http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=ArchivedFeatures&Params=A2134

1977-
“The Belgian, Willie de Roos, sailing his 44 ft steel sailboat became the first sailboat to transit the passage and completing the voyage in one season.”

http://www.theoceans.net/story/NorthwestPassageSunstartingtoshineonFineToleranceApr72005.shtml

http://www.openpassageexpedition.com/

There is a post today that says the team will be extracted this week. It also says that they take 75 ice and snow measurements per day.

A post last week said they spend “4-5 hours of science measurements per day. Measurements include snow thickness; the thickness of the freeboard (the layer of ice that sits above the waterline, usually 10-15% of the overall ice thickness); the draft (the layer of ice that sits below the waterline – usually 85-90% of overall thickness); the snow temperature and snow density.”

Hmmmmmm, how no they have time to each day to (1) break camp, (2) walk 10 kilometers (they almost never walk less), (3) take 75 measurements for 4 or 5 hours, and (4) set up camp, and (5) cook, eat, clean up, charge batteries, clean equipment, etc.?

Also, when they stay in the same place like they have now for some 2+ weeks, where do they take their 75 measurements each day?

http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/headline.aspx?postId=184

All looks ok up to 5-May but from 7-May onwards the distance to pole drops much further than the distance travelled.
eg. Compare 8-may to 9-may. distance travelled for the day is has changed by 10km, yet the distance to pole for the day has changed 14.4km.

I’ve also looked at the latitude/longitude co-ordinates using google earth to compare distances from the pole. All the co-ordinates match very closely the reported values until 5-may. After that things start to vary.
On 9-may google earth reports a distance of 505.8km to the pole, yet Catlin report 470km.

An honest mistake or are they deliberatly reducing the figure so they can at least report they made it half way?

Get with the program people! Pffft!

Oh, and Terry, if you think this is just a giggle, you might try actually saying what’s wrong with my analysis so we can conduct a sensible discussion.

I doubt whether Borek is being paid so well for their services to be able to abandon 100s of gallons of Jet A (avg price in Alaska $5.50/gal). Since they fly all over the Arctic for many clients I’m sure that the various caches get used regularly, on their return trips if not fully laden they would be able to carry empty drums back with them. My fuel supplier used to have a deposit on the drums so it was worth sending them back (except for the one we cut up to make a bbq grill!).
The Russians set an excellent example for stewardship with their NP stations, when they are abandoned everything is taken back.

And now the real spin begins.

Remember, at mission start they were to travel 1,000 km in 100 days. So, after 65 days they’ve done all of just under 400 km. And now they won’t even do 100 days ( the ice is melting, don’t you know). With a start date of 28 Feb, 100 days would have meant they’d be on the ice till 8 Jun. Now it’s being spun that the mission was going to end at the end of May but will be cut short a week. Which gives them about another 20 days or so before being plucked off the ice.

Or, to use the Catlin technique –

550 km in 85 days (okay, maybe 600 km in 85 days).

Not quite as thrilling sounding as 1,000 km in 100 days.

Now I wonder if the BBC will also breathlessly report on the state of the fuel caches?

In any case, thanks for the giggles!

At present rates that 55 hour day is nearly 4 million years from now, as we have added 25 leap seconds over 37 years.

http://maia.usno.navy.mil/eo/leapsec.html

Arthur

Maybe I’m just a cold hearted SoB, but in my opinion they need to freeze to death on that ice. The world needs to see the headline “Global Warming scientists studying Arctic ice die from cold.” The stark difference between AGW theory and reality needs to be painted in such bold, grim colors to snap people out of their slumber to stop this nonsense.

How much suffering has there already been due to the global economic collapse? Carbon regulation is going to cause an even greater contraction of the global economy than we just witnessed. How many people will die sooner due to the reduced living standards, the stress, the hardship? How many people will continue to live in poverty because doors of opportunity were shut? The last global depression led directly to World War II. How many people will die if stress between nations struggling for energy, wealth, and improved living conditions reaches the breaking point and the world goes back to war?

This is not a game people. The stakes are higher than anyone seems to realize. We are at a point in time where the human race desperately needs more energy, more wealth creation, higher technology, and higher standards of living. We need this for stability and peace. People with good jobs and homes aren’t quick to fight and kill and create war. People with nothing will go to war at the slightest suggestion. And we are about to cap energy use and everything that depends on it, creating greater poverty and therefore greater violence.

I’m sorry, but if the deaths of everyone on that ice survey team helps raise awareness of and opposition to the global warming political train wreck then so be it. It needs to happen.

James Hansen foolishly stands by coal trains and calls them death cars. Well the recent economic collapse has made me realize just how serious economic contraction can be. I call the cap and trade bill Death Legislation. And that’s how we need to start presenting it. The average person doesn’t think much of the potential damage from carbon cap and trade because they don’t understand it in terms of lost jobs, lost homes, people on the street, and deaths directly caused by lack of energy. (A senior who can’t afford A/C during a heat wave. A child whose parents can’t afford natural gas to keep him warm during a severe illness.)

If I sound radical it’s because I’m heading that direction. We cannot sustain further economic contraction in the globe. It will lead to very, very bad things.