News The pros and cons of global warming; i.e. GCC

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
It's going to be interesting to see how this all affects trade, politics, agriculture, navigation... and even travel.

Climate is changing the world’s economy as well as the environment, and the thawing of the polar ice is opening up the Arctic as never before, creating shipping routes and fishing grounds, promising tourism opportunities and, most lucratively, the exploitation of new oil and gas fields. Prospectors are pouring into the Arctic, and Hammerfest, once a tiny settlement on the outermost rim of the habitable world, has become the new Klondike. [continued]
Talk about irony!
Put simply, the receding ice makes it far easier to find, drill and extract oil and gas. The Arctic Ocean is thought to contain at least a quarter of the world’s undiscovered reserves.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2034643,00.html
 
Last edited:
2,903
13
There was a NASA scientist on the radio a couple of weeks ago. He was talking about the melting of the glaciers. He said scientists noticed a very significant increase the melting rates. He said the problem is that the melting rates are nonlinear, and we do not know at what point if any a runoff effect could occur. He was also speaking out against the administrations censorship of data.
 

Art

It will bring a whole new meaning to 'fighting for the high ground' :biggrin:
 
350
0
Just wait for the antarctica oil blitz.

that place has been totaly unexplored as a continent, it is probably super rich in oil and minerals and precious metals.

I can just imagine the war that will come to get control over that chunk of land.
 
350
0
cyrus,

yeah, non-linear melting is not a good thing. we could end up with a sudden shutdown of the gulf stream and other major ocean currents.

that will be bad.
 
86
3
ComputerGeek said:
Just wait for the antarctica oil blitz.

that place has been totaly unexplored as a continent, it is probably super rich in oil and minerals and precious metals.

I can just imagine the war that will come to get control over that chunk of land.
Actually, if a country gets there first and sets up a strong defense, there won't be any war. The only type of war that would ensue would be if two countries got there first and the companies somehow started to escalate violence. I highly doubt there would be a full fledged war for it.
 
337
2
Put simply, the receding ice makes it far easier to find, drill and extract oil and gas. The Arctic Ocean is thought to contain at least a quarter of the world’s undiscovered reserves.
This reminds me of when Seward got the US to buy Alaska. He was heavily criticized at the time for what would otherwise be just a worthless chunk of ice and rock from the Russians, but Alaska turns out to have large oil reserves and other materials.

While more oil may be an advantage of global warming, the consequences may be far greater.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
The bigger upside for Republicans than more oil: getting rid of those damn liberal hotbeds Los Angeles and New York. Hollywood would survive as an archipelago.
 
38
165
The great "North Country" oil may not be all that easy to recover. Most of the current oil infrastructure is built on top of permafrost.

Melting permafrost also means trouble for the oil industry. Oil companies build pipelines and roads on it to support drilling on the North Shore. To minimize damage to Arctic tundra, oil companies explore for oil on Alaska's North Slope only when roads are frozen with a foot of ice and six inches of snow. The ice-road season has dropped from 200 days a year in 1970 to 103 days in 2002, according to Alaska state documents.
Permafrost is land that stays frozen year-round. Villages rely on the hard permafrost to prevent beach erosion from violent ocean storms. Two Alaskan native villages, Shishmaref and Kivalina, must relocate because melting permafrost has caused beach erosion, leaving the towns vulnerable to severe storms.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7768
 
Last edited:
350
0
Dawguard said:
Actually, if a country gets there first and sets up a strong defense, there won't be any war. The only type of war that would ensue would be if two countries got there first and the companies somehow started to escalate violence. I highly doubt there would be a full fledged war for it.
right......................
 

Amp1

On 60 minutes yesterday (3/19/06), the second segment focused on global warming. A scientist who writes reports on GW for congress was interviewed. He told about this admin. is censoring and rewriting data and reports that are submitted that warns of the possible ramifications and consequences of GW. He showed the interviewer a report that was rewriten by a lawyer appointed by Bush. This lawyer was appointed from an energy industry company (I think an oil giant) and it was showed where he took out parts of the report that discussed the negative impact of GW.

Here:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.

Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.

But he didn't hold back speaking to Pelley, telling 60 Minutes what he knows.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: The pros and cons of global warming; i.e. GCC

Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
307
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
9K

Hot Threads

Top