Making money off global warming

Making money off global warming

Summary: No old ice blocking the Northwest Passage.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Telcos
19

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.

Topic: Telcos

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

19 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Carbon Credit: The "global warming" SCAM

    Guess who is the biggest seller of carbon credits?? You know, the program where you buy an imaginary credit as payment for putting something in the air that you were already doing for free.

    Hint: An inconvenient truth based on a very convenient set of lies.
    wackoae
  • Harry, this is A TECH IT SITE.

    Come up with some relevant IT blog sometime.
    CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963
  • RE: Making money off global warming

    cmon, it's nice to keep in the know about all this environmental stuff, but i mean....this is zdnet. tell me something about win7, osx, anything. please. all these environmental psots do is to attract trolls from both camps. if you're really passionate about this, why don't you write about it in the greenpeace blog or wherever?
    privatejarhead
    • posts*

      (spelling correction)
      privatejarhead
  • RE: Making money off global warming

    But aren't you effectively doing the same,
    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/
    rikasa
  • You are desperate for it to be true!

    You are also a HUGE part of the problem. You do remember they never did measure the arctic ice correctly the year they set off the alarm bells. Here's some suggested reading. Not that you will, you and the entire "Man is Evil" fanatics w.r.t. "Climate Change" (the idea you had to change it from Global Warming speaks volumes).

    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
    TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
    • Thanks

      TripleII - nice informative post! Nice to see you
      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.
      rikasa
      • Yep. Science doesnt' apply though for these people.

        Read my next post, it is all about manufacturing a crisis to penalize us evil humans and control/tax us. I have not been posting as much, but may be more often. Changed jobs where I am not doing 12-4am upgrade support nearly as often, so less time to post.

        TripleII
        TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
        • Again - good reading!

          Have you seen this video?

          http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/2009/10/22/new-
          monckton-presentation-video-includes-slides/

          One of the best out there!
          rikasa
    • Good information, thanks.

      Also, nice to see Harry's (near-non-existant) credibility demolished.

      CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963
    • HARRY WHERE ARE YOU NOW, YOU COWARD?

      Why don't you have the guts to discuss this information? You don't. You're a coward who's afraid to discuss with opponents.

      COWARD!

      Go back to your bird watching.
      CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963
  • Should be required reading. How to manufacture a crisis.

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

    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
    TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
    • HARRY, SHOWS SOME SPINE MAN. RESPOND.

      But of course he can't. He's bought and paid for by the eco-terrorists.

      Good job Triple & Zik. Informative links.
      CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963
      • Wow! Grow up man!

        Why are you so hot under the collar? Harry's posts affect all of us -- even those, like you, who are sticking their heads in the sand hoping that climate change is not real. How do you explain the coral that are dying off because the oceans are rising because the ice caps are melting??

        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!
        lazuli16
        • Actually, acidification kills reefs

          It's actually CO2 acidification, not rising sea levels, that kills coral 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?
          Reality-based
          • ocean TEMPS are rising

            I think Lazuli meant that ocean temperatures are rising, contributing to issues that kill off coral - and it all does, whether you and CEC like it or not - go back to global warming.
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=coral-reefs-vital-to-the-oceans-vit-2009-02-11
            BonMot
      • DON'T READ CEC stuff

        What is it with this fella? Hates Fuller. Pushes for pollution. What's the deal. Whatever - more and more irrelevant. My advice to other readers: skip this guy's nasty non-comments. He obviously has nothing worthwhile to do.
        BonMot
  • To all budding oceanographers

    Ocean temperatures rising? There are varying opinions:

    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.
    rikasa
  • Not the first NW Passage opening

    Check your records - the NW Passage has been open before in history although I agree that it was more of a hit-or-miss adventure and many people were lost trying to find a way through. The point is that there has been less ice than our current 30-year statistical average ice cover. You cannot assume that our VERY limited understanding of the planet's history means that we have less ice than ever before in history. There have been events with this little ice before and that was before CO2 levels rose!

    And this article is a LONG stretch to tie into IT. This one is pure environmental activism!
    sgtgary@...