The NorthEAST Passage Over Siberia Norway to the Pacific

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Erik de Jong

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.

Erik I have been trying to explain this to the naysayers for a couple years they don't seem to want to understand

[newhaul]

The sea ice in the arctic is just going through its normal freeze melt cycle and appears to be on the way to its high extent/ volume point. Consider how low the annual average was in the 1930's and early 1940's. Then the recovery that happened in till the late 1970's then back to loss in till 2012. Now it is recovering again . ( seasonal variability not withstanding.)

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The sea ice in the arctic is just going through its normal freeze melt cycle and appears to be on the way to its high extent/ volume point. Consider how low the annual average was in the 1930's and early 1940's. Then the recovery that happened in till the late 1970's then back to loss in till 2012. Now it is recovering again . ( seasonal variability not withstanding.)

It's puzzling why you should make such an assertion, and then offer as evidence a chart whose most recent data point is over 40 years old???

What flavor of Kool-Aid did you say you prefer?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It's puzzling why you should make such an assertion, and then offer as evidence a chart whose most recent data point is over 40 years old???

What flavor of Kool-Aid did you say you prefer?

this chart shows the cyclic nature of sea ice also shows that the ice area was much lower than it is today . This seems to disprove the theory that sea ice is at its lowest ever extent.
This chart was from before nasa and NOAA doctored the datum to fit their models and rhetoric.
What flavor of kool-Aid did you drink?
I only drink the kool aid of truth.
Ps when was the last time you were in the arctic in winter?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It's puzzling why you should make such an assertion, and then offer as evidence a chart whose most recent data point is over 40 years old???

What flavor of Kool-Aid did you say you prefer?

Oh, you want that data extended forward?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by StuM

Oh, you want that data extended forward?

or how would he like these ones.
If you would like to notice the first-year which connects directly with my prior
Graph is directly from the ipcc 1990 ant second is ipcc 1995

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

Thank you, StuM, for the extended graph.

Originally Posted by newhaul

The sea ice in the arctic is just going through its normal freeze melt cycle and appears to be on the way to its high extent/ volume point. Consider how low the annual average was in the 1930's and early 1940's. Then the recovery that happened in till the late 1970's then back to loss in till 2012. Now it is recovering again . ( seasonal variability not withstanding.)

To my uncalibrated eye it looks like Arctic sea ice levels have been falling since the 1970s (as you said), but I don't see the signs of a "recovery" that you think are so obvious.

Originally Posted by newhaul

this chart shows the cyclic nature of sea ice also shows that the ice area was much lower than it is today . This seems to disprove the theory that sea ice is at its lowest ever extent...

Again, looking at StuM's chart, I don't see that "the ice area was much lower than it is today", at least not in the past 100 years shown in the above chart.

But maybe I need to try drinking a different flavor of Kool-Aid.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Thank you, StuM, for the extended graph.



To my uncalibrated eye it looks like Arctic sea ice levels have been falling since the 1970s (as you said), but I don't see the signs of a "recovery" that you think are so obvious.



Again, looking at StuM's chart, I don't see that "the ice area was much lower than it is today", at least not in the past 100 years shown in the above chart.

But maybe I need to try drinking a different flavor of Kool-Aid.

I noticed you admit that the Arctic sea ice was lower in the recent past.

Wait about two years and you will see. IMO James Hansen was correct in 1974.
When he said according to his models we will be at the beginning of an ice age in 30 to 50 years. Fifty years will be 2024.
There is a reason the IPCC says we have 5 years to make it all happen to save the environment . Because it will lock us into their brand of Kool aid . All the while knowing we will be in a severe and undeniable cooling phase. Heading into a 30 or more year grand solar minimum which will cause all sorts of cooling events on the planet.
You should revisit Dr Zharkova's work on astrophysics
Here is a recient interview with her.
https://youtu.be/_wB46mgJrzI

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I noticed you admit that the Arctic sea ice was lower in the recent past.

I admitted nothing. I merely quoted your unsubstantiated and incorrect assertion. From StuM's chart I can't tell which year had the lowest ice extent, but it is clear that during no time in the last 100 years has arctic ice extent been substantially lower than it was a few years ago -- and it also is clear that the current trend is downwards, not upwards.

Wait about two years and you will see. IMO James Hansen was correct in 1974.
When he said according to his models we will be at the beginning of an ice age in 30 to 50 years. Fifty years will be 2024.
There is a reason the IPCC says we have 5 years to make it all happen to save the environment . Because it will lock us into their brand of Kool aid . All the while knowing we will be in a severe and undeniable cooling phase. Heading into a 30 or more year grand solar minimum which will cause all sorts of cooling events on the planet.
You should revisit Dr Zharkova's work on astrophysics
Here is a recient interview with her.
https://youtu.be/_wB46mgJrzI

We're getting further and further away from topic of the Northeast Passage, but if you want to play dueling URLs on Grand Solar Minimums, here is mine.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/gra...termediate.htm

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I admitted nothing. I merely quoted your unsubstantiated and incorrect assertion. From StuM's chart I can't tell which year had the lowest ice extent, but it is clear that during no time in the last 100 years has arctic ice extent been substantially lower than it was a few years ago -- and it also is clear that the current trend is downwards, not upwards.



We're getting further and further away from topic of the Northeast Passage, but if you want to play dueling URLs on Grand Solar Minimums, here is mine.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/gra...termediate.htm

except for one little thing skepticalscience is incorrect. You just need to actually look at and follow solar weather.
There has been proven to be a direct correlation between reduced solar winds and an uptick in seismic and volcanic activity. Volcanic activity can and will cause an increase in stratospheric aerosols and cloud nucleation . All of which will increase albedo and reduce solar irradiance melting of polar sea ice in the near future. I am waiting for late September to see how we are doing.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by StuM

Oh, you want that data extended forward?

StuM how are things for you today in light of the quake ? All well I hope.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by newhaul

StuM how are things for you today in light of the quake ? All well I hope.

No problems down here in Port Moresby, didn't feel a thing. But it's looking bad for the Southern Highlands.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by StuM

No problems down here in Port Moresby, didn't feel a thing. But it's looking bad for the Southern Highlands.

yes it does look real bad. I heard rumors of possible explosion at the gas plant that was just a couple kilometers from the epicenter.
The media here only says bad quake and the body count.

[seandepagnier]

How did they accurately measure sea ice extent before satellites?

When is the ice going to melt? I want to sail to north pole! I figure by the time I make it, they will already have moorings (for a fee) and anchoring prohibited.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

How did they accurately measure sea ice extent before satellites?

When is the ice going to melt? I want to sail to north pole! I figure by the time I make it, they will already have moorings (for a fee) and anchoring prohibited.

back in the old days they measured sea ice extent by reports from shipping and fishing fleets. Also there are some buoys that give data as well .
The danish have records for the eastern arctic going back several centuries.

if you wish to brave the arctic ice I would recommend doing it this year .
Looking at the historical records it would appear that we are looking to see record of near record sea ice volumes within the next few years. ( time will tell lets see where we are come September.)