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.'"
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.