Obama to Call for More Icebreakers in Arctic as U.S. Seeks Foothold

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: MamaJ

The point is (nothing earth shattering) is, more or less, two-fold.

One: Obama is a hypocrite.

Two: there are megabucks involved there and we want our piece of the pie.

As I said...nothing earth shattering requiring a doctorate to understand.

Nope... pretty cut and dry so your points all agree with mine and others. Nothing ground breaking...

Do you understand this fact? Because it's not appearing so.

You aren't saying anything that hasn't been said a few times over in this thread.

Greed is a major player.

Governments ( Not just Obama btw) lie!

as we jump into that game in the Arctic we will not be improving our relations with the Russians.

What's ice breaking is Russians as while as China are in on this Arctic Council/Observers with us. We all have a HIGH stake in the ice melting and all of us surrounding it like vultures until we can profit. Which if Im not mistaken we are already profiting. China has invested more money into the area that any.

Something goes hairy ...ones get even more greedy... it will be a world war because the resources there are astronomical.

ETA: The EU continue to ask for observer status however Canada has told them no twice. barentsobserver.com...

The way I see it the Countries are all on the same page but they make us think they aren't... Bunch of propaganda bs

It is the worlds largest nuclear dumping ground.

a reply to: marg6043

I have a pretty good idea on what your take is on climate change and your sig spells it out...I suppose more icebreakers does not mean AGW is a bunk theory.

Overfishing and exploiting the land for gold, petro, and such is just as big of a problem as climate change, perhaps a greater problem.

a reply to: bbracken677

Sorry mate, you have no clue what you are writing about it in terms of climate change and man's role.

The world is changing. With the Arctic thawing there is more resources to pillage and plunder.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

The same could be said for the trillions of dollars spent on the space program.

a reply to: jrod

I have enough understanding of what government and specially the UN wants with the pursue of policies regarding clima change, when the time comes for government to start pursuing those policies, they will be all geared to creating scams and the clima will keep changing and Earth will be heading to another cycle with us humans or not, sadly nothing will be fixed but the opportunity for money will be exploited.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

[snip]

So, $75 million x number of vessels (one off cost) + $8.7 million/year to maintain to statutory operational compliance.

Imagine that sort of cash being injected into, ohhhh, I dunno, Jobs, infrastructure, education and health?

Or, the US government can go look at seals and ice - tough call.

While not the answer you'll like or accept - in a lot of ways it DOES go into jobs and infrastructure. Arctic drilling will generate, or regenerate, a lot of jobs here in Alaska. As much as I'd prefer it not, our economy is still 70% oil based, and arctic drilling should help maintain jobs related to it.

a reply to: jrod

Yeah, you are right. I have no idea what I am talking about. I just happen to be an ignorant Geologist.

Meanwhile, in case you werent aware, science is directed by the scientific method. The Scientific Method dictates that one proposes an hypothesis. Then one tests the hypothesis against observable phenomena. If the predictions of the hypothesis match the observable phenomena then you have a theory. If the predictions do not match observable phenomena then you have a failed hypothesis and you take it back to the drawing board for reevaluation.

Climate models are hypotheses. They, as admitted by any and all climatologists, do not predict the observable phenomena. Therefore, they are failed hypotheses and they all go back to the drawing board repeatedly. Not only that, but they always "run hot", as also admitted by the climatologists.

Now, if one wants to claim gloom and doom based on failed hypotheses, then go for it, but one would be an ignorant fool for doing so.

I do not doubt man has had an effect. I do not believe (nor do I see the evidence of,when compared to the historical record) man has had a catastrophic effect. As I stated previously, during an interglacial period (such as the one we are in) what happens is simple: global warming and the recession of the glaciers. This continues until such a point is reached at which point global cooling kicks in and the glaciers begin growth again.

This is not debatable but is the historical record of the last 400,000 years. Are you aware that an ice age began with co2 levels 16 times higher than that of today?

I will be more than happy to discuss what precipitated our current ice age. I will be more than happy to discuss the research indicating the causes of major climate change but I do not believe this is the thread for such a discussion. I have research papers showing the effects of the ebb and flow of cosmic rays and the effects on cimate. Of course there are the Milankovitch cycles which play a predominant part of cyclic climate change. etc etc I could go on and on.

My post was, for the most part, a dart thrown at the apparent hypocrisy of our govt regarding climate change and actions proposed in the arctic region. We read pronouncements regarding AGW and the loss of ice in the arctic region, and then we read about the need for ice breakers. Considering the albedo effect, one has to wonder how serious Obamer is about AGW when he turns around and proposes breaking up the ice that reflects so much heat away from the earth. (google albedo effect).

This is hypocrisy at it's finest...and most people do not have a freakin clue.

a reply to: marg6043
So you are just going to ignore than data and science behind climate change and cling to political rhetoric?

a reply to: bbracken677
I have read many of your posts regarding climate change and feel you do not have an idea. You just regurgitate the Heartland institute's taking points and completely ignore the data we are observing.

Do you at least agree that CO2 levels are rising?

If so, don't you think it is logical to conclude that the CO2 level risings and our addiction to burning fossil fuels is the cause?

Also do you agree that CO2 causes radiative forcing, which traps more heat in the atmosphere, or do you think that is just a BS concept created to raise our taxes too?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I mean, c'mon, WTF Team America??

Really?

Lets break it down for the taxpayers, since you are gonna pay for crap you will never see.

1 x Icebreaker = $75+ Million (depending on spec)
Annual maintenance / surveys = $700,000
Annual Wages x 17+ = $2,000,000
Annual Port facilities and agency fees = $50,000
Fuel @ $500/m3 (todays price) - average vessel burns 50m3/DAY full steaming / 20m3 running standby, average capacity 1000m3 = $500,000/month = $6,000,000/year.
Annual Total cost for 1 vessel (excluding vessel construction value and unforeseens) = $8,700,000

So, $75 million x number of vessels (one off cost) + $8.7 million/year to maintain to statutory operational compliance.

Imagine that sort of cash being injected into, ohhhh, I dunno, Jobs, infrastructure, education and health?

Or, the US government can go look at seals and ice - tough call.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I have to ask this:

Who will build the boats? Where will they get the parts and machinery from?
Who will repair the boats?
Who will crew the boats?
Who will refine the fuel?
Who will drill?

There is an entire litany of jobs and salaries that this endeavor will create.

a reply to: jrod

Data is in the US is like everything else, manipulated by means of pursuing corporate agendas.

Earth is going to change, and is not a darn thing that any of us mere humans can do about it, Earth has been here before we humans came to existence and it will still be here after we are long extinct.

No government or entity no even the man made god is going to stop nature from doing what is been doing in earth for millennia.

Do you understand that, or do I have to post pages of earth historical data to Show you that earth doesn't need humans to change.

Better start looking for ways in which you can be safe along with your family in case that change comes in our lifetime, because the government is not going to help any of us but themselves as it always do.

a reply to: jrod

I do not regurgitate anything. I do not visit websites with agendas. I do not post links to crap websites with agendas. If you have, indeed, read previous posts then you will have also seen that when I post a link it is to a research paper.

I do not follow the Heartland institute and have no idea what their ideology is except by inference from your post. For sure you have never seen any links to any information from them.

Do I agree that co2 levels are rising? Stupid effing question. Might as well ask me if I agree that the sun rises every day.

I have a question for you: Do you understand that radiative forcing by co2 is logarithmic ? Do you understand that an ice age began with co2 levels 16 times higher than today's 400 ppm? Do you understand that temperature changes, in the geologic record, precede co2 level changes? Do you understand the impact of such?

Do you understand that most of the temperature at sea level that is claimed to be contributed by the greenhouse effect is explained by Boyle's law? Do you understand that the most significant greenhouse gas, by far, is water vapor? Do you also understand that as water vapor increases there is a corresponding increase in albedo? Do you know what that means?

Wait...you are right. I dont have a clue. All I know is that after planet x, y2k, mayan prophecy we have yet another doomsday scenario predicted by failed hypotheses (admittedly failed by the IPCC) making predictions using models that (again, admittedly by the IPCC) tend to run hot.

Has man had an effect on climate? (as I have stated previously...) Absolutely. I understand the facts. I understand the science. I dont understand the church of AGW's insistence on catastrophy. I do, understand that we have not yet reached the temperatures reached during 3 of the last 4 interglacial periods, which, I might add, did not produce catastrophe either. I DO believe that we should be good stewards of our planet, that we should not trash it, pollute it or poison it. I just do not find sound science backing the doom and gloom claims of the Church of AGW.

Seems that some people insist on living with Damocles" sword over their heads, whether the sword is real or not makes little difference to them. All that matters is the spewing of doom and gloom.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
Guys it's either the western companies or Russia. I for one don't like the idea of Putin inching towards our back door like that. Someone will be up there. He's already buzzing Canadian jets now and then.

a reply to: marg6043

The data has not been manipulated and we have an overwhelming amount of good data now. To write off the data the scientists are providing as manipulated, while ignoring the public opinion manipulation tactics that have been greatly stepped up is being extremely biased and in my opinion ignorant. They appeal to the fear of more taxes, the uncertainty of the science(and the general public straight up ignorance of good science) to cause the layman to doubt what the overwhelming majority of science and research papers are telling us about climate change.

The public opinion about climate change has been manipulated by the corporations who have the most to lose by changing the way we live into a more sustainable lifestyle. There are many threads on ATS that address this with a heck of a lot evidence showing this to be true. There is no evidence that suggest that your claim 'the data has been manipulated' is valid argument here.

It may not happen in my lifetime, but something has to give and when it does it will likely be ugly.

But go ahead and pretend that the need for more Icebreakers means AGW and man's role in changing the climate is insignificant.

Better pay attention to whose up there Here's my reference. You don't hear about it in American news of course.

www.cbc.ca...

You better get up there I don't particularly want to be speaking Russian.
It might be about oil and resources but they're not going to take no for an answer.

a reply to: bbracken677

You really need to read this thread: Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

originally posted by: mc_squared
Earlier today I started this thread: A Question For The Climate Skeptics

Which proposed a basic question: does global warming, regardless of source, lead to rising sea levels? Despite a bit of off-topic drift that seems to come naturally with every climate discussion, the general consensus seems to be yes – more heat in the system would produce more open water. Duh, it’s simple physics.

[snip]

To pick up where we left off then:

If it’s perfectly obvious and acceptable logic that warming temperatures lead to rising sea levels, because of the basic cause and effect physics involved – then why do so many skeptics reject those same physics when they dictate that more greenhouse gases will lead to warming temperatures?

On every single climate thread you hear this endless protest about how climate changes all the time, so therefore we have no evidence linking current warming to greenhouse gases. But the fact is no one ever claimed the climate hasn’t changed before – it’s a pointless strawman argument. The core issue is that we currently have TONS of evidence linking man made emissions to current warming.
[snip]....

On the flip side, we have virtually zero hard evidence to explain modern warming as a natural phenomenon. The Sun, if anything, is currently cooling:

Cosmic rays do not correlate either:

All natural factors combined simply don’t add up:

In fact, the only real “evidence” we have for this supposed natural phenomenon right now is some lazy anecdotal observation that “well, climate changes all the time”, repeated ad nauseum by most skeptics. It essentially rests on a strawman argument to begin with, and ignores all 150 years of hard scientific evidence and methodology above.

It does nothing to change the bigger picture. Just as rising seas naturally follow rising temperatures, so do rising temperatures follow proven heat trapping molecules. It’s like putting on a blanket but then claiming you have no way of knowing what’s making you warmer, because it could be a fever since people get those naturally all the time. But what about the %$#& blanket??

This is why it’s so frustrating trying to discuss this topic rationally when some just do everything in their imagination to avoid the blanket or pretend it's “unproven”.

So I think it’s interesting that some people will completely accept basic scientific principles up to a point, but then slam on the brakes when those very same principles carry ideological consequences they just don’t want to accept.

That’s not science, and it’s a pretty sorry excuse for skepticism.

"Man made climate change is a tragedy! Look what we are doing to our invironment! Take me to Alaska to talk about it"


....calls for more icebreakers


Anyone tired of his constant hypocrisy yet? Nothing this man says can be taken as truth

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
"Man made climate change is a tragedy! Look what we are doing to our invironment! Take me to Alaska to talk about it"


....calls for more icebreakers


Anyone tired of his constant hypocrisy yet? Nothing this man says can be taken as truth

Hey, at least a salmon got to hump his leg. That even fits in with his pro-abortion stance. We all know that salmon was going to die and just abandon those fry to the state, and all us tax payers were going to have to pay for them. Better they be aborted fulfilling that salmon's death wish to have an affair with the sexiest president alive.

a reply to: jrod

Been there, done that. There is some good data there, but you, or anyone else cannot cherry pick data that supports your position by taking it out of the context of the overall picture. I realize, even as I say that, that I do that, to a degree, as well. But then, my training and experience lie in geology so I tend to stay in that sandbox. As the saying is often used: There is weather, and there is climate. Graphs can be produced that show all kinds of data correlation supporting both sides of the argument. However, 60 years, or even 150 years, when it comes to climate, is too small a sampling size specially given how little we understand about the forces that influence climate.

During the exact same 150 year period used by the AGW crowd there is the weakening magnetosphere. Weakening at an increased rate. What effect does that have on climate? There are many cycles that have been involved over the last 60 years, none the least are the multi-decadal pacific and atlantic cycles. There are also Malenkovitch cycles. Do you understand the exact reason that it isnt until weeks after the shortest day of the year that we tend to see the coldest day of the year? Why is it the heat of the summer arrives as the length of daylight is lessening? These answers, to these questions and others all apply to a lot of the data that is being tossed around that describe why AGW is wrong...or why AGW is right. Just because temps have not increased at the predicted rate over a decade or 2 means very little if you do not understand the why.

The problem with pronouncements of analysis as fact is that we do not have the ability, the knowledge to be able to tie all the cycles together to predict the outcomes with any surety. If we cannot do that, how can we quantify man's effect on climate change as being x? (Not that there is such data available... which should tell you something in and of itself)

Bottom line is, we have one side which extends to the ridiculous of "climate change? What climate change?" and the other side which makes predictions (Man is responsible for all climate change!) that are wrong in the short term, illustrating the shortcomings of the models and our understanding and then we are supposed to take on faith what is predicted 100 years from now?

Even if all the predictions were correct, they still remain within the acceptable range of historical pre-man climates. As I have previously stated, we are still some degrees below where we have been in previous interglacial periods. These interglacials did not produce the catastrophes predicted today.

Not only that, but the closest man has ever come to extinction was during the last glacial period. Will man be inconvenienced by rising ocean levels? For sure... Will we come close to extinction? Hardly.. It's not like oceans are going to rise 40 ft overnight. It's not like breadbaskets are going to dry up overnight. As climate changes there will be areas hit hard by drought (The drought on the west coast is short term, and is not a result of climate change any more than Katrina was) and some areas that will become very wet that previously werent.

If we really want to be concerned about something? Be concerned about growing population levels. Therein lie the devil. Man does not have the capacity, the knowledge nor the ability to institute changes of a positive nature to the climate with any level of confidence. We can sure eff it up, but doing something to fix it? We are like a child tearing a computer apart in order to figure out how it runs..... nothing but destruction results from such attempts.

We need to stop people from multiplying like rats, IMO. Then numerous problems facing us will fix themselves.