Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Hearts Content]

Aw man, I thought this thread was about a marina and restaurant opening in Antartica for cruisers.

Well bummer.

[Rustic Charm]

I've always been a little confused with the Title of this thread. I thought about it ages ago and whilst I have a read when I need a good laugh, I left the thread 500 posts ago. But now I'm having a slow day in the office I thought I'd bring it up.

Was it intended by the OP to refer to 'Antarctic waterways'? Or did the OP actually mean the Arctic waterways of the North Pole?

Because GW is said to have an impact on opening up those waterways, but I'm a little confused around the impact on Antarctic waterways as I never new they were ever closed. Other than of course during the nine months of winter each year.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I've always been a little confused with the Title of this thread. I thought about it ages ago and whilst I have a read when I need a good laugh, I left the thread 500 posts ago. But now I'm having a slow day in the office I thought I'd bring it up.

Was it intended by the OP to refer to 'Antarctic waterways'? Or did the OP actually mean the Arctic waterways of the North Pole?

Because GW is said to have an impact on opening up those waterways, but I'm a little confused around the impact on Antarctic waterways as I never new they were ever closed. Other than of course during the nine months of winter each year.

belay that. I just worked out that the OP's original post was definitely about the Antarctic. It seems to me the entire purpose of the thread got high jacked. That's CF..

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

belay that. I just worked out that the OP's original post was definitely about the Antarctic. It seems to me the entire purpose of the thread got high jacked. That's CF..

It went off on a tangent about doomsayers, then just went downhill from there lol.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[El Pinguino]

'Said Hanrahan'


"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan in accents most forlorn,
Outside the church, ere Mass began one frosty Sunday morn.
The congregation stood about coat-collars to the ears,
And talked of stock, and crops, and drought as it had done for years.
"It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke; "Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke has seasons been so bad."

"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil, with which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel and chewed a piece of bark.
And so around the chorus ran, "It's keepin' dry, no doubt."
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."
"The crops are done; ye'll have your work to save one bag of grain;
From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke they're singin' out for rain.

"They're singin' out for rain," he said, "And all the tanks are dry."
The congregation scratched its head, and gazed around the sky.
"There won't be grass, in any case, enough to feed an ass;
There's not a blade on Casey's place as I came down to Mass."
"If rain don't come this month," said Dan, and cleared his throat to speak -
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If rain don't come this week."

A heavy silence seemed to steal on all at this remark;
And each man squatted on his heel, and chewed a piece of bark.
"We want an inch of rain, we do, "O'Neil observed at last;
But Croke "maintained" we wanted two, to put the danger past.
"If we don't get three inches, man, or four to break this drought,
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."

In God's good time down came the rain; and all the afternoon
On iron roof and window-pane it drummed a homely tune.
And through the night it pattered still, and lightsome, gladsome elves
On dripping spout and window-sill kept talking to themselves.
It pelted, pelted all day long, a-singing at its work,
Till every heart took up the song way out to Back-o'-Bourke.

And every creek a banker ran, and dams filled overtop;
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If this rain doesn't stop."
And stop it did, in God's good time; and spring came in to fold
A mantle o'er the hills sublime of green and pink and gold.
And days went by on dancing feet, with harvest-hopes immense,
And laughing eyes beheld the wheat nid-nodding o'er the fence.

And, oh, the smiles on every face, as happy lad and lass
Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place went riding down to Mass.
While round the church in clothes genteel discoursed the men of mark,
And each man squatted on his heel, and chewed his piece of bark.
"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man, there will, without a doubt;
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."

[SailOar]

The Arctic is ‘unraveling’ due to global warming, and the consequences will be global | Washington Post

...A new booklet from the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council wants to change that. Synthesizing much past academy work on the Arctic region, the booklet– being released just before the United States assumes the chairmanship of the eight-nation Arctic Council later this month — blazons this message: “What Happens in the Arctic Doesn’t Stay in the Arctic.”

Here are four potential ways, drawing both upon the new report and much of our prior reporting here, that changes in the Arctic will reverberate well beyond it and, in some cases, have planet wide consequences:

1. Changing Your Weather.
This is controversial, but there is growing scientific research backing the still contested conclusion that changes to the Arctic are leading to changes in weather in the mid-latitudes. The basic idea is that a warmer Arctic plays games with the jet stream, the stream of air high above us in the stratosphere that carries our weather and that is driven by temperature contrasts between the mid and high latitudes.

If the Arctic warms faster than the mid latitudes do, then the jet stream could slow down, goes the theory. It could develop a more elongated and loopier path, leading to a persistence of particular weather conditions — whether intense snow, intense heat, intense rain, or something else that is, you guessed it, intense.

A recent study published in the journal Science found that a more wavy and elongated jet stream in the summer “has made weather more persistent and hence favored the occurrence of prolonged heat extremes.”...

2. Changing What You Eat.
The National Research Council booklet also notes that warming oceans could have a substantial effect on the fishing industry, which prowls the Arctic and sub-Arctic for a crucial part of its catch. “About half of the U.S. fish catch comes from subarctic waters,” notes the report.
Fishermen and fishing boats may have new routes open to them due to a less icy Arctic, the report acknowledges. But at the same time, the composition and distribution of species could change with warming waters:

Atlantic cod, for example, have been displacing the endemic polar cod in the waters surrounding the Norwegian archipelago Svalbard. In addition, rising temperatures and an influx of fresh water from melting ice can cause rippling effects through the marine food chain. In the North Atlantic, for example, scientists project that ocean warming will cause shifts in the spawning and feeding grounds of several economically-important fish populations, including Arctic cod, herring, and capelin....

3. Raising Sea Levels.
....And there’s also a less known Arctic contributor to sea level changes: the way polar melting could weaken the great overturning circulation of the oceans.

There is suggestive evidence that the melting of Greenland is already contributing to a freshening of the waters of the north Atlantic. This, in turn, may be slowing down the so-called Atlantic meridional overturning circulation — which carries a tremendous amount of warm water northward in the Atlantic.

If the circulation weakens, then it affects sea level on either side of it. That’s for two reasons (explained in more depth here): Warmer waters lie to the right or east of the Gulf Stream, and warm water expands and takes up more area — leaving sea level lower on the U.S. coast side of the circulation. A weakening would thus raise our sea level.

There’s also the fact that in the northern hemisphere, “sea surface slope perpendicular to any current flow, like the Gulf Stream, has a higher sea level on its right hand side, and the lower sea level on the left hand slide,” according to Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. So again, a weaker Gulf Stream evens that out, and you’d see sea level rise on the U.S. coast.

4. Worsening Global Warming Itself.
Finally, changes in the Arctic are expected to amplify global warming itself. The principal way this could happen is through the thawing of frozen ground or permafrost, which covers much of the Arctic, and which contains huge stores of frozen carbon.

Recent scientific analysis has affirmed that Arctic permafrost is packed with carbon — some 1,330 and 1,580 gigatons worth, and that may be a low end estimate — and that over the course of the century, a substantial fraction will get released to the atmosphere. It would probably happen slowly and steadily, but it could amount to a significant contribution to overall global warming.

Why will this occur? As the National Research Council explains:

Plants are essentially made of carbon. When a plant dies in a temperate area, it decomposes, releasing some of its carbon into the air and some into the soil. But when a plant dies in a place too cold for decomposition, it simply stays put, locking its carbon in place.

Until permafrost thaws, anyway. If enough of it does so, the volume of carbon emissions could be enough to set back worldwide efforts to reduce emissions from fossil fuel burning by adding an entire new source of greenhouse gases beyond the usual suspects, like fossil fuels and deforestation....

[Neo]

Originally Posted by SailOar

How Much Will It Cost to Solve Climate Change? | Technology Review



How much will it cost to cut global greenhouse gas emissions? | London School of Economics


The Cost of Climate Change | Natural Resources Defense Council


Counting the Cost of Fixing the Future | New York Times


Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option| The Guardian

Thanks for the links. I'll read the articles you referenced carefully and with an open mind. I am wiling to change my views on this topic if presented with hard evidence from trusted sources or good old plain logic.

Just finished the NY Times article. Nothing in there to contradict my view point what-so-ever. In fact it supports most of what I believe.

The article begins focusing on the cost of reducing CO2 per ton. Nowhere does it discuss the total cost of following the IPCC recommendations. It just asserts the cost per ton my be less than forecast. In fact it argues against taking drastic measures and suggests that a good strategy may be to take no measures at all. See below.

"Multiple challenges compete for the world’s resources, from economic development and ending poverty to eradicating AIDS and malaria...... Even if we were to agree that improving the well-being of future generations is worth an ENORMOUS investment, there might be better things to invest in than reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

"If investments in CO2 abatement are not competitive, we would do better by investing elsewhere and using the proceeds to cover warming’s damage. We would still have money left over."

In fact, the article seems to accept that a 3.5C increase as inevitable even with the type of investment they see as plausible. Would that not translate into 12-25 feet increase in sea level?

I will read the other articles you referenced, and look forward to learning something new. Kind regards.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I class alarmists (which is a word only started using during the course of this thread) as those that keep regurgitating up doom and gloom scenarios, all with "could", "predicted" or "may" preceding their claims.

Well there's allways a chance Yellowstone erupts and instead of global warming we freeze under clouds of ash so hence "could, may and predicted".
Anyway it's not a matter of my or your beliefs..

[SailOar]

Open Letter from Global CEOs to World Leaders Urging Concrete Climate Action

CEO-led initiative to create a fertile ground for a responsible and global climate deal in Paris 2015

Climate change is one of the biggest global challenges that will shape the way we do business now and in the coming decades. The United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties 21 (COP21), to be held in Paris in December 2015, aims to deliver a new climate change agreement that will put the world on track to a low-carbon, sustainable future while keeping the rise in global temperature to under 2 degrees Celsius.

This coalition, comprising 43 CEOs from companies with operations in over 150 countries and territories, and facilitated by the World Economic Forum, believes the private sector has a responsibility to actively engage in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and to help lead the global transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy. This coalition further seeks to catalyze and aggregate action and initiatives from companies from all industry sectors — towards delivering concrete climate solutions and innovations in their practices, operations and policies.

The undersigned, as CEO climate leaders, urge the world’s leaders to reach an ambitious climate deal at COP21, aligned with the UN Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We extend an open offer to national governments to meet and co-design tangible actions as well as ambitious, effective targets that are appropriate for their different jurisdictions.

Our commitments

• The companies we represent are taking voluntary actions to reduce environmental and carbon footprints, setting targets to reduce our own GHG gas emissions and/or energy consumption while also collaborating in supply chains and at sectoral levels. Technological innovations will be an important element.
• We agree on the need for inspirational and meaningful global action and aligned messaging. We will act as ambassadors for climate action, focusing on solutions and economic opportunities and using “the science debate is over: climate change is real and addressable” * as one of the common themes to raise public awareness.
• We will actively manage climate risks and incorporate them in decision making — not least to realize growth opportunities. We will take steps to implement effective strategies to strengthen not only our companies’ but also societal resilience.

Our vision supporting a climate deal

• We believe that effective climate policies have to include explicit or implicit prices on carbon achieved via market mechanisms or coherent legislative measures according to national preferences, which will trigger low-carbon investment and transform current emission patterns at a significant scale. We support global mitigation approaches that promote cost effective incentives for cutting emissions, while respecting level playing fields and preventing carbon leakage.
• We urge a strategic action agenda — supported by clear and consistent policies and robust monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) — that will complement business efforts to stimulate innovation as well as collaborative actions across value chains, and to develop and scale up alternative and renewable energy sources, promote energy efficiency, end deforestation and accelerate other low-carbon options and technologies such as ICT.
• We welcome transparency and disclosure regarding financial investments and policies in relation to all energy-related activities — including fossil-based and alternative. We support assessments of resilience to climate risks and call for new financial instruments to stimulate alternative energy and efficiency projects as well as green bonds. This will enable climate action to be integrated with financial reporting and instruments.
• We encourage governments to set science-based global and national targets for the reduction of GHG emissions and the development of alternative energy sources.

Hastening the shift to a low-carbon economy in an economically sustainable manner will generate growth and jobs in both the developing and developed world. Delaying action is not an option — it will be costly and will damage growth prospects in the years to come. The CEO climate leaders call on government leaders and policy makers to align on global measures, to be consistent in policy-making and to develop helpful innovation frameworks.

A comprehensive, inclusive and ambitious climate deal in Paris on mitigation, adaptation and finance — in combination with a strong set of clear policy signals from the world’s leaders — is key to accelerating this transition. This opportunity should not be missed.

* We will build on the data contained in The Consensus Project of the Scientific Community on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN and the New Climate Economy Report (“Better Growth — Better Climate”) of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.


Signatories

We are CEOs from 43 companies and 20 economic sectors.
With operations in over 150 countries and territories, together we generated over $1.2 trillion in revenue in 2014.
Olof Persson, President and CEO, AB Volvo
Pierre Nanterme, Chairman and CEO, Accenture *
José Manuel Entrecanales Domecq, Chairman and CEO, Acciona * ^
Ton Büchner, CEO, AkzoNobel
Michael Diekmann, Chairman of the Board of Management (CEO), Allianz SE
Gregory Hodkinson, Chairman, Arup Group
Gavin Patterson, CEO, BT Group * ^
Niels B. Christiansen, President and CEO, Danfoss
Frank Appel, CEO, Deutsche Post DHL Group *
Henrik Poulsen, CEO, DONG Energy
Andrew N. Liveris, President, Chairman and CEO, Dow Chemical
Company *
Francesco Starace, CEO and General Manager, Enel SpA
Hans E. Vestberg, President and CEO, Ericsson
Gérard Mestrallet, Chairman and CEO, GDF SUEZ *
Bernardo Gradin, CEO, GranBio Investimentos
Ajit Gulabchand, Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Construction Company
Stuart Gulliver, Group CEO, HSBC Holdings
Ignacio S. Galán, Chairman and CEO, Iberdrola
Peter Agnefjäll, President and CEO, IKEA Group *
Ralph Hamers, CEO, ING Group
Sandra Wu Wen-Hsiu, Chairperson and CEO, Kokusai Kogyo Co. Ltd
Bruno Lafont, Chairman and CEO, Lafarge *
Marc Bolland, CEO, Marks and Spencer
Nikolaus von Bomhard, Chairman of the Board of Management, Munich Re
Torben Möger Pedersen, CEO, PensionDanmark
Eric Rondolat, CEO, Philips Lighting
Feike Sijbesma, CEO and Chairman of the Managing Board, Royal DSM * ^
Frans van Houten, President and CEO, Royal Philips * ^
Jean-Pascal Tricoire, Chairman and CEO, Schneider Electric *
Franky Oesman Widjaja, Chairman and CEO, Sinar Mas Agribusiness and Food
Jean-Pierre Clamadieu, CEO, Solvay *
Christian Rynning-Tønnesen, President and CEO, Statkraft *
Jean-Louis Chaussade, CEO, Suez Environnement *
Takeshi Niinami, President and CEO, Suntory Holdings
Tulsi Tanti, Chairman, Suzlon Energy
Michel M. Liès, Group CEO, Swiss Re
Masashi Muromachi, Chairman of the Board, Toshiba Corporation *
Paul Polman, CEO, Unilever * ^
Antoine Frérot, Chairman and CEO, Veolia *
Anders Runevad, Group President and CEO, Vestas Wind Systems
Anthony Pratt, Executive Chairman, Visy Industries
David W. Kenny, Chairman and CEO, The Weather Company
Kuok Khoon Hong, Chairman and CEO, Wilmar International

All signatories are members of the World Economic Forum.
*Member of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
^Member of the Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change

[Neo]

Originally Posted by SailOar

How Much Will It Cost to Solve Climate Change? | Technology Review



How much will it cost to cut global greenhouse gas emissions? | London School of Economics


The Cost of Climate Change | Natural Resources Defense Council


Counting the Cost of Fixing the Future | New York Times


Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option| The Guardian

Read the MIT article.

Nope, still no evidence that the cost of reducing or even stabilizing CO2 emissions is financially viable investment. The report you cited admits that the CO2 capture technology required to stabilize emissions has not been developed yet. And that estimates are based on theoretical conditions and not real world conditions. They admit that the real costs based on real world scenario would require investing 124 trillion dollars before 2050. That is more than double the world GDP of 2015.

Quotes from article you referenced:

"These cost estimates, however, are based on idealized scenarios..........and if technologies work out the way we hope they will."

"They’ll also increase if technologies don’t work as expected. The most glaring example has to do with technology for capturing and storing carbon dioxide. According to the IPCC, if this technology can’t be deployed, the cost of stabilizing greenhouse-gas levels will more than double"

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Neo

Read the MIT article.

Nope, still no evidence that the cost of reducing or even stabilizing CO2 emissions is financially viable investment. The report you cited admits that the CO2 capture technology required to stabilize emissions has not been developed yet. And that estimates are based on theoretical conditions and not real world conditions. They admit that the real costs based on real world scenario would require investing 124 trillion dollars before 2050. That is more than double the world GDP of 2015.

Quotes from article you referenced:

"These cost estimates, however, are based on idealized scenarios..........and if technologies work out the way we hope they will."

"They’ll also increase if technologies don’t work as expected. The most glaring example has to do with technology for capturing and storing carbon dioxide. According to the IPCC, if this technology can’t be deployed, the cost of stabilizing greenhouse-gas levels will more than double"

Neo, thanks for your thoughtful reading of these links. What you're doing in reading is far more than what a number of the commenters on this thread apparently are willing to do. I'm happy to engage with you as an honest skeptic, rather than ignore you as a dishonest denier.

Back to the discussion... Even if the actual costs are considerably higher then the hopeful scenarios proposed, that's still well below the expenditures necessary to, as you put it, create a "monumental reduction in the standard of living for everyone on this planet"

Another point of view expressed in the MIT article is that it since we don't know for sure either how effective our mitigation efforts will be, nor do we know for sure how bad the result of climate might be, we might consider buying ourselves an insurance policy.

Robert Pindyck, a professor of economics and finance at MIT, says that attempts to make decisions about climate change based on a cost-benefit analysis are doomed to fail because both costs and benefits are uncertain. “All we can do is speculate,” he says. “We don’t really know the costs. We don’t really know the benefits.” He says, however, that the chance of a catastrophic outcome should be enough to motivate investment to avert climate change even in the face of uncertainty, just as people buy health insurance without knowing if it will pay off.

may be prudent to for us to purchase insurance

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Neo

Thanks for the links. I'll read the articles you referenced carefully and with an open mind. I am wiling to change my views on this topic if presented with hard evidence from trusted sources or good old plain logic.

Just finished the NY Times article. Nothing in there to contradict my view point what-so-ever. In fact it supports most of what I believe.

The article begins focusing on the cost of reducing CO2 per ton. Nowhere does it discuss the total cost of following the IPCC recommendations. It just asserts the cost per ton my be less than forecast. In fact it argues against taking drastic measures and suggests that a good strategy may be to take no measures at all. See below.

No, I don't believe it makes that recommendation at all.

My reading of the article is that it first discusses how temperatures are estimated to rise to between 2.5C and 3.4C by about 2095. Then it discusses a high estimate and a low estimate of how much the damage will cost us if CO2 emissions are not controlled. The high-estimate takes a more "moral" stance towards our obligations to future generations, and the low-estimate views it strictly from a cost-to-business standpoint.

"Multiple challenges compete for the world’s resources, from economic development and ending poverty to eradicating AIDS and malaria...... Even if we were to agree that improving the well-being of future generations is worth an ENORMOUS investment, there might be better things to invest in than reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

"If investments in CO2 abatement are not competitive, we would do better by investing elsewhere and using the proceeds to cover warming’s damage. We would still have money left over."

This quote is from a Professor Nordhaus, which he elucidated in a 2008 book he wrote -- five years before this article was written in 2013. It represents the business point of view, but not the moral point of view.

The author of this article appears to present his point of view in the final paragraph:

[NY Times] But the most compelling argument that business logic will prevail has little to do with its merits. It’s simply that the world’s decision-makers are following it. Four years after committing to a 2-degree ceiling, the world’s current policies will lead us, by the end of the century, to blow past 3 [degrees].

In fact, the article seems to accept that a 3.5C increase as inevitable even with the type of investment they see as plausible. Would that not translate into 12-25 feet increase in sea level?

I will read the other articles you referenced, and look forward to learning something new. Kind regards.

12-25 feet of sea level rise by 2100 is a bit high. From the Wikipedia article on future sea level rise:

Most recently, the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA), released May 6th, 2014, projected a sea level rise of 1 to 4 feet by 2100. Decision makers who are particularly susceptible to risk may wish to use a wider range of scenarios from 8 inches to 6.6 feet by 2100.

[Rustic Charm]

Just seven more pages guys and you crack the 100.

where's Reefmagnet, did he finally run out of emissions

[Reefmagnet]

I'm still here just spending some time in the real world. Boy, it's hot out here :-)

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Damn, hot there!

We woke up this morning to below zero temp's (that's C), which is a bit sooner than usual.

extreme hey