THE Arctic icecap has become an island for the first time — sparking fears it could completely melt within five years. New satellite pictures show ice melted last week to create a gap around the north-west of Canada and the north-east of Russia.

It is the first time the two passages have been open at the same time for at least 125,000 years.

Environmentalists warn the melt is the clearest signal so far of the onset of global warming.

Historic

And some scientists fear it indicates the icecap could vanish altogether during summer months within five years.

US sea ice specialist Professor Mark Serreze said: “It’s a historic event. We are going to see this more and more as the years go by.”

The passages have opened before in the past few years — but never at the same time.

Shipping companies are now getting ready to exploit the gap, which could cut around 4,000 nautical miles off a trip from Germany to Japan.

Melting ... satellite pic

Now that is a boat trip I'd like to do.

Much ado about nothing.

This wouldn't be the first time in the history of the world that the arctic was free of ice, and won't be the last. Same for Antarctica. It may be the first time in recent history though. Mankind tends to forget we as a species have only been around for a tiny, tiny percentage of the history of the world. Too many think that "history" started when we first started walking upright.

At various times in the past, the arctic was actually a lush, vibrant area that supported a wide variety of life. I have collected fossils in the North West Territories of Canada that could have only lived when the area was covered in warm ocean waters.

Did the ancient, cave-dwelling tribes in the northern latitudes think the world was coming to an end when the last ice age occurred ? Note I said "last". That wasn't the first time it happened either. Maybe those ancients thought they were suffering from Global Colding ?

Maybe some primitive Al Gore suggested they started lighting more, and larger, camp fires to try and combat the growing cold ?

Supposedly, ancient mariners had detailed maps of the Antarctic coastline which have been covered in ice now for hundreds and hundreds of years. One theory is that is how Columbus secured the financing for his trip to the Americas. He had charts showing the coastline already (charts which supposedly also showed an ice-free Antarctic coastline).

Surely we as a species aren't doing ourselves any favours with the way we rape our planet and pollute the atmosphere, but Mother Nature has had a large helping hand as well. In the days before we started trying to control forest fires, smoke and heat from millions of acres of burning trees/grasslands would fill the air.

Volcanic activity over hundreds of thousands (or hundreds of millions) of years, has covered large parts of the planet with smoke and ash that probably contributed as much (or more) towards atmospheric change than man's activities over the last couple hundred years.

Mankind has always thought that everything revolves around it, and seems to have problems understanding that the planet existed long before man was a single celled amoeba, and will exist long after our race is nothing more than fossilised remains like the dinosaurs.

Some British guy has just set out to kayak from Svalbard to the north pole to highlight the demise of arctic sea ice.

He was a bit worried when the temperature dropped several degrees first day out and a lot of ice formed in his path.

Quite mad, if the thing tips him into that water his chances of survival would be slim. And I hope he can paddle faster than a polar bear can swim.

Some British guy has just set out to kayak from Svalbard to the north pole to highlight the demise of arctic sea ice.

He was a bit worried when the temperature dropped several degrees first day out and a lot of ice formed in his path.

Quite mad, if the thing tips him into that water his chances of survival would be slim. And I hope he can paddle faster than a polar bear can swim.

He should have paid a little more attention to a simple fact. Mid summer, when the sun was as far north as it gets and the area experiences 24 hours of "daylight", was over 2 months ago (21/22 June). The days have been getting shorter as the sun heads south, and the temperatures up there drop quite quickly. He should have left in early July at the latest.

It doesn't take a lot of distance to detect a distinct difference in temperatures. I once left Vancouver (where everyone was wearing shorts/t-shirts in early September) and drove a few hundred miles north to Prince George. The next morning I almost froze some very precious body parts off, as the temperatures were considerably colder (close to freezing). And PG is a long way south from the Arctic.

And if he does tip into the water, assuming he is wearing a survival suit, he'd still be an nice chilled polar bear snack in short order. Unlike the movies where people splash and play in ice covered water as though they were in a (heated) jacuzzi, the reality is your life expectancy (without a survival suit) is about 3 minutes. Hypothermia sets in rather quickly, especially when soaking wet.

Every time I see a movie where people end up in a frozen lake or ocean (Titanic, The Italian Job and others), and they stay there for extended periods, and suffer no ill effects when they get out (well, Leonardo died, but McGowan should have too by rights), I just shake my head.

This wouldn't be the first time in the history of the world that the arctic was free of ice, and won't be the last.

Indeed I understand that the natural state of this planet is one with poles free of ice. Ref. This fantastic book by Bill Bryson.

Mankind tends to forget we as a species have only been around for a tiny, tiny percentage of the history of the world.

The planet is not here for our benifit, something we are generally not thinking about during our short busy little lives.

I have collected fossils in the North West Territories of Canada that could have only lived when the area was covered in warm ocean waters.

But where was NWT Canada at the time, further South?

Too many think that "history" started when we first started walking upright.

To para phrase from the book linked to above: If the history of life on this planet were represented by your outstratched arms, the entire human history could be removed by one gentle stroke of a medium grain nail file from the middle finger of one hand.

kerryd, yes, the ground in which you found the fossils may well have been a "lush, vibrant area". However, due to the movement of tectonic plates over long periods of time it is most likely that it wasn't lush and vibrant at the current latitude and position on the earth's surface. When those fossils started to form the ground in which they formed was in an entirely different location on the earth's surface, probably much closer to the equator. It is unlikely that, above certain latitudes, the land was ever much warmer than it is now as this would imply that land closer to the equator would also be much warmer still.

True. The dinosaurs went extinct 75 million or so years ago, quite a bit has changed since then including the positions of the various land masses.

Still, everything on this planet seems to work in cycles (with the exception of mankind). Once in awhile Mother Nature throws a huge monkey wrench into the works (volcanic eruptions on a massive scale, earthquakes, tsunamis), or gets walloped by extra-terrestrial events (comets/meteors), but always bounces back.

I think what we are seeing in the Arctic is a part of a similar cycle. Maybe the planet feels there is a need to warm up a bit to help balance out some other problem.

The plants and animals will adapt. Again, mankind's short-sightedness cause him to think that the plants and animals currently here, were always here, and always lived in the same manner. These are just the current plants and animals. Over the millions of years, Mother Nature has wiped out countless species of flora and fauna on the planet, just as she has helped countless others to evolve and thrive.

People look at the "ancient" rain forests (not just the ones in South America), and go to great lengths to prevent any of these old trees from being cut down. Again, they are only old in our eyes. Trees that were saplings when Columbus first arrived are still only 600(ish) years old, and probably replaced trees that were even older. Given a chance, MN (Mother Nature) would eventually replace those with new trees that, 5-600 years from now people would (again) worship as being "ancient".

I remember a big controversy in Vancouver a few years ago, when the city want to remove a few trees (less than 40 I think) from Stanley Park to widen a major route that cut though the park. People chained themselves to these "ancient" trees to protect them.

Then a newspaper showed a picture of that very same park, taken about 80 years earlier, just after it had been completely logged off. Not a tree left standing.

Took the wind out of the sails of a lot of protesters when they realised that the trees weren't that old after all.

I wonder what excuse people will come up with to panic over should the Arctic icepack suddenly (in a couple of years or so) start expanding larger than ever ? Will the "doom & gloom" brigade start predicting the next Ice Age is upon us ? Will they blame mankind for the impending doom of the planet as the glaciers once again start edging towards habitated areas ?

Knowing mankind's arrogance, he will probably claim that they went too far when combating global warming, and it's all the fault of the "greens" that the planet (or large parts of it) is about to become a pop-cycle.

Your entire argument seems to be based around your opinion that mankind can do as they like because they're only only very short term residents of the planet.

So go ahead and turn it into a treeless garbage heap, they'll all grow back when we're gone.

Because nothing's surer that nothing will grow back while people like you support the people who feed these infantile opinions to the masses.

Can't you see that man's only chance is to at least try to cut back on greenhouse gases?

Personally I shouldn't worry, my line ends with me, but try sparing a thought for your grandkids. Wouldn't you like them to know Earth as you and I knew it?

Sheesh, drunk again, I was never going to waste my time arguing with greenhouse gas>>>>global warming deniers again.

Your entire argument seems to be based around your opinion that mankind can do as they like because they're only only very short term residents of the planet.

Not really. I was more trying to point out that (more often than not), man thinks everything revolves around him, and he looks upon the world as though nothing ever happened before him, and there will be nothing after him.

Well, the last part may be true. We are the only species (currently) capable of pretty much killing everything on the planet. But unless man somehow physically destroys the entire planet, turning it into cosmic dust, the planet will eventually recover. New species will evolve in the ashes of our existence and most of the evidence of our existence will slowly disappear, perhaps to be discovered by another species millions of years in the future.

So go ahead and turn it into a treeless garbage heap, they'll all grow back when we're gone.

I admit that we are our own worst enemy when it comes to life on this planet. The way we operate, we are the Borg (of Star Trek note) of the present. There are things we could (and should) do to help preserve the planet. Many countries have banned chemicals which have proven to be detrimental to the ozone layer (though it doesn't seem to be having much effect of reducing the size of the "holes" that frequently appear. May take a few more generations to overcome the effects of the last few). But more can be done.

"Greener" energy sources are a must, as pretty much everyone knows that oil (and natural gas/coal/etc) aren't going to last forever.

But still we do things that seem like great ideas now, with little or no consideration for the future. Like Genetically Engineered crops. The earth's population continues to boom, and people are living longer. So what do we do ? Rape the natural resources and then try to develop ways to regrow those resources more efficiently, but at what cost ?

Well, perhaps that should be saved for a separate thread. Besides, it's time to get away from the keyboard and do something a little more "exciting".

An update:

Explorer kayaks to 1,000 km from N.Pole

Sat Sep 6, 2008

A British explorer has kayaked to within 1,000 km (620 miles) of the North Pole to highlight a rapid shrinking of Arctic ice and put pressure on governments to do more to fight global warming.

Lewis Gordon Pugh, 38, planted flags of 192 nations on a barrier of sea ice where it eventually blocked his route north on Friday after a week-long, 135 km paddle north from the Norwegian Arctic island of Spitzbergen.

"He kayaked in freezing winds, horizontal snow showers, strong sea currents and with the constant threat of polar bears and walrus," a statement from his team said. In normal years, there would be no open water north of Spitzbergen.

"The disappearance of this sea ice is happening considerably faster than scientific models predicted a year ago," Pugh said in a statement after the trip. He was accompanied by a team aboard a ship where he slept.

Last September, summer sea ice around the North Pole shrank to its smallest since satellite measurements began in the 1970s, extending a trend widely blamed on global warming. The ice area is now close to matching the 2007 record.