Slashdot Mirror


3-Man Team Begins Ice-Survey Trek To the North Pole

Hugh Pickens writes "Satellites have shown how the Arctic sea-ice has been shrinking in recent years, but a three-man scientific team making an expedition to the North Pole should give scientists a better idea of how thin the ice is becoming. 'We're making the surface journey because that's the only way we have of gathering these direct observations of how thick the snow and the ice is,' said team leader Pen Hadow, who in 2003 became the first person to trek solo and without support from Canada to the North Pole. 'That's what the scientists really need to know.' There is more at stake for the British team than achieving some invented personal goal: 'The journey's going to be about 700 miles in distance, taking about three months,' said Hadow. 'In the earlier phases, the temperatures are about minus 50 degrees ... And we're towing sledges with our camping equipment and our survey equipment — almost twice our body weights — for most of the distance.'" "Arctic ice modeler Wieslaw Maslowski, a science adviser to the survey, hopes the data gathered during the journey will enable him to refine his forecast of when the first ice-free summer might arrive. 'According to our studies, it's very likely that if this current trend of ice decline based on the last decade or so continues, or accelerates, the ice might be almost gone in summer sometime between 2010 and 2016.'"

137 comments

  1. blah blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yea lemme know when NY gets it's first winter with no snow at all, then i might move back.

  2. Why walk... by computersareevil · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When you can drive? If this is urgent information, shouldn't they use the appropriate means to gather it in about three days instead of three months?

    1. Re:Why walk... by mackil · · Score: 2, Interesting
    2. Re:Why walk... by xenolion · · Score: 0

      Because the more time the spend up there the more grants they can get for future trips because they found new things we need to explore and look into. They may miss something important if they are traveling in a something.

    3. Re:Why walk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because if you RTFA, it states that they expect to encounter gaps in the ice.

      If that happens, they expect to have to swim "for up to two hours at a time in darkness", all the time still towing their equipment behind them.

    4. Re:Why walk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Geographic North Pole is 1300km north of the Magnetic North Pole that Top Gear reached.

      2. Presumably, measuring thickness at different times of year is valuable, and it's not always safe to drive over.

      3. Read the article.

    5. Re:Why walk... by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ice is not consistently thick enough to support machines of any sort, and open leads in ice (open water cracks) require full submersion of self (in an immersion suit) to cross. This is not a Top Gear episode, this is a real adventure like back in the day, when there were hardened explorers.


      --Maxime Chaya blogging live from the North Pole--

    6. Re:Why walk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is in the text.

      We're making the surface journey because that's the only way we have of gathering these direct observations of how thick the snow and the ice is,' said team leader Pen Hadow

    7. Re:Why walk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no they need to use dogs

      i'm dead serious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen

      attributes his success in reaching the south pole to have having brought 52 dogs. His British competitor, Robert Falcon Scott, failed, and died on the voyage home

    8. Re:Why walk... by Stunning+Tard · · Score: 1

      I thought nuclear subs could wander under the ice cap. Would it be too hard to measure the ice from one? Or is renting a nuke sub just way out of price range?

    9. Re:Why walk... by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Santa don't like noisy cars. You'd gonna get a lump of coal up your ass for that one.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    10. Re:Why walk... by RingDev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sounds like a job for a DUKW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DUKW

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    11. Re:Why walk... by computersareevil · · Score: 1

      If you had RTFR (Read The Fucking Reference), you would know the Hilux can survive being awash in seawater for hours.

      (Not to mention being set on fire, imploded with a building, and having a caravan dropped on it...)

    12. Re:Why walk... by computersareevil · · Score: 1

      The answer is in the text.

      No it isn't. They aren't doing anything from the sledges that you can't do by stopping the truck, opening the door, and getting out.

    13. Re:Why walk... by Hodar · · Score: 1

      So, they are going to 'swim' in artic water for 2 hours in darkness, while towing their camping gear, food and measurement equipment with them. From the article, they will be carrying 2x their body weight. So, while they are swimming they will be carrying ~300 of dead weight, good thing they are all in great shape and from the planet Krypton. And you don't smell fresh BS?

      What does it take for you to know you are being lied to? How about "after making their measurements, they will then band their Power Ranger Rings together and fly home."

    14. Re:Why walk... by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Well, it wouldn't be very prudent to check how thin the ice is with a car, now would it? One might fall through and I can imagine making a cup of hot tea may prove difficult in such environs. I'm not sure I would be able to stand being wet and cold without a cup of Earl Grey in my hands. What a dastardly thought!

    15. Re:Why walk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's what SHE said! Ha ha!

    16. Re:Why walk... by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's actually quite possible, since you're pulling not carrying. In Antarctica, during my South Pole expedition, I was pulling over 100 KGs uphill for over 600 nautical miles. Daily energy consumption is around 9000 calories. It's all about pace, not speed. --Maxime Chaya www.TheThreePoles.com

    17. Re:Why walk... by computersareevil · · Score: 1

      The ice is not consistently thick enough to support machines of any sort

      Nuts

      If they want to have an adventure, nothing wrong with that, all for it. But these blokes are suggesting what they are doing can't be done any other way than on an arduous 3-month walking tour, which is hogwash.

    18. Re:Why walk... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what were your meals like? Normal foods (whatever that means in such a climate) with larger portions, lots of energy dense stuff like like almonds and dry fruit, etc?

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    19. Re:Why walk... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Among other things. Add also lots of high-fat foods. If you're going through 10K calories a day, you'll have a hard time living off of dried fruits.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    20. Re:Why walk... by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 1

      If you want to collect data from all over the Ice (which is all floating on the Arctic Ocean), you have to use skis and floating sleds...
      Some things, like climbing mountains, and crossing arctic circles, require the versatility of the human body.
      There's no machine that comes even close to doing the number of things we can do, from climbing, to skiing, to swimming, to recharging with a good night's sleep.

      There's no hogwash here, just a reality that we are all too willing to dismiss from the comfort of our homes.

      --Maxime Chaya blogging live from the North Pole.

    21. Re:Why walk... by Sheafification · · Score: 1

      Because the Magnetic North Pole and the actual North Pole are quite a ways apart, and the conditions only get worse once you pass the latitude of the magnetic pole. The Top Gear folks had a fair bit of trouble getting as far as they did: basically scouting ahead on foot and clearing areas to drive. If you have to scout on foot, you might as well just keep walking.

    22. Re:Why walk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case you haven't noticed, there's a fairly big difference between "the North Pole" and "the magnetic north pole". The latter is a few miles off an island in Canada and accessible to a tricked-out Hilux (and probably a tricked-out bicycle), the former is not.

    23. Re:Why walk... by Psion · · Score: 1

      Scott also had dogs. Wound up eating them, too.

    24. Re:Why walk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err dude, the sleds float and they will be wearing submersion suits to protect their bodies from the cold.

    25. Re:Why walk... by Hodar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I never questioned pulling the weight, nor did I question the distance.

      I question the "Swim in total darkness for 2 hours" statement. Sorry, but no human is going to swim in artic waters for 2 hours and live to tell the tale. Your muscles will lock, and you will drown long before 15 minutes has lapsed, let alone 2 hours. Hence my Power Rangers ring comment - only a fool will believe that a person will carry the weight described, then go for a nice artic swim for 2 hours, and then continue on the trek as if he were at the beach.

      As far as 'accurate data' goes ... sure, you will have really good data for a single path that is 1 -20 ft wide going north to the pole. Now just repeat this trek the full 360 degrees around the north pole, all within a short period of time and we'll have some really good data. However, we know that the ice moves (the North Pole is effectively an island of ice) and that currents below reduce the thickness of the ice, as blizzards above add more mass above.

      At the end of the day; all we have is some accurate 'trivia' that is essentailly meaningless. Your trek north will hit both minima and maxima - and you'll have no clue as to what you hit. Is the ice 6 inches deep for a width of 12 ft, then shoot to 20 ft? No way to know. Was the ice 20 ft thick at your sample point just a month ago?

      Other than feeling 'really important' and feeling 'really great about getting some accurate and fresh data' ; this is a pointless venture. It's like taking the temperature on a line between Fargo, North Dakota and heading south to Houston, TX - measuring the temperature (or water table depth) every day you walk - and then proclaiming that there is a meaningful trend you can extend to the North American continent.

      All you really managed to do is get some exercise.

    26. Re:Why walk... by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      For those who are familiar with the subject, and the terrain, yes it does. Simply put: To reach where they want to go, they have to cross crevasses, steep(3m+) ice walls, extremely rough ice that is also sharp etc

    27. Re:Why walk... by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 1

      Immersion suit. Check it out.

    28. Re:Why walk... by sandmaninator · · Score: 1

      I suppose you have this documented elsewhere already but, I am curious - Do you have some custom immersion suits that will go on over your dry insulation (coats, pants, etc) ? Or will you be changing into a "regular" suit in sub-zero weather?
      You will be taking flippers to enable you to swim in them (They are not exactly speedo suits)? They are not designed for swimming...
      I think I would take an inflatable watercraft instead but I would worry that the rubber would crack at extreme cold temperatures (out of the nice warm water).

    29. Re:Why walk... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Sorry but the top gear episode was a 'real adventure'. You are right about the weight and if you watch the episode you will see they had some 'adventure' with that particular problem. The TG crew were the first to drive to the magnetic NP not the geographic NP, overall a much shorter and less risky trip but still an adventure IMHO.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    30. Re:Why walk... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately some of the crew ate the livers. Vitamin A poisioning causes ones "skin to fall off", OUCH!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    31. Re:Why walk... by this+great+guy · · Score: 1

      I was pulling over 100 KGs uphill

      "...both ways !!".
      Sorry. Meme reflex.
      Seriously man, what you do is impressive. What's funny is that I read /. post at filter level +4 and, beside the funny comments from regular posters, all the insightful comments in that story are from you.

    32. Re:Why walk... by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 1

      the immersion suits are full 'over-your-clothes' suits, you dont take anything off, you just put it on, slide into the ocean, then take it off at the other end.
      it's not a tight fit, more like a bubble suit.
      go to the 'immersion suit' tag on www.thethreepoles.com

    33. Re:Why walk... by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 1

      you're right.
      it's important to note that the Magnetic North Pole is actually VERY far from the geographic north pole. close to 10 degrees off. much closer to land.

    34. Re:Why walk... by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Top gear has the answer too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl3bsL7Nbnk

    35. Re:Why walk... by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      How do you swim in those things? Does water sometime spill down the neck? I bet that would be uncomfortable.
      Another thing I've always wondered: How do you dry you clothes in arctic conditions? Even from normal perspiration.

  3. If they come back dead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we know the ice is too thin.

    1. Re:If they come back dead... by AlterRNow · · Score: 2, Funny

      If they come back dead, we know drowning there causes zombie-ism.

      --
      The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
  4. Meanwhile... by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 0

    Santa Claus was unavailable for comment.

  5. Why not use a car instead? by hcdejong · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Top Gear has shown it's possible. If the goal is science, not "because we can", not taking three months would be a bonus.

    1. Re:Why not use a car instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was the magnetic north pole, made for great TV though :-)

  6. Does sattelite data show shrinking ice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I thought sattelite data showed the area covered by ice had remained quite steady over the last few years? Can someone link to the previous case?

    Also, how will a three man team on the ground gain sensible data on whether the ice is 1 or 2 km thick?

    1. Re:Does sattelite data show shrinking ice? by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      Sea ice is measured in meters not kilometers. To drill down a couple of meters is no problem. In addition the photos don't reliably tell you how thick the ice is only how much there is.

    2. Re:Does sattelite data show shrinking ice? by NotNormallyNormal · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the satellites say, but the "old" ice is what is melting. It has been affected by a century of warming and that heat is going all the way to its core. On the other hand, new ice/snow (last 5 years or so) has actually grown in thickness.

    3. Re:Does sattelite data show shrinking ice? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't how much ice be a matter of area + thickness? Ice isn't a 2 dimensional object.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    4. Re:Does sattelite data show shrinking ice? by Pentavirate · · Score: 1

      You certainly don't want to eat the old snow. You shouldn't eat yellow snow either, for that matter.

    5. Re:Does sattelite data show shrinking ice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that kind of a truism, though? Old ice can't do anything but melt, and growing ice is by definition new, non?

    6. Re:Does sattelite data show shrinking ice? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      No it would be area X thickness, assuming thickness is reasonably uniform.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Does sattelite data show shrinking ice? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "On the other hand, new ice/snow (last 5 years or so) has actually grown in thickness."

      This has been observed for snow in some specific regions, in particular above 3000ft in Greenland. Interestingly increased snow fall at high altitudes was predicted by the much maligned climate models, unfortunately the prevaling theory is that this will increase the velocity of glaciers.

      I'm not aware of any data or even a theory that suggests increased thickness of sea ice, do you have a link? (not attacking you, just interested).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Does sattelite data show shrinking ice? by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Arctic ice is very dynamic. The vast majority isn't more than a few years old. The problem is that more is disappearing than is being created.
      Indeed it is likely that the arctic will become ice-free in summer in the pretty near future.

  7. Leave it to the Brits by armer · · Score: 1

    Why don't they fly out there, measure the ice, fly back? Surely there are long range choppers that can fly more than 700 miles? Oh wait, they are British, that wouldn't be manly enough for them...

    1. Re:Leave it to the Brits by PinkyDead · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think these chaps must not be just British, but in fact English.

      Because if they were Welsh they'd fly to the Bahamas, get sunburned, fly back and report "Saw lots of ice. Very cold, very white."

      And if they were Scottish they wouldn't bother because they'd just go to Aberdeen, where it's proper cold.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    2. Re:Leave it to the Brits by rhyder128k · · Score: 1

      If they were from Newcastle they would go all the way there wearing t-shirts and claiming that only a southern poof would consider it cold.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
  8. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  9. Re:Why drive... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    When you can sail?

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  10. More Climate Change-balls.... by Burnhard · · Score: 1, Insightful

    According to the NSIDC, Arctic ice extent is almost back to the 1979-2000 mean (within 1 standard deviation), so I'm not too sure what all the fuss is about. Exclusive: "Scientists go on long walk".

    Polar Ice Trends

    1. Re:More Climate Change-balls.... by raddan · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You're talking about the area of the ice. These folks are talking about the depth. You can't know one by knowing the other, although you can guess. This isn't freshman year physics-- real scientists need real data.

    2. Re:More Climate Change-balls.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wow. That's a serious why to twist around the facts. If you look at the plot from your link, you'll see that the minimum sea ice extent is small. This is where the news has been. Anyway, ice volume matters more. Notice my article is also from NSIDC and directly contracts the bent in your article on a site dedicated to spreading misinformation about the science behind climate change.

      I strongly doubt you can find an article from NSIDC that agrees with what Watts Up With That? claimed they said, but I don't expect you to want to find anything that might change your views.

    3. Re:More Climate Change-balls.... by jcupitt65 · · Score: 1

      They are measuring ice thickness, not extent. You can get a rough idea of thickness from satellite radar, but this should give much more accurate numbers (though only for a relatively small part of the ice, of course).

    4. Re:More Climate Change-balls.... by Burnhard · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Submarines have been measuring ice thickness for decades (e.g. HMS Tireless). One of their discoveries was the ice moves about (due to wind), so measuring thickness at one spot today and then again next year is pretty meaningless.

    5. Re:More Climate Change-balls.... by Burnhard · · Score: 1

      Why does ice volume matter more when it's ice surface area that affects albedo, not thickness? i.e. 1ft of ice has just as much albedo and 100ft.

    6. Re:More Climate Change-balls.... by Abies+Bracteata · · Score: 1

      Why does ice volume matter? Because thin ice melts away much more quickly than thick ice does.

    7. Re:More Climate Change-balls.... by locofungus · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's the summer ice extent that matters. It's dark in the winter so any albedo effect is irrelevant.

      The ice melts during the summer. So if you've only got 1ft thick ice then it will melt before the winter freeze restarts. If you've got 100ft thick ice then (in the past) the winter freeze restored the thinning due to the summer melt.

      That's not happening now. You can argue that summer 2007 was a freak year for ice extent. 2008 wasn't, and yet the summer 2008 minimum was barely more than the 2007 minimum.

      That's the problem with single year ice (which also tends to be more salty and so melts at a lower temperature)

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    8. Re:More Climate Change-balls.... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Your post raises an interesting question. If these scientists are conducting the first ever survey of its kind, what will they compare the data with? Do they plan on repeating this survey for several years?

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    9. Re:More Climate Change-balls.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arctic sea ice is so far north that even in summer albedo effect is minimal. Antarctic sea ice is completely different, of much lower latitude, and a much bigger player in climate. Antarctic sea ice has been growing for decades.

    10. Re:More Climate Change-balls.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be true, but arctic sea ice extent is not a function of the minor movements one way or another of atmospheric temperatures. How can it be, it's so far below freezing any small increase will have little effect.
       
      Arctic sea ice is more regulated by variable atmospheric perturbations and oceanic currents (the "Arctic Oscillation"). Even NASA have said that "not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming" (NASA) and NASA host the activist Scientist and serial statistics abuser James Hansen.

    11. Re:More Climate Change-balls.... by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      We haven't had reliable data on the antartic for "decades". Second, generalising a huge continent which by itself has a highly complex climate is a little hasty. Third, while some local growth can be observed, the net result is firmly ice loss.

  11. Live Blogging from the North Pole by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm on my way to the North Pole on a similar expedition, which is starting today. We're taking a twin otter to Eureka, refueling, and then flying out to Ward Hunt Island. We should be on the Ice tonight. The trek (on skis) is about 60 days, the first 10-20 of which are in relative darkness 24/7. We will be towing 160KG sleds that house all our equipment and food for 30 days. The sleds float as the ice oftentimes cracks, and we have to swim across open leads. Last year, I did the same with the South Pole, starting at Hercules Inlet and skiing all the way up to the South Pole. I blogged live from there, and am blogging live on this journey. This will be the last of my 3 poles challenge (Everest, South, North), and is by far the most difficult and dangerous. If we don't contact anyone in 72 hours, planes are sent out to find us - if ever. Check it out at: www.TheThreePoles.com --Maxime Chaya-- Lebanese Seven Summiteer

    1. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by jd · · Score: 1

      The question is whether your blog can survive Slashdot. That would seem a greater challenge still.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by FMZ · · Score: 1

      Good luck on your expedition Maxime. Other than for research, I'll never understand why people do these things... but I'll also never stop being pleasantly amazed at the power of human tenacity, ingenuity, and bravery.

      Wishing you a safe return.

    3. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 1

      there's an old saying that goes something like: "Why did you climb Everest? Because it was there."

    4. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 5, Funny

      You should meet a hungry polar bear in -60 C... Perhaps server overload will become a refreshing nuisance then! haha

    5. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Awesome! One question: you say you swim across open leads. What kind of gear do you wear for that? Normally, getting clothes wet is a death sentence in cold weather. Not to mention that actually going for a swim for more than a few minutes is incredibly tough as well...

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You should meet a hungry polar bear in -60 C... Perhaps server overload will become a refreshing nuisance then! haha

      It would likely be warmer. And less messy.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 1

      true. actually, if you fall into the water without the immersion suit, you're most likely dead. the water will freeze on contact with air, so you'd become an instant popsicle the minute you step out.
      the immersion suit is much like a diving dry-suit, but bright yellow and more 'plasticky'. you put it on, step into the water, wade to the other side, pull your sled across by rope, and you're out.
      when you get out, you crack the ice off the suit, and then take it off.
      immersion suit training in Minnesota

    8. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by jd · · Score: 1

      -60F is cold. -60C is damn cold. (CO2 freezes not much below this.) Mind you, server overload might be damn useful then - use the CPU heat to melt through the ice and escape.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean no disrespect, and wish you the best on completing an amazing accomplishment, but remember that George Mallory, the man credited with answering "Because it was there," did not in fact complete his climb of Everest, having died there.

    10. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by balbord · · Score: 1

      Bookmarked! :)
      godspeed!

      --
      "If I have been able to see so far, It is because I went out and bought a damn binoculars" - Ze da Esquina
    11. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      but right to the end he was probably more alive than you or I will ever be.

    12. Re:Live Blogging from the North Pole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My best guess is that you'll die and be left on the ice. In fact, I'm betting on it.

      So if you want to do some real exploring, why not get back to us here on Slashdot after you die, and tell us about the afterlife.

      Till then, sayonara, toots!

  12. Are these guys Nuts! by mwiley · · Score: 1

    Are these guys pain junkies! Why not get choppered there and get dropped of with all your equipment and get picked up when they are done? Dude this is the 21st century! People fly to the Pole for lunch there days.

    1. Re:Are these guys Nuts! by ElectricRook · · Score: 1

      You could make a sonar device that you lower from the chopper, then you don't even have to land...

      The next step, of course would be a drone. When you take the people out, and the air-craft becomes very much more efficient.

      The even more efficient step, would be deploy sensors that send the data to satellites. Deploy them once, they send massive amounts of data for years.

      Efficiency very high ;)

      Sex appeal very low =(

      yep, I'm a geek

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
  13. This is nothing new by Theoboley · · Score: 1

    The crew from Top Gear made it in a Truck, The Toyota Hilex a few years ago... Well, i should say that Clarkson and May made it in the truck... Hammond made it via DogSled.

    --
    Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    1. Re:This is nothing new by Canazza · · Score: 1
      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    2. Re:This is nothing new by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      piss... someone beat me to it...

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    3. Re:This is nothing new by beav007 · · Score: 1

      The Hilux is a ute, not a truck.

  14. Why not go under the ice? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, the Arctic is a pretty deep ocean, why not survey the ice from the bottom?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Why not go under the ice? by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      If they measure from the bottom they'll be measuring its height. They want to measure its depth so they have to do it from the top down.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Why not go under the ice? by visible.frylock · · Score: 1

      Doh, just lost my mod points.

      This is exactly what I was thinking. Well, it was one of the things I was thinking. I get a weird feeling from this article:

      This is a job he was trained for. Extraordinarily, Hadow was raised by a woman - his father's old nanny - who had once worked for Scott of the Antarctic and who was hired to toughen the young man up with treatment that sounds as if it bordered on abuse: sending him out from his home in the Highlands into blizzards and gales with as few clothes on as possible. This only stopped when he was discovered to have frostnip. His father passed on a love of frozen adventure, and the boy was discovered to have unusual physical endurance. At Harrow School, for example, he single-handedly resurrected the dormant tradition of Long Ducker, which has pupils running a marathon-length course all the way to Marble Arch. He later worked as a sports agent, but found his calling after his father died. Spontaneously, at the deathbed, he vowed to get to the North Pole unaided. On his third attempt, he found himself in tears on his knees at the pole, saying: "I've done it, Dad. For you."

      Look, I'm sure this guy is Brad Pitt or whatever, but this seems a little melodramatic. Why can't subs do this? What about rovers? They can't pathfind around the water? Still though, subs should have no problem, except that they're more expensive. I'm sure this is important, but TFA just has a really wankerish vibe to it.

      --
      Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
    3. Re:Why not go under the ice? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "As far as I know, the Arctic is a pretty deep ocean, why not survey the ice from the bottom?"

      Expense. However there are some historical records from the sonar on military subs.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  15. Re:Why drive... by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Informative
    More information on Snowkiting.

    Recent crossings in record times of large snowfields and even Greenland have been accomplished through the use of snowkites.

    Unlike a car, you don't have to worry about fuel, and you can still cover 50 miles per day. Plus, snowkites have the ability to jump over crevices motorized vehicles can't cross.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  16. 7.777777777 miles per day by killmenow · · Score: 3, Interesting
    700 miles in three months. ~90 days. They're moving no more than 7.777... miles each day. That's a slow pace. I assume each day will consist largely of:
    1. De-camp: 1-2 hrs
    2. Move: 4-5 hrs
    3. Setup camp: 1-2 hrs
    4. Do science stuff: 3-4 hrs

    That's 9-13 hrs/day. With the rest spent trying not to die.

    Realistically, I would expect them to travel as far as they can in a given day. If they manage 20 miles in a single day, great, they just got a little bit ahead so when bad things happen on those days they barely make 1 mile, they'll still be okay.

    Of course, I could read the article and find out if they address this, but (this being slashdot) I won't.

    1. Re:7.777777777 miles per day by LordEd · · Score: 1

      With the rest spent trying not to die.

      That's exactly why I want to see Survivor: Canada. Forget this taking people to survive in a tropical environment. Stick them up on some northern island and see how long before they get eaten by a polar bear.

    2. Re:7.777777777 miles per day by Cyberia · · Score: 1

      Okay, Let's put this into perspective. They are British? So, let's assume that they are also lugging a few hundred liters of Gin, and don't forget the Earl Grey. How straight and fast can you walk now? huh? Don't forget to add six or so hours for drinking in there.

    3. Re:7.777777777 miles per day by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 1

      That's probably not a bad average speed for travel on foot, really. I go on extended canoe and kayak trips, and although I've had days where I've covered over fifty miles, most days of travel are only about 25 miles. The average is only about 15-18 miles/day, though. Occasional rest days, bad wind/water days, fishing days, "too much rain" days etc usually make up about 25% of total days. My longest so far is only 40 days, and I think I'd be purposely slowing myself even more so I wouldn't get fatigued for a 90 day trip.

      Wind, whiteout, gear repair, and rest days would have to be assumed for their terrain, I think. 7.8 miles a day average seems totally reasonable. Considering it's a 90 day average, maybe even slightly optimistic. It's nearly 1/3 of a marathon/day over ice and snow (pulling hundreds of pounds), every day, for 90 days.

    4. Re:7.777777777 miles per day by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      tropical environment = hot = few clothes = teh sexeh = ratings = profit

      cold weather = more clothes != teh sexeh

      I can't have been the only one to notice the women never had a lack of bits of cloth perfect for making a tube top with Survivor written on them.

  17. That's a man, baby! by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

    I didn't realize Ann Daniels was a man. Shouldn't the title be "3-person team"?

    1. Re:That's a man, baby! by Zanix · · Score: 1
      According to AskOxford.com, Man means several things.

      man
      noun (pl. men) 1 an adult human male. 2 a male member of a workforce, team, etc. 3 a husband or lover. 4 a person. 5 human beings in general. 6 a figure or token used in a board game.

      While you are correct in that it is not typically used that way, you'll notice that usage #4 IS Person. So technically 3-man team is an acceptable usage.

    2. Re:That's a man, baby! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Royal man.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. The real question is not... by jd · · Score: 1

    ...whether they find any ice, but whether they find any gin.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  19. Obligatory south park by qualidafial · · Score: 1

    We didn't listen!

  20. Quadrifoils by toby · · Score: 1

    Eric Philips is a pioneer of using Quadrifoils in icecap crossings. In 2002, with fellow explorer Jon Muir, he walked/kited from Russian territory to the North Pole.

    --
    you had me at #!
  21. way cool! by zogger · · Score: 1

    Good luck and better skill on your expedition, I'll be following your blog!

  22. Technology used for Live Blogging by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 1

    Iridium Satellite Phone
    HP iPaq PDA
    Ricoh Digital Camera
    Canon G10 Digital Camera
    Solar Power Packs (useless for the first 4 weeks (no sun))
    Lithium Batteries
    12V battery pack


    most of the above must be kept next to my body for wamth as none of it is rated at -60 C

    --Maxime Chaya--

  23. Oh and the connection is 9600 baud... by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 1

    takes 10 minutes to send a 50-100KB image file :)

    1. Re:Oh and the connection is 9600 baud... by davidphogan74 · · Score: 1

      So I take it you don't stream a lot of porno through that connection?

      Seriously, what's the cost of data transfer from a satellite phone from there?

    2. Re:Oh and the connection is 9600 baud... by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 1

      anywhere from 1.5 to 3 USD $ per minute.

  24. According to the scientists by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0, Troll

    According to the Global Warming scientits, all of the ice at the north pole melted last year! This was proof that global warming exists, and is caused by man. Unless it didn't melt, which then proves that Global Warming is a major threat, which is caused by man.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:According to the scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well considering that no one has ever done an extensive ice depth test to the pole. How would they know what the mean thickness is supposed to be at any given time a year let alone right now this winter season.

      The under ice, water currents and flow patterns are also completely unknown and are a very important part of understanding the ice sheet.

      Not to be pessimistic but these guys already seem to have the mindset of global warming is happening, the ice is thinner than before and melting fast. Not exactly the clear open minded thinking, scientific expedition I would expect.

      Remember it took amateurs using google world maps to discover what the climatologists had no clue. That their sensors had drifted south and the 150,000 square killometers they claimed was open water was in fact ice. You would think with such corrupted data they would have to retract all their major claims regarding proof of northern pole global warming on a massive scale. You would think that wouldn't you? So far the only claim is none of those same scientists have uttered a retraction. Google is your friend.

  25. I'll save you some time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    30 days food is not enough for a 60 day trek.

    Your blog says you leave tomorrow, hopefully it isn't too late.

    1. Re:I'll save you some time... by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 1

      we get 1 resupply (a plane-drop of food and stuff)

    2. Re:I'll save you some time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cutting it a little close there, don't you think? Isn't that how Scott got himself famous'd?

    3. Re:I'll save you some time... by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      Cutting it a little close there, don't you think? Isn't that how Scott got himself famous'd?

      cue "history is made by stupid people"

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    4. Re:I'll save you some time... by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      why they just don't drop the crew to the pole; it would cut time to 1.5 month?

  26. I lost all body fat... by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    3/4 way through the expedition, i had lost most of my body fat. i was eating through my own muscle tissue, and became severely ill and weak. i had to increase my calorie intake to 10000 calories in order to start moving again, which was a risk i had to take (increase intake and risk finishing all the food before making it to our destination).
    one thing i hadn't done for the south pole expedition was to gain weight. you're supposed to go up to 25% fat in body mass. i was down at around 10%. that extra 15% would have given me the extra energy reserves that i needed.
    this time around i managed to get myself up to 15% but i got too nauseous to take on more...
    this is what i looked like before i became ill

    1. Re:I lost all body fat... by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      well, that's one possible way to lose weight. i'm currently around 32% body fat, and struggling mightily to down to something healthy. perhaps i should take a stroll to amundsen-scott....

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    2. Re:I lost all body fat... by Maxime+Chaya · · Score: 1

      it can be done. the stroll part is quite fun (although very tough on the nerves due to the constant white).
      the pulling your food, clothing, equipment, etc is not so fun.
      i trained for 3 months pulling tractor tires to get in shape, on top of my daily half-marathon run.
      you can find training photos on the blog as well.
      www.thethreepoles.com

    3. Re:I lost all body fat... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      on top of my daily half-marathon run

      How long can a human body stand up to such punishment?

  27. If a car doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you could always use one of these. The NS Arktika has visited the North Pole before. Should it encounter ice too thick to break through, they could just crank up the engines and push the ice shelf out of the way...

  28. Arctic and Antarctic sea ice has been -growing- by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    You can see it from space, and I don't mean the space between Algore's ears!

    1. Re:Arctic and Antarctic sea ice has been -growing- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can see it from space

      I can see the depth of your reading comprehension from right here!

      Don't you have something better to do than whine about scientists going out and actually taking measurements instead of using models and guessing?

  29. Can't they just use a submarine? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    This is just a publicity stunt. If you sent a nuclear submarine with a top mounted sonar, you could put together a very detailed picture of the underside of the ice and fairly quickly. In fact, given the tendency of major powers to hide their ballistic submarines under the ice, I'd be shocked if those maps didn't exist already.

    --
    This is my sig.
  30. Summary Headline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some guys want to hike to north pole, use Ice Survey as excuse for funding.

  31. Uhh by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

    Why don't they use an amphibious vehicle, powered by a diesel engine?

  32. Give up!!! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Geezzzussss, some people just have to be 'right' no matter what.

    You called the article BS and implied the OP was gullible. You were then corrected by an informative post from someone who has actually done something similar. Continuing to defend your position with all sorts of irrelevant arguments is just plain arrogance.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  33. Almost science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're intending to prove the ice is thin. Is that how science is supposed to be done? Hire people to go do the job and don't tell them what you are testing. Tell them you're testing the survival suits and drills.

  34. MODS by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Parent AC is a climate troll, possibly George Will from the WSJ, but who knows.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  35. This is just stupid. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    The Top Gear team was able to make it to the north pole in a large Jeep. And they needed way less than 3 months. They had one guy with a dog sled, and two with the Jeep. The dog sled had obviously huge deficits.

    And hell, take a big tank of fuel with you, and use a helicopter. Or something else that can land vertically.

    Some people just make it harder to themselves than they have to.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:This is just stupid. by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      The Top Gear team was able to make it to the north pole in a large Jeep. And they needed way less than 3 months. They had one guy with a dog sled, and two with the Jeep. The dog sled had obviously huge deficits.

      It was Toyota Hilux, not Jeep, you insensitive clod!

  36. I have a sinking feeling about this... by jtgd · · Score: 1

    So we'll know if the ice is too thin by whether or not they return? ;)

    --
    J