Global Warming's Silver Lining For the Arctic Rim 582
Pickens writes "According to Laurence C. Smith, an Arctic scientist who has consistently sounded alarms about the approach of global warming, within 40 years the Arctic rim may be transformed by climate change into a new economic powerhouse. As the Arctic ice recedes, ecosystems extend, and minerals and fossil fuels are discovered and exploited, the Arctic will become a place of 'great human activity, strategic value and economic importance.' Sparsely populated areas like Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and the northern United States — the northern rim countries, or NORCs — will become formidable economic powers and migration magnets. Predictions in Smith's new book The Earth in 2050 include the following: New shipping lanes will open during the summer in the Arctic, allowing Europe to realize its 500-year-old dream of direct trade between the Atlantic and the Far East, and resulting in new economic development in the north; NORCs will be among the few place on Earth where crop production will likely increase due to climate change; and NORCs will become the envy of the world for their reserves of fresh water, which may be sold and transported to other regions."
Gulf Stream (Score:3, Interesting)
I havn't RTFA, but has he accounted for that climate change is predicted to destroy the gulf stream? If that stops flowing Scandinavia is predicted to become /colder/ even with global warming.
Re:Gulf Stream (Score:3, Interesting)
Climate change isn't predicted to destroy the gulf stream, at least not to remotely degree of confidence we associate with other climate-related predictions.
Re:Deniers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Pity about the geometry... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bow before your new...... (Score:2, Interesting)
Canadian Mosquito and Black Fly Overlords.
If Smith's unlikely “thought experiment” scenario was to happen. Wouldn't a lot of the Canadian arctic be a shallow sea, caused by the rising sea levels? So don't rush out buying land before checking an elevation chart.
There's a spectrum (Score:4, Interesting)
I've observed a bit of a spectrum (with some people occupying an 'area' of the spectrum instead of a single point - not being absolutely positive of where they stand).
For example, I've heard the following from several different people:
* there's no possible way we have accurate temperature readings of the global temperature 'state' - you'll find out that someone placed the thermometer too close to the earth (too warm) or in direct sunlight in the Sahara, etc, etc (they don't seem to understand the concept of taking lots of samples from lots of places and averaging the result)
* I heard Rush Limbaugh spend most of a program once going on and on about the eruption of a volcano, and how it was putting out more CO2 than mankind would emit in like 200 years or something like that, and concluding there's nothing mankind could possibly *do* to change the climate.
* I've heard people say there might be warming, but it is related to Solar activity cycles and has nothing to do with human activity.
* I've heard people say "So what? Global warming means winter is less horrible. I'm all for that." - which, I suppose, if you live in Canada or the Northern States of the lower-48 (places like New England, NY, PA, the Midwest, etc), is true - some people, as this article discusses, will likely *benefit* from global warming; unfortunately, that benefit comes at the expense of a lot of other (some of whom are very poor to begin with and their lives will be made even worse) people.
* I've heard people say maybe global warming will/is happening a little bit, but that as it happens, cloud cover will increase, which will reflect solar energy, so it will be self-moderating.
* Then there are the folks who believe that any kind of problem is just the fulfillment of prophecy, and Jesus will come rapture the righteous, while the damned will suffer 'real global warming'.
So basically, among the deniers, there's a range of people from "it's definitely not happening", to "maybe it's happening, but I don't think we need to do anything about it", to "it's happening, but there's nothing we can do about it, so eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die".
Re:Deniers... (Score:1, Interesting)
What percentage of adult humans claim membership in religions?
Since only humans can really claim membership in religions, it would seem the species reference is superfluous, and normal "adult humans" would've just said "adults". Or are you non-human and meant "you humans"?
But to address your question, the answer is who cares. I don't give a flying fish if you claim your earth worship as a religion or not. The less artificially qualified question is, what percentage of adults are religious? Answer: 100%. Everyone's picked something to be religious about.
Re:Gulf Stream (Score:3, Interesting)
Climate change isn't predicted to destroy the gulf stream, at least not to remotely degree of confidence we associate with other climate-related predictions.
(disclaimer: oceanographer with only fleeting interest in global warming)
True, but I would like to elaborate. Some of the early climate models predicted the Gulf Stream to shut down* and naturally one of the objectives for building better models was to confirm or disprove these predictions. I don't think any of the newest IPCC models show the Gulf Stream shutting down but there are indications that it may slow down in the future. Not enough to off set the underlying warming though.
So it seems we don't have to fear rapid changes because of a sudden shut down. Last thing I heard about this predicted shut down was that it was being classified as "low probability, high impact event". The impact would indeed be high, but it seems the probability becomes less and less the better the models become.
*) I'm being very imprecise. What I mean is that the North Atlantic Current (an extension of the Gulf Stream) was predicted to slow down or that the northern branch would become weaker (from Ireland towards Norway) and the southern branch stronger (from Ireland towards Spain). Worst case scenario the northern branch would turn off.
Re:Deniers... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:ROFLMAO! Few tenths???? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then his prediction is already falsified with our current data.
And IPCCs predictions (even from the end of 80-s) are by now statistically significant enough and if anything they are too conservative.
Re:Dutch disease (Score:2, Interesting)
>>>While Europe was going through the Dark Ages, Islam was carrying the torch of civilization and culture.
Bzzzz. The most civilized culture during the 500-1400 dark ages was the Eastern Rome Empire, centered around Constantinople (Istanbul). The only role the Muslims played was to surround and crush that capitol, but fortunately for us, most of the preserved Roman knowledge had already migrated to Venice, before the muslims could hold the ancient world's equivalent to a book-burning.
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hahaha, yes it's been horrible.
The real problem with the Arctic rim isn't heat, although lack of heat is a challenge. The real problem is sunlight. The northern regions of the Arctic rim doesn't get enough sunlight to sustain trees, then there's a belt of pine needle like conifers, then there's a transient belt of broad leaved trees.
Personally, I hope that we never develop the Arctic rim in a meaningful way. The broad leaved trees produce an unbelievable amount of oxygen out of CO2 in the relatively short growing season. We've already decimated the rain forests, the oceanic regions of oxygen production are down a bit due to phosphorus posioning (or some other pollution, they think it's phosphor), and the Arctic region's oxygen contribution becomes more important every day.
Re:Deniers... (Score:2, Interesting)
Energy is the key. Resources can be recycled over and over again if we have enough energy.
Or we can drink soy milk rations in our new socialist dictatorship, while sacrificing SUV's to the AWG god. That sounds kind of sucky since I doubt they would have chocolate soy milk which is actually quite tasty.
Re:The environmental movement is where... (Score:1, Interesting)
The term was changed because morons interpreted "climate is in average getting warmer" as
"At any location of the world, the temperature in one year will be higher than the temperature today",
followed by "last year, it was warmer where I live therefore the AGW theory has been falsified".
Re:Who is questioning it exactly? (Score:5, Interesting)
"It is also true that 500 mil years ago, Earth was a ball of ice despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 was ~4200ppm (about 12 times higher than today). Oh yeah, you guys always forget to include that 'law of physics.'"
I am certainly not an expert in the subject, but my basic understanding of snowball earth [wikipedia.org] is that first the continents got into a position that led to a runaway glaciation. More ice on the ground/water equals more light reflected equals more ice forming. Once the entire earth was covered in ice there was no photosynthesis going on, so carbon dioxide started to build up, mostly from volcanic activity. In fact according to the citations on wikipedia it didn't build just up to 12 times higher than today, but might have been more than 300 times higher [agu.org] before there was enough greenhouse heating to overcome the cooling effects of reflection from all the ice.
You seem to be implying that high levels of CO2 at the same time the earth was frozen over somehow contradicts global warming when in fact it supports the idea. Were you not aware of that? Or were you just hoping that we weren't? (And in any case, how is a fact or set of conditions a "law of physics"?)
Re:More to global warming than melting ice (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never, ever heard of anybody say it would. Please link to any place where you've heard it.
What is there is a potential for things getting seriously unpleasant. There was an earthquake in Haiti recently for instance. That's the kind of "unpleasant" I'm thinking of, only in multiple places at once. Will the human race survive? Sure. Do I want to be there when it happens? Hell, no.
Oh, there's been a lot of flourishing in New Orleans lately? You mean that they quickly fixed everything in a couple of months and since then it's been awesome? And of course I'm sure you don't mind at all the amount of tax money that it took to fix it, as well as the loss the economy took from having all those people stop what they were doing and get to rebuilding.
There's a big difference between having to adapt quickly and having to adapt over centuries.
Let's say the sea level rises. If it rises a few meters in 50 years, you may see your house on the beach get flooded. If it rises in 5000 years, there's likely to be a point where one of your descendants decides that the sea came uncomfortably close a few years back, and moves somewhere else.
Re:Gulf Stream (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't put words into my mouth and congratulate yourself for pointing out I'm wrong! I said unless you are a hyper-power (the obviously strongest military), or you have MAD-type weapons. Both are relatively recent scenarios. I think game-theory would agree with my opinion here. I'm not taking account of the fact that stronger powers can potentially bully weaker ones, but all else being equal, arms races are not a good idea and neither is militarism. History would also agree with me.
The mitigation strategy that, for example, will cost the UK almost £1,000,000,000,000 if it's going to meet its 80% CO2 reduction target by 2040. And even if it does meet that target, the policy will make no appreciable difference to Earth's temperature whatsoever, apart from an obvious reduction in the UHI affect from our now deserted towns and cities. Yes, you read that right no appreciable affect to the temperature, using the IPCC's own figures.
Why do you think coastal towns and cities will be destroyed? Do you still think that, as Hansen said, they will be destroyed by the year 2000? Do you think that the trend rise in ocean levels is any different than it was 100, or 200 years ago? I don't and neither did the IPCC! The trend rate has not accelerated. If you want, you can go and get your snorkel and flippers, but I don't think I'll fucking bother!
Re:Oh, excellent... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that it's not just hurricanes; climate models also predict widespread drought [wiley.com] (pdf):