The Artic, the Navys new battlefield!!

[Navy1960]

The Navy will soon have a new battlefield on its hands. Climate changes near the North Pole have been dramatic. The amount of summertime ice has decreased by half over the past 50 years. The ice is also 50 percent thinner, resulting in greater seasonal variations.

“The Arctic is changing, and it is changing rapidly,” said Rear Adm. David Titley, oceanographer of the Navy. “If the Navy does not start looking at this today … we could wake up in seven or eight years and find ourselves way behind the power curve.”
Navy: Time is now to prepare for ice-free Arctic - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

I'm going to reserve comment on this issue only because it it's hard to know what to think on this one. While it's prudent to cover open ocean , especially in the Artic , I have to wonder how much of this is motivated by the new "clean and green" science push.

 

[Xenophon]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Xenophon]

It appears they are interested because the Russians would try to interfere with it.

I doubt you will see commercial traffic along such a dangerous waterway.

There is a strong belief that the artic is swimming in oil just off those shores, another reason the russians would want it all.

 

[Navy1960]

It appears they are interested because the Russians would try to interfere with it.

I doubt you will see commercial traffic along such a dangerous waterway.

There is a strong belief that the artic is swimming in oil just off those shores, another reason the russians would want it all.

I'm aware there is High interest in the region because of potential for oil and natural gas especially on the part of the Russians. The US Navy and the Russian Navy though have been operating in that region for years and are unlikely to stop so the nature of the article seems to forget that fact. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that commercial traffic would use the region on a consistant basis as you pointed out it is highly unstable.

 

[rightwinger]

The Navy will soon have a new battlefield on its hands. Climate changes near the North Pole have been dramatic. The amount of summertime ice has decreased by half over the past 50 years. The ice is also 50 percent thinner, resulting in greater seasonal variations.

“The Arctic is changing, and it is changing rapidly,” said Rear Adm. David Titley, oceanographer of the Navy. “If the Navy does not start looking at this today … we could wake up in seven or eight years and find ourselves way behind the power curve.”
Navy: Time is now to prepare for ice-free Arctic - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

I'm going to reserve comment on this issue only because it it's hard to know what to think on this one. While it's prudent to cover open ocean , especially in the Artic , I have to wonder how much of this is motivated by the new "clean and green" science push.

Obviously the Navy is buying into the global warming myth.

They wouldn't be doing this if Bush were still there. They would be ordered to report the caps are still frozen

 

[Samson]

All the military serives should ask for complete budget over-hauls and massive budget increases due to climate change.

As Professional Beaurocrats, Sec. of the Navy shouldn't let this opportunity pass to defend the nation from sea-bourne threats originating from Greenland or Kamachuka!!!!!

Am I the only one here that's played Risk?

 

[Navy1960]

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.

 

[bodecea]

The Navy will soon have a new battlefield on its hands. Climate changes near the North Pole have been dramatic. The amount of summertime ice has decreased by half over the past 50 years. The ice is also 50 percent thinner, resulting in greater seasonal variations.

“The Arctic is changing, and it is changing rapidly,” said Rear Adm. David Titley, oceanographer of the Navy. “If the Navy does not start looking at this today … we could wake up in seven or eight years and find ourselves way behind the power curve.”
Navy: Time is now to prepare for ice-free Arctic - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

I'm going to reserve comment on this issue only because it it's hard to know what to think on this one. While it's prudent to cover open ocean , especially in the Artic , I have to wonder how much of this is motivated by the new "clean and green" science push.

Um, we've been playing cat and mouse with the Soviets in the Arctic as long as I can remember.

 

[bodecea]

All the military serives should ask for complete budget over-hauls and massive budget increases due to climate change.

As Professional Beaurocrats, Sec. of the Navy shouldn't let this opportunity pass to defend the nation from sea-bourne threats originating from Greenland or Kamachuka!!!!!

Am I the only one here that's played Risk?

Loved Risk myself.

 

[sherp]

It appears they are interested because the Russians would try to interfere with it.

I doubt you will see commercial traffic along such a dangerous waterway.

There is a strong belief that the artic is swimming in oil just off those shores, another reason the russians would want it all.

I'm aware there is High interest in the region because of potential for oil and natural gas especially on the part of the Russians. The US Navy and the Russian Navy though have been operating in that region for years and are unlikely to stop so the nature of the article seems to forget that fact. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that commercial traffic would use the region on a consistant basis as you pointed out it is highly unstable.

We have just found an oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico, 10 miles off our shores equal to more then all the oil in the ME. We have enough oil in our Tar Shade fields in Colorado and Wyoming larger then the ME and I doubt we will be going to the Artic for oil. The Russians have their own oil too. They actually are convinced that it is a renewable resource and that Billions upon Billions of plants and animals did not march into the sea or desert to compact below ground to make oil. We also have gas and coal to last thousands of years for energy. In any event , in this day and age we should be using Nuclear Reactors for electricity and not Horse and Buggy stuff like Windmills.

 

[Samson]

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.

......
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.

Well, its nice that I'm paying for these guys to get together in Cape Cod for a couple of days to discuss "military security equities in the Arctic," but when will they get together to discuss more important matters like the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin, or causes of "climate change."

Regardless of the topic, I'm confident the conclusion will be the same: the Navy will need to increase its budget for ....blah, blah, blah reason.

 

[sherp]

It appears they are interested because the Russians would try to interfere with it.

I doubt you will see commercial traffic along such a dangerous waterway.

There is a strong belief that the artic is swimming in oil just off those shores, another reason the russians would want it all.

I'm aware there is High interest in the region because of potential for oil and natural gas especially on the part of the Russians. The US Navy and the Russian Navy though have been operating in that region for years and are unlikely to stop so the nature of the article seems to forget that fact. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that commercial traffic would use the region on a consistant basis as you pointed out it is highly unstable.

We have just found an oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico, 10 miles off our shores equal to more then all the oil in the ME. We have enough oil in our Tar Shade fields in Colorado and Wyoming larger then the ME and I doubt we will be going to the Artic for oil. The Russians have their own oil too. They actually are convinced that it is a renewable resource and that Billions upon Billions of plants and animals did not march into the sea or desert to compact below ground to make oil. We also have enough gas and coal in the Contential USA to last thousands of years for energy. In any event , in this day and age we should be using Nuclear Reactors for electricity and not Horse and Buggy stuff like Windmills.

 

[Navy1960]

The Navy will soon have a new battlefield on its hands. Climate changes near the North Pole have been dramatic. The amount of summertime ice has decreased by half over the past 50 years. The ice is also 50 percent thinner, resulting in greater seasonal variations.

“The Arctic is changing, and it is changing rapidly,” said Rear Adm. David Titley, oceanographer of the Navy. “If the Navy does not start looking at this today … we could wake up in seven or eight years and find ourselves way behind the power curve.”
Navy: Time is now to prepare for ice-free Arctic - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

I'm going to reserve comment on this issue only because it it's hard to know what to think on this one. While it's prudent to cover open ocean , especially in the Artic , I have to wonder how much of this is motivated by the new "clean and green" science push.

Um, we've been playing cat and mouse with the Soviets in the Arctic as long as I can remember.

Thats true and that is why I mentioned it in another post.

 

[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

 

[Navy1960]

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.

......
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.

Well, its nice that I'm paying for these guys to get together in Cape Cod for a couple of days to discuss "military security equities in the Arctic," but when will they get together to discuss more important matters like the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin, or causes of "climate change."

Regardless of the topic, I'm confident the conclusion will be the same: the Navy will need to increase its budget for ....blah, blah, blah reason.

Laughs* and takes note of the reasoning, as I am sure that your not the first one thats considered it and am sure some are at this very moment within DoD thinking just that.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Yeah, I'm sure the melting will just stop in its tracks once it spots the sign "You are now entering the United States."

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

 

[MaggieMae]

It appears they are interested because the Russians would try to interfere with it.

I doubt you will see commercial traffic along such a dangerous waterway.

There is a strong belief that the artic is swimming in oil just off those shores, another reason the russians would want it all.

I'm aware there is High interest in the region because of potential for oil and natural gas especially on the part of the Russians. The US Navy and the Russian Navy though have been operating in that region for years and are unlikely to stop so the nature of the article seems to forget that fact. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that commercial traffic would use the region on a consistant basis as you pointed out it is highly unstable.

We have just found an oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico, 10 miles off our shores equal to more then all the oil in the ME. We have enough oil in our Tar Shade fields in Colorado and Wyoming larger then the ME and I doubt we will be going to the Artic for oil. The Russians have their own oil too. They actually are convinced that it is a renewable resource and that Billions upon Billions of plants and animals did not march into the sea or desert to compact below ground to make oil. We also have gas and coal to last thousands of years for energy. In any event , in this day and age we should be using Nuclear Reactors for electricity and not Horse and Buggy stuff like Windmills.

The tiny state of Vermont has a nuclear reactor that is constantly doing funny stuff and scaring the shit out of nearby residents. Every day it gets shut down by the NRC for some reason. And people want hundreds more of these? That said, if we're going to continue to use more nuclear, or even wind, the first step necessarily will be repair and/or upgrading of the existing grid, all across the country.

The U. S. electric grid: will it be our undoing? | Energy Bulletin