NASA's Operation IceBridge in search of ice change in Arctic

Apr 10, 2014 by Elizabeth Howell, Universe Today
The NASA P-3B’s shadow on sea ice off of southeast Greenland during an IceBridge survey on Apr. 9, 2013. Flying at a low altitude allows IceBridge researchers to gather detailed data. Credit: NASA / Jim Yungel

How much is the polar ice melting, and how are the sheets being affected by climate change? These are some of the questions that NASA's Operation IceBridge seeks to answer. You can see a quick overview of the mission in the video above.

"IceBridge, a six-year NASA mission, is the largest airborne survey of Earth's polar ice ever flown," NASA stated in the YouTube description accompanying the video.

"It will yield an unprecedented three-dimensional view of Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets, and sea ice. These flights will provide a yearly, multi-instrument look at the behavior of the rapidly changing features of the Greenland and Antarctic ice," the agency added.

The aerial survey is intended to supplement information from NASA's Ice Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat), which has been orbiting Earth since 2003, and the forthcoming ICESat-2 that is expected to launch in early 2016.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The surveys started in 2009 and are expected to wrap up in 2016. This year's field season runs from about March to May.

Explore further: IceBridge starts with sea ice surveys

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NASA begins new season of Arctic ice science flights

Mar 21, 2013

(Phys.org) —NASA's Operation IceBridge scientists have begun another season of research activity over Arctic ice sheets and sea ice with the first of a series of science flights from Greenland completed ...

IceBridge starts with sea ice surveys

Mar 14, 2014

NASA's Operation IceBridge started the 2014 Arctic campaign with two surveys of sea ice north of Greenland. The two flights follow similar surveys flow in previous years and continue the mission's goals of ...

Critical polar data flows briskly to researchers

Sep 01, 2010

Operation IceBridge -- a NASA airborne mission to observe changes in Earth's rapidly changing polar land ice and sea ice -- is soon to embark on its fourth field season in October. The mission is now paralleled ...

IceBridge wraps up successful Antarctic campaign

Dec 11, 2013

Operation IceBridge's 2013 Antarctic campaign came to a close after NASA's P-3 research aircraft returned to its home base, NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Wallops Island, Va., on Dec. 3. During the mission's ...

NASA selects launch services for ICESat-2 mission

Feb 26, 2013

NASA's Launch Services Program at the agency's Kennedy Space Center in Florida has selected United Launch Services, LLC of Englewood, Colo., to provide Delta II launch services for the Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite ...

Recommended for you

Erosion may trigger earthquakes

Nov 21, 2014

Researchers from laboratories at Géosciences Rennes (CNRS/Université de Rennes 1), Géosciences Montpellier (CNRS/Université de Montpellier 2) and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (CNRS/IPGP/Université Paris Diderot), ...

Strong undersea earthquake hits eastern Indonesia

Nov 21, 2014

A strong undersea earthquake hit off the coast of eastern Indonesia on Friday, but there were no immediate reports of injuries or serious damage and officials said it was unlikely to trigger a tsunami.

User comments : 15

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2014
While more comprehensive ice data is always welcome, let's not forget that global sea ice anomaly stands at +0.73 (yes, there is more ice cover now, than in 1979 when the record begin)
http://arctic.atm...obal.png
With sea ice failing to deviate from the norm, how can warmists say that "ice caps are melting" with straight face?
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2014
While more comprehensive ice data is always welcome, let's not forget that global sea ice anomaly stands at +0.73 (yes, there is more ice cover now, than in 1979 when the record begin)
http://arctic.atm...obal.png
With sea ice failing to deviate from the norm, how can warmists say that "ice caps are melting" with straight face?


Tart:
"The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado announced that on March 21, the total amount of ice cover for the Arctic peaked at 5.7 million square miles, or 282,000 square miles below the 1981-to-2010 average. This is the fifth-lowest winter ice cover extent since satellite records began in 1978. The lowest maximum extent recorded was in 2011 at 5.65 million square miles of ice cover."
http://thinkprogr...er-peak/

And it would be high (relatively) now, as we are at the end of the Arctic winter.
As I keep having to say FFS!
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2014
Also:

http://www.un.org...raph.jpg

Yes it's certainly not melting, is it?
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2014
...This is the fifth-lowest winter ice cover extent since satellite records began in 1978...


How about Antarctic "the forth highest ice cover"? Yeah right, AGW conspired to cause havoc on Northern Hemisphere only.

P.S. Something happened during Antarctic peak and minimum. Before and after the anomaly was around +1.5, then, both times -- during the maximum and minimum it dropped to +0.75. You are just lucky that skeptics were deprived of the two records (or was it some clever "adjustment")?
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2014
...This is the fifth-lowest winter ice cover extent since satellite records began in 1978...


How about Antarctic "the forth highest ice cover"? Yeah right, AGW conspired to cause havoc on Northern Hemisphere only.


So you admit your Arctic comment was a blatant lie then?

Doesn't take long before we get back to Antarctic eh?
Where the scientifically challenged and ideologically blinded are unable to conceive that: In a warming environment the instability of the boundary layer winds is increased, thereby allowing a slightly greater proportion of the gradient speed to reach the surface, consequent also, the surface wind will be less backed (frictional backing into low pressure is reduced) and as LP is centred over/next the Continent - the resultant surface wind has a (slightly) larger divergent/offshore component. PLUS err - salt-water freezes between ~-2C and OC.
Anything else you'd like to know - you only have to ask.
May I just request less of the lies, Ta.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2014
double post
no fate
5 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2014
double post


Maybe if he had to read it twice he would get it....
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
Where the scientifically challenged and ideologically blinded are unable to conceive that: In a warming environment the instability of the boundary layer winds is increased, thereby allowing a slightly greater proportion of the gradient speed to reach the surface, consequent also, the surface wind will be less backed (frictional backing into low pressure is reduced) and as LP is centred over/next the Continent - the resultant surface wind has a (slightly) larger divergent/offshore component.


Come again, are you implying temperature over Antarctic has increased?
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2014

Come again, are you implying temperature over Antarctic has increased?
http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf


Err - no ... please pay attention, where talking about sea ice, yes?
The clue is in your question............

Generally sea ice is over, well, the sea. And not the continent!
BTW: As I said Tropospheric and SST's - I didn't mention land surface temps, which due radiative cooling over ice/snow will show a negligible temp diff (in winter), given the incredible singularity of the Antarctic environment.

Oh BTW: I've shot down many cleverer idiot than you my friend.
It comes from knowing what I'm talking about.

Try asking a sensible question of me if you are ignorant - you are - rather than stating bollocks or downright lies.
Ta muchly.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
So your idea is that polar amplification is not applicable to Antarctic (due to "singularity")? Are you aware that sometime ago some researchers
(Mercer, Nature, 1978 http://www.nature...a0.html)
suggested 5-10K increase during next 50 years? (Which gathered 611 citations on scolar -- nothing to sneeze at). Of course, the lack of evidence of any temperature shift in Antarctica calmed alarmists. So are you saying "Antarctic is weird", and that one line is your entire "research" that you are willing to defend?
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
Since alarmists obfuscation arguments are so common regarding inconvenient Antarctic, consider the following analogy:
- "Doctor, I have pain in my arms"
- "Did you take any GM food lately?"
- "I don't know, they don't label it in supermarket"
- "Here we go!"
- "But wouldn't it also affect the legs?"
- "Well your arms are connected to the chest, and your legs are connected to the hip...did you skip anatomy class in high school?"
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2014
Since alarmists obfuscation arguments are so common regarding inconvenient Antarctic, consider the following analogy:
- "Doctor, I have pain in my arms"....Well your arms are connected to the chest, and your legs are connected to the hip...did you skip anatomy class in high school?"
@Tegiri
this makes absolutely no sense... are you saying that eating GM foods can only manifest with symptoms throughout the entire body?

just because the body is connected to everything else in the body does NOT mean that symptoms of a disease will manifest all over vs locally, or regionally, so your analogy is very off, and not at all a good one.

addendum: not pushing the GM issue, just pointing out that the analogy is not good, and nonsensical. it obfuscates more than the "alarmist" arguments you are trying to elucidate
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2014
So your idea is that polar amplification is not applicable to Antarctic (due to "singularity")? Are you aware that sometime ago some researchers .......... Of course, the lack of evidence of any temperature shift in Antarctica calmed alarmists. So are you saying "Antarctic is weird", and that one line is your entire "research" that you are willing to defend?

Not defending it my friend - it's simply obvious to anyone who appreciates the complexity of Earth's climate system.
I have repeatedly listed the reasons why Antarctica is so remarkable a place, climatologically/meteorologically, and, as I said earlier, my patience is exhausted with deniers who shout at the world because it does not conform to their ideology.
And just why are you so omniscient that I/we/everyone should prefer your and other deniers world view on AGW as fact?
And don't come back with quotes made 36 years ago my friend.

thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2014
Tegiri: You said:

"You are just lucky that skeptics were deprived of the two records (or was it some clever "adjustment")?"

What we know immediately is that if it was a "clever" adjustment it could not have been made by you.

Pay attention to what Run and CS are telling you and you might just become a little more clever.
runrig
not rated yet Apr 16, 2014
Wrong thread

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.