impassable
im·pass·a·ble [im-pas-uh-buhl]
–adjective
1. not passable; not allowing passage over, through, along, etc.: Heavy snow made the roads impassable.
2. unable to be surmounted: an impassable obstacle to further negotiations.
There has been a lot of hype this year citing data which is suggesting that we’ll be able to navigate the Northwest Passage and some even so bold as to suggest a completely ice free Arctic Sea. You could say: “A picture is always worth 1000 data points.”
I’d say “impassable” fits this picture pretty well:
Image rotated- click for source image. Credit: Terra/MODIS true color
Some reference views to help you get your bearings, here is what the area would be like if “ice free” as some folks are predicting to happen this summer:
And here is the overall photo area with more familiar landmasses visible:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
[…] tip: wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com commenter […]
TomT wrote: “You can read some about the St. Roch here. http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-st-roch.htm I just looked it up on the internet myself to see what I could find.”
Thanks Tom! That’s a far cry from the hysterics Sean posted.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Andrew W. You skewed your information, just as you misrepresented the media statements. They were nothing but alarmist hokum, making dire threats based on * nothing*. You seem to be deluded; perhaps you need a trip to Alaska.
d
Monk (07:50:17) : “And yes, I realize that it is just barely July now and the minimum ice point hasn’t arrived yet, but if last year didn’t have a melted north pole and so far we have more ice than last year, I really don’t think that this year will be the year of the ice-less north pole.”
Nice try at a save, but you’re ignoring the fact that the ice is thinner. Keep in mind that nobody is claiming a certainty of an ice free pole, only a probability.
George Bruce
I don’t know enough to comment on the well being of polar bears. Regarding oil drilling, the Russians at least seem to be making such plans.
Tamara (11:28:08) : “The intent of this post is to point out the ridiculous hype that is being trumpeted by activist scientists and journalists. Andrew W, if you can’t see that you’re wearing your straw hat over your eyes.”
My point is that Anthony was attributing claims to scientists that they weren’t making, and then refuting these non-existent claims, classic straw man.
Certainly what is a small story has gotten more sensationalist coverage than it deserves. I would compare an ice free area at the pole to a weather event – it might be consistent with a trend, but in itself it’s not important.
Stephen Richards: “Andrew W does the same thing on Steve Mc’s blog”
I don’t think I’ve ever commented at Climate Audit, you’re making it up.
Anthony,
M. Jeff has brought up what I think is a good idea-prodding blog – Dot Earth at the NYT. Andrew Revkin tries to set up a forum, providing what appears to be an even-handed presentation of the latest data which at times either favors or challenges AGW ideas. He is concerned not just with the AGW issue (which I think he somewhat leans towards) but also with issues that population, fuel use and land use will have on the environment (where he despairs that world-wide environmental damage is not getting its due attention, which I believe is true). But he can’t be pigeon-holed as an AGW ideologue – he does work to moderate the comments section.
In the comments section, the AGW’ers do resort to ad hominem attacks against skeptics, but the discussion is lively, to say the least. Been there (along with Kim), and it’s messy, but sometimes fun – the AGW’ers are easy targets to logic and facts.
Please consider adding Dot Earth to the blog roll. As M. Jeff pointed out, Andrew Revkin linked today to a long term study that debunks the AGW claim that Greenland is melting away through moulins. And Andy will no doubt take heat for that. Good for him.
For those arguing that thin ice is historically more likely to melt – surely this is partly based on the traditional location of thin ice at the edge of the ice pack, in lower latitudes, with higher temperatures? I don’t see how the history of such ice melts could be relevant for ice closer to the North Pole.
Also, there was a heatwave in the Arctic last year, with one weather station reaching 22 degrees celsisus in July 2007 (see below). Sounds like weather, rather than climate.
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2008/05/2007-temperatures-record-22c.html
It would be great to compare monthly satellite temperature data for the Arctic for 2007 and 2008, and to correlate this with ice coverage. Has anybody done that?
KuhnKat wrote: “McGrats, the St. Roche became frozen in the ice on the trip west. The return trip had little problem.”
Thanks for the additional links. As a person who served on a small wooden intelligence “ship” with 19 others, I can relate to much of what was in the story.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
YOU. CANNOT. PASS!
Tamara asks:
“Lets break this down: 1.) Is the ice AT THE NORTH POLE single year ice (i.e. it was ice free last year)? http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html.
The ice moves. It can be single year ice at the pole, even if the pole didn’t melt last year.
2.) Is it unheard of/unusual to find open water at the North Pole? (see Oldjim’s link above).
Finding ‘Open water’ is a much different thing from ‘ice free.’
3.) Is there proof that global warming is causing the disappearance of Arctic Ice? Will this be supported by the behavior of the ice this year, and if not what other factor is interfering with AGW?
Proof? of course not – there is no ‘proof’ that gravity makes apples fall, either. What there is, is north polar amplification as predicted by the modern models, ice loss FASTER than predicted by the models, positive feedback as predicted by the models. Arctic ice area is at low negative anomalies not seen previous to two years ago, and dropping fast. This will, at the very least, be the second lowest level observed, by a LONG way over the third lowest. Accompanied by GRACE satellite data showing substantial ice loss from Greenland, and large temperature increases in recent years, all in accord with model predictions – this is very strong evidence for AGW in action.
4.) Is the ice at the North Pole the thickest/oldest ice, and therefore an indicator of an alarming climate shift?”
No. The thickest/oldest ice tends to congregate over around eastern Canada and Greenland, where it gets pushed and piled up by wind and current. The amount of multi-year ice even there is way, way, way down from 20 years ago.
The fact that temps at the north pole itself are getting warm enough to create the possibility of an ice free (not just some open water) N pole IS an indicator of an large climate shift.
IceAnomaly:
NASA claims that the 2007 anomaly was due not to low temperatures, but to and errant wind from the Arctic Oscillation which blew accumulated ice into currents that took it out of the Bering Strait, where (of course) it melted in warm waters of the Pacific.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
NASA has also commented that the “dirty snow” phenomenon is a significant factor affecting both land and sea ice and reducing albedo both directly (darkening) and indirectly (elimination of ice via “salt on the driveway” effect). While Anthropogenic, “dirty snow” is not a CO2 phenomenon and is an incredibly cheaper and easier problem to solve.
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=16674
Sounds to me like it is only proof of ice loss. How has this proven AGW? From what you have prevented it could just as easily be argued that it is caused by natural warming.
A fair response, Anthony about the cloud pictures. Dr. Robert Reves-Sohn at Woods Hole said that he found satellite pictures of the clouds in the visible spectrum with the help of an expert. He has commentary at Andy Revkin’s DotEarth. Perhaps he can direct us?
Even if the plume didn’t break the surface, any open water would put up a lot of fog in the cold of winter as it was when the eruption happened, January, 1999. Perhaps thinned and warmed ice might even sublimate at a faster rate than usual. That could certainly make cloud cover. I wonder if the cloud doesn’t confirm that the volcano had a surface effect.
======================================
Jerry Magnan at 15:06, yes, ain’t we got fun over there. Andy has been responsive to unresolved questions that arise and has lots of scientific contacts. Remember, too, most of the true believers came to their beliefs, mistaken as they may be, from the best of motives, to save the earth.
=========================================
Evan said:
NASA claims that the 2007 anomaly was due not to low temperatures, but to and errant wind from the Arctic Oscillation which blew accumulated ice into currents that took it out of the Bering Strait, where (of course) it melted in warm waters of the Pacific.
You have this backwards, the transpolar drift blows out into the Atlantic via the Fram strait, as it did all this winter removing more multiyear ice.
The surface melting which has occurred relatively early this year causes a reduction in albedo.
Oldjim (09:30:27):
Thanks for that excellent link [once again] refuting James Hansen.
And speaking of straw men, Andrew W certainly veers far from the central point in the overall climate discussion, which is the hypothesis of those believing in Anthropogenic [human caused] Global Warming [AGW]: specifically, that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] will cause catastrophic, runaway global warming within a short time frame.
If the believers in AGW would admit to the fact that any warming due to CO2 is insignificant, and is so far down in the noise that the effect cannot be measured, then there would be no purpose in their belief. But they can not admit that CO2 forcing is very minor — or their entire hypothesis is falsified. Therefore, they must believe that increases in CO2 will cause runaway global warming, leading to a planetary catastrophe. Only then are they justified in their true belief that they can save the world through multi-trillion dollar schemes like carbon sequestration and forcibly reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, with its concomitant destruction of our national prosperity.
But fortunately for rational scientists, the empirical [real world] evidence refutes their AGW belief system.
CO2 has never caused runaway global warming in Earth’s 4.6 billion year history — even when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were many thousands of parts per million — compared with less than 400 ppm today. Furthermore, a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 would be highly beneficial for both plants and animals.
So, Andrew W, where is your AGW god now?
Smokey (23:23:09) said: “And speaking of straw men, Andrew W certainly veers far from the central point in the overall climate discussion”
Ahh, this thread is about this years North Pole sea ice melt, not surprisingly for most (though presumeably surprising to Smokey) that’s the topic I’ve focused on.
You are criticizing me for sticking to the topic of the post, rather than heading off on some wider discussion about all things AGW??
Smokey goes on: “If the believers in AGW would admit to the fact that any warming due to CO2 is insignificant, and is so far down in the noise that the effect cannot be measured, then there would be no purpose in their belief.”
Plenty of AGW deniers/denialists/delayers/doubters/Gollums/sceptics/realists/whatever accept that the AGW signal is real and measurable. Even if they don’t accept any catastrophic consequences.
Then Smokey shows his ignorance about the whole debate with:
“CO2 has never caused runaway global warming in Earth’s 4.6 billion year history”
So what? No one supporting the IPCC conclusions or involved in putting together the IPCC reports is claiming that increasing CO2 levels on the order of that which is involved in AGW will cause “runaway global warming”.
Smokey finishes with: “So, Andrew W, where is your AGW god now?”
The only thing about Gods that Smokeys comments brings to mind is this from Friedrich Schiller: Against Stupidity, the Gods Themselves Contend in Vain.
Evan said:
NASA claims that the 2007 anomaly was due not to low temperatures, but to and errant wind from the Arctic Oscillation which blew accumulated ice into currents that took it out of the Bering Strait, where (of course) it melted in warm waters of the Pacific.
Seems unlikely. There is a regular ocean current going North through the Bering Strait at about one and a half knots. Given in relevant Admiralty Pilot book and I experienced it in Sept. 2007 (see earlier comment). It would take an awfully strong wind to make ice drift along at more than 1 1/2 knots. Anyway the idea is probably killed off by this thought:- The current mentioned rapidly deceases N. of the Bering Strait, so the ice being blown down from the N. would have piled up ‘waiting to get through’. Ice charts for the relevant period don’t show this.
Looks like clutching at straws.
Why doesn’t the Google Earth image show any sea ice ?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.shade.jpg
The public is being manipulated by phoney images. Everything from using a palatte of RED to cover temperature maps, to omitting sea ice from google images, the public is being manipulated by the most cynical of PR tricks. Madison Ave. would be proud of the deceptive advertising campaign of the Global Warmists.
PS … We have only been accurately measuring polar ice since satellites were launched in 1979 !! How in the the name of SCIENCE can we draw any substantial conclusion about what constitutes NORMAL sea ice cover over a paltry 30 year history ?
Re the transpolar drift stream effect – apparently it doesn’t go down into the pacific but past Greenland into the North Atlantic http://nsidc.org/seaice/processes/circulation.html
From the NASA paper http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
Reply to McGrats:
During WWII a Royal Canadian Mounted Police vessel, St Roch, took 28 months to cross from west to east completing the journey in 1942. In 1944 she took only 86 days to complete the return trip. From 27 months to 86 days? That’s GOT to be proof of Global Warming.
Was a joke.
The 27 month journey was not becaise they were doing anything else. I think they just had bad luck or maybe good luck in 1944.
Roald Amundsen on the otherhand was taking his time. Amoung other things they hiked to the Magnetic North pole and determined that it had moved 30 miles since 1831. He actually planned on a 5 year trip.
What we have here is a great example of how writers lie without saying anything wrong. And then the follow-up by their defenders who attack all criticism by parsing the original work sentence-by-sentence asking “what’s wrong?”.
What’s wrong? The words “arctic”, “ice free”, “unprecedented”, etc. are used to give the impression that something different and bad is happening. And of course, the implication is that it’s global warming. The lie is that no background info is given … the kind of background that so many of the posters above have provided.
Now add to that the next lie … the lie by Linear Extrapolation. Point to a trend and observe that if it continues something really bad will happen … all the ice will be gone at the North Pole! Oh, and don’t bother to give the reader any idea of how (un)likely that may be. (Also, get the story out before the trend breaks down!)
What you now have is a story that editors who (1) believe AGW is real and/or (2) who know sensational stories sell will love.
Add to the mix, some lawyer or PR types who know how to parse a story and attack all critics and you have the AGW propoganda campaign.
The only question really is what are the motives of the liars. Are they true believers in AGW trying to save the planet? Or, are they just trying to sell papers/stories? OR, are they pushing for greater government control of resources and people?
Fortunately, it appears the sun and the oceans are about to expose the BIG LIE for all to see. Delicious!
Scott
Evan said:
“NASA claims that the 2007 anomaly was due not to low temperatures, but to and errant wind from the Arctic Oscillation which blew accumulated ice into currents that took it out of the Bering Strait, where (of course) it melted in warm waters of the Pacific.”
First, Evan, ice did not exit the Bering straight. that claim is backwards on the wind direction, the current direction, and the facts. When trying to understand this stuff, details matter,and that’s a pretty big detail.
Second, your cited article doesn’t say what you claim it says. The very first paragraph says:
“A new NASA-led study found a 23-percent loss in the extent of the Arctic’s thick, year-round sea ice cover during the past two winters. This drastic reduction of perennial winter sea ice is the primary cause of this summer’s fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record and subsequent smallest-ever extent of total Arctic coverage. ”
Later, it says:
“The scientists observed less perennial ice cover in March 2007 than ever before, with the thick ice confined to the Arctic Ocean north of Canada. Consequently, the Arctic Ocean was dominated by thinner seasonal ice that melts faster. This ice is more easily compressed and responds more quickly to being pushed out of the Arctic by winds. Those thinner seasonal ice conditions facilitated the ice loss, leading to this year’s record low amount of total Arctic sea ice. ”
Wind was ONE cause of the record sea ice loss, and it was a significant cause only because of the very large (and temperature-mediated) loss of perennial sea ice that predated summer 2007.
Andrew W.:
“So what? No one supporting the IPCC conclusions or involved in putting together the IPCC reports is claiming that increasing CO2 levels on the order of that which is involved in AGW will cause “runaway global warming”.”
Apparently you have never been regaled with the TIPPING POINT argument? And YES, Hansen and others supporting IPCC HAVE made this argument!! It has been one of the presses most cherished possesions.
Google or Yahoo “tipping point ipcc” and spend a few hours looking at what has been used to try and terrorise the public into giving up what freedom they have left.
KuhnKat:
“Tipping Point” do s not mean “Runaway Global Warming.” Runaway warming refers to a venus-like scenario, where positive feedback has a gain greater than 1. hansen does not say this, anywhere.
Tipping Point” refers to a point where we are committed to a different hotter climate regime. Not “runaway,” but a new stable state substantially warmer than now.
IceAnomaly said:
“Tipping Point” refers to a point where we are committed to a different hotter climate regime. Not “runaway,” but a new stable state substantially warmer than now.”
That is wrong, as can be seen here.
And regarding Andrew W’s (23:58:35) response to my (23:23:09) post, I will not argue. I leave it to the readers of this thread to make up their own minds on the matter.