Expedition To Study Global Warming Put On Hold Because Of TOO MUCH ICE

[Anonymous]

This was several months ago, but I thought it's funny as hell. I wonder as world leaders waste heaps of CO2 emissions meeting in Paris this will be mentioned. Not likely, because slowing down our economies with carbon taxes/cap and trade and giving $$ to corrupt third world leaders is what's scripted.

An expedition to study the effects of global warming was put on hold Wednesday. The reason? Too much ice.



The CCGS Amundsen, a Medium Arctic icebreaker and Arctic research vessel operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, was to travel throughout Hudson Bay, a body of water in northeastern Canada, but was rerouted to help ships who were stuck in the icy water.



A Coast Guard officer said the conditions were the "worst he's seen in 20 years," reports CBC news.



"Obviously it has a large impact on us," says Martin Fortier, executive director of ArcticNet, which coordinates research on the vessel. "It's a frustrating situation."



ArcticNet is a network of scientists who study "the impacts of climate change and modernization in the coastal Canadian Arctic."



The vessel is one of only two icebreakers in the Arctic, leaving the ship obligated to reroute their travel plans to help break ice for resupply ships.



Johnny Leclair, an assistant commissioner for the Coast Guard, said there should be two more icebreakers headed to the Arctic in the next week, which would free up their ship to continue on their originally planned trip.



Fortier is hopeful the season will still be productive.



"The people planning the large expeditions have a plan B," Fortier said. "We have already curtailed or either moved to a later date some of the stations and some of the areas we were suppose to sample."



The ship even has a blog post that it has been updating. Here is an excerpt:



"Meanwhile, we've run into ice and out of darkness. During our night of action, the sun didn't set, so only the face of my watch was there to tell me that it was 3 AM as we were tying down incubators. At five thirty in the morning, as the sun rose — or, rather, got a bit brighter in the sky — filling the world with a deep pink, and the waves turned glassy and viscous and bright, our fingers finally fell numb and our setup was finally done, just in time for a quick nap before breakfast. Tonight, likely, well see the stuck ships."

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/22/expedition-to-study-global-warming-put-on-hold-because-of-too-much-ice/">http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/22/exped ... -much-ice/">http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/22/expedition-to-study-global-warming-put-on-hold-because-of-too-much-ice/

[Anonymous]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/12316426_908263152598971_452842811757130059_n.jpg?oh=01131497775ed85dda74c34be18e0faf&oe=56E44E12">

[Anonymous]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlp1/v/t1.0-9/12249884_906290779462875_4947693008475841985_n.jpg?oh=517b1f58698fc70ccdba72f05b4fa58a&oe=56EE0A78">

[@realAzhyaAryola]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/12316426_908263152598971_452842811757130059_n.jpg?oh=01131497775ed85dda74c34be18e0faf&oe=56E44E12">

http://americannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/110317_obama_laugh_ap_283_regular.jpg">

[Anonymous]

^That was not an option AA. The correct answer is Mr Brad Wall on the right.

[@realAzhyaAryola]

ac_toofunny I know, Shen. I just wanted to add a laughing image of Obummer.

[Anonymous]

ac_toofunny I know, Shen. I just wanted to add a laughing image of Obummer.

If he's laughing, he must be about to raise taxes.

[Anonymous]

I believe the climate is likely changing and man is at least partially responsible. But these international meetings are a waste of money. Agreements to cut emissions will not stop climate change. They will make life more expensive for developed nations. Any real solutions to deal with climate change are not even being discussed. It's a shame since they are not only effective but much cheaper.

[Anonymous]

I believe the climate is likely changing and man is at least partially responsible. But these international meetings are a waste of money. Agreements to cut emissions will not stop climate change. They will make life more expensive for developed nations. Any real solutions to deal with climate change are not even being discussed. It's a shame since they are not only effective but much cheaper.

What solutions do you mean because I don't like the idea of a carbon tax either..



We've had enough tax increases recently.

[Anonymous]

I believe the climate is likely changing and man is at least partially responsible. But these international meetings are a waste of money. Agreements to cut emissions will not stop climate change. They will make life more expensive for developed nations. Any real solutions to deal with climate change are not even being discussed. It's a shame since they are not only effective but much cheaper.

What solutions do you mean because I don't like the idea of a carbon tax either..



We've had enough tax increases recently.

Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic about global warming, we are in danger of implementing a cure that is more costly than the original affliction: economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures.



If an agreement at Paris is reached with anything but global emissions trading, it will not only be almost inconsequential for the climate, but it will also constitute a poor use of resources. The cost of such a pact, just for the US, would be higher than the cost of solving the single most pressing global problem - providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation.



ince the inhabitants of the third world are likely to be much richer in the future, and since the return on investments in developing countries is much higher than those in global warming (about 16% to 2%), the question really boils down to: do we want to help better-off inhabitants in the third world 100 years from now a little, or do we want to help poorer inhabitants in the present third world much more?



To give an indication of the size of the problem, the Kyoto protocol is likely to cost at least $150bn a year, possibly much more. Unicef estimates that just $70-80bn a year could give all third world inhabitants access to the basics, such as health, education, water and sanitation. More important still is that if we could muster such a massive investment in the present-day developing countries, this would also put them in a much better future position, in terms of resources and infrastructure, from which to manage a future global warming.



We should be more open to other techno-fixes (so-called geo-engineering). These range from fertilising the ocean (making more algae bind carbon when they die and fall to the ocean floor) and putting sulphur particles into the stratosphere (cooling the earth) to capturing carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use and returning it to storage in geological formations. All much cheaper than cutting emissions and deliver real results faster,

[Anonymous]

I believe the climate is likely changing and man is at least partially responsible. But these international meetings are a waste of money. Agreements to cut emissions will not stop climate change. They will make life more expensive for developed nations. Any real solutions to deal with climate change are not even being discussed. It's a shame since they are not only effective but much cheaper.

What solutions do you mean because I don't like the idea of a carbon tax either..



We've had enough tax increases recently.

Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic about global warming, we are in danger of implementing a cure that is more costly than the original affliction: economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures.



If an agreement at Paris is reached with anything but global emissions trading, it will not only be almost inconsequential for the climate, but it will also constitute a poor use of resources. The cost of such a pact, just for the US, would be higher than the cost of solving the single most pressing global problem - providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation.



ince the inhabitants of the third world are likely to be much richer in the future, and since the return on investments in developing countries is much higher than those in global warming (about 16% to 2%), the question really boils down to: do we want to help better-off inhabitants in the third world 100 years from now a little, or do we want to help poorer inhabitants in the present third world much more?



To give an indication of the size of the problem, the Kyoto protocol is likely to cost at least $150bn a year, possibly much more. Unicef estimates that just $70-80bn a year could give all third world inhabitants access to the basics, such as health, education, water and sanitation. More important still is that if we could muster such a massive investment in the present-day developing countries, this would also put them in a much better future position, in terms of resources and infrastructure, from which to manage a future global warming.



We should be more open to other techno-fixes (so-called geo-engineering). These range from fertilising the ocean (making more algae bind carbon when they die and fall to the ocean floor) and putting sulphur particles into the stratosphere (cooling the earth) to capturing carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use and returning it to storage in geological formations. All much cheaper than cutting emissions and deliver real results faster,

That's a lot of information to take in..



I'm glad there are other options than more taxes..



But, I don't have much faith governments will pursue them instead of raising taxes.

[Anonymous]

I believe the climate is likely changing and man is at least partially responsible. But these international meetings are a waste of money. Agreements to cut emissions will not stop climate change. They will make life more expensive for developed nations. Any real solutions to deal with climate change are not even being discussed. It's a shame since they are not only effective but much cheaper.

What solutions do you mean because I don't like the idea of a carbon tax either..



We've had enough tax increases recently.

Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic about global warming, we are in danger of implementing a cure that is more costly than the original affliction: economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures.



If an agreement at Paris is reached with anything but global emissions trading, it will not only be almost inconsequential for the climate, but it will also constitute a poor use of resources. The cost of such a pact, just for the US, would be higher than the cost of solving the single most pressing global problem - providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation.



ince the inhabitants of the third world are likely to be much richer in the future, and since the return on investments in developing countries is much higher than those in global warming (about 16% to 2%), the question really boils down to: do we want to help better-off inhabitants in the third world 100 years from now a little, or do we want to help poorer inhabitants in the present third world much more?



To give an indication of the size of the problem, the Kyoto protocol is likely to cost at least $150bn a year, possibly much more. Unicef estimates that just $70-80bn a year could give all third world inhabitants access to the basics, such as health, education, water and sanitation. More important still is that if we could muster such a massive investment in the present-day developing countries, this would also put them in a much better future position, in terms of resources and infrastructure, from which to manage a future global warming.



We should be more open to other techno-fixes (so-called geo-engineering). These range from fertilising the ocean (making more algae bind carbon when they die and fall to the ocean floor) and putting sulphur particles into the stratosphere (cooling the earth) to capturing carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use and returning it to storage in geological formations. All much cheaper than cutting emissions and deliver real results faster,

Based US government reports, SEPP(Science and Environmental Policy Project) calculated that from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amount to more than $165 Billion. World wide it is a $1.5 trillion industry or about $4 billion/day with very little to show for it.



I knew climate change is low priority globally, but it seems even here in Canada it is too.

Climate change a low priority for most Canadians: Ipsos poll

http://globalnews.ca/news/2366032/climate-change-a-low-priority-for-most-canadians-poll/">http://globalnews.ca/news/2366032/clima ... ians-poll/">http://globalnews.ca/news/2366032/climate-change-a-low-priority-for-most-canadians-poll/



http://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/raw_19fn_2015-11-26-climate-change-1.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&strip=all">

[Anonymous]

I believe the climate is likely changing and man is at least partially responsible. But these international meetings are a waste of money. Agreements to cut emissions will not stop climate change. They will make life more expensive for developed nations. Any real solutions to deal with climate change are not even being discussed. It's a shame since they are not only effective but much cheaper.

What solutions do you mean because I don't like the idea of a carbon tax either..



We've had enough tax increases recently.

Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic about global warming, we are in danger of implementing a cure that is more costly than the original affliction: economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures.



If an agreement at Paris is reached with anything but global emissions trading, it will not only be almost inconsequential for the climate, but it will also constitute a poor use of resources. The cost of such a pact, just for the US, would be higher than the cost of solving the single most pressing global problem - providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation.



ince the inhabitants of the third world are likely to be much richer in the future, and since the return on investments in developing countries is much higher than those in global warming (about 16% to 2%), the question really boils down to: do we want to help better-off inhabitants in the third world 100 years from now a little, or do we want to help poorer inhabitants in the present third world much more?



To give an indication of the size of the problem, the Kyoto protocol is likely to cost at least $150bn a year, possibly much more. Unicef estimates that just $70-80bn a year could give all third world inhabitants access to the basics, such as health, education, water and sanitation. More important still is that if we could muster such a massive investment in the present-day developing countries, this would also put them in a much better future position, in terms of resources and infrastructure, from which to manage a future global warming.



We should be more open to other techno-fixes (so-called geo-engineering). These range from fertilising the ocean (making more algae bind carbon when they die and fall to the ocean floor) and putting sulphur particles into the stratosphere (cooling the earth) to capturing carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use and returning it to storage in geological formations. All much cheaper than cutting emissions and deliver real results faster,

Based US government reports, SEPP(Science and Environmental Policy Project) calculated that from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amount to more than $165 Billion. World wide it is a $1.5 trillion industry or about $4 billion/day with very little to show for it.



I knew climate change is low priority globally, but it seems even here in Canada it is too.

Climate change a low priority for most Canadians: Ipsos poll

http://globalnews.ca/news/2366032/climate-change-a-low-priority-for-most-canadians-poll/">http://globalnews.ca/news/2366032/clima ... ians-poll/">http://globalnews.ca/news/2366032/climate-change-a-low-priority-for-most-canadians-poll/



http://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/raw_19fn_2015-11-26-climate-change-1.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&strip=all">

The top three on that list would also be my top three, but maybe not in that order.