Search

Special Feature: The Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC).-- 42 pages, 16 figures, 3 tables, supplemental files https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2021.000046.-- Data accessibility statement: All data in this manuscript are publicly available from online repositories. Note that most data sets contain raw or preliminary data, while advanced versions will become available in future. The data may be found under the following references: drift track data (Figure 1, Nicolaus et al., doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.937204), observational dates (Figure 4, Nicolaus et al., doi:10.5281/zenodo.5898517), panorama photographs (Figure 5, Nicolaus et al., doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.938534), TLS data (Figure 6, Clemens-Sewall et al., doi:10.18739/A27S7HT3B), ROV radiation data (Figure 7, Nicolaus et al., doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.935688), surface albedo data on ground (Figure 8, Smith et al., broadband data under doi:10.18739/A2KK94D36 and spectral data under doi:10.18739/A2FT8DK8Z) and from the HELiX drone (Figure 8, Calmer et al., doi:10.18739/A2GH9BB0Q), on-ice RS data (Figure 10, Spreen et al., doi:10.5281/zenodo.5725870), surface images from thermal infrared and true color (Figure 11, Thielke et al, doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.934666), drift speed data from Polarstern (Figure 12, Nicolaus et al., doi:10.1594/PANGAEA.937204), deformation data from SAR (Figure 13, von Albedyll et al, doi:10.5281/zenodo.5195366), sea ice thickness and snow depth distribution (Figure 14, Hendricks et al., doi:10.5281/zenodo.5155244), sea ice physical properties (Figure 15, in Tables S2 and S3) with a sea ice core overview (Granskog et al., doi:10.5281/zenodo.4719905), snow pack properties (Figure 16, Macfarlane et al., doi: 10.1594/PANGAEA.935934), and ship radar video sequence (Jäkel et al., doi:10.5446/52953), Year-round observations of the physical snow and ice properties and processes that govern the ice pack evolution and its interaction with the atmosphere and the ocean were conducted during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition of the research vessel Polarstern in the Arctic Ocean from October 2019 to September 2020. This work was embedded into the interdisciplinary design of the 5 MOSAiC teams, studying the atmosphere, the sea ice, the ocean, the ecosystem, and biogeochemical processes. The overall aim of the snow and sea ice observations during MOSAiC was to characterize the physical properties of the snow and ice cover comprehensively in the central Arctic over an entire annual cycle. This objective was achieved by detailed observations of physical properties and of energy and mass balance of snow and ice. By studying snow and sea ice dynamics over nested spatial scales from centimeters to tens of kilometers, the variability across scales can be considered. On-ice observations of in situ and remote sensing properties of the different surface types over all seasons will help to improve numerical process and climate models and to establish and validate novel satellite remote sensing methods; the linkages to accompanying airborne measurements, satellite observations, and results of numerical models are discussed. We found large spatial variabilities of snow metamorphism and thermal regimes impacting sea ice growth. We conclude that the highly variable snow cover needs to be considered in more detail (in observations, remote sensing, and models) to better understand snow-related feedback processes. The ice pack revealed rapid transformations and motions along the drift in all seasons. The number of coupled ice–ocean interface processes observed in detail are expected to guide upcoming research with respect to the changing Arctic sea ice, This work was funded by the following: – the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through financing the Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (AWI) and the Polarstern expedition PS122 under the grant N-2014-H-060_Dethloff, – the AWI through its projects: AWI_ROV, AWI_ICE, AWI_SNOW, AWI_ECO. The AWI buoy program and ROV work were funded by the Helmholtz strategic investment Frontiers in Arctic Marine Monitoring (FRAM), – the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) through the Transregional Collaborative Research Centre TRR-172 “ArctiC Amplification: Climate Relevant Atmospheric and SurfaCe Processes, and Feedback Mechanisms (AC)3” (grant 268020496), the International Research Training Group 1904 ArcTrain (grant 221211316), the MOSAiCmicrowaveRS project (grant 420499875), the HELiPOD grant (LA 2907/11-1), and the SCASI (NI 1096/5-1 and KA 2694/7-1) and SnowCast (AR1236/1) projects, – the BMBF through the projects Diatom-ARCTIC (03F0810A), IceSense (BMBF 03F0866A and 03F0866B), MOSAiC3-IceScan (BMBF 03F0916A), NiceLABpro (BMBF 03F0867A), SSIP (01LN1701A), and SIDFExplore (03F0868A), – the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy through the project ArcticSense (BMWi 50EE1917A), – the US National Science Foundation (NSF) through the project PROMIS (OPP-1724467, OPP-1724540, and OPP-1724748), the buoy work (OPP-1723400), the MiSNOW (OPP-1820927), the snow transect work (OPP-1820927), the sea ice coring work (OPP-1735862), the HELiX drone operations (OPP-1805569), surface energy fluxes (OPP-1724551), Climate Active Trace Gases (OPP-1807496), and Reactive Gas Chemistry (OPP-1914781). The last 4 of these were also supported by the NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory, – the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program projects ARICE (grant 730965) for berth fees associated with the participation of the DEARice team and INTAROS (grant 727890) supporting the drone and albedo measurements, – the US Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) and Atmospheric System Research (ASR) programs (DE-SC0019251, DE-SC0021341), – the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) project 80NSSC20K0658, – the European Space Agency (ESA) MOSAiC microwave radiometer (EMIRAD2, ELBARA, HUTRAD), (EMIRAD2, ELBARA, HUTRAD), CIMRex (contract 4000125503/18/NL/FF/gp) and GNSS-R (P.O. 5001025474, C.N. 4000128320/19/NL/FF/ab) GNSS-R (contracts P.O. 5001025474 and C.N. 4000128320/19/NL/FF/ab) projects, – the Canadian Space Agency FAST project (grant no. 19FACALB08), – EUMETSAT support for microwave scatterometer measurements, – the Research Council of Norway through the projects HAVOC (grant no. 280292), SIDRiFT (grant no. 287871), and CAATEX (grant no. 280531), – the Fram Centre (Tromsø, Norway), from its flagship program on Arctic Ocean through the PHOTA project, – the UKRI Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and BMBF, who jointly funded the Changing Arctic Ocean program (project Diatom Arctic, NE/R012849/1 and 03F0810A), – the UK Natural Environment Research Council (project SSAASI-CLIM grant NE/S00257X/1), – the Agencia Estatal de Investigación AEI of Spain (grant no. PCI2019-111844-2, RTI2018-099008-B-C22), – the Swedish Research Council (VR, grant no. 2018-03859), – the Swedish Polar Research Secretariat for berth fees for MOSAiC, – the Swiss Polar Institute project SnowMOSAiC, – the Werner-Petersen-Foundation for the development of a remotely operated floating platform (grant no. FKZ 2019/610).

The results of the expedition to Antarctica by the Kazakhstan scholars are described in this article.

The second Polish expedition to Spitsbergen took place in 1936. It was already the third Polish expedition to the Arctic (previous ones were: Bear Island in 1932-1933, Spitsbergen - Torell Land in 1934). The organizers and participants were: Stefan Bernadzikiewicz (1907-1939) - assistant at the Warsaw Technical University, leader of the 1934 expedition to Spitsbergen, Konstanty Narkiewicz-Jodko (1901-1963) - assistant at the Unit of Physics of the Warsaw University, who specialised in stratosphere research, and Stanisław Siedlecki (1912-2002) - geology student at the Warsaw University, participant of both previous Polish polar expeditions. The expedition was supposed to be a kind of reconnaissance with climbing and scientific elements. The route of the expedition ran from the place of landing at the Hornsund fiord coastline (July 7) to the most southward cape of Spitsbergen - Sørneset (July 11). Next the expedition participants moved north across the eastern part of the island. After replenishing food supplies when the expedition was halfway through (August 4-11), its route ran to as far as the most northward Verlegenhuken cape (August 24), and then back to the southern Billefjord coastline (September 1-5). Climbing and scientific part of the expedition failed. Because of quick march and frequent fogs, measurements and topographical sketches were abandoned. Despite the lack of strictly scientific results, the expedition itself had great exploratory importance: for the first time in history, Spitsbergen was hiked across from south to north without the use of dogs.

What we know of polar expeditions coincides with a number of fictional and non fictional representations using different registers: the iconic-technical-scientific, the auto/biographical, the literary/fictional. This paper draws a comparison between texts featuring contrasting views on the character and purposes of polar expeditions, their supposed usefulness and political consequences, and the certification procedures of scientific knowledge, reflecting broader concerns about the idea of progress, the man/environment relation, and international relations. Fictional and non fictional texts are involved in this ideological confrontation in varying degrees of urgency. However, one cannot fail to note ongoing competition between the two, if only for the fact that the explorers’ accounts take pains to produce hallmarks of authenticity, veridicality and reliability in order not to be mixed up with fiction; on the other hand, fiction makes use of mimetic strategies achieving an amazing effect of realism.The contributor offers a thematic reading of ascent-related tropes, focusing on Jules Verne’s Captain Hatteras (1866) as an example of critical optimism in contrast with the apocalyptic Purple Cloud (1901) by M.P. Shiel, as well as with R.E. Amundsen’s My Polar Flight (1925) – which features an optimism that has lost its Promethean overtones and comes closer to the elation for a sporting achievement.

International audience; The 1830s and 1840s witnessed a European movement to accumulate data about the terrestrial environment, enterprises including the German and British geomagnetic crusades. This movement was not limited to geomagnetic studies but notably included an important meteorological component. By focusing on observation practices in sedentary and expeditionary contexts, this paper shows how the developing fields of geomagnetism and meteorology were then intimately interlinked. It analyses the circulation and cross-connections of the practices and discourses shared by these two research fields. Departing from a Humboldtian historiography, the paper especially stresses the role of Adolphe Quetelet, director of the Brussels Observatory, whose importance in the development of the earth sciences has until now been largely neglected. It reassesses the involvement of the French scientific community in the British and German geomagnetic crusades, moving beyond the well-known account of Arago's opposition to these undertakings. It is hoped thereby to contribute to a better historical understanding of the renewal of the earth sciences in the second quarter of the nineteenth century.

Origin and description of the ship Belgica, used for the Antarctic expedition by Fernand de Gerlache at the end of the 19th century.