Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming's Silver Lining For the Arctic Rim
Pickens writes "According to Laurence C. Smith, an Arctic scientist who has consistently sounded alarms about the approach of global warming, within 40 years the Arctic rim may be transformed by climate change into a new economic powerhouse. As the Arctic ice recedes, ecosystems extend, and minerals and fossil fuels are discovered and exploited, the Arctic will become a place of 'great human activity, strategic value and economic importance.' Sparsely populated areas like Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and the northern United States — the northern rim countries, or NORCs — will become formidable economic powers and migration magnets. Predictions in Smith's new book The Earth in 2050 include the following: New shipping lanes will open during the summer in the Arctic, allowing Europe to realize its 500-year-old dream of direct trade between the Atlantic and the Far East, and resulting in new economic development in the north; NORCs will be among the few place on Earth where crop production will likely increase due to climate change; and NORCs will become the envy of the world for their reserves of fresh water, which may be sold and transported to other regions."
I'm no apologist - I think climate change is a very serious issue that is being dangerously ignored - but you've just raised a classic straw-man and it's very annoying.
Almost nobody denies the existence, to a greater or lesser extent, of "global warming." The argument is now whether the observable changes are predominantly attributable to man's impact on the environment, or to the natural climatic lifecycle of the Earth.
It's very important before weighing-in to an argument that you understand what the argument actually is, from both sides.
Meta will eat itself
Please stop repeating the same old alarmist conjecture, hypothesis, unfounded speculation, stupefyingly idiotic model predictions and start actually going out and measuring real world data.
It's not a straw man. Lots of people question that the climate changes, that CO2 is the cause, that increased CO2 concentrations are from human emissions. Just today I read an article by Norway's most prominent denier, and he asserted
1. CO2 concentrations can't possibly rise, because the ocean regulates it.
2. Even if it appears to be high right now, it can't possibly cause warming, because it's saturated.
3. The laws of thermodynamics contradict global warming.
I'm not going to judge all deniers by their least unreasonable spokesmen - for one, because they certainly wouldn't return the courtesy, and two, because they do very little to combat the more crackpot theories.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
There are not going to be any underwater ruins. You are watching too many bad Kevin Costner movies.
Hey, hey. Say what you want about AGW, but don't run down 'Waterworld'! I watched it again the other day, and it's really a great-bad film; as in, enjoyably bad.
What other films have fights between catamarans and jetskis (which seem incredibly robust - they can hang around underwater for hours)? Or Dennis Hopper being fitted for a false eye by his sycophantic minions? Or races through a pirate oil tanker? Great stuff!
It is a big risk in the sense that it would be bad in the case that it happens. It's listed in the IPCC proceedings under "nonlinear response of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation".
Warning that something bad can happen is not the same as predicting it. I don't think anyone is supporting it in the sense "this is very likely to occur", and it would be very odd if they did so at an earlier time (since the uncertainty would have been even greater).
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
"The worse prediction are for a sea level rise of an inch or so over a 100 years. "
How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
"For the lowest emission rate, sea levels are expected torise around 1 metre by 2100. For the higher emission scenario, which is where we're currently tracking, sea level rise by 2100 is around 1.4 metres. "
And it gets worse for the centuries beyond 2100. 2100-2199 ~+3 meters, and 2200-2299 ~+5 meters.. ..
Needless to say.. but the the The Coast Is Toast: Take the Money and Run
PS.. For you mathematically challenged deniers, one(1) meter is 39.37 inches..
Mean global temperatures have refused to rise for the past 20 years, now?
I wonder what you could get away with saying. Maybe there was a great volcanic eruption in Chile last week. Maybe there hasn't been any hurricanes over the caribbean for five years. Maybe global sea level has dropped two meters on average?
Because it's about as plausible to say any of that as saying mean global temperature has refused to rise for the past 20 years.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Its a law of physics that CO2 is an infrared absorber - is someone questioning that?
Its a fact that CO2 levels are rising in our atmosphere - is someone questioning that?
Its a fact that most of that rise is due to man - is someone questioning that?
No?
So what are they questioning then and who is doing it? I mean who of significance , not the kind of pig ignorant
arts graduates who couldn't tell you what CO2 is composed of or its physical properties if their lives depended on it.
The IIPC report disagrees with these numbers by a very large amount.
No, it doesn't. They're comparing two different things. The numbers in the IPCC report explicitly ignore any contribution from fast ice dynamics (read the footnotes). Those dynamics are precisely what have the potential for large sea level rise within a century.
You can run the numbers yourself.
Have you run the numbers yourself? Look at the papers on kinematic ice constraints (e.g. Pfeffer et al. (2008)) for upper bounds on how fast an ice sheet can lose mass.
It's also kind of ridiculous to say that Antarctica is "not important". The West Antarctic ice sheet could be an even larger contributor than Greenland, if eroding ice shelves accelerate the flow of land ice streams into the ocean (i.e., not "melting" the land ice but simply dumping it into the sea).
Yes, the dominant time scale of a melting ice sheet is hundreds to thousands of years, but there are enough fast processes out there (basal lubrication, ice shelf disintegration, etc.) to get a significant century-scale response. We don't know yet whether that is likely to happen, but as far as we currently know, it's at least physically possible.
as long as you can get there and survive there due to the hurricanes.
Increasing the total energy in the atmosphere will not result in a well-behaved warming, but in more variable and extreme weather patterns, and there will be more hurricanes and storms at seas.
The science would like to have a word with you. The current theory is that increased warming will increase wind sheer in the atmosphere, decreasing the severity and number of hurricanes.
Unlike your unfounded alarmist (aka bullshit) claims, I am going to provide a source, from the NOAA.. a great friend of the warmers.
CLIMATE MODELS SUGGEST WARMING-INDUCED WIND SHEAR CHANGES COULD IMPACT HURRICANE DEVELOPMENT, INTENSITY
"His name was James Damore."
You know that in the 70ies it was common knowledge that the cooling cycle was about to begin somewhere in the late 90ies,
"Common knowledge"? Maybe, by the public. But not among scientists.
Scientific research shows that, for example, wearing a cycling helmet makes no difference. A helmet will not protect you in a serious accident and the slight increase in the risk taking behaviour you engage in by wearing one balances out the benefit you'd get from it, when compared to not wearing one when you're in a minor accident.
Actually, as I understand, scientific research shows that wearing a helmet has a tremendous benefit in prevent the sorts of injuries that leave people brain damaged for the rest of their lives. Apparently they reduce mortality rates by around 33%. The whole "you'll take more risks" thing sounds like neo-conservative pablum dolled out by idiots who care more about ratings than facts.
Here's some links to educate yourself:
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm
http://www.bhsi.org/henderso.htm
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Sorry, that is not true. Byzantium was carrying the torch of civilization and culture. The collapse of Byzantium happened as the rennaissance was beginning in Italy. There is probably a relationship between the two. While rennaissance Italy gained much knowledge and culture from the lands of Islam, most of it was from non-muslims fleeing the oppression of Muslim rule. Most of the ideas and knowledge that Europeans got from Muslim lands had originally been developed by non-muslims. Arabic numbers is a prime example of this. Arabic numbers originated in India and were carried to Arabia after Muslim conquest of parts of India.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You need to read up on history. The list of muslim massacres from those times can fill entire books ("Granada massacre" is a good starting point, just don't think the phenomenon was limited to that region). And please, do not forget that "islam" means "a region that, while nominally islamic, consisted of a large majority of christians, both on the street, culturally and in government".
There are VERY few important scientists from that era, and the problem is that of the very few they had, a large majority were non-muslims.
It really is that bad, even when it comes to accomplishments that muslims claim for their own, like say the construction of the blue mosque ... it was built by a Jew (and anyone who thinks that's an example of tolerance needs to read up on the life story of that specific Jew, and exactly what "devshirme", the muslim practice of demanding children in exchange for "protection", has to do with it).
And this whole "detail" called slavery, followed by the systematic extermination of slaves (nearly all muslim slaves were black, and they consisted a majority in northern africa before islam). Let's just look past that, right ? Otherwise islam would look ... like a religion with a paedophilic genocidal slaver as a founder ... and adherents that follow in his footsteps in all the ways that matter ...
So medieval islam only was "tolerant" if you look past the
-> many massacres, mostly religious and racist massacres
-> slavery (including the use of kidnapped slaves, and don't forget that muslims are the only existing that killed slaves for amusement on a regular basis (even the Romans had the -small- amount of respect of using criminals if at all possible)
-> total repression and destruction of scientific knowledge (e.g. the destruction of the library of alexandria, followed by the destruction of all middle eastern libraries - and there were a LOT of them)
-> religious wars, segregated society, dhimmi laws and child-tax
Other than, that, sure, islam was tolerant. Of course, medieval islam makes Hitler look positively benign.
Islam was founded by a paedophilic genocidal thief and slaver. His followers, even today, outdo him in all the ways that matter.
So it gets dry here, wet there, hot here and cold there.
Things change. Its the nature of time.
No one has demonstrated without a doubt that it means the end of civilization.
We will adapt, migrate and flourish, because that is human nature.
Expecting to maintain the status quo because this is what we "currently" know as being comfortable and "optimum" is short sighted and frankly ridiculous.
And with all that aside. No one has demonstrated either that there will be DRASTIC changes yet. Its all speculation, based on unreliable computer models, unproven theories based on far fetched assumptions with no basis (I'm talking to you, runway climate change).
Honestly, all I see is allot of alarmism and not very much actual science.
No, he isn't. He proves it strictly from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
And no, the axioms are not faith either, they are what defines the field. When doing non-Euclidean geometry, right triangles do violate the Pythagorean theorem.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Sorry, that is not true. Byzantium was carrying the torch of civilization and culture.
True... however, "Byzantium" -- known at the time as Constantinople -- was, of course, a Christian city, not an Islamic city.
The collapse of Byzantium happened as the rennaissance was beginning in Italy.
The collapse of Byzantium happened when the 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople. Even though it was a Christian city, it was rich, and much easier to take than the not-terribly-rich-but-well-defended holy land.
There is probably a relationship between the two.
Undoubtably. The Italians not only eliminated a powerful trading rival, they sacked it and took the riches home.
I'm not sure what this has to do with global warming, but it's fascinating history.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SeaLevelRising.htm
Alarmist projections of 11mm/year are totally without scientific basis.
Real sea level rises are 2-3mm/year, and have been for the past few hundred years (before large fossil fuel burning), though they show some slowing in the past decade or so.
The earth may be entering a cooling period, and the CAGW folks are on the ropes, climate gate exposed their schemes, and the real data has shown no cause foa alarm.
Where are all those hurricanes Al Gore warned us about the past 3 years?
Even Phil Jones admitted on the BBC therer has been no significant warming the past 15 years.
Cap and trade has been exposed as a political and financial power grab.
Research
Research
Research
[The citation is currently unavailable]
You will be able to find counter views, but don't accuse me of being a neo-con just because I demonstrated the law of unintended consequences by citing research concerning cycling helmets. I'm sure you look like a twat wearing yours and have spent years explaining to colleagues and friends how your brain is now invincible because you're wearing one, by way of justification.
In all seriousness, take care on the roads. I've got a 4x4 and sometimes you cyclists are difficult to see, even with your silly hats and high visibility pants.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html - a nice summary.
No, a key difference is Canadian girls weigh about 50 kg less. And then there's that whole God thing.
Will increasing CO2 increase the temperature of the earth? This is not certain, because of the complex interactions of the climate. One example: raise the temperature, and you get more water vapor. More water vapor yields more clouds, which have a *massive* cooling effect. In short: it is entirely possible that CO2 has a negligible effect on the temperature.
Where did you read about that *massive* cooling effect? The last time I looked into global warming (three years ago), the strength of the negative feedback due to increased clound covering was still subject to quite a lot of debate, but it was suspected to be far less than the warming attributed to humans.
Also keep in mind that water itself is a greenhouse gas (it's the most important component of the natural greenhouse effect), so there's also a povitive feedback component involved as well: a higher atmospheric temperature means we'll get a higher concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere before condensation happens (curse you, Clausius and Clapeyron!)
Set the temperature question aside for a moment: is a higher CO2 level a bad thing? CO2's primary effect on the planet is "plant food". Commercial greenhouses deliberately increase CO2 in order to increase their crop yields. If we could magically reduce CO2 to 19th century levels, we would see crop yields fall substantially.
Too bad the CO2 won't stay in the lower atmosphere where plants can get at it, and then there's the problem of Liebig's barrel: an increase in CO2 means shit if you're lacking for some other resource...
Back to temperature. If the earth's temperature does rise, is this a bad thing? Historically, warmer periods have been times of prosperity. Most of the earth is in the temperate zone, and warmer temperatures improve the climate, lengthen growing seasons, etc. Imagine frozen Siberia as the bread basket of Asia. It is not clear that a warmer earth is bad.
Well, as long as you don't live in the Mediterranean area, I guess... But in Germany (that's where I'm living), the number of heavy rain (which causes nasty floodings...) has increased during the last century with, global warming as the main suspect; but at least I don't have to worry about hurricanes or rising sea levels - take that, Holland ;)
Finally, how do we measure the temperature of the earth? There are many temperature stations scattered about, but the majority of them do not comply with the guidelines set up to ensure accurate measurement. Many are at airports (lots of tarmac), others - especially in very cold climates - are placed conveniently near buildings. These and other siting issues make the temperature measurements inaccurate. Satellite measurements have their own difficulties. The more you read about these issues, the clearer it becomes that we do not currently have reliable temperature measurements.
That's where statistics comes in; the problem with the seamingly contradictory satellite data has also been solved some years ago, btw...
So: on the basis of inaccurate temperature data and ineffective models, what should we do? Should we commit trillions of dollars to drastic policies based on questionable science? Or should we, maybe, invest in a decent network of weather stations, invest in climate science, and *understand* what is going on?
Excuse me, but I have no idea what you are talking about here. Could you clarify to which policies costing trillions of dollars you refer, and why you think them useless? Global warming is a widely accepted fact, the debate has shifted to the question of who to blame; personally, I belive it's us pesky humans, but that's beside the point as we'll have to deal with the consequences anyway (according to the Milankovitch theory, the next ice age won't be triggered for quite a few thousand of years); and switching away from oil is recommendable for quite a few other r
Rising sea level will displace hundreds of millions of humans at a cost of trillions of dollars. I think that would be a bad thing for humans.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.