Operation IceBridge - Arctic Spring 2018

[Jim Hunt]

NASA's Operation IceBridge spring 2018 campaign in the Arctic has just begun:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-begins-latest-airborne-arctic-ice-survey

The flights continue until April 27 extending the mission’s decade-long mapping of the fastest-changing areas of the Greenland Ice Sheet and measuring sea ice thickness across the western Arctic basin.

Also keep an eye of their Twitter feed and Facebook page.

This picture was taken north of Greenland:

[ghoti]

New photos of the new rift in Petermann Glacier

https://twitter.com/NASA_ICE/status/981979361854283777


https://twitter.com/NASA_ICE/status/981979218497196032

[litesong]

New photos of the new rift in Petermann Glacier.

A 2016 AGW denier whiner article about a previous Petermann Glacier crack:
<snip>

Recycle the date to 2018. Insert into the internet.

[Thomas Barlow]

A 2016 AGW denier whiner article about a previous Petermann Glacier crack:
<snip>
Recycle the date to 2018. Insert into the internet.

Please don't post those people here. Thanks.

[Neven]

Not just post it, don't even read that nonsense. That guy is a 100% liar, pathologically incapable of telling the truth.

[Jim Hunt]

Several interesting images are now appearing on the Facebook page.

Here's a few, including one of a damaged Twin Otter at the ICEX 2018 site. More about ICEX (and "denial"  by "pathological liars"!) over at:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2018/04/hms-trenchant-surfaces-at-the-icex-2018-ice-camp/

[Jim Hunt]

Recycle the date to 2018. Insert into the internet.

It would be most helpful if you hadn't inserted that link into the internet!

Perhaps the moderator could delete it, or at least change it to an archived version of the "100% lies" in question?

[Archimid]

According to the legend of the exercises, the US submarines were supposed to surface and strike conditional targets in Russia, but the thick ice prevented them from fulfilling the scenario of the exercise.

Wait. Are they saying that the parameters for the exercise was to simulate thick ice that stopped them from breaking through the ice??? That scenario is not even likely anymore. My worst conspiracy theory alarms go off.

[Daniel B.]

Recycle the date to 2018. Insert into the internet.

It would be most helpful if you hadn't inserted that link into the internet!

Perhaps the moderator could delete it, or at least change it to an archived version of the "100% lies" in question?

The problem is not so much "100% lies," as selectivity.  The statement that the Petermann glacier has grown over the past five years is accurate.  However, the starting point is immediately after the large calving of 2012.  Yes, the glacier has grown since then, but it has been receding for much longer. 

[Neven]

Perhaps the moderator could delete it, or at least change it to an archived version of the "100% lies" in question?

Sorry, forgot to remove it. Done now.

[Jim Hunt]

The problem is not so much "100% lies," as selectivity.

If I recall the writings of the author of the article in question accurately, not so very long ago he seemed to be suffering from the misapprehension that "melange" is identical to "glacier". A liar, an ignoramus or both?

[Dharma Rupa]

If I recall the writings of the author of the article in question accurately, not so very long ago he seemed to be suffering from the misapprehension that "melange" is identical to "glacier". A liar, an ignoramus or both?

Ignorabimus (we shall not know)

[SimonF92]

Having had a good look at NASAs amazing images, on the micro-scale (now i appreciate these images may be hand picked), does the sea ice north of Greenland seem to be in bad shape?

At least until a few years ago I thought fast ice extended several tens of kilometers off the coast of northern Greenland in the winter and early spring? Especially in April.

Here it looks like dispersed floes, vulnerable to waves.

Am I being naive?

[magnamentis]

Recycle the date to 2018. Insert into the internet.

It would be most helpful if you hadn't inserted that link into the internet!

Perhaps the moderator could delete it, or at least change it to an archived version of the "100% lies" in question?

The problem is not so much "100% lies," as selectivity.  The statement that the Petermann glacier has grown over the past five years is accurate.  However, the starting point is immediately after the large calving of 2012.  Yes, the glacier has grown since then, but it has been receding for much longer.

has it really grown (volume) or just lengthened (grown in length) which i would not consider real growth. i'm asking because i'm not privy with common terms on the matter. if a glacier is loosing mass but accelerates it's flow it can look bigger (grown) from above (two dimensonal view) but then it lost mass if it lost a significant portion of it's thickness.

[Dharma Rupa]

Recycle the date to 2018. Insert into the internet.

It would be most helpful if you hadn't inserted that link into the internet!

Perhaps the moderator could delete it, or at least change it to an archived version of the "100% lies" in question?

The problem is not so much "100% lies," as selectivity.  The statement that the Petermann glacier has grown over the past five years is accurate.  However, the starting point is immediately after the large calving of 2012.  Yes, the glacier has grown since then, but it has been receding for much longer.

has it really grown (volume) or just lengthened (grown in length) which i would not consider real growth. i'm asking because i'm not privy with common terms on the matter. if a glacier is loosing mass but accelerates it's flow it can look bigger (grown) from above (two dimensonal view) but then it lost mass if it lost a significant portion of it's thickness.

My experience is from mountain(s) in more temperate climes (Mt. Rainier), but it seems to me an advancing glacier means more snow and has little to do with heat.  The firn line can descend/ascend rather rapidly as more snow is added at the top even in an environment that is warming.

The leading edge of a glacier is of no real interest.  The only thing that really counts is the firn line.

[oren]

has it really grown (volume) or just lengthened (grown in length) which i would not consider real growth.

With a glacier the size of Petermann, 15 km wide, 600m thick, when it lengthens its volume grows. The ice is slowly thinning by melt from below (and in summer from above) as it advances, but if it remains connected to the glacier instead of calving then the glacier volume has definitely grown. The ice does not "collapse forward" as you may be imagining such that the volume remains constant while length grows dramatically. It is not a pile of snow, but a very solid huge slab of ice flowing along by back-pressure.

[sidd]

To me the important criterion for a glacier like Peterman is if the grounding line is advancing ot retreating.

sidd

[gerontocrat]

My experience is from mountain(s) in more temperate climes (Mt. Rainier), but it seems to me an advancing glacier means more snow and has little to do with heat.  The firn line can descend/ascend rather rapidly as more snow is added at the top even in an environment that is warming.

The leading edge of a glacier is of no real interest.  The only thing that really counts is the firn line.

Petermann and Mt Rainier are both glaciers - but how different can two glaciers be ?

Mt Rainier, 25 glaciers sitting on a 14,000 foot active volcano with a volume of about 4.0 km3.

Petermann glacier is somewhat bigger, with an enormous catchment behind it containing ice up to over 2km thick.

I found a study from 2015 that used operation icebridge data to establish its complicated topography including bathymetry. Much too complex (for me) to try and summarise in a post.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15002216 - "Bathymetry in Petermann fjord from Operation IceBridge aerogravity")

It looks like a sleeping(?) giant - I wonder if icebridge data since 2015 has identified significant change?

I guess the process by which Petermann and Mt Rainier will gain or (much more likely) lose mass is going to be very different.

[magnamentis]

thanks for all replies, so i understand that the length of a glacier is the main criterion to say whether it's growing or shrinking. understood.

[Jim Hunt]

To me the important criterion for a glacier like Petermann is if the grounding line is advancing or retreating.

Hear, hear!

[Dharma Rupa]

To me the important criterion for a glacier like Petermann is if the grounding line is advancing or retreating.

Hear, hear!

I agree, but I'm only guessing the grounding line is retreating.  Do we know?

[oren]

I think due to its peculiar topography/bathymetry, Petermann is the least susceptible to rapid grounding line retreat, compared to other major Greenland glaciers.

[Tor Bejnar]

NASA baffled by mysterious ice circles in Arctic

A NASA aircraft has spotted something in the Arctic that it can't explain and it has "never seen before."

On April 14, NASA's Operation Ice Bridge captured images over the Beaufort Sea, 50 miles northwest of the Mackenzie River Delta. The images, taken by mission scientist John Sonntag, show unusual or "curious" circles that the government agency can't explain.

My guesses:  methane if from below OR meteorites if from above.  The article suggestions include seals (air holes) or hot springs.

[FishOutofWater]

It looks like an area where there was fracturing of the ice pack, and an area of refreezing in the area of open water. Perhaps winds blew water over the developing ice and some of it drained back into the sea through the holes. Perhaps the water under the forming ice had areas of slightly higher temperature or salinity. Seals may have maintained the tiny central openings after the larger openings formed. It doesn't look to me like seals had anything to do with the large circles of thin ice, but they might have taken advantage of them once they formed.

I have spent a lot of time in the water and can say with confidence that there are always eddies and temperature variations near the coast.

Unless someone samples for gasses we'll never know if they have anything to do with this but it doesn't look to me like they caused the larger circles to form.

[gerontocrat]

On April 14, NASA's Operation Ice Bridge captured images over the Beaufort Sea, 50 miles northwest of the Mackenzie River Delta. The images, taken by mission scientist John Sonntag, show unusual or "curious" circles that the government agency can't explain.

My guesses:  methane if from below OR meteorites if from above.  The article suggestions include seals (air holes) or hot springs.
[/quote]

Huge Aliens are lurking under the ice!!!!! The evidence is clear - giant sperm !!!! ( Sent to Fox News and Breitbart )

[Coffee Drinker]

Maybe those holes have something to do with the mud volcanoes in the Beaufort Sea?

https://www.yukon-news.com/business/mud-volcanoes-burble-beneath-icy-beaufort-sea/

[Stephan]

Maybe those holes have something to do with the mud volcanoes in the Beaufort Sea?

https://www.yukon-news.com/business/mud-volcanoes-burble-beneath-icy-beaufort-sea/

Is there any information about the water depth at these places? A too deep ocean there would indicate that methane outgassing is less likely. But if the waters there are very shallow ... who knows??

[Steven]

Operation IceBridge "quick look" data for the spring 2018 campaign have been posted yesterday by NSIDC (link).  According to the website:

This quick look product is experimental and is designed to be applicable for time-sensitive projects such as sea ice forecasting.

For what it's worth, I downloaded the data and plotted the snow depth and sea ice thickness.

Snow depth:


Sea ice thickness:


For comparison, here are the corresponding images for previous years:

2017 snow depth
2016 snow depth
2015 snow depth
2012 snow depth

2017 ice thickness
2016 ice thickness
2015 ice thickness
2012 ice thickness