Global warming

The vanishing north


See article

Readers' comments



The question that I would like an answer to from those who denigrate global warming theorists is this: What is the net impact of millions of tons of carbon effluent into the thin membrane of our atmosphere up until now and for the foreseeable future? Then, can human health be guaranteed by additional giga-tons of greenhouse gases being produced and released into our finite air-supply? And finally, who benefits and who loses by maintaining the status-quo? The world's population has eclipsed seven billion. These are breathing consumers who will require more clean air, more clean water, and more tillable land. How will adding billions more tons of pollutants to the environment affect the growing population? The markets will create more losers than winners, there is not a flick of doubt in my mind.


By hitching on the bandwagon pulled by the warmists' "one trick pony", i.e., their CO2 theory of AGW, the Economist is hastening its own demise as a publication worthy of objective merit.
Eventually the pony will tire as the facts will come out.
There's no mention of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation flipping to cold phase, no mention of solar cycles, no mention of growing Antarctic sea ice, nor the fact that there has been no warming for 15 years.
All it takes is three words to destroy the AGW theory - Medieval Warm Period. Was it real? Yes. Was it a global phenomenon? Yes. Did Vikings inhabit and raise sheep in Greenland? Yes. And the archeological evidence is present in an area that is in permafrost now.
Sorry, Economist, you will not go far by insulting the intelligence of your readers.


Hey Dumbo who wrote this article. The Europeans who have priced their Co2 are having rising emissions, while the US has no CO2 pricing and are emissions are falling. If you are an "expert" how come you don't know that?

For anyone that wants an ounce of sense (including you Sense Seeker) on this whole subject, you should read Walter Russel Mead. This will put the whole thing in perspective. A perspective the write of this article does not have...

Walter Mead simply believes that all our problems will be magically solved by the market, and if not, that it doesn't matter because obviously if the market delivered this outcome, that was what the people chose. This ignores externalities, and also the hundreds of billions in subsidies for fossil fuel use.

He's partly right that the people aren't eager to do anything to mitigate climate change if they believe it costs them money. Monbiot blames this on the meddling of a small coterie of ultra-rich with an outsized influence on US politics (and I believe he's not wrong) but it is no different for people who aren't rich. We are all just hoping that someone or something will magically solve our problems. I don't believe the world works that way. If you want something, you have to work for it.

Mr Mead calls on environmentalists to shut up and labor on. Monbiot's work is to publish, so working on is exactly what he is doing.


Obviously written by an economist, ignorant of the real impacts upon existing cultures, history and future events.

There are several major factual errors in this article, such as the impacts of development, the so-called "protections" of Northern dwellers, the "no igloos" being lived in, the alleged protected "rights" of the indigenous and so on.

The melt / warming of the North is a disaster for all of mankind. Greed will ruin whatever it can, destroying any possible hope for humanity to recover from this precipice of human avarice and mismanagement of the planetary resources.

This ridiculous hopium sentence says it all: "In the end, the world is likely to get a grip on global warming."

Only an idiot economist or unlearned person would make such a stupid claim. There is zero evidence anywhere in the world that humanity has got a grip on global warming. Global warming has already spiraled widely out of control, almost nothing is being done about it, and a hellish future is now an absolute certainty.

Frankly, I find it absolutely disgusting to read the unrestrained glee found in this article. What should really be an Arctic obituary is instead a corporate mission statement where profits triumph over everything else.


I should just like to raise a point regarding grammar. In the paragraph following the subheading ‘Less feedback, please’, a sentence reads: ‘When snow or ice melt, they are replaced by darker melt-water pools, land or sea.’

As ‘snow or ice’ is a singular noun, I wondered if the sentence should instead read: ‘When snow or ice melts, it is replaced by darker melt-water pools, land or sea.’

Any comments would be deeply appreciated.


Russian government betrayed national interest by settling the dispute with norwegians.They could've get more much much more.Finland kind of more.I cant remember whether norway is into nato or not but even it is nobody is gonna fight over it with RF.Those 4 millions of decendants of robbers and degenerates are obscenely rich as it is.They dont need even more oil revenues. Russia does



Suppose we plot, over an usual 30cm sheet, the undisputable temperature graph of the last 500 000 years.

In order to see the anthropogenic (caused by humans) impact on the global temperature one have to pay attention to the last part of that graph, let say the last 200 years, representing the period starting from industrial revolution.

So, let us take a pen and highlight, over that graph, the referred period of 200 years.

Difficult ?? I guess so…

In fact we have to buy a magnifying glass and a super-extra thin pen to do it because in that 30 cm long graph, the last 200 years measure exactly 0,12 mm !

(I googled for a extra thin pen and the thinnest I found had 0,2mm thickness.)

So, a single (!!) dot, made with that pen, represents about 333 years of temperatures.

Well they gave us some billion dollars to analyze anthropogenic temperatures and we cannot give up so easily. We buy a electronic microscope, and…

Eureka !! There it is! Hidden in the last dot of the graph we were able to found something slightly different !!! We are not sure what it is, it may be a flee excrement, anyway, whatever it is, it’s pointing upwards !!

So with the same 0,2mm extra thin pen we mark the next dot of the temperature graph, which represents no more no less than the prediction for the next 333 years temperatures, and solemnly declare to the world:

We are doomed !! The end is near !!!! REPENT !!!

Sense Seeker in reply to FranciscoLebre

You have just shown that we humans have increased world temperatures significantly in a blink of the eye. You somehow interpret this as meaning there's nothing to worry about. Why?

Over the billions of years our planet has existed, the time humans were around is miniscule. Does that mean we don't matter?

You may think you are no more than fly excrement. I agree. But I don't extend that feeling to the whole of humanity.

Someyounguy in reply to Sense Seeker

No he hasn't, he's just showed that the geological history of the planet is vast and that humanity is but an almost imperceptible blip in that long history.

Of note, in that vast history CO2 has at times been 7,000ppm and higher. Temperatures have been higher. and none of those things were caused by human actions.

Prof M H Settelen

Were we to poll all living science Nobel Laureates Delphi technique,we might avoid a step function catastrophe, which will occur if we leave it politicians wedded to their 18th Century document!

Someyounguy in reply to Prof M H Settelen

Why are Nobel Laureates more qualified to make policy? Who picks Nobel Laureates? So, the real power would lay in the people that get to decide who wins Nobels. I hear it's a grotesquely political process.

In the end your statement is rejected for two reasons:

1) technocracy is not a form of democracy

2) technocracy is itself very political and a type of tyranny (you just have to jump your little academic hurdle to get into the club which you can do with money, power, smarts or a combination).


The history of civilization is too short compared with the history of earth. Maybe temperature change is just a normal phenomenon in therms of long history. but as we, who are expected to live only several decades in earth, any slight temperature change will be seen as a sign of calamity.

I have no doubt ice is melting.

Organized deception, i.e., AGW proponents, are good at creating pseudo-scientific ideas, because AGW has yet to be proved as a fact (a rare commodity in science but especially as promoted in the supine press).


Considering that 80% of world energy consumption is derived from fossil sources, and that this carbon source is transferred from inside the earth's surface to the atmosphere, there are bound to be changes in the atmosphere, such as increasing temperatures due to the greenhouse effect. However, isn't it ironic that the very warming which is thawing the arctic ice is also releasing vast reserves of fossil fuel for exploitation which will further aggravate the problem. Alternates to fossil fuels exist today, solar and nuclear are the most sensible. But the will to embrace them is missing, possibly due to financial reasons

The supreme confidence of the human intellect in being able to tackle problems in the present and the future arising out of our past and present actions is at the expense of other life forms on earth, the only planet that we know of which supports life as we know it. A real pity that humankind can be so selfish and shortsighted

Someyounguy in reply to 7CczmAnmpU

the will to embrace nuclear has nothing to do with finance. It has everything to do with out of control environmental activism of the 1960s and 70s. The US was on a path to a nuclear future back then and then the activists came out and coal plants went up.

Chernobyl, three mile island, the china syndrome (the movie), and fukushima have further cemented the role of nuclear no matter how safe we make it.

environmentalists are entirely out of control and have gone BANANAS







We need a new generation of environmentalists. Pragmatic, realistic people who care about the environment, efficiency, and sustainability but who understand that humanity inhabits the earth and that we have big problems to solve to protect ourselves and the planet.


If increased carbon emission is behind the melting of the ice cap in the Arctic, then why is the ice sheet growing in Antarctica? Please refer to

If you have some free time, the following site may be able to explain in a chain of cause-and-effect the Earth changes. The magnitude and types of changes, the cycle of repetition and timeline

Astrofos in reply to Arno Arrak

I agree that increased carbon emission is not the driver causing the melting of the ice in the Arctic. If it were, then why the ice is growing in the Antarctic (as pointed at the website of the Christian Science Monitor). You see, the analysis demonstrated on the planet-earth-2017 site explains that the increase in average temperature is attributed to the weakening of the magnetic field (by 10% in the past 150 years and by 5% only in the last 30 years) in the Thermosphere layer where temperature ranges between +500 to +2,000 degrees Celsius and growing. The analysis also explains that the Temperature Belts on the surface of the planet follow the temperature map of the Thermosphere. Where magnetic field is intense, the temperature is low and vice versa. The current move of the "south" magnetic pole from Canada towards Siberia causes the Temperature Belts to tilt along. This explains why North America is getting warmer while Siberia is getting colder in recent years. Instead of naming it Climate Change, it should be named Climate Exchange. A new climate and precipitation map will emerge in very few years. The focus and resources should be spent on designing the effective strategies to manage a colossal change in fundamental industries such as Agriculture, Hydro Energy, Coastal infrastructure, … etc).

Arno Arrak in reply to Astrofos

Astrofos June 23rd 08:24 - You are partly on the right track but are falling in the same trap as warmists when you recommend a colossal change in fundamental industries. As far as the thermosphere influence on tropospheric temperature goes I judge it to be from minimal to zero. The mass of air at that altitude is so small that its heat capacity is essentially negligible compared to lower troposphere where we live, hence the heating or cooling up there is unlikely to be noticed by us.

Astrofos in reply to Arno Arrak

The Sun emits radiation, such as X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, and Radio waves. The Sun also ejects mass energy of heavy particles such as electrons and protons. The magnetic field at the thermosphere layer entraps such energetic bodies. The trapped protons have no place to go but to oscillate along the magnetic field lines between the two magnetic poles. As protons encounter regions of stronger magnetic field at the poles, protons speed is slowed and protons velocity is reversed. Protons swing between the Magnetic Poles at a speed that varies inversely with the Magnetic Field strength. Collisions between such oscillating protons and the thermosphere air molecules produce radiant energy and temperatures that is proportionate to the protons kinetic energies. It is found to reach +500°C above the magnetic poles and gradually escalate to reach +2,000°C above the magnetic equator. This makes the equator to always maintain the highest temperature on the surface of the planet all year round even when not at close proximity to the Sun due to Earth 23° 26′ axis tilt. This makes the poles to maintain the lowest temperature. The weakening of Earth’s magnetic field results in the oscillating protons gaining higher kinetic energy. The impact of sped protons with the air molecules of the 700 km deep thermosphere layer, results in radiant energy targetting Earth’s surface. Global Warming is thus observed. Had the density of the air in the Thermosphere layer been thicker, it would too have resulted in higher collisions rate and fiercer radiant energy reaching the surface of the planet. It is imminent, therefore, that a change in the temperature pattern and precipitation map will follow any change or repositioning of the magnetic poles and the associated magnetic field intensity; causing Climate Exchange. As the magnetic pole is moving from Canada towards Siberia, North America is getting warmer while Siberia is getting colder in recent years. A Quiz: Which feels hotter, 2,000°C at 100 km above our heads, or 2,000,000°C at 150,000,000 km away?

Arno Arrak in reply to Astrofos

Astrofos - Your description of thermospheric goings-on is interesting but you must understand that all of this stays up there and has no influence on what happens down here. That is because the total mass of the entire thermosphere is only 0.005 percent of the atmosphere. It can get very hot indeed up there but the heat capacity of a gas that thin is too low to allow transfer of any measurable amount of heat to ground level. Hence, it cannot have any global warming influence. And the thinness of the atmosphere likewise results in very low levels of heat transfer by radiation. Repositioning of magnetic poles, by the way, is controlled by the internal dynamo of the earth and not by any thermospheric phenomena.

Lonewolf Ethos

I'll take global warming seriously as soon as the AGW doomsayers do.

/Algore's carbon footprint (private jet-stting, California oceanfront property, etc.) is as large as the state of Texas.

Jon The Texas Baptist

Such certainty about the proximate cause (humans only) of the vicissitudes of our planet's changing weather is astounding. The Earth endured and survived with CO2 concentrations 4 to 5 times larger than current atmospheric concentrations in the geologic past. A reflection of a tragically uneducated public is shown in the number of people who embrace the idea of a static universe (and environment) as utopian. What will they think of next - Eternal Life? The only constant in life is change and we are smart enough to adapt. There are days when I think the whole effort to "stop global warming" is simply an effort to preserve real estate values on Martha's Vineyard.

Sure, the survival of the earth is not in doubt. And humanity will probably survive quite hostile environments. That doesn't mean the ride will be easy. We can probably avoid a lot of misery for a lot of people if we can reduce our use of fossil fuels.

There is not a rational human being on the planet that would not love to do away with fossil fuels. But your caveat is noted: "--if we can". And that's the rub. How much misery would 6 billion people endure if we did away with fossil fuels tomorrow? The answer is pretty obvious - a lot of suffering and death would happen. The world uses fossil fuels because they are relatively plentiful, there is an infrastructure for that energy and those fuels have a very high energy density making them extremely versatile for providing a standard of living for billions of people that would have been the envy of a king a mere 150 years ago. Environmental wackos stand in the way of all other energy sources (nuclear being the obvious choice) except the non-commercial "green dream" pie-in-the sky non-viable fantasies. The physics of energy is non-partisan. And the laws of physics are not subject to repeal. If only we had good public education instead of indoctrination centers the question of energy would not be the source of such angst for so many.


The brow beating doom mongers here better read this:

thispaceforsale in reply to VLCC

Great point, I'm looking forward to Lovelock's upcoming book arguing that man-made global warming is very much happening, but we are not as stupid to prevent our own impact as he previously asserted.


Well at least it seems that 2012 will continue with the coldward trend. I think the folks in Europe are seeing a cold year. I'm sure that global warming will be blamed for this too though.

Sense Seeker in reply to Someyounguy

That's a terrible graph, JA. Designed to mislead - as you would expect from the GWPF, a secretive outfit that takes money from coal companies (
The first thing to note is that this graph compares temperatures for 2012 to those in five years: the five years with the highest temperatures ever recorded. Designed to make 2012 look cool.
We don't know what temperatures these are; no source is given. But the left axis shows it is all above some value the data were normalised against. The long-term average, perhaps? If so, then this means the 2012 temperatures are considerably above average.
You write: "it seems that 2012 will continue with the coldward trend". But the graph shows an upward trend for 2012, towards the values seen in those warmest years ever. Hardly a coolward trend.
I think you are misinterpreting the chart, JA. As you were intended to.


Arctic temperatures always correlate with solar activity, not CO2 concentrations. Solar activity has been in constant flux over the thousands of years regardless of human activity, thus the assumption that climate change and changes in the Arctic landscape are anthropogenic is simply laughable.

DrBalbina in reply to Sense Seeker

All the scientific evidence of what I wrote is contained the the New York Times bestseller list book by two Professors of climatology, titled "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 years". Ignore the ignorant!

Sense Seeker in reply to DrBalbina

In science and truth, bestseller books count for nothing. They are not peer reviewed.

Your two professors are Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. Both have a track record of discrediting scientific findings they don't like, that is, those that go against certain vested interests.

Fred Singer is well known for his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss, his public denial of the health risks of passive smoking, and so on ( He distorts science to serve the interests of big corporations.

Dennis Avery also denies scientific evidence when it goes against corporate interests, and for example does not believe that DDT causes egg shell thinning in eagles. That may be related to the fact that his research institute receives funding from pesticide manufacturers (Monsanto Company, DuPont, Dow-Elanco, Sandoz, Ciba-Geigy).

Are you really so gullible, DrBalbina, or are you just defending those same corporate interests against unwelcome scientific findings?

Arno Arrak in reply to DrBalbina

Present Arctic warming started at the turn of the twentieth century. Prior to that there was nothing but two thousand years of slow cooling. Its cause is warm water carried north by Atlantic Ocean currents.

DrBalbina in reply to Sense Seeker

I am defending corporate interests? On the contrary! The only corporates here are those who have an interest in the huge money (carbon trading) they are making out of it - the alarmists. Try Al Gore - did you know that he part owns a London-based company trading in carbon credits and is making zillions out of it? Or are you that gullible that you don't know what this whole propaganda and hysteria is about??? (Btw, they tried to make his propaganda film 'Inconvenient Truth' compulsory in all UK schools until a sane parent took the education department to court and after long and thorough scientific evidence examinations of the 'facts' contained in the film, the judge ruled it had 39 lies (yes, inconvenient lies, not inconvenient truths)and ordered that it could only be shown in schools with an accompanying fact-sheet correcting all false info.
PS. If you don't like books, try a blind refereed scientific paper, which is a meta-analysis of 140 studies that prove my point. I won't bother giving you the reference as I know you won't bother reading it. Please remain ignorant.
Greetings from Sydney!

DrBalbina in reply to Arno Arrak

And which Wikipedia graph would that be from? Besides, the earth has a much longer history than two thousand years, and has had much warmer periods than current, long before industrial revolution (e.g. Medieval Warm Period, and Holocene Maximum). What's more, when industrial revolution began and CO2 levels increased, temperature began to drop for the next 35 years or so! But even more amusing is the fact that CO2 constitutes only about 0.055% of all gasses in the atmosphere and then to argue that this tiny amount not only changes climatic cycles of the planet but is also anthropogenic is just silly. Men can no more change the temperature of this planet than they can change the tilt of its axis!

Someyounguy in reply to DrBalbina

Agree but the environmental crowd has bent over backwards and done incredible contortions to keep the sun's output out of the equations.

They've gone so far as to call it the "quiet sun theory" which is not a theory at all. They just don't want the sun factored into their simplistic models.

The sun's output varies and the sun is the predominant driver of climate and weather on the planet.

Someyounguy in reply to Sense Seeker

c'mon sense even you have to acknowledge that the 864,000 mile in diameter boiling ball of hydrogen fusing plasma in the sky at the center of our solar system has at least something to do with our climate and weather. And further that we don't fully understand the Sun's effects on climate and weather.



So what happened to the Ice Age the scientists of the day were predicting in the 1970's?

Climate change is obvious...the causes are not.

Sense Seeker in reply to Someyounguy

Really? I got the impression you refuse to accept what science is telling us if you don't like the consequences. CO2 is a major cause of the present warming. Check with NOAA, NASA, Academies of Science. They all agree.

Oh, and to HRH: the ice age made good headlines for a brief moment in the 1970s, but even at that time the majority of scientific studies (62%, to be exact) predicted warming. Only 10% predicted cooling.


The financial benefits to the oil, auto and other industrial powers to continue as they are cannot be overcome. Global warming will not be stopped in our lifetime.


"Traditional Arctic peoples... None lives in an igloo these days."
Maybe not in an igloo BUT ...
..there are still Arctic peoples in Russia living in chums (traditional tends made of reindeer fur) who migrate seasonally with their reindeer herds across the Russian tundra. The Yamb-To Nenets were the only community of nomadic pastoralist in the Russian Arctic who managed to escape Soviet collectivization and schooling (boarding schools). They remain a unique example of humanity's resilience in the face of difficult odds.


I‘m totally pessimistic about the future of mankind in terms of environment matter what we have done and what we plan to do...



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

