Making money off global warming
Summary: No old ice blocking the Northwest Passage.
Shipping companies are about to enjoy a centuries-old dream: the Northwest Passage will soon exist every summer across the Arctic. More profits moving stuff between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans via this new short-cut.
The older, impenetrable multiyears old ice is going away in the Arctic. The last three summers have been the three most ice-free summers on record for the Arctic. Current research shows no sheets of multi-year ice left in the open Arctic Ocean. What remains hugs the northern Canadian shoreline, far from shipping lanes. The new ice is often 20 inches or less in thickness, no problem for modern ships.
The melting ice has a feedback loop: darker ocean waters are exposed and they absorb more sunlight and the resulting warmth melts the remaining ice even faster. This effect of global warming is also causing northward migration of some pelagic animals as well as much jockeying for position to start drilling for oil and mining minerals in areas once blocked by the thicker ice. There are political shenanigans already about who controls what in the once frozen north. Canada wants to change the name of the Northwest Passage. Here's a summary of where the international claims now stand. As oil and other sources of wealth are found, you can be assured exploitation will follow.
What 19th Century explorers died trying to do, a modern sailing ship has done. From Victoria to Halifax by sea, over the North Pole.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Carbon Credit: The "global warming" SCAM
Hint: An inconvenient truth based on a very convenient set of lies.
Harry, this is A TECH IT SITE.
RE: Making money off global warming
posts*
RE: Making money off global warming
Harry? BTW:
http://www.iup.uni-
bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
Nothing too out of the ordinary - if anything,
trending up from the 2007 low... and besides;
the average here is based on 37 years of history
which is nowhere near sufficient enough to draw
spectacular conclusions on climatic trends. You
might wanna take a peak at Antarctica, the
worlds largest ice mass:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009
/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-
satellite-era/
You are desperate for it to be true!
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/
[B]The rapid recovery of ice levels has to have some meaning regarding the severity of the problem. This goes directly in the face of accellerated global warming and the doom and gloom scenarios promoted by our politicians and polyscienticians.[/B]
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/04/lawrence-solomon-deep-arctic-ice-surprises-scientific-expedition.aspx
[B]Ice in the Arctic is often twice as thick as expected, report surprised scientists who returned last week from a major scientific expedition.[/B]
That kinda sucks for them doesn't it, now they have to come up with some other way to implicate CO2 as evil while never matching model predictions.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/spread-of-thicker-arctic-ice-seen-last-summer/
[B]According to the center, second-year ice this summer made up 32 percent of the total ice cover on the Arctic Ocean, compared with 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008.[/B]
How can this be happening based on your Gorified science whereby the ocean is in a violent feedback boil away scenario [I]The melting ice has a feedback loop: darker ocean waters are exposed and they absorb more sunlight and the resulting warmth melts the remaining ice even faster.[/I].
It's truly amazing that science has no relevance in your world. World is cooling, CO2 levels have not dropped, therefore CO2 was the cause of the warming up over the last 30 years. How does one rationalize such stupidity...oh, that's right, it's all about [B]MAKING MONEY[/B] but in this case, it isn't big corporations, it is the eco-gorified crowd (not to be confused with real conservationists) that wants the tax revenue and control over us evil humans.
You know, I can see where green tech would be useful to know about on a tech site, and your colleague has actually posted some interesting things. Why ZDNet, however, continues to lose credibility with your blather is amazing. You never have a valid argument, and never defend your position in the face of hundreds or even thousands of valid talkbacks through all your posts.
TripleII
Thanks
back posting - you seemed to be quiet for awhile
there. BTW: did you check out my Antarctica link
above? I think that also epitomizes the 'money-
making' scam that AGW is.
Yep. Science doesnt' apply though for these people.
TripleII
Again - good reading!
http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/2009/10/22/new-
monckton-presentation-video-includes-slides/
One of the best out there!
Good information, thanks.
HARRY WHERE ARE YOU NOW, YOU COWARD?
COWARD!
Go back to your bird watching.
Should be required reading. How to manufacture a crisis.
I will ask up front, if you actually have the guts to respond, or you a simply the unconditional astroturfer, why has there been "impending doom" with 5 cooling periods in the last 100 years all while CO2 has continued to go up?
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
[B]The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be ?wiped out? or lower crop yields would mean ?billions will die.?
...
fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, ?Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.?
...
Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth?s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning ?the earth is steadily growing warmer.?
...
After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled ?Climate ? the Heat May Be Off.?
...
Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: ?A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.?
...
That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an ?almost unprecedented magnitude.?
...
Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.
...
He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn?t work for climate stories. ?There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,? he said.[/B]
You absolutely subscribe to the last paragraph posted there Harry. You can admit it, we all know. Regardless, I will ask you again, if you have ANY real unbiased brain cell, explain the above. It's always about a crisis. I predict that in 5 years, if the cooling trend continues, somehow, some way, the Gorified crowd will STILL find a way to blame CO2. The above is a challenge Harry, and until you reply with a coherent statement without handwaving or maybe calling me names, I will post a link to this entry under every one of your stories (at least until ZDNet bans my account). See, people who arrive here and believe you might actually have something unbiased to say should know you are like Al Gore, you can't defend your position against even the talkbacks above, and never will.
TripleII
HARRY, SHOWS SOME SPINE MAN. RESPOND.
Good job Triple & Zik. Informative links.
Wow! Grow up man!
Let's keep the posts intelligent and not sink to name calling, eh?
& really, who's the coward -- YOU are posting your insults and threats and not even using your real name!
Actually, acidification kills reefs
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-acid-ocean-the-other-problem-with-cosub2sub-emission/
Tides have been unusually high on the US east coast this year, as noted in http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/EastCoastSeaLevelAnomaly_2009.pdf. Shape of things to come?
ocean TEMPS are rising
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=coral-reefs-vital-to-the-oceans-vit-2009-02-11
DON'T READ CEC stuff
To all budding oceanographers
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/trmm-satellite-suggests-july-2009-not-a-record-for-sea-surface-temperatures/
Even from an AGW advocates:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Acidification? Balance please:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/09/ocean-acidification.html
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/
Even some of the respondents in Reality-based's first link above express doubts (re: neutralization as opposed to acidification). Anyway - the IPCC predictions for ocean levels are definitely not rising:
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm
I challenge you to weigh up both sides - I am not anti environment. I just believe we must apply balanced standard scientific practice, completely devoid of political influences when formulating environmental policy - I do NOT see that in AGW.
Not the first NW Passage opening
And this article is a LONG stretch to tie into IT. This one is pure environmental activism!