Impassable Northwest Passage Open For First Time In History

An anonymous reader writes "The Northwest Passage, a normally ice-locked shortcut between Europe and Asia, is now passable for the first time in recorded history reports the European Space Agency. Leif Toudal Pedersen from the Danish National Space Centre said in the article: 'We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3 million sq km which is about 1 million sq km less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006. There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100 000 sq km per year on average, so a drop of 1 million sq km in just one year is extreme.'"

Won't be long

[Dachannien (617929)]

I'm sure the Northwest Passage Cruise Line vacation scam spams will begin soon.

Time to buy

[downix (84795)]

that prime waterfront property in Kansas....

Huh.

[by Anonymous Coward]

What could cause this?

Re:Huh.

[by Anonymous Coward]

IRAQ!

Re:Huh.

[Foobar of Borg (690622)]

IRAQ!

Of course. Where else do you think Saddam Hussein hid the Weapons of Mass Destruction? He had to hide them in the artic, where we would least expect them. He was fiendishly clever, that Saddam.

Slightly misunderstanding the story

[benhocking (724439)]

He didn't sail it in 1905, he traversed it (through various means) between 1903 and 1905. It was not an open passage, however.

And that the Vikings were sailing it sometime between 1200 and 1500 A.D.

Now that's a new one! Do you mean they reached Newfoundland (not news, I think most historians believe this) or that there's "evidence" that they traversed the NW Passage to Asia? If the latter, I'd suggest you use your skeptics eye with respect to that "evidence".

Re:By years of study in the 30s

[TapeCutter (624760)]

From TFA: "Leif Toudal Pedersen from the Danish National Space Centre said: "We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3 million sq km which is about 1 million sq km less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006. There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100 000 sq km per year on average, so a drop of 1 million sq km in just one year is extreme."

Last year was a record low for ice coverage, a quarter of what was left of the ice cap last year dissapeared this year, how extreme do you want it?

BTW: I entirely agree with the GP, the IPCC reports by their very nature are conservative in their estimates, but they are also by their very nature are the best representation of the current state of scientific knowledge. I think in time the IPCC will move toward the (depressing) picture drawn by people such as Hansen [wikipedia.org], Lovelock [jameslovelock.org], Attenborough [wikipedia.org] and many others.

Re:it's 1550 AD in your alternate universe?

[at_18 (224304)]

Explorers looked for northwest passage from 1400s to 1900

And didn't found it.

in 1906 Roald Amunsen navigated the passage in an ice-fortified ship

Funny that it took him two years [wikipedia.org] (mostly spent with his ship blocked by ice) and several dogsleds. That's not my idea of "passage".

Roald Amundsen

[imaginaryelf (862886)]

The Northwest passage was first traversed in 1903 by that famous Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen. This was no small feat given the technology available at the turn of the century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen [wikipedia.org]

Re:Winston Smith

[mce (509)]

Nobody claimed that Amundsen has not done it back then. The claim is that the passage now is practicable in one go, because the whole passage is open. Amundsen needed several years to make it all the way through in bits and pieces. And he couldn't have done it in any larger ship than the one he used, due to the water water being as shallow as 3 feet. Not exactly an economically viable solution.

OSS in trouble

[Tablizer (95088)]

Where is Linux gonna get a new mascot when their home is gone?

-1 wrong pole

       

Sovreignity rights

[Aeron65432 (805385)]

Let the battle begin......Canada has already asserted complete rights to the passage, Russia and the United States want it to be international waters. It matters because this passage is incredibly lucrative for the months of the year it's open.

Re:Sovreignity rights

[quacking duck (607555)]

It has the potential to be incredibly lucrative, yes.

Most of the passage indisputably passes between islands all internationally recognized as Canadian. Territorial waters [wikipedia.org] is defined as 12 nautical miles (22 km) from the land, and a quick check using Google Earth shows most of these islands are less than 44 km apart at their closest points. Once you're in the Beaufort Sea, then yeah you're in international waters.

Unfortunately the US and European countries don't have many comparably close-lying islands for comparison, but it would be like claiming the Shelikof Strait between Alaska and Kodiak Island were international waters.

The US and Europe want the passage "international" for the convenience and cost savings, which is understandable. But their wanting to make it international also means they want to strip Canada of its obligation to protect its environment--witness the callous disregard of the effects of dumping bilge oil/water [elements.nb.ca] just last year.

Obviously, Canada currently is in no position to enforce its sovereignty in the north due to its underfunded military, but that is a separate issue. The Arctic and Antarctic areas are one of the last areas on earth relatively unspoiled by human contamination, and it disgusts me that those largely responsible for screwing up the rest of the world, now want to finish the job.

Re:Poorly worded

[MosesJones (55544)]

Seriously, you have noticed that the world isn't flat haven't you? When planes fly they go north because that creates the shortest route (the grand circle) hence the reason that when flying to Asia the planes often go from Europe straight over the north pole. In terms of mileage this is a massive change (think multiples not percentages) over the existing routes and is the reason why the EU and US are already pushing for it to be an international (rather than Canadian) trade route.

So yes it looks similar on Google maps, but it looks completely different on Google Earth.

Re:Poorly worded

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

So yes it looks similar on Google maps, but it looks completely different on Google Earth.

Try Bucky Fuller's Dymaxion map [bfi.org] for an interesting view of the world...

Re:Poorly worded

[p0tat03 (985078)]

... massive change (think multiples not percentages) over the existing routes and is the reason why the EU and US are already pushing for it to be an international (rather than Canadian) trade route.

And why should Canada's sovereign territory being pieced apart? If it suddenly became globally advantageous to cross shipments through most of the US, the EU and the rest of the world would be perfectly justified in making it international territory as well?

You people can just fly/ship your people/things with our blessings (and taxes), the land and airspace belongs to us.

Re:Cool!

[ozmanjusri (601766)]

it's a real boon to nautical industries like shipping and such.

...and the new midwest passage will be a real boon for shipping stuff to Minneapolis too.

Maybe...

[Eric Damron (553630)]

Maybe it a troll because there is no -1 "Ignorant enough to kill us all" moderation available?

Re:Cooler! (eh, ok, perhaps *warmer*...)

[by Anonymous Coward]

This laptop is powered entirely by my own sense of self-satisfaction.

Re:Cooler! (eh, ok, perhaps *warmer*...)

[Bluesman (104513)]

Congratulations on your Mac purchase :-)

Re:Cooler! (eh, ok, perhaps *warmer*...)

[IgnoramusMaximus (692000)]

If we wanted to do good things for the environment, we'd have an mostly-nuclear merchant shipping fleet by now.

You are jesting, surely.

If you had any idea about the condition of the merchant ships and the way their crews are hired, you would have never said that.

Deep sea marine merchant fleets are governed by something which can only be described as a "law of the jungle", where the disposable crews (literally! I heard stories of men simply dumped in the next harbour, regardless of location, after losing arms or legs in accidents on the ship, without any concern about their means of medical care or transportation. Insurance? You gotta be kidding!) and rust-covered ships worked until they literally fall apart at sea, after which the owner simply collects more then their value, having shrewdly adjusted the insurance payout in anticipation. Any attempts at regulation usually result in the owners re-registering all of their ships in places in which bribery, corruption and non-existant regulation make up for an "ideal" merchant shipping home port. What did you think the words "flag of convenience" mean? Ever notice that all of those ships in the news which broke up on some rocks are flying weird flags from strange places, even though they are clearly owned by western conglomerates?

Adding nuclear power to this mix would be truly suicidal.

Re:Cooler! (eh, ok, perhaps *warmer*...)

[IgnoramusMaximus (692000)]

*OR* the hypothetical nuclear fleet would have better hiring and maintenance practices, you dumb fuck.

Am an in awe of your grasp of the situation, specially when highlighted with such creative epithets. Now, do please explain how does this hypothetical fleet has its maintenance and hiring practices improved, given that vast majority of it is registered in, say, that bastion of high standards of regulation: Antigua, and owned by companies registered in, say, Dubai. For a bonus question: explain away your method of forcing the merchants to use the astronomically expensive (in relation to everything else) nuclear reactors followed by your gracing us with your enlightening views on the methods of securing the nuclear fuel and the ships themselves from falling into the hands of some bearded and beturbaned individuals with somewhat antisocial attitudes.

Seriously, you just blindly grafted on an aspect of reality onto a hypothetical alternative. How pig shit stupid can you get?

I am reeling under the assault of your great wit, so cleverly based upon words of "shit" and "pig". As to being blindly "grafted" on an aspect of reality, I am afraid I got you beat there, since your entire rant consists of "hypothetical" hot air, which does not even withstand most cursory of "hypothetical" searches for traces of common sense.

Re:Arctic minimum, antarctic maximum

[DrSkwid (118965)]

That posting is the interesting, I useful fact to carry around.
I'm still a global warming sceptic. I'm all for reducing carbon emissions and the like. I'm just not totally convinved the weather patterns and carbon emissions are intertwined as some of the figures look.

Correlation is not causation.

Re:whoa.

[The Living Fractal (162153)]

What would be coincidental about it? Yes, the world is getting warmer. Everyone agrees with that basic statement. Now tell me _why_ it's because of Mankind. We already have geological proof that the world gets hotter and colder in cycles and we are (geologically speaking) getting out of an ice age. And I want hard numbers, like "23% of global warming compared to the mean of the last decade is due to CO2 emissions from the following nations" etc.

Re:And yet

[dbIII (701233)]

Consider a glacier. It is a big mass of ice running downhill. If it is relatively small and not on a very steep slope you can assume it is not moving and when it gets warm the main thing that is occuring is melting so the glacier retreats.

Consider another glacier - a really big one with a lot of ice behind it and a large height difference and/or steep slopes. Something like this moves faster. When it gets warmer it will move faster again. These are the glaciers that are advancing.

Unfortuantely we have people that really just want to win an argument that just take the amount of advance and retreat of a lot of glaciers and average it without considering why. They are completely ignoring the temperature measurements in those locations since they are pretending to use a glacier as a thermometer instead of the real thermometers that may actually be there.

As for the warm is good argument - I recommend talking to a farmer. Whether it is a El Nino or La Nina effect in the Pacific in a paticular year is enough to drive farmers backrupt off the land in some areas - they know about warm weather in the wrong spot.