Impassable Northwest Passage Open For First Time In History 528
An anonymous reader writes "The Northwest Passage, a normally ice-locked shortcut between Europe and Asia, is now passable for the first time in recorded history reports the European Space Agency. Leif Toudal Pedersen from the Danish National Space Centre said in the article: 'We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3 million sq km which is about 1 million sq km less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006. There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100 000 sq km per year on average, so a drop of 1 million sq km in just one year is extreme.'"
A non-passable passage? (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Won't be long (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Poorly worded (Score:5, Insightful)
So yes it looks similar on Google maps, but it looks completely different on Google Earth.
Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sovreignity rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, some glaciers are shrinking. But some that have been CLAIMED to be shrinking have actually been growing. And other glaciers are growing, as well.
Yes, the earth has been warming. But it has been warming pretty steadily for the last 6,000 years, and it has been warmer in the past -- even during recorded history -- than it is now. And even though it is getting warmer, there is actually very little evidence that WE have been causing it.
So it might be a good idea to brace for warmer weather, but there is little cause for alarm. In the past warmer weather has meant higher rainfall, lusher crops, and you might even see more rainforest.
The planet warms up. The planet cools down... (Score:1, Insightful)
Everyone thinks that "global warming" is a political thing. That's not the case. The "politics" is about whether you think humans have much to do with it.
While it is popular, in some circles, to say people are contributing to global warming in a meaningful way, the science [earthtimes.org] is still out, and in many cases pointing towards a "shit happens" point of view, if it turns out badly for people.
Personally, I strongly believe in the "shit happens" model of the universe. In the cosmic scheme of things it doesn't matter one wit if a big rock wipes out all life on this planet tomorrow. A lot of people can't handle that idea.
Re:Won't be long (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sovreignity rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the passage indisputably passes between islands all internationally recognized as Canadian. Territorial waters [wikipedia.org] is defined as 12 nautical miles (22 km) from the land, and a quick check using Google Earth shows most of these islands are less than 44 km apart at their closest points. Once you're in the Beaufort Sea, then yeah you're in international waters.
Unfortunately the US and European countries don't have many comparably close-lying islands for comparison, but it would be like claiming the Shelikof Strait between Alaska and Kodiak Island were international waters.
The US and Europe want the passage "international" for the convenience and cost savings, which is understandable. But their wanting to make it international also means they want to strip Canada of its obligation to protect its environment--witness the callous disregard of the effects of dumping bilge oil/water [elements.nb.ca] just last year.
Obviously, Canada currently is in no position to enforce its sovereignty in the north due to its underfunded military, but that is a separate issue. The Arctic and Antarctic areas are one of the last areas on earth relatively unspoiled by human contamination, and it disgusts me that those largely responsible for screwing up the rest of the world, now want to finish the job.
Right, but not in a regular ship (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not quite the same (Score:2, Insightful)
With ships of todays technology and more importantly propulsion systems, the 3 year route could be done in weeks if not sooner. We have the advantage of satellite to see which routes are blocked and which ones we won't have to turn around and back track from. We have GPS that would tell us we are where we think we are and we have ships that aren't slaves to the wind that could make the trip. If we had that in 1903, you would see a different story then three years. So lets keep this on relative terms. I know some will want to discredit anything that doesn't support the doom and gloom but it is doing no justice to the causes taking advantage of it.
Re:Poorly worded (Score:5, Insightful)
And why should Canada's sovereign territory being pieced apart? If it suddenly became globally advantageous to cross shipments through most of the US, the EU and the rest of the world would be perfectly justified in making it international territory as well?
You people can just fly/ship your people/things with our blessings (and taxes), the land and airspace belongs to us.
Re:Time to buy (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, with *icebreakers* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Arctic minimum, antarctic maximum (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct. Longwave absorption is causation.
We know from the lab that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths, we know from thermodynamics that the earth reradiates at those wavelengths, and we know from satellite measurements that less energy is reaching space from the surface at those wavelengths.
We also know what solar output [noaa.gov] has been doing, for the last ~30 years quite precisely.
Re:Maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that you, as an individual, have somewhere between little to nothing to say about what your government does or doesn't do. Sure, you vote, rally and protest... a lot of Americans (by that I mean people of the US just as you meant) do the same thing. But with various forms of corruption running rampant everywhere and at every level, the real decision makers and controllers of the world's destiny are actually very few. Please remember that the next time you decide to troll every person in a region for simply living on that soil.
But to address the US's over-use of POVs (personally owned vehicles) I'll have to say that it's ultimately "not our fault." Back when the auto makers were growing big and strong, (way before any of us were born) the government was being lobbied [read paid off] not to grow our rail infrastructure and instead to promote the use and building of roads and highways. This, of course, prevented the growth of the railroad industry for anything but freight. So now, we use cars and planes to get anywhere... trains and buses are relatively rare forms of transportation and as such are also infrequent which makes them inconvenient.
I have visited other countries where public transportation is a lot more frequent and convenient and I must say, I believe it's definitely better for humanity in general when public transportation is accessible. I believe that if more people in the US had the opportunity to visit areas and countries where public transportation is well established they would generally arrive at the same conclusions I have.
I'll also add that I live in Texas where everything is spread out REALLY far and at the moment and in the forseeable future, there's just no way a public transportation infrastructure will happen as much as I would like it to happen.
But please, don't blame "Americans." Blame the jackasses who would rather destroy the world in order to protect their profits and business model... blame them, attack them with pies in the face, attack them with sticks and stones! I'd love to see a greener and less-corrupt US of A.
Re:whoa. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd take those odds (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Question about ocean levels (Score:3, Insightful)
Because of the ice currently above sea level in Greenland and Antarctica. Melting sea ice leads to higher temperatures in the air above the ocean. These higher temperatures lead to more melting in onshore ice, like the ica cap in Antarctica.
Re:Cooler! (eh, ok, perhaps *warmer*...) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sovreignity rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sovreignity rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:By years of study in the 30s (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, this is something to watch, but by making clearly untrue statements, fuel is given to those that are skeptical.
Also, A quick google shows that Roald [wikipedia.org] Amundsen [britannica.com] sailed it in 1905? Or am I misunderstanding the story?
And that the Vikings were sailing it sometime between 1200 and 1500 A.D.
Re:whoa. (Score:4, Insightful)
Smoothness. Just take a look at the curves, and you'll see lots of cycles, big and small but these are changes that happen over thousands (and in some cases, millions) of years. What we see today is much bigger than "the little ice age" and the yearly variations, it goes straight up and coincides with our industrialization and CO2 emissions. Just because our ability to accurately predict say a storm center months in advance is poor, we know what normal variation is and this isn't it. You seem to want proof on the level of "beyond any reasonable doubt". Personally I think those that are willing to risk destroying the planet on the off chance that "it might not be us" are should err on the side of caution, not suicidalness. YMMV.
Re:whoa. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cooler! (eh, ok, perhaps *warmer*...) (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, having the Chinese, as well as all other nations, being well off frightens only the proponents of "globalization" (who are usually some variants of "conservative" these days - although any greed blinded individual will do) which hypocritically, depends on vast inequalities which can be exploited for profit.
Wealth and responsibility are not mutually exclusive.
The answer of course is to enable other nations to grow sustainable economies, centered around local products and services.
"Globalization" as it is envisioned and conducted at present is the bastard child resulting from an orgy of greed and colossal waste, orgy conducted with gleeful, utter abandon and contempt for the future generations.
It is the crowning achievement of the "I got mine, so Fuck You All!" world-view
To be fair, your point has one valid element: the Western working class is just as guilty of in this very attitude as the Western business elites, and so, by extension, also complicit in this. Only now do they realize the true implications of their short-sighted political apathy.
Re:By years of study in the 30s (Score:5, Insightful)
Last year was a record low for ice coverage, a quarter of what was left of the ice cap last year dissapeared this year, how extreme do you want it?
BTW: I entirely agree with the GP, the IPCC reports by their very nature are conservative in their estimates, but they are also by their very nature are the best representation of the current state of scientific knowledge. I think in time the IPCC will move toward the (depressing) picture drawn by people such as Hansen [wikipedia.org], Lovelock [jameslovelock.org], Attenborough [wikipedia.org] and many others.
Re:I wonder why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Try 400 years (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:whoa. (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll also notice, from your graph, that the global temp is actually lower than a number of the previous spikes (showing that as far as that graph is concerned we're NOT warming anymore). You'll also notice that while it's not going down, it's steady (which doesn't show the continuous upward trend that news sources want you to believe). You'll find in your noted graph, on the left at around 425,000 years ago there was a similar leveling, which was followed by a spike and then a drop off in temp.
Now I'm not going to say that all of our CO2 emissions are helping things, but I would like to point out that the earth was doing a fine job spiking it's own temps long before we arrived. Volcanos, changes in the Earth's orbit around (Milankovitch cycles), changes in plate techtonics, solar output and meteorites have been deciding factors before and likely will continue that way in the future. I'm assuming they don't teach this stuff in school anymore, so here's a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age [wikipedia.org].
I find it #1 vain of the human race to think that they're the ONLY reason why temps can change in the world, #2 to think that they're the only thing that can fix it, #3 to think that this hasn't happened before and won't happen again. Humans are but a blip in the geologic time scale.
That being said, there are plenty of other reasons besides global warming to go green, we will run out of oil sooner than later, and land/water pollutants cause more harm that CO2 anyway. Let's not be so one sided and try to come up with ways to make things better for the environment as a whole instead of throwing everything towards "global warming".
Re:Arctic minimum, antarctic maximum (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wonder why? (Score:2, Insightful)
The battle for the internet's best made-up statistics is over, and you have won. Awesome, truly awesome.
Re:Won't be long (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cooler! (eh, ok, perhaps *warmer*...) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cooler! (eh, ok, perhaps *warmer*...) (Score:5, Insightful)
Am an in awe of your grasp of the situation, specially when highlighted with such creative epithets. Now, do please explain how does this hypothetical fleet has its maintenance and hiring practices improved, given that vast majority of it is registered in, say, that bastion of high standards of regulation: Antigua, and owned by companies registered in, say, Dubai. For a bonus question: explain away your method of forcing the merchants to use the astronomically expensive (in relation to everything else) nuclear reactors followed by your gracing us with your enlightening views on the methods of securing the nuclear fuel and the ships themselves from falling into the hands of some bearded and beturbaned individuals with somewhat antisocial attitudes.
I am reeling under the assault of your great wit, so cleverly based upon words of "shit" and "pig". As to being blindly "grafted" on an aspect of reality, I am afraid I got you beat there, since your entire rant consists of "hypothetical" hot air, which does not even withstand most cursory of "hypothetical" searches for traces of common sense.
Re:Sovreignity rights (Score:3, Insightful)
And the US would be rather hypocritical if they use the Law of the Sea as justification for innocent passage, since they're refusing to ratify it partly because (and love the the irony here) it would compromise US sovereignty [wikipedia.org].
Re:Cooler! (eh, ok, perhaps *warmer*...) (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that sounds good in theory, but it is not true in practice.
What actually happens is that as the living standards of the "target" of the products are very rapidly lowered (attendant with creation of astronomical and unsecured debt) and the living standards of the source are slowly (as slowly as one can manage as a matter of fact, as this reduces profits) raised. When that fails, the "source" is moved to yet another poor country, and the previous one simply abandoned. Ask those border-factory Mexicans, who were such gold makers for the corps in the 1980s, how they are doing to today...
Since there are very many potential "sources", the process can be repeated for several generations yet. Its bonus feature is an ability to destroy any worker's protections in the "target" countries, by beating the working class over their heads with demands to be more "flexible" and "competerive" with their "competiton" who gets paid $2 a week and has no rights or benefits. Since those protections took centuries to acquire, they will take centuries to regain once lost.
Also, there are very few types of products which cannot be made everywhere, and very few types of ores which do not occur on every continent in quantity. It makes more sense to transport the extracted and purified raw materials then the goods since it requires much less volume and fuel waste for that process.
Which brings on another point: globalization is not sustainable, simply due to the amounts of energy (and types of thereof) required to transport the goods all over the world. We are used to extremely cheap (even at $80 a barrel) energy which is the result of millions of years of slow accumulation and which we are blowing from out asses in mere historical seconds. When that runs out ... globalization will be a word one uses a punchline of a sad joke.
Re:If the ice melts and there's nobody on the beac (Score:2, Insightful)
The rate of temperature change is "unprecedented"? You can't be serious. The rate of change is nothing compared to the end of the ice age around 12kya. Nor is there any evidence that the rate of change is unusual compared to the relatively stable temperature since then. Nor is there a shred of evidence that the existing change is unnatural.
The dustbowl and the current Australian drought are examples of cyclical local climate fluctuations. While it is a serious thing, it is neither global nor because of CO2.
The arctic was melting during the dustbowl as well. It didn't last 40-50yrs, and this one won't either. Such predictions are wishful thinking on the part of apocalypse mongers. When we don't understand some process, it's natural to be afraid it will never stop. Like some stereotypical savage seeing an eclipse and thinking the sun isn't going to come back. However, I think that actual savages were more rational than us, as they observed that nature operates in cycles -- something that modern man is apparently oblivious to.
I agree that understanding the climate is vital to the preservation of civilization. Most importantly, there is an Ice Age coming, and if we want to preserve our way of life, we have to find a way to stop it. I to admire the work of scientists over the last few decades, but when you talk about "consensus predictions" it makes me think that you haven't actually read the work.
There was a recent analysis of peer-reviewed climate research [earthtimes.org] that finds that the work of over 500 scientists is undermining what is trying to be passed off by as "consensus" by snake oil salesmen. The ACTUAL scientific consensus includes the facts that
"1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age; 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance; 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate."