Global warming expedition stopped in its tracks by Arctic sea ice

A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.

The Polar Ocean Challenge is taking a two month journey that will see them go from Bristol, Alaska, to Norway, then to Russia through the North East passage, back to Alaska through the North West passage, to Greenland and then ultimately back to Bristol. Their objective, as laid out by their website, was to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”

There has been one small hiccup thus-far though: they are currently stuck Daily Caller  New Foundationin Murmansk, Russia because there is too much ice blocking the North East passage the team said didn’t exist in summer months, according to Real Climate Science.

Real Climate Science also provides a graph showing that current Arctic temperatures — despite alarmist claims of the Arctic being hotter than ever — is actually below normal.

The Polar Ocean Challenge team is not the first global warming expedition to be faced with icy troubles. In 2013, an Antarctic research vessel named Akademik Shokalskiy became trapped in the ice, the problem was so severe that they actually had to rescue the 52 crew members.

In 2015 a Canadian ice breaking ship, the CCGS Amundsen, was forced to reroute and help a number of supply ships that had become trapped by ice.

The icy blockade comes just over a month after an Oxford climate scientist, Peter Wadhams, said the Arctic would be ‘completely ice-free’ by September of this year. While it obviously isn’t September yet, he did reference the fact that there would be very little ice to contend with this summer.

“Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year,” Wadhams told The Independent in June.

Wahdams says he expects less than one million square kilometers by summers end, but the current amount of Arctic sea ice is 10.6 million square kilometers, according to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The NSIDC puts the rate of ice loss for June at just about 60,ooo square kilometers a day. If that number were to hold, it would take approximately 160 days for the Arctic to dip down to the predicted one million square kilometers.

Follow Craig Boudreau on Twitter.

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller

Categories

About the Author: Craig Boudreau

Craig Boudreau writes on energy and the environment for The Daily Caller.

  • Billy Perry

    Good article, but showing a picture of Antarctica was lame. The picture clearly shows a land mass and no land exists in the Arctic.

    • Mike Bromley

      Not sure which Arctic you are talking about, but there is plenty of land in the Arctic. Small, insignificant things like Baffin & Ellesmere islands, and another small but noticible group of things called the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Then there’s Svalbard & Novaya Zemlya…..lame little islands, of course.

  • Edward Lose

    True, but they should have referenced the source of the photo.

  • Ian5

    1) This is misleading rubbish designed to mislead and misinform. It is not jouranlism; if lazy Craig bothered to check, he’d find that the expedition is in the Barent’s sea.
    http://polarocean.co.uk/tracking/
    2) The activities and day-to-day challenges encountered by the expedition have nothing to do with the state of arctic sea ice. The important take-away is that arctic sea ice is on the decline. Ice extent in the first half of July was well below average in the Kara and Barents seas, as it has been throughout the winter and spring.
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/05/daily-image/

    • Sam

      Poor guy. You’ll wake up one day.

      • Ian5

        Deep comment. What’s your point?

        • That you are blinded by your ideology

          • Ian5

            The OSHA limit for 8hr exposure to CO2 or concentration used in greenhouses is irrelevant. Please educate yourself: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            • Brin Jenkins

              Haha ha. The usual insult. Of course its relevant it shows the beneficial effects of CO2 which I see every day on the slopes of Etna with the emissions rolling down feeding the fruit and veg we live on. We also get our oxygen from this source which some would like to sequester by carbon capture. Now try to explain just how C02 changes from a result of heating into the cause?

              • Ian5

                The “CO2 is a plant food so increased GHGs must be good for us” argument is misinformed and misleading.

                While increased CO2 may increase vegetation growth and yields in some circumstances, CO2 isn’t always the limiting factor to growth. Crop production is influenced by complex relationships between temperature, precipitation, CO2, weeds, pests, and disease.The USDA Office of the Chief Economist did a thorough review of the scientific literature in 2013 and concluded that “continued changes by mid-century and beyond, are expected to have generally detrimental effects on most crops and livestock”. To focus on a single positive effect of carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impact.

                • Brin Jenkins

                  Exactly, and heat is also required.

                  No there has been no research carried out, probably because its counter productive to the on message university funding hunters.

                  In conversation with a top US agricultural adviser and also a professor from California a month ago he said no research had been done, and he thought it was a proposition that had merit.

                  Talking about a single issue why is CO2 demonised when no one seems to be able to give the mechanism or explain the reversal of cause and its effect?

                  • Ian5

                    So you just made that up then. Good imagination.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Anything not on your message was just made up, was it?

                      In science observation is all, if the theory does not fit observations, change the theory and not the facts.

                      You still have no viable explanation for how C02 changes from an effect of heat, into a driving force of Global warming. if it was so than positive feedback would surely have destroyed the balance millennium ago or do you just not see this?.

                      Unless that problem is explained then nothing else about C02 matters one iota.

                    • Dano2

                      You still have no viable explanation for how C02 changes from an effect of heat, into a driving force of Global warming.

                      Yes he does.

                      You have no viable explanation why you repeat the inanity that no one has explained them to your satisfaction.

                      Best,

                      D

                  • Ian5

                    …and irrelevant, constructed for the gullible. Information is not the same as knowledge.

                • Martin Lunsford

                  Are you a real person or a bot? You made the exact same post, word-for-word, seven months ago in another article on this website. And a Google search for the supposed quote from the USDA comes up with one single hit, which is that other post. It’s almost like you made up the quote. Hmmm…

                  http://www.cfact.org/2015/12/13/reprieve-binding-paris-treaty-now-voluntary-mush/

                  • Ian5

                    Hi Martin, I wrote the comment and no I didn’t make up the quote. You can find it in the exec summary (page 1) of the report I mentioned. Here is a link:
                    http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/effects_2012/effects_agriculture.htm

                    • Li D

                      Hahahaha.
                      All that will mean is deniers will think USDA is part of the conspiracy too.
                      Any information at odds with their own belief is not examined impartially. Its just
                      thrown in the conspiriters pile.
                      A truely awful mental state really. I shouldnt even laugh about it.

              • Ian5

                “…beneficial effects of CO2 which I see every day on the slopes of Etna with the emissions rolling down feeding the fruit and veg we live on”. Any research on this avaialble, or did you just make it up?

                • Dano2

                  He made that up. Badly.

                  Best,

                  D

  • Dano2

    according to Real Climate Science.

    pfffffffffFFFFFFFF….HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Good one! I LOLzed!

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    an Oxford climate scientist, Peter Wadhams, said the Arctic would be ‘completely ice-free’ by September of this year.

    Poor hapless Craig made that up. Badly.

    “My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year,” he said.

    “Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year. I’m convinced it will be less than 3.4 million square kilometres [the current record low].

    “I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    the current amount (sic) of Arctic sea ice is 10.6 million square kilometers, according to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

    That’s the amount from a month ago.

    Best,

    D

  • I see a “clinical scientist” on the roster, but no climate scientists. Sounds like a rag tag crew that has little to do with any climate science.

    • Dano2

      You have to wonder why the RW Noise Machine has to characterize it that way, then.

      Best,

      D