backtop


Print 95 comment(s) - last by radializer.. on Feb 5 at 9:47 PM


The U.S. Navy is bracing for the multitude of challenges and opportunities posed by a melting Arctic, including a brewing resource battle (image of a DDG-100 destroyer).  (Source: Defense Industry Daily)
U.S. Navy plans a carrot and stick approach for resource rivals, while trying to internally do its part to combat climate change

The warming of our world is melting the ice that traditionally has covered the Arctic raising the prospect of the first mostly ice-free Arctic summer in centuries.  This offers some benefits -- access to new underwater resources, shipping routes, and faster travel routes.  However, it also offers a greatly heightened risk of territorial conflicts.

Five nations are competing heavily for the resource of the Arctic -- the United States, Russia, Canada, Denmark, and China.  A number of others are eying the region as well, which may contain more than 160 billion barrels of oil.

A leading armed forces publication, the Navy Times, interviewed U.S. Navy officials about how they are preparing for the changes -- and the race that will follow.  Rear Adm. David Titley, oceanographer of the Navy, states, "The Arctic is changing, and it is changing rapidly.  If the Navy does not start looking at this today … we could wake up in seven or eight years and find ourselves way behind the power curve."

Recently, climatologists have bumped estimates of ice free summers from the end of the twenty-first century to about 2030. "Ice free" is defined as a summer in which their are several weeks in which there is less than 10 percent aerial ice coverage.

The Navy recently published an Arctic Report (PDF) that offers a carrot and stick approach to dealing with resource rivals.  The report describes trying to "provide opportunities for cooperative solutions" and "determine the most dangerous and the most likely threats."  A public relations campaign to keep opinion in the U.S. favorable is also key; the report describes implementing strategies to make the public "believe the Navy is contributing to a safe, secure and stable Arctic region."

The Navy is also looking to do its part to try to avert a melting Arctic by deploying a "Great Green Fleet" consisting of nuclear or biofuel-powered aircraft carriers and biofuel-powered jets.  Finding cheaper, more sustainable energy sources is a major concern for the Navy; it costs over $643,000 (at $70/barrel oil) to fill the 450,000 gallon fuel tank on the Navy’s DDG-51 destroyer.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

China?
By phattyboombatty on 2/1/2010 5:35:27 PM , Rating: 5
I get why Russia, Canada, the U.S. and Denmark are all vying for rights to the Arctic, but how in the world does China have any claim?




RE: China?
By BZDTemp on 2/1/2010 6:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
China has no claims and are not trying to make any.

They are interested because of new shipping routes opening up soon which will make the transport routes from China to Europe much shorter. What China want is for Russia to not claim the arctic as their waters.


RE: China?
By Sazar on 2/1/2010 6:48:19 PM , Rating: 3
China owns the USA (through ownership of a nice chunk of our debts) and therefore can make a claim through proxy.

Sorry, reverse carrot/stick approach being employed by me ;)


RE: China?
By kellehair on 2/2/2010 9:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
The joke's on China if they think owning some of the USA's debt gives them any rights, power or leverage.


RE: China?
By Alexvrb on 2/2/2010 9:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
They already have a lot of power and leverage. Just because they haven't kicked you out of your house doesn't mean they don't have a lot of behind the scenes influence here.

Shoot, they could buy our president straight cash, son!


RE: China?
By werfu on 2/3/2010 2:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
The day a foreign country try to collect the US about its debt is the day that foreign country becomes crazy poor. The US will simply print a big pile of cash, send it to China, then discard its currency for a new one, letting only US citizen and US owned corporation exchange the old cash for the new one. Its has already been done before by other countries. Nobody play fool with debt of any country, that's stirring trouble in the global economy!


RE: China?
By jmunjr on 2/4/2010 3:39:19 AM , Rating: 3
and this will send the world into a depression with the U.S. faring pretty poorly in the process, especially its citizens... So basically all the printing of money that has been happening the past many years is not good for any of us...


RE: China?
By dgingeri on 2/1/2010 6:30:28 PM , Rating: 4
China will claim anything on the status that they want it. Not much else to it.


RE: China?
By TSS on 2/1/2010 8:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Ofcourse there's war! The stupid French-Chinese think they have a claim to Hawaii!".

*cough* sorry, couldn't resist :p


RE: China?
By ralniv on 2/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: China?
By mikepers on 2/1/2010 7:18:38 PM , Rating: 4
The article and comments are talking about the Arctic. (north pole) Not Antarctica. (south pole)


get your filthy hands off my desert
By BZDTemp on 2/1/2010 6:14:56 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry best quote I could find :-)

Seriously as a Dane I am rather anxious about all the interest being displayed by the big greedy nations like Russia and the US. Yes, I did mention the US along with Russia!

International law needs to prevail here and not a stupid display of military force. But of course there is oil at stake and we all know the history of what that does.




RE: get your filthy hands off my desert
By porkpie on 2/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: get your filthy hands off my desert
By HaZaRd2K6 on 2/1/2010 10:31:28 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, the US hasn't tried to claim anything, except that they don't recognise the internationally-recognised border between Alaska and Canadian territory.

Or does that not count?


RE: get your filthy hands off my desert
By BZDTemp on 2/2/2010 4:51:41 AM , Rating: 5
I suggest you read the article that started this debate on DT.

As for staking our claim it has been forced on us to do so by the Canada and Russia. And since Greenland is part of Denmark then I can not see this as a sign of greed. We are not the ones building up forces to suddenly get a stronghold in the region but have in fact been there since long before there was the USA.


RE: get your filthy hands off my desert
By porkpie on 2/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: get your filthy hands off my desert
By BZDTemp on 2/2/2010 9:51:16 AM , Rating: 5
Pardon but making the claim is just stating in a forum what have been reality for decades. Greed would be to try and claim something we just decided was interesting.

Look on a globe, find Greenland and then consider how the island has been Danish since the Vikings.


RE: get your filthy hands off my desert
By porkpie on 2/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: get your filthy hands off my desert
By BZDTemp on 2/3/2010 6:08:12 AM , Rating: 5
LOL

You need to look up teutonic plates.

Oh, and where is it that I have labled "anyone else in the world"? USA and Russia is not anyone else in the world.


By DougF on 2/3/2010 8:05:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You need to look up teutonic plates.

I did, and there are some very nice patterns out there, suitable for most occasions, but none are arctic-rated.


By Fitzmogwai on 2/3/2010 10:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You need to look up teutonic plates


Hell, when did the Germans get involved in this? I'm away for five minutes and look what I miss!


RE: get your filthy hands off my desert
By porkpie on 2/3/10, Rating: -1
Canada with the US
By Phoque on 2/1/2010 5:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
I can't imagine Canada fighting/exploiting its part of the pie without help from the US. It is not the inuits/eskimos parked up there that are going to claim right over natural resources, least exploit them or maintain sovereignty. I don't believe Canada has the resources to rival Russia in surveying, establishing territorial control of the region. What do we have exactly? A few icebreakers towed by US ships when stuck in ice?




RE: Canada with the US
By D2Lalma on 2/1/2010 6:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
Its only business.
4exmple if Artic worths many times more money then a big+strong army why not?
or half the profit with USA and ask for help. For a lot of oil they will help. Im Sure. They will bring democray to the North Pole. :DDD


RE: Canada with the US
By porkpie on 2/1/2010 8:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
"What do we have exactly? A few icebreakers towed by US ships when stuck in ice? "

Russia has the only fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers on the planet. They're also the only nation with both a serious claim AND the willpower to back it up. It seems pretty clear to me that they're going to wind up with the Lion's Share.


RE: Canada with the US
By Smilin on 2/2/2010 11:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody else has nuke icebreakers? Sure about that?


RE: Canada with the US
By porkpie on 2/2/2010 12:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I am. In fact, Russia not only has the entire world fleet of nuclear icebreakers, they're the only country that has ANY nuclear-powered civilian ships, period.


OIL UNDER DEM ICEBURGS
By Shig on 2/1/2010 5:31:46 PM , Rating: 3
LETS GET IT BOYZZZZZ




RE: OIL UNDER DEM ICEBURGS
By S3anister on 2/1/2010 8:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
the big oil whistle goes WOO WOOOOOOOOO


RE: OIL UNDER DEM ICEBURGS
By Jedi2155 on 2/1/2010 8:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
NEED MOAR WAAAAAAAGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!


RE: OIL UNDER DEM ICEBURGS
By Fenixgoon on 2/2/2010 9:53:02 AM , Rating: 1
Xeno spotted.

=D


RE: OIL UNDER DEM ICEBURGS
By Alexvrb on 2/2/2010 9:59:54 PM , Rating: 1
We will claim it in the name of the Emperor!


Photo is the USS Kidd
By Cygni on 2/1/2010 5:34:17 PM , Rating: 5
It's registration is DDG-100, not its class. It's an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. There is a DDG-99 and DDG-101, too, both also Burke-class.

You're probably getting mixed up with the DDG-1000 class destroyers, formally renamed to Zumwalt-class, the future surface warfare class of the US Navy, just now entering production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kidd_(DDG-100)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDG-1000




Why are we waiting?
By Iketh on 2/3/2010 4:08:20 AM , Rating: 2
Why aren't we just drilling through the ice to get to it anyhow? I'm a little confused.




RE: Why are we waiting?
By BZDTemp on 2/3/2010 6:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
Ice moves and putting what essentially is a factory on ice or in icy waters is not a good idea. Especially when said factory needs to A. connect and drill a hole in the sea bed and B. needs either a pipeline or frequent ship service to move it's production.


Green Carriers
By Chernobyl68 on 2/1/2010 5:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
All current US Aircraft Carriers are CVNs - nuclear powered. There has not been a conventional carrier in service for a number of years. A biofuel-powered carrier would be a big step backward, operationally.
Coming up with a green fuel for the aircraft and diesel generators is worth looking into, if it doesn't impact aircraft performance.




Petroleum in veins...
By greylica on 2/1/2010 6:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
Always the same race, fighting again for the last Petroleum frontier. Reading this, I have a perception that Humankind is a great deception...




Land sharing
By ralniv on 2/1/2010 7:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming that the icecaps melt and there is oil to be excavated there, then the sensible solution would be to develop something along the lines of the Antarctic Treaty System (Google it). Nobody is going to stand for 1 or 2 nations staking claim to no man's land. Attempting to do so is a recipe for needless conflict.




RE: Land sharing
By Jalek on 2/1/10, Rating: 0
Make this into an RTS please
By CosmoJoe on 2/2/2010 8:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
This new race for resources should not be wasted! I'd like to see this make it into the Command and Conquer franchise please!




By BZDTemp on 2/1/2010 6:19:25 PM , Rating: 4
Great - very mature to vote me down.

Let me try a different one. If the Arctic was not melting why would there be an increased interest in the area? Are you skeptics saying the US Navy is wrong?

Perhaps you have not followed the news reporting that cruise liners are starting to go to the area? And all the talk of a Northern passage opening up?

Ships sail in water they do not skate on ice so how is it new shipping routes are about to open up?


By BZDTemp on 2/2/2010 4:43:37 AM , Rating: 4
Since I'm a Dane and Greenland is part of the Danish nation our national news covers what is going on up there. I also have friends which have lived up there so I know what is up.

Must stories are in Danish but I goggled a little and found this report: http://www.jsonline.com/features/travel/29556739.h...

Perhaps it will change your mind about things and remember how the Eskimos live is based on tradition going back thousands of years. In other words they base their lives on how things have been for more than just the last decade or two.


By ganjha on 2/2/2010 5:27:59 AM , Rating: 5
It's Inuit, not Eskimo. Eskimo is considered pejorative, but when have Danes cared about their subjects. Greetings from a former colony.


By Zingam on 2/2/2010 8:25:59 AM , Rating: 5
Eskimo is pejorative, Black is pejorative, Negro is pejorative, Indian is pejorative... Is there something that's not pejorative in the USA? When will White become pejorative? I consider Caucasian pejorative! I am not from Caucasus!

:)

You guys are getting crazier with every passing year!


By ganjha on 2/2/2010 11:39:50 AM , Rating: 3
Just to make it clear; I'm not an American, and English happens to be my third language. It would not matter which language the distinction Eskimo is used since it's the people being referred to that dislike it, just as certain people dislike being called Negros even though the word just means Black.


By porkpie on 2/2/2010 11:51:33 AM , Rating: 4
If its not meant in a perjorative sense, how about you get the chip off your shoulder, and move on to something that's actually meaningful? In any case, there isn't even an accurate word to replace 'eskimo', unless you know another word that means "indigenous people of circumpolar origin"

As for "Indian", my grandmother was full-blooded Crow, and she never minded the term, so I guess its good enough for me.


By Fritzr on 2/2/2010 5:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
Another word that simply means "indigenous people of circumpolar origin" is Inuit. This is the name that they use for themselves and is preferred by Inuit peoples on both the Asian and American sides of the Arctic.

As far as Indian, yes it is in common usage among American Indians. The insistence on "Native American" came from the various Indian Rights movements. In addition to the generic Indian, meaning a native of the Americas, (equivalent to a Dane being European) they are also proud of being Mayan, Aztec, Nez Perce, Spokane, Cree, Navajo etc. depending on their actual tribal origins.

Eskimo/Esquimeau is not in common usage by the Inuit. They do have a preference and just as a native of Denmark is a Dane, A native of the these Arctic peoples is Inuit. They do accept that in English, French and a few other foreign languages they are known as Eskimo, but that is not the name they use for themselves.


By porkpie on 2/2/2010 5:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
"Another word that simply means "indigenous people of circumpolar origin" is Inuit."

This isn't correct, as I've already pointed out. Inuit is just one of the 3 major Eskimo tribes. The Yupiks of Russa are Eskimos...but they're certainly not Inuits.

"Eskimo/Esquimeau is not in common usage by the Inuit"

Depends on the region. In Alaska, the word Eskimo is still in common usage, even among the Inuit, and even the Inuit in Canada (where the term Inuit is perhaps strongest) still occasionally refer to themselves as Eskimo, as you can see in these remarks from the president of the Inuit CC:

http://inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?auto_slide=&...


By radializer on 2/5/2010 9:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as Indian, yes it is in common usage among American Indians. The insistence on "Native American" came from the various Indian Rights movements. In addition to the generic Indian, meaning a native of the Americas, (equivalent to a Dane being European) they are also proud of being Mayan, Aztec, Nez Perce, Spokane, Cree, Navajo etc. depending on their actual tribal origins.


<rant warning - beware>

If you are not born in India, you are not an Indian ...

All this confusion is just because Columbus was an idiot who thought he had reached India when, in fact, he had reached some of the islands near the Bahamas. (he should really have paid more attention to what the Portuguese knew about navigation)

This doesn't automatically make every native of the American continents (N+S) an "Indian". That, IMHO, is ridiculous! I just wish people would get done with this s*** once and for all.

As far as I am concerned, they were and are all Americans, just as everyone born on the American continent today is an American.

</rant>


By Zingam on 2/2/2010 8:30:27 AM , Rating: 3
BTW In other languages Eskimo is no pejorative and the word Inuit does not exist.


By porkpie on 2/2/2010 10:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
"When Jesse Jackson announced that he wanted "African-American" used instead of "black", the world took notice "

What about those blacks who didn't want to be labelled African American?

"why is it that when smaller ethnic groups wish to be called by the name they give themselves, ignorance prevails?"

It's not ignorance; it's common sense. Rewriting the language every few years because someone gets a burr up their behind is not only unhelpful, its counterproductive. Furthermore, "groups" don't pick names. Individual people do. If I meet someone who says they prefer me to refer to him as Inuit, I'll be happy to. In the meantime, the word "Eskimo" (a more accurate generic term encompassing not only the Inuit, but any indigenous cicumpolar inhabitant) will do just fine.

As long as an ethnic group has low self-esteem, they will eventually find ANY term used to refer to them as perjorative. Which is why we've gone from Negro to Colored to Black to 'African American' and 'People of Color' all in 100 years...and in another 20 years or so, some people will be calling Affrican-American perjorative as well.


By porkpie on 2/2/2010 8:58:13 AM , Rating: 3
" I also have friends which have lived up there so I know what is up."

Funny, but when people point out anecdotal evidence for global cooling, you quickly reply that doesn't count. But when clear photographic evidence exists that the ice is growing, you want to discard it in favor of the story you heard from Onuk, your eskimo buddy? Laughable, really.

BTW, there's no room for dispute. The ice has grown substantlally in the last 3 years. Personally, I hope the trend reverses and the north pole continues to melt, just as its been doing for the last 12,000 years. But we'll just have to wait and see.


By weskurtz0081 on 2/2/2010 10:35:18 AM , Rating: 4
Hang on a sec. How long the tradition goes back doesn't matter, only the last 100 or so years is what matters.

We are talking about the claim that the Earth is warming due to human activity, which is causing the ice to melt, so how long the tradition goes back is irrelevant. Throughout the history of the Earth, there were many natural changes, and those species which did not adapt, died. The same can be said for them, if they do not adapt they will perish, regardless of what is causing the climate change.

So, regardless of what has been going on for the last decade or two, the ice in the Arctic has been increasing for the past 2 or 3 years now, that is a fact. You said something about using a "20 years old satellite "video" proof", the problem is, the evidence is not 20 years old, it's actually as recent as this winter.

Whether or not you want to admit it, the ice coverage has been increasing. you can choose not to believe it and support whatever agenda you choose to support based on false pretenses, but don't lead others down that same path.


By Smilin on 2/5/2010 11:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
If the ice coverage is increasing why do the boats traveling through there not need offroad tires or skis?

Common sense is so rare it should be called a fcking superpower.


By Tony Swash on 2/2/2010 6:52:02 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I think you should ask the Eskimo's living in Greenland and north America. They will tell you something very different than the 20 year old satellite "video" proof you link to.


Did you watch the videos? If you had you should have noticed that this is a video of the complete satellite history of ice coverage at the north pole from 1979 up to the present time (i.e. the period of claimed human caused warming). This satellite data is the only verifiable data we have about total ice coverage at the North Pole.

And without trying to be too rude - I am sure that the Inuits will say anything to get more funding just like anyone else.

By the way during the Climatic Optimum (a period immediately after the last ice Age approximately between 5 and 9 thousand years ago) global temperatures were at least a couple of degrees higher than today, and the temperatures at the North Pole were possibly at least 6 degrees higher than today, for thousands of years. There was no environmental catastrophe and the polar bears did just fine. And that temperature increase happened when CO2 was lower than today.

For more info on the climatic optimum check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_optimum

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/happy-holocene


By porkpie on 2/2/2010 9:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
The most interesting thing about the Holocene Optimum is that the evidence shows the vast majority of warming occurred in high latitudes: Siberia, the Arctic, etc. Tropical regions were barely affected. In other words, just what we're seeing today.

The conclusion is obvious....to anyone but an AGW researcher, apparently.


By mikeyjk on 2/1/2010 7:38:23 PM , Rating: 5
The trouble is, NASA has already been caught fudging its data, so who can you trust?


By porkpie on 2/1/2010 9:32:22 PM , Rating: 3
Even if we decrease emissions, absolute CO2 levels are still going to keep going up. I suspect that even you understands this.

Anyway, its a moot point, as not only is the earth getting colder not warmer, but China (#1 CO2 producer), along with India and Russia aren't going to cut emissions no matter what we do.


By Jalek on 2/1/2010 9:35:53 PM , Rating: 5
Wow, crush industry, charge every US taxpayer $1200 annually, just to see what happens 50 years from now?

Hell of a plan.


By chagrinnin on 2/1/2010 10:35:15 PM , Rating: 4
Aw, crap,....I thougth he was offering to hold his breath. :P


By createcoms on 2/2/2010 12:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The best way to determine if humans are causing global warming, is to decrease C02 emissions and measure the effect.


OMG! So we are to burden our economies to the tune of several trillion dollars, putting our progress back DECADES all just to find out *IF* anthropogenic global warming (based on C02 emissions) is a reality?

I think you need to spend some time with the not so wealthy, because I don't think Joe Average isn't going to be happy about having his standard of living lowered just to test a theory and your empathy for him seems absent...


By FaceMaster on 2/2/2010 8:33:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We shouldn't trust either side; we should find out the truth


Shut up, that's completely unacceptable!


By porkpie on 2/2/2010 11:59:47 AM , Rating: 3
"So *if* (big IF)NASA fudged something..."

It's not a big if. It's been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. And let's remember, we're not talking about all of NASA. We're talking about their climate researchers, a small part of NASA...and the same group who have been found to have been fudging data not only at NASA, but around the world.

Did you hear the latest? The scariest global warming claims in the UN IPCC report came not from scientific research, but out of story in a popular mountaineering magazine. Another came from a student's thesis, and a third was lifted from the presentation of the environmental group WWF.
And the lader of the IPCC, Raj Pachauri, has been found to be personally making profits off the AGW scare.


By TSS on 2/1/2010 8:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
All that says is that there isn't less ice, there's less older ice.

Which the 3rd animation shows, clearly has to do with older ice getting pushed out to the edge and melting away when summer begins again.

Otherwise i can't explain 2 year old ice appearing in greenland within 6 months.


By porkpie on 2/1/2010 8:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
"NASA says it is:"

You link to two-year old slides. The Arctic has been gaining ice since 2007.


By Grabo on 2/2/2010 3:16:30 AM , Rating: 1
..Of course, with a brief (insufficient) glance I just seemed to verify what you said.
Let's put it this way- one year two years means little. Measured Sea Ice was more than 2007 (and 2006) but still 4th lowest since 1979 and lower than 2008. The trend is obvious to the NSIDC at least:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100105_...


By porkpie on 2/2/2010 9:00:59 AM , Rating: 3
"Let's put it this way- one year two years means little"

Funny, you wanted to base multi-trillion dollar boondoggles like cap-and-trade on the evidence of just 20 years?

Three years of growing ice means little. So does 20 years of ice loss. The pure facts are that the North Pole has been steadily melting for 12,000 years since the end of the last ice age. The "proof of GW" you clowns kept offering up was nothing but rubbish.


By meepstone on 2/2/2010 5:23:23 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing that is a trend is the world has been getting warmer since the ice age. Glad billions of dollars have been wasted to prove nothing.


By Kurz on 2/1/2010 9:24:42 PM , Rating: 3
Why should the age of the ice matter?
Since the ice is still getting replaced?
Just like skin that exfoliates it gets pushed out and drifts.

Plus I see it only goes back 30 years...
30 years is a hardly proof.


By Slyne on 2/1/2010 8:16:39 PM , Rating: 3
If indeed the temperatures did rise enough to free access to at least some parts of the arctic, would you rather be caught with your pants down, just to prove a point, or have planned for contingencies?

I think the aforementioned nations are opting for the latter.


By Jalek on 2/1/2010 9:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
I thought this was already over, Russia and Canada were mapping the floor and dropping markers to stake their claims while the US had a USN research command up there to do something similar.

They can drill under the ice anyway if they really want to.


By Hiawa23 on 2/2/2010 8:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure I believe, that humans are causing the planet to heat up, infact, I know I don't believe that. If the planet is heating up, it's cause it's supposed to do that & probably goes through cycles. The earth probably has been here for many many many many years, & I seriously doubt it's going to change by any big margin as a result of humans. If the artic is melting away, which seems like they are, I am pretty sure me being in Florida can't do a thing about that. Things are happening because they are supposed to happen.


By guffwd13 on 2/2/2010 9:44:00 AM , Rating: 1
Find it funny my fellow scientist, that your link intentionally ignores, well, science. Ice, last I checked, is a three dimensional object. It has volume. It has to be measured by volume, not area. Volumetrically, it has been decreasing. See this graphic on Nasa's website":

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009...

There's also another website (don't have time to find it at the moment), I believe associated with NASA that someone posted here last summer that interactively showed the polar ice by month for the last 20 or 30 years. Ironically, that person was also trying to prove the ice was growing. The two months he referred to showed just that. Funny enough though, if you went two months later OR earlier (or a year) it showed the opposite.

Not saying global warming is or is not happening. Just saying you should use real and significant data to support your arguments - unless you prefer to look like a kid who plugs his ears when a friend is trying to tell him Santa Claus doesn't exist.


By porkpie on 2/2/2010 9:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Find it funny my fellow scientist, that your link intentionally ignores, well, science"

That's rather amusing, considering your own reasoning lapse here. Your link does nothing but point out that ice declined between 2004 and 2008 ...a fact that no one here is disputing.

Ice levels (measured by surface area, or volumetrically) began to rise in late 2007. Currently, they're back at levels we saw in the 04-05 timeframe.

Will this short term trend continue? I certainly hope not. An ice free Arctic would be a great benefit to modern civilization.


What Climate Change ???
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: What Climate Change ???
By Kurz on 2/1/2010 9:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
I rather be able to see both sides.
Then we can comment about it and discuss it.
No matter if its a fraud to us... Many still see it as truth.


RE: What Climate Change ???
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2010 9:35:38 PM , Rating: 1
There is concrete proof it's a fraud though. And Mick still plunges ahead as if "Climategate" didn't happen.


Just the facts., ma'am.
By porkpie on 2/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Just the facts., ma'am.
By Andy35W on 2/2/2010 1:43:58 AM , Rating: 5
Sorry, but that is wrong, there has not been a large recovery in the last 2 years
annual average (JAXA)
year extent(km2)
2003 10839129
2004 10657076
2005 10344909
2006 10220438
2007 9965810
2008 10460820
2009 10430927

2007 was just an exceptional year.


RE: Just the facts., ma'am.
By porkpie on 2/2/2010 9:09:03 AM , Rating: 1
"2007 was just an exceptional year. "

I understand your fierce emotional desire to minmize the facts, but the only thing 'exceptional' about 2007 was that it marked the beginning of the reversing trend. Sea ice in 2009 was not only above 2007 levels, but higher than it was in 06 or even 2005. 2010 looks to be even higher.

The worst part about all this is that, even if the Arctic WAS melting, it proves nothing except that the planet is still coming out of the last Ice Age. The Arctic has been melting for the last 12,000 years. If it keeps doing so, it just means Mother nature is still catching up.


RE: Just the facts., ma'am.
By Andy35W on 2/3/2010 1:39:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I understand your fierce emotional desire to minmize the facts, but the only thing 'exceptional' about 2007 was that it marked the beginning of the reversing trend. Sea ice in 2009 was not only above 2007 levels, but higher than it was in 06 or even 2005. 2010 looks to be even higher.


I didn't minimize the facts, I just put the values up there for you to read. You mention 2005 and 2006 but ignore 2003 and 2004 because it suits your emotional desire. You can't say that a 2 year sample is the start of a reversing trend, it's too early to tell. You state that 2010 looks to be even higher, how can you possibly say that so early in the year apart from wishful thinking? Here are current values

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent...

currently 2010 is below 2008, 2009 and 2007! How do you figure 2010 looks to be higher?

This graph shows 2007 was exceptional

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_...

currently we have walked back to the general reducing trend of the last 30 years. So 2007 was exceptional, so you are even wrong with that.

Andy.


RE: Just the facts., ma'am.
By porkpie on 2/3/2010 3:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
" You mention 2005 and 2006 but ignore 2003 and 2004 "

How did I ignore them? I mention 2005 and 2006 simply to show that current ice levels are not only above the 2007 level, but higher than they were for 2 years before that.

You can't hide the fact that the amount of ice is going up. RISING. The ice was declining from 1979 to 2007, but then it stopped. This isn't one high month. It's a clear 3 year trend.

"You can't say that a 2 [note:actually 3 year] sample is the start of a reversing trend, it's too early to tell."

Ah, but a 20 year trend is proof positive that the world is about to end? You idiots make me laugh.

The truth is the North Pole has been melting for the last 12,000 years. So the fact that it continued to melt for a while long proves nothing...but if this 3 year trend continues another few years, it'll put the final nail in the coffin of the scam we call AGW.


RE: Just the facts., ma'am.
By Andy35W on 2/4/2010 12:57:37 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a 3 year trend if the lowest year was 2007, we have only had 2008 and 2009 full years since then, so how can it be 3 years?

quote:
You can't hide the fact that the amount of ice is going up. RISING. The ice was declining from 1979 to 2007, but then it stopped. This isn't one high month. It's a clear 3 year trend.


Did you not look at the graph I posted showing trend for minimum ice extent? It's going down, there is no rising trend. All that has happened is that 2007 was way below the 30 year average and so the ice is returning to the general trend, ie a small recovery to the average decrease.

Here's the full page again

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.htm...

Once again look at graph Average monthly sea ice extent September 1979 to 2009. You call me an idiot but you can't even read a graph it seems.

To finally ram it home, quoting from that page

"At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record"

I am quite happy for you to say reducing ice is not caused by AGW, but don't make claims about the actual data when those claims are wrong.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki