Abstract
AbstractThe observed decline in Arctic sea ice is projected to continue, opening shorter trade routes across the Arctic Ocean, with potentially global economic implications. Here we quantify, using Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 global climate model simulations calibrated to remove spatial biases, how projected sea ice loss might increase opportunities for Arctic transit shipping. By midcentury for standard open water vessels, the frequency of navigable periods doubles, with routes across the central Arctic becoming available. A sea ice‐ship speed relationship is used to show that European routes to Asia typically become 10 days faster via the Arctic than alternatives by midcentury, and 13 days faster by late century, while North American routes become 4 days faster. Future greenhouse gas emissions have a larger impact by late century; the shipping season reaching 4–8 months in Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)8.5 double that of RCP2.6, both with substantial interannual variability. Moderately, ice‐strengthened vessels likely enable Arctic transits for 10–12 months by late century.
Highlights
Arctic shipping peaked during the 1980s due to continuous investment in ports and icebreakers by the Soviet Union maintaining the Northern Sea Route (NSR)
Future greenhouse gas emissions have a larger impact by late century; the shipping season reaching 4–8 months in Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)8.5 double that of RCP2.6, both with substantial interannual variability
Many operational factors affect route choice; here we focus solely on the sea ice, the biggest physical hazard for Arctic shipping
Summary
Arctic shipping peaked during the 1980s due to continuous investment in ports and icebreakers by the Soviet Union maintaining the Northern Sea Route (NSR). The substantial reductions in distance compared with Suez and Panama Canal routes could result in large cost savings due to reduced fuel consumption and increased trip frequency [Lasserre, 2014]. This was one reason that major shipping nations such as China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea sought observer status to the Arctic Council [Bennett, 2014]. That simulating robust ice dynamics is challenging at current GCM spatial resolutions, in the Canadian Archipelago; each GCM has undergone bias correction to calibrate performance against recent higher-resolution Sea Ice Thickness (SIT) data [Melia et al, 2015] This calibration is crucial as each GCM contains biases in the spatial distribution and interannual variability of SIT, which strongly influence regional ice patterns along sea routes. Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modelling and Assimilation System: PIOMASa [Zhang and Rothrock, 2003]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
