This column was written for the Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/russia-moves-to-protect-her-arctic-interests/
Russia has embarked on a massive and much publicized effort to secure the 6’200km of her northern border and to be ready to defend her interests in the Arctic shelf up to 500km from her border. This means that 3’100’000 square kilometers of extremely difficult and inhospitable terrain will have to be secured. Why such a huge effort?
First and foremost, because of the need to protect the huge resources contained in the Siberian and Arctic shelves and waters, estimated at 15 percent of remaining oil and up to 30 percent of gas deposits. Second, Russia wants to expand the so-called “northern sea route” which, courtesy of the global warming phenomenon, is becoming much safer to navigate. Currently, only 4 million tons of cargo transit through that short-cut (the northern sea route from Europe to Asia takes 35 days vs 48-day via the Suez Canal) between Europe and Asia, but in the future the Russians estimate that this figure could be increased 20 times to a total of 80 million tons. The resources allocated to protect this route are huge and they include drones, space-based satellites, underwater monitoring stations and a network of radars. Russia is also building 14 new icebreakers , including several nuclear powered ones. But the biggest effort will be a military one.
Russia has decided to create a “Joint Strategic Command – North” (JSCN) which will be based on the Northern Fleet (which used to be subordinated to the Western Military District). The JSCN will not have the official status of a military district or strategic direction, but for all practical purposes this will become a single, independent, operational-strategic command with a powerful naval component (the Northern Fleet has always been the most powerful of the 4 fleets or Russia) and a large aviation component which will include search and rescue, anti-submarine warfare, early warning aircraft and helicopters and, of course, long-range interceptors, including the formidable MiG-31BM. Coastal defense missiles of the “Rubezh” class will also be deployed.
The air-defense component will immediately include the Pantsir-S1 system but in the future Russia plans to deploy her newest S-400 Triumf on her northern borders. Units from the various military districts have now been re-subordinated to the JSCN and a Joint Tactical Group (JTG) force has been created. It is too early to predict the size of this JTG but the Arctic maneuvers launched by Russia this summer included 80,000 troops, 220 aircraft, 41 ships, and 15 submarines, which probably gives us a decent indication of what is being planned for the future.
Finally, both the Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Anti-Terrorism Committee (ATK) have announced that because of the huge, fragile, and very expensive infrastructure being deployed by Russia, the Russian security services will make a special effort to prevent any terrorist attacks in this sensitive sector. Considering the ecological fragility of the Arctic, this is a very sound measure.
Please take a look at this map which illustrates the current situation:
(for high resolution full-size map please click here: http://goo.gl/sRL4zs; a big “thank you!” SouthFront who have created this map for this analysis)
Predictably, the West is quite horrified as these Russian efforts. Reactions typically range from concern , to bafflement to outright panic . The sheer hypocrisy of all that whining is breathtaking.
In reality, of course, the West has been planning to take control of the Arctic resources for years. Actors in this planning stage have included the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon and the US Navy . In fact, there is clearly a consensus in Washington – Uncle Sam wants to grab as much of the Arctic as possible. The problem is that, unlike Russia, Uncle Sam has neither the know-how, nor the financial resources nor the means to do so. Take, for example, the US Navy.
The US Navy has always been primarily a “warm waters” navy. With anywhere between 10 to 14 aircraft carriers the main purpose of the US Navy has always been to place a few runways off the shores of any country daring to defy the self-appointed World Hegemon. The US Navy is, therefore, the most powerful “blue water“on the planet. In contrast, the Soviet/Russian navy, a “green water navy”, has always had a totally different purpose: first and foremost, to protect the Russian nuclear submarines (SSBNs) with intercontinental missiles (SLBM) and to protect the Russian coastlines. The two biggest Soviet/Russian fleets have traditionally been the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet and they have always operated in high latitudes, primarily the Arctic and the Sea of Okhotsk, where the Russian submarine bastions are located. The two smaller fleets – the Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet) had a much more modest role. Thus we can say that the largest and most capable part of the Soviet/Russian Navy has always been an high latitude, Arctic, one. Even the single Russian aircraft carrier was designed primarily with an air-defense mission and initially had no strike-aircraft on board at all.
This is also generally true for the rest of the US and Russian armed forces: the former were mostly designed to operate in low latitudes (below 50o) while the latter are much more used to operating in much colder conditions. This specialization is even reflected in the fact that the US GPS is more accurate in low latitudes whereas the Russian GLONASS more accurate in the high latitudes.
This specialization is now coming to haunt US force planners who have to design almost from scratch a polar capable force to try to catch-up with the Russians who have had a 80+ years head start. There is no doubt that the US, Canada, Norway and others will catch up, at least to some degree and with time, but the big difference is this: Russian military capabilities in the Arctic are already a reality today, not a goal to achieve in a decade or more.
Western politicians have, of course, tried to present these developments as yet another sign of the Russian “assertiveness” or even “aggressiveness”, but the reality is of course that this Russian policy is in full conformity with the new Russian strategic course which now prioritizes the northern and eastern directions: Siberia, the Arctic and, of course, China. Besides, it is not like Russia is trying to exclude anybody from collaborating in the Arctic. Western oil/gas companies have been actively investing in Russian exploration efforts and Russia has greatly benefited form western know-how acquired in these joint projects. Russia will gladly continue to collaborate with the West in the Arctic region, but Russia will also make darn sure that she has the means to protect and defend her interests in a strategically vital region.
The prospects for the Arctic are, in reality, pretty good. As soon as the western leaders come to terms with the reality that the Arctic is “russki land” and that negotiations, not unilateral and hostile actions, are the way to getting things done up there, negotiations will ensue and they will be profitable for all the parties involved.
The Saker
One other good point about the new sea route is, it skirts the Russian coast for most of its length.That means unlike the other sea routes between Europe and Asia it isn’t susceptible to the Empire controlling it.They won’t be able to do a “Malacca Straits” type blockade there.
What about Bering Strait? All ships that will want to use the North route will have to go through the strait (58 miles) between Russia and USA.
In relation to this subject, the zio-gays at the atlantic propaganda organ are channeling goebbels. They have an article up called: “Putin Gets Caught in His Own Trap” which is about as zio-gay as it gets. 100% toss.
I love the expression ‘ziogay’!
I don’t. It offers no analytical value whatsoever, and further muddles a delicate issue.
@ The Saker,
Q; I love the expression ‘ziogay’!
R: Great.
But if, according to your religion, god created ‘man’ as the spitting image of himself, what’s wrong with gay people?
In the greater scheme of things, who are you to judge?
Well, Daniel, you have already been enough time in this blog to know that he has nothing against gay people, but against exacerbated promotion of homosexuality in the so called West, as well as many of us here.
I have read him a lot of times explaining the issue in several threads and talking to gay people personally and politely in those threads.
Saker
Cheers. :)
This is OT, but a very informative article:
American Exceptionalism and the Folly of Hiroshima
Survivors’ accounts allow historians to reconstruct what happened on that fateful summer day in 1945.
“Nineteen hundred feet over Hiroshima, a 49-foot diameter star began to form, burning with a heat of 300,000 degrees centigrade, consuming the bomb casing and turning it into a random cloud of charged atoms. Touching the ground, the tremendous energy first made the targets radioactive, then destroyed them. Shima Clinic, directly below the atomic nova, simply turned to vapor, leaving behind only two concrete pillars. Anything made of carbon – wood, paper…human beings – became shadows of the hypocenter.”
“Little Boy” destroyed two-thirds of the city and instantly killed 80,000 people (40 percent of iroshima’s inhabitants). But tens of thousands of survivors must have envied those who perished right away.
Known as the “ant-walking alligators,” they did not look human. Their skin seared from their skulls, leaving them with no eyes and only a small hole for a mouth. They could not speak, and the sound they made was said to be more horrifying than any scream. They did not survive for long and died shortly after the blast, bringing the number of direct casualties of “Little Boy” close to 180,000. Thousands more became hibakusha (explosion-affected), who eventually died from leukemia and other radiation related diseases.
Three days later, on August 9 1945 a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, killing between 50,000 and 100,000 people.
There are competing theories as why the Americans wanted to drop the atomic bombs: to pip the Soviet Union to the post in ending the Pacific War and enjoying its spoils; to demonstrate their newly acquired exceptional power to Stalin; or to test the new weapon in real-life conditions. Whatever the reason, it was the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who paid the terrible price for what President Obama calls “American exceptionalism.”
And why has America not been charged with war crimes against humanity?
Because in order to pay for all the committed crimes it must be first defeated (usually it would be militarily as the losers are made to pay after the defeat).
There seems a glaring contradiction here. You speak of the global warming phenomenon’ opening up the Arctic to exploitation of its oil and gas reserves, when it is precisely those hydrocarbons that are causing the climate destabilisation, and any utilisation of these Arctic resources would equal catastrophe. Indeed the climate destabilisation process is most advanced in the Arctic, and if pessimistic prognoses by the acknowledged experts in Arctic climate are correct, the no longer frozen north will shortly see massive ebullitions of methane from submarine clathrates, and methane and CO2 produced by melting permafrost being gobbled up by bacteria. In fact both the recent spate of mega-fires in Siberia and the explosions of methane leaving huge craters in the tundra, are very ominous signs. I rather think that Russia should diversify its economy away from hydrocarbons as fast as possible, otherwise they will end up as ‘marooned assets’, and Russia will easily be portrayed in the Western hate MSM as a ‘climate destabilisation criminal’.
Russia should diversify its economy away from hydrocarbons as fast as possible? Much like not extracting by fracturing otherwise ‘marooned assets’ of US, and elswhere located, oil and gas, including the tar sand variety? Russia will easily be portrayed in the Western hate MSM as a ‘climate destabilisation criminal’. Really?
nice point.
So let us paradoxically let, alllow, permit the greedy bloody west oilers to drill, cut down, transport and whatever in the Artic that THIS will additionally… do them the favor of melting, exploding the mathane and burning up the Russian tundra.
Mulga,
beware the cuckoos in the nest – it’s nothing to do with “Russia” protecting “her” Arctic interests, it is a class war.
Again – from someone more eloquent…
The New World Order, Neoliberal Economic Globalism, The Washington Consensus– all have the same aim: Rule of the entire world by an international oligarchy in which nations become unimportant. One can already see that most nations are ruled by the corporations , the banks and transnationals, who simply buy the elections or the sitting politicians.
The US is only an instrument of this several hundred years old plan. Powerful propaganda and the cartoonish aggression of the US are designed to make you believe that the only task is to defeat US militarism. Please consider the following:
To develop every country requires investment capital– just as companies & corps do. Before the post-WWII invention of the IMF & World Bank countries had financial sovereignty and decided the amount of currency and credit to issue, depending upon their needs. The IMF/Fed system put an end to this. Issuing one’s own currency is now linked to earning export dollars, hence the need to borrow dollars or euros (at interest).
The need to export in order to create one’s own currency creates tremendous distortion of national economies, so that any degree of self-reliance is lost. The WTO requires that all countries open their markets to trade and investment by the more developed West, thus de-industrializing the less developed countries.
The de-industrialization of the less developed is easily observed within the EU.
It cannot be the case that the US alone is desirous of ruling the world. If this were the case, why would she de-industrialize in order to send her jobs to China? The US oligarchs are internationalists, very well integrated into the international oligarchy by marriage & other economic ties.
I know it is attractive to think that you understand fully what is occurring by watching the military actions. Please consider reading Ellen Brown or Michael Hudson as to how the economic power is wielded. Greece was just defeated more fully than any bullets could have accomplished. And Russia is in a far more precarious economic position than you are being told– mostly by non-military causes.
I know that when one becomes comfortable w a worldview it becomes difficult to consider other factors. I hope you will. In any case, thank you for your response to my post.
it might be more simple that that.
In history so far back from Hamurabi some things are learned, others are not.
In order to rip off any hope from me, you must first…demonstrate that in a new world order… the international finance oligarchies will still prevail – over the societies of russia and china.
Augusto, There is no reason to give up hope. But it is necessary to realize that there are other aspects to the battle. It is not enough to be aware of US military aggression.
It is empowering to understand the financial and trade means by which countries are deprived of their sovereignty and their economic vitality– their self-reliance and ability to provide the structures necessary for a decent standard of living and indiviual freedom.
Today Russia’s economy is greatly imprisoned by the IMF/Fed system; she needs to break out and begin to issue her own currency independent of the dollar.
According to Ellen Brown, China & other Asian countries are already doing this, hence are more prosperous. More countries need to do this in order to further degrade the power of the NWO.
Every economist who has appeared on this site has repeatedly mentioned how necessary it is for Russia to take control of the Central Bank of Russia away from the IMF/Fed system. We can help by filling the internet w commentary about its evil effects.
But you have to understand something about it first. I recommend Ellen Brown or
http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf
I’m sorry I can’t give a more intelligible answer in such a brief space. Again, there is nothing to give up hope about. This area that I suggest is an area wherein the oligarchy that would rule the world is far more vulnerable than they are militarily.
Regards, –Penelope
@ augusto,
Q; In order to rip off any hope from me, you must first…demonstrate that in a new world order… the international finance oligarchies will still prevail – over the societies of russia and china.
R; Have you discussed your views/hopes with the managers of the Vegas Strip’s casinos [or elsewhere]?
*******
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-22/no-one-willing-to-take-mother-s-16-000-as-graft-fear-hits-china
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/23/how-chinas-macau-crackdown-threatens-big-us-casino-moguls-sheldon-adelson
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/xi-declares-war-on-global-gambling-firms-2015-2
*******
Greed is a universal concept, not only bound to political or ideological philosophies in one corner of the world or another.
Daniel, greed is universal, and condemned as a very great evil by every religion and philosophy that I know of, bar one-that of the tribe that controls and rules the West. China is at least at present fighting greed, whereas greed is enthroned as ruler throughout the West. If the Chinese succeed it will be a real achievement, but you can bet that the Adelsons et al, who hate and fear China because they do not control it, will do everything they can to bring it down.
Mulga,
at least you only mentioned China (not Russia).
“Since the 1980s, income inequality in China has risen at a faster pace than in the United States. From 1980 to 2012, China’s Gini coefficient increased from 0.30 to 0.55, surpassing the U.S. coefficient of 0.45.”
So,if you condemn China for that,remember that makes the US (the Western Worlds “exceptional nation”), .10% away from China’s record. Hmmm,that doesn’t say much for the West.You also might reflect on what services China provides her citizens ( top of the line or not,they are there).In comparison to those provided in the US,might be an eyeopener .
Uncle Bob 1,
if you are only looking for the lowest common denominator then you will find practically no difference between “the West” & China (or Russia).
I’m looking for a multi-polar World,I don’t expect “Nirvana” (would be nice though). When you have a “polar” World you are hopeless to change things.But with a “multi-polar” World,at least there is hope of change in some places.And then spreading to others.
Uncle Bob 1,
you are similarly hopeless in a multi-polar world in which each is run by oligarchs.
For some reason there is no “reply” showing to “Anonymous on August 15, 2015 · at 5:14 pm UTC” reply to me.So my reply is here.
We don’t know that ,since we don’t have the multi-polar World yet.All we have to go on is the experience when the USSR existed.And yes,there was far more hope in the World then.The Western oligarchs were afraid to “go too far” in the West (other areas,they didn’t care).They feared the people turning Communist and devouring them.So while hardly perfect,there was at least a “hope” in that small multi-polar moment.Though I do agree with you that the oligarchs must go.I just see a better chance of getting rid of them in a multi-polar World.Instead of in a polar World where they control everything in a centralized system of master and slave.
Uncle Bob 1 on August 15, 2015 · at 5:37 pm UTC said:
“We don’t know that”
We do know that:
“Psychopaths dominate the halls of power in both the United States and throughout the world. The current economic, political, military and legal system breeds psychopaths, rewarding psychopathic behavior and punishing those with conscience and integrity. Psychopaths will naturally be drawn to and converge at the apex of the power pyramid as much from their own drive for ambitious power as the hierarchical system that both requires and reinforces those who can comfortably operate without conscience, guilt or any genuine level of empathy toward others.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/masters-of-manipulation-psychopaths-rule-the-world/5383706
(I think there is a limit of around 10 replies to each comment)
Anon 09.10, what is occurring in the world is World War 1-infinity. It is the perpetual war between human psychologies, between human individuals, (and certain tribes and classes), who operate in the world driven by their psychopathic personality type, and their victims, who have no choice but to resist.
The psychopaths, who include the ruling elites of the West, many in the elites of Russia, China and Iran etc, who identify with the global psychotic elite and very many ordinary, lumpen, types in Western societies, are driven by a number of impulses. These have been long studied by psychologists, and for millennia by philosophers, religious students of humanity and creative artists. Their principal character trait is hatred, itself rooted in fear, primarily the existential fear of death. The other is the very embodiment of one’s cosmic ordinariness and insignificance, at least to one driven by extreme egomania, as this type are. The other is, at best, something to be exploited, or beaten in competition, but also to be suppressed or exterminated, particularly if they ‘get in the way’. The psychotics display a wide range of hatreds, class, ideological, racist, misogynist etc, and societies dominated by this type are, inevitably, socially savage, unequal, antagonist towards Nature and Life, highly exploitative and hyper-aggressive. The USA is, of course, and has long been the prime example of such a psychotic society of and for a ruling psychopathic elite. The current state of the world, careering to self-destruction by economic implosion driven by inequality and debt, ecological catastrophe and geo-political aggression, derives directly from the nature of US society and the psychopathy of its ruling elites.
Mulga, I agree wholeheartedly w your eloquent description of the pathology of the oligarchic gangsters who are running the US.
But you say, “The current state of the world. . . derives directly from the nature of US society and the psychopathy of its ruling elites.”
The nature of those gangsters (I do not call them elites) is not an outgrowth of American society. The whole cancerous desire to rule the world is a monstrosity foisted upon us out of the banking cabal of Great Britain. It is absolutely foreign to the nature, psychology and sense of justice of Americans.
It is so easy to blame, especially without giving any suggestion about what we might do to overthrow the gangster oligarchs. Since John Kennedy there has never been anyone decent to vote for– w the possible exception of Barry Goldwater. Short of revolution it is very difficult to see our way clear to making even incremental changes. All the levers of power are occupied & not available to us. Those of us who are awake try to awaken more, on the belief that a certain critical mass will be unstoppable, will create their own “bandwagon effect.”
It is true however that the nature of American society has been consciously degraded by the power structure– especially the young people. The educational level has fallen so low that many are simply unable to think critically.
Penelope, there is someone running in this election that could turn things around,….and its not Donald Trump although alot of people, including myself momentarily, think Trump might do some good.
I think Rand Paul and especially his father Ron Paul could do alot to get the USA back on track.
I highly doubt that they would pull apart the social infrastuctures right away as they both think the foreign policy is the most awful thing in the US right now.
I hope that Rand Paul gets in. That I believe is a valid person running for the presidential race.
It really doesn’t matter “who” is running in the US.It only matters who the elite will permit to be elected.And Rand Paul (as his father before him,isn’t one of them).There are two “wildcards” in this election so far.I’m not sure the elite has figured out what to do about them yet.Those are the two total opposites of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.Sanders is a danger to the elites because he seems to “believe” his own populist words.And a man that believes his own words is a threat to them.While with Trump,he is a rich man already.And so its harder to bribe someone that doesn’t “really” need your payoffs.I suspect they will settle on their “tried and true” methods though.Make those two appear buffoons.Have the MSM trash them whenever they can.And,when they can’t,starve their campaigns of publicity.It works for the elite everytime in the US,it should again.But still,like I said those two are wildcards,so we’ll have to wait and see which tricks they use on them.
I’m betting on Clinton or Biden (probably Clinton) as the Democratic Party candidate next year.As for the Republican Party candidate,I’m not sure on that one.There are so many worthless “candidates” to choice from,so that’s a hard one.At least with the Democrats there are only two worthless ones I thing have a chance to win the elites nod to run.But with the Republicans “probably” Bush is the leader right now.
The US is on track. The little fact that I (and probably you) do not like the track it is on doesn’t matter. It will run its course until the inevitable collision with the rest of the world. And than… hard to tell but Romans did not change the course, they just dissolved. Eventually. And left some legacy in some fertile spots.
my comment is to Anon who was addressing Mulga Mumblebrain up there.
Anon…first of all, you’re anonymous…please get yourself a name or basically, you have no credentials at least as far as I’m concerned.
Secondly, you post a long quote and give no name to it…accusing the whole world, including I suppose Putin, of being in control of everything….just ‘oligarchs and banksters.
Well, you have to have more info than that, honey, to gain my respect.
But if you don’t use a nickname, or if you use a thousand different nicknames, it makes it a little harder for the Air Force to find out where you live.
If you worry about the “air force” hunting for a poster on Saker.Well you might need a rethink on that. Unless your real name is Edward Snowden,I think you are pretty safe here.They are only interested in striking down “threats” to them (at present).Sadly,we don’t rate that category yet (though I keep hoping for a promotion there).
Snowden is CIA, but i know how to kiss ass, so Go Falcons!!
He certainly was.Now,I’m not so sure.But still the point is,our pay-grade isn’t high enough to warrant “personal” attention from the Empire.And certainly not of the “death squad” variety.They’d just attack our computers and careers (if they could) if they wanted us.But as I’ve said before we aren’t a threat personally to them.They would need to strike at millions before they got to us if they wanted to go there.They’d go for Saker before you and me.And he seems to feel free to speak his mind.So we should feel even less worry.The PR would be a disaster to them.So we are “free” to use Nicknames at the very least.
Totally agree with you, Bob. “They” are not really threatening anybody, they are just trolling. It is fun for them. They can swat anyone like a fly if they really wanted to, but they don’t have to. They have that Brown Note that they can use on public protests, so they are perfectly in control.
Would it be correct to assume that perhaps you have seen the movie “Replacements” one to many times?
Mulga, Please reconsider. You know that MSM rarely tells you the truth about anything. You know that US controls many parts of the UN. IPCC is a political body, not a a scientific one. A computer model is not DATA, and all the data contradicts anthropomorphic global warming.
31,000 scientists signed The Manhattan Declaration, that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ The Cloud Mystery Henrik Svensmark Inspirational young guys prove their case.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE SCIENTIFIC VIDEO THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE The scientific part starts a few minutes in.
http://rt.com/usa/171044-noaa-climate-change-cooling/
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=1
shows a mere
“The following 206 Manhattan Declaration endorsers are climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields (this is a subset extracted from the other lists):”
many of whom are not climate scientists, such as “Peter Friedman, PhD, Member, American Geophysical Union, Assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, U.S.A.”
What would a mechanical engineer know about it?
Denial of climate change, and especially anthropic, is the agenda of the corporate interests and oil financiers. There’s a lot of money for propaganda saying it’s a hoax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Scientific_consensus
Just over 97% of climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming
and I can see the pictures and data of it, and have personally felt the change in weather patterns.
I have virtually no doubts it is occurring.
blue, search for how that 97 per cent was arrived at, there are several
different vids.
its an eye opener, what some Australian did with selecting just a few
papers to make his case —- out of hundreds
The 97 percent was arrived at by analyzing 10,000 peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject. 9,700 were deemed to agree with human-driven climate change while 300 were deemed to disagree. Thus 97%.
Climate science applies the same basic principles of physics and statistical analysis as other branches of science. A Ph.d level Mechanical engineer or Ph.d Geophysicist are as qualified on the science as anyone else.
Richard Feynman sat on the comity investigating the Challenger Disaster, even though he was not an Aerospace engineer he was the most qualified person on the comity.
The laws of physics for physicists, engineers and climate scientists are all the same.
I’m almost lost when trying to read a paper outside of the things I’ve studied, just to understand the terminology even. I often don’t understand even most of the scientific discussion at Weather Underground because I’m not a meteorologist. And I’m no climatologist.
There is a huge difference in the various specializations, and interdisciplinary studies are only recently getting more common.
“Phosphoinositide Modulation of Heteromeric Kv1 Channels Adjusts Output of Spiral Ganglion Neurons from Hearing Mice ”
You think a climatologist or physicist would understand this — or maybe even know what field it’s in?
Ot that either one would understand
“Ground-state fidelity and entanglement entropy for the quantum three-state Potts model in one spatial dimension”
How about
“Validation of automatic Cb observations for METAR messages without ground truth”
or
“MethyLight Droplet Digital PCR for Detection and Absolute Quantification of Infrequently Methylated Alleles”
?
Any scientist who has not spent a lot of time working on climatology will be lost in it. Even mathematicians get lost trying to read a paper by another mathematician in another area. Everything is specialized now and few people involved in a field can speak to be understand by someone not in it. Most people understand virtually nothing about science — or it’s principles.
Measuring the width of a tree ring isn’t exactly outside the expertise of a Ph.d Mechanical engineer.
There’s much more to climatology than measuring tree rings! An elementary school kid can count tree rings, but he’s no climatologist. Get serious and ive the profession a little respect.
http://www.postgraduatesearch.com/university-of-sussex/52331858/postgraduate-course.htm
is about just post graduate — not even post doctoral professional — and there’s 285 credits in 9 courses listed.
http://study.com/articles/Schools_that_Offer_Climatology_Programs_How_to_Choose.html
Climatology Program Overviews
Bachelor’s Degree in Atmospheric Science, Meteorology or Geography
Baccalaureate degree programs in areas related to climatology are designed to prepare students for employment as meteorologists, climatologists, air quality analysts or storm chasers. The varied curriculum also prepares students for graduate study in climatology. Areas of study include:
Advanced calculus
Statistics
Computer science
Atmospheric studies
Master of Science Degree in Atmospheric Science
Master of Science degree programs can take at least two years of full-time study to complete, which may include time spent working on an original research thesis. Graduate climatology courses can include:
Atmospheric thermodynamics
Dynamic meteorology
Advanced forecasting
Doctoral (Ph.D.) Degree in Atmospheric Science
Relevant Ph.D. programs can take upwards of three years of full-time resident study to complete. Initial coursework is often the same as the master’s degree track coursework. However, after passing qualifying exams, the candidate must complete and defend a comprehensive doctoral dissertation in climatology. The curriculum may include introductory coursework in:
Dynamics of the Earth’s systems
Ocean science
Atmospheric physics
Solar-terrestrial physics
Atmospheric and ocean fluid
And this is just for the doctorate degree — which is a beginning for a working scientist.
Friedman’s areas of expertise center around heat flows:
“Professor Friedman’s research interests are in experimental fluid mechanics. Specific topics he has investigated include volcanic flows, the behavior of negatively buoyant jets and the dispersion of droplets in a turbulent flow. He has taught various courses in heat transfer, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, dynamics, naval architecture and computer graphics.”
I hope you know that the promised IPPC Final Report on Anthropogenic Global Warming never appeared because the astronomers, astrophysicists, and physicists refused en masse to sign it. (They believe that the sun, the galaxy and its rotations,, the cosmos are important factors in Earthly events, including climate changes.
Penelope, when every National Academy of Science and every learned scientific society, without exception, concurs with the anthropogenic climate destabilisation theory, I’m convinced. You are correct that the IPCC is politicised, which is why its reports have downplayed the dangers, in search for consensus with the likes of Saudi Arabia, Canada and Australia. The science that the IPCC collates, peer-reviewed and the work of thousands of scientists, is, in recent years, over 99% in concurrence with the theory.
The Svensmark pseudo-science, which declares cosmic rays the cause of cloud formation thereby responsible for the unambiguous warming of recent decades, was refuted immediately. First by recordings of the cosmic ray flux, taken for decades by high altitude observatories and then satellites, which showed no changes necessary for the theory to work, then by experiments designed to test the mechanism of his theory. And the Great…Swindle was utterly refuted by climate scientists. Utterly. Can I please urge you to read outside the denialosphere, say Robert Scribbler for a start, because the fate of humanity will be decided in the next few decades by whether and how we tackle this crisis.
Mulga, give me a few links to what you regard as sound science.
Note that CO2 is increasing and the temperature isn’t. Note that when we plot historic CO2 levels (arrived at by various methods including glacier cores) there is no concordance w temperature.
There IS concordance between Sunspot numbers and temperature. (The cosmic ray work merely explained the MEANS by which the sun’s activity as measured by sunspots affects temperature thru its disrupting effect on cosmic rays. It’s not vital because it only explains a means, but if you have a good link disproving it I’d sure like to see it.)
Please note that it is noncontroversial that there is concordance between the Sunspot Cycle and temperature: Sunspots have been continuously counted all the way back to 1645 (by using smoked glass) and have conformed to the temperature record including the Maunder Minimum (little Ice Age) and the Middle Ages Warming– when it was warmer than now altho no possibility of anthropomorphic cause existed. Similarly we had a warming period from 1915 to 1944, which cannot be explained according to the anthropomorphic theory but which coincided w the Sunspot Cycle.
Mulga, you said, “every National Academy of Science and every learned scientific society, without exception, concurs with the anthropogenic climate destabilisation theory.” You can’t possibly believe that: You KNOW how the MSM lies to you. It is difficult to get counter-science published in MSM journals, and difficult for scientists who need grants to speak against it, but they do. Of course the MSM doesn’t tell you about it. Listening to the MSM is like calling David Rockefeller & asking him what he wants you to believe.
Why wd such oligarchs allow their controlled media to be used to hinder the use of the hydrocarbons that make them so much money? Because, just like their endless wars, they want to hinder human numbers & development. It’s part of making nations unable to resist the onslaught of their power.
Do give me your best links please. Thanks.
Penelope, I don’t see you providing any links or any serious scientific information. Before demanding others do your homework I strongly suggest you do it yourself. BTW, are you still claiming the people injured in the Boston Marathon bombing faked it? Mod ME
Penelope, I recommend Robert Scribbler and Skeptical Science for a thorough debunking of climate destabilisation denialism. Here the MSM is thoroughly denialist, the Murdoch sewer 99% so, talk-back radio 100% so and the other minority empires 50/50. You are, of course, correct that the sun is the driver of climate, but without greenhouse gases, like CO2 and water vapour, the planet would be much too cold for life. Sunspots indicate solar activity, and other factors like ‘global dimming’ by particulate pollution slowed down warming from 1940-70, and are probably doing so again now, due to east and south Asian pollution. The so-called ‘hiatus’ after 1998 simply doesn’t exist. Last year was the hottest year ever, the heat accumulated over those 15 years was sequestered in the oceans, and the effect was only due to cherry-picking 1998, a year of an intense El Nino, as the starting point. Choose 97 or 99, and the effect disappears. I share your total distrust of the Western MSM, but I do trust science, commonsense and the evidence of my eyes. The climate is rapidly changing where I live, and we know that such rapid changes in the past were almost always driven by atmospheric greenhouse gas changes. Remember, the same forces who own the Western MSM also own the fossil fuel industry worth tens of trillions.
Mulga, I am familiar w Skeptical Science, but not w Robert Scribbler, so I’ll take a look. It appears profitless for me to answer each of your points, as the scientific links I provide do it better. I think perhaps that Grieved below is correct when he says Saker banned the Anthropomorphic Global Warming topic as an act of mercy.
I leave you with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQk-q8SpBU Canadian Senate Hearings w 4 Climate Scientists speaking for 10 minutes each. It’s quite pleasant and collegial.
I wish you well but hope you won’t again introduce the topic.
Moderator, I supplied 4 links above & I didn’t demand Mulga supply a link; I requested it.
Here is another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQk-q8SpBU Canadian Senate Hearings w 4 Climate Scientists speaking for 10 minutes each.
Once having heard this data which is so easily understood it is impossible to ignore Even the comments of the Canadian senators– who feel as you do, Mulga– are illustrative of the process by which the global warming political correctness was imposed.
One cannot name entire groups of reporters or even one mainstream newspaper or station which will state that the US et al maintains al qaeda and ISIS. That doesn’t mean it’s not true. You can find individual journalists on the net & ad hoc groups of them formed just for the purpose of getting out the truth. It is mostly like that for those who insist on presenting climate science. Most of the media on the subject is controlled just like the political media. There are occasional peer-reviewed articles, and there are many attacks against the careers of those who present alternate science.
.
I think it is probably more correct to call the phenomena catastrophic climate change, rather than global warming. The carbon buildup is common knowledge, its anthropomorphic, and its happening faster than any time we know of in the history of the planet. The jet stream around the arctic is slowing, and wobbling, like a gyroscope when it slows, and so looping down into the south, causing snowy weather. The Gulf stream is changing as well, due to lots of fresh water melting off greenland, which slows the Atlantic pump. We have seen lots of changes, its not a uniform warming effect. However, the warming overall is well documented. That is not to say that change isn´t always happening, and in complex systems, there will be feedback systems, negative feedback systems, etc. It just so happens that the other planets in our system are also heating up, or speeding up, we see lots of changes there too. The planet is having more volcanic activity, which may have a cooling effect. The rise in seawater temperature may be from underwater volcanic activity. Not sure if this guy is a crank, but I ran across this guy giving a TEDx in Abu Dhabi, his site is called earth changes; http://planet-earth-2017.com, Interesting, anyways. I think we need to realize that we are in the middle of the sixth great extinction, and things are changing fast, and maybe some adaptation is in order. I wish we could collectively get off the need to control resources and others, and get about having a joyful life, and make life good for everyone. Power politics is so like, nineteenth century. I´m all for a treaty to leave the arctic a mining free zone.
Mod ME, Yes, I still think the Boston Marathon bombing was a hoax & no one was injured.
http://deepinsidetherabbithole.com/The_Boston_Bombing_Hoax.html Requires least patience, spoon-fed w identifying captions.
Penelope
Note that CO2 is increasing and the temperature isn’t.
Go to this page and click on Figure 2 there:
U.S. and Global Temperature
The graph shows that since the late 1970s, world average temperature is increasing. Your first assertion is therefore false. My guess is if I went through your entire comment and did a similar fact checking of the “facts” you have presented in it, I would find similar discrepancies throughout.
BOT TAK,
RSS satellite system confirms no global warming in 18 years. http://herrero-radio-astronomy.blogspot.com/2015/07/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring.html
Surface measurements have become controversial due to the fact that those who control it often take measurements w/in hotspots, like industrialized areas, above asphalt, etc.
However the satellite Remote Sensing System is beyond manipulation.
Most warmists acknowledge that surface warming has ceased and even cooled a bit, but explain this by one of TEN different explanations– including that the heat has gone into the ocean rather than the land. However, NASA has acknowledged that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has gone into its cool phase. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
Too much verbiage here already. Just want to add my vote for Penelope, for clear thinking and well presented argumentation.
Supporting links? This stuff is years old – but still the ghost of Margaret Thatcher lives on.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/climategate-2-0-emails-thread-2/
Do watch it. Testimony of climate scientists, some of whom worked for the IPCC.
It gives a very clear and concise explanation as to why CO2 is nothing short of a hoax.
I don’t blame anyone who has bought into this, but what part of the word hoax is difficult to understand?
For me, the bigger geo-political issue of propaganda and wall-to-wall disinformation is the real issue that needs to be tackled (somehow).
And for amusement: IPCC Religious Leader Resigns in Disgrace
“It is my religion and my dharma”
Gee, whatever will happen to the world without the IPCC guru.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/chairman-of-un-climate-panel-rajendra-pachauri-quits-after-harassment-allegation-20150224-13nxui.html
And the IPCC lives on ..
https://emsnews.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/el-gizouli-new-ipcc-figurehead-barely-can-speak-in-public/#more-22363
DM, thank you. Sometimes I need the encouragement.. I have copied your links & will look at them tomorrow. I’m looking forward to it.
Regards, –Penelope
Penelope
First you source a blog entry that talks about speculated sun spot activity 15 years from now, which has zero relation to the average world temperature rise info I posted. Then this obvious and dishonest misdirection disinfo:
Surface measurements have become controversial due to the fact that those who control it often take measurements w/in hotspots, like industrialized areas, above asphalt, etc.
Pathetic. For those unfamiliar with disinfo trolling, this is the description of where the data comes from that I posted which penelope is distorting for her own dishonest purposes:
This figure shows how annual average temperatures worldwide have changed since 1901. Surface data come from a combined set of land-based weather stations and sea surface temperature measurements. Satellite measurements cover the lower troposphere, which is the lowest level of the Earth’s atmosphere. “UAH” and “RSS” represent two different methods of analyzing the original satellite measurements. This graph uses the 1901–2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time.
Data source: NOAA, 2015
You then posted a link to some info of El Nino, another misdirection strawman that has no bearing on the average rise of world temperatures.
You know you are posting propaganda, so cloud the discussion with irrelevant material and strawman nonsense. This is classic dishonest trolling tactics. It’s very clear you, penelope, are not debating in good faith, but are trying to push a specific view irregardless of facts. This is classic dishonest trolling tactics of sayanim and other far right establishment fascists.
Fail.
Bot Tak,
This quote “the Pacific Decadal Oscillation—a larger-scale, slower-cycling ocean pattern—had shifted to its cool phase.” is the reason I cited http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
The quote appears in the 3d line of text. (altho link does also deal w La Nina.) My point is that since the Pacific Ocean has gone into its cooling phase of 20-30 years it’s unlikely that the warming which is missing on land has gone into the oceans. Not an attempt to troll.
I gave you the wrong link to the satellite RSS system confirming no global warming in 18 years. The correct link is
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html
“In the conclusion to the open access paper McKitrick wrote that in the Met office surface data “we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series”.
“The existence of the pause in global warming was acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year but there has been significant debate about the actual duration of this hiatus with some commentators alleging that the length is exaggerated by cherry-picking the start date as 1998 – a particularly warm year.”
There are many other links confirming this, including http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/29/new-uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-data-show-no-global-warming-for-more-than-18-years/
But since the IPCC confirms it, I’ll stop here.
Not exactly. “Global warming” is real although the solar cycle is ready to cool it down (within 10-15 years). The “anthropogenic global warming” is a hoax, so you should sharpen your terminology. As a consequence, CO2 human emissions has nothing (or, being generous, very little) to do with it. The case for energy efficiency should not depend on scaremongering nonsense.
I see we have a Denialist Troll. You probably think cancer is just a hoax, too.
Try to ponder: why night temps in Bangladesh are intolerably hot, while in Sahara they are near freezing? The regions have practically the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and apparently about the same latitude.
The CO2 in the atmosphere increases the heat of the oceans by allowing more heat from the sun to penetrate the atmosphere. The slightly raised temperature of the ocean amounts to a huge quantity of extra stored energy globally as the oceans are vast. This in turn becomes available to the local weather systems amplifying their effects. Consequently we see the extreme weather events, that have always occurred, becoming more extreme. To add more doom to the picture the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is dissolving in the oceans making them more acidic and disrupting plankton. Plankton are at the base of the oceanic food chain and we are at the top. Work out the consequences for yourself.
BS (capital letters). Sorry: not a single model is able to predict even ElNino or LaNina, or their effect to the accuracy required. Let alone the entire Earth climate. The only phenomena causally correlating to climate is SOLAR activity. Sorry again if that offends your religious sensitivities.
Dear Ian, I have read the same things that you have, but also the opposing arguments. Please listen to The Easterbrook Hearings where the arguments you make are covered. The most interesting part is the Q & A at the end where he discusses “acidity” and where the “97%” lie comes from.
You don’t have to be persuaded; just listen to the other side. It’s science. Remember how in school they told us that the final step in evaluating a theory was to “Retain an open mind.”? Those who tell you that it’s immoral to consider an alternate argument or that those who hold it are immoral– they must be trying to hide something. It’s the essence of science to consider all views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI Easterbrook hearings
Please, Ian, please just look at the graphs in this article that follows. Even if you disagree w his conclusions you will come away w a much better understanding of the historical climate record. That isn’t controversial at all; in fact spend 5 minutes looking at it first, before listening to the hearings: http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
Regards
enough with the
whataboutism.
I agree. The remaining hydrocarbon reserves should be conserved as much as possible especially in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Arctic. Russia would do well to position itself as the protectors of the arctic rather than its exploiters.
3000 AD: The Rise Of Polar Civilizations
An interesting speculative piece about the future if the worst case global warming scenario happens. Russia building infrastructure in the Arctic will prove to be a wise move should the nations of this planet fail to arrest even a much more mild global warming.
Dear The Saker and SouthFront,
Thanks for this analysis.
Yes Russia needs to protect and move swiftly in the Arctic. The only presence the US has in the Arctic is Alaska – which Russia “sold” to them in the first place! They have used NATO to encroach on the Arctic but because of Russia’s land mass they can’t control it…….not so exceptional really.
The US/AZ’s have used war, death and destruction to steal and take what they have wanted, but they have may have met their match finally and hopefully their dominance will start to fade……
I am just waiting to see how they will try and twist Russia’s recent applications for the Arctic.
Rgds,
Veritas
OT
Joseph P. Farrell on the far-reaching impliclations of the recent meeting between Putin and Elvira Nabiullina, President of the Central Bank of Russia. Very, very interesting. (13min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRR4nmRfvo
thanks alot for the link Zweistein….I’ve never seen the Nafarium before, although I have his book,
“UFOs for the Twentieth Century Mind”, which I found easy reading, although I still don’t really believe in ‘aliens’…
But Joseph Farrell is worth a listen I think, and on this link you posted he’s very interesting.
here is the link again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRR4nmRfvo
For any hoping that if the NDP ousts Harper in Canada that Canada will be “saved”,they can “forget a’bout it”The NDP is just another stooge with a “liberal” face.Here is from an article on RT that shows them clearly:
” It would seem the height of Orwellian doublespeak to eliminate a political candidate for calling a war crime a war crime. And all the more so if you’re a leading member of Canada’s New Democratic Party.
And yet that’s exactly what happened this week when Nova Scotian Morgan Wheeldon, an NDP candidate for the riding of Kings-Hants, was forced to step down when a Conservative troll found a statement on his Facebook page from 2014 calling Israel’s bombardment of Gaza a “war crime.”
And:
“While the NDP’s position is more than apparent to keen observers (as author Yves Engler notes, even NDP pioneer Tommy Douglas was an ardent Zionist), it’s odd that Israel has suddenly become an election issue in Canada in the midst of recessionary times.”
http://www.rt.com/op-edge/312334-canada-israel-wheeldon-politics/
So,sadly, we just have another ,”prettier looking”, Empire loyalist party with the NDP. No salvation coming from them.
Bob, no country in the West is more thoroughly controlled by its Zionazi Fifth Column than Canada, and that is saying quite a lot.
Well, I hope everyone votes Green, although I know it takes votes away from a bigger party – NDP – and allows Harper to get back in..blah blah blah…
but Elizabeth May, head of the Green Party wants to be Prime Minister, and I think she’s legit…
She actually is the representative for my riding…in other words, it was my riding (area) that got her into power and here alot of political activists love her. She’s worth your vote for sure and the only way to get her into power is to vote Green, whoever it is, in your riding.
Ann
The Americans are scheming in the same area:
John McCain will visit Norway ( 16. to 18. August) and Sweden They will vistit Longyearbyen and Ny Ålesund on Svalbard and Bodø (Norewgian wartime headquarters) and Horten (Norwegian naval headquarters) ,and Oslo. Svaldbard is supposed to demilitarised by international treaty.
http://www.norwaytoday.info/home_view.php?id=128404
The use of Diesel engines and the soot they produce which falls on the ice has changed the ice’s refractive index resulting in the loss of glasiers and the ice caps and the mega fires and volcanoes have contributed to this phenomena as well. The ice will melt massively these next few years given the greying of the ice. Dust storms emanating in the Australian deserts have changed the colour of NZ glasiers resulting in their demise in recent years too. Forest fires and burn offs in Indonesia seed tropical air flows over the Timor Sea with soot particles causing rain to fall 3000km west of the eastern side of Australia bringing endless droughts to south eastern Australia. Soot and dust are the cause of ice melts and the reason why melting outstrips warming in climate modelling. Europe strives for green answers but doesn’t want to understand that it’s reliance on diesel is the main culprit. India and china are losing their ice for similar reasons and the burning off of the amazon has destroyed the Andes ice has well.
The research program into all that is the Dark Snow project run by Dr Jason Box centered mostly on Greenland. The ice in places looks like asphalt, it’s so dark.
Outlaw, and in Greenland, as in West Antarctica, the ice is being melted from beneath by warming sea water. Greenland is basically an archipelago, not one land mass, so the warm water is penetrating deep into the interior. And not only is the prospect of massive, sudden, collapses of glaciers real, possibly causing mega-tsunamis, but the melt-water is cooling the north Atlantic in the vicinity, threatening an intensification of north Atlantic storms and the possible collapse of the Gulf Stream (freezing the UK and northern Europe, and the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, with a knock-on effect on global ocean circulation, which would be, to put it mildly, cataclysmic. And it is all happening very, very, rapidly in climate terms.
I am surprised that this map of the Arctic would omit the presence of the U.S. Airbase at Thule, Greenland.
I believe the active units there are the 21st Space Wing; 821st Air Base Group; 12th Space Warning Squadron; 50th Space Wing – Detachment 1, and 23rd Space Operations Squadron. IIRC, these are subordinated to Schriever AFB just East of Colorado Springs, CO and probably coordinate with NORAD at Peterson AFB, CO.
I suspect that this is part of the USA’s pivot to the Arctic region (all the USA pivoting is making me dizzy).
While Russia started from the imploded financial & economic state 17 years ago during the 1998 Russia/LTCM Capital debacle, the USSA is day by day getting nearer to a date in time with that, as one by one every gov agency & fund is so corruptly mismanaged, sold out & looted it becomes anathema to its very supposed purpose (see gigantic EPA spill into river a few days ago)
Earlier this week I told you about Social Security’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund (DI), which will become insolvent in a matter of months.
The DI problem (just like the rest of Social Security) has been a long time coming.
But rather than form some meaningful solution, Congress has instead opted to commit financial fraud by commingling DI monies together with the other Social Security funds.
Now comes the Highway Trust Fund.
The difference between DI and the Highway Trust fund is that this one won’t be insolvent in a matter of years or months. Their own data shows that it may very well be toast… today.
http://www.sovereignman.com/trends/the-latest-government-trust-fund-to-go-bankrupt-17315/
The “panic” you refer to is that the US was losing out to Norway, Canada, Iceland, Denmark and Russia. It referred to arctic development technologies in general not military ones.
In terms of technology Canada is the world leader here with the Hibernia project. A 224 metre high structure weighing more than a million tons in the iceberg prone north Atlantic. Pretty much the Hover dam of oil platforms in near Arctic waters.
Warfare in the Arctic is going to continue to be a swinging male genitally affair into the forcible future. Operating in the Arctic is too difficult for large forces.
Also not even the US military has the ability to attack Russia over the Arctic. These places often don’t have roads, or anything of military value, what the hell are you going to do there? If any sizable force landed in Russian Arctic territory, Russia could simply cut them off from resupply and let them starve. The same is true in reverse, it would be extremely foolish for a large Russian force to attack Greenland, Northern Canada or Alaska. I guess you could take airfields, and repeat an Arctic version of WW2 USA vs Japan island hopping, but ICMBs and cruise missles make this method of warfare obsolete.
One of the major drawbacks the Outlaw Empire has regarding exploring its area of the Arctic for hydrocarbons is the total lack of any support infrastructure. If trouble were to occur off the North shore of Alaska, there’s no help available, which is ballbreakingly irresponsible to the max. And there are no plans to become responsible despite the desire to drill. Russia has fortunately taken the opposite approach and shown it’s behaving responsibly by extending its infrastructure. And while I would like Russia to keep its Arctic hydrocarbons in the ground, I understand that to defend itself from the Outlaw Empire it must develop those resources to provide for its defense. Thus, the Outlaw Empire’s drive to obtain Full Spectrum Dominance is pushing the Climate Crisis to its worst-case outcomes. In building its Arctic infrastructure, Russia’s engineers must be prepared to accommodate many meters of sea level rise plus the melting of the permafrost buildings, roads, etc., will be constructed upon. Failure to properly design will result in avoidable structural and monetary costs.
all real data, including the sun cyclic variations indicate
with increasing surety, that we are very likely heading into
another ice age…..perhaps CO2 might delay that a
little, but who switched the sun off?
it needs turning back on again….good luck with that.
that is a civilization 3 project.
It wouldn’t hurt your argument if you had any links to back up this rather counter-intuitive claim of a new ice age. /Mod
Lomonosov Moscow State University Press Release
http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-i
You left off a few letters, I believe. Lomonosov Link doesn’t work yet for me….
http://herrero-radio-astronomy.blogspot.com/2015/07/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring.html
No one knows for sure of course, but the current Solar Sunspot Cycle (Cycle 24) is the weakest since 1902 & I think 3 groups have now come out predicting a mini ice age. I haven’t cited it because it’s quite speculative.
Milankovic predicted the various celestial cycles long ago and we know well what they do. The sun now is actually stronger than at any point in its history, yet the planet doesn’t boil, nor did it freeze at its birth when the sun was much weaker. The reason is autopoesis–the self-regulating mechanism of the planet’s biota. Yes, we’re supposed to be entering a cooler peiod due to celestial mechanics, but temps are going in the opposite direction very rapidly. Why? The greenhouse mechanism is why. Surely you’ve taken some physics, microbiologby, astrophysics, physical geography, geology, and paoleclimatology, yes? But your comment proves you haven’t. Then of course, there’s the increasing acidification of the oceans that’s already destroying habitat and commercial fisheries. Only the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels can provide the input to increase oceanic salinity as rapidly as is the case. I see this outside my front door daily since I live on the Pacific Ocean in Oregon. I see they’ve closed salmon fishing in Murmansk! Why? perhaps the same reasons why we’ve seen our salmon fishery tetter on the edge of remaining sustainable. Do you dispute the author’s reasons as to why the Northern Sea Route will see a marked increase in traffic–Arctic Sea Ice is melting back prodigiously thus allowing the extensive opening. Most of our glaciers here in the Cascades, Olympics, and Rockies are rapidly retreating or have totally disappeared–again, stuff in my backyard geographically. And there’s so much more evidence that the climate is changing NOW!!
Do you understand what happened when the Siberian Traps erupted? Like so many, you cannot fathom that humans are the meteorite this time. But then perhaps you believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted. And I bet you also think a person chooses to be a homosexual.
I’m weary of these “experts” who are unable or unwilling to support their “expertise” with facts. Your post provided zero content worth posting. Next time eschew the advert lines and post a real scientific sort of argument. Mod ME
This unsubstantiated advert spiel is tedious. That was your second strike. Mod ME
People (with some years to devote to it) can check…
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html for some scientific stuff if interested.
Union of concerned scientists covers other topics as well. See main page http://www.ucsusa.org/
You likely want to see http://www.ucsusa.org/about/funding.html too.
Article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists
Bunch of hits for scholarly articles at
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=proof+of+anthropogenic+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0,14&as_vis=1
As is often the case material is out there if one is willing to devote time to search for it, among the pop stuff — but I’ve found with most subjects there is lot not freely available, and hard to find without being subscribed to expensive journals (although amount of open access papers is slowly increasing).
But see
http://www.nature.com/news/russian-scientists-cut-off-from-springer-journals-1.17584
Russian scientists cut off from Springer journals
Access lost after last year’s institutional subscription fees were not paid.
Quirin Schiermeier
21 May 2015
Following a row over unpaid bills, the journal publisher Springer has cancelled institutional subscriptions to its large portfolio of scientific journals for hundreds of Russian universities and research institutes.
…
and many other research centers and schools have said the fees for accessing material has become more prohibitive.
In general, with copyright, costs for printing and editing, and profit motive, large swaths of information are not generally available in many fields, at least on line. There is a lot of ‘cashing in’ in the information age — and that goes even for government funded research which is appropriated by corporations. Yet, access to original research is important for verification because many summaries and article written about research and papers is not reliable (and too often neither is original research, aside from the inherent epistemological problems).
Too often people just ‘say stuff’, not only in the field of politics or politically controversial topics (maybe they have an agenda, or limiting beliefs, or maybe just like to hear themselves talk).
Still, not everything is a conspiracy, or delusion, or BS, or the wrong paradigm — sometimes it’s sound and real, but it often hard to find out the difference, however, especially when one has preconceived ideas or is engaged in cognitive dissonance. Epistemology is tough!
Outlaw, you left out the catastrophe of the heating of the north-eastern Pacific in your back-yard, the huge algal blooms, the record temperatures, the spreading drought, the mega-fires across Alaska, Canada, Siberia and the Pacific states of the USA. We got within one kilometre of being burned out here last southern summer, and I’m not looking forward to the next eight months or so. With the weather and climate catastrophes coming thick and fast the denial of reality is what really impresses. The fossil fuel industry’s investment in denialism has been staggeringly successful.
I just saw this this morning in an email for this article — too good an article to not post a link:
https://portside.org/2015-08-14/why-public-doesnt-believe-climate-change
noted, thanks…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIAp_6FAXCY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94BeCbh80EQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7Axbw_bSZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J60fStb2Y_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQVdi30dzBI
these are a few of the links found when inputting
“climate change controlled by the sun”
sorry for the comment without links,
i’ll try to remember.
i made a comment about the 97 per cent
which i don’t see published.
here are a few links illustrating it…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTTaXqVEGkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NinRn5faU4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY-LVhNM5fA
a few links about the 97 per cent fraud,
often quoted as indisputable ‘proof’
that 97 per cent scentists agree….
the last link is where the Australians
want to prevent disclosure of how this
figure was arrived at.
what are they trying to hide??
And what’s putin doing about this??—well, he’s having billions of dollars worth of now embargoed imported foodstuffs already inside the country, like caves full of cheese from those cheese-eating surrender monkeys (Frenchies), DESTROYED.
That’ll teach ’em.
Flouting Countersanctions
Russia enacted sanctions on many high-end Western food products on Aug. 5, 2014, in response to sanctions placed on Russia by most Western states because of Russian actions in Ukraine. Even though only certain foods were banned, the sanctions — not to mention currency fluctuations — contributed to an average increase in food costs of 20 percent over the past year. The price of some staple goods, such as cabbage, rose more than 60 percent in early 2015.
The Kremlin initially pledged to stem price hikes, increase domestic production and import food from new sources. Fruit and vegetable imports from European countries outside the European Union, such as Serbia and Macedonia, indeed grew by between 35 and 200 percent over the past year.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article51822.html
It was an act of mercy for us all when the Saker banned the topic of climate change from this site. We would have had some seriously derailed and frustrating discussions otherwise – and this is clear to see from this particular discussion, where that rule has been waived, temporarily one hopes.
Since it’s obvious that Russia will not forgo hydrocarbons while all her enemies indulge, the only real question is how does Russia’s planning and doctrine take climate change into account? I recall that Putin said during the time of the great wildfires that climate change had to be taken as a reality. And the most obvious thing of all of course is that the Arctic is melting – if it were not so, these maps and plans would be very different.
Since Russia intends to inhabit and cultivate its northern area, and presumably looks many decades and even centuries into the future, I would love to know what the Russian planners themselves think about climate change, methane escape, and all the other possibilities.
We know that Russian theory of hydrocarbon creation is different from the western theory, and that Russians find oil where others cannot – Engdahl has a famous piece about this . So I wonder what else they have in their thinking. I have tremendous respect for Russian academicians – maybe awe is a better word – so I hope over time to get a feel for their doctrine regarding the climate and the Arctic.
One last note from me on this — and not about the science but politics and propaganda:
Ask, again, in any argument, ‘cui bono’? Who benefits from one side of an argument and who has reason to fake results of research — scientific, polls, or even just news reports? And who has lots of money and spends it to influence opinion or those who writes about a subject? Cui bono?
“Prospects are pretty good!” Meaning Multi-Polar International law will have to prevail.
“The diabolical pyramid”: by Rodolfo Bueno for Rebelión.
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=202162
(….) Experts say that there are four issues that will cause a new crisis, worse than the previous ones: The fall in the stock market of China, the general crisis in the euro zone, the low price of oil and other raw materials and US public debt, which has taken overtones of an incurable disease. None of these evils is as serious as the last,(….)
(….)This ability to create money out of thin has become the largest resort in the US, because they can print what they need and consume the world’s wealth without having worked it. Its public debt is its greatest asset, because while we sweated the fat drop to produce what we export, they give us papers in exchange for our products. If we refuse, we will be suffocated.
The Fed, real economic parasite that does what it pleases, buy American politicians like you buy products in supermarkets. The lack of regulation allows it to print money to its taste and palate, which makes global finance in a gamble in which only the powerful bankers can win. This is a game without rules, rather, with rules imposed only to promote them, others must go to soothsayers of all kinds in order to survive the catastrophic collapse that inevitably will come when the US evil financial pyramid collapses, that does not fit doubt, go to: http://www.usdebtclock.org: real time. Something not for the faint.
From the four legs that has the Beast (military, economic, industrial and ideological), first she decided to rule the world by controlled chaos. Forgot that only Zeus managed to organize the chaos in order to build the universe, to others is impossible task. She thought the Beast, once razed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran, that engulf Russia and China was puerile task. Grave mistake, untamed Russia and ancient China joined forces to protect themselves. They then released the Iranian dam and went directly to Ukraine, the Russian jugular. They assumed: first Kiev, Crimea then, they forgot the homeland factor. Actual Result, Crimea returned to his mother’s womb, Russia. It availed them nothing the fifth column organized in Russia, nor impose Nazism in Ukraine, now bankrupt, and even availed them nothing overthrow a civilian airliner, crucify children in Slaviansk, razing villages and cities in Donbass, burn alive people from Odessa, and accuse Russia for these acts ; initially they were believed, now almost no one believes them.
Then as a geopolitical weapon declared economic war on the world. Sanctions to Russia and oil below $ 50 a barrel for producers in order to make peoples reveal against their rulers, and thus prevail in the world. Actual result, those attacked organized themselves and the sanctioners were injured; producing nations withstood the onslaught of the Beast and even Iran is ready to increase its exports by one million barrels a day. According to President Putin, “the plots are always possible, but in this case strike the conspirators themselves.”(….)
What is Russia doing to counter or slow down global warming. All these fossil fuel resources are the biggest threat to world peace on a number of levels.
Probably the same as any country (jack ….).Why must people think Russia can do everything alone.Putin doesn’t “walk on water”.He is a “bit” busy right now with other matters.But your request may be on his “to do list” for all we know.
@ All these fossil fuel resources are the biggest threat to world peace on a number of levels.
How things would be if those “fossil fuel resources” turned out not to be “fossil” at all, but a natural product? Or, rather a creation destined to producing energy put at the disposal of Mankind by a benevolent God?
You mean abiotic oil? (Google le)
Who or what is “google le”? I’d suggest avoiding anything google, regardless. Mod ME
Yes.
“How things would be if those “fossil fuel resources” turned out not to be “fossil” at all, but a natural product?
That depends…
If it is being produced as fast or faster than we can use it, we’ll soon so foul the planet we won’t be able to burn any more simply because we’ll all be dead. My suspicion is that it is produced much slower than we’ve been pumping it, and so we’ll catch up, hopefully soon.
The problem is that nobody see what results will be for the world when that Northern passage will become clean form ice. Everybodyès eyes on possible and still not confirmed resources there but in case of such climate change there is 100% sure results when it comes for climate change elsewhere and what it brings along….. Food security anyoneÉ
Entering the climate change fray late in the game, but thought I’d put an oar in the water anyway.
I’m a skeptic on the subject of anthropogenic climate change for a couple of reasons.
The first of these comes from my 1st or 2nd lecture on FEA (Finite Element Analysis) based modeling. Though it was long ago, two messages from the lecturer stuck with me…
1. the software will almost always come up with a credible looking answer, even if it is 100% wrong.
2. complex self-referent systems cannot be modeled in principle, as the starting data required rises to infinity even if the algorithm and computer are idealized.
The example he used for the latter was the impossibility of forecasting the weather more than a day or two out. At the time, this could be attributed to relatively primitive computers, and less than ideal algorithms, but the deal killer issue was data. An ideal algorithm, running on an ideal computer, connected to a 3-dimensional grid of sensors spaced 300mm (12″) apart both vertically and horizontally to the limits of the atmosphere would start deviating from observation at around 2 weeks, and by 4 weeks would be completely de-correlated. Why? Lack of data. The missing data between the sensors, that the algorithm wasn’t accounting for, would destroy the model’s predictive power regardless of the algorithm, or the computing power thrown at it.
To be sure, climate is a much more general case than weather, but the AGW crowd are making extraordinary claims, if not about the climate itself, then certainly about both their ability to predict it decades into the future and to ascribe causation for any changes.
This brings me to the 2nd reason. Extraordinary claims based on controversial premises that place extraordinary political, financial, and social demands for change ought to face extraordinary scrutiny. That those applying some scrutiny are being ridiculed and cast as “nutcases” or even villains, indicates that there is more than a few non-sequiturs lurking in the shadows. Ridicule and ostracism of the skeptical seems the sine qua non of the defense of false narrative. On those grounds alone, I would be pre-disposed to looking long and hard at the evidence.
The world is a complex, self referent system that has seen enormous variations in its surface conditions. It wasn’t very long ago that Hippopotami roamed N. Europe and Siberia (along with many other late-Pleistocene mammals), and hardwood forests grew to the shores of the Arctic Ocean.
No-one would claim that the indistinguishably modern humans who walked the earth at the time were responsible, or that the dramatically warmer climate of that time wasn’t part of a natural cycle. Should we be shocked to find the planet revisiting those conditions? Or the even more recent frozen opposite? I’d say it is almost inevitable that it will go there again and again. With or without us, the planet has its cycles quite independent of us.
Now, if the AGW narrative was concocted as a frantic environmentalist message to get us to stop fouling our nest, one could shrug and accept it as such. It is tragic that humans need to be terrified into doing the right thing, but there it is. My conclusion is a little different… that the environmental messages to date were not enough to get those who gained enormous fortunes from the degradation of the planet to abandon that program unless they were thrown a bone. That bone is the ability to make even more enormous fortunes out of cleaning it up.
It’s now beyond just anthropogenic — the positive feedback mechanisms are in play. Maybe not human extinction, but likely the end of what we call civilization, at least as we know it. And yet humans are still making it even worse. It appears that the human variety of ‘intelligence’ is a self-destructive and fatal flaw of human evolution (perhaps like the yeast in a finite container which keeps growing until is killed by the alcohol it produces).
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14473
Climate Change: Have We Reached the Point of No Return?
Dahr Jamail and Guy McPherson: Many new studies and modeling say reversing climate change is a pipe dream – brace yourself for human extinction – August 16, 2015
[…]
PERIES: Let me start with you. The recent James Hansen report surpasses all previous predictions related to sea level rises. Why is that happening?
JAMAIL: It’s because a phenomena is occurring called abrupt climate change, and it’s actually something I started to really become acutely aware of back in 2013, and became aware of Dr. McPherson and his work and conducted a long interview with him, and wrote a long article for TomDispatch.com called Are we already off the climate precipice?. And you read the article and the answer is clear, yes.
[…]
And I think, to cut to the chase, to kind of put this out there from the start, I think that any ideas of changing the situation are a pipe dream and don’t really show an extent of the knowledge of how far along we already are. And we’re in a position now where it’s kind of brace for impact.
[…]
very interesting, txs for sharing. checking at th emap it seems to cover an area ranging from scandinavia + valtics to Russia’s far east/Alaska