Capitalizing on Melting Polar Ice 505
efuzzyone writes "As an affect of global warming, the polar ice caps seem to be slowly receding, what do you do? The NYT reports it is a gold rush, 'the Arctic is undergoing nothing less than a great rush for virgin territory and natural resources worth hundreds of billions of dollars.' Also, 'polar thaw is also starting to unlock other treasures: lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage; new cruise ship destinations; and important commercial fisheries.'"
And thats not all (Score:3, Interesting)
The first thing I though of.. (Score:2, Interesting)
(I live in U.S.)
reminds me of a simpson plot. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Anyone.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice work with the selective quoting, bub.
Very next line:
But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing. [howstuffworks.com]
If we raise the average temperature on Earth by 37C, we'll probably all be dead anyway, so the flooding will be kind of irrelevant.
Re:Anyone.. (Score:2, Interesting)
If this does all goto hell then the entire eco system will change. Storms will be 10 times worse, the heat will be deadly.. Does it matter if we drown, die in a storm or heat stroke? Either way they'll end up killing people for more money. Something I personally find sickening..
Re:How about some links showing the other side of (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Anyone.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blame Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Your poor research has lead to false facts. (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree the melting and re-freezing of ice caps are cyclical, and that stats always skewed, but you do realize that coastal communities are a lot less mobile than they were the last time the icecaps melted significantly? (And yes, I know that only the melting of one of the icecaps, the Antarctic, can actually affect sea levels). You can't easily abandon all the infrastructure in say New York and rebuild on higher ground, like a small tribe living in simple huts or cabins could.
Just because events are historically cyclical, doesn't mean we're better able to weather them.
Re:help me out here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that, the question of causes remains. Volvano activity certainly throws out a lot of C02, around one hundred and thirty to two hundred and thirty million metric tons a year [wikipedia.org]. In comparison the US produces around five billion metric tonnes a year by itself [wikipedia.org] convincingly dwarfing volcanic output. You also point the finger at solar activity, claiming it is ignored - it isn't. As you point out the IPCC includes it in their considerations and found, depending on the model used, that it accounted for effects of sixteen to thirty six percent that of those caused by CO2 and other greenhouse emissions [wikipedia.org]. There are questions as to how well solar activity actually correlates with global temperature [newscientist.com] as well, so it's an open topic.
On the other side of things: Our present understanding of physics is fairly unequivocal that CO2 and other gases can cause warming by trapping heat. Using ice cores and other methods to reconstruct historical CO2 levels we find that CO2 correlates extremely well with global temperature. We also find that CO2 levels have spiked beyond anything in recent history (recent history being the last four hundred thousand years) in just the last 150 years - again correlating extremely well with the recent acceleration in warming. Given the extremely good correlations and the clear reasons to believe in causation (which is to say, physics) it would seem that the burden of proof should fall to those who suggest human CO2 emissions are not having a significant impact on global temperatures.
Are we killing the earth? I doubt it - I expect the earth will simply get warmer and keep on going. The question is: are we making life for ourselves much harder and much more costly, and is that preventable? There is strong evidence that human CO2 emissions are having a significant impact on climate, and that is certainly the cause over which we have the most direct influence. It makes sense to do something about it if we can.
Jedidiah.
Your poor research has led to pollyannaism. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1352 [ucsb.edu]
"The research described in this week's article demonstrates that over the last 1.3 million years, sea surface temperatures in the heart of the western tropical Pacific were controlled by the waxing and waning of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The largest climate mode shift over this time interval, occurring ~950,000 years before the present (the mid-Pleistocene transition), has previously been attributed to changes in the pattern and frequency of ice sheets.
The new research suggests instead that this shift is due to a change in the oscillation frequency of atmospheric carbon dioxide abundances, a hypothesis that can be directly tested by deep drilling on the Antarctic Ice Cap. If proved correct, this theory would suggest that relatively small, naturally occurring fluctuations in greenhouse gases are the master variable that has driven global climate change on time scales of ten thousand to one million years."
This study of plankton cores combined with the recent study of bog hardwoods puts all these "sun output" and "natural cycle" arguments to bed. Good night. Usually it's a large catastrophic event releasing trapped methane from ocean depths that cause it. This time we did it all by our lonesome -- or is that loathsome -- selves.
And Yet... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But Europeans are ruining their economies.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Kyoto has controls for both emissions and sinks. One reason Russia embraced it is that Russia does produce quite a lot of carbon fuels (they've got the world's largest reserves), but also has the largest area that can be reforested. They're in the carbon sink business. But the problem with your plan, which they'd favor, is that emphasizing the sink now more than the emissions would pass all that pollutiuon through the atmosphere. Like protecting polluters from liability as long as they clean it up later - or someone cleans it up later. Like exonerating a thief if they give back their loot when they're done using it.
Kyoto isn't the best, or last, solution to Greenhouse pollution. But it's better than nothing. The US has embraced nothing as our solution. Which is unacceptable, especially as Bush lied about responding to Kyoto with "something better", which he has certainly not. So Kyoto isn't good enough - it gets us all started, and gives us something to learn from. It's a global industrial policy, with our civilization's survival hanging in the balance. We've already squandered a decade ignoring it here, where we can best execute it for maximum benefit, so we have that much more ground to make up. Many scientists warn that the tipping point, beyond which accommodations like Kyoto won't be enough, might pass within a decade. It's certainly far too late to make procrastinating arguments for doing nothing, that merely build our polluting industries. We've got to do something to save ourselves, while we argue about what better we can do with the time that Kyoto has bought. Europe is making us look stupid, though we're doing at least half of the work to do so.