Scientists Shocked as Arctic Polar Route Revealed 568
Paladin144 writes "A route unencumbered by perennial sea ice leading directly to the North Pole has been revealed by recent satellite pictures. European scientists indicated their shock as they noted a ship could sail from Europe's northern-most outpost directly to the pole, something that hasn't been possible during most of recorded human history. The rapid thawing of the perennial sea ice has political implications as the U.S., Canada, Russia and the EU jockey for control of the newly opened passages."
Is it just me (Score:4, Funny)
What was the joke?
Planetary Distress Signal ...? (Score:4, Funny)
-- Sarek: "STIV:TVH", Stardate 8390
Re:Planetary Distress Signal ...? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The implications... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The implications... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The implications... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The implications... (Score:5, Informative)
So all those oil rigs out there are performing alchemy...water to black gold?
Do you also suppose that the oil reserves under ANWR stop at the beach? The inhibitor of offshore drilling in the arctic is sea ice. This is the point of the parent post.
Re:The implications... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actually, it'll be more sane. (Score:5, Interesting)
Luckily, I live in the area which will be unaffected, so all I have to do to get rich is buy massive amounts of land here. Still, the implications would be enormous.
The more I think of it, the more I believe we should act, and act quick. But I'm not certain as to act upon WHAT exactly.
Defensive wall (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Defensive wall (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Defensive wall (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Actually, it'll be more sane. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a real phenomenon. Of course, it's a long-term one. The North American continent is still in the return swing of it's sea-saw motion, with the part of the continent above the 49th parallel (Canada) rising while the southern half sinks. The northern half was pressed down by the ice during the last ice age, and is still rising from when it all melted away 10,000 years ago.
But that won't affect the ice sheet in question in this article, since this ice sheet is floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While it's true that most of the land in Calfornia and New York State is above sea level, don't forget that much of the *population* is concentrated at or very close to the coastline. New York City, in particular, would be FUCKED by a rise in sea level, and other cities like San Francisco would also be in trouble (remember, the sea has ti
pr0n (Score:4, Funny)
Now look, I've seen quite a few movies where they go straight to the pole. No dialogue, nothing. Seriously.
More to the point... (Score:3, Funny)
Look on the bright side (Score:2)
There won't be as many icebergs for ships to run into.
Re:Look on the bright side (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Look on the bright side (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Look on the bright side (Score:5, Informative)
Actually there will likely be more.
Warmer water will weaken the edge of the polar icecap, causing it to splinter into icebergs more easily; at the same time, having open water nearer the pole means increased rainfall, which in turn means more ice formation. The circulation of water gets faster with more energy in the system; and iceberg formation is a part of that circulation, so it will intensify as well.
And of course Atlantic storms will get worse too, the rising sealevel will drown out port towns, and the drying farmland means that sailors will starve to death before boarding the ships. Doom and gloom, man, doom and gloom.
strategic paradigm shift... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, we will be spared a remake of Ice Station Zebra.
Re:strategic paradigm shift... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:strategic paradigm shift... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:strategic paradigm shift... (Score:4, Interesting)
Rovaniemi is a town close to the artic circle in Finland and Finland is a country between Sweden and Russia.
Finland used to be the eastern part of Sweden, but lost it to the Russians in a war. So, depending of the age of santa, he is either a Finn, a Swede or a Russian.
Re:strategic paradigm shift... (Score:5, Informative)
North Pole embassies (Score:3, Informative)
Or perhaps Santa Claus has a base of operations in every country, including one in Spencer County, Indiana, USA, close to the Holiday World theme park [wikipedia.org]. The H0H 0H0 code [wikipedia.org] indicates that Santa's Canadian operations are out of Montreal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:strategic paradigm shift... (Score:5, Informative)
First, the pack ice is full of cracks and crevices, so "rivers" would disappear into them. The ice melts preferentially on the north side of these cracks and ridges, the side facing the sun.
Second, when ice melts in the sun, it tends to form "pinacles" of crunchy ice (presumably a result of variations in the surface resulting in shadows, surface dirt capturing more heat, etc.) Water melts at top, and runs down or falls down into the ice. The heat of the water, and to some degree the kinetic energy of the drops, melts some of the ice further down. If the layer is thick enough, the water forms small pools and re-feezes, thus forming the dense ice that "normally" lasts all year; if enough melts, a hole forms and the water disappears into the sea (or, on land, forms rivers that flow out from the bottom of the glacier.)
Melting from the bottom also obviously has a significant effect, since much of the sea water is obviously warmer than the ice. There is "normally" a state of equilibrium, with water melting at about the same rate snow falls on top, averaged over a few years. Right now, more is melting than freezing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I assume you're in the Southern hemisphere, because 'oop North the Sun is most definately to the South.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Market solution for the extinction of polar bears (Score:3, Funny)
Shocking? Not really... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Shocking? Not really... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Shocking? Not really... (Score:5, Funny)
I built mine out of straw (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Shocking? Not really... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, in the US, everyone's totally chuffed if you live in a "historic" house. You know, like one from the 1920s.
Re:Shocking? Not really... (Score:5, Funny)
In the United States, 200 years ago was an ancient age, but 200 miles is right around the corner.
In Britain, 200 years ago was just yesterday, but 200 miles is the next galaxy.
:-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Course, a standard US wood framed house would probably not be able to take the weight of a ceramic tile roof.
My father told me that wooden houses were banned after the great fire of London but I don't know how much veracity to give that...
Rich
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
trade with russia (Score:5, Interesting)
I would think this will open up lots of new trade opportunities between Russia and North America. I don't know what that could mean, but it is certainly interesting. What kind of manufacturing prowess does Russia have that has been heretofore underutilized because they could not as efficiently get goods to North American ports? Or is this all a bunch of hooey?
(I thought of this because I remember reading this article about Pat Broe [commondreams.org], which may or may not have been slashdotted, but it is about an investor in the Canadian port of Churchill, Manitoba, which could well profit from an opened northern passage.)
By the way, I live in Manhattan, and I think it's about time to move...to some city somewhere that's 20 or 30 miles inland.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has plenty of oil and methane, perhaps they could export it to North America that way.
Re:trade with russia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the article:
"territory is determined by how far a nation's continental shelf extends into the sea. Under the treaty, countries have limited time after ratifying it to map the sea floor and make claims."
Is that why the Danes and Canadians were facing off in the Arctic?
Things make more sense now, with regards to that bit of insanity.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone wants to build a bridge across the Bering Strait, to re-link Asia and North America. Building that bridge is hard enough, but the real problem is that for it to be useful, we'd have to b
Re:trade with russia (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed.
Unfortunately, Greenland's ice glaciers are also melting, the island is getting greener every year. *That* ice cap does matter.
Re:trade with russia (Score:5, Informative)
EVERY time this comes up I have to debunk this stuff.
Do you understand why things float in water? Because the mass of water they displace is equal to the mass of the thing floating.
So now you have very dense saltwater, and much less dense freshwater ice (do you understand why ice is freshwater? It forces the salt out as the surface freezes, so the saltwater below it is even saltier and denser [frostburg.edu]) If you have 1kg of ice, it displaces 1kg of saltwater. Simple enough right? Now let's hit it with the math.
Density of fresh water at 0C [simetric.co.uk]: 999.9 kg/m^3
Density of ice at 0C: 915.0 kg/m^3
Density of Ocean [hypertextbook.com]: We'll take 1020kg/m^3, the minimum on the site, even though at the pole due to the salt concentration noted in the first link the density of the saltwater will be way higher, but any density over 999.9kg/m^3 means that the water level shall rise as I show below:
1 cubic meter of ice (915.0 kg) displaces 915.0kg of saltwater. 915.0kg of saltwater is 0.897m^3 (915kg/(1020kg/m^3)), which means that our 1m^3 of ice has
Now, let's say the ice were to suddenly vanish. There would be a "hole" in the ocean with 0.897m^3 of air in it. Water would of course rush into the "hole" and the water level would drop by 0.897m^3 spread out over the entire surface of the ocean.
But let's say the ice were to melt. Our 915kg of ice would become 915kg of fresh water, which would occupy about 0.915m^3 (915kg/(999.9kg/m^3)). The hole the ice occupied previously was only 0.897m^3 large, which leaves us with
Don't forget that this tiny amount will be joined by water running off of Greenland, Antartica and other polar landmasses with ice on them, 100% of which will raise the water level.
Arctic melting (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Arctic melting (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting analysis. Brings up one question though... Being a Mechanical Engineering and Comp-Sci type I honestly don't know, so I'll ask... In your 1.000 m^3 of salt water, how much of the *volume* is due to water, and how much is due to salt? I understand the salt is dissolved into the water, but do the salt molecules fit perfectly between the water molecules? That is, if I take 1.000 m^3 of fresh water and throw in 20.1 kg of sea-salt, do I still have 1.000 m^3 of (now salty) water?
The reason I
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Language and assumption troubles (Score:3, Insightful)
1. So it happened earlier in recorded human history?
2. There was technology throughout most of human history that recorded Arctic ice cover?
3. Until aircraft, nuclear submarines, nuclear icebreakers, and satellites were invented, nobody was able to say with certainty whether the Northwest Passage existed or not, which was previously the domain of people like Henry Hudson. Indeed, until the technology existed, nobody could really map the icepack with any decent accuracy.
Sweeping statements like the above are simply stupid, as there is no evidence either way. They do make for good inflammatory copy, though.
Oh yeah, in geological terms, human history is less than the blink of an eye. With fossils unearthed recently showing _tropical_ weather in Northern Canada, I think it's safe to say that the Arctic ice cap is a temporary feature.
--
BMO
Re:Language and assumption troubles (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's safe to say that humankind is a temporary feature.
Re:Language and assumption troubles (Score:5, Informative)
This is not quite correct. There is an object in the Arctic ocean which is known as the "Great Siberian Polynya". It is a wide space of open water which is usually open even in mid-winter and starts somewhere in the middle of the icefields above the east end of the Barents sea and goes east-north-east from there. Its actual position and size varies year on year. While it has never been all the way to the north pole its north-eastern edge in some years has been only a few hundred kilometers away from it. Enough for a conventional icebreaker or even a reinforced ship to try to make a break for it. Similarly its south-western edge in some years has been very close to the open waters of the Barents (though not as far west as Spitzbergen).
By the way, Russians have considered using this phenomenon for shipping in the soviet times and even did a few trial runs of convoys lead by Arctica class icebreakers through it (you still have to get to the Polynya and back from it across the ice fields). They abandoned it at the end. While it proved possible to run shipping in the ocean even in midwinter the shipments could not be moved further inland due to the lack of powerfull enough river icebreakers. The project was postponed till the first nuclear river icebreakers come on line. These were complete at about the time when the Soviet union fell apart and at that point nobody cared about centrally operated and organised super-shipping so they are sitting in Murmansk collecting rust.
Re:Language and assumption troubles (Score:5, Insightful)
We can extract ice cores and easily date the layers.
The rest of your post is just "it may have happened before" handwaving. Ok, but it hasn't happened in a LONG time, the rate of change is unprecedented, and the possible economical consequences are enormous.
Re:Language and assumption troubles (Score:4, Informative)
No, actually, we can't. You're thinking _ANTARCTIC_ ice layers, not Arctic. Arctic ice is _sea ice_ and as sea ice, it melts and refreezes and it _moves_ all over the damn place.
Arctic sea ice oscillates twice a day.
"Contrary to historical observations, sea ice in the high Arctic undergoes very small, back and forth movements twice a day, even in the dead of winter. It was once believed ice deformation at such a scale was almost non-existent."
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2004/107.cfm [nasa.gov]
And there are larger circulations at work, too.
http://nsidc.org/seaice/processes/circulation.htm
And ice cores? The ice at the Arctic was 9 feet thick _at its thickest parts_ back in 1958. Just where are you going to get ice cores?
"http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl9935.html"
"the rate of change is unprecedented"
Prove it. You just pulled that statement _right out of your behind_.
The rate is unprecedented, because _nobody has measured it before_. We've only been measuring since 1958. We don't know if this is a long term cycle or not. There's _not enough data_. Using your thought process, the "Little Ice Age" was "unprecedented"
too, and were that happening today, you'd be screaming about how we're all going to die because we'll all freeze to death.
I stand by my statements, as they're backed up by fact. Your post, however, certainly _is_ handwaving.
--
BMO
Re:Language and assumption troubles (Score:5, Informative)
You are right, I was thinking of Antarctic ice, sloppy of me. However, there are other ways. We can for instance find geological evidence from lake bed sediment cores [guardian.co.uk].
And ice cores? The ice at the Arctic was 9 feet thick _at its thickest parts_ back in 1958. Just where are you going to get ice cores?
Greenland [bbc.co.uk], for instance. I know they are not the same, but as an indicator of the climate of the area it is an indicator, right?
We can't prove that cracks that these haven't happened before, I agree, but we can prove with some pretty good evidence that the north pole hasn't gone through this amount of change recently (within a couple of hundred thousand years). Even before this latest evidence came, many scientists were warning that the north pole could disappear completely during northern hemisphere summertime before the end of this century. And this is something that hasn't happened for along time. See for instance polar bears [polarbears...tional.org] who need sea ice to hunt for seals. They evolved probably around 200 000 years ago.
Even the Economist, who have been global warming deniers for years recently admitted that global warming was real and was going to have severe environemental and economic impact [economist.com]. You don't find this alarming?
Re:Language and assumption troubles (Score:4, Insightful)
The very references you point to suggest otherwise. There is evidence from Greenland ice cores [agu.org] that the Earth went through periods considerably warmer than recent history in the past 10,000 years. There is also pollen data (google "paleolimnology" for references [uottawa.ca]). These events occured within the past few hundred thousand years.
The claim that there is anything particularly "unprecedented" about current climate variability, including it's rapidity and it's affect on the Arctic, is simply marketing. The Earth's climate has always been highly variable, responding to a variety of external influences and internal changes, such as the current spike in atmospheric CO2 levels due to human industrial activity.
The consequences of climate variability, such as species extinction (but not apparently polar bears, thankfully, as they have survived through the warmer periods of the past) and the destruction of human societies--such as the Viking settlements in Greenland and North America--are also quite well known.
The problem with "news" is that it has to appear "new". Humans are attracted by novelty and most humans are cowards, so we are particulary attracted by novel threats. Ergo, even scientists (and certainly universities and research institutes that have an eye on public funding) put the most novel spin possible on every result.
Some people argue that we must lie this way to get attention paid to global climate change and our contribution to it. This is a mistake. A society that needs to believe falsehoods on the order of "nothing like this has ever happened before OMG it's new and scary" before it is willing to change does not deserve to survive.
In the same way that hostility from irrational, truth-hating creationists stifled healthy debate within the evolutionary community for many years, it is possible that irrational, truth-hating climate-change-deniers will cripple debate within the climatological community. That would be a shame, because it is only science that is going to get us out of this mess. And interestingly, creationists and climate-change-deniers have some remarkable similarities in their beliefs: they both believe that the Earth is far more stable than it actually is, and they both have blind faith in humanity's special place in it, as if we are immune to the forces of nature that we have helped unleash around us.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"We can extract ice cores and easily date the layers."
No, actually, we can't. You're thinking _ANTARCTIC_ ice layers, not Arctic. Arctic ice is _sea ice_ and as sea ice, it melts and refreezes and it _moves_ all over the damn place.
Just to clarify further, since the ice has melted over the passage way it would be damned hard to get an ice core ;-]
Jaj
Re:Language and assumption troubles (Score:5, Funny)
>2. There was technology throughout most of human history that recorded Arctic ice cover?
Haven't you heard of diaries?
Mar 4th 1437
Still cold and boring. Caught breakfast. Fish again. Went for a walk to warm up. Noticed a bit of a crack in the ice and followed that for a while. Bumped into a big pole sticking out the ground. WTF? Some gnarly guy nearby said 'That'll be the North one, sonny.' Maybe someone hammered the pole in too hard and it cracked the ice? Walked back home. Fish for supper.
If that's not evidence, I don't know what is.
Re:Language and assumption troubles (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that continents move around, right? Plate techtonics and all that. Canada, for example, used to be on the equator.
Devon
Re:Language and assumption troubles (Score:4, Informative)
Funny, not according to _these_ maps...
http://geology.com/pangea.htm [geology.com]
Have a nice day. Really.
--
BMO
Re:Language and assumption troubles (Score:4, Informative)
Oh yeah, in geological terms, human history is less than the blink of an eye.
True.
With fossils unearthed recently showing _tropical_ weather in Northern Canada, I think it's safe to say that the Arctic ice cap is a temporary feature.
Regarding tropical weather in Northern Canada
It would be more accurate to say that ice-free poles are a very transient feature of earth. IIRC, earth's orbit is pretty far out in the sun's liquid water zone and ice ages are more common than warm stages in our climatic history.
Where are the sat images? (Score:4, Informative)
But seriously if you're going to write an article at least post the images. Even Discovery Channel didn't have a good image and they are usually all about the pictures!
Re:Where are the sat images? (Score:5, Informative)
Just goes to show you that Google is not a crutch for normal brain function.
Yeah, here is the sat pics: (Score:5, Informative)
Polemic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Polemic (Score:4, Funny)
Hell won't freeze over, but Europe might. (Score:3, Informative)
Global Warming could cause Europe to freeze over.
Say goodbye to warm Riviera Summers.
Re:Hell won't freeze over, but Europe might. (Score:4, Informative)
Propaganda in 3, 2, 1... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget... (Score:5, Funny)
Too small to mention, heh? I'll let you know we've never lost a single war against Russia nor the U.S... and we seriously intend to keep the record perfect!
Re:Don't forget... (Score:5, Funny)
(My theory on lutefisk is that it originates from an ancient Viking recipe for cleaning dried blood from weapons and armor... then one day a bored and drunken Nord tried eating it and didn't die)
Lutefisk explained (Score:3, Interesting)
Most likely [wikipedia.org], there was a fire. And then lye was created by combination of ashes+water, and the lye damaged the fish. But throwing away the fish was not an option, so the hungry folks did their best with what they had - and hey presto! Lutefisk was born..
But yeah, only crazy people eat lutefisk. And crazy people are not to be messed with!
And while we're at nasty Norwegian food, check this [flickr.com] out! Yep - baked sheep's head.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A friend of mine in high school had a Norwegian grandfather. His mother made lutefisk for him one christmas and their cat hid for days.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Forget Norway!
Kenyaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Navigable? Ever heard of icebergs? (Score:3, Informative)
For those wishing to see the .. (Score:4, Informative)
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/envisat/ASAR-
The non-red area near the pole (indicated by the black circle in the middle of the photo) is the concern, since it represents pack ice (and water) rather than solid ice
Priorities?!?! (Score:5, Funny)
This! This! is why I want to vote communist!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, the Soviet-Communist governments in Russia and Europe were amongst the worst polluters in history. Brown coal, Chernobyl, plenty of chemical dumps, etc.
History has shown that a standard-issue Commie government doesn't give a shit about the individual - just the power of the state or collective. So Commies don't care if a few individuals get cancer from benzine in the ground water, or chokes to death on sulfuric acid rain? The environmental horrors left beh
You're Welcome (Score:4, Funny)
But now, thanks to good old Yankee know-how, we have created one for you. Long-dreamed of commercial trade oppertunties have been opened to you! No, no, there's no reason to thank us. Really. It was our pleasure.
If there's anything else you need that can be accomplished via massive greed, sloth, and lack of self-awareness, don't hesitate to ask us.
Global warming skeptics (Score:3, Funny)
La la la - I can't hear you...
alternative to Panama canal, Alaska pipeline (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There goes Santa Claus (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. I read somewhere that he was bought out by Wallmart, and then dismantled.
- John
Re:Pictures? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, much of the light goes back out into space. That is how you can see the ice caps from orbit! ;-)
Even if the energy get absorbed in the atmosphere, it'll just be the air which doesn't heat up the water. It's the IR taken in by the water that causes it to heat up and melt more ice. It's a positive-feedback cycle; less ice == more heat.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Reality's well known liberal bias (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the world's nations that contribute to climatology are well to the left of the US, and they and our slightly less conservative party (Democrats) are in agreement about global warming. Reality has a well-known libe