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.
KuhnKat, a tipping point is where a system rapidly moves from one (relatively) stable situation to another.
Runaway global global warming is when a positive feedback has a value greater than one, the oceans eventually boil, we end up like Venus etc.
Checking through the net I notice that there is speculation about “climate surprises” by some who’re suggesting that methane escaping from melting permafrost and sediments on continental shelves could lead such a situation.
I’m sceptical and so is the mainstream.
if you want to go and attack such speculation, have fun.
There has been a lot of discussion about the reduction in ice cover at the Arctic being a sign of global warming as predicted by Hanson and that we can ignore the increase of ice cover in the antarctic.
I have been doing a little digging and in the paper “Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases chapter 2” by Hanson et al. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf it clearly shows in diagram 2.2 that the theory predict equal warming at the north and south poles
Also in the paper “Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos” by Hansen and Nazarenko http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Hansen_Nazarenko.pdf
It states
Contributed by James Hansen, November 4, 2003
Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of 0.3 W m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The ‘‘efficacy’’ of this forcing is 2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature. This indirect soot forcing may have contributed to global warming of the past century, including the trend toward early springs in the Northern Hemisphere, thinning Arctic sea ice, and melting land ice and permafrost. If, as we suggest, melting ice and sea level rise
define the level of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, then reducing soot emissions, thus restoring snow albedos to pristine high values, would have the double benefit of reducing global warming and raising the global temperature level at which dangerous anthropogenic interference occurs. However,
soot contributions to climate change do not alter the conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been the main cause of recent global warming and will be the predominant climate forcing in the future.
Now comparing these two papers where the first predicts that AGW will force equal temperature rises in the Arctic and Antarctic and the second a clear suggestion that soot will have a major forcing effect in the Arctic one can perhaps draw the conclusion that as the Antarctic doesn’t appear to be losing it’s ice cover that the main reason for the loss of ice in the Arctic is soot.
This may be interesting for those considering Gakkel Ridge volcanic action and the 2007 Arctic warming, June30 and July1 blips:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=30&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=01&sy=2007
Justme put a great link to sateliite images of north pole sea ice. You can change the dates and compare two different images. I started looking in late June 07 to see what changes and how fast during last summers large melt and I noticed that most of the melt was in the western Artic sea and not so much in the east. In fact it was quite rapid after July 5th. If air temperature was the major reason for this melt, wouldn’t the melt be more uniform? Certainly there are other forces at work here as many have mentioned on this blog, most obviously ocean currents.
sorry, sea ice link is:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh
Glenn: That is almost certainly just problems with the satellite data. Similar things often happen. Also notice how several thousand square kilometers of ice mysteriously materialized overnight in Hudson Bay.
Oldjim,
For the record, that you would lower yourself to link to the Hansen article as a way to refute his prognostications is unconscionable! (Heh, just kiddin’).
Figure 2.2 from the article – indicates that there would be comparable increases in temperature at each pole from the doubling of CO2. Ain’t happenin’. The AGW’ers have a problem – leave the primary AGW prophet, and you lose your political/bucks contributary base. Accept anti-AGW critiques, and you commit political suicide.
As for soot, the AGW’ers have a problem – indict the Third World for the AGW problem and you’re condemned to the nether wold of multi-culti hell. But when the prime anti-AGW prognosticator explicitly condemns the Third World generators for soot generation, then anti-Western CO2 policy proscriptions are relegated to irrelevance.
Sweet!
OldJim,
The Hansen article you cite, “Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases” is from 1984. It is 24 years old.
Initial 3D climate models did not properly capture the goegraphy of the surface, and did not couple atmosphere and ocean effects. Those early models predicted amplified warming at both poles.
Subsequent generation models, beginning in the early 1990s, did do a better job of capturing surface geography, and eventually coupled ocean and atmosphere. Those improved, more recent models, running at higher resolution on faster computers, for close to 20 years now show strong Arctic amplification, and weak or nonexistent Antarctic amplification.
You are citing something known to be wrong for close to 20 years, and claiming that it is wrong and therefore the climate science is wrong. This is not correct.
TTY, this could very well be an artifact, yet if you look at the days before and after in Hudson Bay that looks like something that really happened, and there may be some documentation on that, although this is the best I could manage:
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/archives/date/2007/07
IceAnomaly,
You may well be correct about the old Hanson paper but that still leaves the 2003 paper which puts most of the blame on Arctic melt on soot not CO2.
I haven’t been able to find a later prediction but I am sure you will point me to one.
In the meantime this report states http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE5D81639F933A05752C0A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
The computer models on which climatologists mostly depend for their predictions give different answers when asked how much Antarctica would warm in the future. Some but not all say the warming there will be the most rapid on the globe. Observations of Antarctic temperatures over the next few years may well be one of the best tests of the models’ accuracy, said Dr. James E. Hansen
Given this statement by Hansen I really would appreciate a link to any forecasts he has published to allow a judgement to be made
Further to me last post I dug this out from the IPCC WG1 AR4 Report Chapter 11.8.2 which does show lower temperature rises forecast for the Antarctic as compared to the Arctic and also states in the report
“It (annual estimated temperature change) is estimated to be 2.6°C by the median of the MMD-A1B models with a range from 1.4°C to 5.0°C across the models (Table 11.1). Larger (smaller) warming is found for the A2 (B1) scenario with mean value of 3.1°C (1.8°C). These warming magnitudes are similar to previous estimates (Covey et al., 2003). The annual mean MMD model projections show a relatively uniform warming over the entire continent (with a maximum in the Weddell Sea) (Figure 11.21; Carril et al., 2005; Chapman and Walsh, 2006).”
http://www.holtlane.plus.com/images/ar4rg1%20ch11%20forecast.jpg
The picture of the three submarines surfaced at the North Pole in 1987 is especially interesting. While the water is not “ice free,” it does appear to be open, though heavily dotted with bergs.
Now let us suppose the exact same situation develops this September, a full 21 years later. I predict the following:
Alarmists will leap up and down punching the air as if they had just won the World Series. They will pound their chests like victorious gorillas. They will gesticulate wildly with wide eyes when speaking with the media, and then the media will go ape as well, running every which way in a frantic scurry to be the first to report the earth-shaking news.
At this point it will be wonderful to pull out the old picture, and say, “Oh, by the way, this photo was taken in 1987.” (Hold in reserve the information, “while it took until September for the leads and polynyas to form this year, when this picture of three submarines was taken in 1987, it was only the month of May.”)
Most wonderful to behold is the amazing shift in tone that Alarmists go through, when confronted by such evidence. I think Andrew W is a fine example.
One one hand they seem to deem the public to be mere rabble, which can only be motivated by whipping them into a frenzy with the most wild statements. But then, when confronted with their own wildness, they abruptly are cool, calm, collected, sophisticated, and say, “I say, Old Chap; what ever gave you the idea I would ever suggest such a thing. I distinctly recall differenciating between “ice-free” and “open,” and definately spoke of the “pole,” and not the “arctic.” You really must learn to attend to my words more cautiously.”
Then they saunter off with their noses held high, which is a good thing, as by then you feel ready to pop that nose…..BUT, as soon as they are around the first corner, and chance upon an innocent bystander, you can bet even money that they will be right back to beating their chest like a gorrilla again.
When Robert Lewis Stevenson wrote “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” I wonder if he ever dreamed they’d number in the hundreds of thousands.
OldJim says:
“You may well be correct about the old Hanson paper but that still leaves the 2003 paper which puts most of the blame on Arctic melt on soot not CO2.”
Actually, Oldjim, that paper says no such thing. It says that black carbon may be one factor in warming, adn that is seems to be the dominant factor in explaining the DIFFERENCE between the amplified arctic warming predicted by the models, and the GREATER amount of arctic warming and ice melt that we are observing.
Not that black carbon carries “most of the blame on Arctic melt,” but that it is the reason that arctic melt is even greater than predicted by the models that don’t include black carbon.
It is also not clear to what extent the arctic black carbon is anthropogenic – soot emissions in europe and the old soviet union, the primary sources of anthropogenic black carbon in the arctic, have plummeted over the last few decades. But ice loss is accelerating nonetheless.
IceAnomaly,
You state, “But ice loss is accelerating nonetheless.”
Is it? Please note the picture of the three submarines at the pole in 1987.
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Sometimes it is even worth a thousand posts. It may even be worth a thousand peer-reviewed studies.
Look at the Register for Steve Goddard’s latest exposition of the inconsistencies in Hansen.
==========================
Hmmm, I wonder why i can’t compare any date in May ’87 to today on the sea ice satellite pictures? Shouldn’t we see that open area at the north pole?
Check out this article on some modern day Vikings sailing the Northwest passage in 2007. This is a quote from the article “The elements were in his favour. For nearly six weeks that summer the entire Northwest Passage was ice-free, a phenomenon that occurs about once every decade.” Hm so that was not the first time it was ice free.
http://www.uphere.ca/node/220
OK, this really isn’t difficult to understand…
A) On the topic of the “Northwest Passage” being free of ice so as to be navigable, as happened last year at the end of August:
1) In 1906 Amundsen took over two years to make the trip, and was stuck in the ice twice. NOT ‘commercially navigable’.
2) The RCMP St. Roch did it in 28 months in 1940 – it was a small ‘ice-fortified’ schooner; it made the return trip in 86 days, a record, in 1944, after ‘extensive upgrades. So a small ice-fortified ship with extensive upgrades made it in 86 days. That does not indicate ‘commercially navigable’.
3) Since then, we have ice-breaker accompanied Navy ships, and small shallow-draft sailboats and yachts making the transit… still, not even close to what would be considered ‘commercially navigable’ for cargo ships.
4) Even though last year may have seen a ‘commercially navigable’ channel, GW (or AGW) doesn’t mean it will happen this year or next; only that the trendline is towards higher probabilities. As someone said, no shipping company is going to stay poised at Baffin Bay waiting for it to open – yet. But if the trend of longer and longer periods of a ‘commercially navigable’ NWP occurs, you can bet that is exactly what they will do. Time will tell.
B) On the topic of the North Pole itself being ice-free – all the articles say, “Yes, the conditions are good for it to occur this year, but it’s no big deal”. Anyone, whether they are alarmists, AGWers, deniers, skeptics, sloppy journalists or excitable headline-writers, who is making a big deal over whether or not 90N is ice-free does not understand its relative insignificance. It’s just one tiny data point in the entire Arctic Ocean, which by happenstance of wind and weather may or may not be ice-bound, ice-free, or some of both at any given moment.
C) On the concept that “If the North Pole at 90N is ice-free, you can’t tell me 80N will have ice”, I most certainly can. The North Pole is NOT the same as the Arctic Ocean. Ice floats. It moves. Wind piles up ice to be thicker and less likely to melt in many areas other than the North Pole. Again, whether or not 90N itself is partially or even ‘completely’ ice-free is not particularly significant.
D) On the idea that there is more ice-cover than last year… well, duh. Last year was a record low… GW (or AGW) does not predict every year will establish successively new lows; climate just doesn’t work that way. The trendline may lead to lower and lower records, eventually… but not necessarily every year. Having said that:
1) It does indeed look like better than even odds that we WILL have a new record low this year.
2) …in SEPTEMBER… which is when the low always occurs! The fact that the ice cover this year, in July, is still above the record low of last year and below the average for the last 30 years doesn’t really tell us much. AGWers have no business making predictions about any particular year, but neither do the skeptics… both show ignorance, or worse. And, stating that there is a 59% chance of a new record low is not a prediction; it’s an effort to quantify what physics indicates is most likely to occur.
3) Not to mention that “total ice” is not the same as “total ice cover”. Ice thickness is obviously very important as well.
To me, it looks like the NWP will indeed open up before August 21st – IOW earlier than last year… while it appears that the NEP may very well stay blocked. I obviously could be wrong; but let’s just check back on August 20, OK?
Well, the Northwest Passage appears to be open, on today’s AMSRE graphic… although it will probably take a few more days to confirm it.
The Northern Sea Route (aka Northeast Passage, above Siberia) appears that it may soon open as well.
Now, the next question is, will the North Pole be ice-free this year? I doubt it, although that also depends on how extensively you define the area as “the North Pole”… does anyone know the official definition?
With the most recent increase in melting in early August, it certainly seems possible for either the record minimum arctic ice level to be broken again, or for the date of the arctic ice minimum to be delayed, or both.
It will be interesting to see how things look around Sep 15th.
The USA National Snow and Ice Data Center Daily Sea Ice Index showed Parry Passage and McClure Strait ice free := <15% ice cover on their daily arctic sea ice concentration image for 2008/Aug/19.
For 500 years Europeans have been trying to sail through the NW passage, finding heavy ice even at the end of summer. Now the deep water, international passage has melted free of ice 2 years in a row.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_concentration_hires.png
Their graphic comparing the 2007 season to the 1979 to 2000 average shows that on average melting stopped at the end of August prior to 2000. Now it continues for several weeks into September.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
REPLY: Yes but this is nothing unique. The NW passage has opened several times this past century.
Yes it is nothing unique, the Parry passage opened last year too.
The Amundsen route of NW passage has opened several times this past century, but not the Parry passage. It is important to make the distinction.
If you are claiming I am wrong, maybe you could give me the dates when the Parry passage was open previously?
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_visual.png
This is the daily Arctic satellite photo. It shows the open NW Passage. It does not open for more than a couple of weeks.
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FECN14CWIS/20080815000000_FECN14CWIS_0003916089.txt
“This
will gradually clear the remaining ice in the Northwest Passage and
provide an open water route across the Northwest Passage for a third
year in row towards the end of the month.”
The month they are referring to, is August. As you can see, they are correct. Now, it should stay open for a few weeks, more or less.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87206-p10/scott-g-borgerson/arctic-meltdown.html
“As soon as marine insurers recalculate the risks involved in these voyages, trans-Arctic shipping will become commercially viable and begin on a large scale.”
This is a graph of this year’s ice melt compared to other years and to the average year.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FICN14CWIS/20080830140000_FICN14CWIS_0003943049.txt
This link notes the open passages. If you click around on that site, you will find other interesting pieces of data gathered by the folks who patrol these waters.
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/082508.html
From the NSIDC noting the open NW passage and the thickness of the ice in general.
Don’t forget that whatever the name, Parry, Northwest, Amundsen, They are all PASSAGES. There is a reason that they were named passages. Could it be that they are and have been sailed in the past?
Perhaps ‘passage’ had an alternate definition in the past.