http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/Ice_Can/CMMBCTCA.gif
It is blocked with ice now, and will start to freeze up with new ice in about five weeks.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- Billyjack on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on “pushing nature past its limits”
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- John Francis on Mission Accomplished
- Mike on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
The “Row to the Pole” crew are heading for that white 10/10 area just below the jagged point of the black area at the top, through the 9/10 area just to the S of it. http://www.rowtothepole.com/
It’s quite possible that they might be overtaken by some Ursus Maritimus on foot, in which case I’d suggest they hide their sealskin coats, and down a few slugs of Old Pulteney for some dutch courage.
They’re heading for the point where the north magnetic pole WAS in 1996, conveniently on land – the pole is currently somewhere near the black point to the N, heading for Russia. So the pointless exercise is to row to nowhere-in-particular through near solid ice to demonstrate how the ice is disappearing faster-than-ever.
It’s about 3-4 weeks ahead of recent years. It won’t start freezing up for about 10 weeks, since it’s at lower latitudes. There’s quite a lag beyond the actual summer minimum before the re-freeze starts in the Parry channel.
You should know this already: it’s very clear in the NSIDC report you discussed yesterday.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110803_Figure5.png
Does anything you said make this an attractive commercial shipping opportunity?
Not really: neither channel is likely to be widely used for at least a couple of decades irrespective of anything that happens with ice – the companies will want more infrastructure support along both routes. It’s still a useful proof of principle that you can get ships through there, and it seems to be happening more regularly as the years go by.
How does the possibility that you might be able to get a ship through safely for one week a year make it an attractive commercial option?
The alarmists should throw in the towel for this year. It’s not going according to plan and they might as well admit as much.
You mean like every year since 1998?
I love to argue this with believers. I’ve found that it’s one of the fastest ways to get personal attacks. The Amundsen expedition first transited it as part of a scientific expedition completing it in 1906. In my opinion, the most significant thing about it is that when they spotted the whaler Charles Hansson, out of San Francisco in the Arctic Ocean due north (way due north) of North Dakota. Apparently the captain of the Charles Hansson didn’t know that the Northwest Passage was impassable.
Then there was the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Vessel (RCMPV) St. Roch that went west to east from 1940 – 1942 and from east to west in 1944. My understanding is that Canada wanted to use it to patrol Greenland waters but by the time it got there the US and Canadian navies were able to handle it so they sent it back to the Pacific because Canada was now at war with Japan. It took 2 years for the first passage and (from memory) several weeks for the return passage. No, the Arctic sea ice never varied from year to year until now right?
Changing the subject slightly was the WWII German commerce raider Komet. It crossed the North East passage in 1940 into the Pacific as part of a scheduled Soviet Union convoy of commercial ships.
The whole point is that these passages have been open long before CO2 started destroying the Arctic
What the bollocks has the Charles Hansson got to do with anything? The significance of the meeting was that Amundsen (after going westwards through the passage) had met a ship coming the other way, thus completing the link and proving that end-to-end navigation was possible. They met in the Beaufort Sea, with the Charles Hansson having come through the Bering straits and along the northern Canadian coast – the whaler itself never went near the Northwest Passage.
Perhaps your definition of “The Northwest Passage” doesn’t include anything West of Ellesmere Island, but I doubt most English speakers would cast the term so narrowly.
The bollocks is that the Charles Hansson was a commercial whaler that was where it was not because it was exploring or lost or whatever but because it made economic sense to be there. It’s skipper and crew didn’t wake up one morning and say “Hey, let’s risk our lives and sail to a place where we will probably die, leave our families destitute and no one will ever know what happened to us. They sailed there because the expected reward was considered worth the risk.
The bollocks is that the Charles Hansson was a whaler in 1905. Now I will admit that I know almost nothing about the Charles Hansson Whaler but in 1905 many commercial ships were still at least partially powered by sail. Here is a painting of the meeting. I have no idea if it’s accurate but you will notice that both ships have sails hoisted. The Charles Hansson is making smoke and that might be from coal powering an engine or it might be from rendering whale blubber. Like I said, I don’t know.
http://www.gordonmiller.ca/07_final_chapter/Gjoa-1905.htm
The bollocks is that she was not a state of the art ship but an ordinary whaler that was out to catch whales. Nothing more and nothing less yet it managed to make it from San Francisco, through the Bering Straights and to the Beaufort Sea 80 years before the invention of the SUV.
I hope that helps to answer your question regarding bollocks.
Interesting discussion here. I suppose it may help to know that not only are shipping companies meeting with us on a regular basis to discuss ice conditions, as well as oil and gas companies, but so are the US and Canada Militaries and the CIA. They understand the importance of these shipping routes and they are planning on using them despite all attempts here to persuade readers that these are not going to be viable routes.
Julienne,
Do you have any estimates on, or are you aware of any studies to quantify how ice breakers may have affected the ice coverage in the Arctic? Do you think there is an impact on the extent over time?
I haven’t seen any studies on this yet, but I believe it’s something that should be done.
Julienne,
There are plenty of good icebreakers out there. Why aren’t they using these routes now?
Steve, the Russians have already been using the NSR this summer. We discussed it briefly in our August 3rd posting. This isn’t the first year they have used it, but I believe this year they are sending far more ships than they have in the past.
They have been “viable” routes ever since the Russian nuclear icebreakers were launched……
…that’s the whole purpose of “nuclear”
They don’t have to return to port to refuel and can run around the clock….
Which they have been doing………
The Russians have been keeping their side open….
and don’t toot your horn with how important you guys are….the Russians have not been meeting with you, they don’t need you
Latitude, instead of slinging insults, why don’t you do some research as to how many Russian ships have been traversing the NSR and see if this is increasing or decreasing over time. Do you realize that countries that border the Arctic are all planning on using these routes?? Do you have any idea of the amount of hydrocarbon in the Arctic? Are you at all up-to-date on the political and military activities happening in the Arctic because of the changes in ice conditions? You may want to do some research so that you can debate with some facts.
Julienne,
Can you think of any reason besides ice thickness & area that might affect those numbers?
Julienne, my facts are correct
The Russians are the main players right now, and they are not talking to you about it.
obviously, you are the one that needs to get up to date…
Wasting your time trying to defect with BS…………….
They’d be fools to not at least look into the issue. The real question is, where are they spending their money?
my understanding from some meetings this summer is that it will be more cost effective given the lighter ice conditions to use these routes rather than dealing with the pirate problem off the coast of Somalia. The oil and gas industries of course believe there is more money to be made extracting the hydrocarbons during the time of year when there is little ice than how much it will cost to extract these hydrocarbons.
As to what may be affecting the number of transits through the NSR besides the lighter ice conditions, I know Russia is busy building more icebreakers because they want to use this route more. But there are also plans to start going directly over the pole as ice conditions get thinner (i.e. ships from Norway).
So you honestly can’t think of any political or technological reasons, or even any artifacts of your data-gathering that might have some kind of effect on how the number of ships making such transits has changed over time? Frankly, I’m shocked at the shoddiness of your methodology, but then I’m not a real scientist, so it’s probably fairly normal to ignore several variables when trying to determine a cause & effect relationship between things.
I’m sure that’s evidence for something as well. I wonder if they also have plans to not sail directly over the pole as ice conditions get thicker, & if they do have such plans, would that be evidence of something entirely different?
JAXA extent continues to stay robust (17 days in a row with each day below the avg loss value, and the total loss in those 17 days being 45.3% below normal), while CT area continues to drop at an above average pace. Looking at it, I think there’s a fair probability that the CT area has major contamination from surface melt ponds that may have been induced by the unfavorable weather in June and the first half of July. For instance, the navy conc plot fairs better:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicennowcast.gif
However, I’m doubting that the melt ponds fully explain the dropping extent relative to other years. I’m guessing most skeptics think the low concentrations are completely an artifact of melt ponds whereas the CAGW believers think there’s no melt pond interference whatsoever and that the extent stability is due to divergence and we’ll see a spectacular extent loss soon. At least that’s what I’m hearing from R Gates and the commenters at Tamino’s. My spreadsheet still has us with a daily JAXA minimum a bit under 2008 at 4587563 km^2.
-Scott
from the Maritime Executive (and according the the Russian Environmental Agency)
Russia’s environmental agency has reported that a near-record rate of Arctic ice melt has opened shipping lanes fit for cargo traffic between Europe and Asia.
As of early August, Federal Hydrometeorological and Environmental Monitoring Service said that the Arctic ice cover was declining at a record low, and has opened an expansive area for the Northern Sea Route that would provide largely icebreaker-free shipping. They are concluding that the ice extent has declined by 56% in many areas leaving the sea open for easy sailing through September. The ice retreat has the Northern Sea Route over Russia opened earlier than ever before and making shipping between Europe and the Bering Strait less complicated for this time of year.
Shipping in the Arctic is never such an easy task, however at least one Belgium-owned tanker ship has successfully hauled 70,000 tons of oil condensate over the Arctic to a port in China through the Bering Strait. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that the Belgium company of the tanker plans to send 6-7 more ships through this Northern Sea Route over the summer. Russian icebreakers also plan to escort up to 15 vessels before the summer ends.
Julienne,
So are you forecasting that the unusual conditions on that side of the Arctic will occur next summer?
Steve, as you know those sorts of predictions are not possible until we can predict the weather 😉
I would predict that we’ll continue to see below normal total ice conditions but regional variability from year to year is not possible to predict without first being able to predict the weather….
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 4, 2011 at 5:41 pm
===================================================
So, even though it’s your job to monitor sea ice…..
….you have no clue as to how many icebreakers are operating and their routes…..
are you serious? seems I know a lot more than you do on the subject.
so far all you have done is be defensive, toot your horn, and say how much you know…..
Go back to what I originally posted….
…Tell us exactly how much shipping has increased in the past decade
Thank you for posting Dr. Stroeve. I agree that monitoring sea ice has absolutely nothing to do with icebreakers, however….
I’ve been a regular reader of the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis for years now but I’ve never been able to locate the NSIDC Antarctic Sea Ice News & Analysis page. Perhaps I just can’t find it but I would think that the Antarctic sea ice would be as scientifically interesting as the Arctic sea ice. Am I missing something?
I really wish people here would show Julienne more respect. She’s been courteous with all her comments here so far unlike many of the other visitors here (for instance, IWB). No reason to insult her or question how well she does her job.
-Scott
Agreed, Julienne has no obligation to post here and has always been very helpful and courteous.
respect is a two way street…….
I’m not nearly as stupid as she says I am……………….;-)
Ditto Scott.
Thanks for sharing what you know Julienne. I don’t think NSIDC should even care what is going on with shipping. Do good science and produce good information, and people will use it for shipping, mining, exploration, military, whatever. Good old reliable science is the main objective for NSIDC in my opinion.
Glad to see you here Julienne!
I agree that NSIDC should start doing real science. If you can not predict the weather you sure as $$$$ can not predict climate!
Latitude, you can read up on Arctic shipping in the 2009 AMSA Report (http://arcticportal.org/uploads/4v/cb/4vcbFSnnKFT8AB5lXZ9_TQ/AMSA2009Report.pdf). I have sat in on several meetings by folks who generated this report as well as meetings since this report was published. Dr. Lawson Brigham regularly updates information regarding shipping in the Arctic.
Julienne, you don’t know who I am…
…I could be that cute redish blond headed guy you sorta have a crush on
I don’t need to “read up” on anything….
Also, I use the collective “you”, you are using the personal “you”.
….I’m sure you know the difference
You have danced around my question, I know why.
Hmm… I am not sure that anonymous appeals to authority are very effective. ;^)
Well, I could be…..
lol, doubting it!!
Sean, you are correct that we don’t have an equivalent Antarctic page and while we have tried to obtain funding to do one, we have not received the funding (same as with doing a similar news and analysis of snow cover). But we do have the State of the Cryosphere Pages (http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html) that tries to stay current about both poles and the sea ice index (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index) that also shows results for the Antarctic.
The Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis web site came about after consecutive years of low summer ice cover and reporter’s requesting information. Eventually we were able to get some funding to do the site on a regular basis and provide this resource to everyone. We certainly would like to expand it and cover other topics.
Hi Julienne,
Thanks for the info on the funding. I always appreciate hearing other people’s experiences with funding.
-Scott
Thank you again Dr. Stroeve. I’ve saved the link but honestly I don’t see much of a need for funding to create an Antarctica page. You own the domain. It’s just a matter of cloning the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis page, changing the name and links and finding someone to write a monthly or so analysis.
I’m no web developer but I’ve got my own site that took a friend (who is no website developer) a few hours to create. It’s got lots of pages. This should be easier. I understand bureaucracy (I worked for several Fortune 500’s) but how much does your IT department demand for a web page? There must be 1,000 web pages on the NSIDC site.
Sean, it’s taking the time to do the analysis that requires funds. It’s easy enough to duplicate the page, but all of us take turns to write the entry, doing the background research, finding work by authors to feature, etc. That all takes time. And then it goes through review by our team, graphics need to be produced, etc. If it’s just a matter of showing the daily data and no analysis, then yes that requires very little $. We do have in the works to have the daily data as part of the sea ice index, so that will give the daily data for both the Arctic and Antarctic.
Julienne –
I think there would be lots of interest in downloaded daily data from NSIDC. Daily data for the Antarctic would be of particular interest because, as far as I know, no such data source is available out there for download by the laymen.
-Scott
Latitude, I’m not sure why you hide behind an anonymous name but the reason why I gave you the link to the report is that it’s clear you don’t have respect for me and my work, so rather than me telling you how much shipping has increased in the Arctic in recent years, you can read it for yourself. It’s then up to you if you want to be educated on the subject or not.
I am positive though that I would not have a crush on you 😉
Julienne….let’s be clear
I have never said one thing about respect for you or your work. I have read all your attacks and put downs directed at me………….
You are the one that started out with a slam towards this blog and the readers of this blog…
“They understand the importance of these shipping routes and they are planning on using them despite all attempts here to persuade readers that these are not going to be viable routes.”
and I called you on it…….
“and don’t toot your horn with how important you guys are….the Russians have not been meeting with you, they don’t need you”
As far as who I am…..it’s the internet get a grip
If I told you who I was, you would just come up with something else lame…arguing from authority…
Either someone makes a point, or they don’t, it does not matter who they are……
You are the one that is supposed to be studying Arctic ice. You should know if shipping has increased, what effect busting up ice dams will have, etc…….
Obviously, you don’t, or you could have just answered my question without all the defensive posturing, insults, and put downs…………
Anyone studying “Weather” in a region should have a good idea about the history of that region and our guest expert is lacking that as is evidence by her claims. 30 years is not history but recent events and short term weather patterns which are part of longer term weather patterns.
Latitude, you would have a lot more credibility if you were to use your real name. That’s true for everyone that blogs. If I was using a false identity, it wouldn’t mean much to anyone.
Your first post on this blog entry was to say we (NSIDC) have not met with the Russians. Why would you assume this? You have no idea who we meet with on a regular basis, what workshops we attend, etc. To assume that none of us have collaborations with folks in Russia, or that none of us have attended Arctic sovereignty meetings, or any other meetings involving ALL countries that border the Arctic shows to me that you have no idea what is actually going on in the Arctic and the role that scientists play in decision making about the Arctic.
As you will notice when you review the entries here, you never once answered a single question I posed, you seem to not want to educate yourself on the issue, you say your facts are correct yet you refuse to say what your facts are. At least I am willing to tell you where I get my facts from, and even point you to reports that you can read yourself to gain more knowledge about the subject. It seems that your only means of blogging about climate issues is to sling insults and make non-relevant statements. I would be happy to debate an issue for which you actually give some facts and supporting material.
Listen Julienne, I don’t need any credibility and I did answer your questions. The only questions I did not answer were the ones where you tried to deflect the conversation away from what I asked you………changing the subject
Which is exactly what you are still trying to do.
The Russians are not meeting with you…..period, that’s a fact.
You are the one ducking and dodging the one question I asked.
“How much has shipping increased in the past decade?”
Am I going to have to separate you two?