In warmer world, Inuit buy air conditioners

[scandium]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/wl_canada_nm/canada_environment_warming_col;_ylt=AnY9bTf3Q9jAxz 8tptsZLxRvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

OSLO (Reuters) - With signs that the world is warming, even Inuit peoples of the far north are ordering air conditioning.

Better known for building igloos during hunts on the polar ice, Inuit in the village of Kuujjuaq in Quebec, Canada, are installing 10 air conditioners for about 25 office workers.

"These are the times when the far north has to have air conditioners now to function," said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a leading campaigner for the rights of 155,000 Inuit in Canada, Alaska, Russia and Greenland.

"Our Arctic homes are made to be airtight for the cold and do not 'breathe' well in the heat with this warming trend," she said. Temperatures in Kuujjuaq, home to 2,000 people, hit 31 Celsius (88 Fahrenheit) in late July.
88 F is probably a nice cool day to you Southern folk, but having lived in the north (ie: the true north, where nothing grows but moss) that is insane heat - I can remember, as a kid in those climates, wearing gloves and a sweater in June & July (which was the entire summer where I was).

[SUBMAN1]

Quebec humidity is the problem.

It probably feels like 100+

Go to AZ, its just the opposite. I went out into the desert all day in 90 degrees and didn't break a sweat.

[STEED]

We got that problem here in England, humidity is what knocks the heck out of you. But we have another problem as well with more and more people buying fans and air conditioners it's puts a great strain on our electricity, parts of London have had power cuts by the electric company's and we could face black outs on a national scale.

And if that was not bad enough North Sea oil and gas are running low now and we have to import from Europe and all the time the consumer bills are going up and up. I think we are heading for big problems and no one has got any answers.

[Rilder]

Soon people will be colonizing Antartica...

[STEED]

Soon people will be colonizing Antartica...

Sounds good better claim my spot before it fills up. :D

[Takeda Shingen]

This would be the 'scary stuff around the corner'. The Middle East, 'Big Brother' are but phantoms, however, climate change is the real deal.

We have ten years. The clock is ticking.

[SUBMAN1]

Climate change is not all that big yet. What scientist mean by global warming is only 1 to 2 degrees at a time - which can devastate the ice shelfs.

You are just getting lucky with such a nice summer which comes around every 12 years due to the ocean currents. In a couple years you will be saying, remember that good summer we had a couple years back?

One more thing - don't think that global warming means hotter sunny summers. What it really means is more evaporation of the oceans which leads to more cloud cover and that cloud cover will also contribute to warmer temps. Its a big cycle.

-S

[Takeda Shingen]

Climate change is not all that big yet. What scientist mean by global warming is only 1 to 2 degrees at a time - which can devastate the ice shelfs.

Yet. However, your information lacks a critical element. Scientists mean global warming is on a global average of 1 to 2 degrees. The repercussions of this are far greater than melting ice: Desertification, widescale flooding, an increased threat of major storms and hurricanes, larger and more frequent wild fires, a rise in sea level and a wide-spread extinction of various plants and animals.

This is only the beginning.

PS You are correct about the cloud cover, but I do not recall suggesting otherwise.

[Rilder]

This would be the 'scary stuff around the corner'. The Middle East, 'Big Brother' are but phantoms, however, climate change is the real deal.

We have ten years. The clock is ticking.

Considering that in 6 years according the Myan callander the worlds supose to end :p ... il be 22....

[Marcantilan]

There´s not many left after all (if any), maybe the "last of the mayas" would die in 2012.

If you are not a Maya, don´t worry about the Mayan calendar.

[scandium]

Climate change is not all that big yet. What scientist mean by global warming is only 1 to 2 degrees at a time - which can devastate the ice shelfs.
Yet. However, your information lacks a critical element. Scientists mean global warming is on a global average of 1 to 2 degrees. The repercussions of this are far greater than melting ice: Desertification, widescale flooding, an increased threat of major storms and hurricanes, larger and more frequent wild fires, a rise in sea level and a wide-spread extinction of various plants and animals.

This is only the beginning.

PS You are correct about the cloud cover, but I do not recall suggesting otherwise.
I agree with the 10 year figure; that is, we have about 10 years to halt the climate change process before it reaches a "critical point" where we will have two stark choices, and either of which will result in a radical transformation of civilization as we know it.

And, like you say, it is a global average of 1 to 2 degrees, and what that means in reality is that some parts of the world are being subjected to previously unknown heatwaves while others are seeing record cold spells (because the warming effect is not uniform across the globe).

One expert I've seen on the BBC, when asked about solving this problem, put it this way: "don't be under 40".

[Yahoshua]

too late.....I'm 22 years early.

Or something along those lines.....

[waste gate]

One expert I've seen on the BBC, when asked about solving this problem, put it this way: "don't be under 40".

Or else you might believe this!

[Rockstar]

Climate change is not all that big yet. What scientist mean by global warming is only 1 to 2 degrees at a time - which can devastate the ice shelfs.
Yet. However, your information lacks a critical element. Scientists mean global warming is on a global average of 1 to 2 degrees. The repercussions of this are far greater than melting ice: Desertification, widescale flooding, an increased threat of major storms and hurricanes, larger and more frequent wild fires, a rise in sea level and a wide-spread extinction of various plants and animals.

This is only the beginning.

PS You are correct about the cloud cover, but I do not recall suggesting otherwise.
I agree with the 10 year figure; that is, we have about 10 years to halt the climate change process before it reaches a "critical point" where we will have two stark choices, and either of which will result in a radical transformation of civilization as we know it.

And, like you say, it is a global average of 1 to 2 degrees, and what that means in reality is that some parts of the world are being subjected to previously unknown heatwaves while others are seeing record cold spells (because the warming effect is not uniform across the globe).

One expert I've seen on the BBC, when asked about solving this problem, put it this way: "don't be under 40".


Anyone old enough to remember in 1975 the rising concern and the idiotic schemes devised to prevent the coming ice age? Experts said it was on the way and there wasn't anything anyone could do about it. People and 'experts' alike were amazed governments refused to prepare for it. Yes the world was told back then to bundle up or freeze to death!

At the time I lived in Minesota and thought yipeeee ice fishing all year!

[scandium]

Climate change is not all that big yet. What scientist mean by global warming is only 1 to 2 degrees at a time - which can devastate the ice shelfs.
Yet. However, your information lacks a critical element. Scientists mean global warming is on a global average of 1 to 2 degrees. The repercussions of this are far greater than melting ice: Desertification, widescale flooding, an increased threat of major storms and hurricanes, larger and more frequent wild fires, a rise in sea level and a wide-spread extinction of various plants and animals.

This is only the beginning.

PS You are correct about the cloud cover, but I do not recall suggesting otherwise.
I agree with the 10 year figure; that is, we have about 10 years to halt the climate change process before it reaches a "critical point" where we will have two stark choices, and either of which will result in a radical transformation of civilization as we know it.

And, like you say, it is a global average of 1 to 2 degrees, and what that means in reality is that some parts of the world are being subjected to previously unknown heatwaves while others are seeing record cold spells (because the warming effect is not uniform across the globe).

One expert I've seen on the BBC, when asked about solving this problem, put it this way: "don't be under 40".

Anyone old enough to remember in 1975 the rising concern and the idiotic schemes devised to prevent the coming ice age? Experts said it was on the way and there wasn't anything anyone could do about it. People and 'experts' alike were amazed governments refused to prepare for it. Yes the world was told back then to bundle up or freeze to death!

At the time I lived in Minesota and thought yipeeee ice fishing all year!
There is no longer any scientific dispute over climate change or the catastrophic consequences that lay just over the horizon if the process is not halted. The only debate remaining is in precisely how long we have until the critical threshold is passed (the point of no return), and in the details surrounding exactly how events will unfold once we pass that point.

End of the scientific part. The rest lies with the public and policy makers in exactly how we're going to go about stopping this process before its too late - only that debate isn't taking place. And by the time it does it'll probably be too late anyway.

[August]

No dispute? Ha!

All i hear is dispute, from the amount humans actually effect climate change, to whether that effect is retarding or accellerating the present trends, to our (arrogant IMO) belief that we have any realistic capability to slow or prevent warming and cooling cycles that have been going on since the planet developed a crust. We can't even tell for sure that whatever measures we might attempt would make things better or worse.

[scandium]

Re-read what I wrote:

There is no longer any scientific dispute over climate change or the catastrophic consequences that lay just over the horizon if the process is not halted.

The things that are still being debated are those things you mentioned, but I had said as much anyway.

[TteFAboB]

I remember back in school, as a little child already, we were repeatedly told the Amazon jungle would cease to exist by the time we were adults. As we grew up the scientific arguments started becoming more, well, scientific. As a young adult I despered, for years the apocaliptical scenario was painted in front of me, specialists, experts, scientific research and studies.

And here I am, and there is the Amazon. The first casualty of war is the truth, that's what I learned from it.

Keep the material for your grand-children so they don't fall for the next apocaliptical doomed-era. That is, if you have any.

[Takeda Shingen]

A year ago, I was as critical as many of you are now. Since that time, I have discovered a major shift has occured in the scientific community. There is no longer any meaningful debate as to whether global warming is real, and as to whether our industrial activies are greatly responsible. This was enough to turn me to a believer, in a moment of 'holy cow, this stuff is real'-type epiphany.

The vaunted 2005 report summary from the National Academy of Sciences: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

It is the nature of humans and society to avoid and scrutinize serious problems as long as possible. Goodness knows that those problems are frightening enough. It was done with smog, and waterway pollution in the 1960's and 1970's. It was done with child laber in the late 19th and early 20th centurys. However, that window of blissful ignorance eventually has to close, and we are now nearing that point.

Have ye courage? Face the problem. It can be solved.

[Rockstar]

There is no longer any scientific dispute over climate change or the catastrophic consequences that lay just over the horizon if the process is not halted. The only debate remaining is in precisely how long we have until the critical threshold is passed (the point of no return), and in the details surrounding exactly how events will unfold once we pass that point.

End of the scientific part. The rest lies with the public and policy makers in exactly how we're going to go about stopping this process before its too late - only that debate isn't taking place. And by the time it does it'll probably be too late anyway.

Have ye courage? Face the problem. It can be solved.

LOL that sounds familiar, the same was said about the ice age that lay right around the corner in '75'. The 'experts' even offered to develope a plan to blanket the polar ice cap with soot and ash to melt it and prevent the coming catostrophy. brrrrrrr

Give it another 20 years and we'll talking about it again.

[Rockstar]

neat little photo http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

Also the article I linked in an earlier topic

The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

[end]

[August]

LOL that sounds familiar, the same was said about the ice age that lay right around the corner in '75'. The 'experts' even offered to develope a plan to blanket the polar ice cap with soot and ash to melt it and prevent the coming catostrophy. brrrrrrr .

I agree. Can you imagine how bad global warming would be today if they had actually carried out that hair brained scheme?

[Takeda Shingen]

The MCP (Medieval Cold Period, also known as the 'Little Ice Age') ran from the early 14th Century through the mid-19th. It did not, as your article suggests, begin in the 17th century.

Aside, you may ridicule and scoff at me as you like; I remain indifferent. For all of our sakes, I hope that you are correct. In maintaining optimism, Rockstar, I should do well to place my faith in you, for everything that I see indicates otherwise.

Enjoy.

[RickC Sniper]

Two years ago I scoffed at global warming alarmists. The climate on earth has always been cyclical, and I believed that's what was happening.

I have changed my mind in the last 12 months or so. We indeed are headed to a critical threshhold but whether that will come in ten years or 25 I do not know. I do know we seem to be doing nothing about it.