The NorthEAST Passage Over Siberia Norway to the Pacific

[Chuck34]

Originally Posted by Pete7

So the Russian Federation pumps gas half way across the former USSR into Europe and then all the way across the EU to the UK via a series of pipes. The UK also ships in gas from Qatar to the UK. Meanwhile Norway a UK neighbour, Ships gas all the way to Korea through the NE Passage.

Why can't we swop Norwegian gas for Qatar gas and send the Qatar gas to Korea?

Pete

Too logical

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Have you changed your opinion that icebreakers are substantially contributing to the Arctic sea ice losses? If not, then, as stated;

'icebreakers are operating in the open Arctic more because they now can, as a result of the thinning ice due to Arctic warming from AGW...'

Good or not is entirely a matter of perspective...

No I have not changed my opinions. Apparently neither have you. AGW is a minor part of the equation. Natural cycles are more of the reason for the melt of sea ice that was happening in the Arctic. ( It is / was due to the natural cycles of the AMO which is now entering a cooling phase. Also the PDO is also entering a cooling phase.) Thankfully sea ice is making a comeback . ( Volume is well above the 2016 numbers . )

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

No I have not changed my opinions. Apparently neither have you. AGW is a minor part of the equation. Natural cycles are more of the reason for the melt of sea ice that was happening in the Arctic. ( It is / was due to the natural cycles of the AMO which is now entering a cooling phase. Also the PDO is also entering a cooling phase.) Thankfully sea ice is making a comeback . ( Volume is well above the 2016 numbers . )

Well perhaps you should since it is held by no one else. My 'opinions'-- which are not mine, but those of accredited climatologists, ice scientists and similarly credible people --will change when some data refuting them is provided. Sad to say, but your personal, incomplete understanding of the systems involved isn't quite up to the task.

My opinion of your misunderstanding of this is well illustrated by your implication that 'sea ice is making a comeback' because the 2017-18 volume is a bit higher than that of (I suppose) 2015-16, one of (if not the) lowest years on record.

As I'm sure you never tire of hearing, global (averaged globally) climate change is characterized not by daily local observations (or in this case bi-yearly, as that is the cycle of the phenomena in question), but by trend changes over a given period of time, the minimum generally agreed upon being 30 years...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Well perhaps you should since it is held by no one else. My 'opinions'-- which are not mine, but those of accredited climatologists, ice scientists and similarly credible people --will change when some data refuting them is provided. Sad to say, but your personal, incomplete understanding of the systems involved isn't quite up to the task.

My opinion of your misunderstanding of this is well illustrated by your implication that 'sea ice is making a comeback' because the 2017-18 volume is a bit higher than that of (I suppose) 2015-16, one of (if not the) lowest years on record.

As I'm sure you never tire of hearing, global (averaged globally) climate change is characterized not by daily local observations (or in this case bi-yearly, as that is the cycle of the phenomena in question), but by trend changes over a given period of time, the minimum generally agreed upon being 30 years...

Time will tell and 30 years doesn't even cover one full cycle of the AMO (look more along the lines of at a minimum a half a century.) Btw a hundred and twelve years ago they were able to sail from the Atlantic to the Pacific in one season ) I suppose that was due to the theory of AGW also .

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Time will tell and 30 years doesn't even cover one full cycle of the AMO (look more along the lines of at a minimum a half a century.) Btw a hundred and twelve years ago they were able to sail from the Atlantic to the Pacific in one season ) I suppose that was due to the theory of AGW also .

Maybe if you quit beating your head against the wall your senses will clear enough to realize that the guys who are sucking up all those lucrative grants are also aware of, and take into consideration, any (and many more, imposed by themselves and other people who are trained in and are beginning to understand these systems more and more well) of the few legitimate points under-informed laypeople sometimes bring up.


"Btw a hundred and twelve years ago they were able to sail from the Atlantic to the Pacific in one season )"

What part of

As I'm sure you never tire of hearing, global (averaged globally) climate change is characterized not by daily local observations (or in this case bi-yearly, as that is the cycle of the phenomena in question), but by trend changes over a given period of time, the minimum generally agreed upon being 30 years...'

do you not understand? And what does a single (who made this trip, how well is it documented?) passage have to do with anything? As presented, it has as much validity as a non-'A'GW bellwether as your "time-will-tell 'volume' recovery" of 2018...

And with that I'm off to try and free or break the last frozen, rusted bolt holding an exhaust manifold on a Crusader 502, cracked in the recent big freeze. 17F?, in Slidell? what global warming!...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Maybe if you quit beating your head against the wall your senses will clear enough to realize that the guys who are sucking up all those lucrative grants are also aware of, and take into consideration, any (and many more, imposed by themselves and other people who are trained in and are beginning to understand these systems more and more well) of the few legitimate points under-informed laypeople sometimes bring up.


"Btw a hundred and twelve years ago they were able to sail from the Atlantic to the Pacific in one season )"

What part of

As I'm sure you never tire of hearing, global (averaged globally) climate change is characterized not by daily local observations (or in this case bi-yearly, as that is the cycle of the phenomena in question), but by trend changes over a given period of time, the minimum generally agreed upon being 30 years...'

do you not understand? And what does a single (who made this trip, how well is it documented?) passage have to do with anything? As presented, it has as much validity as a non-'A'GW bellwether as your "time-will-tell 'volume' recovery" of 2018...

And with that I'm off to try and free or break the last frozen, rusted bolt holding an exhaust manifold on a Crusader 502, cracked in the recent big freeze. 17F?, in Slidell? what global warming!...

exactly and that is global cooling in its early stages .

https://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explo...03–06%20

btw in reference those guys sucking up all of those grants
Its impossible to get a guy to understand when his paycheck depends on not understanding.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

No I have not changed my opinions. Apparently neither have you. AGW is a minor part of the equation. Natural cycles are more of the reason for the melt of sea ice that was happening in the Arctic. ( It is / was due to the natural cycles of the AMO which is now entering a cooling phase. Also the PDO is also entering a cooling phase.) Thankfully sea ice is making a comeback . ( Volume is well above the 2016 numbers . )

One year is not a trend.



Notice anything?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Time will tell and 30 years doesn't even cover one full cycle of the AMO (look more along the lines of at a minimum a half a century.) Btw a hundred and twelve years ago they were able to sail from the Atlantic to the Pacific in one season ) I suppose that was due to the theory of AGW also .

112 years ago Amundsen was stuck in Arctic ice for 2 years. It took him from 1903 to 1906 to transit the NWP.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

112 years ago Amundsen was stuck in Arctic ice for 2 years. It took him from 1903 to 1906 to transit the NWP.

Not quite correct the first two years he was trying to get to the magnetic North Pole the third year he was convinced to continue the journey .

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=newhaul;2565639Btw a hundred and twelve years ago they were able to sail from the Atlantic to the Pacific in one season ) [/QUOTE]

So who made the transit in a single season 112 years ago?

[SailOar]

A discussion of the Northeast Passage, the Northern Sea Route, and the competition and cooperation between Russia and China.

Russia, China and the Geopolitics of the Northeast Passage | Military.com


https://arcticportal.org/ap-library/...theast-passage

[Erik de Jong]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Boy, I wonder what the environmental impact will be when they get all of them up and running. The mind boggles. Stirring the ice makes it melt faster.

Not just that, I'm much more worried about the noise pollution under water. With the increased shipping the underwater creatures are disturbed in not only their navigation, but also in their hunting skills. That is not only the case for whales, but also for Cod, Narwhal, Beluga, Walrus and many other species. We are ff'-ing up a lot on this planet

[Erik de Jong]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So who made the transit in a single season 112 years ago?

What is the nature of that question? It took me three months in 2015, not because the environmental conditions slowed me down, but because we took our time to look around in the area, if we rushed we could have done it in 11 days or even less.
Amundsen could have done it in two seasons if he did not have a scientific program to run parallel to his transit. It is certain he did have a bit more ice on his way than we did, so the area is definitely changing.

[Erik de Jong]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And I keep giving you the same answer.


https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/iceligh...anging-climate

You keep rejecting the answer.

I don't believe this report as it does not take the consequences of the breaking in account. I have seen the results of icebreakers with my own ice. It causes ice to move around and the sheets rub off on each other increasing erosion speed.
the reason that Arctic ice is dissapearing faster and faster is because it is more broken up. Even in winter time you cannot walk to the north pole anymore. You'll have to swim at least 10% of the distance.

After having spent 22 years in the Arctic, I can say with certainty that some bays are fully ice free at a certain time in the spring, while the neighboring bay is fully icecovered. The only difference is that an icebreaker was in the first bay a few weeks/months earlier. Hence, melting speed increases significantly when ice is broken up with an icebreaker.

[newhaul]

On a positive note sea ice is within normal range for this time of year