From the Alfred Wegener Institute news that a ship that reached the real geographic North Pole, unlike the hapless group of Whisky sponsored rowers (Row to the Pole) who are pointlessly attempting to reach the location of 1996 magnetic pole, which doesn’t even exist there anymore.
Research Vessel Polarstern at North Pole
Bremerhaven/North Pole, 22 August 2011. You can’t get any “higher”: on 22 August 2011 at exactly 9.42 a.m. the research icebreaker Polarstern of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association reaches the North Pole. The aim of he current expedition is to document changes in the far north. Thus, the researchers on board are conducting an extensive investigation programme in the water, ice and air at the northernmost point on the Earth. The little sea ice cover makes the route via the pole to the investigation area in the Canadian Arctic possible.
Sea ice not only plays a role in the selection of the route, but is above all a major research focal point. How thick is the ice and how old? To what extent has it been deformed by pressure – is there snow or puddles of melting water on it? Satellite measurements, too, supply ice information, but measurements are still required on site to be able to interpret these data correctly. Light energy causes the ice to melt and heats up the water in the summer months. The warming of the Arctic and the related changes in heat and gas exchange processes between the ocean, sea ice and atmosphere are the paramount focus of the investigations. The oceanic currents that exchange water masses with the Atlantic and the Pacific are also undergoing change. Redistribution of the freshwater input from rivers into the Arctic Ocean is one of the factors that influence these oceanic currents.
Light is the source of energy for tiny algae that live in and under the ice and form the basis of the food web in the Arctic Ocean. Biologists classify species and determine the number of algae as well as the small and larger animals that feed on them. The researchers follow the path taken by the organisms from the water surface to the seafloor, where the remains end up as organic substance at a depth of thousands of metres after the organisms die.
These deposits on the seafloor permit conclusions to be drawn on how living conditions were in the course of the Earth’s history. After all, the sediments and the animal and plant remains they contain are up to several million years old. Following the expedition, sediment cores will be analysed in the laboratory. To improve the models of the Earth’s climate history, chemists, physicists and oceanographers additionally examine the environmental conditions in the present-day oceans. They draw conclusions on how fast organic substance is transformed and relocated as a result of altered current conditions.
All 55 scientists and technicians from six countries on board the Polarstern have a common goal: studying the changes in the Arctic. This is also reflected in the name of the expedition “TransArc – Trans-Arctic survey of the Arctic Ocean in transition”. The researchers have been investigating their questions jointly with the 43 crew members since the Polarstern left the port of Tromsø (Norway) on 5 August. The first ice floes appeared on 8 August. Since 9 August the Polarstern has been sailing through dense pack ice on the route along 60° East in temperatures of around 0° C. At first it was predominantly one-year-old sea ice, now older and consequently thicker ice floes appear.
“From a scientific point of view the North Pole is not more interesting than other places in the Arctic,” reports Prof. Ursula Schauer from on board the Polarstern. The oceanographer at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association is the chief scientist of the expedition. “The expected changes are rather minor here. However, the northern part of the Canadian sector of the Arctic still numbers among the least researched regions on the globe because of the dense pack ice.” Schauer was in the central Arctic the last time in 2007 and is now experiencing a similarly small ice cover as the year that went down in the annals as the one with the lowest extent of sea ice since the beginning of satellite measurements in 1979. Initial measurements of the ice thickness confirm this: in 2011 as well as in 2007 the most frequently occurring ice thickness was 0.9 metres. As a comparison, the most frequently measured ice thickness in 2001 was around 2 metres. In that year the extent of the ice cover at the end of the melting period corresponded roughly to the long-term mean.
The Polarstern is at the North Pole for the third time in its history. On 7 September 1991 it was one of the first two conventionally driven ships to sail there, along with the Swedish research icebreaker Oden. Almost exactly ten years later, on 6 September 2001, it carried out a joint expedition at the North Pole together with the American research icebreaker Healy.
After the investigations at the North Pole and subsequently in the Canadian Basin the vessel will head for the Siberian Sea. The researchers want to study the oceanic circulation from the deep sea to the shallow shelf seas and habitats from the ice edge to the ice-free ocean. The Polarstern is expected to return to its homeport of Bremerhaven on 7 October. For all those who would like to follow the events on board until that time: the members of the expedition report regularly in the blog of the magazine GEO at (German language only) www.geo.de/blog/geo/polarstern-blog.
###
The Alfred Wegener Institute conducts research in the Arctic, Antarctic and oceans of the high and middle latitudes. It coordinates polar research in Germany and provides major infrastructure to the international scientific community, such as the research icebreaker Polarstern and stations in the Arctic and Antarctica. The Alfred Wegener Institute is one of the seventeen research centres of the Helmholtz Association, the largest scientific organisation in Germany.
Can I refer to the OT submission?
Wil says:
August 23, 2011 at 12:06 pm
The Australian Opposition has just called for a motion in the Australian Parliament in the last half hour that Standing orders be suspended and the Australian MP referred to (Mr Craig Thomson, member for Dobell) explain issues raised by various media outlets that:
* He misused funds of the Health Services Union for personal expenditure when he was General Secretary.
* How his credit card was allegedly stolen and his signature forged to pay for prostitutes with his union credit card.
* Whether he misled (the inhouse) Fairwork Australia in their investigation into the use of his union credit card.
* Why defamation charges were dropped against the Fairfax Press who had raised the issues and how the NSW Labor Party had met outstanding legal fees.
This motion has just been defeated on party lines and those with a vested interest in the government status quo. However Thomson was forced to resign from his position as Chair of the Parliament Economics Committee BUT not his seat of Dobell
I agree with comments by Wil that if a by-election was to result Labor would be defeated and if it flowed onto a general election, the government would go down in a landslide together with its carbon tax. Still a long way to go yet but wouldn’t it be hilarious if an Australian carbon tax went up in smoke over the revelations of a willing whistle blowing prostitute?
Correction to my last post. I believe Motion may has been carried 73-71 (even though PM was absent) and member will have to explain his actions to House. Stand by and fasten your seatbelts.
OK, I understand the situation now. Standing orders were not suspended as although Opposition won the vote, an overall majority of 76 votes is required (what a pity). You can unfasten your seat belts but the government and Mr Thomson and are still in for a very bumpy ride.
@ur momisugly Steve from Rockwood and Ben Kellett
Steve, most of your points I agree with. However, you should consider what effect it has by opening up a peripheral waterway.
To both, ice loss isn’t due mostly to melt, per se. It is a misnomer. Ice loss occurs when the currents, both wind and sea move the ice out of the arctic. Proof of this assertion is seen yearly in March and September. March is the month the ice maximum occurs, always it starts to recede then. Oddly, temps in that area are still well below freezing. September is the month the minimum occurs, but always temps are diving. Ice loss, if we’re attaching “melt” to it, should lessen as temps lower, not increase. Yes, undercurrents have warmer water, but how warm is the water in March? Its the currents and wind that causes ice loss. The melting occurs when the ice is moved out to the Atlantic.
If we have groups of people breaking ice, it allows the ice to be moved. One or two, sure it won’t make any difference. Have you checked where the ice is moving from? Where the ice is? Where the multimeter ice is? What’s odd is I’m not one that is emotionally invested in the icecap. I truly hope it all melts soon. Then, and only then will we be able to get over this obsession with such a small part of the world. It isn’t significant, but open sea ways on the top of the earth should be a considerable boon to shipping.
But, to show what I’m talking about….. and I hope you both click on this, because my internets are giving me fits and I went through some considerable grief in order to show you what I’m talking about, please look at this. Or just go here….. here.
There’s all sorts of traffic up there. The pic displayed in both is representative of just one particular point in time.
As to the snowmobiling….. the parts of the arctic I’ve visited, snowmobiling would never had been an option……. there was just too much of the breaking. BTW, ice, in regards to how we are discussing, is a dynamic substance. It moves, it breaks, it changes form even when the temps are consistently well below freezing. Hope you guys and others enjoy.
James
Slow to Follow said: Nice picture of nuclear ice breaker “Yamal” here, along with mention of Medieval Warm Period ice free seas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker
I saw the Fram in Oslo when I was there last year, and it’s definitely a museum worth seeing if you are ever in those parts. Unbelievable how that relatively small ship got itself stuck in the Arctic ice and drifted for the whole winter, and the photos and artifacts are excellent.
I forgot to thank Ric Werme once again. While I’ve got most stuff memorized, I always go to your button at the top to use the “anchor”. I c/p your example and insert what I want where. I’ve always meant to thank you. Just thinking it needed said. Thanks again!
@James Baldwin,
I clicked on your two links and was quite surprised by the amount of ships active in the Arctic. My first response was – what the hell are they doing up there?
I also want to say I always enjoy your posts. Even when confronting you are respectful and loaded with information.
But a couple of quibbles:
1. While your map shows a number of ships in the Arctic, when you zoom in it still looks like rather a meek gathering. Only 1 ship in the entire Hudson Bay? Wouldn’t want to get stranded there and find myself asking for help. Hudson Bay is 1,000 km across. It would take several days just to cross it once.
2. Your comment on ice melting in March (when the temperature is below freezing) and freezing in September (when the temperature is above freezing) is interesting. I noticed the same thing when I lived in Northern Ontario. For example, the temperature in March was below freezing but the snow was disappearing from my driveway. No melting, just disappearing. Trust me, I’m the shovel guy. I attributed this to sublimation. Try this link: http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/369/. In the fall, even though the day temperature is above freezing, I think the cold nights and lack of direct sun produce a lag effect that sees ice building even though day time air temps are higher than freezing. I’m not a climate scientist but I do shovel snow. And the nice thing about March is, you can sit inside and nature shovels the snow for you. Unless it snows.
3. I’ve been to many parts of Northern Canada, Salluit, Nain, Puvirnituq in Quebec and Labrador and Holman on Victoria Island (for example) usually in late winter and what amazes me is the lack of anything for hundreds of kilometers. We would fly in on Twin Otters and then helicopters (often over the oceans in the Otters) and not see anything – no polar bears, no ships or surfaced submarines, no row boats with scotch drinking morons – absolutely nothing. It is a very large and desolate area that Arctic. Regardless of the 200 vessels on your map.
4. I believe the Arctic is a very special place (from a scientific point of view) as it does seem to be very sensitive to world temperature changes. I see this as a good thing. If we aren’t catastrophic in our predictions we can use this sensitivity to study a phenomenon that is hard to see (or measure) over our short lifetime.
Thanks again for the great links.
Steve
King of Cool says:
August 23, 2011 at 5:25 pm
“the revelations of a whistle blowing prostitute?”
===================================
There are a 1000 jokes hiding in that statement.
Well after looking at this;
http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shiplocations.phtml?lat=90&lon=0&radius=700
and considering that there are only ~4 ships in areas of appreciable Arctic sea ice extent, at present, I can see that my previous estimate was overly conservative by a factor of 4-5.
So a better estimate would be 0.01% disturbed ice by icebreaking capable ships based on a summer minimum of 3,000,000 km^2, or 300 km^2 in total on an annual basis. In other words, well within the error estimates of sea ice extents/areas, by aboot two orders of magnitude.
NOTE: Buoy numbers are not ships, by anyone’s metrics.
🙂
people who posit that icebreakers have any measurable effect on measurements of area and extent have some proving to do.
Just plop down in front of your computer and start look at,,, lets say, Modis imagery.
But I can save you some time, the cell sizes for calculaying area and extent is on the order of Kilometers.
THE MAIN ICE EDGE…EXCLUDING OPEN WATER…LIES FROM THE SOUTHWEST
COAST OF PRINCE PATRICK ISLAND NEAR 76N 122.6W TO 75.2N 121.6W TO
72.5N 127.8W TO 71.3N 133W TO 71.3N 139.9W TO 72N 144.2W TO 73.1N
155.1W TO 74.4N 162.8W TO 74.3N 170.2W TO 71.9N 176.3E TO 72.6N 165E
AND CONTINUES WEST. OPEN WATER EXTENDS 10 TO 40 NM BEYOND THE MAIN
PACK WEST OF 142W. THE EDGE OF THE MAIN PACK IS MAINLY 2 TO 7 TENTHS
FIRST YEAR AND OLD ICE.
1 TO 2 TENTHS NEW AND YOUNG ICE LIES ALONG THE COAST FROM 20 NM EAST
OF KAKTOVIK TO HERSCHEL ISLAND.
FORECAST THROUGH SATURDAY…LITTLE CHANGE.
Steven Mosher says:
August 23, 2011 at 4:39 pm
The Skate was at the pole during the biggest Solar Max that we know of.
Today, the icebreaker is at the pole during the weakest Solar cycle in a hundred years (at least).
While you are at it, you might want to look at that thickness data again.
You also need to refresh your memory by taking another gander at those photos of Skate & Seadragon, noting the thickness of the ice the subs broke through.
You’re not hitting on all cylinders, despite the sarcasm of your comments.
Steven Mosher says:
August 23, 2011 at 8:22 pm
people who posit that icebreakers have any measurable effect on measurements of area and extent have some proving to do.
=============================================
Didn’t say that it did. I said, it needs to be acknowledged that it happens and that it should be measured. At this point, it is beyond me or anyone else to prove or disprove anything in this regard. But, Steven, you know this. Ironically, there is a certain correlation to all of this activity. 🙂 BTW, did you check out the fleet lurking in the midst of our MYI? Or the armada moving around the peripheral between Greenland and Norway? No way the currents move the broken ice out to sea….eh? I understand the vastness, I’m wondering if you understand the stubbornness of humanity.
Steve from Rockwood says:
August 23, 2011 at 7:45 pm
@James Baldwin,……
======================================
Steve, thanks for the kind words. But, there are times I’m less respectful that I’d wish I would have been. My experience toward the Arctic is confined to off the coasts of Alaska. My father’s was confined to Greenland. We compared notes. While there were many similarities, there were many differences. I would assume there are many more differences concerned with the coasts and islands of Canada.
I hated shoveling, knowing that it would only engulf me. Thank God for sublimation! It truly is a dynamic that can only be properly appreciated by experience.
While you can probably discern already, my comments were to provoke rather than assert. I’ve no idea if or how much the ship movements effect anything. But, I do know it is occurring and most people don’t know that it does. And, it is increasing yearly.
“… what amazes me is the lack of anything for hundreds of kilometers.” I was never not in total amazement of the vast nothingness of the arctic nothingness. To this day it is beyond my fathom, and I’ve seen it, lived in it and it still boggles my mind. Nothing for as far as a person can see, and nothing for as long as one wanted to see it…….. sometimes, longer.
Thanks again,
James
Steven Mosher says:
stuff that is almost intelligible.
Steven, you’re a bright guy! Please! Start using a spell check! So much is lost when you don’t. And, there isn’t any reason why not except your stubbornness.
As to your posit @ur momisugly August 23, 2011 at 8:22 pm —————- Understand what I show was just one point in time. There could be more or less activity in the arctic circle Again, one or two, yeh, its a “so what!” But, given that we don’t know the time nor the amount nor the extent, dismissal isn’t something anyone can view as objective. But go with it if you want. Guaranteed, it’ll be addressed with or without you.
If the magnetic North Pole was at a different location 50, 40, 30, 20, and 10 years ago, wouldn’t comparisons between the ice at its current location and that of its previous locations fall into the category of apples and oranges? To get accurate measurements for comparisons, don’t you have to measure the same thing at the same place at the same time of year? And to determine the possible causes of variations, don’t you have to factor in such things as tourists, ships, air-quality, ad infinitum? Just asking . . . .
Speaking of Skate, read here about how many open leads there are naturally that the Skate used in 1958-1959. And how many decades have icebreakers been running through the arctic?
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker
Comments about icebreakers causing the loss in ice extent are just desperate attempts to explain something that isn’t supposed to be happening. Face it; the ice extent this year, as well as the ice area and ice volume, are quite likely to end the melt season at record lows.
And I say this as one who thinks that the warmists/alarmists are completely on the wrong track, but facts is facts folks. Grow up and face reality. It’s not the end of the world (that the alarmists are predicting.)
Incidentally, I guessed (and, yes, it was just a guess) that the extent would come in under 4.5 km2 in all three polls here this year. I did that even though I’d much rather we put all this nonsense to bed with a >6.0 minimum some year soon. But the freeze-up last winter was slower than ever, so I figured there would be thinner ice and a lower extent. Comparing the state of the ice this year to the state of the ice at the same time last year, we’re very likely to challenge the minimum 4.2 km2 of 2007 before this is over. Personally, I now think we’ll break it.
Unlike the warmists/alarmists, I’m not “hoping” we break it. I just think that’s what the evidence indicates is a likely outcome. But until people start taking off their tinted “bias” goggles, it’s hard to weigh the evidence that’s out there for all to see.
It speaks volumes that you have to go to a warmist/alarmist website to get any consistently good information on this year’s melt, and only because this year is headed to a new low. If it was headed to a recovery, we’d be talking about it daily in here. True science isn’t supposed to be like that. It’s a shame.
Rod Everson says:
August 23, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Comments about icebreakers causing the loss in ice extent are just desperate attempts to explain something that isn’t supposed to be happening. ………….
It speaks volumes that you have to go to a warmist/alarmist website to get any consistently good information on this year’s melt, and only because this year is headed to a new low. If it was headed to a recovery, we’d be talking about it daily in here. True science isn’t supposed to be like that. It’s a shame.
================================================================
Rod, it’s funny, I’ve stated earlier that I’ve no emotional attachment to the ice, other than I wish it to go ahead and the arctic be totally devoid of ice. It is only then, I believe, we can move on from this strange obsession. However, that doesn’t mean I’m not aware of what it’s doing. Nor, does it mean any statements of mine are desperate.
What I find odd is your certitude. Anyone can go to Anthony’s ice page. Are you sure you’re dealing in reality? Sure, it can go to a new low, but maybe not. I don’t know how you can discern it is or will be a new low. Tell me about desperate, again?
Icebreakers? That’s a great mischaracterization. How about shipping traffic with icebreakers in the lead? But, what is the greatest hoot of all? ……….“True science isn’t supposed to be like that. It’s a shame.”
That’s wonderful. “I haven’t looked at it. I know it isn’t true, so I won’t regard it. And you, sir, don’t know what true science is about!” You know?, I’ve seen sad, and I’ve seen shame. This would be one of those moments.
Jenn Oates – thanks for that, sounds very good, I’ll go if ever I get the chance 🙂
http://www.frammuseum.no/Visit-the-Museum.aspx
Heh, it’s not enough to melt it but to weaken it structurally. Maria calls gravity the wind.
==============
Back in Feb 2010 I observed here
http://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=31
Arctic Warms Seals Vanish Icebergs melt
« Reply #11 on Feb 20, 2010, 1:45pm »
The work of ice-breakers by the nations bordering the arctic ocean in keeping shipping lines open may also be implicated in the break up of arctic sea-ice and the ease with which the wind canflush it out of the Polar Basin southwards where it melts.
Change in Arctic sea-ice, like every other aspect of climate, is an enormously complex interaction of many variables. To try to pin it all on AGW is naive. Perhaps the effect of the ice-breaker is the nearest to an unequivocal “anthropogenic signal” we can find in the arctic.
“who are pointlessly attempting to reach the location of 1996 magnetic pole, which doesn’t even exist there anymore.” – Probably not. That’s why they put down that strange looking lable, ‘1996’. Not ‘2011’ or some such number.
phil c says:
August 23, 2011 at 5:05 pm
you beat me too it
if man made CO2 can cause massive changes in climate then why would similarly small man made changes in the arctic cause massive changes to the arctic ?
Some calcs above would seem to show that the changes may even be in the same order of magnitude (A-CO2 as part of the atmosphere).
Isn’t the whole CAGW thing predicated on POSITIVE feedbacks ?
Does anyone else sense the irony of a Russian icebreaker named “Yamal?”
Regarding the impact of ship traffic upon the Arctic ice…..I have thought about this long & hard and believe it likely that ship traffic would disrupt the integrity of the ice mass could lead to loss from the effects of currents, wind and melting. Think of how rapidly shaved ice melts in a drink vs. ice cubes. The ice is only a few meters thick after all.
We cannot know the answers without studying the situation, it would make an interesting project. If the UN is so concerned about the ice mass, they should declare a one-year moratorium on ALL ice-breaking activity in order to judge the effect upon sea ice extent. When pigs fly.
This is a very interesting article regarding the increase in tourist cruise ship activity in the Arctic!
http://www.omrn-rrgo.ca/docs/Stewart.pdf