the middle distance on the right moved across some time on Saturday, between the morning and evening snapshots.

Since Saturday evening there has been no noticable change to the landscape (except the blueness of the sky and, consequently, the visibility). The camera has not moved at all since Saturday evening, and the landmarks in the middle distance are all still in precisely the same relative position.

The chunk in the middle distance is a little hard to make out on the Saturday evening image, but it is there and in precisely the same place as it currently rests.

CB

Yep, thought this might happen - last month it was all about graphs showing we were exceeding the melt from last year and then this month suddenly nobody wants to see that rapid melt completely failing to show up:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NSIDCICE7608.JPG

so instead we talk about pools of water in a web cam image - per-leese!

Here's a graphic that may show it a little more clearly. This is a smooth of the average melt (lowess with f=.2) for the average of the period with online daily information from this source(http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv), 2007 and 2008. It seems that 2007 already has an insurmountable lead over 2008 and we ain't breaking any records this year. The x scale is Julian days, BTW, and the graph shows a pretty good profile of the excessive melt and then excessive freeze of 2007.

Next panic please....

Like the signature GW - boo to you too

Edited July 7, 2008 by millennia

[Mr Sleet]

Yep, thought this might happen - last month it was all about graphs showing we were exceeding the melt from last year and then this month suddenly nobody wants to see that rapid melt completely failing to show up:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NSIDCICE7608.JPG

so instead we talk about pools of water in a web cam image - per-leese!

Here's a graphic that may show it a little more clearly. This is a smooth of the average melt (lowess with f=.2) for the average of the period with online daily information from this source(http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv), 2007 and 2008. It seems that 2007 already has an insurmountable lead over 2008 and we ain't breaking any records this year. The x scale is Julian days, BTW, and the graph shows a pretty good profile of the excessive melt and then excessive freeze of 2007.

Next panic please....

Like the signature GW - boo to you too

Well said Millennia. All this froth and bubble over web cam images, which unless they had been subject to this kind of scrutiny over the past 10 years, tell us absolutely nothing about trends.

[Gray-Wolf]

Well said Millennia. All this froth and bubble over web cam images, which unless they had been subject to this kind of scrutiny over the past 10 years, tell us absolutely nothing about trends.

The images do tell us what is occuring up there right now ,which may be of interest to those of us that are concerned with the here and now of course........

[Gray-Wolf]

Yesterdays piccie folks. Notice how high the ice is riding above the waterline now. Hope things clear up for todays image then we can check out the mutiyear chunks.

[Gray-Wolf]

just something Chris had pointed out earlier. There is a difference from having a 'pool' of water on top of the ice to a hole through the ice and a broken pack.

The two photo's above are separated by a few days but look at the height of the snow above the water in the second. The ice has risen up.

At the same time we had noted 'differences' in camera position.

Could the pack now have fractured and the 'settling out' of the floes be responsible for both the lower water line and the camera 'jiggling'?

They gave it a 50/50 chance of being ice free by late Aug and here we are with broken pack in early July! Do you think we'll be getting amended forecasts with our July update?