PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Opens New Fishing Areas in Arctic



Bloodeagle
06-08-2009, 05:02 PM
Global Warming Opens New Fishing Areas in Arctic

Posted on: Saturday, 5 April 2008, 15:10 CDT

WASHINGTON -- For Arctic nations, one of the so-called "benefits" of global warming has been the promise of opening up new fisheries in a remote part of the world choked by ice much of the year.

But many worry that the new territory is also an unregulated one, and that if the United States doesn't act in the next few years, rogue fishermen from other nations could begin plying areas north of the Bering Strait in the summer, looking for new, unexploited fisheries.

So far, there are no major commercial fisheries in the area of the Arctic Ocean closest to Alaska, said David Balton, the assistant secretary for oceans and fisheries at the State Department's Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science.

Yet "as the climate changes, the ice recedes, the water warms, we should be expecting and anticipating that there could be major commercial fisheries north of the Bering Strait," Balton testified at a recent Senate Commerce Committee meeting.

The United States needs to make an aggressive case for managing those Arctic Ocean fisheries before the ice thins enough for fishing vessels to access them in the summer without ice-breaking equipment, said U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

"It's time that we really worked on really an aggressive approach to protect the Arctic," he said.

There are just two or three years left to develop a plan, Stevens said. That will include talking to Russian counterparts to come up with a way to manage vessel traffic through the Bering Strait, said U.S. Coast Guard Rear Adm. Arthur Brooks, who oversees the Alaska region.

The United States also needs an aggressive _ yet cooperative _ approach with both Russia and Canada on the issue, said Lisa Speer, of the Water and Oceans Program with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"Having a larger engagement with the Russians over the future of the Arctic is going to be very important," Speer said. "I don't know how to make that happen other than to have a much higher level engagement than we have now."

Norway has not been entirely successful in preventing illegal fishing in some parts of the Arctic Ocean to its north, said David Benton, executive director of the Juneau-based Marine Conservation Alliance.

"When you look at the Arctic Basin, sort of look at the map, looking down from the top, we've got a real challenge ahead of us now," Benton said. "It seems to me we need to up the ante here. Time is not on our side."

Already, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which oversees fisheries off Alaska's coast, has proposed that all federal waters in the Arctic Ocean be off limits to commercial fishing.

Those waters should remain closed until there's a stock assessment and a way to "do it smartly and in a sustainable fashion," said Stevens spokesman Steve Wackowski.

In October, the Senate passed a resolution urging the United States to begin international negotiations to manage Arctic Ocean fisheries.

Until any agreements are in place, the United States will not support any efforts to expand commercial fishing in international waters of the Arctic Ocean.

Unlike other major fishing nations and other Arctic nations, the United States hasn't yet ratified the Law of the Sea convention.

To do so would give the United States more leverage in fighting illegal fishing, including future fisheries in the Arctic Ocean, said Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte in testimony at the Commerce Committee hearing.

Stevens said he hopes to establish regulations for Arctic fishing in the same way he worked in the 1990s to ban high-seas drift net fishing.

Then, Stevens said, he worked with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to make a case in front of the United Nations to ban the practice worldwide.

It may be time to take the same approach to the unregulated fishing grounds north of Alaska, Stevens said.

"A senator can't rush up to the U.N. and say, 'Look guys, listen to me,'" Stevens said.

"It has to be a representative of his country. They have to be behind the senator before that takes place, so I hope we can go from here and then to the Cabinet and then to the president and then to the U.N."

Source: Knight Ridder Washington Bureau

Birka
06-08-2009, 05:13 PM
There is no global warming.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090606/GPG0101/90606042/1261/GPG05/Weather++Record+temperature+set+in+Green+Bay+Satur day

http://www.kxmc.com/News/386720.asp

As a matter of fact, we are in an eleven year cold spell, with cold records being broken all over.

Bloodeagle
06-08-2009, 05:23 PM
Whatever you chose to call it, global warming or the natural cycle of the Earth. The arctic ice cap is melting as are most of the worlds glaciers. http://www.livescience.com/environment/080129-baffin-ice.html
The Americans as with most of the arctic countries are already bickering and squabbling as to who owns what. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6283130.ece

Birka
06-08-2009, 05:40 PM
If all this ice is melting, why are sea levels going down as a trend?

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/anomalymap.html

I think the whole Al Gore Global Warming Scare is a hoax. It is perpetuated by one world, anti-capitalist, multi-culturalists who want to use this "crisis" to gain more power.

Bloodeagle
06-08-2009, 06:08 PM
I believe that their are two camps to this issue of Global Warming.
One claims that climate change is an entirely natural cycle.
The other hopes to control us by claiming that people are the problem.

The writing is on the wall, the arctic ice is melting!

I fear the latter camp. Al Gores campaign for a green economy conjures up images in my head of reeducation camps and massive human downsizing! :eek:

As far as rising sea levels go:

This Week's Experiment - #215 Melting Icebergs
This week's experiment comes from a report I recently heard on National Public Radio. Unfortunately, I was driving and could not write down the fellow's name, so I could give him proper credit. He was talking about the facts and fictions of global warming. One point that he mentioned was one that I had heard many times and had never thought all the way through. What would happen if the global temperature rose enough for much of the polar ice caps to melt? All of that extra water would cause worldwide flooding, right? Lets investigate. You will need:

a glass
water
ice cubes

Try to get a large lump of several ice cubes frozen together. You can place several ice cubes into a bowl and leave it in the freezer over night and they should freeze together. Place the ice cubes into a glass or bowl. Add enough water to fill the glass to the top. Add as much water as you can, until the glass will not hold any more without overflowing.

Now, look carefully at the glass, water and ice. There is quite a bit of ice sticking up above the glass. What will happen when the ice melts? Now that you have formed a hypothesis (a scientific guess), watch to see what happens. Be sure that the glass is not bumped or disturbed. As the ice melts, does the water overflow?

No, it does not. Even when all of the ice has melted, the glass is just as full as it was when you started. As water freezes, it expands. It still weighs the same, but it takes up more space. This means that it will float when you put it into water. As it floats, the part of the ice that is underwater takes up exactly as much space as the water that it formed from took up. When it melts, it will take up that amount of space again, and so the glass does not overflow.

Back to what would happen if the polar ice caps melted, there is a big difference between the two polar ice caps. The North polar ice is all ice, floating in water. If you could selectively melt just the northern ice cap, sea level would stay the same.

The southern polar ice cap is not floating. Instead, it sits on the continent of Antarctica. If it melted, then the sea level would rise. The fellow that was giving the information said that most of the figures for global flooding overstated the rise in sea level because they failed to take into account that the northern ice would not change sea level. I have not been able to verify that, but I will keep my ears open. And of course, global warming would also melt a lot of ice in other parts of the world, not just the ice caps. Still, it does make a nice experiment of the week.

From Robert Krampf's Science Education Company
PO Box 60982
Jacksonville, FL 32236-0982
904-388-6381
krampf@aol.com

Euroblood
06-08-2009, 09:27 PM
The best way to handle this debate concerning the environment is to have a no regrets approach. Supposing we are the cause of some of this, then we need political, economic and social policies that are aimed at living "green". At the same time even if we aren't the cause of these problems going green isn't a bad idea.

No harm in being prepared, and better safe then sorry (cliché, I know but true nonetheless)

My personal opinion, I don't believe global warming theories. Once upon a time this planet had an ice age. The ice is gone today and I know that we didn't have CFC's being manufactured or SUVs that give off emissions etc. Natural cycles exist. We may not be doing anything in our favor by having all these un-environmentally friendly items about, but we aren't the sole or majority cause of what we are calling today Global Warming.

Bloodeagle
06-08-2009, 09:44 PM
It seems that our current climatic situation does not differ much from the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum, AD 800-1300.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/275px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
To quote from Wikipedia:
The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north.[13] Around 1000AD the climate was sufficiently warm for the north of Newfoundland to support a Viking colony and lead to the descriptor "Vinland".