Slashdot Mirror
Northeast Passage Becomes Viable Trade Route
Stirling Newberry writes "The New York Times reports on the continued expansion of the sea route along the Russian side of the Arctic Ocean. It was only in 2009 that outside ships were allowed to ply this lane, but Russians have used it since the early 20th century. What makes this year a landmark is that the polar ice cap is smaller at its September minimum than before, allowing large container ships and oil tankers — the backbone of sea commerce — to travel between Europe and Asia, saving time and money over the Suez route, as well as avoiding several politically unstable regions of the world. Putin has been pushing development along the route. While the northwest passage is only gradually opening, the opposite side of the Arctic Ocean looks set for expansion. Siberian Riviera anyone?"
is bubble comrade, have sold condo to buy bitcoins while cheap!
This one was so locked in ice that it could never be used. Now, however, it is viable?
To quote the summary: "Russians have used it since the early 20th century". Hard to understand how it being used for 100 years to you constitutes as "never", and at the same time as proof of global warming due to it recently opening.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The Russians use nuclear icebreakers. That doesn't really scale for most commercial traffic, and now you don't need them in summer anymore.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
exactly. raising waters may flood low area's like Manhattan, or new orleans.
This isn't bad, but the only way to really clean up wall street is to push it literally underwater.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
As sea level rise,
unwise to throw in towel,
for then you get wet.
Actually quoting the register
So this is sort of non-story hype.
I'm honestly unsure what the truth is regarding climate change, there's too much shouting and I just don't have the background for it. But I do know that if you categorically reject any challenge to your position then you're no scientist.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
For we all know that typos are only made by those with anesthetized testicles.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Most climate change skeptics are not of the ilk you describe (although there are very famous ones, many who are politicians)... What most climate skeptics dispute is anthropogenic global warming, and most of them ask the next question thoughtfully - what does global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) mean? The shrillness on both sides of this debate seem to resort to name calling and revel in the erection of straw man arguments such that they can make the other side look crazy.
For my own part, I don't believe the case for anthropogenic global warming is an open and shut case. I realize there are others who think I'm a lunatic for not being able to come to that conclusion. But the essence of science is thoroughly vetting theories... anthropogenic global warming is a theory whose final chapter is yet to be written.
As for the "what does global warming mean?" - well that is even less well thought out by both sides. Climate change believers think it's the apocalypse. Climate change deniers think it means nothing. Deniers point to harsh winters like last year and say "Global Warming is hooey"... Believers point to every hurricane and say, "See? I told you so"
Melting ice caps point to a warming planet. Opening up new shipping lanes is just one positive that is a result of global climate change. There are undoubtedly negatives. What all those positives and negatives are is unknown by all.
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
That's shortsighted thinking.
Even in a city, you depend on the environment. It's not just about polar bears. It's also about crops, coastal cities, and illnesses, for instance.
For instance, if coastal cities start getting flooded in New Orleans style, that's going to be pretty darn important, if only because dealing with the resulting mess is going to cost a lot of money, which will eventually come out of your pocket.
Also, even if wherever you are benefits, some other places will suffer, which will result in mass migrations to wherever you are. That will also have economical costs.
We'll have none of this realistic view on climate change hooey here. Please revert to wild accusations and finger pointing, please.
Just another ignorant American.
A mind is a terrible thing to not use.
Educate yourself, son:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
While in theory (chuckle) science leaves the door open, at some point the practical scientist will just conclude the evidence of evolution is overwhelming and the creationist will continue to ramble forever because he's on a religious agenda. While there's natural variations in temperature it is starting to get extremely unlikely that there aren't man made effects at play, there's so much vested interest here its starting to look like the tobacco industry's research into the health effects of smoking.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Between 10 and 12,000 years ago, well within the time of Man, the seas rose and fell dramatically while the glaciers went back and forth over the Northern Hemisphere. For thousands of years North America and Asia were connected via the Bering Land Bridge.
Climate change happens, with or without Man's impact, those who reject that climate change happens without blaming man are the true deniers.
Oil Shale says you are wrong.
Estimates of global deposits range from 2.8 to 3.3 trillion barrels (450×109 to 520×109 m3) of recoverable oil.
"A 2005 estimate set the total world resources of oil shale at 411 gigatons — enough to yield 2.8 to 3.3 trillion barrels (450×109 to 520×109 m3) of shale oil. This exceeds the world's proven conventional oil reserves, estimated at 1.317 trillion barrels (209.4×109 m3), as of 1 January 2007."
That puts your end of "long chain hydrocarbons" out to about 2175-2200 at current use levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Reserves
There's a lot of money in converting one form of energy to another even if it results in considerable loss of energy. Take electricity for example, there is a lot of loss of energy in heat when converting coal to electricity. This is even more "wasteful" when the electricity is used to make heat, such as an electric stove, oven, or furnace. This loss of energy is recovered in the convenience.
With oil shale the loss of energy can be a non-issue if the source of the energy is in an "inconvenient" form. People like to drive cars. People like to drive cars for distances that are currently impossible for electric cars. If we can somehow find an "inconvenient" energy source that can be turned into a "convenient" one like gasoline then we have found a way to maintain the convenience of our gasoline powered cars.
From my understanding the means to remove the oil from the oil shale and oil sands is by heating the oil until it is liquid enough to boil away (to be condensed) or liquified (to be filtered out). This heat could come from a number of less convenient energy sources like natural gas, solar, geothermal, nuclear, or just burning some of the oil shale to recover the oil from other oil shale. This heating of the oil shale to recover the oil could be from heat that might otherwise be wasted from some other energy production or industrial process, turning an energy negative process into an energy positive one.
Some very real limitation of technology, physics, economics, etc. means that we will be burning fossil fuels for the next fifty years even if that means energy lost in the process. Airplanes need kerosene, cargo ships and trains need diesel fuel. The operational lifespan of these vehicles is on the order of decades. The infrastructure needed to support any other kind of fuel does not yet exist and will also take decades to shift. The US military thinks fifty years into the future on what weapons they build now. That means, barring some kind of war on the scale of WWII, what is on the drawing boards now will be in production in ten years, be used for thirty, and kept in reserve for another ten. This time scale seems nearly universal from combat boots to battleships.
There is no way that I can see moving away from an economy that does not run on hydrocarbon fuels in less than fifty years unless someone is already designing airplanes that run on liquid hydrogen, prototyping nuclear powered cargo ships, and planning out transcontinental electric rail lines.
This loss of energy is only a theoretical one. In reality, or economically speaking, there is energy gained in that energy is gained in a form that is useful (or just more convenient) and therefore valuable. The economics of energy is more complex than the physics. This is especially true when politics is added to energy and economy.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.