ttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/16/greenland-glaciers-melt-due-to-sea-current-change-not-air-temperature/
Greenland glaciers ? melt due to sea current change, not air temperature 16 02 2010
ウッズホール・オーシャノグラフィック研究所の論文：グリーンランドの氷河を減少させているのは海流の変動
による亜熱帯域からの温水の流入のためで、気温の変化が原因ではない 16日
Recent changes in ocean circulation in the North Atlantic are delivering larger amounts of subtropical waters to
the high latitudes. A research team led by Fiamma Straneo, a physical oceanographer at Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, found that subtropical waters are reaching Greenland's glaciers, driving melting and
likely triggering an acceleration of ice loss. Melting ice also means more fresh water in the ocean, which could
flood into the North Atlantic and disrupt a global system of currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor. (Jack
Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
ttp://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2010/02/north_korea_after_kim_jong_il?source=hptextfeature
North Korea after He's gone Feb 17th 2010, 4:55
Banyan's notebook （A blog by the author of our column on Asian politics）
金正日後の北朝鮮
At best, contingency plans exist for dealing with the short-term emergency generated by a collapse of power in
Pyongyang. Even Chinese policymakers accept that American special forces might, or even should, move in
rapidly to secure nuclear, biological and chemical stockpiles from rogue groups within the military. Chinese troops,
in turn, would probably move across North Korea's northern land borders to enforce the peace there. The
Japanese navy would bring in supplies to the coast and pick up refugees in leaky boats. A massive humanitarian
effort, led by the South Korean military, would get under way.
But beyond that, nothing much. In interviews with South Korean, American and Japanese officials, I have often
been amazed at the lack of long-term thinking about North Korea: out of sight, out of mind. But one thing I am pretty sure about in all the talk of eventual unification is that it will not, by any stretch, be unification, German-style.
ここまでの短期的な非常時対応は計画があるにせよ、その先は明確ではない。筆者が日米韓の政府高官にインタ
ビューしたところ、私は北朝鮮に対する長期計画の不在に驚かされた。予想が出来ず、計画が思いつかない。ただし
筆者が確実と思うことはひとつあって、いずれ起こるであろう朝鮮半島統一の話はドイツのそれとは異なったものに
なるだろう（略）
>>595 （続き）
The one exception to the lack of long-term thinking may be China. Its commercial interests in North Korea are
only growing, as it eyes mineral rights and access to ports on the Sea of Japan. China's political imperative is for
a stable North Korea. Andrei Lankov, a perceptive watcher of North Korea at Kookmin University in Seoul, raises
the possibility of China attempting to avert collapse by installing a hard authoritarian, pro-growth regime in North
Korea, something along the lines of China's.
北朝鮮について長期的思考があるのは中国で、中国の北朝鮮への商業的利益（興味）は増大している。鉱物資源や
日本海への港湾など。中国の政治的要請は安定した北朝鮮であり、北朝鮮ウォッチャーのAndrei Lankov,は中国が
強硬な権威主義的で成長指向の親中国の政権を設立して、北朝鮮の崩壊を避ける可能性をいっている（後略）
[0回]
