Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[WindWatcher]

So out of the 6,000,000 km2 of ice there at the end of last summer how much can they have covered?

My opinion remains unchanged.

If they had been telling us that the ice was moving north against the persistently strong north wind then it might have had some interest beyond just the WEATHER conditions they are experiencing.

[stewfox]

For a stat you can scratch over 1/2 of that figure as it'll be gone in 2 months time. Seasonal ice isn't the problem here, it's the ice that over weathers summer. A few years of ice min plots and you'll start to see where to look and measure. With the aid of Sat's you can then plot out the 'single year, 2nd year 3 rd year and fully perennial and it would be the 'perennial' that holds interest would it not? (no point in looking at ice that'll be sea in 2 weeks is there?).

NSIDC March review has a couple of images of the ice age and distribution and you can see how little of the Arctic we are concerned with here.

Now if we had 7m sq kms of ice left by early June that really would be alarming and I would book my artic ice free summer cruise for 2015 now.

Its likely to be about 11m sq kms

The problem is the Artic isn't playing along with the alarmist and we all know the Antartic is a waste of time (ice growing there).

ps its cloudy in Reading must mean the whole of the UK is cloudy or if I was part of the World wild life fund the whole of Western Europe ?

[Gray-Wolf]

11? I'd find 11 alarming if the central area of the high Arctic was Ice free and the 11 million was sat around the edges of the 'cold affected ' regions. Let's wait for our 'pole cam' to be deployed (if they are able) and then we can have a daily peep at just how the 'safest ice' is doing.

I honestly believe that we have never had such a poorly constructed central Arctic region at winters end. This ,I must add, gives me reason for concern about the survival of that ice over summer.

I am certain that all the 'extra ice' that grew this winter will all be gone by June seeing as it is on it's way south as I type (check out Bering etc. and see the open waters along the coastlines as the ice pulls away into open ocean)

With the continued collapse of the old perennial since 07' we are even closer to a central Arctic pack with the potential for a complete 'melt out' that ever before in our human existence (130,000yrs ish).

Only 24hrs to lift off of Europe's Cryosat2 mission and even with it starting it's mission so late in the demise of the Arctic it's findings will still plot the death throes as ice thickness/volume reduces up to the point of the emergence first season of seasonal arctic pack.

[doctormog]

Opinion aside (see above post) it's interesting, and welcome, to see the percentage of ice more than one year old increase this year. Given the ice being in the worst state ever style comments these dats seem a bit anomalous?

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure6.png

Let's hope this continues over the next few months and seasons. Yes I know it's worse than a few years ago but given the anomslous summer melts of recent years that is almost a certainty (for obvious reasons), it's just good to see that it's not a totally a one-way shift at the moment!

[Gray-Wolf]

Let's not mix winter and summer Dr M oh!, and by the way, lets switch to ice 'volume' so we can get into practice.........this would serve well as volumes have fallen each summers end since 07' and the sham that is 'extent' doesn't quite reflect that truth of things now does it??

http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf

Maybe you should remind yourself of the info we were given back in Nov? (page 29 onwards???)

Edited April 7, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[doctormog]

Let's not mix winter and summer Dr M oh!

You've lost me once again (and the random little "oh"? Bizarre!)

The summer and winter ice ages are inextricably linked, so I'm not mixing them. If you don't understand the connection between record low minima and impact on multiyear ice I'm afraid there's little point in us communicating.

I presume you welcome the increase in multi-year ice as that is what the NSIDC data show and the report comments on it:

I look at all the evidence and data and already recognise the past long term trend, why don't you do the same and look at the current evidence rather than shifting the goalposts all the time. My post wasn't about ice volume as those data are not available so it would be guesswork surely? My post was about ice age and you once again totally failed to address it.

Anyway if you want to speak of ice volume:

"Although the Arctic has much less thick, multiyear ice than it did during the 1980s and 1990s, this winter has seen some replenishment: the Arctic lost less ice the past two summers compared to 2007, and the strong negative Arctic Oscillation this winter prevented as much ice from moving out of the Arctic. The larger amount of multiyear ice could help more ice to survive the summer melt season. However, this replenishment consists primarily of younger, two- to three-year-old multiyear ice; the oldest, and thickest multiyear ice has continued to decline. Although thickness plays an important role in ice melt, summer ice conditions will also depend strongly on weather patterns through the melt season."

Yes, it's not as good as a few years ago but it is better than last year and the link to and significance for summer ice is clearly stated.

May I suggest you also write to the NSIDC to tell them not to be confused and mix summer and winter ice too?

[Gray-Wolf]

I think NSIDC also contibuted to the cop paper I linked???? was it 48% reduction ,winter and summer over the period?

[stewfox]

With the continued collapse of the old perennial since 07' we are even closer to a central Arctic pack with the potential for a complete 'melt out' that ever before in our human existence (130,000yrs ish).

Only 24hrs to lift off of Europe's Cryosat2 mission and even with it starting it's mission so late in the demise of the Arctic it's findings will still plot the death throes as ice thickness/volume reduces up to the point of the emergence first season of seasonal arctic pack.

And so the curtain comes down and the audience applaud the people keep eating their pop corn awaiting the next instalment

Up comes the curtain.

It was the ice that once wash our shore but tis gone now I fear for ever thats the score, as their is no more ice to flush its open water that is for shore.

May we rejoice in the knowledge that the arctic ice is no more 130,000 years of hurt (ish) never stop believing artic free ice summer is coming home , its coming home ?.

Now back to the real world

Edited April 7, 2010 by stewfox

[songster]

However, this replenishment consists primarily of younger, two- to three-year-old multiyear ice; the oldest, and thickest multiyear ice has continued to decline

There you have it. You're focusing on the first half of the sentence, and Gray-Wolf is focusing on the second half. Time will tell which is the correct view. Key questions that need answers are: Does second/third year ice really qualify as "multi-year", or is it only a little more resilient than first year ice? How old is the the really old stuff, the stuff that's continuing to decline? Five years, ten years, a century, a millennium? It's a well known fact that the Greenland ice cap is metastable - i.e. it exists because it exists. Its own altitude protects it from melting. If it were magically removed tonight, it could not and would not reform even if the climate got substantially colder. Does the same apply to the old perennial ice, i.e. the stuff that's decades or centuries old, not just 2-3 years? Will any of the current second/third year ice get the chance to become old perennial ice, or have we already lost the ocean conditions necessary for it to form?

[Gray-Wolf]

From the little I know some of the 'old perennial is/was indeed from the last ice age. The 2nd and 3rd year ice has not undergone the changes to make it 'perennial' even though it has weathered more than one season (mainly due to it's position and not it's nature). True Perennial is akin to glacial ice and contains very little 'salt'. The ice we have now still has a high salt content and so melts at lower temps (like putting salt on your ice/snow on your path).

The other 'loss' has been the horizons within the Arctic ocean and these do take many tens of years to form under permanent ice cover. These are fundamental in the formation of 'thick ice' as they for a sealed top layer of cold ,fresh water in which the ice sits. At present many areas that had been ice free had the horizons mashed by wave action so ice cannot extend down into the depths as it melts there in the (relatively) warm water.

As the paper points out to enable recovery we need multiple years (tens of years?) of continuous ice cover across the pole to replenish the 'old perennial'.

EDIT: What a difference 4 days make!

This is an area deep within the Arctic North of Svalbard

How these folk can get all 'happy' about ice spreading our of bering when the poles falling apart?

Edited April 7, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

D'ya know , there are times that some of you guys have me questioning myself (which is no doubt good) but then I look back over things and find myself grimly reassured that I am on the right track about things.

I look at the ice each day (as you well know) and I read most all that I can get from the 'science' from the arctic (and the odds and sods from the locals that make it into local papers) and this past 3 years of 'recovery' clamour (both on here and in the right wing blogs/papers) has had me re-doubling my take on things.

I remember back in 08' warning folk that 'collapsed ice' would spread out and fool the folks that used 'ice extent' as there bible. We then got the GRACE study which showed thinning over the 'recovery period' and then we got the good doctor Barbers grim discoveries of 'rotten ice' masquerading as perennial and I had to think "ah!, there we go".

I think it was Jethro who had the exchange with me over 'collapsing perennial' back then (it'll be logged in the 'histories') but whoever it was they never came back to say "it appears you may have been right".

I remember moaning on about permafrost and methane. Lot's of knock backs and little support. Then in 07' methane levels started to rise after a 10 year flat line. Some folk said the Ruskies had fixed their pipelines, others that it was a years 'glitch'. In 08' we got tales of methane bubbles from the Siberian shelf sea area and promises of return missions to find out if it was an issue. This year we get tales of 'methane explosions' both north of Svalbard and along the Siberian shelf coast (and many of the lakes on the Siberian permafrost) some recovery there.....or not???

Now we have tales of nitrous oxide leaking (3rd worst GHG in our catalogue) from the permafrost when we were assured (by some) that this could never occur as it would be fixed in the soil as nitrates.

This year again we get tales of 'thin ice' fragmented ice, ice slush where solid ice should live and, again , all set to the recovery clamour.

Well those folk crying recovery had better hope they are correct in their understanding of the Arctic because I , for one, will want my questions answering as summer progresses and the obvious collapse occurs.

No one in the 'science' will ever talk of the 'ice free pole this summer' ever again (as no climate scientist will ever use the word 'tricks' in their E-Mails again) when the obvious pans out they will rely on their guarded words as proof that they warned us. Folk have learnt how the pseudo science operates and though it should not mess with their expressions it does and will.

We have already had an ice free pole this year (as the images of the leads there show) but no-one trumpeted it did they?

The Siberian side of the arctic ocean can no longer grow 'thick ice'. As I have said it is a 'normal ocean' now, it has lost it's 'novel' horizons. This cancer will spread through the rest of the Arctic ocean . The 'rotten ice' is just that, rotten. It was strong thick perennial but now it has collapsed into the ocean and though it didn't melt that year and was set in a matrix of 'new ice', it will melt as soon as it finds it's way into areas favourable for melt.

There is no 'grounded perennial' now. The odd bay in the Canadian Archipelago still holds bits but even the shelfs there are in a state of collapse so how will bay ice survive?

We have had 2 years of central ice bolstered by the collapse of old perennial and now most of that 'collapse' is over. All we have left is ablation. Will this year of thin high arctic ice prove to be the year? I think so. Though NSIDC will not go the extra mile (and be crucified if they are 50km sq out on the prediction) I will (and have) . This year will see 07' matched or beaten and without it needing to be a 'special year' (the past 2 years have been conducive to ice retention yet still the ice volume fell and North Greenland started to melt as fast as the rest of Greenland) .

If we get a 'special year' then the same folk calling for continued recovery will have even more explaining to do.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[LomondSnowstorm]

Ok. I will wait to see the summer's ice minimum and the effects the negative PDO and AMO kicking in will have. Perhaps even if we do have thirty years with a southerly tracking jet and a slightly cooler world the ice will not recover. But I await with an open mind. In fact, if we do have a minimum lower than 2007 and we see a virtually ice free arctic and the globe keeps warming over the next five years in spite of the change in AMO, PDO and, in general, NAO, then I will quite happily admit that you were completely correct and it will be far too late to do anything about it, in spite of the fact that I'm merely sceptical of the AGW premise, not of renewable energy and sustainable living which are essential with or without AGW. The truth is that overpopulation is probably the main environmental problem with the world today even in terms of CO2 emissions. No one wants to talk about it but it is something we're going to have to live with. Ironically development is the only thing which is likely to stop the increase in global population but that leads to higher waste per person even if we do it as sustainably as we can. So all the west can do is pretend to help Developing Nations when in fact they are completely dependant on countries such as Nigeria and the DRC never developing and putting a huge strain on our resources and perhaps demanding decent prices for the resources we take from them at a cheap price. That's the underlying issue here - I just wish we could focus on things like this instead of the AGW fixation afflicting the UN.

Edited April 7, 2010 by LomondSnowstorm

[Gray-Wolf]

Ok. I will wait to see the summer's ice minimum and the effects the negative PDO and AMO kicking in will have. Perhaps even if we do have thirty years with a southerly tracking jet and a slightly cooler world the ice will not recover. But I await with an open mind. In fact, if we do have a minimum lower than 2007 and we see a virtually ice free arctic and the globe keeps warming over the next five years in spite of the change in AMO, PDO and, in general, NAO, then I will quite happily admit that you were completely correct and it will be far too late to do anything about it, in spite of the fact that I'm merely sceptical of the AGW premise, not of renewable energy and sustainable living which are essential with or without AGW. The truth is that overpopulation is probably the main environmental problem with the world today even in terms of CO2 emissions. No one wants to talk about it but it is something we're going to have to live with. Ironically development is the only thing which is likely to stop the increase in global population but that leads to higher waste per person even if we do it as sustainably as we can. So all the west can do is pretend to help Developing Nations when in fact they are completely dependant on countries such as Nigeria and the DRC never developing and putting a huge strain on our resources and perhaps demanding decent prices for the resources we take from them at a cheap price. That's the underlying issue here - I just wish we could focus on things like this instead of the AGW fixation afflicting the UN.

I'm not hopeful (as you may have guessed) about humanities ability to do anything about anything.

We will not control population (how could you??) and so we are left , as ever , putting the band aid on after blowing holes in them with a semi automatic.

Maybe the whole Gaia thing is correct and we will be the masters of our own population control via our demands on the planet and the population collapse that these demands demand (peak oil, over population ,lack of food [food for all and not beef for the 1st world and rice for the rest] and climate shift promoted by our pollution).

As for PDO , AO .NAO, et al AGW will over-ride them in time and not just augment/detract from their influences as they do now. The Arctic has gone too far with encroaching Pacific/Atlantic waters undermining the old order of the Arctic Basin. We may look to wind patterns for ice shipping out of the Arctic but what is this if we are shipping in waters (fastest ever through bering last year) that melt it from below?

With the Archipelago swept clear of perennial what is to stop a new current from Bering through there and down West Greenland? How does this impact the Arctic Grye? it's like a cog driving another cog surely? With this in place we then have Fram (exit for 90% of Arctic ice) being fed by a current flow and not by wind and the AO.

I do agree that humanity faces far more immediate issues than climate change but that's for another thread.

[LomondSnowstorm]

I did get slightly sidetracked from the issue of Arctic Ice really!

It looks good in terms of extent at the moment IMO but I can see that extent increasing and volume increasing are different things and I'm not prepared to dismiss GW's analysis just because it doesn't fit with my beliefs about AGW - clearly there is at least some scientific basis for his views. However, I'm also not compelled enough to say that the multiyear ice is not going to be replenished, though clearly the situation in the Arctic has not been very good for the last 20 years or so. Perhaps these changes are cyclical, and the earth has gone through so many changes from Antarctica being a liveable continent to glaciers covering the UK to the early days of the earth's existence (and by early days I mean the majority of it!). Earth has been completely unlivable on for the vast majority of its existence and it is pretty miraculous that we are alive at possibly the optimum of climate and (hopefully not) civillisation itself. So, on the issue of this, I'm going to stay TAP (temporarily agnostic in practice) until either I read enough to convince me that either the Arctic ice is undergoing a recovery and this is all cyclical or that humans are radically changing the earth's climate and for the worse. I believe the latter is true on a local level with the desertification of the Sahel and the deforestation of the Amazon, both of which are not recent by human standards, but I cannot say I believe that GHGs and GHGs almost alone control our climate. I really hope they do not but clearly they have some kind of warming effect, though to what extent I am unsure.

Edited April 8, 2010 by LomondSnowstorm

[ScottSnow]

GW you are so entrenched in your views that I sense that you would like to see the Arctic free of ice just so you could feel vindicated.

I trawled back through some of the threads from 08 and 09 and you predicted that we would see a total collapse of Arctic Ice in both those summers with various reasons being put forward. If we had listened to you we would have had two summers already where the Arctic had been ice free.

I have one question that I would like you to answer honestly (and without all your drama please).

What will your views be if Arctic Ice continues with the improvement from the past two summers ?

My own view is that the Arctic ice is still in a precarious position but after the nearly fatal 07 melt there has to be cause for optimisim after the past two years. If and its a big 'if', if we see another improvement this summer and more growth of multi-year ice then it may turn out that we are in a much better position than any of us could have hoped for after 2007.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sorry S.W. but there has been no recovery. 09' saw the remainder of the ice spread thin across the basin (by wind and current) and though it triggered the 15% or more per pixel criteria it did not constitute what you or I would see as a recovery i.e. solid ice across the areas where the extent measure was triggered.

08' was bolstered (in the Canadian Greenland sectors by the collapse and spread of the perennial there. No new ice was there only old ice spread more thinly.

The winters of both years saw only thin ice develop (as the GRACE overflights measured) and some continued thinning of sectors of the pack. This last winter, with its unusual AO has compounded the poor ice development by dragging in very warm airs further hampering ice formation.

By the time we get to mid June you should be revisiting all I have said here as the AO 'extensions' of ice into the lower latitudes will be melted and the central pack will be revealing it's appalling condition.

I wish for the old Arctic back but ,as they say ,"If wishes were fishes we'd cast our nets once....."

EDIT: http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/22/thin-ice-arctic-winds-sea-ice-extent-global-warming/

Have a gander at the first article and 'clicky' on the links to the various papers/studies.

As I said the 'science' is wearysome of the right wing blog/media skewing things and mixing up weather for climate. Here's poor Mark Serreze of NSIDC;

http://www.adn.com/2010/04/01/1208603/growth-in-arctic-sea-ice-a-fluke.html

and really you should look at the Modis images if you doubt that the majority of the bloated extent is not the anomalous blob of fractured ice spreading in the pacific beyond the Bering straights;

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

Click on 'near realtime' and push the back arrow to get a full days (yesterday) images or do the same after clicking 'Arctic Mosaic'

It's like a smoke bomb, it grows and grows until it's so thin it dissappears. That point will be when it falls below 15% per pixel. Sadly it's 'blooming' is plumping the extent and hiding the losses in other areas. As I've said repeatedly you can expect a cliff face collapse of ice extent before May is out.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[songster]

I'm sorry S.W. but there has been no recovery. 09' saw the remainder of the ice spread thin across the basin (by wind and current) and though it triggered the 15% or more per pixel criteria it did not constitute what you or I would see as a recovery i.e. solid ice across the areas where the extent measure was triggered.

Sorry, but no. Ice area and extent were both improved in '09 relative to '08 and '08 relative to '07. Ice area is weighted on a per-pixel according to the percentage cover, so it should be less affected by the "spreading out" effect. I'm quite willing to believe the pack was in bad shape - fragmented, leads etc. However it's just not true that it was sparse enough to give a misleading picture of extent or area.

Look at the pictures from August/September last year - the large majority is at >= 95% concentration.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=30&fy=2009&sm=09&sd=10&sy=2009

[MR EXTREMES]

I'm sorry S.W. but there has been no recovery. 09' saw the remainder of the ice spread thin across the basin (by wind and current) and though it triggered the 15% or more per pixel criteria it did not constitute what you or I would see as a recovery i.e. solid ice across the areas where the extent measure was triggered.

08' was bolstered (in the Canadian Greenland sectors by the collapse and spread of the perennial there. No new ice was there only old ice spread more thinly.

The winters of both years saw only thin ice develop (as the GRACE overflights measured) and some continued thinning of sectors of the pack. This last winter, with its unusual AO has compounded the poor ice development by dragging in very warm airs further hampering ice formation.

By the time we get to mid June you should be revisiting all I have said here as the AO 'extensions' of ice into the lower latitudes will be melted and the central pack will be revealing it's appalling condition.

I wish for the old Arctic back but ,as they say ,"If wishes were fishes we'd cast our nets once....."

rather anoying now i think your a joker looking for a reaction.

there has been a recovery but not enough to float your boat gray wolf perhapes a sinking boat would suit you better.

or better still if everybody listens to you then you can be our new hero.

you totally flip everything you dont listen to other peoples idears you just argue.

well just for you gray wolf to make your day i agree with you ice free arctic by 2013 you feel better now good.

now i cant be bothered anymore with this thread.

and songster why bother saying sorry your right.

Edited April 8, 2010 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

I think it was the NSIDC itself that pointed out that extent was giving a very poor interpretation of conditions at the end of last year and I'll let their words explain why rather than tieing myself up in knots again.

The poor restart in growth was due to the 'infill' of the open water between broken ice in areas that had already triggered the 15% or more criteria so the 'new growth' did not register.

We'll discuss C.T. on another day!!!

today is about

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cryosat/SEMILVZNK7G_0.html

[MR EXTREMES]

GW you are so entrenched in your views that I sense that you would like to see the Arctic free of ice just so you could feel vindicated.

I trawled back through some of the threads from 08 and 09 and you predicted that we would see a total collapse of Arctic Ice in both those summers with various reasons being put forward. If we had listened to you we would have had two summers already where the Arctic had been ice free.

I have one question that I would like you to answer honestly (and without all your drama please).

What will your views be if Arctic Ice continues with the improvement from the past two summers ?

My own view is that the Arctic ice is still in a precarious position but after the nearly fatal 07 melt there has to be cause for optimisim after the past two years. If and its a big 'if', if we see another improvement this summer and more growth of multi-year ice then it may turn out that we are in a much better position than any of us could have hoped for after 2007.

every single bit of this post is correct,

i to went through old threads and yes the broken record continues.

there gw your getting the reaction you where hoping for<_<.

through out the winter 09/10 thread there was a person who wound people up so bad mr ian brown but he did contribute and enjoyed the fact that he was wrong.

he also very much had a much more neutral view by mid summer and was happy to take views from both sides,

but gw you just really push the issues for reaction i to wonder what your wishes are for the arctic.

your right its in a bad way but its been on the up so long may this continue.

[Gray-Wolf]

Surely you've got 6 weeks worth of patience in you bb?

By then we'll be getting the 'Icebridge' results and the new maps of 'ice concentration' reflecting the gravity of Dr B's findings on the remnant 'old perennial'.

The 'ice extent' will be more reflectice of the conditions (with the anomalies melted out) and Cryosat 2 will be giving realtime measures of ice volume across the pole.

Science and ourselves have been fooled by the 'new Arctic' but we've seen the 'trick' and will correct our impressions.

Only 5 hrs or so 'till lift off!

Excited???

[MR EXTREMES]

Surely you've got 6 weeks worth of patience in you bb?

By then we'll be getting the 'Icebridge' results and the new maps of 'ice concentration' reflecting the gravity of Dr B's findings on the remnant 'old perennial'.

The 'ice extent' will be more reflectice of the conditions (with the anomalies melted out) and Cryosat 2 will be giving realtime measures of ice volume across the pole.

Science and ourselves have been fooled by the 'new Arctic' but we've seen the 'trick' and will correct our impressions.

Only 5 hrs or so 'till lift off!

Excited???

well ofcoarse to me this looks rather good.

but ofcoarse gw no ice gain

the amount of ice we have lost over the decades because we have been moving out of the last ice age i might add,

this is not likely to grow to record levels in a couple of years because if it did then panic would be very much valid.

things take time and as far as i can see things are on the up.

Edited April 8, 2010 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

And there was I thinking we were well past the interglacial optimum and on the downward slope into the next glaciation (as indeed arctic temps were showing up to a hundred years ago and then, mysteriously, they started to warm).

Funny what you learn on here eh?

It's a real Ward Hunt isn't it? (That'd be the ice shelf we lost last year and it's fresh water lake which spilled itself and its contents into the ocean loosing the special ecosystem that had evolved there over the 3 thousand years of it's existence).

Seriously, lets stop this for a few weeks and then we can all have a more informed discussion about things. I feel I have the science to back me up and you have your Ice extent maps and some winter weather. When we both have the 'facts' about the past 3 years degradation (or not?) of the old perennial and the thickness measures of both the pack and Greenland ice sheet we will be better prepared to make some kind of headway toward agreement.

As I (and the science) see it with no perennial we have no pack merely seasonal ice waiting to melt out. With open ocean in the Arctic Basin 'normal' Ocean processes will begin and the ocean will be incapable of developing the type of ice we watched die.

It will ,of course produce seasonal ice some of which will over summer none of which will be as durable as our old perennial was.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[The PIT]

Maybe it's just a natural variation and we're now going to resume the slide.

[Gray-Wolf]

So , she flies .

3 days of system checking , a couple of weeks of investigative trials, and then we'll get the info it appears some of you don't want to hear.