The Artic, the Navys new battlefield!!

[Care4all]

The two-day conference, focused specifically on military security equities in the Arctic, was sponsored by the International Law Department of the Naval War College and the Marine Policy Center at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Participants included military, government and academic experts from nearly a dozen interested nations.

Holding a doctorate in meteorology and oceanography and serving as the senior oceanographer in the Navy, Titley was a logical choice to head Task Force Climate Change, established by the chief of naval operations in May of 2009. Since the Arctic climate is changing faster than other region of the globe, the task force is initially charged with developing a roadmap to guide Navy policy, strategy and investments related to the Arctic.

Titley pointed out that the tenants of the Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, what he referred to as "the U.S. Navy's foundation strategy document," apply equally in the Arctic as in other regions of the globe. He specifically mentioned the requirements for naval presence in the Arctic, maritime security in partnership with the U.S. Coast Guard, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and deterrence.

"Deterrence is letting other nations know that we are up there, that we are an Arctic nation, and that we have equities," he explained.

Titley mentioned that human access to the Arctic is increasing due to the reduction of the sea ice, and that access will likely increase in the future driven by the possibility of natural resource extraction, including oil, natural gas, and minerals; significant time and fuel savings from transoceanic shipping opportunities; and increased commercial fishing potential due to the northward migration of some ecosystems.
Conference Addresses Navy's Role in a Changing Arctic

WASHINGTON, July 31, 2009 – Rapidly diminishing sea ice, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, increased storm severity -- all are possible consequences of a climate that mounting evidence suggests is changing significantly.

As the scientific community works to understand the changing climate, the chief of naval operations has created a task force, headed by Rear Adm. David Titley, the Navy's senior oceanographer, to better understand and evaluate its implications for maritime security.

“Task Force Climate Change was initiated … to assess the Navy’s preparedness to respond to emerging requirements, and to develop a science-based timeline for future Navy actions regarding climate change,” Titley explained in a July 28 interview on Pentagon Web Radio’s audio webcast “Armed with Science: Research and Applications for the Modern Military.”

Defense.gov News Article: Navy Task Force Assesses Changing Climate

So basically what your saying is that the policy now relfects the direction of CIC rightwing as it did during the last Administration. I did take note that the Navy has taken no stance to my knowledge on the causes of "climate change" at least according to my reading.

Climate change IS HAPPENING and the artic glaciers are disappearing/melting...to me those are FACTS....whether this comes from natural occurrences from our relationship with the sun, or it is all from man made pollution, or it is a combination of the two, is where the global warming/climate change debate lies....

but as far as the Arctic being traversal...i saw a Discovery channel special that said most all commercial ships that would normally cross the atlantic, taking the arctic route would SHORTEN their travel substantially and there are plans for it to be a huge traffic highway for commercial ships in the future....and that we not only have disagreements with Russia on this, but some dispute with canada as well.... this was over a year ago...

care

Care, you know that being the case then the debate is NOT Settled as to the cause and lets suppose for a moment that it is a natural occurrence, then all of the efforts to change the habits of "man made" contributions to climate change are rendered mute. While I do believe its prudent to be a good steward of the environment , in terms of pollution etc. The so called settled science is not settled at all. So as the debate rages it should prove interesting where it goes.

If the Artic Sea Ice trends the way as it seems to be, then there is no dount that many will flock to exploit the resources in that region. Russia from my understanding has made it pretty clear as to their intentions. I am sure it will also lure commercial fishing to the region as well. Although given that the passage route will be shorter thats true, I am not so convinced that commercial shipping will flock to use it on a regular basis just yet. As has been pointed out though, by myself and others here, the US Navy and Russia have been in that region for years, and the article seems to imply that its something new for the US Navy when it clearly is not. The USS Nautilus comes to mind or perhaps Adm. Byrd going a little back from there.

I didn't say the science was settled on global warming/climate change? I said it was unsettled??

My point was meant to be...the arctic could be ice free enough in the near future to change our travel routes by water, fairly drastically....THAT is the FACT.

And since this is the case, then OF COURSE our navy should be involved.

On another note....I personally believe we have ALREADY tipped the scale....and warming, (then eventually... freezing) will come about and the money we spend on it should be on relocating coastal cities before the flooding from the warming or rethinking our plan for them, planning and securing new shipping routes in the Arctic and how this will affect our big ports once used for most shipments that will no longer be used, or figuring out how to convert salt water to fresh water CHEAPLY to combat the droughts to come from it, and things like that...

care

 

[Navy1960]

From the video, it looks like the area bordering Siberia is where it will be ice free, not the US, Canadia or Iceland side.

Our Russian freinds would be the ones most effected by it.

What I find interesting on this , is that appears that it is not unexpected. The Navy has for years operated in the Aritc anyway , so I'm trying to understand if the articles implied premise is that the Navy is making a commitment because of "global warming" or as the new term these days " climate change". We have all no doubt seen how good we are at making predictions on the weather lately.

Maybe you should stop now, since this has the potential of being a HUGE dilemma for you--should I support the US Navy or continue to despise any effort in dealing with global warming?

Not a delima at all Maggie , I stand on a firm foundation with my postion as I have on a consistant basis made the case that mans contribution to global warming is non-existant and efforts to legislate changes in mans behavior when it comes to that are nothing more than a marketing trick and have little if anything to do with actually being a good steward of the environment. In fact Maggie , in all the debates I have had on the subject and there have been many, I have always been a big fan of using technologies that not only end our dependence on foreign oil but also am of the opnion that in doing so these technologies can be implemented in an environmentally sensitive manner. Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, domestic natural gas, clean coal, and domestic oil production, I'm for all those and and am of the opinion that each of them can be done safely, and by those who are good stweards of the environment. Where I generally part company with the man made global warming crowd is this need to regulate the behavior of the individual though negative means. In other words, THIS IS BAD, THIS IS GOOD! I tend to have a little more faith that given the chance we as a nation can do both is all Maggie. The US Navy is making a claim that rising temps. are making the sea lanes in the Artic passble, so be it. They did not make reference as to it being man caused or natural caused. I tend to believe that it is a natural cause and therefor regulating the habits of man in terms of lowering global temps is a fallacy. What I do think is prudent is to be a good steward of the environment and thats knowing that while your using it's resources you do your best not to cause harm.

 

[Navy1960]

Climate change IS HAPPENING and the artic glaciers are disappearing/melting...to me those are FACTS....whether this comes from natural occurrences from our relationship with the sun, or it is all from man made pollution, or it is a combination of the two, is where the global warming/climate change debate lies....

but as far as the Arctic being traversal...i saw a Discovery channel special that said most all commercial ships that would normally cross the atlantic, taking the arctic route would SHORTEN their travel substantially and there are plans for it to be a huge traffic highway for commercial ships in the future....and that we not only have disagreements with Russia on this, but some dispute with canada as well.... this was over a year ago...

care

Care, you know that being the case then the debate is NOT Settled as to the cause and lets suppose for a moment that it is a natural occurrence, then all of the efforts to change the habits of "man made" contributions to climate change are rendered mute. While I do believe its prudent to be a good steward of the environment , in terms of pollution etc. The so called settled science is not settled at all. So as the debate rages it should prove interesting where it goes.

If the Artic Sea Ice trends the way as it seems to be, then there is no dount that many will flock to exploit the resources in that region. Russia from my understanding has made it pretty clear as to their intentions. I am sure it will also lure commercial fishing to the region as well. Although given that the passage route will be shorter thats true, I am not so convinced that commercial shipping will flock to use it on a regular basis just yet. As has been pointed out though, by myself and others here, the US Navy and Russia have been in that region for years, and the article seems to imply that its something new for the US Navy when it clearly is not. The USS Nautilus comes to mind or perhaps Adm. Byrd going a little back from there.

I didn't say the science was settled on global warming/climate change? I said it was unsettled??

My point was meant to be...the arctic could be ice free enough in the near future to change our travel routes by water, fairly drastically....THAT is the FACT.

And since this is the case, then OF COURSE our navy should be involved.

On another note....I personally believe we have ALREADY tipped the scale....and warming, (then eventually... freezing) will come about and the money we spend on it should be on relocating coastal cities before the flooding from the warming or rethinking our plan for them, planning and securing new shipping routes in the Arctic and how this will affect our big ports once used for most shipments that will no longer be used, or figuring out how to convert salt water to fresh water CHEAPLY to combat the droughts to come from it, and things like that...

care

Care, where in my post did I say that you said that? What I was pointing out that if it's natural then it is NOT SETTLED. Had I wanted to say you said it, I would have made that statement. I think it's pretty clear that the US Navy is involved Care and was trying to point out the article seemed to imply that our involvement was a new thing in those waters when it is no where near new. On the Sea Water conversion, I am a big fan of that. The only issue you have with it in a few communites besides the cost is the environmental lobby is opposed to it.

 

[Care4all]

Care, you know that being the case then the debate is NOT Settled as to the cause and lets suppose for a moment that it is a natural occurrence, then all of the efforts to change the habits of "man made" contributions to climate change are rendered mute. While I do believe its prudent to be a good steward of the environment , in terms of pollution etc. The so called settled science is not settled at all. So as the debate rages it should prove interesting where it goes.

If the Artic Sea Ice trends the way as it seems to be, then there is no dount that many will flock to exploit the resources in that region. Russia from my understanding has made it pretty clear as to their intentions. I am sure it will also lure commercial fishing to the region as well. Although given that the passage route will be shorter thats true, I am not so convinced that commercial shipping will flock to use it on a regular basis just yet. As has been pointed out though, by myself and others here, the US Navy and Russia have been in that region for years, and the article seems to imply that its something new for the US Navy when it clearly is not. The USS Nautilus comes to mind or perhaps Adm. Byrd going a little back from there.

I didn't say the science was settled on global warming/climate change? I said it was unsettled??

My point was meant to be...the arctic could be ice free enough in the near future to change our travel routes by water, fairly drastically....THAT is the FACT.

And since this is the case, then OF COURSE our navy should be involved.

On another note....I personally believe we have ALREADY tipped the scale....and warming, (then eventually... freezing) will come about and the money we spend on it should be on relocating coastal cities before the flooding from the warming or rethinking our plan for them, planning and securing new shipping routes in the Arctic and how this will affect our big ports once used for most shipments that will no longer be used, or figuring out how to convert salt water to fresh water CHEAPLY to combat the droughts to come from it, and things like that...

care

Care, where in my post did I say that you said that? What I was pointing out that if it's natural then it is NOT SETTLED. Had I wanted to say you said it, I would have made that statement. I think it's pretty clear that the US Navy is involved Care and was trying to point out the article seemed to imply that our involvement was a new thing in those waters when it is no where near new. On the Sea Water conversion, I am a big fan of that. The only issue you have with it in a few communites besides the cost is the environmental lobby is opposed to it.

the enviro groups are against it because of the abundance of oil or dirty fossil fuels needed to produce it....not against the idea of converting salt water to potable water..this is one of the reasons it costs so much to make...we need a cheaper, cleaner, easier and less complicated way to do the conversion in to drinking water...

 

[Navy1960]

I didn't say the science was settled on global warming/climate change? I said it was unsettled??

My point was meant to be...the arctic could be ice free enough in the near future to change our travel routes by water, fairly drastically....THAT is the FACT.

And since this is the case, then OF COURSE our navy should be involved.

On another note....I personally believe we have ALREADY tipped the scale....and warming, (then eventually... freezing) will come about and the money we spend on it should be on relocating coastal cities before the flooding from the warming or rethinking our plan for them, planning and securing new shipping routes in the Arctic and how this will affect our big ports once used for most shipments that will no longer be used, or figuring out how to convert salt water to fresh water CHEAPLY to combat the droughts to come from it, and things like that...

care

Care, where in my post did I say that you said that? What I was pointing out that if it's natural then it is NOT SETTLED. Had I wanted to say you said it, I would have made that statement. I think it's pretty clear that the US Navy is involved Care and was trying to point out the article seemed to imply that our involvement was a new thing in those waters when it is no where near new. On the Sea Water conversion, I am a big fan of that. The only issue you have with it in a few communites besides the cost is the environmental lobby is opposed to it.

the enviro groups are against it because of the abundance of oil or dirty fossil fuels needed to produce it....not against the idea of converting salt water to potable water..this is one of the reasons it costs so much to make...we need a cheaper, cleaner, easier and less complicated way to do the conversion in to drinking water...

You know Care this is why as I posted to Maggie I am in favor of ALL solutions because I think that given the chance that people can apply environmentally sensitive solutions to problems like this. Takes the following for example....

You would imagine that a desert country like Saudi Arabia would have to rely a lot on desalination for a good part of the fresh water it uses. For example, a previous Green Prophet article told about the Kingdom building what they say is the world’s largest desalination plant in the Al Jubail Industrial Zone on the shores of the Persian Gulf.

Up to now, the more than 28 desalination plants scattered around the Kingdom have had to rely of fossil fuel, most notably fuel oil, to provide to power to run the equipment used to extract salt and other minerals from sea water.

Much of this may be changing, however, as Saudi Arabia is now interested in using solar energy to provide the power needed, instead of oil. According to an article on the UAE Top News media site, the Kingdom is now planning to build solar energy based desalination plants in order to save on energy costs, as well as be in tune with new environmental polices. This might be to secure membership in the International Renewable Energy Agency, otherwise known as IRENA.
Saudi Arabia to Replace Oil with Sun Power for Desalination Plants | Green Prophet

It's not like places like San Diego and Fl. and Tx. are lacking in sunshine. Here is another suggestion, the US Navy has operated small Nuclear Reactors for years as a method of propulsion. Imagine taking this safe and clean method of power and applying it to power generation for salt water desalination ...

 

[Xenophon]

BTW, for those who think this proves 'Global Warming', a story.

A few centuries ago, many in Europe believed you could sail to the orient by sailing first north and then east, the North East passage was an old story that had made it to Europe.

The most famous attempt to find it was made by a man named Willaim Barents, a Dutch Navigator who tried it three times, the fianal attempt killed him, in 1596.

The Ice level at the time was LESS then it is today.

 

[MaggieMae]

BTW, for those who think this proves 'Global Warming', a story.

A few centuries ago, many in Europe believed you could sail to the orient by sailing first north and then east, the North East passage was an old story that had made it to Europe.

The most famous attempt to find it was made by a man named Willaim Barents, a Dutch Navigator who tried it three times, the fianal attempt killed him, in 1596.

The Ice level at the time was LESS then it is today.

So which stone tablet produced THAT evidence?