This fits right in to what I’ve been blogging about for two years. the 2007 record minimum ice extent was wind driven not melt driven. A significant portion of the ice did not melt in place. It was pushed south by the wind where it melted.
Here’s where the wind is a factor in pushing past the ice arches:
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
Arctic Sea ice loss – “it’s the wind” says NASA
Here’s where ice arches help: Update on Arctic sea ice melt – “Ice pockets choking Northern Passage”
Watch how ice flows in the Arctic: Arctic Sea Ice Time Lapse from 1978 to 2009 using NSIDC data
Today’s Press Release From JPL:
Missing ‘Ice Arches’ Contributed to 2007 Arctic Ice Loss
Animation: View animation (GIF 52 Mb) | View animation (GIF 13 Mb)
PASADENA, Calif. – In 2007, the Arctic lost a massive amount of thick, multiyear sea ice, contributing to that year’s record-low extent of Arctic sea ice. A new NASA-led study has found that the record loss that year was due in part to the absence of “ice arches,” naturally-forming, curved ice structures that span the openings between two land points. These arches block sea ice from being pushed by winds or currents through narrow passages and out of the Arctic basin.
Beginning each fall, sea ice spreads across the surface of the Arctic Ocean until it becomes confined by surrounding continents. Only a few passages — including the Fram Strait and Nares Strait — allow sea ice to escape.
“There are a couple of ways to lose Arctic ice: when it flows out and when it melts,” said lead study researcher Ron Kwok of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “We are trying to quantify how much we’re losing by outflow versus melt.”
Kwok and colleagues found that ice arches were missing in 2007 from the Nares Strait, a relatively narrow 30- to 40-kilometer-wide (19- to 25-mile-wide) passage west of Greenland. Without the arches, ice exited freely from the Arctic. The Fram Strait, east of Greenland, is about 400 kilometers (249 miles) wide and is the passage through which most sea ice usually exits the Arctic.
Despite Nares’ narrow width, the team reports that in 2007, ice loss through Nares equaled more than 10 percent of the amount emptied on average each year through the wider Fram Strait.
“Until recently, we didn’t think the small straits were important for ice loss,” Kwok said. The findings were published this month in Geophysical Research Letters.
“One of our most important goals is developing predictive models of Arctic sea ice cover,” said Tom Wagner, cryosphere program manager at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Such models are important not only to understanding changes in the Arctic, but also changes in global and North American climate. Figuring out how ice is lost through the Fram and Nares straits is critical to developing those models.”
To find out more about the ice motion in Nares Strait, the scientists examined a 13-year record of high-resolution radar images from the Canadian RADARSAT and European Envisat satellites. They found that 2007 was a unique year – the only one on record when arches failed to form, allowing ice to flow unobstructed through winter and spring.
The arches usually form at southern and northern points within Nares Strait when big blocks of sea ice try to flow through the strait’s restricted confines, become stuck and are compressed by other ice. This grinds the flow of sea ice to a halt.
“We don’t completely understand the conditions conducive to the formation of these arches,” Kwok said. “We do know that they are temperature-dependent because they only form in winter. So there’s concern that if climate warms, the arches could stop forming.”
To quantify the impact of ice arches on Arctic Ocean ice cover, the team tracked ice motion evident in the 13-year span of satellite radar images. They calculated the area of ice passing through an imaginary line, or “gate,” at the entrance to Nares Strait. Then they incorporated ice thickness data from NASA’s ICESat to estimate the volume lost through Nares.
They found that in 2007, Nares Strait drained the Arctic Ocean of 88,060 square kilometers (34,000 square miles) of sea ice, or a volume of 60 cubic miles. The amount was more than twice the average amount lost through Nares each year between 1997 and 2009.
The ice lost through Nares Strait was some of the thickest and oldest in the Arctic Ocean.
“If indeed these arches are less likely to form in the future, we have to account for the annual ice loss through this narrow passage. Potentially, this could lead to an even more rapid decline in the summer ice extent of the Arctic Ocean,” Kwok said.
For more information about NASA and agency programs, visit: http://www.nasa.gov .
========================
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Certainly ice breakers seems a plausible explanation, if the same happened year in, year out. But there seems to have been a specific dip in 2007, and recovery since.
Maybe AO, maybe wind, but there is the suggestion of a higher temperature stopping the formation of arches. These I havn’t a clue about, but there may well have been an input of heat to Arctic waters in 2007 that could of had such an effect.
The Gakkel ridge.
http://temp.geobio.uib.no/View.aspx?mid=1062&itemid=90&pageid=1093&moduledefid=71
It ain’t global warming mind,
just a bit more “unnoticed” natural variation from one source or another…
I wonder how much damage is/has been done to the Arctic ice cap by ever increasing levels of commercial, military and tourist activities? e.g:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/travel/article-1252665/Arctic-cruises-Polar-bear-port-icebergs-round–usual-jaunt-high-seas.html
OT, as this article is about Tropical Storms…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100221/ap_on_sc/us_sci_warming_hurricanes
WASHINGTON – Top researchers now agree that the world is likely to get stronger but fewer hurricanes in the future because of global warming, seeming to settle a scientific debate on the subject. But they say there’s not enough evidence yet to tell whether that effect has already begun.
Here’s another quote from from Kowk:
“”We do know that they are temperature-dependent because they only form in winter. So there’s concern that if climate warms, the arches could stop forming.”
So, they are indeed temperature dependent. Please quote the thoughts of scientists in full.
davidmhoffer (10:55:35) :
LOL. One channel, and degrees F and only one day on one year. Channel 10 is only 0.05 F and is no more meaningfull than just channel 5. Lets turn on all the channels for all the years:
13 – lower 1/3 of all years
12 – lower 1/3 of all years
11 – no data
10 – bottom of of all years
09 – lower 1/3 of all years
08 – top 1/3 of all years
07 – top 1/3 of all years
06 – middle of pack of all years
05 – top of pack of all years
04 – top of pack of all years
what to conclude from this? fluctuations exist and some things are getting warmer and some cooler.
That the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling as you’d expect from increasing GH gases.
By the title of this thread is rather extreme, a more accurate one would be:
“JPL: Missing ice in 2007 drained out the Nares strait – pushed south by wind where
it melted far away from the Arcticit melted in the Baffin Sea.It appears that the Nares Strait arch has not formed this winter either judging from these images:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/content_contenu/images/jan2010_nares_radarsat2_amsr.jpg
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/Ice_Can/Arctic/WIS55CT.gif
From the same source in Aug 2007:
This amount of ice clustering, containing old ice, along the Newfoundland/ Labrador coast does not happen very often. Normally an ice bridge forms in Nares Strait during the month of January and acts as a plug for the old ice in the Arctic Ocean, preventing it from drifting southward all the way down into Newfoundland waters.
However, this year the bridge never formed. As a result, the old ice was able to move freely in the Labrador Current from the Baffin Bay area towards the Labrador coast and eventually reach the Newfoundland waters.
The formation of an ice bridge is dependant on air temperatures and wind speed observed over the Nares Strait area. Based on Environment Canada’s Canadian Ice Service records since 1968, there is only one other year where the bridge was not present in April: 1993.
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/WsvPageDsp.cfm?ID=11924&Lang=eng
Do you think icebreakers are responsible for massive disintegration of old ice like shown here?
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/App/WsvPageDsp.cfm?Lang=eng&lnid=43&ScndLvl=no&ID=11892
To –
Tenuc (05:01:30) :
Your comments on my small contribution
here are greatly valued.
By the way , the Vinje “Ice Extent Variations During Last Centuries” paper
is certainly an eye popper even without its Bradley Jones reference –
http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/abstracts/pos-ers/Session_2/poster_s2_092.pdf
Anyway, I do understand your viewpoint in leaving unspoken
my taboo subject of the “red dots”
(I doubt that anyone -other than myself-
will stick his neck out on this one)–
But it has been the red dots that brought me to this blog–
My point of view is
that I never would have written
anything in this blog (or probably have even seen this blog)
had I not serendipiditously started observing the
red dots on this ice chart.
I previously had no interest in
global warming before seeing those amazing red dots.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/hires/global.xml
So please forgive my dogged perseverance
on the red dot issue.
I believe those red dots to be the most significantly
visible evidence of deliberate anthropomorphic
anthropogenic efforts intended to
skew the data, and graphs and promote
the AGW agenda–
The vast area extent and repeated execution
of the icebreaker manuevers required to produce this
sea ice slicing and trimming
(evidenced by the red dots
forming lines and curves and also the sliced sea ice slabs)
cannot possibly be related to shipping–
unless complete removal of sea ice
from all areas of the
Hudson’s Bay is the intent(removal
of sea ice from the Baffin/Newfoundland Bay labrador
area is first needed
so that the Hudson’s Bay ice slicing and flushing may
proceed
unimpeded by Baffin/Newfoundland Bay Labrador sea ice).
Because complete removal of sea ice is not
necessary for arctic shipping and is
merely a very expensive AGW perk.
For the next two months arctic shipping
(and its several hundred ice armored vessels)
will not be active in Hudson’s bay and
Labrador Sea.
And yet those straight and curved
lines of red dots will be proliferating
in those areas and not elsewhere
(except a few in the Russian icebreaker areas)
and the ice will be disappearing from those areas
while still growing elsewhere in the arctic.
The volume of effort and the thousands of miles
over which these icebreakers
traverse (as evidenced by the red dots)
cannot possibly
have any rational relationship to
the necessities of arctic shipping–
Clearing the entire Hudson’s bay
of ice every year by slicing it for flushing
does not seem to serve a commercial purpose.
(nor am I minimizing the equal
or greater overall
effects of arctic shipping itself on
the arctic ice cover —
my point is that the intent
of arctic shipping is commercial profit
and not to produce unnecessary unprofitable transits —
whereas the Feb March April activities of the
icebreakers appear to have no commercial purpose-)
Also it appears that in these animations –
-because of the reduced size of these animated maps–
the red dots are being replaced by blue dots or blue lines–
and the rapid repeated placement of these lines
cannot have any natural explanation-
–only the theory of multiple rapid icebreaker
transits does seem to fit the bill —
showing that the intent
has been to insure that Hudson’s Bay is recorded
as being ice free once again every year —
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/animation/nanim.200903.gif
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/animation/nanim.200902.gif
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/animation/nanim.200904.gif
An additional note is the unnatural sharp
right angle today appearing(it appears every year
about this time and is maintained until Hudson’s Bay
is cleared of ice) at the mouth of
Bay of Ungava and Hudson Strait
and also the unnatural straight line
extending from the mouth
of that gulf accross the Baffin/Newfoundland Bay
labrador sea almost to the Greenland coast–
these also seems to be part of the yearly
effort to clear Hudson’s Bay of ice and
encourage flushing of sea ice-
by trimming that line and angle, sea ice from Baffin/Newfoundland Bay
Labrador sea is cut adrift and prevented from entering
or reentering or blocking the Ungava Gulf
and Hudson’s Bay
Such a right angle and straight line are
totally unnatural and can only be maintained by
constant icebreaker activity.
The Canadian govt is extremely reticent
about the activities of its icebreakers at this time of year-
not surprising when the money is being wasted
on artificially generating “proof” of
politically motivated AGW “facts”.
And by the way, these red dot activities do correlate very well with
the Hudson’s Bay sea ice graphs from Cryosphere Today
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
That is to say, Hudson’S Bay Sea ice increases are invariably followed
by immediate increased red dot activity followed by immediate
graph reduction of Hudson’s Bay sea ice totals–
producing that jagged sawtooth appearance of the graph.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html
Similarly in the Baffin/Newfoundland Bay
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html
This is especially evident since the overall total arctic sea ice is
steadily expanding with few irregularities in other areas
at this time of year.
I exclude satellite anomalies as the source
of the red dots based upon
the red dots unique singularity and restriction to
Hudson’S Bay and Baffin/Newfoundland Bay
Labrador sea locations and their correlation with
the known yearly migration of the Canada
icebreaker fleet through those areas.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/08/27/arctic-icebreakers.html
Anyway these are the humble
observations,
theories and views
of this very amateur
observer.
Robert (15:41:57) :
“You’re grasping at straws, Robert. Truly grasping.”
Yeah, I think not. In fact you posit warming as a likely cause of the extinctions, but attribute it to “lava flows/volcanism/impact” (talk about grasping at straws!)
I can only suggest you read what the paleoclimatologists have to say on the subject. The real scientists paint a very different picture of the Permian–Triassic extinction event than your wishful thinking here.
————————
Reply:
That’s laughable, Robert. Besides, you’re not even a scientist–you’re a physician! Physicians aren’t scientsits (aren’t you guys in the employ of big pharma? I’m pretty sure that’s the way it is).
And I’d put a bunch of geologists up against your “paleoclimatologists” any day; the earth has been hit with asteroids that have left astroblems in a manner similar to the moon (or do you ignore what scared face of the moon just so you can make a convenient excuse for global warming?)
The earth has seen volcanism far more powerful than anything you can conjur up in the name of “global warming”.
You, sir, are no scientist, and the “experts” you refer to have so skewed the science that you’re not worth discussing things scientific anymore.
Robert is a physician? You mean I’ve been wrong about his English Lit background?
I really don’t think so.
Robert, are you a physician? An M.D.? Yes or No.
Failure to give a straight answer, or no answer at all = “No.”
Personally, I’m going with something like English Lit, Sociology, History, or Womens’ Studies.
Prove me wrong.
Even if AWG-promotion was not the intent of this increased icebreaker activity, the increase should be “corrected for” in calculating Arctic ice extent in the past ten years. (I.e., since the increase began.)
Such a correction would put a big “arrow” in the alarmist “elephant.” Questions should be asked in parliament–or at least in the National Post.
If it can ever be shown that AGW-promotion was a partial purpose of this activity — Wow! (“Breakergate”)
Mike Odin (17:42:45) :
The Canadian govt is extremely reticent
about the activities of its icebreakers at this time of year-
not surprising when the money is being wasted
on artificially generating “proof” of
politically motivated AGW “facts”.
So reticent in fact that you can get a complete plot of their movements!
Here for example:
CCGS Terry Fox
http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=CGTF
CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent
http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=CGBN
There is a sovereignty issue at play in the far north, as the US and Russia, Denmark want to claim the resources under the sea bed, so I think the increased activity is a way to re-inforce Canadian ownership of the Arctic Islands.
RE: Robert (10:24:53) : Peter Miller (23:50:28) :
“For the alarmists, the Arctic ice melt in 2007 was incontrovertible ‘proof’ of AGW. Now that the Arctic ice extent is back to more normal levels – and in a El Nino year! – the alarmists say nothing.”
I believe this event also seemed to say the same thing to anyone at that time who accepted AGW to be a probable scientific fact. I recall a news bulletin saying that an area of ice “the size of the state of California” had melted for the first time in history.
Now, it is three years later and the AMSR-E plot shows a winter sea-ice recovery to a typical decade average for this time of year. The ‘hockey stick’ attempt to hide the medieval warm period and the discovery that the danger of the CO2 greenhouse effect appears to have been greatly overstated in the popular press leads me to believe that the science behind this claim is faulty. For many, Climategate may be the final straw.
However, judging by accounts in the elite press, the AGW express still seems to be lumbering down the tracks even though it has a big hole in the boiler and the chief engineer is missing.
The article main article above is heartening as it is evidence of climate research that appears to attribute abnormal 2007 polar ice melt to natural causes. At this time I am prepared to give ice-breakers (an interesting speculation above) the benefit of the doubt because I believe that sea-ice tends to fuse under compression.
Spector (05:08:15) :
RE: Robert (10:24:53) : Peter Miller (23:50:28) :
“For the alarmists, the Arctic ice melt in 2007 was incontrovertible ‘proof’ of AGW. Now that the Arctic ice extent is back to more normal levels – and in a El Nino year! – the alarmists say nothing.”
I believe this event also seemed to say the same thing to anyone at that time who accepted AGW to be a probable scientific fact. I recall a news bulletin saying that an area of ice “the size of the state of California” had melted for the first time in history.
Now, it is three years later and the AMSR-E plot shows a winter sea-ice recovery to a typical decade average for this time of year.
But it isn’t “back to more normal levels”, AMSR-E shows that it’s currently tracking 2007 and well below the long-term average.
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
The article main article above is heartening as it is evidence of climate research that appears to attribute abnormal 2007 polar ice melt to natural causes. At this time I am prepared to give ice-breakers (an interesting speculation above) the benefit of the doubt because I believe that sea-ice tends to fuse under compression.
The “interesting speculation” is from someone who apparently thinks that the red pixels on a false color map are the result of the canadian icebreakers cutting up the ice into small pieces so that they can more easily be blown away! When the ice bridge in the Nares Strait breaks floes of thick ice a few miles across come sailing down the strait at ~60miles/day, even the icebreakers run for cover when that happens. This all apparently takes place with a handful of icebreakers to cover the whole Canadian Arctic!
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0004410
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/CCG/Ice_Fleet
“During the winter, icebreaking services are provided in the following periods and locations:
on the Labrador Coast, between October 15 and December 15, and between May 15 and July 15.
on the North East and East Coast of Newfoundland, between January 1 and May 15.
in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Cabot Strait to Scatarie Island, between December 21 and April 29.
on the St. Lawrence and Saguenay Rivers, between December 15 and April 15.
in the Great Lakes, between December 20 and April 20, except for Lake Ontario, where icebreaking is not provided between December 25 and March 19.
During the summer months, icebreaking services are provided in the Canadian Arctic in the following periods and locations:
Hudson Bay and Strait and Frobisher Bay, between July 3 and October
Foxe Basin, between August 20 and September 15.
Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, between July 3 and October 15.
Parry Channel and Pelly Bay, between August 10 and October 15.
High Arctic, between August 24 and September 5.
Western Arctic, between July 10 and October 6.”
Note that the icebreakers don’t operate in Hudson Bay at the time the earlier poster ascribed the “jagged sawtooth appearance of the graph” to their activities.
RE: Phil. (06:53:04) : “icebreakers…”
Good information. Again, I seriously doubt that icebreaker trails pose a hazard to the stability of the Arctic ice pack.
RE: “But it isn’t ‘back to more normal levels,’…”
The AMSR-E data for late February 2010 (red curve) does seem to show a near midrange value for data taken from 2003 to 2010. I am primarily curious to see if the general melting trend of the last thirty years may have been halted by the grand solar minimum of 2008-2009 or by the recently reported mysterious 10% reduction of stratospheric water vapor. The jury is still out on this as we also seem to have an El Niño in progress.
My, My–
Look at those red dots now–
Notice the 2 new slabs of sea ice
(size of new England)
which have begun separating off near
that artificial sea ice notch at the mouth of
the Bay of Ungava-next to Baffin/Newfoundland Sea–
The red dots continue to record
the continued unabated slicing and lopping off of huge slabs of
sea ice by icebreakers in the
baffin newfoundland
Bay of Ungava area —
which is currently
mysteriously losing sea ice (see below)
WHILE THE SEA ICE IN THE REMAINDER OF THE ARCTIC CONTINUES TO GROW.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/hires/global.xml
Icebreaker Newfoundland Lynx
(callsign VAAZ)precisely at this location
and encountering heavy ice–note proximity of position fixes-
ooops ! ! ! it is not supposed to be here !!!
http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=VAAZ
ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/cdas/archive/
ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/cdas/archive/ice5min.200902.gz
ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/cdas/archive/ice5min.200903.gz
ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/cdas/archive/ice5min.200904.gz
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/animation/nanim.200903.gif
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/animation/nanim.200902.gif
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/animation/nanim.200904.gif
ice reduction–
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html
———–
No alternative to icebreakers has yet been presented.
At any rate some doth protest much too much over
a few remote red dots–and that in itself
is a big red
flag clue as to their
elevated significance.
And a few questions of veracity have
subtly been raised by insisting upon the
veracity of the
canada govt websites.
(you seem totally clueless that
the foundation of WUWT is challenging the
veracity of govt websites. Shame on you.)
And so, in reply to those intent on diverting
from the very important red dots we say this–
Some seem to think that if you simply say the
icebreakers are not there we must believe you–
or if you find some govt internet link
that claims they are not there it must be believed
(in fact virtually every warmist link has been
proven corrupted).
And please do not place the Canada govt above suspicion–
a canada govt whose veracity you
now have indeed subtly trumpeted
with your claim of the veracity
of its websites.
In fact, if the prime minister himself swore there were no
icebreakers there, that would have
less value than his busted
promises to never deliver a deficit budget–
Do you believe that if these icebreakers were sent
on a joint usa mission under secrecy that anyone
(except perhaps yourself) would be able
to legally identify such missions–
Do you admit such arcic missions have occurred in the past
(much to the
detriment of Canadian sovereignty)?–
and do you admit that public knowlwdge of such
secret missions is banned–
Do you admit that Canada is currently operating
under martial law and censorhip and detention orders
and that terrorist threats-
including those possibly from the arctic-
are a prime concern of and in constant
seething discussion in the current Canada govt–
And are you aware that AGW has been considered a terror threat?
or do you pretend that non of this exists
because denying it supports your argument
of an “honest”Canada govt posting on it’s website.
-I’ll bet you even claim that the whistler olympic
luge run was “accidently” made too steep, too fast,
and too dangerous
(after a hundred years of other countries getting it right)
and not inspired by a conniving duplicitous Canada govt
trying to get records and medals for its own crew–
You also forget that it was a Canadian who ran the entire
deceptive intelligence program for the allies in WW2.
And finally you have not provided
even the vaguest notion of an alernative
source for the red dots and the obviously
sliced off ice slabs.
You should seriously doubt any material placed on
any Canada govt website
(it is certainly fortunate that
Anthony et al doubted quite a few govt promulgations)
In your pomposity you are either being specious or
you impute too much honesty to a canadian govt that has
repeatedly displayed its foundations of
deceit, deception and dishonesty–
No you cannot promote the veracity of a
rump dictator canadian govt(with its 30 percent
of the popular vote and its current martial law)
without expecting its veracity to be challenged.
-It is you who have placed its veracity on the table
as an issue not I –So now the issue must be fully examined.
Do not pretend to hide behind
the skirts of canada patriotism.
If you have any any any alternative explanation
to icebreakers, let us hear it —
This is about explanations and science-
not about why we should not question what
the govt claims is happening.
stay on topic–
you PRESENT NO explanation of a
phenomonon which you admit exists–
my theory is as good as any.
YIKES!
Mike Odin (08:15:12) :
This post speaks for itself, note that Newfoundland Lynx is a trawler, not an icebreaker, and is used by Canada as a Volunteer Observing Ship as part of the WMO program. “A selected ship is equipped with sufficient certified meteorological instruments for making observations, transmits regular weather reports and enters the observations in meteorological logbooks. It should have at least a barometer, a thermometer for sea-surface temperature, a psychrometer and a barograph.”
http://www.meteo.shom.fr/cgi-bin/meteo/display_vos_ext.cgi?callchx=VAAZ
Note–the misinformation from above continues–
Thank you so much for now admitting
(although pompously)
that that this “trawler”
which I located for you and which you had
serendipitously previously neglected to notice
(and which you now wish to belittle as
too innocuous to be an ice disrupter)
is presently in an area of high ice danger in which
you previously claimed it was too dangerous and off limits
to Canadian icebreakers.
perhaps you would like to now indicate
what escort icebreakers(privately owned
or perhaps from iceland or Norway
or GASP usa) might be (secretly?) accompanying it?
And who says that only CanadIan Icebreakers
are involved here or only in that immediate location–
could be iceland or Norway or private
or GASP usa icebreakers swarming throughout
Baffin/Newfoundland Sea area —
after all you did neglect to point out this
one little old “trawler” which just happens
to be as big(210 feet) as many Canada icebreakers and
has a hull which appears designed to ride over ice —
and which is owned not by fishermen but by
a company which hires its boats out to Canada for
surveys and research n such,
And now to the vessel itself–You subtly
imply that it is some ponderous scow
(you always leave the important thing unspoken–
leaving vague implications) dedicated
catching fish when it in fact it is
owned by a
“company of Naval Architects and Marine Surveyors.
. . PMC has served the . . . oil and gas industry,
commercial shipping, governmental agencies”
http://www.poseidonmarine.nf.ca
and look at the picture of this 210 foot scow–
very similar in hull and design and equipment to an ice breaker —
http://www.poseidonmarine.nf.ca/Lrg_Lynx.htm
Anyway you still insist on total veracity of all
government information sources
which really has no traction on this website.
Do you claim all plots of USA naval vessel
positions are public?
Ridiculous
And trawlers–well any personnel from any navy
is fully aware of the the wide use
trawlers for semi-military purposes
not involving the catching of fish
And still you avoid mentioning your theory of
why slabs of ice in the area of the”trawler”
are being sliced off.
So let’s hear it or will be back to attacking the messenger?
Its still about the red dots and
slabs of ice
not why you think the boat(s) in the area
are innocent.
Mike Odin (11:49:54) :
Note–the misinformation from above continues–
Thank you so much for now admitting
(although pompously)
that that this “trawler”
which I located for you and which you had
serendipitously previously neglected to notice
(and which you now wish to belittle as
too innocuous to be an ice disrupter)
is presently in an area of high ice danger in which
you previously claimed it was too dangerous and off limits
to Canadian icebreakers.
It’s a trawler providing weather information and is not part of the Canadian Coast Guard fleet. I made no claim that any area was too dangerous and off limits to Canadian icebreakers, I just pointed readers to the information regarding their areas and dates of operation.
And now to the vessel itself–You subtly
imply that it is some ponderous scow
No such implication, I called it what it’s listed as, a trawler, as for a picture on page 34 of the following you’ll see a photo of the Newfoundland Lynx in dock for repairs, showing a hull totally unsuited for icebreaking!
http://www.ffaw.nf.ca/PDF/Forum%20-%20Nov-Dec%202008.pdf
It’s even mentioned in a parliamentary debate on the fishing industry in 2006:
“Why not put it there that they cannot sell any of their boats, any of their draggers which are worth millions of dollars today, I add? Go downtown. There was one down there, the Newfoundland Lynx, tied up on the apron in the harbour for the last month.”
And still you avoid mentioning your theory of
why slabs of ice in the area of the”trawler”
are being sliced off.
I have no such theory, it’s not happening!
oops again–yet another
lil ol “trawler” —
the 220 metre scow
(700 feet)named “Arctic”
Just passed through the Ungaro Gulf into Hudson’s Bay
without the assistance of those pansy canadian icebreakers
who you claim are not permitted into this dangerous
ice area for another 2 months–even though
not labeled as an icebreaker it goes where
icebreakers fear to tread –
at least that is the claim of some–
http://sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=VCLM
picture–
http://www.wellandcanal.ca/salties/a/arctic/arctic.htm
Well the minus 25 C temps quickly closed up
“Arctic”‘s red dot trail,
but it likely did its bit to disturb
the sea ice and no doubt the
hudson flush will be easier due
to the Arctic’s efforts–
I think she could be headed right
through the NW Passage ahead of the icebreakers–
So when the Canadian govt says that their
Coast guard does not sail arctic waters
at this time of the year they are lying
in that they pretend that everything stops when Canada stops
and pretend to be unaware of other
big boats zipping around the arctic (which may
actually be manned by Canada personnel-Coast guard
Navy or Civilian pilots)
including some boats the Canada Govt has leased and controls.
And if there is this much undisclosed arctic
marine traffic now in February —
it is logical to conclude that the undisclosed
traffic will be rapidly multiplying in the coming months
tearing up the sea ice.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/hires/global.xml
Icebreaker Newfoundland Lynx
http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=VAAZ
ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/cdas/archive/
ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/cdas/archive/ice5min.200902.gz
ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/cdas/archive/ice5min.200903.gz
ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/cdas/archive/ice5min.200904.gz
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/animation/nanim.200903.gif
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/animation/nanim.200902.gif
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/animation/nanim.200904.gif
ice reduction–
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html
Here is a nice satellite shot of the area.
(cannot be refreshed unfortunately)
Try to find the mysterious ice swirl
features in the middle
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2010056/crefl1_143.A2010056155000-2010056155500.500m.jpg
We must correlate the boats to the red dots–
Red dots rule.
—————–
Well, even if the impact is minor and nothing sneaky is going on, let’s get the facts on the record so they can be accounted for. Can’t hurt, right?