Northwest Passage - 2017

[SailOar]

According to the book The Discovery of the Northwest Passage, yesterday, October 26, was the anniversary of the October 26, 1850 discovery by Sir Robert John Le Mesurier M'Clure (of M'Clure Strait, presumably) of the Northwest Passage, which he and his crew transited by boat and on foot over ice.

Or, as Ken McGoogan, author of Fatal Passage, would say, “The Northwest Passage did not exist, and so could not be discovered, until Europeans invented it.”

M'Clure's voyage sailed from Woolrich England on January 10, 1850 and returned to the English port of Ramsgate on October 6, 1854, having been gone four years and ten months and losing five men after wintering over in the Arctic winters four years without resupply.


-

[SailOar]

These are the melting glaciers that might someday drown your city, according to NASA | Washington Post

Counter-intuitively, as/when/if the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica collapse, sea level will not rise uniformly around the globe. Due to gravitational effects and the rotation of the Earth, some locations relatively close to the melting glacier may see little sea level rise, while other areas much further away could see much more. For instance, New York City will see a greater sea level rise from glaciers melting in more-distant north-east Greenland, but less sea level rise from those melting in much closer south-west Greenland. And cities like Oslo, Norway, and Reykjavik, Iceland, may actually see sea levels fall as Greenland’s ice sheet melts.

This interactive NASA site allows one to select various cities around the Earth to see how sea level will change under various scenarios. However, for me, the website response was very sluggish.

https://vesl.jpl.nasa.gov/research/sea-level/slr-gfm/


The gradient of sea level rise near New York City with respect to ice loss
from the Greenland Ice Sheet. Red indicates a larger impact on NYC
local sea level rise. (Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech)

[victor15]

Hold your breath. 2017 NWP was tough and 2018 looks to be tougher. Please no sandwich hulls there, they get punched with ice fast. In 2017 some boats were turned out by RCMP to enter passage. Cheers

[newhaul]

10 mil sq kilometers of arctic sea ice today.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

10 mil sq kilometers of arctic sea ice today.

Actually 9.621 million, which is the third lowest value for that date in the 1979-2010 satellite record, and 1.233 million below the mean...

Data without context is worse than useless...

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/N...2135_v3.0.xlsx

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Actually 9.621 million, which is the third lowest value for that date in the 1979-2010 satellite record, and 1.233 million below the mean...

Data without context is worse than useless...

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/N...2135_v3.0.xlsx

actually not correct MASIE Home | National Snow and Ice Data Center
This was as of about 36 hours ago. According to NOAA and the university of Colorado boulder .

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually not correct MASIE Home | National Snow and Ice Data Center
This was as of about 36 hours ago. According to NOAA and the university of Colorado boulder .

Absolutely true.

As par for the course, you are selectively applying a number to support some unknown ideology.

The standard for sea ice that we have been using on this thread, and generally on all other threads of this nature, has been the 15% extent record that is published by your same source, the NSIDC.

You have used the MASIE record, apparently because you think it supports some imagined preconceived personal notion.


From their website, describing the differences between the two;


1. What is the difference between this product and the Sea Ice Index? The Sea Ice Index has a daily view, too.

The Sea Ice Index (SII) relies on satellite passive microwave data as its only data source. These data are automatically processed using an algorithm and have known biases and limitations; these are covered in the SII documentation. MASIE relies on data from the Interactive Multisensor Snow and Ice Mapping System (IMS) that runs at the National Ice Center (NIC). The IMS product uses several satellite data sources including passive microwave, but it is also based on visual analysis and other data sources and undergoes a form of manual data fusion. Another difference is in the resolution of the products. The MASIE product has a nominal 4-km resolution which is higher than the nominal 25-km resolution of the SII.
2. When should I use MASIE and when should I use the Sea Ice Index?

Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important. Even then, the monthly, not the daily, Sea Ice Index views should be used to look at trends in sea ice. The Sea Ice Index documentation explains how linear regression is used to say something about trends in ice extent, and what the limitations of that method are. Use MASIE when you want the most accurate view possible of Arctic-wide ice on a given day or through the week. More accurate pictures of ice extent on any given day might be possible on a regional basis and from other international centers. See the IPY Ice Logistics Portal for access. If you have a question about intended and appropriate use of the data, please contact NSIDC User Services.
3. Should I use this product, or should I go to the National Ice Center (NIC) site?

Go to the NIC Web site for operational support of any kind. MASIE is produced in cooperation with NIC and is based on a NIC operational product, but NSIDC is not an operational center and cannot offer that level of support.


That '10 million sq km' for November 18 certainly looks suspiciously round to me...


If you are unable to grasp the concept of using standards to determine statistical relevance, I can easily understand how you might have problems understanding how a global average temperature rise (or fall, for that matter) of say, 2 degrees C, will have a profound effect on local environmental conditions...

[newhaul]

The truth is I really don't care about global warming or global cooling ( what ever camp you are in ) .
The fact is that the climate is constantly changing. It has always changed and always will change.
As far as the 10.0 number it has been going steadily up at between 1and 2 hundred thousand a day on average with a few days of nul change usually followed by a 2 to 3 hundred thousand up tick ( this time of year) . The numbers for 19 Nov are unchanged from 18 Nov. ( the cause is averaging of all of the datasets and yes I do understand statistical analysis)
the biggest issue I have with any of it is there are only so many sources for the data but every entity interprets it different . Even using the same base datum. ( one can even find conflicting numbers from different parts of the same entity)

[Erik de Jong]

The standardization of ice data is extremely misleading.
Since it is impossible to accurately measure the individual ice surfaces, they use averages. The arctic is divided in grids of 1 degree by 1 degree, and if that square has 10% ice coverage or more, it is counted as 'ice covered'. So the almost 10M sqm at the moment has lots and lots of areas of open water in it, some as much as 90% of the surface. Especially at the time of the lowest ice extent the numbers are very misleading, as at that time it is most broken up and scattered around. The number of squares that have up to 90% of open water is more than twice as high as 20 years ago. Eventough 2012 is officially the year with the lowest ice extent, I personally believe that 2016 had actually less ice...

[Erik de Jong]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Counter-intuitively, as/when/if the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica collapse, sea level will not rise uniformly around the globe. Due to gravitational effects and the rotation of the Earth, some locations relatively close to the melting glacier may see little sea level rise, while other areas much further away could see much more.

I heard a very different theory that I found interesting as well.

Due to the added water in the oceans, some of the tectonic plates will sink in a bit deeper because of its weight, the magma volume wants to remain the same, so plates with the continents on it will rise a little bit. His conclusion was that sea level rising was not going to be as much of an issue as some will believe.

That does not take away the fact that the Arctic is melting at an extremely rapid rate and that we all need to do our part to reduce that rate.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The truth is I really don't care about global warming or global cooling ( what ever camp you are in ) .
The fact is that the climate is constantly changing. It has always changed and always will change.

Prior to the Industrial revolution climate changed as a result of natural cycles. No one denies that. Then we dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2, a known GHG, into the atmosphere and messed up natural cycles. Now climate change is the result of human activity.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Erik de Jong

The standardization of ice data is extremely misleading.
Since it is impossible to accurately measure the individual ice surfaces, they use averages. The arctic is divided in grids of 1 degree by 1 degree, and if that square has 10% ice coverage or more, it is counted as 'ice covered'. So the almost 10M sqm at the moment has lots and lots of areas of open water in it, some as much as 90% of the surface. Especially at the time of the lowest ice extent the numbers are very misleading, as at that time it is most broken up and scattered around. The number of squares that have up to 90% of open water is more than twice as high as 20 years ago. Eventough 2012 is officially the year with the lowest ice extent, I personally believe that 2016 had actually less ice...

The threshold is 15%, not 10%.

Frequently Asked Questions on Arctic sea ice | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

[Erik de Jong]

You are indeed correct about the 10%, it is actually 15%. Apologies for the typo.

In regards to the natural cycle, the planet is heating up 20 times faster this time around than in measurable history (roughly 800.000 years) in its natural cycles. So yes, it is man made, and you should give a ****.... We are not inheriting our planet from our ancestors, we are borrowing it from our children, taking care of that so that they have an affordable life is the decent thing to do.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The threshold is 15%, not 10%.

Frequently Asked Questions on Arctic sea ice | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

thanks for corrections jack ( saved me doin it)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Erik de Jong

You are indeed correct about the 10%, it is actually 15%. Apologies for the typo.

In regards to the natural cycle, the planet is heating up 20 times faster this time around than in measurable history (roughly 800.000 years) in its natural cycles. So yes, it is man made, and you should give a ****.... We are not inheriting our planet from our ancestors, we are borrowing it from our children, taking care of that so that they have an affordable life is the decent thing to do.

my son was murdered in 2002 its just me and my dad now so I really don't care/ no dog in the fight.