Northwest Passage - 2017

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Ice breakers do not have any significant impact on sea ice extent.

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

so you keep posting the same link
I just wonder what would happen if there was no vessel activity in the arctic for 2 years and I mean 0 vessel ( other than inuit kayaks on traditional seal hunts)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

so you keep posting the same link
I just wonder what would happen if there was no vessel activity in the arctic for 2 years and I mean 0 vessel ( other than inuit kayaks on traditional seal hunts)

Wonder all you want. Here is the math.

An icebreaker cruising through the ice for 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) and leaving an ice-free wake of 10 meters (33 feet) would open an area of water 10 square kilometers (3.9 square miles) over the entire cruise. In contrast, the Arctic sea ice cover decreases by an average of over 9 million square kilometers or 3.5 million square miles each year during its melt season—an area larger than the contiguous United States. In total, researchers estimate that the number of icebreakers traversing the Arctic at any given time is usually less than three. So, Meier said, “The actual contribution is miniscule—only one part in a million of the total ice cover.”

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wonder all you want. Here is the math.

yes jack we all know the party line . Honestly do you believe that they would admit to causing any issues with ice breaking activity. FYI the Russians have admitted they have ice breakers that routinely disturb multi year ice .
Edit the info you post every time someone mentions icebreakers is over 6 years old . Do you have anything newer?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

yes jack we all know the party line . Honestly do you believe that they would admit to causing any issues with ice breaking activity. FYI the Russians have admitted they have ice breakers that routinely disturb multi year ice .
Edit the info you post every time someone mentions icebreakers is over 6 years old . Do you have anything newer?

Do you have anything, other than supposition, to prove that the information is incorrect?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Do you have anything, other than supposition, to prove that the information is incorrect?

that information would never see the light of day. If it were to become known people would scream for an immediate cessation of ice breaking activity. And there is to much money to be made in business and the climatology grants to study MMGWC impacts on the ice. Governments and big business would never allow it .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that information would never see the light of day. If it were to become known people would scream for an immediate cessation of ice breaking activity. And there is to much money to be made in business and the climatology grants to study MMGWC impacts on the ice. Governments and big business would never allow it .

Conspiracy theory trumps science in your world.

[newhaul]

Here are two pages that lead me to not fully believe anything I read on arctic sea ice surface area and volumes
MASIE Home | National Snow and Ice Data Center
Which shows 12.0 million sqkm
And this one
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/c...sea-ice-graph/
Which says 11.64 million
Both are from the same site.
So why the discrepancies.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Conspiracy theory trumps science in your world.

no jack I just spent to much time keeping things out of the papers and off the tv for the government.

[newhaul]

We seem to get along good on everything except MMGWC stuff so I suggest we just agree to disagree.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

no jack I just spent to much time keeping things out of the papers and off the tv for the government.

Huh?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here are two pages that lead me to not fully believe anything I read on arctic sea ice surface area and volumes
MASIE Home | National Snow and Ice Data Center
Which shows 12.0 million sqkm
And this one
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/c...sea-ice-graph/
Which says 11.64 million
Both are from the same site.
So why the discrepancies.

Did you bother to read the FAQs?

FAQs | National Snow and Ice Data Center

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

that information would never see the light of day. If it were to become known people would scream for an immediate cessation of ice breaking activity. And there is to much money to be made in business and the climatology grants to study MMGWC impacts on the ice. Governments and big business would never allow it .

As Jack said those stories must be read wearing foil hat for folies
Ice breaking nor any other shipping actually doesn't smelt the ice in amounts that would matter to anything. Merely it's an argument as serious as what kind of ice people prefer in their sundowners..

Opinions are not facts.

[Juho]

Ice breakers

Ice breakers basically only rearrange the ice mass. I.e. they reduce the amount of ice directly only very little, and rather only move it around. Almost all of the ice remains there after the ice breaker has passed. Making the surface darker (water, less white snow and ice) is however probably a more important factor. There could be also other factors, like cutting some smaller ice sheets loose.

https://www.vastavalo.net/displayimage.php?pos=-277626

There are many kind of ice conditions. In the linked picture the dark blue area behind the ships is small. Distance between the cargo ship and the ice breaker is intentionally kept small, since if it is cold, the ice will freeze soon again. In these conditions there will be practically no open water, just some slightly darker ice surface, when the ships have passed.

As said, there are many kind of ice conditions, but the one described in the picture is a quite common one. One could study the ice coverage e.g. in Finland where ice breakers have broken ice next to major harbours for some 100 years by now. I'm not aware of any major impact on ice coverage. But maybe you could see it if those harbours will be free of ice in the springtime remarkably earlier than other areas.

Other factors that actually directly melt ice are warming climate and black soot on the ice surface.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Juho

Ice breakers basically only rearrange the ice mass. I.e. they reduce the amount of ice directly only very little, and rather only move it around. Almost all of the ice remains there after the ice breaker has passed. Making the surface darker (water, less white snow and ice) is however probably a more important factor. There could be also other factors, like cutting some smaller ice sheets loose.

https://www.vastavalo.net/displayimage.php?pos=-277626

There are many kind of ice conditions. In the linked picture the dark blue area behind the ships is small. Distance between the cargo ship and the ice breaker is intentionally kept small, since if it is cold, the ice will freeze soon again. In these conditions there will be practically no open water, just some slightly darker ice surface, when the ships have passed.

As said, there are many kind of ice conditions, but the one described in the picture is a quite common one. One could study the ice coverage e.g. in Finland where ice breakers have broken ice next to major harbours for some 100 years by now. I'm not aware of any major impact on ice coverage. But maybe you could see it if those harbours will be free of ice in the springtime remarkably earlier than other areas.

Other factors that actually directly melt ice are warming climate and black soot on the ice surface.

that's what I am talking about the potential of indirect effects which have not been studied.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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.

So now humans are apparently more powerful than the sun according to the GW religion....

Jack, step back from your webpages and look up in the sky during the daytime.... the big bright object you won’t be able to look at emits the energy that regulates the climate along with the earth orbit and angle. It’s always been that way, even the ancients understood this.