Slashdot Mirror
Capitalizing on Melting Polar Ice
efuzzyone writes "As an affect of global warming, the polar ice caps seem to be slowly receding, what do you do? The NYT reports it is a gold rush, 'the Arctic is undergoing nothing less than a great rush for virgin territory and natural resources worth hundreds of billions of dollars.' Also, 'polar thaw is also starting to unlock other treasures: lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage; new cruise ship destinations; and important commercial fisheries.'"
Argghh!!! It Burns!
....as unlike the goldrush this one won't be around for so long!
I can hear Pres. Bush's spin on it now: "...Just imagine the further untapped resources we could discover by not joining the Kyoto agreement."
Certainly not a dupe! Check your story list!
Fuckers!
beachfront property in Sacramento!
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
"As an affect of global warming"?
And the science is not very solid either.
Circumcision is child abuse.
When the air gets too polluted to breathe, I'll finally be able to make my money selling oxygen franchises! I love the free market!
This is really stupid. We are all excited about making more money, but not worried about the impacts.
Humans are stupid.
With all of these benefits who cares about preventing damage to our environment?!</sarcasm>
"lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage; new cruise ship destinations; and important commercial fisheries."
:)
Great. Add more pollution to the area. Just what it needs!
AC comments get piped to
As an affect of global warming, the polar ice caps seem to be slowly receding, what do you do?
Make sure you're using the proper word before submitting?
Not to mention the rising waters flooding pacific islands. Good trade off, cruise destinations in the pacific get flooded, and cruise destinations in the polar region open up.
So we can now expect pollution to be State encouraged, to speed-up the melting and take advantage of the new, exciting investing opportunities? Great! Bye!
SeqBox
After reading the title, was U.S. and Halliburton.
(I live in U.S.)
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Artic sovernty has always been a big deal for Canada. We had better start finding some new submarines.
Let's all hope the gold will attract more pirates!
Sacramento is below or at sea level, remember the delta is held in by levees (now where id I hear about levees recently...) The foothills is going to be beachfront, and don't tread on my front lawn.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
that global warming would lead to new oil discoveries.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
"Also, 'polar thaw is also starting to unlock other treasures: lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage" I think the melting ice will unlock a treasure all right....and its a treasure that we should bother looking for....like pandoras box..???
why doesn't someone set up a water bottling plant and harness all that yummy fresh water? who needs desalinization when you have melting ice!
Sacramento is in the middle of a valley with a big river (coincidentally *also* called Sacramento) running through it. If anything, Sacramento will be on the bottom of the California Archipelago's Great Central Sea.
Vote NDP bitch. The Conservatives are a western farce. It'll never happen!
Every time I go up to Canada, I am amazed at the number of dot people you have let in.
Why not make them conscripts for 2 or 3 years in your "armed forces" (yes, Canada has a Navy and an Air Force) before you let them stay permanently?
Anyone else feel sick when you read things like this? If the human race is that fucking stupid then we deserve to drown in the flood we'll end up making. Saddly a handful will probably survive it.. most likely the rich ones who can aford to hoard boats, food and drinkable water...
Money : Because killing 6 billion people just to make some more was so worth it, now that it's totally useless because everyones dead and paper has no use when it's already doodled on.
I like muppets.
This kinda reminds me of the simpson episode where bart finds a three eyed fish in the stream by the power plant. Mr. Burns decides to run for office and starts trumping up how good the three eyed fish is for the enviroment and is better to eat yada yada yada.
Sorry I can't bring myself to vote redneck. I wouldn't be able to live with myself in the morning.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Great, I can fulfill my lifelong dream of going on a cruise from the Yukon to Siberia. Meanwhile, all the good cruise ship destinations will be closed off because hurricane season will last 10 months.
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
I can't wait to be the first one to visit the tropical resorts in antartica!!!
I used to think of slashdot as a place to get news before it appeared elsewhere. That was wrong; slashdot is just one more wall in the Intraweb echo chamber. But five days lag time between the article's appearing (it appeared on 10/9, even though it's dated 10/10) in the NYT and on slashdot... this has got to be a new record.
When will we stop to think that global warming is a good idea ? When Florida will be submerged ?
And copy the replies to the most recent global warming story into this one.
I certainly wouldn't notice the difference, and so much productivity would be saved by everyone not having to rehash the same old arguments again.
Maybe my acres of permafrosted land around hudson's bay weren't such a bad investment afterall! Drive those SUV's boys, I want palms and bannana trees in my scenery!
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
the coin :)
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340. stm
~jennifer.k~
Maybe even prehistoric frozen treasures ... the artic landscape strewn with rotting 2 billion year old people. Well, the polar bears should like it even if the residents complain.
Excellent, make the Earth more angry. Keep it up! Here comes H5N1!
goes towards our `rescue an islander` charity, to relocate folk who's land gets flooded in the process.
Stop hitting the wrong reply button
People, try to think back to your high school physics.
Polar ice melting will NOT change sea level anywhere. No beachfront property in Sacramento. No flooding of tiny Pacific islands.
The ice is currently Floating in WATER! And since ice is lighter than water, when they melt, they will take up less space before in the ocean. Some of the Pacific islands may get bigger (someone may even notice it).
Melting in the Antarctic or on Greenland is different, since those are ice on land right now. But melting of ice in Arctic should make little difference in Sea Level.
Actually to be correct Mickey Mouse gets more votes then the liberals but for some dumb reason they have this rule which doesn't allow you to draw in your own box and check it off. Alas, Mickey Mouse will never get voted in. I keep saying its unfair but its the Liberals who make all the laws now. I mean its not like we really have anybody to vote for who would actually listen to the people besides Mickey Mouse. I also believe Wayne Gretzky is in second place. He'd be pretty good too. But again, that damn rule is holding us back.
Capitalism on the arctic can be a risky venture. When you bring in companies that are established to deliver on share holders profit, it is hard to guess what kind of a route these companies might take. Without clear laws and regulations limiting how companies exploit this new "gold mine" we might end up with something like the US Patent laws, where large corporations take advantage of the ability to patent anything they can think about. I the arctic scenario this could lead to fishing companies endangering many species, tour companies damaging the habitat of local wildlife, oil exploration polluting the air and water. We must establish clear baselines to prevent this happening! Lemmings look like fat furry hamsters. They have strong legs and claws for digging. Thick fur helps to keep them warm. Lemmings live in the arctic. --- Sydney Computer Support
That's pretty much the angst I feel given that America is headed toward absolute insanity on a steady diet of transfats and dullard TV.
Affect and effect are both nouns and both verbs, but the one you wanted was "effect".
:)
An effect (n) is something that happens as a result of some action.
To effect (v) a change is to cause a change to occur.
A affect (n) is a feeling or emotion you feel.
To affect (v) something is to change it through your actions. To affect something is to effect a change in it.
Being the intelligent people we are, with great precision in our computer languages, let's not ride the wave of many technologists who believe they are too good to condescend to write English properly. Strive to do well in all things.
Those who deny global warming are just so predictable.
First they say "there is no such thing as global warming."
Then they say "there is no proof that there is global warming."
Now they say "there is no proof that global warming is bad."
And they say "look, global warming is good!"
Soon they'll say "there is no proof that God didn't make this happen."
Then they'll say "it's written right here in the book that this will happen."
Then they'll say "it's one more reason to believe. God works in strange and mysterious ways."
Then they'll say "of course Haliburton should get a no-bid contract to build levees around North America."
Then they'll say "of course all the blue states on the coasts should pay for their own levees, while paying to subsidize the farms of the red states."
Then they'll say "isn't global warming wonderful! Praise the Lord!"
Canada considers the Artic to be an internal water way and as such maintains dominion over all shipping in the area. The U.S., no surprise, considers the area to be international waters. As the ice recedes and the fabled Northwest Passage becomes a reality look for increased tension between the United States and Canada over control of shipping in the area (like we need more tension than already exists).
Unfortunately, Canada will probably roll over and let the U.S. have it's way on the sovereignty issue as we've done in the past when the U.S. ice breaker Polar Sea transited the Northwest Passage in 1985.
'polar thaw is also starting to unlock other treasures: lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage
Primarily, this will open up trades route with Hell, which incidentally is short on handbaskets.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
the billions in damage it will do to other industries. fucking retards.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Think of all the open real estate this global warming going to open up near the other polar ice cap. I call DIBS!
It will raise, you forgot that liquid salted water vs ice is not the same than liquid non-salted water vs ice. Go back to school and do the maths. Or just visit a page explaining how to do the experiment with salted water and ice
affect1 (-fkt') pronunciation
tr.v., -fected, -fecting, -fects.
1. To have an influence on or effect a change in: Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar.
2. To act on the emotions of; touch or move.
3. To attack or infect, as a disease: Rheumatic fever can affect the heart.
Still, global warming is not a plus for me. The ski season is getting shorter :-(
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Sacramento will be at the bottom of the new Tethys Sea. It's been a long time since the San Jouquin valley was a salt water sea, but it may not be long before it is again. It all depends on just how much ice melts.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Big deal. I could as easily and justly consider the moon and all the stars to be my own personal property.
Unless Canada can think of a legitimate reason why 600 years of seafaring tradition should be abandoned, they should shut up. Their writ does not extend more than three miles off shore, same as ours. The Law of the Sea, both formal and informal, has long recognized that navigable deep water "belongs" to anyone and everyone.
Moreover, Canada is always first in line to bitch about American exceptionalism and our contempt for international law. I'd say they should practice what they preach, but instead I'll note that all nations, at all times, have no more morals or ethics than my little fingernail. Nations always do what is in their own self-interest, and nothing but what is in their own self-interest.
And right now, with the USSR defeated and America pretty much doing what it pleases in the world, it is in the interest of many Lilliputian nations to band together to tie down Gulliver. The goals and moral sensibilities of many do-gooding leftists happen to coincide with the internationalist, anti-American platitudes currently being mouthed by the ruling elites in places like Canada and France, but the Left shouldn't delude itself that the Canadian or French governments would behave much better than the American government if their roles were reversed. Politicians are the same everywhere, and so are voters.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Not to mention the rising waters flooding pacific islands. Good trade off, cruise destinations in the pacific get flooded, and cruise destinations in the polar region open up.
Ever wonder why many Pacific islands are at sea level? Most are volcanoes eroded to sea level. They become atolls through processes of erosion and a buildup of calcium carbonate that form a ring around the eroded ediface. As sea level rises deposition by coral will equalize with rising sea level. Indeed, flooding by major storms is the *only* mechanism where new material is deposited above sea level at all! This is not new. It has going for the last 12000 years since the end of the last ice age as sea level has risen several meters. So relax, the Pacific islands aren't going anywhere. Why do people discard rational thought when discussing the Kyoto treaty?
an ill wind that blows no good
When the northern ice caps melt then the cold water starts to cool the ocean, and there would be fewer hurricanes. That is what the environmentalists told us all during the 80's and 90's. How come we have had the terrible hurricanes this year and last... Why is it happening if the ice caps are melting? How about explaining Antarctica's glaciers getting larger? http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806
w s/20041002/Antarctic_ozone041001?s_name=&no_ads=
They also said we created the hole in the ozone; however in 2004 the hole in the ozone was recorded as getting smaller by up to 20%. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNe
Take a few hours and read about how much crap volcanoes spew into the environment (e.g. sulfur dioxide). Do some Google searches on how many erupt each year... compare that with our fossil burning. The environmentalists have always been pretty disappointed with the results. Don't forget to include the ocean volcanoes when you do it.
Still think we are causing global warning? Remember the Ice Age? Scientists are starting to dispute whether or not an asteroid caused it. Where were we with our wicked cars then? We all know that Solar activity had been written off as crap until recently when the numbers were just to obvious... the environmentalists account for it now by saying that ONLY 10-30% of the warning is being caused by the sun.
I just wish you guys would preface all your "we are killing the earth" talk with, hey we really don't know, but we THINK "we are killing the earth". I certainly will ay I don't know for sure, but the evidence isn't cut and dry in your favor. The media is, but not the facts. Just some food for though. I know I'm going to get slammed for this post, the same way I do when I defend MS, but hey what can ya do?
Sacramento, the city proper is ~50-ish feet above sea level.
This can't be right. George Bush wasn't even born then. How could there possibly have been hurricanes, or any other evil or dangerous thing?
Oh! I see: Halliburton Co., founded 1919. That explains it.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Wow more unsustainable "resources" show up everyday due to the destruction on other non-sustainable resources.
Amazing, how stoopid humans are, we just deserve to be eradicated.
Content + Container; Content = Container; Content â Container... which is the question?
If you look at history, the melting and freezing of icecaps varys throughout history. The specs are skewed for everything. While i will admit we are doing damage, its also part of the natural course of our planet. Ya'll are to quickly to blame bush and polution for all the worlds aggricultural problems.
.5% due to illigal downloads. So statistics can be skewed to show whatever the heck you want them too. Look for trends and you see how green house gasses and temperature naturally fluxuate, and how one lags behind the other. I mean we could go way back and see how the abundance of CO2 and just water lead to oxygen and etc, which would be considered on todays terms to be 100% polution.
I'll put it in a voice that fellow geeks can understand. The skewed facts of global warming is much like that of music downloads effecting cd sales. Harvard did a study on it, and found out the facts were taken over a span that just tap the boost in cd sales due to everyone switching over from cassette. Of course sales were booming. After people rebought old music and started buying new, it slowed down. This just happened to start at the beggining of p2p. If you ignore the boost cause here, I believe the article said music sales were only lowered by
So you are right, stupid humans. Stupid for not seeing the other side of things.
ModLife.Net - If it ain't modded, what's the point?
If all the effort everyone is putting into Kyoto was instead directed into deploying current Feul Cell technology a good portion of the problem would go away.
Instead we have whiney Euro politicians who want to appease their Green parties and stick it to the Americans, while avoiding fulfiling their obligations as much as humanly possible.
International Treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
Our home planet is fucked, but profits are up this quarter!!
Seriously, this short sightedness is what's keeping us from turning around our energy policies and fixing the problems we're causing. It's true that every cloud has its silver lining, but every silver lining has it's massive black cloud.
Imagine owning all that pristine beachfront property... submerged under 35 feet of sealevel raised by the melting runoff from the Antarctic and Greenland.
--
make install -not war
I forgot the third step in the process. Insert as number three:
Then they say "there is no proof that global warming is caused by the activities of man."
You first. If it's such a good idea, what are you waiting for?
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
The rise of the sea level could have some effect here as well.
Then they say "there is no proof that global warming is caused by the activities of man."
So the "activities of man" are responsible for global warming on Mars too?
Looks like it's a good time to start investing in property along the picturesque Arizona Bay.
Did you read the article? Only a small portion of it talked about the possibility of Russia and Norway sitting on large gas reserves.
The main portion talked about shorter shipping lanes. I see ships using 40% less fossil fuel to get the job done. This is good is it not?
The other part spoke of shifting stocks of fish. Snow crabs eat ice-algae which is receeding into Russia territory. Somebody's gonna harvest them no matter where they are. So this one is a wash. No real "impact".
The other fish issue is pink salmon ending their run in different places. After they spawn they die of natural causes. Before they died in unreachable places. Now, due to melting ice creating new "rivers", they "finish their run" in accessable places so we can harvest them just before they would die anyway. So this one is a definate bonus for the world. U2's always trying figure out how to feed the world's hungry. Well U2 should be happy about this news. With the increased salmon supply one of 2 things will happen: 1)Salmon will be cheaper 2)more salmon will be available to the world's poor.
Just because somebody's making money doesn't necessarily mean it's evil.
I remember hearing David Suzuki talk about taking an ice breaker to the North Pole with a bunch of EcoTourists and finding open water there and being suprised.
And I thought, "Duh! If you keep driving Ice Breakers doesn't that destroy the Ice Caps and doesn't that sort of diminish the goals of eco-tourism?"
Shouldn't there have been a ban on ice breakers a long time ago...
The New York Times
October 10, 2005
The Big Melt
As Polar Ice Turns to Water, Dreams of Treasure Abound
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS, STEVEN LEE MYERS, ANDREW C. REVKIN and SIMON ROMERO
CHURCHILL, Manitoba - It seems harsh to say that bad news for polar bears is good for Pat Broe. Mr. Broe, a Denver entrepreneur, is no more to blame than anyone else for a meltdown at the top of the world that threatens Arctic mammals and ancient traditions and lends credibility to dark visions of global warming.
Still, the newest study of the Arctic ice cap - finding that it faded this summer to its smallest size ever recorded - is beginning to make Mr. Broe look like a visionary for buying this derelict Hudson Bay port from the Canadian government in 1997. Especially at the price he paid: about $7.
By Mr. Broe's calculations, Churchill could bring in as much as $100 million a year as a port on Arctic shipping lanes shorter by thousands of miles than routes to the south, and traffic would only increase as the retreat of ice in the region clears the way for a longer shipping season.
With major companies and nations large and small adopting similar logic, the Arctic is undergoing nothing less than a great rush for virgin territory and natural resources worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Even before the polar ice began shrinking more each summer, countries were pushing into the frigid Barents Sea, lured by undersea oil and gas fields and emboldened by advances in technology. But now, as thinning ice stands to simplify construction of drilling rigs, exploration is likely to move even farther north.
Last year, scientists found tantalizing hints of oil in seabed samples just 200 miles from the North Pole. All told, one quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas resources lies in the Arctic, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The polar thaw is also starting to unlock other treasures: lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage; new cruise ship destinations; and important commercial fisheries.
"It's the positive side of global warming, if there is a positive side," said Ron Lemieux, the transportation minister of Manitoba, whose provincial government is investing millions in Churchill.
If the melting continues, as many Arctic experts expect, the mass of floating ice that has crowned the planet for millions of years may largely disappear for entire summers this century. Instead of the white wilderness that killed explorers and defeated navigators for centuries, the world would have a blue pole on top, a seasonally open sea nearly five times the size of the Mediterranean.
But if the Arctic is no longer a frozen backyard, the fences matter. For now it is not clear where those fences are. Under a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, territory is determined by how far a nation's continental shelf extends into the sea. Under the treaty, countries have limited time after ratifying it to map the sea floor and make claims.
In 2001, Russia made the first move, staking out virtually half the Arctic Ocean, including the North Pole. But after challenges by other nations, including the United States, Russia sought to bolster its claim by sending a research ship north to gather more geographical data. On Aug. 29, it reached the pole without the help of an icebreaker - the first ship ever to do so.
The United States, an Arctic nation itself because of Alaska, could also try to expand its territory. But several senators who oppose any possible infringement on American sovereignty have repeatedly blocked ratification of the treaty.
Indeed, not everyone agrees that warming of the Arctic merits concern. No one knows what share of the recent thawing can be attributed to natural cycles and how much to heat-trapping pollution linked to recent global warming, and some scientists and government officials, particularly in Russia, are dismissive of assertions that a permanent change is at hand.
"We are
Hey, so what if its a tragedy with massive implications, lets make a profit off it!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This may be redundant (somewhere in those 157 other comments), but I notice the original poster wrote "affect" instead of "effect." Not trying to be an ass, since I say "affect" all the time, but doesn't it make sense to make the quick fix?
The ice reflects off sunlight back into the space, but when there is no ice, all the heat will be abosrobed by water, and this in turn will increase the rate of ice melting, the rate of rise in global temperatures will be even higher. So, don't expect the water temperature to stay below 4 degree C.
Already, we have had the hottest year(2005) since, people started recording temperatures.
Not long before we say "Good bye Bangladesh".
Creativity uninhibited www.kreeti.com
No, we've got Euro politicians and businesses who accepted Kyoto - without "ruining their economies". Now they're ahead of us in conservation and development of alternative energy. Although we Americans are whining (well, *you* are, anyway) while we drag everyone else down with our pollution.
The worst American politician whiner was Bush, who whined "we'll give you something better than Kyoto" when he rejected it. Just another lie from Bush, who has given us nothing but tax rebates on SUVs that did nothing but further break the environment, and even break the American carmakers' future sales, driving them to the brink of bankruptcy.
Just to complete your Bushwacko rhetoric, your "aren't worth the paper they're printed on" was Bush's comment about our Social Security "lockbox" that he looted, referring to the debt he owes us to finance his $3TRILLION annual budget, his $45TRILLION in committed debt. When, in fact, those Social Security debts, backed by US Treasury Bills, are by law the highest priority debt obligation of the US government. Bush is talking about defaulting on America's $TRILLIONS in debt, which would do for our country what he's been doing to the economy and the environment. And you're happily parroting his insane talking points. You really deserve the ecocaust you're courting. But I don't.
--
make install -not war
Halliburton receives no-bid contracts for lucrative shipping routes, new cruise ship destinations, and important commercial fisheries.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Eh, it goes both ways. Last week, a pro-GlobalWarmer said that increased solar flare activity was caused by car emissions.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
I'm as against the trolltalk crapflood as anyone, but isn't the way to get rid of it by modding the perl script down until all of it's proxies are banned ?
Of course, my account is permanently marked and will never receive mod points again, because I modded the Post of Death as insightful.
Actually in areas of some countries like Bangladesh and India, such flooding is quite common and yes tens of thousands of people do die. It happened a few months ago in the Southern suburbs of Mumbai I believe.
According to Wikipedia China has had it quite bad also,
In 1975, a typhone (very similar in many ways to katrina) based flood in the Henan Province, China killed around 200,000
In 1931, they yellow river flooded, the death toll is estimated as being upto 4 million!
The only difference is that the Western TV networks can't make the big buck stories out of it like they could with the New Orleans incident and as not many of us watch Chinese or Indian TV we don't hear much about it. Still, doesn't mean it doesn't happen already, although they do say it is getting worse.
It's commonly agreed that if Earth was warmer, humans would be better off while many animals would go extinct. Most of the argument now is about how creatures which can't evolve as fast as humans would suffer and less about how humans would suffer because everyone's settled that humans would just evolve out of any problems.
Humans would have to give up their multi billion dollar coastal mansions and their riverboat gambling. Eskimos would have to get real jobs instead of living off welfare in the middle of nowhere. Antarctic scientists would have to shift to rainforest studies. There wouldn't be any more arctic polar bears.
On the other side, we'd consume much less energy for heating. 1000 less marines would die every year extracting heating oil from terrorists. Russia and Canadia would become inhabitable.
on the coast, iam get worried when I hear things like this. Spin has no end, and in the middle of it all, please do not forget that it's ourhouses that go under to support the "new lands." President Bush has been nothing but catastrophic for the rest of the planet. How has he been for America?
They will end up being barren desert wastelands. We will be opening up more beach resorts here in Canada.
Meh.
The right way to judge a situation is not emotionally, or sentimentally, but through cost-benefit analysis. As an example, I'm afraid that environment==good :. kyoto == good is simply not a logical assertion. First of all, the environment is not intrinsically worthy... what makes a bunch of carbon atoms organized as molecular skeletons any more important than carbon atoms organized as a rock? You would be hard pressed to come up with a formula. Sentience on the other hand introduces a whole new prospect of morality and evaluations of worth that can exist without a reductionist deduction from particles and and particle properties. (You can argue that sentience does not make us any more important than other molecular aggregates, but then you are arguing the irrelevance of your own stake in the argument, so forgive me if I don't feel too bad about neglecting a critical analysis of that philosophy.)
So in an analytic, rational way, we should look at what outcome, subsuming all its possible advantages and disadvantages, is to the greatest benefit of mankind. Global warming is not ipso facto a bad thing just because that's how people spin it when they talk about it. The earth used to be rather more tropical than it is now. Is it's moving back in that direction a bad thing? Was it's moving out of the ice age a bad thing? Could global warming stave off what would cyclically appear to be the inevitable of another earth iceage?
I think most people are rather more reactionary than they should be about this topic. Global warming != the sky is falling, global warming == gradual climactic change we are faced with drawing up a reasonable response to. Rising sea levels over a hundred years is not a big deal. Coastal cities face infinitely more peril from sudden oceanic storms than waters that will take hundreds of years to reach them. We should certainly consider what the effect will be on ecosystems, what species will die off, and whether we want to accept this as another stage in earth's evolution (mass extinctions are nothing new) or if we want to stick our noses in and try to keep things the way we like it. But "The earth is doomed!" is not a terribly levelheaded approach. The sky is not falling, people. Climactic change is something that planets do. It is quite possible that a warmer earth may be a bad thing for us, and that we should invest to arrest its change. It is also possible that it is a very good thing, or that we simply do not have the capacity to affect it significantly at all. My recommendation is simply that we recognize (1) change != apocalypse (2) that doesn't mean taking action is not warranted, only that we should not be reactionary about it.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Well, USA is not under Kyoto, and we are spending BIG bucks on getting more oil wells dug in the USA (see energy bill I and shortly II). Very little is going into conservation, alternative energy, nuclear power, OR fuel cell tech.
OTH, Europe is in Koyoto, and they have been spending big bucks on finding new solutions. One of them is a new way to store H2. In addition, Europe will have the patent on it. USA will pay big bucks when we switch to it because we can not afford the middle east oil. Keep in mind, that all the drilling that baby bush opened up will not be on line for another 5 years..
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
WOW! Has anyone checked out a world map lately. Look how big Greenland is. It's HUGE. We might even end up with MORE usable land if we melted all that darn ice on it. Assuming it's high enough not to be covered by the rising sea, of course :)
"Here's the thing, if there's more water, there's more weight on the crust, which will subside a bit. Cutting a long story short and without explaining the ins and outs of crustal isostasy, if your house, water source and farmland is above 75m in elevation, you'll be alright."
Well assuming that water is going to be static (not likely. tides, and storm surges). There's the question of what a bigger ocean will mean for the global weather patterns (we still need to understand the air-ocean boundary better). Let alone undersea currents. Then there's the little matter of all the life in the ocean and what the changes in the composition of seawater will mean. And least humanity forget the interconnecting nature of the world. What of all the other things humanity is meddling with? The burning of the rain forests, and subsequent conversion to pasture. The polluting of all our water sources, both ocean and aquifer with chemicals even our technology (costs too much to clean) has difficulty removing. How about natural barriers falling under our desire for "more things" (thanks Katrina and Florida).
The thing humanity has to worry about isn't the once in a lifetime meteor crashing into the earth scenario. but the death by a thousand papercuts. How long will it take to recover from all the disasters we've had globally so far, and how many more can we take? And is saying "It's all her (natures) fault" really going to help one bit?
Maybe the lesson to take from this is not that you can make the world a completely trouble free place. But that you can at least not make it harder for yourself than it needs to be. Now all we need to do as a species is find the will to just say no...before it's too late to say anything.
But, with all those lucrative shipping routes, it will mean an increase in the pirate population, which will reverse global warming, and create a paradox. Proof that we are in the End of Days, when the Flying Spaghetti Monster will descend from the heavens and show everyone his Noodly Appendage.
Greenland is pretty big, but it's not as big as it looks in maps because it's distorted due to the map's projection.
This story ignores any of the adverse affects of global warming on society and focuses purely on the potential profit benefits. It ignores both reality and science. What is it doing here?!?
First, 7-20 meters was incorrect (My dogs were playing). I meant to say 7-10 meters (20-30 feet).
2'nd, here is an interesting map that shows USA elevation. The solid green is less than 20'. Assume that it is all gone. Cool thing is we will likely gain a sea at death valley.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Hey, that was a joke, folks. How come cybpunks3 got the karma bonus? (*&#$ mods.
Go diving in the great ghost town of Sacremento!
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Rising sea levels over a hundred years is not a big deal. Coastal cities face infinitely more peril from sudden oceanic storms than waters that will take hundreds of years to reach them
I have questions on this, first what of the hundreds of millions living at or near sealevel, like those in South Asia such as Bagladesh, in the Indonesian archipelago, in Venice Italy, or more immediately Louisiana, a rising sealevel is very important. Especially as seeing how their land can be flooded, if so who's going to pay them for their loss of their property? Secondly warmer surface water temps may make more storms and make them more powerful. So in effect coastal cities could get a double whammy, more flooding and more property damages from storms.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If we took a leadership role, rather than being pulled by the ear, in developing renewables and conservation technology, then when China finally decides to face up to the music, because the enviro-riots they already have happening there every month get way out of control, we will have an export industry to sell them products to get their crap cleaned up. Might take a good chunk out of that huge trade deficit we owe them.
Unfortunately doing so would require both business and political leaders with vision. Something we lack bigtime.
Someone had to do it.
I don't even mind living the rest of my life on the open sea. Just please don't make me live it with Kevin Costner or Dennis Hopper.
Accepted by whom? The DNC? C'mon. The New York Times is a freaking joke. They do everything possible to push their cause. They write headlines that are out of sync with the articles to score political points. They bury any good news related to Republicans, while any negative news related to Democrats is buried or blurred. They said Robert Goddard was an idiot because he thought a rocket could work in space. They called Langley an idiot for pursuing flight a couple of days before the Wright brothers flight. They've not faired much better recently with the scandals of frauds like Jason Blair and Paul Krugman. The BBC has had their share of propaganda, and AP and Reuters write stuff that's more biased than a DNC press release.
You do have a point regarding nations acting in their self-interest as Canada went beyond the 200 mile limit when they seized the Spainish fishing ship ESTAI in 1995.
If the USA continually takes the path of unilateralism and confrontation then don't be suprised if it creates a blowback of hostility against it.
It looks like you are suffering from Republican Rage.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Have little effect on sea level. It is floating already. However, if the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melt, there will be a serious increase in mean sea level. Greenland meltdown is estimated to yield about 7m (circa 23 feet) rise in sea level according to this. Should the Antarctic cap go as well, sea level would increase over 70m (about 230ft) according to this source. Seven meters puts me on the beach, 70+ meters puts me in the position of having to breath water, which I've yet to succeed at..
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Buy polar ice
Have ice melt via the green house effect
Sue the world in a class action suit
I mean, after all, if our elected leaders can go to Yale and can get learned about our language; american, then so can me.
:)
http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1352
"The research described in this week's article demonstrates that over the last 1.3 million years, sea surface temperatures in the heart of the western tropical Pacific were controlled by the waxing and waning of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The largest climate mode shift over this time interval, occurring ~950,000 years before the present (the mid-Pleistocene transition), has previously been attributed to changes in the pattern and frequency of ice sheets.
The new research suggests instead that this shift is due to a change in the oscillation frequency of atmospheric carbon dioxide abundances, a hypothesis that can be directly tested by deep drilling on the Antarctic Ice Cap. If proved correct, this theory would suggest that relatively small, naturally occurring fluctuations in greenhouse gases are the master variable that has driven global climate change on time scales of ten thousand to one million years."
This study of plankton cores combined with the recent study of bog hardwoods puts all these "sun output" and "natural cycle" arguments to bed. Good night. Usually it's a large catastrophic event releasing trapped methane from ocean depths that cause it. This time we did it all by our lonesome -- or is that loathsome -- selves.
Someone had to do it.
Mars is an elliptical orbit. If you check when the data is being examined in those articles, you will see it corresponds with the orbit. That does not mean that Mars is not warming; just that it this data has an explanation (but with no hard data or models to prove or disprove it).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Lets say the ice really starts melting. If the ocean raise even a meter (and with greenland, it will be 7-10 meters), then a number of the small islands that is considered part of canada go under. Basically, the territory of canada will be rolled back some 100 miles. OTH, Greenland has some high spots up north. i.e., greenland will be the furthest north and in control under the law up there.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The "best" estimate I've sween is about 200 ft, could be upwards of 250 ft. North Florida would be reduced to an island or two-if that.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Otisburg!
According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed 1982 and entered into force 1994, and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1996:
Section 2. LIMITS OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA Article 3
Breadth of the territorial sea
Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.
As someone pointed out, a three mile limit would be difficult to impossible to navigate without interceding at some point Canada's waters nevermind that ice must still be navigated in an "ice free" Arctic. A twelve mile territorial limit makes this impossible.
Not that any of this will stop nations (read: the U.S.) from attempting to navigate the Arctic, my point was Canada isn't going to sit idly by while ships transit their north.
And, if I may point out, no nation may claim exclusive dominion over space, the Moon or any celestial object according to the Outer Space Treaty of 1966, and entered into force 1967 by agreement of the three signatories, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the U.S.S.R. Specifically:
Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
Among other articles.
The problem I have with the United States is an agreement or treaty is not worth the paper it's printed on. The Geneva Convention, the North American Free Trade Agreement, The Outer Space Treaty (article on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in space) these are all considered barriers to American power and when and where the U.S. wants to violate them it does. While it is certainly true that treaties are violated and argued over all the time it certainly does no nation any particular good to treat their committments lightly and in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world economies and securities are at stake. Obviously a nation with the power of the U.S. can and will flaunt that power as other nations are dependent on the U.S., but a middle power like Canada has to maintain their committments and credibility. You can afford to lose credibility when you're the largest economy on Earth.
>>> cruise destinations in the pacific get flooded
>
> So relax, the Pacific islands aren't going anywhere.
But anything built on them or growing on them will be going away if/when they get flooded.
The islands may indeed catch up to even something like a 5m rise in sea level, but even if it's in such a ridiculously short time as 100 years, that means (a) they cease to exist as islands for the near future, (b) they're scoured of all terrestrial life, and (c) all buildings and equipment on the islands are destroyed.
In other words, the islands are gone, at least as far as current human use of them is concerned. Witness what 5m of flooding did to New Orleans in just 3 weeks.
> Why do people discard rational thought when discussing the Kyoto treaty?
A fine question indeed.
And if you want to read an entertaining book that deals with this and other facts concerning "Global Warming" give
Michael Chrichton's State of Fear a go.
I am reading it right now and wondering if half of the information put out by the media on this topic is true or spin.
Things similar to what you have just posted are backed up with footnotes and can be readily checked, plus the storyline (it is a work of fiction) is edge-of-seat in most places.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
... perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage
Yes, and perhaps we will also find perpetual motion among the melted ice caps!
"It was hell!" recalls former child.
I believe your antagonist is ~ifwm. I have seen (him|her) use intarwebz and STFU. Personally, I am tired of his trolls.
...and I feel fine. Global Warming is the new Capitalism. The irony is just so... ironic.
Never pet a burning dog.
All the glaciers through out the world are melting, except for the south pole. So who is right? a bunch of manipulated stats, or the very real data of 120 years of measured glaciers?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"As an affect of global warming..."
Why do you have to personify Global Warming like that? He wouldn't do that to you. He's better than that.
P.S. Invest in a dictionary.
The right way to judge a situation is not emotionally, or sentimentally, but through cost-benefit analysis.
You evidently live on some strange planet where cost-benefit evaluation is not subjective. Back here on Earth, you'll find that environmentalists will have rather different ideas of costs and benefits than you are assuming.
The environmentalists' stance is simple. Change is not a bad thing. Rapid change is, because it's harder to stop once you realise the results may be disastrous. Kyoto is a step towards slowing down, rather than racing at break-neck pace toward the unknown. We know that slowing down resource usage will not hurt us significantly. Speeding up has that potential. So even if we subscribe to an anthropocentric ethical theory (which you imply), it can still be concluded that the option for "the greatest benefit to mankind" is to go slow but steady.
The New York Times appeared to try a new tactic in its campaign to convince the public that global warming is real. But don't let the Times' Oct. 10 report on the economic upside of Arctic melting confuse you -- there still isn't any evidence that human activity is melting the polar regions.
In its article entitled, "As Polar Ice Turns to Water, Dreams of Treasure Abound," the Times reported that a shrinking summer time Arctic ice cap is spurring "nothing less than a great rush for virgin territory and natural resources worth hundreds of billions of dollars."
The Times spotlighted, for example, a Denver entrepreneur who purchased a "derelict Hudson Bay port from the Canadian government in 1997" for $7. The entrepreneur, who estimates the port could bring in as much as $100 million per year, "is no more to blame than anyone else for a meltdown at the top of the world that threatens Arctic mammals and ancient traditions and lends credibility to dark visions about global warming," reported the Times.
"It's the positive side of global warming, if there is a positive side," the transportation minister of Manitoba told the Times.
Now, I'm not sure what the Times' shift in thinking is with the article -- and after more than a decade of consistent gloom-and-doom reporting and editorializing on global warming, I would imagine that the Green-leaning newspaper does not intend to rethink its position on the scare -- but it's going to take more than the mere economic exploitation of a shrinking polar ice cap to establish human activity as the cause of the melting.
At JunkScience.com, we analyzed surface temperature data collected by NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies and prepared temperature graphs to underscore this point.
If you look at the temperature trends for the Arctic region since 1880, it appears that the Arctic generally warmed somewhat until about 1938. From 1938 until about 1966, the Arctic cooled to about its 1918 temperature level. Then, between 1966 and 2003, the Arctic warmed up to just shy of its 1938 temperature. But in 2004, the Arctic temperature again spiked downward.
Now if the 1880-1938 warming trend had continued up until this day, there certainly would be some significant warming in the Arctic region to talk about. From 1918 to 1938, alone, the Arctic warmed by 2.5 degrees Centigrade. But the actual temperature trend is much different, showing that there's been hardly any overall temperature change in the Arctic since 1938.
Not only does the temperature data contradict the claim that global warming is overtaking the Arctic, but data on greenhouse gas concentrations ought to drive a spike through the heart of the claim.
During the warming period from 1880 to 1938, it's estimated that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide - the bugbear of greenhouse gases to global warming worriers - increased by an estimated 20 parts per million. But from 1938 to 2003 - a period of essentially no increase in Arctic warming - the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased another 60 parts per million. It doesn't seem plausible, then, that Arctic temperatures are significantly influenced by atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.
And even when the Arctic re-warmed between 1966 and 2003, the warming occurred much less aggressively (about 50 percent less) than the 1918-1938 warming and at about the same rate as the period 1880-1938, despite much higher greenhouse gas levels in the 1966-2003 time frame.
Global warming worriers can take no comfort from South Pole data either.
Over the last 30 years, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide increased by about 15 percent, from about 328 parts per million to about 372 parts per million. But the Antarctic temperature trend for that period indicates a slight cooling. This observation contrasts sharply with the relatively steep Antarctic warming observed from 1949 to 1974, which was accompanied by a much more modest increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
The hypoth
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If I were a person in a low lieing area, or island perhaps, I would be one of the first people to buy some real estate in arctic.... then I would slap the government for not signing on the kyoto of course. =p
"Now, why should the U.S. foot the bill for the rest of the world?"
because a lot of that 'pollution' originated in the us?
because the other option is extinction?
that's just two off the top of my head. and no, the us is far from the only guilty party when it comes to shipping [ha ha] their problems elsewhere.
sum.zero
Vehicular pollution from a city like Shanghai or Mumbai (the smog that made your travelling family uneasy) should not be equated with industrial pollution of a country like USA.
The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces about 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions. By comparison, Britain emits 3% - about the same as India which has 15 times as many people.
Tat Tvam Asi
I voted for Michael Badnarik, so piss off with the Bush accusations.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
In other words: get your science from a work of fiction. Truely, America is fucked if this is the state of things.
What's the unemployment rate in Germany? The GDP growth of France? If Europe keeps going the way it is going, then, the US will surpass the EU in absolute GDP within 5 years.
Besides, Kyoto is fatally flawed because it seeks to manage the atmosphere by controlling emissions, rather than by mandating or establishing a carbon sink. And its a consumer pays treaty, not a producer pays treaty, so the USA would have to foot the bill, when OPEC should be.
This is my sig.
Since Chrichton isn't a scientist I don't think we should mix his opinion piece with the work of scientists...n ews_lz1e21benford.htmlh ronicle/archive/2005/02/16/EDG49BAVBT1.DTL
Here's a little light reading for perspective:
http://info-pollution.com/mc.htm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050121/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c
etc..
Interactive Visual Medical Dictionary
...all of the scientific community is studying data covering a half million years to try and figure out how big the CO2 effect is.
That is exactly the problem - they are trying to find "how big the CO2 effect is", in other words, they are assuming it exists. They should be treating it like any other hypothesis, not as some holy grail than needs to be "proven" at any cost. I don't know if the effect exists or not. Many respected scientists agree that the data is not conclusive. Unfortunately, the average guy on the street already "knows" because he has been brainwashed.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
talk about missing the fucking point. "northwest passage" my ass, what about lost farmland you won't regain in the fucking tundra thanks to soil inadequacies?
The Conservatives came damn close last time. At least they've been in power, and will be again. The NDP has never been in power, and never will be.
you cannot spell.. it's effect, not affect.... god bless the american educationn system.. it rox (rocks) (above comment set in English American according to MS best practice)
Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
I was under the impression that the antarctic was protected land, by international treaty, the worlds biggest nature reserve, or something of the sort. How can there be a land rush in land that is internationally protected? I mean under all that ice there are plenty of resources etc., but its not going to do much good when it's patrolled by satellites looking for settlers...
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
If it makes the world a better place, is it really damaging the environment?
"Facts"? It's about as factual about climate change as Team America is about terrorism, only not so entertaining. See, for instance, Michael Crichton's State of Confusion.
Things similar to what you have just posted are backed up with footnotes
Checking Crichton's footnotes: "Crichton supplies references. But UMass-Amherst climatologist Douglas Hardy, a coauthor of the 2004 paper on Kilimanjaro cited, says Crichton is distorting his work. Crichton is doing ''what I perceive the denialists always to do,'' says Hardy. ''And that is to take things out of context, or take elements of reality and twist them a little bit, or combine them with other elements of reality to support their desired outcome.''"
How long before the companies that get involved start blasting the ice to get at more minerals etc?
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
You need to read more and learn how to do so accurately. You have noticed the stories about the huge ice breaking off? You should also have noticed that it is increasing. I pointed out that the ice at the south pole itself is growing. The ice on Antarctica, depending on which part you look at, is growing, or breaking off more frequently and in bigger parts (calving). The reason for the growth is increased humidity, while still being below freezing. The reason for the increased calving is due to either more ice movement from the pole, or global warming.
So yes. one of us is picking facts and warping the logic.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Just as Oil companies actively resist alternative energy projects, we will have wealthy shipping interests sowing FUD and creating obstacles for restoring the ice cap!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages; all alike.
That whole "only for profit" motivation is just a big .... It feels just not right. And I don't want to bash or deny their free will, or judge anyone. It is just like...how much you really need to be happy? Okei, okei, everyone will claim that is very subjective, but I think it is whole point of fallancy.
When greed is enough? My pick is that greed comes from totally different field than basic human needs. It has something to do with human psyche. So usually when someones claims that their interests are purerly "business", I simply ignore it. Maybe someone will believe. I'm not.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Perhaps once we are done drilling the arctic full of holes we can concentrate on rendering the magnetic field useless as well. This will make life on Mars so much more familiar by the time we get there.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
The grandparent was talking about real pollution, not CO2 emissions. Forgive me if I don't panic when the CO2 concentration goes from 0% to 0%.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b .cfm
"Even the scientist who first warned Vice President Al Gore about global warming, Roger Revelle, wrote shortly before his death: "The scientific basis for greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Responsible environmentalism is one thing--but don't you think we ought to be sure this thing is happening before we make a huge economic sacrifice for it?
Few Americans understand what's really going on. Hint: The conservative revolution has robbed liberals of a vehicle for expanding the size and power of government. But a long-term environmental crisis, even one manufactured by alarmists, could change that."
And the best part... (The author is refering to Pres. Clinton)
The global-warming scenario provides advocates of big government with an excuse for tapping into the lifeline of the U.S. economy for the foreseeable future. Better yet, the current president will be long gone before most of the belt-tightening begins to pinch .
The U.S. Senate should shut this one down before it goes any further.
Europe's economic problems are due to a failing Euro and excessive socialism than Kyoto.
Failing Euro? It's still kicking the US dollar's ass.
sounds to me like promising a tsunami is good--since then one can just go to the beach and collect fishes instead of having to go to the sea and to fish...
So you've finally worked it out, the truth being that your president is really Robobush !!!! (You'll have to imagine some dramatic chords). Yes it's true people of America, Robobush was made in secret by Jaque chirac and gerhard schroeder and deployed in place of the real GWB to cripple US science, pollute your air, get your schools teaching that the world was created by a spaghetti Monster, God , whatever, and piss your economy away on sending soldiers all over the world.
The only clues were that sometimes it uses the right words but not necessarily in the right order, needs constant recharging vacations and upon being told of the 2nd Tower being hit crashed and did nothing for several minutes.
Don't think that voting Democrat will help you as Robo- Hilary is having the final touches put on now.
MuHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
the Canadians and the Russians own most of the artic. Why do you think Canada and Denmark are having a bit of a spat over a piece of rock that is about 1km in length?
The implications of the melting ice caps are ENOURMOUS and it's going to be Canada and Russia that reap in the benefits. Russia has a lot of methane buried under that ice that it just can't mine untill some of that ice melts. Russia will be able to export it to Canada for quite cheap since shipping costs will be incredibly smaller. Canada will then have yet another source of cheap fuel. Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec will reap in millions from energy exports, which will just make Quebec stronger since it already exports a fair amount of electricity to the US. Ontario will just get stronger since it is already the economic centre of the country, and Manitoba can join the ranks of prosperous provinces.
Russia will have a field day exporting all this gas across to Canada and Europe. It will boost their economy tremendously and has the potential of making them a super power once more. Meanwhile, the US economy will fail unless something radical happens. And don't talk to me about the "military might" of the US. A military with no money is not much of a military at all.
Every great empire will fall, and we are seeing the tables turn right now.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
I went on a tour of the Pacific Geoscience Centre a couple of years back. They had a presentation showing world maps of water temperatures over the past one hundred years. The temperatures have gone up significantly.
A number of vessels have recently made it (or almost made it) through the Northwest passage. The central (and east) still freezes up quickly but the Beaufort Sea is open much longer.
I could go on and on but there might be something more entertaining on Foxnews that is begging for my apathy and attention.
The question is: are we making life for ourselves much harder and much more costly, and is that preventable? There is strong evidence that human CO2 emissions are having a significant impact on climate, and that is certainly the cause over which we have the most direct influence. It makes sense to do something about it if we can.
[emphasis added]
You are trying to equate change per se with harmfulness. Do you actually have a specific reason for believing that this "significant impact" is more likely to be a significant harmful impact than a significant benificial impact? If so, you should have mentioned it, as that is not the kind of thing that can reasonably be taken for granted.
Darekana was answered well by Cold Fjord, so I'll not reply when unnecessary.
The AC truly has a dizzying intellect, and made an incorrect assumption. I'm not American.
You, sir, I'll answer.
I haven't finished reading the book yet, I'm on with it now. When I've done reading the work of fiction I'll check the references in it and maybe come to a conclusion about the bias that it takes.
The whole point of the footnotes, IMO, is to get the reader thinking about the subject and have him/her check a little further into it. This has been accomplished, I'll be looking further.
Taking facts out of context works both ways, anyone with a bias does it. Who is to say that one person using a fact is right, where another is wrong for using the same fact? Many facts taken together can form a theory, then the theory can be tested. A fact taken out of context doesn't make the fact wrong, does it?
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
When Chrichton says a scientist supports a particualr position, and the scientist in question says he doesn't, I think it's clear who is "right". The scientific questions are more open to interpretation, but I'd trust peer-review rather than paid lobbyists and novelists in that area. An SF writer selects facts and weaves them into his fantasy to create an illusion of verisimilitude. That's what Chrichton is good at.
"Which has the cleanest air? Water?"
;P
canada?
the us has the more stringent laws, of course. it is intentional that these other regions have less stringent laws. this has been actively encouraged by the west [think economic promtion of activities like ship reclamtion and demolition]. everything exists in a context.
as i said, the us ships it's waste to these areas. it helps mainatin the illusion that the current western lifestyle is sustainable as is. this is why the us [and many others] should help shoulder the burden. what will the us do if all these countries decide they are tired of having that waste dumped in their backyards? where will that waste go then? the citizens of anywhereville, idaho won't be happy to get that new toxic waste dump down by the old mill.
the majority of the recognized scientific community recognizes that we are doing considerable damage to the earth and that we are facing an oil crunch at some point in the not too distant future. as china and india become further industrialized and more demanding of western style comforts something is going to have to give. life as we know it will change at that moment.
in conclusion, to stick your head in the sand or to blame others is short-sighted and will do very little for you when things go bad. oh, and your country isn't as squeeky clean and full of nature as you'd like to think.
sum.zero
it doesn't matter how bad i am as long as i can point to someone else doing something worse and now my bad stuff is canceled out?
oh, and union carbide is a us company [you really should read all those other links in your link before linking, don't ya think?] which underscores my point about the us exporting it's dirty laundry. we'll make the pesticide there because it's cheaper; no environmental laws if you know what i mean. wink wink. nudge nudge.
yeah, and as a canadian let me tell you how pleased i am with your devil's lake outlet. that wouldn't be the us arbitraily planning on dumping its polluted overflow from a completely seperate ecosystem up into my lakes would it? oh wait, yes it would be.
sum.zero
The global-warming scenario provides advocates of big government with an excuse for tapping into the lifeline of the U.S. economy for the foreseeable future
That is even more garbage than global warming deniers usually spout.
The US has a HUGE strategic vunerability and economic vunerability in the shape of 10 million barrels a day of oil imports. The large scale deployment of nuclear power, with the off-peak excess used to drive coal, biomass and waste-to-fuel projects could remove this dependancy whilst lowering energy prices, lowering the trade deficit, opening up internal markets in electricity and fuel production and (as a by-product) drastically reduce CO2 emissions far below that requested by Kyoto.
However, the above program would require that 'conservative' politicians in the US actually adapt their ideas to reality, so it won't happen any time soon.
That article was written in 1998... funny how things come true.
Global warming is a topic hyped by the liberal media... (would you like some more kool-aid?)
There is no scientific evidence of Global warming being caused by 100 years of petro usage... How much pollutants did Mt. St. Helens put out in 1980?
As fare as being dependant... I burn veggie oil in my car... but I still don't believe in this whole "Green house" thing and "Global Warming" being caused by humans... that is a very arrogant assumption.
The data allegedly goes back to 1880. Gosh, who knew we had a comprehensive arctic temperature monitoring program going all the way back to 1880. Or is this data (assuming it isn't completely fake) coming from only a few (or a single) monitoring stations somewhere inside the Artic circle? That isn't real data. Local variations in cloud cover or wind patterns can produce local conditions that completely contradict a regional trend. The most screamingly obvious example of this would be a breakdown of the Gulf Stream (CAUSED by global warming) resulting in the freezing of Iceland and Norway. That data would show a local cooling trend, but it wouldn't mean global warming wasn't happening.
Finally, constant, careful, monitoring by our Nuke sub fleet since the 1950s indicates that the Arctic Ice has been steadily losing thickness since monitoring began. That directly contradicts your "data" and your conclusions.
You can prove anything by cherry picking data from individual collection sites. Here a more rigorous collection of data that actually provides a link to its primary sources:
http://www.planetwater.ca/research/sea-ice.htm
Another website that explains things a with less technical detail. The data they use is several years old, so it isn't as alarming as it could be. I find it plenty scary enough.
http://www.solcomhouse.com/PolarIce.htm
Fundamentalism is a crime against humanity
That article was written in 1998... funny how things come true.
Such as..? The corect predictions of temperature changes? What?
Global warming is a topic hyped by the liberal media... (would you like some more kool-aid?)
WHAT 'Liberal media'? Considering the amount of media exposure given to 'skeptics' - despite the overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of AGW, the only visable media bias is against global warming.
There is no scientific evidence of Global warming being caused by 100 years of petro usage...
Errm, yes, there is. Everything from direct radiative measurement to paloclimatological evidence to models to Radiation balance tests such as those given by volcanic eruptions confirm AGW.
How much pollutants did Mt. St. Helens put out in 1980?
About a million tonnes of CO2 (Since it's GHGs we are talking about). Sound a lot? Humans put 17.6 BILLION tonnes of CO2 (net) into the atmosphere each year. Total worldwide volcanic inputs average 3% of this.
As far as being dependant... I burn veggie oil in my car
Being aware, I assume, that any attempt to put a significant portion of the US car fleet onto vegtable oil would simply make you run out of it, net energy issues aside.
but I still don't believe in this whole "Green house" thing and "Global Warming" being caused by humans... that is a very arrogant assumption
Why is following the science 'arrogant'? Are we also 'arrogant' to claim to know how stars form? Are we 'arrogant' to think that gravity applies to distant galaxies? Are we 'arrogant' to claim to know the properties of subatomic particles we have never seen? Why the big exception for this scientific theory?
And, of course, you are the one who wants more expensive and insecure energy. And are prepared to ignore a great deal of science to argue for it. Just exactly WHY is this your position, out of interest?
my apologies for coming across sternly, but i had not noticed the post you were responding to as it was modded into oblivion and i thought your post was in response to my original post.
now if you look at things from that perspective, you'll see why i said what i said. it appeared that you were responding to me by attempting to point to evidence of worse pollution by non-american nations as a means of nullifying the us' contribution to the sorry state of our globe...
that said, imho, you are acting like a dick.
sum.zero
"Oh, did I hurt your feelings?"
no. believe it or not, it is possible to formulate a negative opinion about someone's behaviour without having felt slighted or hurt by that person. if i was upset, i probably wouldn't have apologized for my own ignorant behaviour. crazy how that works; i know...
next time, try doing some introspective thainking and self-evaluation instead of just tossing around more cheap shots. you might grow a little.
sum.zero
yup...that was the only part of earth that wasnt polluted....POLLUTE it NOW ....before any one else does it!!!!!!!!!!