"How Long Before The Arctic And Antarctic FUEL WARS?" Topic

I wonder how many in the US were really expecting the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and then attempt to take the Aleutians.

Dan
TMP link
TMP link

Here are some 15mm figures that may be perfect for the job:

TMP link

Dan

When I was working in the Europe and World Trade part of DTI/BIS during an Xmas party I got talking to one of the senior bods and asked how long it would take for trade wars to become actual wars! he said it was a scary idea..but didn't want to get drawn on the subject.

I imagine that as resources get more and more scarce we will all turn on each other.

Because humans have never fought over trade routes/items before….

*rolls eyes*

evilmike.

us green 'scum' are here. When you realise it is real, wake up fool. 95 per cent of climate scientists sy it is happening.

Evilmike – I'm going to make a guess that you didn't graduate in a scientific subject…

At current rates of Arctic ice loss, the Northwest Passage will be REAL and passable during the summer in about 10-15 years, with total loss of the Arctic ice in 20-30 years.

Evilmike, if there wasn't Arctic ice loss, there wouldn't be companies enlarging cities in the ass end of the Arctic *right now* for use as shipping ports!

Yes, I am dead serious. Within 40 years, the Panama Canal is going to be a non-issue for Asia-Europe trade, it's all going to go over the pole.

At current rates of Arctic ice loss,

Nothing continues at the current rate for long. Not the economy, not the weather. How many major hurricanes did they say would strike the US this season. 1-2. Last year? 1-2. The year before? 1-2. How many did?

This will mark the first six-year period without a major hurricane strike on the U.S. since record keeping began in 1851.

The Arctic will not be ice free in our lifetimes in winter.

Think about this: even by the worst predictions it will only get one degree warmer in the next forty years. It's already one degree warmer in Canada than in the Arctic now. And yet Canada reliably freezes every winter.

And that's assuming the warming predictions are right!

Personally I think they are waaaay off. It will be about 0.2°C warmer in forty years because the world will continue to warm at the same rate it has for the last 200 years.

Which means the Arctic will be frozen for a long time to come, although there may be odd periods every summer where a determined boat can make it through.

(Edit: for the record Bangorstu, I DO have a science degree, including As in postgraduate papers. Please don't fall for the stupid line that disagreement on climate is due to ignorance.)

You're right. Nothing stays constant. The predictions show increasing rates-of-change.

I think they will find oil in many more places that the Arctic and Antarctic many never be used. At least before some other reliable and cheap fuel prevails. The cost and difficulty may never make it a place to get the last gasp of oil.

Mark Plant – in which case you'll be aware that the planet has warmed up by 0.9C since the 1950s, as revealed a couple of weeks ago. (Nature 20th October 2011).

Too many people can't tell the difference between weather and climate. And seize about any yearly variability to support their pet theory (either pro or anti).

In summer I believe the Northwest passage is used by commercial shipping already.

For some shallow draft vessels, yes. I mean deep-draft monsters like the M/V Hyundai King (and sisters). 1100ft long, 150ft beam.

Mark Plant – in which case you'll be aware that the planet has warmed up by 0.9C since the 1950s, as revealed a couple of weeks ago. (Nature 20th October 2011).

This stuff comes out of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change. Yah think. They will find climate change in ham sandwichs if the funding is to be had.

I'm often confused by how people thinks science works…

Unless you're being paid by Big Oil, Big Tobacco etc you're not paid to arrive at a specific conclusion.

The government needs to prepare for what's going to happen after all. Not what it wants to happen.

I can, should you wish, list papers from several dozen different institutes throughout the world who all broadly agree.

Or I guess you can keep on listening to Glenn Beck..

As for the question in hand, I think there's plenty of resources for everyone, so doubt the Arctic will be a source of much contention.

That said, the Russians are probably the market leaders in collaring the lions share. It depends on how feisty the Norwegians and Canadian want to get.

Of course one shouldn't think the USA and Canada will remain friendly over this. The USA did complain about Canada buying British nuclear subs after all…

The Antarctic is simply too god-awful to maintain military operations on I'd imagine.

Not to mention putting skies on your 1/72nd scale C130s.

Unless you're being paid by Big Oil, Big Tobacco etc you're not paid to arrive at a specific conclusion.

Nonsense. They asked in The Right Stuff what made the rockets go up. The answer is funding.

Funding. That's what makes your ships go up. I'll tell you something, and you guys too: No bucks, no Buck Rodgers.

They don't get funding to show warming isn't happening and start a fight with all the ones that say it is.

Oil & gas extraction has its price. Nobody in his right mind will go for deep water under ice deposits, requiring ice-resistant platforms, special pipelines and numerous problems with building and maintaining infrastructure without talking of protecting it military.
I've been following Schtokman field development in Arctic, its production stage is postponed again and agian – need huge investments and will compete with other gas and oil sources which are easily accessible and closer to existing infrastructure. Even some deep sea drilling in, say, mediterranean sea will be better medium term investment (see Cyprus oil case).
However, the nations might want to put stakes for some future development when you'll have nothing better to do than to get your hydrocarbons from most difficult places. Power projection and weapon rattling has already started, I just don't think that at the moment anything can justify Arctic/Antarctic war.

Water will be the big problem way before oil is. A large number of current aquifers tapped by major populations are ancient water supplies.. ie formed during techtonic events etc.

They don't recharge. India, pakitsan, china, australia all currently tapping ancient aquifers.

Here in the uk, aquifers in the south are running low and unless action is taken soon, the southern counties will be rationed.

World population is still growing. Africa has massive areaas of increasing desert. So does china.

Even with out climate change issues in the picture. The population is growing just too damn fast for this one planet to support sustainably.

Nonsense. They asked in The Right Stuff what made the rockets go up. The answer is funding.

So I'm guessing you never actually went into science…(and what is your degree in?).

Because if you did you'd understand the term 'Peer-reviewed'. And indeed the raw data for the study has been published as well.

So if you think you know more about climate science than people who have spent decades studying it go on, knock yourself out, crunch some numbers.

And I wonder why around 95% of all climate scientists (whom in common with all scientists, will fight like cats in a sack given half a chance) think climate change is happening.

Because, as I said, all you need to do is look at the data.

Or stick your head in the sand and pretend the ice isn't melting. That way you end up with an economy relying on decades old technology to provide power – a nation which doesn't even build nuclear plants any more.

A nation whose inhabitants for some reason use twice as much energy per capita than the average European.

It's a shame as the USA used to be world leaders in renewables – back in the 1970s.

So I'm guessing you never actually went into science…(and what is your degree in?).

Degree is in mathematics from a major university. Minor in physics. Plus my first job for 4 years was analyzing raw atmospheric pollution data. (I made the digital data from the analog data.) Another couple creating programs to determine power plant and oil refinery pollution.

Most people crunching the numbers these days don't know where the numbers come from. They assume that all data is fungible and collected by the same method for the last 100 years.

Those using this data to create weather models for their dissertation are akin to 90 day wonders in the military world.

Peer review is lame when it comes to models. There is no gold in reviewing other's models only in making headlines and publishing something new.

Let's just wait to see what happens this winter. If we have some of the coldest and worst weather for 30 years we will see headlines that say it was caused by Global Warming. If we see the mildest winter in 30 years we will hear that it is caused by Global Warming. Conclusion: All weather is caused by global warming.

More Arctic-type figures already out, this time from QRF:

TMP link

Dan