Slashdot Mirror
Northern Sea Route Through Arctic Becomes a Reality
Hugh Pickens writes "Andrew Revkin writes in the NY Times that since 1553, when Sir Hugh Willoughby led an expedition north in search of a sea passage over Russia to the Far East, mariners have dreamed of a Northern Sea Route through Russia's Arctic ocean that could cut thousands of miles compared with alternate routes. A voyage between Hamburg and Yokohama is only 6,600 nm. via the Northern Sea Route — less than 60% of the 11,400 nm. Suez route. Now in part because of warming and the retreat and thinning of Arctic sea ice in summer, this northern sea route is becoming a reality with the 12,700-ton 'Beluga Fraternity,' designed for a mix of ice and open seas, poised to make what appears to be the first such trip. The German ship picked up equipment in Ulsan, South Korea, on July 23 and arrived in Vladivostok on the 25th with a final destination at the docks in Novyy Port, a Siberian outpost. After that, if conditions permit, it will head to Antwerp or Rotterdam, marking what company officials say would be the first time a vessel has crossed from Asia to Europe through the Arctic on a commercial passage."
A wonderful, magical route that can turn kilometers into nanometers?
Um wait nm? Are you in Tron or something?
As long as our global economy is stimulated, I don't see any issue with destroying our habitat...
Can we use this as a clear proof of a unique ice sheet retractation or was the news really about the boat design ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
A voyage between Hamburg and Yokohama is only 6,600 nm. via the Northern Sea Route â" less than 60% of the 11,400 nm. Suez route.
So it sounds like this new route will conserve fuel and cut out at least 40% of their CO2 emissions.
Imagine the benefits to the environment if we could just figure out a way to melt the ice caps completely. Our greenhouse emissions would plummet!
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Nope GW is a fact (as well as Global Cooling). The question is whether it is man-made or just natural climate cycles.
The Artic Archipeligo is Canada's. Ask permission first. Despite what the American government may think, there is no international waterway through the Artic Archipeligo.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
Canadians and Russians would certainly save a fortune on heating bills.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Imagine the benefits to the environment if we could just figure out a way to melt the ice caps completely. Our greenhouse emissions would plummet!
Of course they would. Melt the ice caps, flood the most populated areas of the planet, and bingo - mankind's greenhouse gas emissions drop dramatically!
I am officially gone from
So that they can put any polar bears stranded on isolated ice floes out of their misery.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Not to mention eliminating the fees to use the Suez Canal, and the ransoms paid to Somali Pirates.
What can't GW do? GW FTW.
"...Russia's Arctic ocean"
Excuse me, dipshits. That is not Russia's ocean. It's an international ocean belonging to all.
Fata viam invenient.
Beluga Fraternity? My Russian is so rusty I might just be typing the measurements of the playmate of the month, but wouldn't that portmanteau mean "White Brotherhood"? They've gotta mean something other that that, right?
I am not a crackpot.
Russia doesn't really import such energy but rather exports it. Russian natural gas alone heats big proportions of Europe.
I am the lawn!
Eh, no.
The questions are how much is man made, what are the consequences for our long and short term survival prospects and what actions to take if these consequences are unacceptable.
So it's real, after all?
Just a century ago the very same thing would have hailed as yet another victory of mankind over mother nature. Industries would be falling each other claiming it happened because of human activity and it is a great thing too. Now apologists for the fossil fuel hawkers will be vigorously be denying it has anything to do with burning of fossil fuels. All that carbon assiduously sequestered by trillions of microscopic marine organisms and millions of tons of plants over million of years has been released in just over one hundred years. People with obvious vested interests deny anthropogenesis of this phenomenon, and I am surprised they still have a few molecules of credibility left.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I'm not convinced that's the right question. whether it is man-made or just natural climate cycles, it still looks like it's on track to fuck shit up and cause major problems for us in the future (seas rising and all that jazz).
the real question is can we do anything to stop it.
TIAEAE!
There is no question on whether it is man-made or just natural climate cycles. There is sufficient evidence to support the fact that it is a man made phenomenon.
I would direct you to the sources listed at the bottom of the wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Here is an interesting quote:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century."
Source: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
If I lived in a country like Russia (or Canada, Norway, Finland, etc, for that matter), I'd be an enthusiastic supporter of anything that might even possibly tip the balance of the climate towards Global Warming for exactly these sorts of reasons. I mean, if you owned the largest frozen mass of land anywhere, why even care about such a cause?
http://www.beanleafpress.com
the real question is can we do anything to stop it.
Well, i hope your refering to stoping the man-made addition to GW. I don't think trying to stop the natural planetary cycle would be a good idea.
Imagine the benefits to the environment if we could just figure out a way to melt the ice caps completely. Our greenhouse emissions would plummet!
Of course they would. Melt the ice caps, flood the most populated areas of the planet, and bingo - mankind's greenhouse gas emissions drop dramatically!
The arctic ice cap has ALREADY displaced the amount of water it currently contains. Melting it would have no additional effect on sea level. I, for one, welcome the removal of that troublesome ice sheet up north. For too long, the Suez and Panama Canals have stifled global competition. Just think of the fuel savings!
Bearded Dragon
Nope GW is a fact (as well as Global Cooling). The question is whether it is man-made or just natural climate cycles.
Possibly, but is that really relevant? IMO the important aspect of GW is that we are pushing the limits of the environment and, eventually, it will come back to bite us in the ass. Be it GW, resource depletion, loss of natural habitat, etc. It's a bit unfortunate that one topic gets all the attention.
It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
Mod parent up.
I'm personally sick of being told how $POINTLESS_MEASURE will solve GW at either a cost of billions or by making everyone's lives worse, with unproven potential benefit, but the real solutions are being left to wither (at least in the UK).
Banning plastic carrier bags, putting up a few wind turbines or raising the tax on X won't do anything. If AGW was really concerning them they would just build a load of nuclear power capacity (or at least a big tidal barrage) and be done with it. At the moment all they can do is hope that people will start to 'save power' (they won't) and desperately try to come up with ways to tax electric/alternative cars to hell, removing any cost advantage they might ever have over petrol/gas power (top tip: fuel currently costs $6.31/USGal in the UK, the gov't is trying to apply similar levels of taxation to electric/hydrogen/whatever cars in the future using GPS-based 'Road Pricing')
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
That panel of "scientists" is all about pushing the global conspiracy of man-made global warming, instead of acknowledging the solar activity cycle that has already been shown to follow the ups and downs of Earth's temp. Global Warming is a socialist conspiracy to thwart industry and send us back into the dark ages.
Mars is suffering global warming, too. Gee...I wonder why? And Pluto. Seems every planet in the Sol System is warming up. What is the one thing they all have in common? Al Gore invented them. No, wait, could it be the solar activity cycle?
Bearded Dragon
The question is to what extent it is man-made and if it even is of significant magnitude.
I am the lawn!
The arctic ice cap has ALREADY displaced the amount of water it currently contains. Melting it would have no additional effect on sea level. I, for one, welcome the removal of that troublesome ice sheet up north. For too long, the Suez and Panama Canals have stifled global competition. Just think of the fuel savings!
Good thing we don't have to worry about all of that ice covering Greenland and the Antarctic displacing ocean water ... oh. Wait a minute.
You bet what you have. You don't have the right to bet my children's future. You don't even have the right to bet your children's future. Why don't you bet what you do have? Buy Exxon Mobil call options now. With all your money. Put your money where your mouth is.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The OP of the message I replied to made no reference to the ice sheets on land.
It also didn't exclude the ice caps on land. It just said "ice caps", which I would imagine includes both kinds.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
I don't think trying to stop the natural planetary cycle would be a good idea.
Why not?
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Think of the Darien Gap. It has been navigated by vehicles, rather special purpose ones. If you read that it was now being served by a regular truck route, you might suspect things had changed a bit.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Pluto is a planet? The 1970's called, they want their list of planets back.
The OP of the message I replied to made no reference to the ice sheets on land.
Next time, when you think you are about to be witty. Stop. Because you aren't.
Which part of "ice caps" confused you into thinking the OP was only talking about the Arctic?
Soviet's have regularly sailed through the Northern Sea Route in summer since, at least, the middle of the last century. There is some great prose written with such sailing as a backdrop, in fact (in Russian, not sure about translations).
The sailing was not easy and the airplanes were occasionally required to investigate movement of ice-fields. At the beginning and the end of the season, the ships were organized in convoys, that were headed by icebreakers. (USSR even had a few nuclear-powered ones, first one built in 1959). But in the middle of the summer a regular ship could make the trip on its own...
Maybe, there is less ice there now, but it is not like the trip has only just become possible.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You haven't been in the Bering sea, have you?
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Temkin's corollary to Godwin's Law: The first person to mention the "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" looses the climate change argument by default. Anything said afterwards is the beginning of a new argument.
no further comments.
I talk to the programmers so the customers don't have to.
I wonder how many other positive aspects of global warming there are? I realize the warming is the scare, but has there been much examination into benefits of global warming?
YES! And then when things don't work out they way they planned, they will find something else to blame it on and tax out of existence...
We can't go to space because the rockets leave things in the atmosphere... and planes are also worse, because their pollution is right where it's worst now...
If it's as bad as they say, why not go nuclear? At least here in the US the NEWEST ones are 50+ years old, and with every other advance you can't say that they are no more safe than a 50 year old design...
How often do we need to learn that our new attempts to fix things don't work many times because we didn't take enough into account?
Maybe... maybe we should all work, but instead of getting paid MONEY, we should be paid in carbon emissions...Want to buy some bread? that will be 20 CEs. a gallon of gas could be 50 CEs...
SURELY there can be no possible downside to a system like that...
Sorry, but this is not the famed Northwest Passage. If anything it is a NorthEAST passage.
Proverbs 21:19
Surely we are smarter now than nature... we could just take over everything and tweek things as we need.
What could possibly go wrong?
Climate myths: It's all a conspiracy
Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too
Why do these discredited myths get moderated up on Slashdot again and again? Seriously.
Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
Climate myths: The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998
I'm surprised you didn't mention Mars and Pluto.
I wonder why these discredited myths keep getting moderated up on Slashdot time and time again - it's almost as if there's a conspiracy to make skeptics look ill-informed.
You're right. I am a member of this global conspiracy. We figure that the research grants are going to be worth more than this whole 'economy' thing.
I'd tell you more, but I've got to run to a meeting. You don't think this conspiracy shit just happens by itself, do you? It seems like every week there's another mess of retarded Action Items. Distribute these talking points, falsify that data, coordinate every climate scientist all over the planet. It's hell trying to get anything done, even without people like you posting the truth about us all over slashdot.
Oh, and I wouldn't go anywhere. The black helicopters will be there shortly. Did you ever wonder what was happening to those "vanishing" polar bears up in the Arctic? You'd be amazed at how well they take to SWAT work.
Have fun at your re-education camp!
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
This sounds like a troll, but I'll bite.
Your examples are easily refutable, yet never seem to go away on the conservative talk show circuit.
Pluto is warming up because it is on a highly-elliptical orbit, and has just recently passed the point at which it is closest to the Sun. So it is expected that it be going through a warming phase. And a little bit of logic would tell you that since Pluto is so much farther away from the Sun than the Earth, if energy output from the Sun were responsible for warming on Pluto, the effect on Earth would be many magnitudes greater (i.e. it would have to be hot enough on Earth to melt lead before you'd notice an appreciable temperature difference on Pluto).
Mars is indeed warming up slightly, but that can be explained by Milankovitch cycles, and Mars is much more susceptible to climate change because it does not have any large moons to stabilize it's rotation axis.
Conservatives jumped on the news that Jupiter was experiencing "climate change". But it only takes two minutes to find out that the climate change being talked about is a shift in temperature (warmer near the equator, colder near the poles). Jupiter is not warming overall. Of course, that little clarification doesn't seem to make it into news stories from Fox News.
And there are 5 other planets (and many many moons) in the solar system which show no signs of warming.
Sorry...but anthropomorphic global warming is likely true. Without any CO2 in the atmosphere, Earth would be entirely covered in ice. And therefore, you cannot double CO2 levels in the atmosphere (which could happen by the end of this century) without expecting some effects. And you cannot deny that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not the result of human activity (we've burned approximately 1 trillion barrels of oil so far....do you really think that would have no effect?).
And even if AGW is all bunk, so what? We should be trying to reduce our oil consumption and investing in alternate energy for other reasons, like national security, and the fact that we've very likely reached, or are about to reach peak oil production, and that future oil price spikes are going to be the norm from now on.
Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, that's what I always say.
I would caution you against using the periodic solar activity claim to back your argument. This idea has been injected into the public dialog as a farcical talking point and is lacking in evidence. If you would like to examine a great source of information and a healthy debate, check out: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=515&&a=18 I'd also recommend Thomas Friendman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded, which very clearly outlines many important issues and facts connected to climate change.
The OP of the message I replied to made no reference to the ice sheets on land.
Well, unless there's some magical force shield that can melt arctic ice over water but not over Greenland, the two go hand in hand. I'll give the GP credit for possessing a functioning brain.
And here I was, thinking that the Industrial Revolution had started in the 19th century, powered pretty much solely by coal (about as dirty a fuel as you can get).
Thanks for clearing that up.
Uh yea.... First, your definition of 'half' is suspect (more like 25% of warming occurred before 1940). And saying that the earth has been cooling since 1998 is practically lying. 1998 was indeed the warmest year, but to say we've been cooling since then is VERY misleading. The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm
..has caused me much hilarity, given that there was little man made CO2 pre- 1940's and at least half of the warming of the 20th century occurred then, and that post 1998 there has been no warming (cooling indeed, according to the satellite record) at all, despite increasing CO2.
Wrong.
1900 (-.19 C) to 1940 (.07 C) difference of .26 C .46 C
1940 (.07 C ) to 2008 (.53 C) difference of
Seems like a lot less than half, maybe you are the one who is not letting the facts bother their opinions?
Whatever it is, it isn't Joule...
So in short, you're saying that Al Gore is leading a vast left-wing conspiracy bent on world domination?
I am officially gone from
..has caused me much hilarity, given that there was little man made CO2 pre- 1940's [citation needed] and at least half of the warming of the 20th [citation needed] century occurred then, and that post 1998 there has been no warming (cooling indeed, according to the satellite record) at all [citation needed], despite increasing CO2. But don't let the facts bother your opinions too much, continue preaching your hypocritical environmental piety to all who will listen.
compared to yours?
Remember, what we want is ENERGY.
CO2 is an unwanted by-product of one method of attaining it.
All this baloney about cow farts, tailpipes, and smokestacks is just a big smokescreen. I'm afraid you're going to find that Lex has already bought up all that soon-to-be beachfront property. We'll be vacationing in Otisburg before we know it. It's a small place......
every planet in the Sol System is warming up.
care to share your source?
1998 was indeed the warmest year...
Actually, the warmest year was 2005. 1998 is tied for second with 2007. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
Other than Beluga being an Arctic whale and a type of sturgeon, both with obvious connections to Russia and the Arctic? Or referring to Belarus and the White Russians.
Actually, a simple Google search reveals that it belongs to a shipping company named the Beluga Group, all of whose ships are named "Beluga _______. Odds are the name means nothing in particular.
It can have a slight effect. Much of the ice is fresh water which has a slightly lower density than sea water. So a quantity of fresh water melting into a salt ocean will raise it a (very little) bit.
http://geography.about.com/library/misc/ucghyben.htm
Take another look at the satellite record...
"""
Kwok and colleagues at NASA and the University of Washington, in Seattle, report that Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick, older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record.
Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 17.8 centimeters (7 inches), for a total of 67 cm (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older, multi-year ice that survives one or more summers shrank by more than 40 percent.
"""
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/2009-19.html
The area of the Arctic covered by sea ice has been shrinking since 1979, the beginning of the satellite record, by roughly 10%/decade. When sea ice the size of a continent is thinning by 2 feet, this is a pretty good signal that significant changes are going on.
Canadians and Russians would certainly save a fortune on heating bills.
Not as much as you would believe. Ice and snow has really good isolating properties and when it's warmer (= mild winter) cold is created on the surface of buildings when moisture evaporates.
But basically, yes there is some savings. But the total cost is higher then the savings in heating. I live in Sweden (as in: vikings, reindeers, moose, ABBA, rotten fish and sausages and milk as food, pirate bay, nobel prize and blond giant people; not Switzerland: alps, hidden nazi and mob money, milk chocolate, cu-cu clocks, Yello (the band) and tiny hairy people with big nooses; I don't get why these two countries get confused all the time, the ony thing we have in common is a huge milk production and making really good cheese). Anyhow, after a mild winter Swedish media reports how much money was saved in heating. Every year after a mild winter those savings are crushed because of the cost for smaller crops, bug, slug and rodent infestations, new plant diseases, landslides, mold, rot and rust.
I imagine that the cost of global warming will be gigantic in those parts of Russia that have built everything on the concept that permafrost is indeed permanent.
Melting it would have no additional effect on sea level.
This is true. Sea levels would not change. However, consider the release of massive amounts of fresh (well extremely low salt content) water into the connected oceans. The massive cooling process could be enough to stop the North Atlantic Current and begin a cooling cycle for most of Europe.
<sarcasm> I for one welcome the removal of that troublesome ice sheet up north and that nasty continent Europe. For too long, Europe by existing has prevented America from having a Monopoly on the global economy. Just think of the fuel savings with 730 million people gone!</sarcasm>
"Still, something like the "Dalton Minimum - two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots - lies in the realm of the possible."
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
But global warming isn't real!
I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
Mod parent up, it's definitely NOT a troll.
The Arctic Ocean is now largely clear of ice, heralding vast new business opportunities, President Sarah Palin announced today.
The famed North-West Passage is now permanently navigable, with huge shipping volumes between Arctic nations. "We're considering just building a highway straight across," said Mrs Palin, "though those long desert drives can be dangerous to health without air conditioning."
Tourists have been flocking to Alaska and northern Canada to get away from the boiling oceans and sulphurous atmosphere around Hawaii. The Nunavut Tourist Bureau has shipped 60,000 swimming polar bear shirts this month alone. "It's also clear," said Palin, "that the bears have no business claiming to be endangered when there's so many jobs in tourism for them."
Oil drilling in Alaska will also be much easier, and will of course further the conditions leading to this Arctic economic boom. "No it won't," said Palin. "What are you talking about?"
"I'll say one thing for them evilutionist climate change conspirators," giggled Palin, "their hard work to take away the ice and make it look like they were right has done wonders for us good and decent folk."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Just think of the reduction in CO2 emission coming from cargo ships!
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
To think of all that effort the US went through during the Cold War to deny Russia any good year-round ice-free ports.
Now, thanks to our profligarate lifestyles, Russia is about to have hundreds of them. I hope they at least thank us...
Next time, when you think you're better than someone else and are about to post a derisory remark to that effect. Stop. Because you aren't.
That is a difference of 4,400 nanometers only! :-)
Without commenting on energy overall, but Canada is a net exporter of petroleum.
Canada has a small population with large natural resource deposits. With or without climate change, Canadians have everything they need for a lifestyle even more comfortable than they already have.
Their ignorance, apathy and sometimes outright cowardice prevent them from attaining this lifestyle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
"The magnitude of torque depends on three quantities: First, the force applied; second, the length of the lever arm[4] connecting the axis to the point of force application; and third, the angle between the two. In symbols:
\boldsymbol \tau = \mathbf{r}\times \mathbf{F}\,\!
\tau = rF\sin \theta\,\!
where
Ï is the torque vector and Ï is the magnitude of the torque,"
Now tell me, is the SCALAR value Joules a vector..?
Up to the point where they lose all their permafrost... a few buildings... a LOT of their roads...
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
You are correct. That is why we're setting new efficiency standards on everything from light bulbs to cars to home appliances and even entire buildings. We're also working on setting a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide industry can emit. We also need to look at many different alternative energy sources, including nuclear, solar power, and biofuels.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Supposedly some of the climate models that predict global warming also predict it would cause increased precipitation and glacial build-up in Greenland and Antarctica, resulting in *lower* sea levels.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
How on earth did your post get modded as Informative? You link to a site that says "The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978'. That is completely untrue, the sun's energy output varies daily, and the sun goes through 11 year cycles in which it's overall output increases or decreases. Try this article. Or this one. Or just google it yourself!. In fact, one of the articles you link to disputes the other! Maybe you should try reading a few other sources than New Scientist, as there are mountains of evidence that would suggest the science isn't as nearly as conclusive as the IPCC backers would like you to believe.
What the fuck?! The only people I've ever seen trying to turn this into a political debate are the people who deny anthropogenic climate exists. If they aren't spouting debunked, unsourced lies like the parent, they're claiming it's a socialist conspiracy to increase taxes. There are rough 6 groups involved in the climate change 'debate':
There is no dissent in the scientific community. The only people politicising this, or even turning it into a debate, are right-wingnuts like you. Really, I'm surprised you didn't get LiberalAsASwearWord(tm) into your post, without even knowing what that means.
if these consequences are unacceptable.
Unacceptable to whom? That is the key question. The imperialist belief that there is exactly one single universal definition of "unacceptable" is a huge problem in this debate.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
It's what we're doing. If you propose that we stop, then fair enough, but the Earth in a "natural" state won't support 6 billion people.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Oh, it'll save more than just fuel. Have you seen what they charge to allow a ship through there?
In 2008, a total of 21,415 vessels passed through the canal and the receipts from the canal totaled $5.381 billion. Average cost per-ship is roughly $250,000.00
I'm sorry... a quarter of a million dollars to let a ship float down a path of water that doesn't even have any water locks? Come ON! I somehow doubt that the upkeep of the canal costs 5.38 billion a friggin' year!
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
As does Canada. They still want us to pay for our natural gas to heat our houses though.
Most of our roads aren't actually built on permafrost, thanks.
as we go north.
Being warm-blooded, we don't need heat. In fact we get problems getting rid of it (sweating wastes valuable water and minerals).
And we can't farm desserts nor steep hillsides and the only way to get food out of a mountainside is to grow goats on it. And they're partial to water too...
Pests love CO2 too. For corn, the natural poison they produce in their leaves is reduced under high CO2 loads. The beetle eating their leaves loves this idea.
Cassava produces toxins under high CO2 loads. African staple diet is Cassava. People are already dying from the toxins there.
"It's been 1 hour, 3 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
Oh dear...
Hmmm, I wonder if a shipping company could generate enough carbon credits by using the northern passage vs. the Suez passage to effectively make the trip between Europe and Asia free? Wouldn't that be a great unintended consequence of cap and trade!
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Who's long and short term survival? Yours specifically or the entire human races?
People live in depths of Siberia.
People live in the Sahara.
The human race isn't going anywhere unless the entire planet turns into a molten ball of magma and even then someone would probably figure out a way of living with it. We're a pretty adaptive bunch see.
Now there'll probably be a reduction in the population of the planet, but in reality it will be offset by the new farming prospects opened up in the colder areas. Like now it's possible to grow wheat in areas around my region that were never able to grow wheat before about 1998 due to the long bitter winters.
And *us* specifically, we will barely see the consequences of it in our lifetimes which is something that's always conveniently forgotten by doomsayers. I think many global warming advocates quietly enjoy the implicit assumption that they've created in the publics mind that we're in some sort of hollywood movie where the earth is about to be wiped out in the next five to ten years.
Rational people should openly reject such lunacy as it will create a public backlash when nothing "bad" happens in that timeframe.
A measured approach is always the best way.
I think the concern about the arctic ice is not that it will raise sea levels (by itself it won't), but rather, that losing them will reduce the earth's albino, or reflectivity, which would accelerate the warming.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Right. They "average" significantly higher than the expected sea level. So only PARTS of our highly expensive coastal real estate will end up underwater. That shouldn't be any problem at all. Not mention the fact that much of the densely populated and very low-lying nation of Bangladesh, for example, will end up submerged. And this:
Except that the great plains, the breadbasket of the US, is predicted to become significantly drier... to the point where agriculture would become essentially impossible over large areas currently being farmed. But that's OK, Greenland is going to become very productive!
You are correct. That is why we're setting new efficiency standards on everything from light bulbs to cars to home appliances and even entire buildings. We're also working on setting a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide industry can emit. We also need to look at many different alternative energy sources, including nuclear, solar power, and biofuels.
Good. Unfortunately however these standards and caps are often useless or backfire. An example: In the UK there are standards for a minimum number of 'energy saving light fixtures' per dwelling, on a sliding scale based on the number of rooms. These fittings must only allow the use of 'energy saving' lamps. In practice this means a specific CFL fitting (2 or 4 pin) with the ballast in the fitting, instead of the standard 240v bayonet normally used for lamps. A 240v bayonet cap CFL bulb costs around £1, and many people have a collection of them delivered free by their electricity company. A 2 or 4 pin ballastless CFL costs £7 (the last time I looked). Also the balast in the fitting can fail, requiring replacenent (at a cost of £10 each).
I know this because I live in a fairly new apartment, built since the regs came in. I replaced all the 'energy saving fittings' with standard 240v bayonets and 240v CFLs as soon as the fitting-integrated ballasts started failing (after about 1 year). Why do they mandate an odd fitting when CFLs are readily and very cheaply available in the standard fitting, and incandescent bulbs are being phased out anyway?
Also, to meet the regulations, the builders of my apartment put the full quota of 'energy saving fittings' in the (small) hallway; 3 lights at 13W each, arranged such that no one lamp can give adequate lighting.
The rest of the apartment is lit with halogen downlights at 50W each. There are 10 of them in the living room and kitchen combined, that's 500W! But it's OK, they put 3 CFLs in the hallway...
The point I'm trying to make is that 'simple' measures that should be 'free' often end up as a costly mistake, and can even end up having a detrimental effect on the environment if badly thought out. I fully agree that a pleasantly habitable planet in the future is an important thing, but increasingly I feel that 'environmentalism' is a beast that we'd be better off restraining a little.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
This is hardly a settled question. The Canadians claim these waters as their territory, the US does not accept the claim. So I don't feel particularly compelled to accept your version of the matter.
And oh, by the way: it's "Arctic".
What's peak oil got to do with placing huge taxes on electricity generated by burning coal? Your fallback argument is a fallacy.
We've got about 200 years worth of coal left to power half the world here in Australia alone.
We've also got that much uranium but noone seems to want it, the world just loves us for our coal. It seems ironic that the environmental movement probably has made a bigger contribution to global warming than anyone when they forced the end of the nuclear power movement 30 years ago. And even now they rather keep coal plants in business than accept the only rational solution to the problem they say is going to cause the end of humanity if we don't stop using coal.
Must suck to live inside one of their heads.
Crazy times.
Who's long and short term survival? Yours specifically or the entire human races?
Both my survival and the survival of the race.
People live in depths of Siberia.
People live in the Sahara.
Good for them. Their lives tend to suck though.
Now there'll probably be a reduction in the population of the planet, but in reality it will be offset by the new farming prospects opened up in the colder areas. Like now it's possible to grow wheat in areas around my region that were never able to grow wheat before about 1998 due to the long bitter winters.
You neglect the corresponding growth in desert areas. It's unlikely that a net gain is on the cards.
And *us* specifically, we will barely see the consequences of it in our lifetimes which is something that's always conveniently forgotten by doomsayers.
We're already seeing some consequences, which is what this article is about. Get a brain, moran.
Rational people should openly reject such lunacy as it will create a public backlash when nothing "bad" happens in that timeframe.
Rational people should look at it rationally, which is what I was doing. You've come in with assumptions, assertions and prejudices and added NOTHING of value.
... but, per Wikipedia:
So it's hardly the case that the big, bad, US is beating up on Canada. Pretty much the only country that accepts Canada's claim is, well, Canada.
We've just seen governments worldwide deliver a trillion dollar windfall to their corporate masters. No attempt was made to hide the fact that this money was an explicit reward for mismanagement and stupidity. The logic - what there is of it - behind the giveaway depends utterly on the implicit assumption that a healthy economy requires cancerous growth. The decision-making process for this bailout proceeded with lightning speed over the space of a few months.
Meanwhile, scientists have spent the past three or four decades patiently building the case for climate change. Scientists have persisted in continuing this research even though there is no personal reward to speak of, and even given the spittle spraying them in the face from rabid industrialists and climate change deniers. The case for climate change has been made many times over. More evidence is piling up even with a budget of a few hundredths of one-percent of the corporate bailout. Our climate is a shared resource for the entire world with far more economic impact than 100 Goldman Sachs.
Consider two alternatives:
1) The industrialists and/or the fundamentalists are right. That is, either we could burn dioxin laced sulfurous coal in vast piles on every street corner and Mother Earth would thank us and beg for more - or, the rapture is fast approaching and the faithful will be sucked up to heaven leaving the damned to clean up the mess.
2) The tree huggers are right. The Earth is fragile and we're fast approaching (or already past) a tipping point that will usher in climate change of a scale that hasn't been seen for millions of years. In the mean time, we are permanently degrading our stores of natural resources. It will be hard to recover from an ice age when all the fossil fuel has been burned.
What to do? What to do? Given these two choices, what to do?
Well, look at it this way, if #1 is true then what's the harm in advocating, adopting and implementing prudent environmental policies? All that happens is that the children of the rich get better water and air and parkland and healthier and more plentiful food along with the rest of us. (Or perhaps that when the rapture comes, we hand over the keys to a planet that has been better tended.)
Whereas, if there's even a small likelihood of #2, a society would have to be insane to continue to permit unregulated industries to squander resources and to pollute and to cheat on paying the full lifecycle costs of their operations (http://dieoff.org/page95.htm). One doesn't have to believe that an airtight case has been made (yet) for manmade climate change - one just needs to recognize that no coherent case at all has been made against manmade climate change.
Environmentally conscious policies are simply common sense. Don't ask how good the case for manmade climate change has to be to justify taking environmental action, ask rather how good a case would have to be made against climate change to justify doing nothing.
But then the caps will re-freeze if we cut down on our emissions, and we'll have to go back to the normal, gas guzzling shipping routes..
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
"Global warming" is an observed fact, not something predicted by computer models. As is increased preciptation and thicker ice sheets in parts of Antarctica. As is, for that matter, reduced ice coverage in the Antarctic. As is, most recently, reduced total ice volume in the Antarctic. Essentially, warming drives more moisture to the Antarctic, and means that where conditions continue to support ice sheets, they will in many cases be thicker. It also means that the conditions for support of ice sheets get worse; particularly, the melting of the sea ice along Antarctica removes the barriers that are stopping the continental glaciers from sliding off into the ocean.
This is all observed now and happening.
At school we were taught that Russia's historical mission has been to reach the seas while that of the Western powers has been to keep Russia landlocked. This game has been played for centuries, most recently in the Yugoslav war between the NATO and Serbia/Russia.
Now if Russia's northern access to the seas were reliable, the strategic equation would change. Russia no longer would desperately need access to the oceans via the Baltic sea and the Mediterranean (which NATO could block at will anyway). In addition, Russia might be tempted to find ways to tax the lucrative traffic along their northern coastline, although that would break a slew of maritime laws that Russia has benefited from for a long time.
And a little bit of logic would tell you that since Pluto is so much farther away from the Sun than the Earth, if energy output from the Sun were responsible for warming on Pluto, the effect on Earth would be many magnitudes greater (i.e. it would have to be hot enough on Earth to melt lead before you'd notice an appreciable temperature difference on Pluto).
Are you fucking daft? The distance difference between Earth-Sun and Pluto-Sun has naught to do relative changes, for the most part. If the Sun's output increases 5%, then both Pluto and the Earth can expect a 5% increase in solar radiation. It will NOT be 5% and 5000% as you suggest!!! For that matter, Alpha Centauri can expect a 5% increase too (4 years lagging). Were this to cause a modest temperature change on Pluto, the affect on Earth would be similarly modest. What the fuck are you thinking? Seriously!
As pale as albinos are, I doubt that reducing the number of them will significantly impact climate change in any way as their numbers are simply too small.
And if you thought that was pedantic: albedo, which I realize is what you actually meant, is actually a specific form of reflectivity that also take diffusion into account.
It is a common misconception, because little is known about the equatorial ice caps.
In fact so little is known I couldn't even find a wikipedia entry about them.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Supply and demand. You don't want to pay? There's an easy fix: go around.
Perhaps /. should start requiring some sort of science test before allowing people to post as AC on climate change articles.
Russia may make money out of central heating, but Russians have to pay for theirs.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
that global trade is a by-product of the internet. Fools. Mega greed and profit at all costs (loss of USA jobs, illegal aliens, etc) is what the Internet has provided. Not global trade. People have been trading oils and textiles, gold and metals since day zero.
You neglect the corresponding growth in desert areas.
What makes you think that there is, or will be, a 'corresponding growth in desert areas.' ?
If you believe that man made global warming is shrinking the polar caps, then you believe that man made global warming is shrinking the largest deserts on the planet. These go hand-in-hand because the largest desert in the world is in fact Antartica.
But before you go jumping to conclusions and start going on-and-on about these being ice and blah blah blah, the Sahara is also shrinking right now as we speak. Thats not ice.
You see, one of the side effects of a warmer climate is more precipitation, which leads to less deserts overall.
Would you like to restate your diatribe with some science-based arguements, or are you going to stick with your conclusion-jumping psuedo-science dogma?
"His name was James Damore."
Close, but no cigar.
The underlying question is to what degree can we moderate global climate changes? That's a tough one.
To the extent that human activities contribute to the climate changes, we have some room for action. For instance, we know that our CO2 production is one of the driving forces, so we can decrease that. A Tom Sawyer strategy of getting everyone to whitewash their roofs, parking lots, and streets would bring surface reflectance closer to what it was before the industrial revolution (and this would be particularly beneficial in the urban hot spots that have been driving a lot of local climate abberations).
But the really tough nut is that any of these approaches are very long term, and no current human society (with the possible exception of China) knows how to implement plans that will take a hundred years or more to come to fruition. This has not always been the case: European cathedrals and other large monuments show that as a species we have had the capacity for this kind of thing. But have we lost it along the way?
Will
reduced ice coverage in the Antarctic
[---]
observed now and happening
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
it's in my head
This should make it easier for the hole to be found.
Are people really this stupid getting modded insightful? We're doomed. If the OP meant to include ice on land then the entire premise of their argument is flawed because ice on land does NOT displace its volume in water. Because it's on land, not in water. Jesus fucking christ, America.
A voyage between Hamburg and Yokohama is only 6,600 nm. via the Northern Sea Route â" less than 60% of the 11,400 nm. Suez route. Now in part because of warming and the retreat and thinning of Arctic sea ice in summer, this northern sea route is becoming a reality
So climate change is allowing us to emit less carbon. Just think of the other magical ways the planet will fix itself if we emit even more carbon! I'm totally gonna burn a second tire when I get home tonight.
The "OP" is the one by physicsphairy. Doesn't specify land ice or sea ice. Hence both Ngarrang's replies are off the mark, and rubicelli is spot on.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Perhaps /. should start requiring some sort of science test before allowing people to post as AC on climate change articles.
Why, Kevin? Was there a mistake in my post? A moderate change in the temperature of Pluto due to changes in solar output will have a moderate affect on Earth from that same cause. The solar radiation received per unit area will relate LINEARLY to the intensity of the source and inversely to the SQUARE of the distance (look at the formula for surface area of a sphere, you fucknut). Since the phenomenon at issue (solar output, not the eliptical orbit of Pluto) is related to the intensity of the source, both Earth and Pluto are affected in the same proportion (WRT to "solar" radiation received). You want to make a bet of this? I will gladly lose my anonymity to get half your net worth or $10,000 (whichever is greater). You may enjoy posting your name without compensation, but the only thing I like my name on a check's "Pay to order of". To be clear - this is not with regard to atmospheric affects which was not related to the original contention (that the vast difference affects the magnitude of the change). Oh, and of course Pluto is closer to absolute zero, therefor closer to background radiation temp and that will blunt the affect. Again, not central to GGGGGP's moronic thesis.
Tags: KevinIsOwn; fucking stupid pussy.
You could have asked Google before discounting his claim entirely. After about a 5 minutes' search, I found at least two resources of note. Here's a blurb you might find interesting:
Although I was not able to find any references that the Vikings made use of a northern route into Siberia, the general understanding is that a warm period occurred during this time that would have (potentially) opened up parts of the northern sea routes to curious travelers.
Naturally, this doesn't fit in well with the notion that never before has enough warming occurred to have accomplished this. It's telling that the parent is rated +5, insightful when he could have spent a couple of minutes (just as I did) in effort to disprove the original poster's claim.
I'm not suggesting whether the original poster is correct as I haven't found evidence to prove it, but near as I can tell from the resources available from Google, it appears he may very well be correct.
He who has no
The ocean is now open, Great job everyone! Thank you! We did it!
Actually if you boil the ice caps you'll release water vapor into the atmosphere which is a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than C02... of course you'll get the best of both since the boiling of that much water will take a lot of coal or trees or naturals gas being burned also creating some C02... but the water vapor created will really warm the planet up quickly.
Boiling Water Contributes to Greenhouse Effect - H2O vapor is ten times worse than CO2!
People keep claiming that melting sea-ice won't raise the sea level -this simply is not true. http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html (physorg.com)
>Imagine the benefits to the environment if we could just figure out a way to melt the ice caps completely. Our greenhouse emissions would plummet! How could we melt enough ice for a 20ft rise in sea levels? answers how with Nukes of course! Unfortunately boiling all that water will make the greenhouse effect worse since water vapor is 10 times worse than C02 as a greenhouse gas!!!
will reduce the earth's albino, or reflectivity, which would accelerate the warming
Pretty sure you meant 'albedo' ... when I read this I thought: white people are increasing the world's reflectivity?! Then there is some benefit to living in my mother's basement after all!
It is a common misconception, because little is known about the equatorial ice caps. In fact so little is known I couldn't even find a wikipedia entry about them.
But you have heard of the Antarctic, right? You know, the one sitting on top of a continent?
Jupiter also produces more heat internally than it receives from the sun, by a factor of at least two. Any warming or cooling is unlikely to be related to solar activity.
Moron.
Problem: (a) How much would solar output need to increase to raise the temperature of Pluto by one degree Celsius?
(b) Given that Pluto is on average 40 AU from the Sun, and that energy received is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, what would the observed temperature increase on earth be?
ANS: (a) a lot. (b) [40^2] * [1 C]= 160 C
Not hot enough to melt lead, admittedly, but it would be the end of liquid water on the planet.
Global Warming is turning huge expanse of Taiga forests into swamps. SO not everything is rosy for Russia
(Wiping the soda-spit from his monitor...)
=)P Hehehehehehehe
The SS Manhattan performed a crossing of the northwest passage in 1969. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Manhattan_(1962)
le who start in the subject line and continue in the body.
The twat I was replying to is still an idiot, since he didn't understand the difference between the two types of product.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."