Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Northeast Passage Becomes Viable Trade Route

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the coastal-residents-drowning-but-trade-is-up dept.

EU 363

Stirling Newberry writes "The New York Times reports on the continued expansion of the sea route along the Russian side of the Arctic Ocean. It was only in 2009 that outside ships were allowed to ply this lane, but Russians have used it since the early 20th century. What makes this year a landmark is that the polar ice cap is smaller at its September minimum than before, allowing large container ships and oil tankers — the backbone of sea commerce — to travel between Europe and Asia, saving time and money over the Suez route, as well as avoiding several politically unstable regions of the world. Putin has been pushing development along the route. While the northwest passage is only gradually opening, the opposite side of the Arctic Ocean looks set for expansion. Siberian Riviera anyone?"

cancel ×

363 comments

Da (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753994)

I buy kondo in Vladivostok for just this.

Re:Da (4, Funny)

chronoglass (1353185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754116)

is bubble comrade, have sold condo to buy bitcoins while cheap!

Re:Da (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754354)

In Soviet Russia, bitcoins buy you!

Re:Da (2)

chronoglass (1353185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754464)

in democratic US, dollar buys you!
Soviet russia was ruble...

bitcoins.. vell dey sit in da corner.. being like the iphone 4s, cryptic but ultimately disappoint.

Re:Da (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754692)

in capitalist US, dollar buys you!

Fixed that for you!

Re:Da (2)

chronoglass (1353185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754774)

thanks comrade

Re:Da (1)

supremebob (574732) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754416)

Ah, Bitcoins. Funny how the Slashdot stories on those stopped now that they're only worth $2 each...

Uhm... so... (1)

RCC42 (1457439) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754026)

Good? :(

Re:Uhm... so... (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754076)

It's an ill wind that blows no good and all that.

If climate change is real (just for the sake of argument right now) then some people will benefit and some people will suffer. Of course the big question is how many people will be in each group and which areas will be affected positively and which negatively. That leads into a huge nasty debate with lots of accusations and name-calling that i don't intend to start right now but which i'm sure is already sprouting up in other comments.

Re:Uhm... so... (3, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754214)

exactly. raising waters may flood low area's like Manhattan, or new orleans.

This isn't bad, but the only way to really clean up wall street is to push it literally underwater.

lurking for millions of years (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754304)

Still waiting for Godzilla.


But not Matthew Broderick. Or Raymond Burr.

Re:Uhm... so... (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754180)

Good? :(

Different. :|

Re:Uhm... so... (1, Troll)

chronoglass (1353185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754228)

Steve? yer supposed to be dead.

Re:Uhm... so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754236)

Yes, it is good. It makes major economies more efficient which is a step towards increasing wealth overall.

You're going to see some come along and say it is a bad thing because it encourages Russia and Europe to care less about global warming, but I hope you can see those people for what they are.

Increasing Wealth -- Good? (1, Insightful)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754408)

Yes, it is good. It makes major economies more efficient which is a step towards increasing wealth overall.

This sounds like what should rightly be termed a "rising tide fallacy". This increasing wealth will be concentrated among a very few who will use it to further pervert markets and politics.

Which is not to say that flat or decreasing wealth is good or better. Rather, it simply acknowledges that increasing wealth is not necessarily good, under the current circumstances, and that it may be a net "bad". An unfortunate state of affairs.

Re:Uhm... so... (2)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754606)

Yes, it is good. It makes major economies more efficient which is a step towards increasing wealth overall.

Never mind that orders of magnitude more wealth than that is going to be squandered having to build levees, dikes and seawalls over the next century.

Re:Uhm... so... (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754748)

Never mind that orders of magnitude more wealth than that is going to be squandered having to build levees, dikes and seawalls over the next century.

...construction and engineering jobs are the future!

OH, Goodie! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754032)

Another Global Warming Wankfest

Re:OH, Goodie! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754160)

Stop looking in the mirror, jerk.

Re:OH, Goodie! (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754312)

I wonder at what point you deniers will finally throw in the towel.

Re:OH, Goodie! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754346)

I wonder at what point you supporters blow Al Gore so hard he goes off like a shotgun and takes off the back of your head and rids us of your stupidity.

Re:OH, Goodie! (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754524)

I'm not clear what Al Gore has to do with this. I don't care what Al Gore has to say on anything. Why do you?

Re:OH, Goodie! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754908)

Not sure if trolling or just stupid, because spouting "denier" propoganda and saying you dont know how Al Gore is involved is like talking on an iPhone asking people who this "Steve Jobs guy" is

Re:OH, Goodie! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754358)

I wonder at what point you deniers will finally throw in the towel.

Around the same time you envirofucks stop referring to anybody who doesn't immediately display reverence to the church of global warming as "deniers", regardless of whether they're even DENYING ANYTHING.

Re:OH, Goodie! (4, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754468)

I'm honestly unsure what the truth is regarding climate change, there's too much shouting and I just don't have the background for it. But I do know that if you categorically reject any challenge to your position then you're no scientist.

Re:OH, Goodie! (5, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754854)

While in theory (chuckle) science leaves the door open, at some point the practical scientist will just conclude the evidence of evolution is overwhelming and the creationist will continue to ramble forever because he's on a religious agenda. While there's natural variations in temperature it is starting to get extremely unlikely that there aren't man made effects at play, there's so much vested interest here its starting to look like the tobacco industry's research into the health effects of smoking.

Re:OH, Goodie! (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754538)

I'm not asking you to display reverence to anything. And science isn't a church. Strikes me that you have concocted a red herring to make it easy to ignore what you don't want to hear.

Re:OH, Goodie! (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754410)

As sea level rise,
unwise to throw in towel,
for then you get wet.

Re:OH, Goodie! (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754426)

Probably never - when the sea levels rise in a few decades, they'll still deny that man had anything to do with it.

Re:OH, Goodie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754562)

When they do, I'll have beach front property, sell it for an outrageous amount, become a one percenter, move to a cooler climate and ya'll can go fuck yourselves.

Re:OH, Goodie! (0)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754536)

when glaciers stop GROWING http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm [iceagenow.com]

Re:OH, Goodie! (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754694)

Did you compare that list to the one that shows those that are shrinking? No? Here, let me help you: http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum09.html [www.wgms.ch]

I know this link is wasted on you, as your argument is one of the most easily, most often debunked claims. Not to mention it shows you have no idea how glaciers work or what the difference between weather and climate is.

I'm not surprised anymore, just disappointed.

Re:OH, Goodie! (1)

bwcbwc (601780) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754848)

Nothing there says he's a denier. Most /. threads are wankfests, and copyright and global warming threads are wankier than most.

Re:OH, Goodie! (3, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754876)

Between 10 and 12,000 years ago, well within the time of Man, the seas rose and fell dramatically while the glaciers went back and forth over the Northern Hemisphere. For thousands of years North America and Asia were connected via the Bering Land Bridge.

Climate change happens, with or without Man's impact, those who reject that climate change happens without blaming man are the true deniers.

Re:OH, Goodie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754470)

wow. Insightful mod? Someone's gonna get meta-modded harshly. ;)

Re:OH, Goodie! (1)

sgage (109086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754504)

"Another Global Warming Wankfest"

Because we all know that Vladimir Putin is a tree-hugging environmental wacko, right?

If he's talking about developing the northern coasts of Russia to facilitate this sea route, he obviously thinks this is a permanent trend.

I suppose he might be wrong, but whatever he is, he's not a Global Warming wanker.

And climate change is a myth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754058)

Russia has, historically, been known to start wars for ports/trade routes. This one was so locked in ice that it could never be used. Now, however, it is viable?
Scary

Re:And climate change is a myth... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754084)

Guess why Canada just bought more jets.

Half-assed for sure, but ahead of the curve maybe.

Re:And climate change is a myth... (3, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754134)

This one was so locked in ice that it could never be used. Now, however, it is viable?

To quote the summary: "Russians have used it since the early 20th century". Hard to understand how it being used for 100 years to you constitutes as "never", and at the same time as proof of global warming due to it recently opening.

Re:And climate change is a myth... (4, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754168)

The Russians use nuclear icebreakers. That doesn't really scale for most commercial traffic, and now you don't need them in summer anymore.

Re:And climate change is a myth... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754172)

Did you miss how the Russians have been using it that long, but only recently was it wide enough for container ships and oil tankers?

If humans or to blame or not is up for debate, the fact that there is less ice in the Northeast passage is just a fact.

We all know what this is possible right? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754082)

Capitalism.

riveria? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754086)

Wth is a "riveria"? The word you are looking for is riviera, numbnuts.

Re:riveria? (3, Funny)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754484)

For we all know that typos are only made by those with anesthetized testicles.

Re:riveria? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754586)

maybe the OP is a fan of Geraldo... oops, I guess he misses there too...

Yay! It's getting nice and warm! (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754138)

Sure, all coastal cities might be gone in fifty years, but who cares; it's lovely spring weather at the pole.

Re:Yay! It's getting nice and warm! (-1, Flamebait)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754158)

Coastal cities seem to be the ones with the largest populations of undesirables... look at NYC, they're the reason the rest of the state is forced to vote democrat every election >_>

Re:Yay! It's getting nice and warm! (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754218)

If NYC was so undesirable why does it have half the population of the state?
That is only the city, the metro area has a higher population than NY state. I would postulate the undesirables are folks like you that use such a term to refer to fellow humans on a regular basis.

Re:Yay! It's getting nice and warm! (1)

AchilleTalon (540925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754316)

Let's face it, almost everyone is undesirable in a global sense. Unless you believe life is having a purpose beyond its own reality.

Re:Yay! It's getting nice and warm! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754366)

its because all the assholes are in NYC. since assholes like being near other assholes, the end result is what you get. The normal people run far far away from NYC. I call NYCers assholes as they arent undesirables, just assholes. although i can see how people can confuse the two.

Re:Yay! It's getting nice and warm! (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754754)

I would say that my worst customer service calls have all come from the Long Island area.

Re:Yay! It's getting nice and warm! (1)

codeAlDente (1643257) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754462)

I know there's a snarky response to this, but I'm not sure if it should involve sewer rats or Bangladesh ;)

Re:Yay! It's getting nice and warm! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754244)

Sure, all coastal cities might be gone in fifty years, but who cares; it's lovely spring weather at the pole.

No, we'll just have *new* coastal cities. Much cleaner and nicer ones that New York, for sure.

Re:Yay! It's getting nice and warm! (1)

chronoglass (1353185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754594)

just think of how dirty those beaches would be for the first hundred or so years though....

Re:Yay! It's getting nice and warm! (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754816)

It'll be like going to the Jersey shore!

In Pennsylvania.

And they say global warming is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754162)

There is ALWAYS an upside.

Re:And they say global warming is bad (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754220)

The sun's solar output is increasing rapidly, because it's a few billion years in the future and the sun is getting close to entering it's Red Giant phase, and soon the earth's oceans will boil off.

The upside? People who said we should have put more effort into our space program can say "I told you so" prior to burning to a crisp along with everyone else.

There may always be an upside, but some silver linings are pretty thin. :P

Cheaper gas! (1)

l00sr (266426) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754982)

I know! Opening the passage means easier oil transportation, which means cheaper gas. Which means accelerated global warming, which implies faster melting of the ice cap, which implies the passage will open even more, which means even cheaper gas!

ManBearPig is real! I'm Super Cereal!!! (0)

dukw_butter (805576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754238)

In before the tree-huggers drop the "Klimate Change" protest signs and pick up the battered old "Global Warming" protest sign in the corner. ManBearPig is real!!! I"m Super Cereal!!!!!

Re:ManBearPig is real! I'm Super Cereal!!! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754344)

And yet there's less ice up there. You can defer to whatever south Park episode you like, but the fact is that just what was predicted is coming about. At some point you either are going to look like a denying moron or admit, just maybe, that vomiting massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere over the last 250 years may be having some sort of an effect on things.

Re:ManBearPig is real! I'm Super Cereal!!! (0, Flamebait)

dukw_butter (805576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754450)

No, you're right. The glassy-eyed liberals switched from "Global Warming" to "Klimate Change" to hedge their bets. The bet now is that "the climate, which has always changed, is going to continue to change". Brilliant. There's a prediction we can all agree with. The earth's average temperature has risen 1.4 degree F in the last 100 years. So, I'd call that remarkable stable. But, if you want to read the tea leaves instead of using science, which clearly says this change is easily within the margin of error and not statistically significant...then yeah...you're right. Global Warming is a religion, though, not a science. So, yeah, you can worship at the altar of Global Warming, just don't confuse your religion with Science. That's all. Because it doesn't even come close.

Re:ManBearPig is real! I'm Super Cereal!!! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754600)

And which science is that? Since the overwhelming majority of climatologists think AGW is a reasonably well established fact, I'm curious as to what science you're referring to.

Re:ManBearPig is real! I'm Super Cereal!!! (0)

dukw_butter (805576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754942)

I'm talking about the scientific principles of "statistically significant" anthropogenic temperature changes. There are none. Thanks for playing. Go adjust your bifocals and study the tea leaves a little closer. Maybe burn some incense.

Re:ManBearPig is real! I'm Super Cereal!!! (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754686)

Actually it was the Bush Administration that decided to use Climate Change instead of Global Warming, exactly because people who know literally nothing about the phenomenon except what it is called would be free to infer "But the climate has always been changing so this means nothing! Derp!" even though that is not the actual prediction being made*.

And you're free to continue to think that, but don't claim science agrees that 1.4F change in 100 years is remarkably stable and not statistically significant when actual science says the opposite. Just dismiss the science that says what you don't want to hear; at least then you're in reality.

* Of course once the U.S. government started talking about "Climate Change" many others followed suit at least when speaking to the public about it. I think they were maybe frustrated that the know-nothing-but-the-name folks didn't seem to understand that it didn't mean monotonically increasing warmth everywhere, but fat lot of good that did, obviously.

Re:ManBearPig is real! I'm Super Cereal!!! (1)

dukw_butter (805576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754912)

Derp! And don't forget...before Klimate Change...before Global Warming...it was The Coming Ice Age they were warning us about. You're right. Sounds like rock-solid conclusive inarguable science to me. Who am I to doubt the shifting predictions of the charlatans at the IPCC? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html [time.com]

First pO5t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754240)

dri7en Lout by the you have a play

How funny (-1, Troll)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754242)

How Ironic. A number of Republicans and nearly all neo-cons/tea* deny that Global warming is occurring. Yet, they are all dying to make use of this northwest passage. Yet, the ONLY way for this to open is if warming is happening.

Re:How funny (0)

DogDude (805747) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754314)

But... but.... isn't money more important than our environment?

Re:How funny (2)

DigiTechGuy (1747636) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754406)

I'm poor, so to me, money is a LOT more important than the environment.

Re:How funny (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754570)

When oil shoots up to thousands of dollars a barrel, just imagine how much poorer you'll be.

Re:How funny (3, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754574)

That's shortsighted thinking.

Even in a city, you depend on the environment. It's not just about polar bears. It's also about crops, coastal cities, and illnesses, for instance.

For instance, if coastal cities start getting flooded in New Orleans style, that's going to be pretty darn important, if only because dealing with the resulting mess is going to cost a lot of money, which will eventually come out of your pocket.

Also, even if wherever you are benefits, some other places will suffer, which will result in mass migrations to wherever you are. That will also have economical costs.

Re:How funny (2)

nwf (25607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754690)

That's shortsighted thinking.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the OP, but short sighted thinking is precisely what makes money on Wall Street. Poor people tend to live in the short term as well, as in "what am I going to eat TODAY?"

Until these problems are addressed, I don't think most people in the world are going to care much about the environment.

Re:How funny (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754898)

Reality can't be fooled. You can pretend you're not walking off a cliff all you want, but you're still going to fall right the moment you step over the edge.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the OP, but short sighted thinking is precisely what makes money on Wall Street. Poor people tend to live in the short term as well, as in "what am I going to eat TODAY?"

Poor people aren't that much of the problem. Most of the problem is caused by large businesses and powerplants.

Re:How funny (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754974)

New Orleans flooded because the city got cheap on their sea walls.

Re:How funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754356)

I dont think anyone 'denies' what is going on (well maybe some do). But I think many question the reason. That is where you see the most debate. But hey lets tax everyone that will fix it! Most financial blunders of the last 150 years have been caused by democrats then blamed on anyone but themselves.

Re:How funny (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754550)

First, the 'deniers' all denied that anything was happening, that it's all normal variation, etc.

Now they MUST accept it's happening, but they deny that people could have anything to do with it, and insist that we are powerless to do anything about it.

Next, look for 'deniers' to accept that humanity is 'a factor' but not the only reason, and expect them to refuse any actions to ameliorate the problem, because they can't completely fix it anyway. (already starting)

Finally, expect the blamestorm to fall upon climatologists for failing to convince them there was a problem, and the reaction to be 'well, it's too late anyway, why change?'.

It's ALL a rationalization to deal with fear of change, lack of responsibility, and a failure to imagine any other way of doing business or building technology and agriculture.

Re:How funny (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754610)

[[But hey lets tax everyone that will fix it!]]

And remember that not just any fix will do: it has to be the *right* fix, as blessed by the scientists in charge. No cheap fixes like pumping sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere - we have to change every energy-consuming and energy-producing device on the planet so we use marginally less energy and produce less or no greenhouse gases, and we have to do so quickly enough that we get ahead of any global heating feedback curves.

And if that's not possible, it's your fault for being a greedy son of a bitch and wanting to drive to work or turn the heater on.

Re:How funny (1)

imric (6240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754970)

"No cheap fixes like pumping sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere"

Wow, starting out with terraforming our own planet, as opposed to starting out by refraining from the behavior that caused the problem in the first place.

And hey, why bother vetting solutions with those who actually, you know, studied the problem?

What could possibly go wrong?

So "No cheap fixes"?

YES - it's YOUR fault for being a greedy son of a bitch.

Re:How funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754674)

"Most financial blunders of the last 150 years have been caused by democrats then blamed on anyone but themselves."

Really, like deregulating and loosening up credit?

Like insisting that debt doesn't count?

My, you ARE a 'denier', aren't you?

And - it's funny that the only REALLY socialist act in the last 50 years was in reaction to an inflationary spiral (sparked by you know, 'market forces'), and was performed by a prominent Republican President (can you say: "wage and price freeze"? Sure. I knew you could.)

Re:How funny (2)

neonv (803374) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754486)

I don't see anything saying republicans are the instigators of this or that it's political at all. There's no reason to make hateful accusations. It's just convenient side effect of the melted pole.

Re:How funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754668)

It's just U.S. Republican's that are denying it. No one else on the planet.

Re:How funny (4, Insightful)

coolmoose25 (1057210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754530)

Most climate change skeptics are not of the ilk you describe (although there are very famous ones, many who are politicians)... What most climate skeptics dispute is anthropogenic global warming, and most of them ask the next question thoughtfully - what does global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) mean? The shrillness on both sides of this debate seem to resort to name calling and revel in the erection of straw man arguments such that they can make the other side look crazy.

For my own part, I don't believe the case for anthropogenic global warming is an open and shut case. I realize there are others who think I'm a lunatic for not being able to come to that conclusion. But the essence of science is thoroughly vetting theories... anthropogenic global warming is a theory whose final chapter is yet to be written.

As for the "what does global warming mean?" - well that is even less well thought out by both sides. Climate change believers think it's the apocalypse. Climate change deniers think it means nothing. Deniers point to harsh winters like last year and say "Global Warming is hooey"... Believers point to every hurricane and say, "See? I told you so"

Melting ice caps point to a warming planet. Opening up new shipping lanes is just one positive that is a result of global climate change. There are undoubtedly negatives. What all those positives and negatives are is unknown by all.

Re:How funny (3, Insightful)

digitalsolo (1175321) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754712)

We'll have none of this realistic view on climate change hooey here. Please revert to wild accusations and finger pointing, please.

Re:How funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754788)

"What all those positives and negatives are is unknown by all."

Yup. Unfortunately, civilization depends on stability. Without food, people revert to beasts and barbarians pretty damned quickly.

Re:How funny (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754914)

But beasts can be killed and eaten. And thus the circle of life is complete. mmmmm, yummy beastflesh.

Re:How funny (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754978)

In a close and balanced system, a tiny increment can fuck things up over time. Our CO2 spewing energy needs are adding extra CO2 to this system. Over time it will increase the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is ancient science, as is CO2 being associated to it.

Increasing temperatures means melting ice, which translates to rising sea levels. Coastal cities may be at risk. London has been building tide barriers for decades. They're not doing it for fun, it's called being prepared.

Increased temperature means increased disease, bugs that spread it, eg malaria, would normally die in colder climates, they are now found in areas they haven't been seen in before, as in up mountainous areas around the world. The mild winters in Europe are seeing issues with poor crops, seeds are coming out too soon, and die when there's a proper winter cold snap).

You are trolling, of course. Trying the old sitting on the fence stance. The simple question is, how much evidence from the vast majority of experts (you do read valid science journals, and not just blogs?) do you require? Precisely what do you need to accept we're creating a problem for future generations.

Don't forget the "warming" is the mean over the entire planet. The climatologists predict this will mean bigger swings in winters and summers, not a slightly warmer time for everyone.

Re:How funny (2)

istartedi (132515) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754808)

Is it as ironic as AGW believers who live right next to San Francisco Bay, which was dry until about 20,000 years ago?

Re:How funny (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754936)

I don't think there is an irony there, since AGW does not mean that there was no warming happening before humans arrived. It merely means that humans are accelerating it.

Meanwhile... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754288)

The sparring over oil rights, right up to the Pole have been hotting up.

Russia, Iceland, Sweden, among others are looking at the prospect of drilling in the seas - which scares the heck out of me. One good chunk of ice and then what? I hope it proves too costly to attempt.

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754542)

Well, for now, all exploratory holes up there have pretty much come up dry. The fabled cornucopia of arctic oil might well be just a dream. But the simple fact that all major players are going apeshit over the prospect of new, err, prospects up there seems to be a strong sign to me that a) global warming and b) peak oil is pretty much a fact. And that combination can pretty much scare the hell out of anyone with a brain....

A non-event (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754448)

Actually quoting the register [theregister.co.uk]

Impressive - if only it were true. The Northeast Passage has been opened for commerce since 1934 - and never 'closed'.

Over the years hundreds of thousands of freighters have passed through, and after Russia put Soviet-era politics aside it was extended to foreign commerce in the 1990s

So this is sort of non-story hype.

Re:A non-event (4, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754836)

Actually quoting the register [theregister.co.uk]

Impressive - if only it were true. The Northeast Passage has been opened for commerce since 1934 - and never 'closed'.

Over the years hundreds of thousands of freighters have passed through, and after Russia put Soviet-era politics aside it was extended to foreign commerce in the 1990s

So this is sort of non-story hype.

Not quite. Yes it's hyped (so is everything else). Note that the NE passage has 1) not been historically open all year round 2) often needed support from nuclear powered icebreakers 3) previously restricted to smaller vessels (no large tankers, no super max container ships).

The fact that all three limitations are likely to go away on a permanent (or at least long term) basis IS a significant change.

Further, if things continue apace (rapid warming of the Arctic as proposed by every single anthropogenic climate change theory) the NW passage will open for business in the next decade.

Dear U.S.ians +4, Helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754498)

The rumor on the Intertubes is that the U.S. still leases Alaska from Russia.

Cheers.

Yours In Minsk,
K. Trout

Da Canadian Passage hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754540)

Since Canada lays claim to the Northwest passage how long till it fully opened and how can Canada set up the toll booths?

Henry Hudson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754564)

He would be so proud.

Solar Activity (1)

sdguero (1112795) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754764)

Are we not coming off a solar activity peak?

The armchair climatologist in me expects the ice sheets will return in the next 2-3 years and this will, once again, not be a shipping lane. The earth may be warming slightly, but without a high level of solar activity I don't think it will be enough to drive off the ice sheets.

Re:Solar Activity (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754880)

Good thing we have real climatologists who actually think about things, do research, talk to others, make models and such. Armchair generals who don't even understand basic physics might make some big errors.

negative feedback loop? (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754820)

My engineer friend points out that if this saves fuel for large shippers, that should decrease global warming, resulting in a future closing of the passage to these largest ships, right? :)

Re:negative feedback loop? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754938)

My engineer friend points out that if this saves fuel for large shippers, that should decrease global warming, resulting in a future closing of the passage to these largest ships, right? :)

Only if bulk shipping used an appreciable fraction of global fossil fuel use. From the Wikipedia article [wikimedia.org] :

3.5 to 4 percent of all climate change emissions are caused by shipping.

Furthermore, bunker fuel is high in sulfur. While sulfur dioxide pollution is generally not considered a good thing, it does produce aerosols that reflect light back into space and create some bit of cooling (think volcanic eruptions).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...