Global warming will open unexpected new shipping routes in Arctic, researchers find

Mar 04, 2013
The fastest navigation routes for ships seeking to cross the Arctic Ocean by mid-century include the Northwest Passage (on the left) and over the North Pole (center), in addition to the Northern Sea Route (on the right). UCLA researchers arrived at these projections by studying sea ice forecasts from seven climate models for the years 2040 to 2059. The projections assume a medium-low increase in carbon emissions and corresponding medium-low rise in global warming. Red lines indicate the fastest available trans-Arctic routes for Polar Class 6 ships (moderate-capability icebreakers such as those used today in the Baltic), and blue lines indicate the fastest available routes for common open-water ships. Where overlap occurs, line weights indicate the number of successful transits following the same route. Dashed lines reflect currently existing sovereignty boundaries. The white backdrop indicates period-averaged sea ice concentration. Credit: PNAS, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1214212110

Shipping lanes through the Arctic Ocean won't put the Suez and Panama canals out of business anytime soon, but global warming will make these frigid routes much more accessible than ever imagined by melting an unprecedented amount of sea ice during the late summer, new UCLA research shows.

"The development is both exciting from an economic development point of view and worrisome in terms of safety, both for the and for the ships themselves," said lead researcher Laurence C. Smith, a professor of geography at UCLA.

The findings, which explore accessibility during the 's most navigable month of the year, September, appear in the latest issue of the scholarly journal Plus. The first thorough assessment of trans-Arctic shipping potential as continue to rise, the study is based on independent for the years 2040 to 2059.

By mid-century, even ordinary shipping vessels will be able to navigate previously inaccessible parts of the Arctic Ocean, and they will not need icebreakers to blaze their path as they do today, the researchers found.

"We're talking about a future in which open-water vessels will, at least during some years, be able to navigate unescorted through the Arctic, which at the moment is inconceivable," said co-author Scott R. Stephenson, a Ph.D. candidate in the UCLA Department of Geography.

Just as surprisingly, the Arctic ice sheet is expected to thin to the point that polar icebreakers will be able to navigate between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans by making a straight shot over the North Pole, Smith and Stephenson predict.

"Nobody's ever talked about shipping over the top of the North Pole," Smith said. "This is an entirely unexpected possibility."

The route directly over the North Pole is 20 percent shorter than today's most-trafficked Arctic shipping lane, the Northern Sea Route, which hugs the coast of Russia. For vessels traveling between Rotterdam in the Netherlands and Yokohama, Japan, the Northern Sea Route is already approximately 40 percent shorter than the traditional route through the Suez Canal.

Even the fabled and notoriously treacherous Northwest Passage, which traces Canada's coastline and offers the most direct route from Asia to eastern Canada and the northeasternmost part of the U.S., is expected to become more viable for Polar Class 6 vessels—a common type of ship that has been strengthened against ice—and possibly even ships with unreinforced hulls, which make up the lion's share of the world's commercial fleet.

Today, the Northwest Passage is theoretically navigable only one out of seven years, on average, making it too unreliable to be a viable option for commercial shippers, the researchers said. But by mid-century, sea ice will melt in September to the point that it is accessible every other year, on average. Choosing whether to ship through the passage "will become a coin toss," Smith said.

The predictions, however, do not foresee access beyond late summer. "This will never be a year-round operation," Smith stressed.

Smith is an authority on the ways in which climate change is affecting the Arctic, where average temperatures have risen faster than the global average since the mid-1980s. He has quantified the disappearance of more than 1,000 Arctic lakes. He also is the author of "The World in 2050: Four Forces Shaping Civilization's Northern Future," a 2010 book that looks at new economic opportunities, as well as environmental degradation, taking shape in the northern quarter of the globe. With Stephenson, Smith has calculated the toll global warming will take on Arctic ice roads and the communities and businesses that depend on them.

For centuries, the Arctic Ocean has captured the imagination of explorers because of the possibility it offers for traveling between the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans through the Bering Strait. Until recently, however, sea ice has blocked access to the potential shortcut between Asia and North America or Europe. But in the past two years, the ice has begun to melt in late summer to such an extent that even ordinary seagoing vessels, albeit with escorts, have been able to enter its frigid waters. In summer 2012, a total of 46 voyages successfully crossed the Northern Sea Route.

To arrive at their predictions, Smith and Stephenson studied these emerging shipping routes and the degree of ice melt that has made them possible. They then took the results from seven respected forecasts for the sea ice cover in the Arctic and averaged predictions for the extent of the Arctic ice sheet in September, historically the month when the ocean has the least amount of ice coverage, for every year between 2040 and 2059.

The researchers factored in two scenarios for climate change: one that assumed a 25 percent increase in global carbon emissions, which is generally expected to produce a medium-low increase in temperatures, and one that assumed an additional 10 percent increase in emissions, which is expected to produce a higher increase in temperatures. To their surprise, changes in accessibility were similarly dramatic under both scenarios.

"No matter which carbon emission scenario is considered, by mid-century we will have passed a crucial tipping point—sufficiently thin sea ice—enabling moderately capable icebreakers to go where they please," Smith said.

The mid-century projections may seem distant when measured against the lifespan of adults living today, the researchers concede. But the period falls well within the long lead times of commercial and governmental planning efforts. As such, the projections have implications for port construction, acquisition of natural resources and the establishment of jurisdiction of , Smith and Stephenson stress.

Canada, for instance, has long maintained that the Northwest Passage falls under Canadian sovereignty, while the U.S. maintains it is an international strait. As long as the passage was essentially unnavigable, the issue was moot, but increasing accessibility could bring the U.S. into dispute with its northern neighbor, the researchers warn.

The increasing viability of shipping routes through the Arctic is also likely to increase pressure on the U.S. to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Some newly accessible shipping lanes would pass through waters over which the U.S. could make internationally accepted sovereignty claims if it ratified the treaty, the researchers said. Countries that claim sovereignty are able to lay down rules for the vessels that pass through their waters. Russia, which controls the Northern Sea Route, currently requires shipping companies to pay steep fees for escort vessels to accompany their fleets.

The unprecedented new navigation routes that are expected to open up could allow shipping companies to sidestep these escort fees and other Russian regulations, but these new lanes could take Polar Class 6 vessels and even common ships into less-regulated international waters.

While attractive to business, the lack of regulations poses safety, environmental and legal issues that have yet to be resolved, the researchers stress. The prospect of open-water ships entering the Arctic Ocean in late summer heightens the urgency for comprehensive international regulations that provide adequate environmental protections, vessel safety standards and search-and-rescue capability, they said.

"The Arctic is a fragile and dangerous place," Smith said.

Explore further: TRMM Satellite calculates Hurricanes Fay and Gonzalo rainfall

More information: "New Trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable by midcentury," by Laurence C. Smith, and Scott R. Stephenson, PNAS, 2013.

Related Stories

Arctic shipping routes open

Aug 26, 2011

Satellite measurements show we are heading for another year of below-average ice cover in the Arctic. As sea ice melts during the summer months, two major shipping routes have opened in the Arctic Ocean.

Trucks lose, ships win in warmer Arctic

May 29, 2011

Global warming will have a devastating effect on roads in the Arctic but open up tantalising routes for shipping, according to a study published on Sunday in the specialist journal Nature Climate Change.

Arctic ice cap near 2007 record minimum: Russia

Aug 04, 2011

The polar ice cap in the Arctic has melted to near its 2007 record minimum level and in some areas is 50 percent smaller than average, Russia's environmental monitoring agency said Thursday.

China ship sails to Atlantic and back, via Arctic

Sep 27, 2012

(AP)—A Chinese icebreaker docked Thursday at Shanghai after becoming the first vessel from China to cross the Arctic Ocean, a landmark trip that is part of Beijing's efforts to expand its presence in the ...

Russian gas tanker forges Arctic passage to China

Aug 25, 2010

A Russian gas tanker is this month making a historic voyage across the famed Northeast passage as receding ice opens up an elusive trade route from Asia to the West sought for centuries by explorers.

Recommended for you

Tropical Depression 9 forms in Gulf of Mexico

3 hours ago

Tropical Depression Nine formed over the western Bay of Campeche, Gulf of Mexico and is forecast to make a quick landfall on Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. NOAA's GOES-East Satellite captured the birth of the ...

$58 million effort to study potential new energy source

8 hours ago

A research team led by The University of Texas at Austin has been awarded approximately $58 million to analyze deposits of frozen methane under the Gulf of Mexico that hold enormous potential to increase ...

And now, the volcano forecast

9 hours ago

Scientists are using volcanic gases to understand how volcanoes work, and as the basis of a hazard-warning forecast system.

User comments : 63

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
1.8 / 5 (20) Mar 04, 2013
That's fantastic! IF it happens.
MR166
2 / 5 (28) Mar 04, 2013
This article just proves that there is way too much government grant money floating around. Can I get a grant to study the effects on zoo safety if elephants were to develop wings?
Lurker2358
3 / 5 (24) Mar 04, 2013
MR166:

At present rate, the arctic will be "sea ice free" on at least one day in September within the next 3 to 5 years. It should be ice free for the entire month within a few decades.

There's no evidence to suggest elephants might grow wings.

There's plenty evidence now showing the ice is melting at an accelerating rate.
Parsec
3.8 / 5 (17) Mar 04, 2013
This article just proves that there is way too much government grant money floating around. Can I get a grant to study the effects on zoo safety if elephants were to develop wings?

Almost everyone who has studied climate change agrees that the arctic will continue to warm for at least the next 50-100 years. I suspect that you would get somewhat less of a consensus that elephants will develop wings.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (25) Mar 04, 2013
First of all, your "consensus" publishes what there is a market for i.e. what the government is willing to fund. Today that is man made global warming.

Secondly, if and when there is a way to ship via a polar route the shipping companies will know how to exploit it. They do not need a research paper to show how to do this.

This article is just more government sponsored propaganda. The western world is almost bankrupt and needs to be spending it's resources on real problems not political fodder.
borc
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 04, 2013
All right, you are suggesting that APGCC is a massive conspiracy by the entire global scientific body in which an overwhelming number of scientists agree on a specific outcome of an enormous body of evidence collected by thousands of people over hundreds of thousands of man hours because the united states government has an intrinsic will and desire to falsify evidence and lead the public to believe APGCC is legitimate and real.
MR166, I know you. You're a pretty smart guy. You legitimately believe very few things you say on these forums. You're probably retired. worked in a high tech industry most of your life, made decent wages. Now, since you have little to do you sit around writing up absurd things for two reasons. You're a troll who finds it amusing to poke peoples buttons and two you like making fun of stupid people by pretending to be them. It's likely you have at least 2-3 other accounts with physorg which you use to argue with yourself.
I like you. You're funny.
schwarz
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 04, 2013
"First of all, your "consensus" publishes what there is a market for i.e. what the government is willing to fund. Today that is man made global warming."

You are accusing people you have never met of being frauds, and have absolutely no evidence for your accusation.

I, meanwhile, am accusing you of being a blithering idiot, and that much is easily proven.
lengould100
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 05, 2013
I still fail to see what fun the trolls can possibly get by acting the idiots. Just like I could never comprehend why a hillbilly would act even less sophisticated than actual, for no possible gain. But the two are definitely both evidences of the same weird human phenomenon.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Mar 05, 2013
mountain_team_guy
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 05, 2013
I got some beach front property on the North Slope to sell you. Grab your checkbook and your banana hammocks. It's going to sell as fast as.... global warming, so you better hurry.
Egleton
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2013
Spot the assumptions.
There will be bunker fuel to power the ships.
There will be a functioning global trade.
There will be a USA or Canada,
The article is riddled with them.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (17) Mar 05, 2013
It never fails to amaze me that almost every article about arctic melting uses 1978 as the reference point. I wonder why they choose to disregard historical records of previous melting??? Polar ice has decreased and returned many times before the invention of satellites.

On second thought I do, it would destroy the propaganda value of the article.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 05, 2013
Oh no!!!
No Ice!!
What would they do with Mann's Hockey Stick??
MR166
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 05, 2013
"All right, you are suggesting that APGCC is a massive conspiracy by the entire global scientific body in which an overwhelming number of scientists agree on a specific outcome of an enormous body of evidence collected by thousands of people over hundreds of thousands of man hours because the united states government has an intrinsic will and desire to falsify evidence and lead the public to believe APGCC is legitimate and real."

Borc it is not just the US government that is involved. It is also Europe and the UN. In short, it is the one world government types and the few very rich (Sorros and the like) that control them. Slowly they are getting us to cede our individual freedoms to them for the good of the world. We are just barnyard animals to them.
Maggnus
2.7 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2013
Oh no!!!
No Ice!!
What would they do with Mann's Hockey Stick??


Hopefully use it to beat your stupid ass.
CapitalismPrevails
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 05, 2013
Oh my god, the sky is falling... So there's not chance of supposed AGW being explained by the sun emitting more radiation? AGW is the lefts war on terror. They just need a manufactured crisis to make us fork over our freedoms to the government. AGW is like a religion to these people.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2013
Borc it is not just the US government that is involved. It is also Europe and the UN. In short, it is the one world government types and the few very rich (Sorros and the like) that control them. Slowly they are getting us to cede our individual freedoms to them for the good of the world. We are just barnyard animals to them.


Cause all dem CONSPIRATISTS all CONSPIRATORING all TOGEATHER and stuff! And dey all working TOGEATHER making a WHOLE WORLD goberment and stuff! An all dem RICH people all HELPING and BENEFITTING and stuff! Cause dey all taking our FREEDOM and turning us all into AMNIMALS and stuff!

God gawd, I hope you have someone around you to remind you to breath. What a maroon!
Maggnus
3.1 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2013
Oh my god, the sky is falling... So there's not chance of supposed AGW being explained by the sun emitting more radiation? AGW is the lefts war on terror. They just need a manufactured crisis to make us fork over our freedoms to the government. AGW is like a religion to these people.


Oh goody, yet another enlightened soul who can see through all the work of the scientists and how they're all trying to steal our freedoms to feed their religion and stuff! Quick, better dive into your bunker, Nibirou and those evil Zeta Reticulans gonna come get you!
smokeyal
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2013
And what model predicted the 96.1 F below zero in Oymyakon Siberia? Why not come clean and admit you can't even predict next years weather???
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2013
Why not come clean and admit you can't even predict next years weather???


Ok.

Course us adults are actually talking about climate, not weather.

Might want to jump in the bunker with that other moron.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (19) Mar 05, 2013
Maqqnus it is only considered weather when is does not prove the warmist's point. Otherwise, it is always anthropogenic global warming.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Mar 05, 2013
Maqqnus it is only considered weather when is does not prove the warmist's point. Otherwise, it is always anthropogenic global warming.


Bullcrap! Only a conspiratist would make such assinine statement.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 05, 2013
So Mag there has been not a world temperature increase from 1996 to now but that is considered "Weather" yet, Australia has had record breaking heat this summer and that is due to AGW. There has been little or no mention of the record breaking sea ice in the Antarctic in this same summer. If it does not support the AGW propaganda it is never mentioned. This is not science it is politics at it's worst.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2013
Ya MR166 cause all dem SCIENTISTS dey be MAKING UP stuff so theys can CONQUER alls us and stuff! Beens no WARMING for a LONG TIME an dat PROVES dem EVIL propagandists all CONSPIRATING togeather and joining dem POLITICIANS an all! Dey all HIDING dem FACTS an trying to STEAL our FREEDOMS and stuff!

Course the fact that you have heard of these things you mention, even when you get the actual information wrong, means they don't hide them alternate facts so well I guess.

You are stupidity personified. That bunker you should jump in with those other two morons is going to be pretty crowded, what with the three if you and your opinions and all.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 05, 2013
Maq you are obviously a product of the corrupt and wasteful US educational system, perhaps even a PHD.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2013
Maq you are obviously a product of the corrupt and wasteful US educational system, perhaps even a PHD.


What are they in on it too? Is there anywhere you don't see a conspiracy MR?
MR166
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2013
Not at all Maq, you should be able to get a government research grant.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 05, 2013
I am serious Maq, just tell the government what your "research" will prove and you will get a grant. Provided of course that the results meets their needs.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2013
Oh, so I'm in on it then! You know, you're right MR166, I am. I make millions off it! And you will be my personal foot washer when we take everything over! Well, assuming your bunker keeps you alive until the Zeta Reticulans leave.

Muhahahaha!
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2013
I am serious Maq, just tell the government what your "research" will prove and you will get a grant. Provided of course that the results meets their needs.


Cause dems evil GOBNMENT tell ALL dem scientist what to WRITE cause dey looking to FOOL all us GOOD FOLK just be minding our our busynesses!

Better watch out there moron, the camera in your computer is being used to watch you..........
MR166
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2013
Kudos to you Maq, I actually had to Google "Zeta Reticulans" just in case they were some sort of non "Progressive" group.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2013
Kudos to you Maq, I actually had to Google "Zeta Reticulans" just in case they were some sort of non "Progressive" group.


You should join up with good ole Nancy, the two of you seem to think alike.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 05, 2013
And you, MR166, appear to be the product of an absence of both any Science education and critical thinking skills.
deepsand
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2013
And what model predicted the 96.1 F below zero in Oymyakon Siberia? Why not come clean and admit you can't even predict next years weather???

Anyone with even a wee bit of understanding knows that predicting long term trends is a lot easier than forecasting sort term ones.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2013
Sandy the problem with ceding all of your rights to the government is that it only makes the problems worse. Governments aim is to make everyone afraid and dependent on them thereby concentrating the worlds wealth and power into the hands of the few. Government is not there to protect you. It morphs into a virus that is only concerned with it's own growth and survival.
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 06, 2013
"predicting long term trends is a lot easier than forecasting sort term ones"

When I read a weather forecast for tomorrow, I can be fairly sure it will be accurate, more or less. When I read the same forecast for next week, I can be fairly sure it will be inaccurate.

If it is easier to predict next week's weather than tomorrow's, why do they get it so wrong all the time?

Oh, I know, it's "climate" not "weather" we are discussing. So short term climate projections are going to be less accurate than long term climate projections? Have such long term projections proved accurate? So far, they have not.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2013
When I read a weather forecast for tomorrow, I can be fairly sure it will be accurate, more or less. When I read the same forecast for next week, I can be fairly sure it will be inaccurate.


I was wondering when you were going to chime in, expressing more or less the same misunderstandings that you have expoused over several threads now. Weather tomorrow is getting to 90% or so accurate. 5 days out, down to 70%. 10 days out down to 50%. But that is not climate, as has been explained to you several times.

If it is easier to predict next week's weather than tomorrow's, why do they get it so wrong all the time?


Are you so daft that you cannot get what keeps being said to you about it? I can't tell you for sure that it's going to rain in Ottawa on July 1st, 2038. I can tell you that, ON AVERAGE, temperatures in Ottawa in July 2038 will LIKELY be higher than they are going to be in Ottawa this year.

What is so hard about that? ..cont...

Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2013
Oh, I know, it's "climate" not "weather" we are discussing. So short term climate projections are going to be less accurate than long term climate projections? Have such long term projections proved accurate? So far, they have not.


And this is the jist of your purposeful misrepresentation. Or, to give you the benefit of the doubt you probably don't deserve, your misunderstanding.

The first IPCC report of 1990 made a number of predictions regarding CLIMATE. Go read it Cladius, it's part of the public record and easy to find. The were uncannily, unsettlably accurate; in fact, if anything, they UNDER estimated the effects.

So ya, in answer to your studiously obtuse question, long range predictions have proved accurate.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 06, 2013
"The first IPCC report of 1990 made a number of predictions regarding CLIMATE. Go read it Cladius, it's part of the public record and easy to find. The were uncannily, unsettlably accurate; in fact, if anything, they UNDER estimated the effects."

OK Maq, exactly what did they underestimate? Was it the sea level rise, the increase in global temperatures or was it perhaps the sea ice at the poles?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2013
Aww c'mon MR, surely you are able to read the report yourself? It IS aimed at a high-school reading level, but if you look up the big words you can probably figure most of it out.

Bahaha, lets beg the question cause maybe no one will notice! Seriously, get real moron.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 06, 2013
Re the 1990 IPCC report: "Time has proven that even 22 years ago climate scientists understood the dynamics behind global warming well enough to accurately predict warming, says an analysis that compares predictions in 1990 with 20 years of temperature records.

After an adjustment to account for natural fluctuations, the predictions and the observed increases matched up, the current research found."

So, the "accurate" prediction had to be adjusted to get it to agree with observed data.

So, my local weather forecaster was correct about next week's weather, as long as he can adjust the prediction afterward. Nice.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 06, 2013
Even better, a graph of the 1990 predictions and subsequent observations:

http://clivebest....omp1.png
and
http://clivebest....yco2.png

So much for "underestimation"!
MR166
1 / 5 (14) Mar 06, 2013
Claudius I looked at the graphs and the predictions are nothing to brag about. The lowest estimate was 60% too high and the most likely estimate was 140% too high. Yet, the CO2 estimate is spot on. Thus there has to be an error in the way that they calculate the warming effects of CO2.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2013
Sandy the problem with ceding all of your rights to the government is that it only makes the problems worse. Governments aim is to make everyone afraid and dependent on them thereby concentrating the worlds wealth and power into the hands of the few. Government is not there to protect you. It morphs into a virus that is only concerned with it's own growth and survival.

Non sequitur.

Yes, I know that it's Latin, and therefore probably beyond you, as you seem to to have great difficulty with simple English. Suggest that you look it up rather than making an assumption or taking a wild assed guess.)
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2013
When I read a weather forecast for tomorrow, I can be fairly sure it will be accurate, more or less.[/quote]
Tomorrow does not a trend make.

When I read the same forecast for next week, I can be fairly sure it will be inaccurate.

That's a short term trend.

If it is easier to predict next week's weather than tomorrow's, why do they get it so wrong all the time?

Because its a short term trend.

Predicting that this coming Summer(Winter) will be warmer(colder) than this Winter(Summer) is a more reliable prediction involving a longer trend.

Now, was that so hard to grasp?
baudrunner
2 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2013
Good. So far we're clear that there's no such thing as global warming, just climate change. I'm all for it. Then after all the coastal flooding offers near-apocalyptic lifestyles for us all, I would like to remind you all of a few movies I've seen in my day. So just be forewarned.

Oh, and as for the Zeta Reticula, They're not going anywhere. They are living in underground cities and are being kept there against their will for not telling us everything. In the meantime, we're still doing their autopsies.
djr
3.1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2013
Claudius: "Even better, a graph of the 1990 predictions and subsequent observations:"

I don't mean to hijack a thread - but I do have an honest observation about the whole process. Claudius - I looked at your graphs - and also went back to the original site - which is the Clivebest blog. I also did a little checking myself - and came up with articles that said the 1990 predictions were in fact pretty on target. It seems there was cherry picking in both directions - as the articles that said the predictions were on target were from well know pro AGW blogs. Here is an example - http://www.skepti...far.html It really seems that we can support our position - which ever side of the argument we are on
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
and came up with articles that said the 1990 predictions were in fact pretty on target.


Just to be clear, temperature was only one of the myriad of predictions they made.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
@Maggnus God gawd, I hope you have someone around you to remind you to breath. What a maroon!
I personally know some of the people involved. So while you can mentally masturbate with the made-up stories in mainstream media, they and I know you to be on a leash. Why would you assume that people who have fought for generations to distinguish themselves from you would not fight to make the world in their own image?
@Maggnus Bullcrap! Only a conspiratist would make such assinine statement.
All wars start with conspiracy. Conspiracy is a crime. Do you realize you appear barking mad mindlessly mouthing that COINTELPRO verbage? Your supposition is that the ruling class and sociopaths care deeply about your welfare, which is laughable.
jackjump
1 / 5 (15) Mar 09, 2013
There is no conspiracy of academics, scientists and politicians to promote anthropogenic global warming. There is just the fact that a man made global warming that threatens the planet is the perfect excuse for governments to wield immense power to force people to not do the things causing the warming. Immense power is a politicians favorite thing. That leads directly to governments composed of politicians to expend immense funds on studies that show the global warming does indeed threaten the planet. Then the scientists and academics, faced with a vast pool of money for the taking individually do the normal thing, take it. No conspiracy, more of a structural fault of government and the avarice of ordinary men.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2013
I personally know some of the people involved. So while you can mentally masturbate with the made-up stories in mainstream media, they and I know you to be on a leash.


Oh, I'm part of the conspiracy then!

An all dems MADE UP stories an all!

If you know the people, as you claim, you would not put such obviously made up BS on a science site. PS there brainiac-I know some of them too. Unlike you, apparently, I know people from both sides of the debate.

Guess what? There aren't many thinking people left on the "it ain't happening" side, other than shrills and the gullible types who do not knopw how to use critical thinking skills.

So which are you?

Why would you assume that people who have fought for generations to distinguish themselves from you would not fight to make the world in their own image?


Oh myyy what pile of conspiracy crap did you pull this one out of? I admit, that's a new one! I'm not sure there is even a coherent thought in that rant.

Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
All wars start with conspiracy. Conspiracy is a crime. Do you realize you appear barking mad mindlessly mouthing that COINTELPRO verbage? Your supposition is that the ruling class and sociopaths care deeply about your welfare, which is laughable.


WOW that's quite a sting of big words you put all togeather! You should be proud!

If that is the "supposition" you read into my disdain for the pseudo-scientific frauds that overwhelm the comments section of this site, then you need to give your head a shake.

And all this coming from a person who publicly laments the loss of a system whose greatist legacy is that it killed millions of its own citizens! Laughable!!
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2013
There is no conspiracy of academics, scientists and politicians to promote anthropogenic global warming.


He says this, then uses the rest of his rant to outline how the conspiracy works. Do you guys even read the propoganda you parrot?
kochevnik
1.1 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2013
@Maggnus And all this coming from a person who publicly laments the loss of a system whose greatist legacy is that it killed millions of its own citizens! Laughable!!
Indeed a system that provided housing, health, jobs, food and world-class education, after an attempted backstabbing by western powers. In Russia a recession forced us to grow food at our dacha. Planning ahead, dachas have garden plots for that eventuality. In USA recession makes your country one big DETROIT
So which are you?
The one that follows the money trail
Oh myyy what pile of conspiracy crap did you pull this one out of?
Congratulations on your brainwashing. I make a living off of your kind
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
Indeed a system that provided housing, health, jobs, food and world-class education, after an attempted backstabbing by western powers.


In this utopian paradise, 1 in 3 people were starving to death. That's despite the fact that more people were killed by the very class who came to power on the backs of the workers they ended up enslaving, then died from the all of the wars they fought put togeather. Russia starves to this day because of the ineptitude of the communist slime you idealize.

Congratulations on your brainwashing. I make a living off of your kind


Back atcha! Just think, in the Russia you so pine for, you would likely have been in one of the Gulags that killed so many of your compatriots. At least now I can profit from your stupidity, rather than pay to bury your skeletal remains.
jackjump
1 / 5 (13) Mar 09, 2013
Maggnus says: He says this, then uses the rest of his rant to outline how the conspiracy works. Do you guys even read the propoganda you parrot?

Is the market a conspiracy to fix prices? When individuals act independently and their actions taken together result in some outcome, whether it be the price of some stock or the consensus that global warming is man made it is not a conspiracy. The facts are as I stated them and the individual efforts, taken independently, of politicians, scientists and academics have resulted in a consensus that global warming is man made.

Note that I have made no assertion as to the truth of that consensus, just that the conditions that gave rise to it make it inevitable, true or not true.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2013
Indeed a system that provided housing, health, jobs, food and world-class education, after an attempted backstabbing by western powers.
In this utopian paradise, 1 in 3 people were starving to death. That's despite the fact that more people were killed by the very class who came to power on the backs of the workers they ended up enslaving, then died from the all of the wars they fought put togeather. Russia starves to this day because of the ineptitude of the communist slime you idealize.
I thought you mocked conspiracy theorists. But now you're the biggest tinfoil hat on physorg!
Just think, in the Russia you so pine for, you would likely have been in one of the Gulags that killed so many of your compatriots. At least now I can profit from your stupidity, rather than pay to bury your skeletal remains.
The same group who put Stalin in power are now destroying y
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
I thought you mocked conspiracy theorists.


I do, but only because they happen to fall into the group of idiots I mock. I reserve special mocking for the degenerates who support communism as an ideal. Cause, you know, 70 years of death apparently isn't enough to convince some idiots of how misguided that system was.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2013
psst jackjump - I didn't miss your sorry attempt at misdirection either, you are just too laughable to even deal with in the face of mister communist asswipe.
jackjump
1 / 5 (13) Mar 10, 2013
The comments rapidly devolved into an argument about whether or not humans can accurately predict climate conditions years and decades into the future. The government and climate researchers proclaim they can, skeptics say they can't. I only point out that the proclaimed consensus of the government and climate researchers stems from the fact that government is hugely empowered by the AGW hypothesis, giving them an excuse to control every detail of their subjects lives and the climate researchers benefit from the funds funneled to them by government to provide studies that strengthen their claims of AGW danger. That is, the consensus proclaimed by the government and climate scientists is a function of external (to the science) motivations and so inevitable.

An inevitable consensus is a meaningless consensus divorced from the truth of the matter. Only time and the evidence it provides will resolve the argument. That renders these (largely ad hominem) arguments moot.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (14) Mar 10, 2013
I only point out that the proclaimed consensus of the government and climate researchers stems from the fact that government is hugely empowered by the AGW hypothesis, giving them an excuse to control every detail of their subjects lives and the climate researchers benefit from the funds funneled to them by government to provide studies that strengthen their claims of AGW danger.

In what country has this theoretical symbiotic relationship actually been realized?
meerling
4 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
When it comes to a field of research, are you going to listen to a 97% consensus of all the experts in that field, or some professional liar such as a politician or any form of pundit?

The ice is melting far more in the warm seasons now that it ever has in recorded history, and now, the transpolar routes can possibly become viable shipping routes. If they do, it will save lots of time, tons of fuel, and probably allow ships that can't go through the Panama Canal. So despite the climatalogical issues this involves, it also involves a HUGE business potential. That means lots of money, and you know how much companies and rich guys love money.
As to elephants growing wings, I haven't heard a single biologist, geneticist, or even evolutionist spout even the slightest hint that it's considered a possibility. Again, the worlds experts in the field, or some guy that's been doing way too many drugs? Your choice.
deepsand
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2013
The ice is melting far more in the warm seasons now that it ever has in recorded history, and now, the transpolar routes can possibly become viable shipping routes. If they do, it will save lots of time, tons of fuel, and probably allow ships that can't go through the Panama Canal. So despite the climatalogical issues this involves, it also involves a HUGE business potential. That means lots of money, and you know how much companies and rich guys love money.

Point being?