Why is the ice melting in Russia. I think this question has to be addressed.



Arctic sea ice melting, which scientists have linked to global warming, may be a boon for the shipping industry. As the sea ice continues to melt a shipping passage to Russia’s north is becoming more navigable, and now two German ships are close to completing the first trip from Asia to Europe via the Arctic shortcut. However, walruses that live in the Arctic could care less, since their sea ice habitat is rapidly disappearing.



Thousands of walruses are congregating on Alaska’s northwest coast, a sign that their Arctic sea ice environment has been altered by climate change. Chad Jay, a U.S. Geological Survey walrus researcher, said Wednesday that about 3,500 walruses were near Icy Cape on the Chukchi Sea, some 140 miles southwest of Barrow [AP]. Walruses wear themselves out diving for clams, and need to rest on the sea ice between meals. Since the sea ice is disappearing, they are turning to the shore for a break. Federal managers and researchers worry that so many walruses in one location could lead to a deadly stampede or could drive off prey. Highlighting the animals’ peril, the Obama administration is considering adding walruses to the endangered species list.







Does anyone know if the arctic north west passage has been opened to shipping before.



The melt is good news for shippers looking to haul cargo between Asia and the West since it’s thousands of miles shorter than southern routes like the Suez Canal. The two German ships are on track to be the first to travel the entire route, called the northeast passage. The ships started their voyage in South Korea in late July and will begin the last leg of the trip this week, leaving a Siberian port for Rotterdam in the Netherlands carrying 3,500 tons of construction materials…. [The ships were] accompanied for most of the trip so far by one or two Russian nuclear icebreakers as a precaution, although they encountered only scattered small floes. At the most perilous leg of the journey, the passage around the northernmost tip of Siberia, the Vilkitsky Strait, ice covered about half the sea. [The New York Times].

It's okay, I found it.





http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/20080804_arctic/nyt_amundsen_1906.pdf

Seggie. We try to understand the global warming info., etc. and all we can do is to stop those black balloons arising from our home. It's hard for us to understand all that has been written as we are more, what would have once been called, the common folk. Our education comprised of trying to make do with what little we had. Do you truly believe that India and China whom we believe are responsible for billions and billions of black balloons, will cut down? In our opinion, they will continue to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They may say they care but hey, do you believe them? They will shrug their shoulders and pay their workers a pittance. We've seen it.

I do get accused of talking in shorthand quite a bit so I'll try and put my thoughts in a logical order.



I saw on tv last night that the northwest passage was open and ships were starting to go through it. I thought to myself, holy moly, this is terrible, could it be global warming?



So I thought better check and see if it's happened before and bingi, it happened in 1906.



Then I thought about the industrial revolution and wondered when it started and got this quote from Wikipedia.



The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawn held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s.



So here's my question: Was there more pollution aroud on the planet in 1906 than in 2009?

I don't think so.

Pollution on a local level. For me, we are probably a lot cleaner now than in the 1940 to 1950 years that I remember.



What was around in those years? Steam trains driven by coal. Homes heated by coal. Factories run by coal. Power companies run by coal.



Now we have diesel trains and electric trains and both have less pollution than coal. Houses use natural gas, electric, or oil. Better than coal. Factories run by natural gas or electric. Better than coal. Still have power companies run by coal but they are newer and improved types of coal use and handling.. Much better than the older, uncleaned, unfiltered, smoke belching plants of the past. Much of the clouds leaving the stacks is steam and filtered air. And we also have some wind mills, some photo cells, some natural gas, some nuclear. All are better than the older coal plants.



Visible differences are in watching the snowfalls of the winter. Back then it only took a day or two to develop a black layer of soot on the snow. By spring you could take a shovel and cut a slice down through the snow bank and see how many snows there were by counting the black layers since the freeze first came. Often the air would be hazy as the amount of smoke and soot drifted in the air.



Yes I think we really do a lot better today than we did 50 years ago. But now there are so many ways, because of our growth, to make pollution, that we are still having a problem with our environment.



First thing we need to do today, is tell those man made global warming folks to keep quiet and let the rest of the scientist and politicians have a say. We need to clean up our act and do it responsibly and timely, but not in the misdirected panic of the Gore church folks.



Why do the iPCC scientist never speak of the 10+ years of steady temperature? How can they keep saying that the temps have kept going up when the charts say the temps have stayed pretty level for several years. Why do the IPCC scientist say that there is consensus and no more need be said? It is obvious that some scientist do not agree with the MMGW idea and want to see the data used, add some new data, and see where that leads us. Science is never done. It is always ready for challenge. And Gore should know this.



What we have going on now is mostly a political activity and will do little to lower pollution. But it will certainly mess up each individuals ability to maintain and improve their lives. And it will also bring many countries out of a decent way of living down into a major recession or depression.

.

.

Bobagain, you make some really interesting observations that make lots of sense.

When I was working in the heart of the city, to step out of the office building, one choked on the car fumes.

Yes we have done much to reduce air pollution in the last few decades.

Timely reminder BoB - I had forgotten the pea soupers of fogs as a child in the UK all caused by coal fires then the government made everyone change to anthracite and it cleaned up the air no end.



Now that was more like 'man made' anything than carbon dioxide which is what we breath out and the trees take it in and give us back oxygen to breath over again - plus the oceans are in there too and we are polluting them with oil and it was oil that was destroying the Barrier Reef now it is carbon dixode from all those heavy breathing tourists no doubt.



come to think of it the coal burning power stns must have cleaned up a lot as not sending out the black smoke and grit the old burning was and yet where is the science on that - gone? forgotten? ignored more likely.



We have an abundance of coal and gas and to start saying we need to build nuclear power stns at a huge initial cost and a problem with the waste and fear of accidents is stupid - cost never will be as cheap as coal and gas and with our water shortage cant get up to 35 million anyway because we are running out of options with 22 millions only confirming what scientists said back in 70's 10-12 million is optimum no of people for a continent as dry and arid with only the coastlines habitable and th amount of water available.

Okay Bob you're right, there was a lot of pollution around way back when. I've just found some interesting facts about old London town, not a place you'd like to be back then. This from Wikipedia



The Great Smog (or Big Smoke) of 1952 was the severe smog that affected London during the period of Friday 5th to Tuesday 9th December 1952, today seen as the worst air pollution event in the history of the UK. Earlier reports suggested that 4000 died prematurely and 100,000 were made ill by the Great Smog, but more recent research has shown that the number of smog-related deaths was underestimated and is now thought to be considerably higher – around 12,000. The London Smog of 1952 is acknowledged as one of the most significant pollution episodes in history in terms of its impact on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health.



The Great Sink, or the Big Stink, was a time in the summer of 1858 during which the smell of untreated sewage was very strong in central London, England.



Until the late 16th century, London citizens were reliant for their water supplies on water from shallow wells, the River Thames, its tributaries, or one of around a dozen natural springs, including the spring at Tyburn which was connected by lead pipe to a large cistern or tank (then known as a conduit): So that water was not abstracted for unauthorised commercial or industrial purposes, the city authorities appointed keepers of the conduits who would ensure that users such as brewers, cooks and fishmongers would pay for the water they used.

Wealthy Londoners living near to a conduit pipe could obtain permission for a connection to their homes, but this did not prevent unauthorised tapping of conduits. Otherwise - particularly for households which could not take a gravity-feed - water from the conduits was provided to individual households by water carriers, or "cobs". In 1496 the “Water Carriers” formed their own guild called “The Brotherhood of St. Cristofer [sic] of the Waterbearers.”



In 1582 Dutchman Peter Morice leased the northernmost arch of London Bridge and, inside the arch, constructed a waterwheel that pumped water from the Thames to various places in London. Further waterwheels were added in 1584 and 1701, and remained in use until 1822.



However, in 1815 house waste was permitted to be carried to the Thames via the sewers, so for seven years human waste was dumped into the Thames and then potentially pumped back to the same households for drinking, cooking and bathing.



Prior to the Great Stink there were over 200,000 cesspits in London. Emptying one cesspit cost a shilling - a cost the average London citizen then could ill afford. As a result, most cesspits added to the air-borne stench.



Yuk!

I do get accused of talking in shorthand quite a bit so I'll try and put my thoughts in a logical order.



I saw on tv last night that the northwest passage was open and ships were starting to go through it. I thought to myself, holy moly, this is terrible, could it be global warming?



So I thought better check and see if it's happened before and bingi, it happened in 1906.



Then I thought about the industrial revolution and wondered when it started and got this quote from Wikipedia.



The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawn held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s.



So here's my question: Was there more pollution aroud on the planet in 1906 than in 2009?

I don't think so.

....................................



Here is a post I put on a different forum. It may be interesting to you toot2000, or anyone else too. These folks worrying about the ice must be using summer pictures when talking about shipping going north or showing polar bears floating on pieces of ice. Polar bears can and do float on the ice pieces in the summer, in the winter they are more likely hibernating in some snow cave.





Polar bear country - bobf Mon, 07/12/2009 - 08:22



This should be very interesting for those interested in how the ice caps are doing these days. North and South sea ice web site.

.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

...............................

.

Comparison of 1980 and 2009 sea ice levels in Northern Hemisphere

.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd;=05&fy;=1980&sm;=12&sd;=05&sy;=2009

..............................

.

This comparison screen is somewhat interesting to work with. For example, the left panel will show how things were in 1980 and the right panel will show the ice situation in 2009.

.

Play with the dates at the top of the screen and see how things change. If I look at the August 2009 it looks very bad. Much open water up by the passage between Alaska and Russia. Some open water along Canada's coast on the left side and some open water on the Russian coast on the upper right side.

.

There does not seem to be much difference along the lower Canadian coast, across Greenland, or up past the Scandanavian countries on the right side.

.

Then switch the month on the right panel (2009) and watch the ice grow month by month. In December you will see ice developed out into the channel between Alaska and Russia.

.

Interesting to see that the ice concentration seems to be greater in the 2009 view than it was in the 1980 view.

.

This definitely shows that the climate up there is really a variable situation. So I wonder just what the big fuss is all about.

That's a fabulous post Bob, I hope others see it too, thanks

Not being into science, was never taught to girls at school in my day - even I can see how this works - thanks Bob. As you say - they are trying to bamboozle us and succeeding to date but as we discuss it and help each other - we will beat them at their own game - which seems to me to be to strip as much money out o our pockets without any thought for our well being or ability to pay.

I've been really struggling with climate change, I'm worried about the polar bears and all the ice melting. I found this today in Andrew Bolt's blog, just released in the UK. Worth a read.



HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:



http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

Copenhagen negotiator accuses Rudd of lying



By Emma Alberici in Copenhagen and reporters



Posted 6 hours 53 minutes ago

Updated 5 hours 28 minutes ago





'It's a fabrication, it's a fiction': Lumumba Di-Aping (Reuters: Jens Norgaard Larsen)



Video: Former US ambassador criticises Rudd (ABC News) Related Story: Australia 'trying to kill Kyoto' Related Story: Abbott: I'm a fair dinkum environmentalist Related Story: Copenhagen deal likely despite theatrics: Kyoto negotiator The chief negotiator for China and the small African nations at Copenhagen has accused Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of lying to the Australian people about his position on climate change

...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/16/2772948.htm

Yes, Clay..they're all fighting and arguing among themselves. What a farce.



As a side issue , why did Rudd need a [i]90 person [/i]entourage?



Not to mention as another side issue, have a look at this for hypocrisy:



"A staggering 225 out of the 243 private-plated cars chosen by MPs and Senators have six or eight-cylinder engines, in contrast to the national trend towards smaller, more fuel efficient models."



http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26487794-953,00.html