(AP Photo/U.S. Coast Guard, Petty Officer Patrick Kelley)
Scientists predict that the arctic sea lanes will be free from ice in summer within 20 years. This is good news for the world economy.
According to Fox News, "The data supports the new consensus view — based on seasonal variation of ice extent and thickness, changes in temperatures, winds and especially ice composition — that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within about 20 years," said Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, U.K.
If the arctic ice does indeed melt it will result in many positive benefits to the world economy and indirectly to individual consumers. It's not that big a deal.
If there is no arctic ice the Northwest Passage opens up for shipping, at least it will be open in the summer if professor Wadhams is to be believed. This will cut from one to two weeks off the travel time for shipments of material goods traveling between Europe and Asia. Rather than having to round the Cape of Good Hope or weather the Magellan Straits, vessels can sail a more direct and shorter route across the north pole.
A week or two off this journey will result in lower shipping costs which will in turn result in lower prices for imported material goods and raw materials. It may even be feasible to ship directly to the east coast of the United States rather than unload in Seattle and use the railroads for cross continental movement.
A week or two off this journey will result in less greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution from the shipping industry. Less fuel will be consumed. Global warming theorists should be happy.
Oh but the alarmists say that sea levels will rise if the arctic ice disappears. Not really. The arctic sea ice floats on water. Any melting of this ice will have no effect on sea levels. You can check this out in your own kitchen. Put an ice cube in an empty glass and then fill the glass to the brim with water. Wait until the ice cube melts. Did any water spill out of the glass? No, so why should we expect different results from melting the floating sea ice in the arctic?
This presumes, of course, that professor Wadhams is correct and that the arctic ice is indeed rapidly melting away. Satellite measurements, on the other hand, show that the arctic ice is getting thicker with each passing year. Arctic temperatures have been higher in the not-too-distant past. Increasing global temperatures are hard to justify against measurements that show no warming, and actually cooling, since 1998.
Here in Minnesota, we just experienced an unusually early killing frost and snow on the ground this past week. July was one of the coldest on record. Where is the warming?
There is a growing number of global warming skeptics including well credentialed scientists. Al Gore, the prophet of global warming, will not take questions nor risk debate with people who hold the opposite view. Global warming alarmists always attack the messenger when their belief system is challenged. These are hardly the actions of people with truth on their side.
Ann McElhinny and Phelim McAleer have produced a documentary questioning the science and politics of the global warming hysteria. The trailer for this documentary, “Not Evil, Just Wrong,” is embedded below and a CD can be purchased.
You wouldn't know it from the main stream media, but there are two sides to this issue.
Want to read more articles by the Washington County Independent Examiner?
Subscribe at the top of this column to receive e-mail updates.
Make a comment and add to the discussion, or send Dave an e-mail.
Comments
Your article asks "Where's the warming?" in mentioning the cool July statisitics over teh midwest.
Uhm...
Did you LOOK at the data from the western third of the country? Like the warmest month ever in places as disparate as Seattle and Phoenix?
C'mon. Stop cherrypicking "facts" to support your broad argument.
Jamison,
That is certainly no more egregious than the claim that arctic temperatures (a regional phenomenon)are higher than they've been in, oh, the last 10 years or so and that that is cause for alarm of global proportions. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
For commenter Jamison Hawkins to consider: Don't forget that Phoenix had the coldest June since 1913, just do a Google search for "Az Republic June hasn't been this nice since ... 1913"
Well done! It's time we start pointing out the facts about so-called global warming. Next up, attack Cap and Trade! We cannot let this bill pass or it will mean years of recession-like economy for the US and other countries that depend on our aid and exports.
So when more of the Greenland Glaciers melt and the Maldives go under water, we can use your house as a home for refuges. Good. And when crops fail due to climate changes such as early freezes and unseasonal flooding, you'll be the first to give up your food to the rest of us? Stop cherry picking your data, and just go back to waving your cane at the kids in your yard.
Are you retarded? Who gives a s#!t if it has been warmer or not in the last thousand years!!! Our entire CURRENT existance is predicated upon the CURRENT climate. If the current climate changes before we (and every other species on the planet), have a chance to adapt we're F'd!
Here's some cherries for you.
www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Arctic.htm
And here's another 52 cherries for your basket. The blue line represents the freezing point.
ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Anthony Watts does a nice little montage of the annual data.
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/dmi_arctic_temp-vs-era40climate_animation.gif
Don’t you just hate it when the facts get in the way of a perfectly good argument.
MrC
Mr. Cannuckistan,
Just to be fair I checked out your reference (stilted as it was). Perhaps you didn't realize that you could click on the individual reports to get a closeup of the graphs. Try it. You'll notice that the majority of the graphs show a clearly increasing trend line in temperatures. Add that to the fact that the data only covers less than one hundred years, during which the arctic ice cap has never been covered with open water, and it makes for a pretty alarming report. Seriously, you have to read past the bulls#!t and apply at least as much mental energy as it took to write your post.
Carl D.
The Arctic ice cap isn't covered with water now either. All these claims of an ice free arctic use the word "could". Trouble is you guys always interpret the word "could" as "will", then use the prediction as proof of global warming. You can't use a prediction as proof of anything. Climate is always in an upward trend or a downward trend, it doesn't mean the trend will continue indefinitely.
The North West Passage has been open before, most notably in the Medieval Warm Period. However even then the Arctic was not ice free. An ice free Arctic would mean no ice at any time and this would mean that the Antarctic would be ice free also. In fact, this would mean the Earth would be out of an ice age for the first time in a very long time. I really do not think this will happen in 10 years or 20 years or in my lifetime or in any time before the sun goes nova in 850 Billion years.
I certainly did realize you can click on the individual graphs. Now who’s cherry picking? Only a handful or so show warming trends.
The temperature records only cover 50 to 150 years roughly, as we are talking about AGW here. The issue is about greenhouse gasses causing runaway “hockey stick” type warming in the 20th century and beyond. It’s about how they say the warming is causing the Arctic ice to melt. Gee, I wonder if something else could have caused it.
www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
www.homerdixon.com/download/amsr-2_04.swf
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm
Ironically, since 2007 the ice has rebounded nearly 1 million km², contrary to the theory that as more ice melts it exposed more dark water, which causes the water to warm up and “more” ice to melt. I guess nature didn’t get that memo.
nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure2.png
MrC
Carl D, it has happened before. In the Permian Extinction event in which 96% of marine species and 70% of large land animals died out in a very short period of time about 251.4 million years. That was caused by a 5 C drop. I am sure that you understand that a 5 C drop now would so the same. A 5 C increase would not hurt us.
I certainly did realize you can click on the individual graphs. Now who’s cherry picking? Only a handful or so show warming trends.
The temperature records only cover 50 to 150 years roughly, as we are talking about AGW here. The issue is about greenhouse gasses causing runaway “hockey stick” type warming in the 20th century and beyond. It’s about how they say the warming is causing the Arctic ice to melt. Gee, I wonder if something else could have caused it.
www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
www.homerdixon.com/download/amsr-2_04.swf
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm
Ironically, since 2007 the ice has rebounded nearly 1 million km², contrary to the theory that as more ice melts it exposed more dark water, which causes the water to warm up and “more” ice to melt. I guess nature didn’t get that memo.
nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure2.png
MrC
Mr Cannuckistan,
Seriously? You don't think that less ice in the water will make the water warmer? Or that warm water will melt ice faster than cold water? Or that water exposed to sunshine will heat up faster than water covered with ice? Honestly, this is pretty simple stuff.
I never mentioned the role humans play in global warming. Frankly, I think it's irrelevent. The point is that if there is anything that can be done to help alleviate the problem we should give it a try - unless you think chunking billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is good thing.
BTW - Go back and check the graphs again. The majority show an upward trend.
Eve,
Your contention that "A 5 C increase would not hurt us." Leads me to wonder if you have looked at any satellite images of the planet recently. Huge populations - let me rephrase that - ENOURMOUS populations live in regions that are already at the tipping point for turning into desert. What do you think those populations are going to? They're certainly not going to just sit there. Mass migrations, the subsequent wars, and starvation in those populations strike me as "hurting us". Now, granted, I'm using us to mean all humans not just our cozy little population.
Secondly, you cite "the Permian Extinction event in which 96% of marine species and 70% of large land animals died". Clearly a 5 degree temperature change has a dramatic impact when it comes to life on this planet. The Permian Extinction, and its 5 degree drop favored the eventual ascendancy of land mammals. Seems to me a 5 degree increase might go the other way...
Carl D,
While I believe the THEORY is sound about melting ice caps. Nature just isn't co-operating. If more exposed water caused the melting of more ice, why do we have a million or so MORE miles of ice this summer minimum than we did in 2007? It’s been steadily returning since the low of 2007.
www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
You are contradicting yourself. You say that the human role in climate change is irrelevant but then you say that man should stop pumping out CO². You are implying that it is a pollutant and main cause of the problems. CO² is baby’s breath. Plants breathe it in, take the carbon for biomass and return the oxygen to us.
I remember reading this article from Nat Geo about how the Sahara desert is greening up. Seems CO² helps to make plants more drought tolerant and grow faster. Actual green houses pump CO² up to concentrations as high as 1000-1500 ppm.
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
MrC
This issue is not so much whether the climate is changing. The earth's climate has been changing since earth first had a climate that could change - as in like forever. The issue is whether huamn activity is causing the climate to change by dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which is an entirely different issue.
Yes the climate is changing, just like it always has and always will. Are human beings causing it? Not likely.
Mr Cannuckistan,
There is no contradiction. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Less CO2 means a lesser greenhouse effect. Where's the contradiction? When the banks of the river are flooding do you sandbag or just throw up your hands and say "oh well, it's natural" and then watch your house float away?
I can't deny global warming. I'm a sport diver and who has dived in oceans around the world. I have seen the effects of global warming on the oceans over the course of my life. I've seen it up close and personal. It's bad.
I also used to race ice boats as a child. No more. There hasn't been enough ice in the last 35 years.
I'm also a scientist. I can't ignore the data or spin the data to suit my need for certainty that everything is OK. It's not.
On that note I will leave you to wallow in your denial. Take it to bed with you every night and dream about all the people living in desert hovels around the world and tell yourself it's OK if the temp goes up.
Carl, give us a break! You claim ocean changes and no ice for your ice boat as proof of global warming. I could make similar bogus claims to support global cooling, but I have more integrity than that.
You remind me of scientists that find a new fungus or insect thriving somewhere and then make the claim it's because of global warming. There could be a hundred different reasons, but it's always man made global warming.
Seeing as you're a scientist, give us your theory on how a simple greenhouse works.
No Carl, I don't just ignore the rising river. I put out sand bags. That’s not the same as looking for a way to mitigate the rainfall or the snowfall from melting. I cannot control the rising tide. All I can do is react to what it offers. It's called adapting.
You must be referring to the coral reefs with your diving reference. I suppose this article is a bunch of horse $#!+ too?
theresilientearth.com/?q=content/heat-resistant-corals-ignore-climate-change-threats
Or how about this article from the hallowed New York Times about the poster child of the environmental movement, the rain forests.
www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html
It seems to me that nature just isn’t co-operating with the THEORY of man made global warming, climate change, what ever they want to call it.
FYI… it was a Republican that coined the phrase ‘climate change’. He thought it sounded less severe.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming
MrC
The U.S. must respect Canada's sovereignty. It isn't in the U.S.'s interest to have Russian and Chinese ships going through Canada's waters.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!