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

a reply to: bbracken677

Thanks for your posts, learned a lot!

originally posted by: bbracken677

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.

You are right the hypocrisy, but wrong about where the hypocrisy lies.

Because the ice is thawing, areas that were inaccessible even by icebreakers, can now be accessed with the help of icebreakers.

Instead of looking at this objectively you and many others simply made the assumption that more Icebreakers in the Arctic = AGW is a bunch of BS.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Actually I don't see this as a ramp up to anything. A lame duck president "maybe" petitioning congress to "maybe" approve funding for ONE icebreaker? It's just another "feel good" photo op saying what he knows people want to hear. As far as icebreakers go they are pretty spendy with the development of the azimuth thruster pod, plus nuclear engines an all....
www.gizmag.com...

Decent overview of what's going on in general....^

Canada, Russia, USA and other countries are ALL jumping in the race for the arctic. Only money and the environment have held them back. Even ice-free the costs for minimal infrastructure is a nightmare. It's easy to yell "we're trashing the pristine arctic" it takes a LOT more to understand the issues up there.

Deregulation in Canada has companies now self policing their development projects....
Housing is an outright disaster north of 60
Despite mineral & oil projects most of the workers are still shipped in, projects are self contained so no real local benefit.
Health care is still based on a fly-out system for most illnesses

That's before you get into unsettled treaty rights, crown lands, ect......anyone who didn't read MamaJ's links is doing themselves a disservice.

Ton's of scream worthy stuff is happening up north that hasn't been on anyones radar. From the mining claims shutting out indigenous greenlanders,
blog.gregvalerio.com...

To shell drilling in the Chukchi Sea, the list is shocking......this is just a tiny bit if you do some googling it'll curl your hair.

Some links....
arcticportal.org...
www.cbc.ca...
barentsobserver.com...
www.nunatsiaqonline.ca...
circumpolar.org...

a reply to: jrod

No...you still miss my point.

IF Obama believes that AGW is the greatest threat blah blah blah...

Then why would he want to REDUCE the albedo by destroying what is left of the ice in the arctic?

There...I pretty much spelled it out.

Ice reflects sunlight... the albedo of the earth and atmosphere very much affects how much heat is reflected or retained (solar radiation). For instance... clouds reflect more heat during the day, than they retain via radiative forcing. Clouds at night, retain more heat with very little being reflected. Ice and snow are the best reflectors, affecting climate, that the earth has so to speak.

So why would an AGW activist support breaking up any ice formations?

a reply to: bbracken677
First your claim man's impact on the climate is insignificant, now you act like a handful of icebreakers will affect the albedo levels of the arctic ice significantly?

Who are you calling a hypocrite?

Boundaries and borders only serve to create tension. How much longer until there are no countries and we're all just called Human? smh

a reply to: jrod

Are you actually so dense that you do not get the point?

Or are you intentionally being obtuse, which I find to be much more likely.

IF Obama really (as in truly..that kind of really) believed in AGW (as in...he really believes all the doom mongering) then WHY would HE advocate destroying ice that affects the albedo? IF I felt man's influence were "insignificant" as you claim, I wouildnt give a carp. I did not express my opinion regarding destroying the ice one way or another, Mr. Strawman.

Stop with the strawman ignorant crap. I said man's affect was not catastrophic. You turned that into insignificant. The implication is clear. Strawman. Obtuse.

My remarks were politically driven along with the minor humor of Obama advocating destroying the earth's albedo (or part thereof). Sorry that your perception is so narrow in focus that all you can see are the baby walruses being killed.

Yeah, I know..minor humor, but MAYBE you get the point.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bbracken677
First your claim man's impact on the climate is insignificant, now you act like a handful of icebreakers will affect the albedo levels of the arctic ice significantly?

Who are you calling a hypocrite?

No, you are missing the point.

He was talking about Obama.

If Obama believes that global warming is melting to much of the Arctic sea ice, then why damage what is left by breaking it up and reducing its albedo?

It's Obama's position that is inconsistent.

The poster's is not since the poster does not believe there is significant ice loss as far as I can tell.

a reply to: bbracken677

IF Obama believes that AGW is the greatest threat blah blah blah...

Then why would he want to REDUCE the albedo by destroying what is left of the ice in the arctic?

Ice and snow are the best reflectors, affecting climate, that the earth has so to speak.

So why would an AGW activist support breaking up any ice formations?

I quoted above what I think is the most important factors for our current day.

My feeling about "data" and "Satellite data" as well as published papers upon findings which are critiqued by peer review.... is that it can be manipulated to fit a certain political stance. We cannot forget this very important principle.

I wish this thread wasn't just about the United States though.... all the key players should be discussed.

And.... what about the methane release?

a reply to: ketsuko

There is significant ice loss. It is what happens during interglacial periods.

Before global cooling kicks in, the ice in the Arctic and most glaciers is virtually gone. This has been going on repeatedly during the last 400k years. Which is to say, during the most recent ice age. We are in an ice age currently.... we are in an interglacial period.

For clarification, once again, I recognize that man has had an impact. Have we had a catastrophic impact? No. Neither do we have crystal balls to indicate what our climate is going to do 100 or 1000 years from now. Nor are our climate models able to accurately predict since we obviously (Obvious to the IPCC, who acknowledge the issues with current climate modeling) do not know enough to put the pieces together to create an accurate model (hypothesis).

So far, what I see is the science being horribly twisted by both sides in the debate ranging from "climate change? what climate change?" to "man is responsible for the disappearance of the ice in the arctic and every conceivable weather effect". Including, I might add, Katrina, any and all droughts or floods. This is supposed to be science, not politics.

97% of scientists believe that man has had an effect. NOT 97% scientists believe man is responsible for catastrophic climate change as is often portrayed. Besides... in science the truth is determined by the Scientific Method, not consensus without a working hypothesis. That's right: There is no working hypothesis. An hypothesis must be able to predict observable phenomena. A failed hypothesis does not predict observable phenomena.

a reply to: bbracken677
Yes, I am that dense. You are right and all this talk about global warming is a hoax to levy more taxes.

Seriously, you act like a handful of icebreakers will make a significant impact to the ice, while rejecting the tested theory that a 40% increase of CO2 that is the result of human activity will not affect our climate significantly?

And you are calling me the dense one?

Go ahead, ignore science, pander to the usual political rhetoric, use ridicule and feed what appears to be increasing ignorance of science and the state of this planet's climate.

a reply to: bbracken677
Appeal to ignorance there...

You have recently changed your views on climate change, you used to say man's impact is not significant, now you are saying it is not catastrophic, yet you decide to ridicule me and pretend this has been your stance the entire time and I am missing something.....

You really need to brush up on what a scientific theory is.

a reply to: bbracken677

I was thinking significant ice loss recently (since the '70s), but compared to the distant past, then yes. Although haven't there been periods where old sailors' accounts had the Arctic nearly ice free?