NORTHWEST PASSAGE?: The fabled shortcut to Asia from Europe has been open water in recent years but dangerous ice chunks still lurk in the coveted shipping lane of the McClure Strait, pictured here.
Image: ESA
More In This Article
-
Photo Album
Slide Show: View satellite images of the possible Northwest Passage
-
Overview
In-Depth Report: The Future of the Poles
-
Overview
CNN: Planet in Peril
-
Overview
CNN: Watching the Arctic Ice Melt
-
Overview
CNN: Polar Bears Listing
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
It is said that the Inuit have many words for snow, but when it comes to the Northwest Passage only one type of frozen water matters: multiyear ice. It can slice through the hull of a ship like a knife through butter and it persists in the passage's waters despite unprecedented warming in the Arctic Ocean, thwarting shippers in search of a shortcut between Europe and Asia.
The fabled Northwest Passage has made headlines ever since it thawed last year for the first time. For three centuries the quest for an expedited route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans rivaled today's space race, with European superpowers vying for the prize. Hundreds of sailors and countless expeditions ventured into Canada's Arctic waters, including such naval luminaries as Sir Francis Drake, Captain James Cook and the ill-fated Henry Hudson, who left his name—and lost his life—on the Canadian bay that marks its entrance.
Slide Show: View satellite images of the possible Northwest Passage
Now, with the Arctic's sea ice shrinking at a rate of 10 percent per decade, this coveted shipping lane has opened for business—but shippers are not rushing to use it. The reason: as fate would have it, global warming appears to also be increasing the amount of potentially deadly multiyear ice chunks lurking in the newly opened pathway.
Sea of Ice
"The thing is, the Canadian Arctic has a totally different ice regime than the Arctic Ocean," says Stephen Howell, a climatologist at the Interdisciplinary Center on Climate Change at the University of Waterloo in Ontario.
In fact, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago acts as a "drain trap" for ship-wrecking multiyear ice, Howell says. This year, for example, when the first-year ice in the passage had melted, it opened the way for multiyear ice (MYI) from the Queen Elizabeth Islands to flow into and clog the Northwest Passage. "We call it a 'MYI invasion' and that's going to be the threat as we transition to an ice-free summertime Arctic," he says.
"The first-year ice, that's sort of like Swiss cheese and you can just plow through it," Howell says. This ice freezes over a winter and is seldom thicker than three feet (one meter). Often, first-year ice melts the summer after it's frozen, but if it doesn't, it becomes thicker the following winter and becomes multiyear ice. "The multiyear ice isn't like Swiss cheese; it's solid and trouble" for ships that collide with it, he says.
"In places it was three meters (nearly 10 feet) thick, but in other places we had a five-meter (16.5-foot) drill bit and we still did not reach the bottom," says Bruno Tremblay, an atmospheric and oceanic scientist at McGill University in Montreal, who was taking ice cores of multiyear ice in the Canadian territory of Nunavut's Viscount Melville Sound last year.
"It's very dangerous," adds Ivana Kubat, an engineer at the National Research Council's Canadian Hydraulics Centre in Ottawa. "If a lower type of vessel hits a piece of multiyear ice, then the vessel can sink depending on the speed and damage." One study showed that multiyear ice was to blame for 74 percent of the damage suffered by ships traveling in the Canadian Arctic between 1976 and 2007.
A Route to Dodge Danger?
Still, there are several ways through the Northwest Passage. The southern, shallow and circuitous route through Peel Sound in Nunavut has been open the past three summers, thanks to warmer temperatures. "That's because that region is mostly first-year ice so with warmer temperatures it melts and it clears," Howell says.
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add CommentOf course the negative impacts outweigh the positive impacts. There's not money or power in global warming being a GOOD thing. Oh, and someone better tell the southwest they aren't dry right now, because they obviously haven't gotten the memo. Their eyes are probably blinded by all that desert sun and sand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I hear of such "technological possibilities" ahead of us, I can't stop myself from thinking that us, as a specie, are like children owning a technical knowledge way above the maturity we have to use it safely and wisely. All it take is some politicians the type of "drill baby drill" and millions of uneducated supporters to make it happen without proper studies on the matter and drowned informations that could exist against it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut are not allowed to take center stage because the media is in the hands of economic forces with short view agendas and thirst for immediate profits . I am all azymuths for progress, but not at the expense of future generations. Politics must mature end electors must vote for long term agendas instead of a "pacthes of asphalt" in front their houses.
If we manage to take that route, confidence will be back and "business as usual" will be of a different wave lenght till time will have come, again, to reevaluate, keep or rectifie the direction we want the organic spaceship we all live on to go.
Unlikely:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Arctic Ice Extent Now Likely Highest Level Since 2002"
By Joseph D’Aleo
"The latest daily arctic sea ice extent chart from IJIS shows the current year ice extent at the highest level in the record back to 2002. (2003 was missing)."
"Ths (sic) represents an increase of 655,781 square kilometers over last November 7 or 7.4%."
This increase in arctic sea ice is obviously the result of Global Warming.
Dated: Nov 08, 2008
URL: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Arctic_Ice_Extent_Now_Likely_Highest_Level_Since_2002.pdf
Accessed: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:53:51 AM
One of the temperature monitors that records the info used by the global warming disciples is not far from my home. The person who volunteers to read and record the info and maintain the site laughs at how an air conditioning condenser nearby blows its heat right at the monitor. He says the problem is pervasive across the country with the data recorders. Much of the data is corrupted by nearby heat sources. Since no survey has been done on these sites then the data cannot be accurately corrected by mathematical means unless the W.A.G. system is used (wild ass guessing). Is global warming nothing more than bad data? The data from those recorder are used by science to predict the future? It appears the scientific community does not even care the data is tainted. We should not base our national policy on this sloppy science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello Follow the Facts,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sorry but you have been taken in by a con artist. I want you to check out what the people who actually monitor sea ice are saying:
"While slightly above the record-low minimum set Sept. 16, 2007, this season further reinforces the strong negative trend in summer sea ice extent observed during the past 30 years. Before last year, the previous record low for September was set in 2005."
From:http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_08234_Artic_Sea_Ice.html
So in short you have been lied too.
But hold it! We have not even talking about volume have we? This year the record in volume of ice melted has been recorded. The National Sea Ice Data Center says :
NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, “Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.”
Thought all this talk of record breaking single years is just blowing smoke. What you need to look for is the trend. That trend over the past 30 years has been steadily downward.
@Praire Dweller,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks again for another one of those unverifiable "stories" you like to tell. Tell me, does the urban heat island effect the Deniers like to think they have discovered, what bearing does it have on temperatures at sea? Are the oceans just riddled with Atlantises that no one has discovered? How about weather ballons? Are their vast cloud cities out their that no else but you have discovered? Do you really think that people who have studied this problem do not account for it? Just how much of the Earth's surface area do you think is covered by urban areas? Do you really think that a dozen or so sites in the US negates global temperature increases? Really?
Are you just that dam ignorant and provincial that you think no else has thought of these problems?
Here, go figure out what the urban heat island effect is going to have on national forest and parks. I mean surely you and your anonymous buddy have taken into account the Remote Automated Weather Stations Network in those places - right? I guess your going to tell us how armies of raccoons remotely controlled by Al Gore are biasing the readings.
For more on the RAWS network go here:
http://www.fs.fed.us/raws/
The buddy's name is Richard, not anonymous, and he and the others that service the equipment say the data is corrupt because the site surveys necessary for the proper calculations to obtain the correction factors has never been done so the data is WRONG. If some of the data is bad and still accepted then the results of using bad data yields bad results. Nobody is keeping track of the environment around these sites, automated or not, urban or rural, land or sea, and not just in this country. The scientific community just pretends the data is correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent1492 stick your personal attacks up your ass. We both know you wouldn't have the guts to do it to my face.
So Prairiedweller, why don't you spend some money and just go see what is happening in the Arctic? Talk to Alaskan and Canadian natives who have made their livlihood off the land and see what they have to tell you about changes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I'm not a numbers person, I can see effects where I live in MT. Subtle, but they are there, and are being noted by researchers.
Open your eyes. And try reading some other data than what your friend tells you.
"The buddy's name is Richard, not anonymous,.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell that just makes the individual so much more identifiable. Not. Hint: in a nation of 300 million plus people calling some entity, Richard, still makes him ( if he exists) anonymous.
"...and he and the others...."
More anonymous people. You just do not get it do you?
"... the data is corrupt because the site surveys necessary for the proper calculations to obtain the correction factors has never been done so the data is WRONG..."
Oh, so you of course got a peer reviewed paper saying this of course? Something tells me that is not the case. You know a paper in which an appropiate number of sites have been surveryed. Otherwise I will just assume that as usual your just pulling this out of your posterior as usual.
Then of course your going to tell us how the weather ballons, bathyometers, reports from shipping and aircraft are alll wrong too, right?
"Nobody is keeping track of the environment around these sites, automated or not, urban or rural, land or sea, and not just in this country."
Yet you just KNOW how they are all corrupt. Do you ever just stop to think about what your writting?
"The scientific community just pretends the data is correct."
.
In only two posts you go from accusing the scientific community of gross incompetence to conpiracy. You make these accusations without a shred of peer reviewed evidence but because it fits your ideology. Your a real piece of work.
"Trent1492 stick your personal attacks up your ass. We both know you wouldn't have the guts to do it to my face."
Oh, look! Another internet tough guy! You know what would really impress me? You going out and reading what the researchers are actually saying and why they are saying it. I have read through such denial sites as "Watts Up" and "Climate Audit" and found them wanting in their analysis. You know ittle things like not taking into account that two diffeerent databases use two different base periods; or getting confused about the difference between a sine and latitude. Go take a look at how the U.H.I is accounted for and get back to me on the flaws you find, ok?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/langswitch_lang/in
I want you to pay particular attention to points 1, 2 and 5.
Prairiedweller, there are so many flaws with your argument I can't even address them all. Here is a start: Has the heat source been there for the last three decades? If it has then the extra heat is included in the calculations over time and would only show an increase if the ambient temperature was higher so more heat was extracted from the area being cooled. After all if average temps were stable the extra heat would always be the same on an annual basis and would show no increase. This would then indicate no global warming. That isn't what is happening though is it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen there is Richard. Prove Richard exists. Extremists on both sides have lied constantly as far back as this debate goes. Your story fits the urban legend model perfectly and thus is discounted by any educated reader. However, let us assume that Richard is real. Here is a man that is deliberately perpetuating fraud upon his employer and millions of tax payers. This is the kind of person you want us to trust? Really? If he were honest he would have brought this issue to the attention of the responsible authorities but you clearly don't say that he did and was then silenced. This makes him a crook, which makes you a fool.
The use of foul language completely destroys any credibility you may have had. I hope that Trent1492 reported your abuse and you get blocked from tainting any other discussions with your childish, ignorant filth. Try again when you grow up. Not that Trent1492 needed to be so harsh but still, try to act like someone worthy of paying attention to.
Personally, I've grown tired of the cold prairie winters and look forward to some global warming. Of course when global food production plummets and billions starve I won't find it so nice. I'm just not convinced that any of this has anything to do with humans at all.
IF IT HAS'NT DONE IT IN THE LAST 200 YEARS, I DOUBT IT'LL DO IT IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS LEFT OF ALL SPECIES ON EARTH.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIF THEY HAVENT DONE IT IN THE LAST 200 YEARS AND THEY WONT DO IT IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS, THEN OUR SPECIES CANT EVER DO IT, BECAUSE ALL SPECIES WONT BE ALIVE ON EARTH AFTER 2028. HAVE A NICE DAY. MIKE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHIS WEBSITE IS'NT FAIR TO ANYONE, IT CANT OR WONT ACCEPT HONESTY, BUT IS PREJUDICE TO ANYONE'S IDEAS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAS THE ONLY PERSON ON EARTH WITH ALL THE MAJOR DISASTER SOLUTIONS I GIVE THIS SITE SCIENTIST AMERICAN A THUMBS DOWN== http://www.inventube.com/ooojay/blog/ dont have a nice day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey there i seen many articles global warming and the poles. i have a suggestion but im not even sure if it will work. " why dont we invent a type of liquid nitrogen missile and launch it under water." Before we must test the effects and side effects of the missile and the radius of its impact. we must also do studies on how it will react not only with the planet but also with the wild life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishi there i seen many articles on the poles and i have come up with an idea that might work. "why dont we invent a liquid nitrogen missile that we can lauch under water to refreeze the poles." Ofcourse first we must make studies on the radious that the missile will reach and also study the effects of what the missle does to the water besides freezing it and finally a study on how the wild life will adapt to this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight now the sea ice in the Arctic is growing at the fastest rate on record. That doesn't mean it will continue and it doesn't mean that next summer it won't melt at an even faster rate. But anyone with a computer can go to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ and scroll down to the year to year comparisons and view 11/14/08 with 11/14/79 and see that size and thickness of the Arctic ice is very similar. The recovery from the summer melt is incredible and possibly the best recovery in recorded history, which means only since 1979. If I were a confirmed believer in global warming I would have waited until next August to write this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those questioning 'Richard' perhaps you might want to check out this site, that documents the temperature collection sites - many of which are corrupted by the types of things 'Richard' refers to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.surfacestations.org/
The comment about the 'extra heat always being the same' is ridiculous on its face. If there an AC unit is installed on a given year, it will affect the temp. It's effect on the temp in subsequent years will be compounded by being operated on warmer days - making warmer days appear even warmer. I'll leave the barbecue grill and trash burning barrel you will see to your own assessment.
It is not really a matter of whether the number of corupted sites are affecting the total. It is a trend that one can see throughout the Global Warming community - A total disregard for real science and real scientific principles. It has become more of a religion than a science.
The IPCC "peer review process" is laughable by any scientific standards. Yet they tout it as being beyond reproach. It would be quite humorous if it wasn't so sad.
Trent 1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAd hominem attacks 1, facts zero.
I may not agree with how Prarie dweller is making his point, but the fact is that his assertions are supported, and not just at his locale. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ in her book "The Skeptic's Handbook"contains several pictures of exactly what Prariedweller is talking about. So Nullius Verba (see for yourself; don't take anyone's word for it.
OK, so there may be a route around Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But the article states that there will be hard-ice 'growlers' floating around still. Just imagine the savings to oil companies to send tankers that way. But just remember the Titanic. They said it was unsinkable, yet ice sunk it on its maiden voyage. Therefore just imagine the environmental effects of a tanker sinking on the Arctic route....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGrec R1 : 'The IPCC peer review process is laughable?' Sorry, but the IPCC don't do any peer reviewing at all. They ask over 8,000 top scientists who make their conclusions from the accumulated mass of data and conclusions from whole teams of expert-scientists in their fields whose work has been peer-reviewed before being submitted to the IPCC. Please stick to the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQ: "Is global warming nothing more than bad data?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA: NO SIR!. It's much much more than that; it's big business!
Global Warming.. I grew up in Orlando, Florida- Pine Hills to be exact. From 1972 to 1990. I remember while I was in Elementary school - Hiawassee Elementary to be exact- being able to swim in our outdoor pool (it was not screened over) during Christmas vacation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry that in Orlando now- you'll freeze your butt off.
While you're at it, talk to the organge growers. It used to be the orange industry was the powehouse of Florida. Not any more. Every year freezes kill off more and more groves. Brazil and Mexico are the orange producers now.
The Earth's climate changes and people don't make it happen.
I can say that because people didn't cause the massive inland sea that became Arizona to dry up. People didn't make the trackless jungles that became the Western United States become deserts. People didn't cause the several (major and minor_ Ice Ages that pushed glaciers as far south as Kansas to start or stop.
People weren't around then but the Earth's climate still changed. The only difference now is that people are getting rich by chanting "Global Cooling!" (1970's), "Global Warming!" (1990's), "Global CHANGE!" (2000's).
Them's my two cents.
For several years I took measurements of many atmospheric data, and I can assure that most of the measurements were accurate, most of the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAm doing some more reflecting on the process of collecting weather data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur sites for collecting temps and for measuring rain and wind were situated so as to be as accurate as possible. It is and has been standard procedure to put temp gauges away from buildings, in specially constructed structures which ensured that the temp gauge was shaded and had air flowing over it.
My understanding from my training for the job was that a lot thought and consideration had gone into the policy governing where and how gauges of all types were sited. Where I worked, there is no way that an A/C unit could have affected any measurements, as the thermometers, and all of the equipment, were far from anything that could impact the measurements, and this was part of policy.
This is not to say that errors never happened. Once, over the course of several years, a lawn sprinkler managed to put water into the rain gauge, so we had to go back and try to correct the data for that day.
Still, I am confident that the design of our data collecting set-up was as good as it could reasonably be made to be.
Replying to Zoddious:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisone of the interesting consequences of global warming is that the warming of the two polar regions, and the melting of most of the mountain glaciers (which has already occurred) will cause some areas on the planet to actually get cooler for a long time.
The Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic Ocean is a prime determinant in affecting temperatures from the Southeast U.S. all the way to Northern Europe. The generalised warming of the atmosphere is causing the melting of huge volumes of fresh water from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps, which may cause the Gulf Stream to weaken. If this happens, or if it is already happening, we may see "localised" cooling, all the way from Florida to the Scandinavian Peninsula.
The most recent scientific theory is that the last time the Gulf Stream was caused to halt, due to global warming after the last ice age, it took over a thousand years for it to become a strong, warm current again.
I hope you find this info as interesting as it is to me.