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 honestly wonder if people will still deny global warming when we have freighters traveling through the north pole in the summer. I mean, what's it going to take?
I wonder if people using the term "deniers" will ever stop setting up strawman and accept that people are questioning the causes of climate change, not whether the climate actually changes. Someone can criticise AGW theories without also saying that the world is ever unchanging and will always be so.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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
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. This little game humanity is playing with the Earth may well end up in tears.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Policy stances on pissing into the wind make no difference on the direction the wind blows.
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.
They are not the main obstacle anymore, its greenwashing, lack of public information on effective actions, and political stalemates due to business interests, business as usual. For example, huge efforts to sell cars doing 45mpg only, instead of 25mpg, but almost none to encourage anyone to leave the car home, which would be 0gallon per mile, and everyone can try to do it, no fancy new car requirement and limitation.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
"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.
What evidence do you have that there's going to be a desert across the equator? I mean apart from the fact that the UK Met Office decided to change its map to show all landmasses as brown, rather than green (when I fly over the UK, it looks pretty ****ing green to me - what they did was very Orwellian, if I may say so). If equatorial desertification does happen, it will be due to population pressure, deforestation and agricultural practices, not AGW.
As consistently as mean global temperatures have refused to rise for the past 20 years?
Seriously, how long are we going to keep funding Chicken Little to squawk that the sky is going to fall tomorrow, 4 REALZ TIHS TIEM!!!!!1!!?
What? I read in earlier (Score:5 Insightful) and (Score:5 Informative) posts by h4rm0ny (722443) and tygerstripes (832644) that nobody was denying that global warming was happening.
In any case, dear politically correctly attributed AGW sceptic, which facts are you basing your above assertion on?
My UID is prime. Hah!
I've observed a bit of a spectrum (with some people occupying an 'area' of the spectrum instead of a single point - not being absolutely positive of where they stand).
For example, I've heard the following from several different people:
* there's no possible way we have accurate temperature readings of the global temperature 'state' - you'll find out that someone placed the thermometer too close to the earth (too warm) or in direct sunlight in the Sahara, etc, etc (they don't seem to understand the concept of taking lots of samples from lots of places and averaging the result)
* I heard Rush Limbaugh spend most of a program once going on and on about the eruption of a volcano, and how it was putting out more CO2 than mankind would emit in like 200 years or something like that, and concluding there's nothing mankind could possibly *do* to change the climate.
* I've heard people say there might be warming, but it is related to Solar activity cycles and has nothing to do with human activity.
* I've heard people say "So what? Global warming means winter is less horrible. I'm all for that." - which, I suppose, if you live in Canada or the Northern States of the lower-48 (places like New England, NY, PA, the Midwest, etc), is true - some people, as this article discusses, will likely *benefit* from global warming; unfortunately, that benefit comes at the expense of a lot of other (some of whom are very poor to begin with and their lives will be made even worse) people.
* I've heard people say maybe global warming will/is happening a little bit, but that as it happens, cloud cover will increase, which will reflect solar energy, so it will be self-moderating.
* Then there are the folks who believe that any kind of problem is just the fulfillment of prophecy, and Jesus will come rapture the righteous, while the damned will suffer 'real global warming'.
So basically, among the deniers, there's a range of people from "it's definitely not happening", to "maybe it's happening, but I don't think we need to do anything about it", to "it's happening, but there's nothing we can do about it, so eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die".
"Given that increased temperatures on Earth are associated with increased biodiversity,"
Cite?
I think you'll find the most biologically diverse habitats are in the temperate zones, not , for example in the sahara. Same goes for the seas.
"Population and economic prosperity are somewhat correlated (the more wealthy the population, the fewer children couples have)"
Actually its more to do with education rather than prosperity.
"I don't think you'll be able to do that by replacing coal or gas fired power stations with a fucking windmill."
No , but you could replace them with nuclear.
"Where is this relentless warming? There's been no statistically significant warming since 1995"
Really? Funny then how 1998 is considered to be the hottest year on record by most climate researchers and its looking like 2010 may beat it. I suggest you learn to use google and educate yourself.
I find it amazing that people who report on climate change/global warming/armageddon fail to appreciate the nature of weather. Weather is *water moving in the air.* This simple understanding explains just about everything that happens with the weather.
Sure, warmer areas mean melted ice and areas that were before inaccessible or unusable. But there's more to it than that. There will be global weather pattern changes as well. Places that once got rain will dry up. Places that were arid will get wet. Conditions favorable to certain life and vegetation will change and that life and vegetation will simply die off and even become extinct. We have a global ecosystem that is being changed and upset in ways that simply cannot be predicted. Being able to reclaim some land is what I would characterize as some "short term gains."
Climate change isn't predicted to destroy the gulf stream, at least not to remotely degree of confidence we associate with other climate-related predictions.
(disclaimer: oceanographer with only fleeting interest in global warming)
True, but I would like to elaborate. Some of the early climate models predicted the Gulf Stream to shut down* and naturally one of the objectives for building better models was to confirm or disprove these predictions. I don't think any of the newest IPCC models show the Gulf Stream shutting down but there are indications that it may slow down in the future. Not enough to off set the underlying warming though.
So it seems we don't have to fear rapid changes because of a sudden shut down. Last thing I heard about this predicted shut down was that it was being classified as "low probability, high impact event". The impact would indeed be high, but it seems the probability becomes less and less the better the models become.
*) I'm being very imprecise. What I mean is that the North Atlantic Current (an extension of the Gulf Stream) was predicted to slow down or that the northern branch would become weaker (from Ireland towards Norway) and the southern branch stronger (from Ireland towards Spain). Worst case scenario the northern branch would turn off.
Yeah, let Muslims have their dark age. It's their turn, and every world religion gets the first one free.
We obviously need to do something, otherwise one day it WILL get real bad
Even that is alarmist, because the Earth has had much higher concentrations of CO2 in the past. The simple fact is our weather models aren't reliable enough for accurate predictions.
It's not alarmist, it's a logical progression. We can't keep pumping shit into the atmosphere and water supplies thinking it won't have some major cumulative effect down the road. Again, that day is far off (likely after everyone reading this is dead). We are still well within a window to do something about it, but eventually it will reach a point where we can't fix it. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather do something about it now rather than scramble to do something about it once it's almost too late/is too late.
Living With a Nerd
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
> Its a law of physics that CO2 is an infrared absorber - is someone questioning that?
No, this is clearly true.
Its a fact that CO2 levels are rising in our atmosphere - is someone questioning that?
No, this is clearly true
Its a fact that most of that rise is due to man - is someone questioning that?
No, this is clearly true.
- - - - -
But your questions are too simple. The last time I posted an answer like this, I was immediately modded troll. But hope springs eternal, so here is why I count myself as a skeptic. Here are some further questions:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Climate is complex, and the one thing certain about all of the climate models developed to date is that they fail to model climate. If a model is to be useful, it must make falsifiable predictions of future events. To date, no model has done better than a random-number generator. Tropical storms were supposed to increase, but did not. Sea level was supposed to rise faster that ever. In fact, the sea level has been rising steadily since the last ice age,, but the rise has actually slowed in recent times. If one thing is clear, it is that our understanding of climate is woefully inadequate.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Hahaha, yes it's been horrible.
The real problem with the Arctic rim isn't heat, although lack of heat is a challenge. The real problem is sunlight. The northern regions of the Arctic rim doesn't get enough sunlight to sustain trees, then there's a belt of pine needle like conifers, then there's a transient belt of broad leaved trees.
Personally, I hope that we never develop the Arctic rim in a meaningful way. The broad leaved trees produce an unbelievable amount of oxygen out of CO2 in the relatively short growing season. We've already decimated the rain forests, the oceanic regions of oxygen production are down a bit due to phosphorus posioning (or some other pollution, they think it's phosphor), and the Arctic region's oxygen contribution becomes more important every day.
Grats on playing into the summaries hands. Just because it says hes an arctic scientist doesnt mean that he is. If you think about it, it doesnt make any sense, there is no such position. The summary just goaded you into making an ass of yourself and succeeded.
/. these days isn't insightful. It is about as cute as the 'correlation != causation', true in some cases but it isn't an argument that can be blanket applied to everything.
Laurence C. Smith is a professor of geography at UCLA and a hydrologist. Sure he did write a book about the future importance of the north. That does not indicate that he is some how reliant on arctic study... Or something like that. Nor was there indication that he'd have written a book purely to get grants. It seems to be something he is interested in so he did research on and wrote a book. The science is real, we have found tons of oil reserves and gas reserves. This was obvious without even doing the science. We suddenly have new land available to us that we didn't have before. And new trade routes opening is obvious hell, it is happening to some degree already through Canadian waters.
If you dispute his claims then find science against him. If publishing a paper or saying something is important or being a part of the field you are researching is an inditement of fraud then science becomes impossible. You cannot force scientists to be in fields they don't care about. Write about things they find unimportant and are not educated in. It doesn't make sense.
The anti-science rhetoric coming out of
You aren't insightful, you got played.
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
"It is also true that 500 mil years ago, Earth was a ball of ice despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 was ~4200ppm (about 12 times higher than today). Oh yeah, you guys always forget to include that 'law of physics.'"
I am certainly not an expert in the subject, but my basic understanding of snowball earth is that first the continents got into a position that led to a runaway glaciation. More ice on the ground/water equals more light reflected equals more ice forming. Once the entire earth was covered in ice there was no photosynthesis going on, so carbon dioxide started to build up, mostly from volcanic activity. In fact according to the citations on wikipedia it didn't build just up to 12 times higher than today, but might have been more than 300 times higher before there was enough greenhouse heating to overcome the cooling effects of reflection from all the ice.
You seem to be implying that high levels of CO2 at the same time the earth was frozen over somehow contradicts global warming when in fact it supports the idea. Were you not aware of that? Or were you just hoping that we weren't? (And in any case, how is a fact or set of conditions a "law of physics"?)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Economics is not a scientific discipline. Those studies are not very credible.
Depends on your definition of "scientific". For example, science could mean:
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
or "science" could mean stuff that the scientific method can be applied to (which incidentally includes the field of economic game theory). Or falsifiable theories.
Economics definitely fits the definition I mentioned above. It is flawed to say it isn't a scientific discipline without saying what a scientific discipline is. Else we're stuck with the futility of arguing while ignoring that the other person defines the words differently.
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.