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."
no further comments.
I talk to the programmers so the customers don't have to.
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998
I wonder why these discredited myths keep getting moderated up on Slashdot time and time again
Maybe these 'discredited' myths keep getting mentioned because people like you keep providing links to 'discredit' them that are complete BS.
Here's a direct quote from your link arguing over temperatures peaking in 1998:
...
According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (see figure), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began
So that seems to confirm there certainly does exist at least some evidence for claims about a peak in 1998. Hardly seems to discredit the idea to me. Oh, but the site does have an explanation:
The Hadley record is based only on surface temperatures, so it reflects only what's happening to the very thin layer where air meets the land and sea.
falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat.
So would it not follow then that rising surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is gaining heat, either? Seems that your source in fact is trying to discredit one of, if not the single strongest, pieces of evidence FOR global warming.
This isn't news.
This isn't the first time a northern route was used.
The Vikings, prior to the ~1250 onset of global cooling, routinely used a northern route to reach Siberia and sometimes even China during the 900s, 1000s, and 1100s. But of course the Global apologists won't reveal this information, because it would ruin their "ohmygodtheskyisfalling" storyline.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
So your really going to stand by your referenced link to some new scientist article? I think even scientists defending global warming will readily call your new scientist article BS.
Why, you seem to have asked? Because the article goes on, at great length, dismissing the importance and reliability of the surface temperature record:
falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat.
It goes on later even to say:
Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising. Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.
In fact, most of the year-to-year variability in surface temperatures is due to heat sloshing back and forth between the oceans and atmosphere, rather than to the planet as a whole gaining or losing heat.
You can not deny that the article virtually dismisses any trends in surface temperature as unimportant and unreliable. I do not care if it goes on to list other reasons for warming, I care about the fact it is dismissing the surface temperature record.
You must realize just how much of the 'evidence' of global warming is ENTIRELY dependent on surface temperature records. Mann's hockey stick graph is completely dependent on surface temperatures. Virtually every reconstruction of pre-industrial temperature through proxies is calibrated against the surface temperature record.
If this New Scientist article is to be believed, yes, maybe you can refute the claim that temperature peaked in 1998. You also open a much bigger hole, the declaration that the surface temperature record is invalid and unreliable for measuring climate change. What exactly does one have left, without the surface temperature record, to say anything about temperature trends from any time prior to the late 1960's?