efuzzyone writes "As an affect of global warming, the polar ice caps seem to be slowly receding, what do you do? The NYT reports it is a gold rush, 'the Arctic is undergoing nothing less than a great rush for virgin territory and natural resources worth hundreds of billions of dollars.' Also, 'polar thaw is also starting to unlock other treasures: lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage; new cruise ship destinations; and important commercial fisheries.'" Capitalizing on Melting Polar Ice Log in/Create an Account | Top | 292 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 292 comments 0: 283 comments 1: 205 comments 2: 143 comments 3: 42 comments 4: 27 comments 5: 16 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Yep (Score:5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15, @08:35PM (#13799855) I can hear Pres. Bush's spin on it now: "...Just imagine the further untapped resources we could discover by not joining the Kyoto agreement." [ Reply to This Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative) by Armadni General (869957) on Saturday October 15, @09:29PM (#13800136) It was President Clinton who first refused to agree to the Kyoto Protocols. Another fact, left out so you could take a cheap shot on the President. Oh well. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative) by jcr (53032) <jcr@NOSpAm.idiom.com> on Saturday October 15, @10:57PM (#13800512) (Last Journal: Saturday September 03, @10:27PM) Actually, the Kyoto treaty was unanimously rejected by the senate. See Senate Resolution 98 (1997).-jcr [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Yep by CharonIDRONES (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @11:30PM Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative) by TheDracle (836105) on Saturday October 15, @11:33PM (#13800648) http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.c fm?ContentID=499 [environmentaldefense.org]It's easy to overlook 'facts' when they are in reality fiction.In reality Clinton's administration negotiated, supported, and he personally eventually signed the Kyoto protocol."Former President Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, negotiated the treaty for the United States and had a major role in its final form."According to Wikipedia:"On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification."The criticism is that Bush doesn't support the Kyoto protocol. If Clinton commanded a congress with a dominant Democrat majority, as Bush commands a Republican majority, the Kyoto protocol would have passed under his administration.His administration undeniably supported the Kyoto protocol.It seems very strange for me to hear conservatives, which I'm sure you undeniably are, cry foul at simply criticizing the policy of the Bush administration. The only way you could find these criticisms innately negative, is if you agreed that the policy they criticize is innately negative. Clinton suffered an array of actual 'shots' that had nothing to do with his policy, by 24 hour cable news networks, and independent councils; working full time to dig up information on fabricated crimes he supposedly committed (yet predictably never yielded anything substantial). [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Yep by cfulmer (Score:2) Sunday October 16, @12:16AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Yep by maelstrom (Score:3) Sunday October 16, @12:49AMRe:Yep by sithkhan (Score:1) Sunday October 16, @12:56AMRe:Yep by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:43PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.4 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Yep by Spetiam (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:35PMKyoto is useless... by Agarax (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @09:47PMRepublicans Hate the Earth by Doc Ruby (Score:3) Saturday October 15, @10:27PMRe:Republicans Hate the Earth by CyricZ (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:52PMRe:STFU CYRIC! by CyricZ (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:54PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Republicans Hate the Earth by dextroz (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @11:34PMRe:Republicans Hate the Earth by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Sunday October 16, @12:43AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Hummmm.... by WindBourne (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:49PMRe:Kyoto is useless... by AvitarX (Score:2) Sunday October 16, @12:21AM Re:Kyoto is useless... (Score:5, Informative) by bleaknik (780571) <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <kinkaelb>> on Saturday October 15, @10:14PM (#13800301) (http://bleakinc.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 23, @10:00PM) A.C. you make an excellent point!I find humor in the root-level comment, but there is a deeper underlying issue with the Kyoto agreement that doesn't settle well with my view on it.Sure the U.S. pollutes a great deal; we also use something like 1/6 of all of the world's resources. But to my understanding (and I may be wrong), we put out a lot less pollution than China or India.I have family that has recently travelled to this part of the world, and they've had a hard time adjusting to the pollution that exists in that part of the world... Smog is everywhere I'm told.Yeah, the U.S. can do a lot to clean up its own act, but the rest of the world has a long way to go, too.Now, why should the U.S. foot the bill for the rest of the world? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Kyoto is useless... by jcr (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:01PMIt's not a liability, it's an opportunity. by skids (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:41PMRe:Kyoto is useless... by bleaknik (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:48PMRe:Kyoto is useless... by AnEmbodiedMind (Score:2) Sunday October 16, @12:48AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Yep by SnarfQuest (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:03PMRe:Yep by NanoGator (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:08PMRe:Yep by aklix (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @11:29PM4 replies beneath your current threshold. and, (Score:5, Funny) by Hawthorne01 (575586) on Saturday October 15, @08:36PM (#13799863) beachfront property in Sacramento! [ Reply to ThisI don't think so, by JoeCommodore (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @08:40PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Nah (Score:5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15, @08:42PM (#13799903) Sacramento is in the middle of a valley with a big river (coincidentally *also* called Sacramento) running through it. If anything, Sacramento will be on the bottom of the California Archipelago's Great Central Sea. [ Reply to This | ParentDiving! by dj245 (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:34PMTethys Sea by HiThere (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:23PMRe:Tethys Sea by jcr (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:04PMRe:and, by Celsius 233 (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @10:27PM First spell-nazi post! (Score:1, Informative) by Stormwatch (703920) on Saturday October 15, @08:36PM (#13799866) (http://anticirc.coconia.net/) "As an affect of global warming"?And the science is not very solid either. [ Reply to This2 replies beneath your current threshold. This is great! (Score:4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15, @08:36PM (#13799868) When the air gets too polluted to breathe, I'll finally be able to make my money selling oxygen franchises! I love the free market! [ Reply to ThisRe:This is great! by Tony Hoyle (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:00PMRe:This is great! by CastrTroy (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:44PMRe:This is great! by bsartist (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:54PM Wow! (Score:5, Insightful) by springbox (853816) on Saturday October 15, @08:37PM (#13799871) polar thaw is also starting to unlock other treasures: lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage; new cruise ship destinations; and important commercial fisheriesWith all of these benefits who cares about preventing damage to our environment?!</sarcasm> [ Reply to This Re:Wow! (Score:5, Informative) by operagost (62405) on Saturday October 15, @10:38PM (#13800407) (http://operagost.com/) If you look at the temperature trends for the Arctic region since 1880, it appears that the Arctic generally warmed somewhat until about 1938. From 1938 until about 1966, the Arctic cooled to about its 1918 temperature level. Then, between 1966 and 2003, the Arctic warmed up to just shy of its 1938 temperature. But in 2004, the Arctic temperature again spiked downward. Now if the 1880-1938 warming trend had continued up until this day, there certainly would be some significant warming in the Arctic region to talk about. From 1918 to 1938, alone, the Arctic warmed by 2.5 degrees Centigrade. But the actual temperature trend is much different, showing that there's been hardly any overall temperature change in the Arctic since 1938. Not only does the temperature data contradict the claim that global warming is overtaking the Arctic, but data on greenhouse gas concentrations ought to drive a spike through the heart of the claim. During the warming period from 1880 to 1938, it's estimated that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide - the bugbear of greenhouse gases to global warming worriers - increased by an estimated 20 parts per million. But from 1938 to 2003 - a period of essentially no increase in Arctic warming - the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased another 60 parts per million. It doesn't seem plausible, then, that Arctic temperatures are significantly influenced by atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. And even when the Arctic re-warmed between 1966 and 2003, the warming occurred much less aggressively (about 50 percent less) than the 1918-1938 warming and at about the same rate as the period 1880-1938, despite much higher greenhouse gas levels in the 1966-2003 time frame. See article here [foxnews.com].Especially take note of this chart [junkscience.com] [ Reply to This | ParentA book that might get people thinking about this by PReDiToR (Score:2) Sunday October 16, @12:41AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Good Point... (Score:4, Insightful) by physicsphairy (720718) on Saturday October 15, @10:45PM (#13800444) (http://www.freerepublic.com/) ... whether or not you intended to make it.The right way to judge a situation is not emotionally, or sentimentally, but through cost-benefit analysis. As an example, I'm afraid that environment==good :. kyoto == good is simply not a logical assertion. First of all, the environment is not intrinsically worthy... what makes a bunch of carbon atoms organized as molecular skeletons any more important than carbon atoms organized as a rock? You would be hard pressed to come up with a formula. Sentience on the other hand introduces a whole new prospect of morality and evaluations of worth that can exist without a reductionist deduction from particles and and particle properties. (You can argue that sentience does not make us any more important than other molecular aggregates, but then you are arguing the irrelevance of your own stake in the argument, so forgive me if I don't feel too bad about neglecting a critical analysis of that philosophy.)So in an analytic, rational way, we should look at what outcome, subsuming all its possible advantages and disadvantages, is to the greatest benefit of mankind. Global warming is not ipso facto a bad thing just because that's how people spin it when they talk about it. The earth used to be rather more tropical than it is now. Is it's moving back in that direction a bad thing? Was it's moving out of the ice age a bad thing? Could global warming stave off what would cyclically appear to be the inevitable of another earth iceage?I think most people are rather more reactionary than they should be about this topic. Global warming != the sky is falling, global warming == gradual climactic change we are faced with drawing up a reasonable response to. Rising sea levels over a hundred years is not a big deal. Coastal cities face infinitely more peril from sudden oceanic storms than waters that will take hundreds of years to reach them. We should certainly consider what the effect will be on ecosystems, what species will die off, and whether we want to accept this as another stage in earth's evolution (mass extinctions are nothing new) or if we want to stick our noses in and try to keep things the way we like it. But "The earth is doomed!" is not a terribly levelheaded approach. The sky is not falling, people. Climactic change is something that planets do. It is quite possible that a warmer earth may be a bad thing for us, and that we should invest to arrest its change. It is also possible that it is a very good thing, or that we simply do not have the capacity to affect it significantly at all. My recommendation is simply that we recognize (1) change != apocalypse (2) that doesn't mean taking action is not warranted, only that we should not be reactionary about it. [ Reply to This | ParentGood Points? by falconwolf (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:40PMRe:Good Point... by utexaspunk (Score:2) Sunday October 16, @12:39AMRe:Wow! by springbox (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @08:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Wow! by tftp (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @08:58PMRe:Wow! by eh2o (Score:3) Saturday October 15, @09:28PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Great. (Score:5, Funny) by Sebby (238625) on Saturday October 15, @08:37PM (#13799872) "lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage; new cruise ship destinations; and important commercial fisheries."Great. Add more pollution to the area. Just what it needs! :)  [ Reply to ThisDon't Ice Breakers add to the demise? by woodsrunner (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @10:11PMRe:Great. by Pharmboy (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:54PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. And thats not all (Score:2, Insightful) by Don_Casper (923158) on Saturday October 15, @08:39PM (#13799879) Not to mention the rising waters flooding pacific islands. Good trade off, cruise destinations in the pacific get flooded, and cruise destinations in the polar region open up. [ Reply to This Pacific islands aren't going anywhere (Score:5, Informative) by amightywind (691887) on Saturday October 15, @09:23PM (#13800110) Not to mention the rising waters flooding pacific islands. Good trade off, cruise destinations in the pacific get flooded, and cruise destinations in the polar region open up. Ever wonder why many Pacific islands are at sea level? Most are volcanoes eroded to sea level. They become atolls through processes of erosion and a buildup of calcium carbonate that form a ring around the eroded ediface. As sea level rises deposition by coral will equalize with rising sea level. Indeed, flooding by major storms is the *only* mechanism where new material is deposited above sea level at all! This is not new. It has going for the last 12000 years since the end of the last ice age as sea level has risen several meters. So relax, the Pacific islands aren't going anywhere. Why do people discard rational thought when discussing the Kyoto treaty? [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Pacific islands aren't going anywhere by John Hasler (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:06PMNorth Polar icecap melt will by KwKSilver (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @11:54PMFlooded = gone by Dire Bonobo (Score:2) Sunday October 16, @12:31AMRe:Pacific islands aren't going anywhere by amightywind (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:46PMRe:Pacific islands aren't going anywhere by abigor (Score:2) Sunday October 16, @12:03AM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Kyoto what? (Score:1) by MarcoPon (689115) on Saturday October 15, @08:39PM (#13799880) (http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx) So we can now expect pollution to be State encouraged, to speed-up the melting and take advantage of the new, exciting investing opportunities? Great!Bye! [ Reply to This The first thing I though of.. (Score:3, Interesting) by Brad1138 (590148) on Saturday October 15, @08:40PM (#13799883) After reading the title, was U.S. and Halliburton. (I live in U.S.) [ Reply to ThisRe:The first thing I though of.. by OverlordQ (Score:3) Saturday October 15, @09:32PMRe:The first thing I though of.. by TummyX (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:21PMRe:The first thing I though of.. by operagost (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @10:51PM Brr. Must be cold up there.... now (Score:1) by Takara (711260) on Saturday October 15, @08:40PM (#13799884) Artic sovernty has always been a big deal for Canada. We had better start finding some new submarines. [ Reply to ThisRe:Brr. Must be cold up there.... now by cybpunks3 (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:57PMRe:Brr. Must be cold up there.... now by dracostan (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @11:13PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Pirates? (Score:2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15, @08:40PM (#13799885) Let's all hope the gold will attract more pirates! [ Reply to ThisRe:Pirates? by FullCircle (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @08:48PMRe:Pirates? by lexarius (Score:3) Saturday October 15, @08:54PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. How ironic (Score:5, Interesting) by Pinball Wizard (161942) on Saturday October 15, @08:42PM (#13799891) (http://www.page1book.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday July 06, @05:02PM) that global warming would lead to new oil discoveries. [ Reply to ThisRe:How ironic by going_the_2Rpi_way (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:02PMRe:How ironic by Slashdiddly (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @09:30PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. DONT FEEL RIGHT (Score:3, Insightful) by ICEcalibur (923176) on Saturday October 15, @08:42PM (#13799893) "Also, 'polar thaw is also starting to unlock other treasures: lucrative shipping routes, perhaps even the storied Northwest Passage"I think the melting ice will unlock a treasure all right....and its a treasure that we should bother looking for....like pandoras box..??? [ Reply to ThisRe:DONT FEEL RIGHT by operagost (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @10:59PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Anyone.. (Score:4, Insightful) by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Saturday October 15, @08:50PM (#13799937) (Last Journal: Sunday September 19, @11:03PM) Anyone else feel sick when you read things like this? If the human race is that fucking stupid then we deserve to drown in the flood we'll end up making. Saddly a handful will probably survive it.. most likely the rich ones who can aford to hoard boats, food and drinkable water...Money : Because killing 6 billion people just to make some more was so worth it, now that it's totally useless because everyones dead and paper has no use when it's already doodled on. [ Reply to ThisRe:Anyone.. by icepick72 (Score:3) Saturday October 15, @09:00PM Re:Anyone.. (Score:5, Informative) by Yorrike (322502) on Saturday October 15, @09:24PM (#13800117) (http://www.yorrike.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 04, @09:03AM) Having almost finished a geology degree (3 exams to go), I've run through the exercise of calculating exactly how high the ocean would go if the ice caps melted many a time.Here's the thing, if there's more water, there's more weight on the crust, which will subside a bit. Cutting a long story short and without explaining the ins and outs of crustal isostasy, if your house, water source and farmland is above 75m in elevation, you'll be alright.Otherwise, to quote Tool's very appropriate song Aenima, learn to swim. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Anyone.. by HiThere (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:41PMRe:Anyone.. by Bob Cat - NYMPHS (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:19PMRe:Anyone.. by Stripe7 (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:26PMRe:Anyone.. by dan42 (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @10:47PMRe:Anyone.. by Bob Cat - NYMPHS (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:49PMRe:Anyone.. by malsdavis (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:42PMRe:Anyone.. by Bobzibub (Score:2) Sunday October 16, @12:35AMRe:Anyone.. by WindBourne (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:03PMCorrection and an interesting map by WindBourne (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:16PMRe:Anyone.. by jcr (Score:3) Saturday October 15, @11:09PMRe:Anyone.. by Daniel Dvorkin (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:32PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Anyone.. by dasunt (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:18PMRe:Anyone.. by Turn-X Alphonse (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:39PM Re:Anyone.. (Score:4, Insightful) by CastrTroy (595695) on Saturday October 15, @10:00PM (#13800239) (http://www.kibbee.ca/) Look at the recent flood in America.. now think of that flood was in one of the African slums where they can hardly eat. Kind of like that tsunami that hit indonesia a little while back. Tons of devastation, killed over 100,000 people. Wikipedia reports only 1200 deaths from hurricane katrina. Only 2000 US soldiers have died in Iraq. 200,000 Allied soldiers died during the battle of normandy. Americans don't even remember what real devastation is, and some have never ever experienced it. At least not first hand. They hear about it on the news, but it's hard to relate to pictures on a tv screen. Maybe this is why so many people forget how vulnerable we are. Because in the last 50 years, there has been very little in terms of real devastation. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Anyone.. by grcumb (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:39PMRe:Anyone.. by CastrTroy (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:05PMRe:Anyone.. by CastrTroy (Score:3) Saturday October 15, @11:13PMIt already happens by malsdavis (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:34PMRe:It already happens by Turn-X Alphonse (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:01PMRe:Anyone.. by dasunt (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @11:02PMRe:Anyone.. by CastrTroy (Score:3) Saturday October 15, @10:03PMRe:Anyone.. by rmayes100 (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @10:06PMRe:Anyone.. by vandan (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:37PMRe:Anyone.. by mikael (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:49PMRe:Anyone.. by Pyromage (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:09PMRe:Anyone.. by SQL Error (Score:3) Saturday October 15, @09:36PMRe:Anyone.. by bcwright (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @09:53PMRe:Anyone.. by pseudorand (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @10:42PMRe:Anyone.. by pseudorand (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @11:26PMRe:Anyone.. by EinarH (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @10:29PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. reminds me of a simpson plot. (Score:2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 15, @08:50PM (#13799938) This kinda reminds me of the simpson episode where bart finds a three eyed fish in the stream by the power plant. Mr. Burns decides to run for office and starts trumping up how good the three eyed fish is for the enviroment and is better to eat yada yada yada. [ Reply to ThisRe:reminds me of a simpson plot. by mikael (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:16PM New cruise ship destinations? (Score:4, Insightful) by britneys 9th husband (741556) on Saturday October 15, @08:51PM (#13799946) (http://www.uskatrinarelief.com/ | Last Journal: Friday October 14, @02:42AM) Great, I can fulfill my lifelong dream of going on a cruise from the Yukon to Siberia. Meanwhile, all the good cruise ship destinations will be closed off because hurricane season will last 10 months. [ Reply to ThisRe:New cruise ship destinations? by DoraLives (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @09:15PM How can this be? Bush wasn't even alive. (Score:4, Funny) by ccmay (116316) on Saturday October 15, @09:30PM (#13800142) (http://slashdot.org/) this Florida land boom will get snuffed out by hurricanes just like the last one did way back in the 20's.This can't be right. George Bush wasn't even born then. How could there possibly have been hurricanes, or any other evil or dangerous thing?Oh! I see: Halliburton Co., founded 1919. That explains it.-ccm [ Reply to This