What the Buoys are telling

[greatdying2]

Or a mix of rain and snow.

[helorime]

O-buoy 10 which is farther from the pole and was becoming surrounded by melt ponds has just been swamped in snow, and O-buoy 9 which is very close to the pole is suddenly melting all around...

http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy10/camera
http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy9/camera

[Andreas T]

To keep a record of this ( the "movie" animation of past images has not updated since the 8th) here is this mornings image at Obuoy10 . I did not expect that snowfall could fill or cover the meltponds. It probably shows they were fairly shallow. I am hoping for a clearer image soon.
Air temperature is just above freezing according to IMB2013F it will be interesting to see how things develop. The ice is probably not very cold, there is water soaked snow with low albedo, melt should resume soon.

PS 2013F has increased snow cover from 12cm to 15cm and reduced ice thickness from 156 to 154cm how reliable these are and from what time I can't say.

[Andreas T]

another  update for the record, albedo has dropped again but not as low as a week  ago. Bottom melt on 2013F still very slow, I have doubts whether this is representative, but time will tell in the end.

[helorime]

I am willing to bet that the "melt pond" in the right hand forground is going to punch right through and the section wil break right off in the not too distant future.  I remember watching that happen in a section that looked much the same last summer.

[Siffy]

Meltponding is finally beginning to eat its way through the ice.

[greatdying2]

Sun on Obuoy9.

[greatdying2]

OBuoy9 is moving fast!

http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy9/gps

[pikaia]

500 metres per second? Or is that 500 miles per second? [scratch head smiley]

[greatdying2]

Even metres seems (too?) fast...

[Buddy]

More than 5 football fields in ONE SECOND.......that seems JUST a wee bit out of whack....

Five meters a second is more likely......

[greatdying2]

Maybe mm? .5 m/s seems reasonable... Also fits what the scale says, I guess.

Yeah, definitely. The scale changes as you change the time range (on OBuoy10 at least).

[Greenbelt]

I realize it must have to do with sun/shade issued on the sensor or stagnant air, but it's funny to watch the temp readings on the buoy near the pole.  It apparently went off the scale >20C for a couple readings:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/ICEX835100_atmos_recent.html

07/30/1100Z    85.766°N    84.282°W    0.6°C   1020.7mb
07/30/1000Z    85.767°N    84.325°W    1.4°C   1021.1mb
07/30/0900Z    85.769°N    84.361°W    2.0°C   1021.4mb
07/30/0800Z    85.770°N    84.389°W    2.4°C   1021.5mb
07/30/0700Z    85.771°N    84.414°W    2.7°C   1021.7mb
07/30/0600Z    85.772°N    84.435°W    4.4°C   1022.0mb
07/30/0500Z    85.772°N    84.449°W    5.6°C   1022.1mb
07/30/0400Z    85.772°N    84.464°W    7.0°C   1022.0mb
07/30/0300Z    85.773°N    84.477°W    10.4°C   1021.9mb
07/30/0200Z    85.773°N    84.485°W    13.1°C   1021.9mb
07/30/0100Z    85.773°N    84.494°W    14.4°C   1022.2mb
07/30/0000Z    85.773°N    84.504°W    15.9°C   1021.9mb
07/29/2300Z    85.774°N    84.515°W    18.0°C   1021.7mb
07/29/2200Z    85.774°N    84.525°W    19.5°C   1021.5mb
07/29/2100Z    85.774°N    84.530°W   -999.9°C   1021.3mb
07/29/2000Z    85.775°N    84.532°W   -999.9°C   1021.0mb
07/29/1900Z    85.775°N    84.533°W    18.5°C   1020.7mb
07/29/1800Z    85.775°N    84.534°W    16.0°C   1020.3mb
07/29/1700Z    85.775°N    84.535°W    13.9°C   1019.9mb
07/29/1600Z    85.774°N    84.538°W    14.6°C   1019.6mb
07/29/1500Z    85.774°N    84.543°W    13.4°C   1019.2mb
07/29/1400Z    85.774°N    84.551°W    12.3°C   1018.8mb
07/29/1300Z    85.774°N    84.563°W    10.9°C   1018.4mb
07/29/1200Z    85.774°N    84.572°W    10.2°C   1018.0mb

[greatdying2]

Daily pulsing...

[greatdying2]

-999.9°C

Proof that global warming is a hoax. The ice ace cometh! 

[Jim Hunt]

I always figured the lone m on the OBuoy graph stood for milli

Thus full scale = 500 milli m/s?

[greatdying2]

Yeah, definitely mm.

The scale shifts depending on the max measurement over the time range selected. See images attached a couple of posts above (9:06), which shown OBuoy10 over a week (scale max 900 mm) vs. a month (scale max 1.2 m). There was some unusual motion in Feb., looking back 6 months (note the scale, att.).

[greatdying2]

Here's a nice shot.

[Anne]

Looking really messy around O Buoy 9 today.
http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy9/camera

[NeilT]

I have a question about these buoys which just occurred to me.

They are usually put out, in the late season, on the thickest ice that can be found.  In order to ensure that they survive to the next year.

OK so if their particular ice floe survives and grows, it is then multi year ice.

But what does that tell us.  If it were, for instance, like this



Would we even be able to see over the horizon of the ice and to the open water about?

[Peter Ellis]

When I see people talking about "slushy" ice on MODIS images, and talking about ice cubes or pina coladas, I realise that they have very little feel for the scales involved. A single MODIS pixel, even at maximum resolution, is 250x250m, i.e. the same area as ten football pitches.  Since sea ice gets to at most a few metres thick, what this means in practice is that any ice detectable by satellite (whether visible or microwave) is effectively a flat sheet - the thickness is negligble in relation to the horizontal measurements.  Everything you see in that picture, even the bits usually dismissed as slush, would be coded as at least "big floes" by the standard egg codes, and much of it would be "vast floes".
https://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/?lang=En&n=84F6AA59-1&wsdoc=FE5C2688-21A8-4165-8FFB-5D28B2A1D943

Turning to the question about buoy measurements, the indicated (vast) floe is about 30 x 60 pixels (diagonally) across.  Assuming that is from the maximum MODIS zoom, then the floe is about 10km x 20km.  Simple trigonometry shows there's no chance of seeing the horizon unless the camera is near one of the edges or is placed at substantially more than human height.  I'm not sure how seeing the horizon is relevant in any case since the sonar pingers measuring thickness will only measure the few square metres immediately around the buoy.

You're wrong to say that buoys are always put in the thickest ice around though - the thickest parts are the pressure ridges, which can go to 10m or more.  You couldn't put a buoy through the middle of one of those even if you wanted to: the drills won't cope (and the buoy would be rapidly crushed).  The buoys are placed in a variety of locations according to the questions each particular buoy is designed to answer (e.g. how fast ice thickens in different parts of the Arctic). Many are put in first year ice, possibly because it's easier to drill through (though that's just my speculation), but a few are put in MYI.

It's fair to say that they only really tell us about the thermodynamic growth and melt of un-deformed ice, and how that's affected by air temp, snow cover, water temp, local concentration as measured by microwave satellites, proximity to the edge of the ice pack, etc. 

What they don't and can't tell us is anything about mechanical ice thickening by ridging, over-riding etc. and how mechanically deformed ice forms and melts.  Simple reason - if the ice the buoy is in gets deformed, it will destroy the buoy. Since about 40% of Arctic ice volume is in the pressure ridges, this is an important missing factor.

[NeilT]

So if I paraphrase what you are saying Peter,  Buoys will only tell us what is happening to that piece of relatively thick ice.  It will tell us nothing about what is happening to thinner ice in the region or what is happening to the water around the ice floe if it happens to be in open water?

Which is kind of what I'm getting at.  No matter what the ice looks like on the surface by these buoys, unless the melt is absolutely catastrophic, they can only tell us what is happening in the very immediate area and what those conditions are.  So if, say, the water 600m away, at the edge of the ice, was 6c, the temperature of the water below the ice would be relatively consistent until significant melt had occurred.  We would only see the impact of that warmer water much later and the early indications would be very rapid bottom melt at a temperature which does not appear to warrant it.

Given that the ice is exchanging mass for sea water temperature balance.

[Jim Hunt]

I have a question about these buoys which just occurred to me.

They are usually put out, in the late season, on the thickest ice that can be found.  In order to ensure that they survive to the next year.

Not so Neil. Please feel free to take a good long look around:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/ice-mass-balance-buoys/

Some are deployed after the start of freeze up. Others are deployed when light returns in the Arctic spring.

Some even survive in the open ocean. Start at 3:25 if the sound of my voice bores you:

[greatdying2]

Cool video, thanks Jim!

Here's another nice shot. Obuoy #9 this time.

[Peter Ellis]

So if I paraphrase what you are saying Peter,  Buoys will only tell us what is happening to that piece of relatively thick ice.

The opposite.  It will only tell us what is happening to the comparatively thin bit of ice they were able to drill through in order to place the buoy.  It won't tell us anything about the thicker ridges that collectively contain 40% of Arctic sea ice volume.

[NeilT]

Not so Neil. Please feel free to take a good long look around:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/ice-mass-balance-buoys/

Some are deployed after the start of freeze up. Others are deployed when light returns in the Arctic spring.

Some even survive in the open ocean. Start at 3:25 if the sound of my voice bores you:

Clearly I was posting from having seen one article about buoys being deployed on significant ice expected to last the season.  Thanks for the correction, I always like to know that I'm not talking total drivel...

I don't mind your voice Jim and I'm glad to see the GreatWhiteCon is going well.  Thanks for the link.

What do you think about my query that the buoys are not necessarily showing what is happening in the larger area around them and that also the ice they are on may tend to shelter the buoy sensors from the larger area's SST because of heat exchange?

Just some thoughts of mine.  I'll go and annoy someone else now...    But, yes, I'm a sea ice nutter too.  I just have less time in my life these days to read up on it all.

[Jim Hunt]

What do you think about my query that the buoys are not necessarily showing what is happening in the larger area around them and that also the ice they are on may tend to shelter the buoy sensors from the larger area's SST because of heat exchange?

Thanks for your kind words.

As Peter says a single IMB buoy won't tell you how much "ridged" ice there is in the vicinity, and it won't tell you how much open water there might be in the near or indeed far distance. It seems to me to constitute only a single small sample from a vast area of ice, and water too at this time of year.

Once the ice starts to melt the water can drain down the hole in which the temperature sensors are situated, after which all sorts of strange readings can result. There are also seasonal IMB buoys (SIMB) with all the sensors mounted on a single tube, plus (experimental only I think at present) SIMBr buoys fitted with radiometers as well.

That's just the CRREL kit. Now the British Antarctic Survey has lots of buoys in the Arctic too, but my endeavours to discover more about exactly how they work have yet to bear fruit.

[Phil.]

What they don't and can't tell us is anything about mechanical ice thickening by ridging, over-riding etc. and how mechanically deformed ice forms and melts.  Simple reason - if the ice the buoy is in gets deformed, it will destroy the buoy. Since about 40% of Arctic ice volume is in the pressure ridges, this is an important missing factor.

Which is apparently what happened to the N Pole webcams about a month ago.

[NeilT]

Thanks everyone.

So, in a nutshell, whilst buoy data can give us valuable information about a broad area of the ocean, those data need to be treated with care when using them.  As they only tell a small, specific story about local conditions.

Interesting thoughts.  I'll file that away with the rest.

As for the kind words Jim, you are welcome.  It takes a lot of time and a lot of effort to put that kind of information together on a site, keep it up to date and keep it relevant.  I know, I work in IT and one of my key areas has been information (as opposed to data), management, over the last 2 decades.  I'm just glad someone has the time and will to do it.

[Anne]

But whoops.
http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy10/camera

[Siffy]

But whoops.
http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy10/camera

Just water on the lens plus lens flare causing the contrast to make the ice blue.

[Anne]

But whoops.
http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy10/camera

Just water on the lens plus lens flare causing the contrast to make the ice blue.

Move along, nothing to see.

[helorime]

What's with the bouncy speed of o-buoy 10?  http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy10/gps

[SteveMDFP]

What's with the bouncy speed of o-buoy 10?  http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy10/gps

It's an interesting question, I think.  There's very little change in latitude/longitude over time, so we're not looking at sustained lateral motion.  The cyclic nature suggests tidal effects, either direct or indirect.  It may be that the instrumentation is picking up *vertical* speed from waves/tides, or perhaps horizontal, to-and-fro motion induced by waves. 

It's in deep water, so speed seems too high to be just rise and fall with tide levels.  I wonder if wave heights in deep arctic waters tend to vary on a diurnal cycle from wind/waves due to solar heating or lunar tides.

[greatdying2]

Is it just me, or is R2D2 righting himself?

http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy9/camera

[ghoti]

http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2014B.htm
They now say:
29 July 2014: Buoy is no longer frozen into ice
Ice thickness < 100 cm, buoy floating in water in drill hole
No further melt stats for summer 2014
Awaiting autumn for buoy to be refrozen into floe

The last thickness measurement indicated 77 cm thick ice. The rate of bottom and surface melt looked like it would be 0 cm thick within first 2 weeks of August. Guess it went "poof" instead.

[Jim Hunt]

http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2014B.htm
They now say:
29 July 2014: Buoy is no longer frozen into ice
Ice thickness < 100 cm, buoy floating in water in drill hole
No further melt stats for summer 2014
Awaiting autumn for buoy to be refrozen into floe

It's a seasonal IMB buoy, so it's designed to free float if necessary. My latest temperature profiles show it is still sending back data:

[Peter Ellis]

The last thickness measurement indicated 77 cm thick ice. The rate of bottom and surface melt looked like it would be 0 cm thick within first 2 weeks of August. Guess it went "poof" instead.

The last sonar measurement, yes.  Thermistors were above zero though, so they can't have been in ice.  I'm guessing a melt pond formed around the buoy and the sonar was seeing the water level rather than the ice level.

[greatdying2]

I'd really like to know what this is all about. Is -1.2 C (?) cold enough for bottom growth? Fresh water?

[Frivolousz21]

I'd really like to know what this is all about. Is -1.2 C (?) cold enough for bottom growth? Fresh water?

It's an error

[greatdying2]

Nice day in Beaufort.

[Siffy]

Nice day in Beaufort.

Significant amounts of freezing of melt ponds occurred as temperatures dropped below -5c for obuoy 9, for obuoy 10 temps hovered around -3c from eye balling the graphs.

[Jim Hunt]

It's an error

Looks more like a buoy melted loose in its hole.

[greatdying2]

Or two buoys? Clusters 2 & 4 both look this way.

http://www.apl.washington.edu/project/project.php?id=miz

[Frivolousz21]

The output would still be in error tho.

[ghoti]

I just noticed the MIZ group deployed Argo floats under the ice. I've been wondering for years if that could be done. They say when they end up in open water they will begin to relay data in near real time.

These could provide amazing water temp/ocean current info if deployed in the Fram and along the north edge of the Barentz. Perhaps clarifying the amount of Atlantic water/heat moving into the Arctic

[Andreas T]

Or two buoys? Clusters 2 & 4 both look this way.

http://www.apl.washington.edu/project/project.php?id=miz

The graphs have been changed, maybe somebody did find an error in the way it determined ice thickness?
The comments above now show the updated version.

[greatdying2]

Ah, that's better!

[helorime]

O-Buoy 10 has finally stopped its twice a day speed surge.  I don't know what that means.  It looked almost tiday except it was in one direction only and has been going on for weeks.  Stopped today http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy10/gps.

Editted to say: stopped yesterday, the 8th.

[greatdying2]

Also at Obuoy #10, his little R2D2 buddy seems to have sunk through a hole: