Thread: To all climate change deniers... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022820
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
It has been over 100 degrees here in central Virginia for the past week, non-stop, and to paraphrase Hank Hill on this topic if it gets any hotter I'm going to kick your ass.
Selfish halfwits...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
It has been over 100 degrees here in central Virginia for the past week, non-stop, and to paraphrase Hank Hill on this topic It's monsson in India and, AFAIK, they have no rain. if it gets any hotter I'm going to kick your ass.
Selfish halfwits...
It's been pissing down all summer in Britain, and most of Europe. Maybe we should talk?
Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on
:
What's it supposed to do in Britain in the summer? I don't know much about the climate there, except you get really mild winters considering how far north you are.
We're also getting horrible, extremely severe and long thunderstorms every few days in between the heat.
Now, it's supposed to hot this time of year where I live, and we're supposed to get thunderstorms in the evening, but it's like someone took normal southern summer and cranked it all the way up. This is the worst June and July in anyone's living memory here weather-wise.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
What's it supposed to do in Britain in the summer?
Not be THIS wet! Wettest June on record, wettest quarter on record, but also one of the driest winters on record. That is certainly a "change" from the usual "climate". Hmmm...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh dear. One summer does NOT a climate make. The most basic fallacy in the book.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
This should probably be a dead horse, or maybe it's because there appear to be such utter stupidity about science and what it says about climate. Excesses of all types of weather experiences are part of it. Rain, heat, wind. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Extreme weather events are more frequent, and that is part of the change.
What Is Causing The Climate To Unravel?.
Top U.S. Science Official: ‘Climate Change Is Under Way…It’s Having Consequences In Real Time’.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh I know. But that's frequency, not pointing to one particular event and saying "SEE?! THAT'S CLIMATE CHANGE!"
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
The disappearing of the Artic Summer ice is a bit harder to ignore. I just saw a preview of a documentary from someone who has been filming glaciers over the last decade in Alaska, Greenland and Norway. The most impressive shot is a video which shows a portion of a glacier calve off. Then it is explained that it was about a third the size of Manhattan Island and taller then the skyscrapers.
The ice is going away almost everywhere in the Artic. Every year there is less.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It's pretty well established that the very wet UK weather this year is a result of an unusually southerly positioning of the jet stream. How long this will continue, e.g. long enough to bugger up the Olympic Games, is anyone's guess.
Whether the atmospheric influences associated with climate change may be having some influence on jet stream positioning is an aspect of the debate I haven't yet seen aired. It does seem to me that we've had rather more turbulent weather in Europe in recent years.
So far as the UK is concerned, I'm still quite strongly influenced by this observation made well over 50 years ago by my excellent geography teacher.
"The climate inthe UK is normally described as Cool Temperate Western Margins. Of Europe that is of course. Basically, I interpret this to mean that we don't really have a very settled climate. We just have weather".
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh I know. But that's frequency, not pointing to one particular event and saying "SEE?! THAT'S CLIMATE CHANGE!"
Tell that to the poor polar bears.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
There can be no doubt that climate patterns are continually changing. There was a very warm period around 1000 - 1300 AD, when many alpine passes now snowed in for 8 or 9 months of the year were usually open. There is much other evidence of change since then. The period from 1500 - 1800 was generally colder all around the world, but overall there has been warming since.
What the argument is all about is the extent to which human activity has altered what would otherwise have been the natural changes. The predominant scientific theory is that our increased energy use has accelerated the rate of increase in temperatures in the last 50 or so years, and probably taken the extent of the change beyond the natural range. There is a minority opinion that these matters have been affected by human activity, but not to the extent that the predominant theory asserts. Then there is a very small group which casts scorn on both of these. In OZ, that view seems to be most commonly expressed by radio shock jocks rather than those with mere scientific training, whose argument has been given greater mileage from a very confused government position. We now had the delight of a tax on carbon production by those said to be the greatest contributors of carbon; somehow, this increased cost is supposed not generally to be passed on to consumers. Where it is to be passed on by gas and electricity suppliers, there is to be some form of tax relief elsewhere to some consumers - alas, not to the D household. All this from a governing party which went to the last election with a promise that there would be no carbon tax!
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
One thing I know - I'm getting rid of the lawn. It's two feet high and still no sign of a dry day to cut it.
Gravel and pots here we come.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What the argument is all about is the extent to which human activity has altered what would otherwise have been the natural changes.
Whenever I hear this I want to strangle somebody. With their own intestines, having been recently removed by a rusty spoon.
Stated in the manner quoted, it sounds like a discussion about how to apportion blame. Honestly, who gives a fuck. The question is what can human activity do to positively affect the global warming that is very obviously underway. Because, when you find yourself on a bus with brakes that appear to be failing, you let off the fucking gas pedal.
Did the brakes fail "naturally"? Seriously, is there a more idiotic question possible.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Oh, and all you fucktards complaining about weather: eat shit and die.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Oh, and all you fucktards complaining about weather: eat shit and die.
You need this thread for that dear.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh I know. But that's frequency, not pointing to one particular event and saying "SEE?! THAT'S CLIMATE CHANGE!"
Tell that to the poor polar bears.
Why? What kind of weather are they having this week?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What the argument is all about is the extent to which human activity has altered what would otherwise have been the natural changes.
Whenever I hear this I want to strangle somebody. With their own intestines, having been recently removed by a rusty spoon.
Stated in the manner quoted, it sounds like a discussion about how to apportion blame. Honestly, who gives a fuck. The question is what can human activity do to positively affect the global warming that is very obviously underway. Because, when you find yourself on a bus with brakes that appear to be failing, you let off the fucking gas pedal.
Did the brakes fail "naturally"? Seriously, is there a more idiotic question possible.
No, but there are many more stupid responses. Whether finger pointing is worse than burying ones head in the sand I don't know, but wilfully ignoring evidence beats them hollow.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
What strikes me as stupid is the Canute response - shore up this bit of cliff,make these river banks higher.
What would be more helpful - istm - is to be saying to people in area A, your climatic system seems to be turning into something similar to the one already existing over here in area B. This is how area B builds its houses, organises its transport, and manages its agriculture in order to function in with such climatic conditions - lets see which of these methods you can best adopt.
And we should have an active flood migration program where we try *now* to start the process of resettling communities that will be under water in 50 years time. Nobody seems to be thinking seriously about what to do about towns on the Norfolk coast for example.
We may just need to accept that we are heading out of a period with polar ice caps - earth hasn't had them at all time through its history - and the resulting evolutionary pressure may mean we lose some species. It may also mean we get some new ones - or old ones start to adapt their behaviour radically. Or they start to be less choosy about mates.
On a related point, why do New Orleans and San Frisco always get rebuilt in exactly the same place ?
[ 08. July 2012, 08:49: Message edited by: Think˛ ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
The thing with denial is that it is as powerful, if not more powerful, than faith .
Whether it's denying that the things are in fact any different than those rose-tinted days of our childhood .
Or if they are, then denying it's anything to do with the meek and mild meddling of us poor little wotsits made in the image of God.
It really does not matter one jot if we're in faith or denial, or whether this has/hasn't caused that .
The law of of life on planet Earth is that it either adapts or it dies .
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The ice is going away almost everywhere in the Artic. Every year there is less.
The ice levels in the Bering Sea are extremely high.
Moo
Posted by 205 (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Because, when you find yourself on a bus with brakes that appear to be failing, you let off the fucking gas pedal.
Do buses have Jake brakes?
quote:
Seriously, is there a more idiotic question possible.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The ice is going away almost everywhere in the Artic. Every year there is less.
The ice levels in the Bering Sea are extremely high.
Moo
Those ice levels were caused by unusual weather (11-14F colder than the norm), consequently the extent of sea ice is high, but it is the highest since just 2003, and it's hardly as if a medium/long-term trend, like that from 1979, has been reversed.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Go sit by the side of the M25 (or any other busy motorway, freeway, interstate) and describe to me what is going to get those fat, lazy, buggers out of their cars*?
We're fecked.
Atb, Pyx_e
*cars being the a single parable of selfish, consumerist, destruction. There are others YMMV.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Nobody seems to be thinking seriously about what to do about towns on the Norfolk coast for example.
They'll be fine, with their already-webbed fingers and toes...
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Nobody seems to be thinking seriously about what to do about towns on the Norfolk coast for example.
They'll be fine, with their already-webbed fingers and toes...
On a BBC Schools programme some years ago, it was stated that the government intends to leave Yorkshire and East Anglia largely undefendend, in the hope that silt from the erosion will build up and save both London and Rotterdam from inundation, though (presumably) neither of them will be able to operate as ports.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Want the ultimate hellish conspiracy theory ?
All the major powers get together to cook up a nuclear war . Thereby reducing the population while at the same time creating a nuclear winter to cool the planet down .
Desperate situations call for desperate measures.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Nobody seems to be thinking seriously about what to do about towns on the Norfolk coast for example.
They'll be fine, with their already-webbed fingers and toes...
On a BBC Schools programme some years ago, it was stated that the government intends to leave Yorkshire and East Anglia largely undefendend, in the hope that silt from the erosion will build up and save both London and Rotterdam from inundation, though (presumably) neither of them will be able to operate as ports.
<purgatorial tangent by Sioni, living uphill from a flood-prone city>
Both London and Rotterdam already have extensive (and expensive) barrages on their rivers, and if there is a repeat of the 1953 North sea floods there is every chance these will make things worse, except that is in those areas directly protected. As an example to the contrary, York, which is above mean sea level, is allowed to flood instead of Goole which lies downstream, because Goole lies below MSL and if Goole floods, it's fucked.
</purgatorial tangent>
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Want the ultimate hellish conspiracy theory ?
All the major powers get together to cook up a nuclear war . Thereby reducing the population while at the same time creating a nuclear winter to cool the planet down .
Desperate situations call for desperate measures.
That would be utterly fucking stupid, as a nuclear winter would probably destroy human civilization, assuming there was any of it left after the bombing.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Nobody seems to be thinking seriously about what to do about towns on the Norfolk coast for example.
We're about 10 miles inland from the North Norfolk coast (20 from the East Norfolk Coast) - and about 100 feet asl. These figures seem likely to change. Maybe the little market town where I live had better get prepared for seaside resort status ...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Want the ultimate hellish conspiracy theory ?
All the major powers get together to cook up a nuclear war . Thereby reducing the population while at the same time creating a nuclear winter to cool the planet down .
Desperate situations call for desperate measures.
That would be utterly fucking stupid, as a nuclear winter would probably destroy human civilization, assuming there was any of it left after the bombing.
Fair enough, we can all trust the major powers not to do something utterly fucking stupid.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Want the ultimate hellish conspiracy theory ?
All the major powers get together to cook up a nuclear war . Thereby reducing the population while at the same time creating a nuclear winter to cool the planet down .
Desperate situations call for desperate measures.
That would be utterly fucking stupid, as a nuclear winter would probably destroy human civilization, assuming there was any of it left after the bombing.
Fair enough, we can all trust the major powers not to do something utterly fucking stupid.
Ha, ha. Of course they're capable of doing something utterly fucking stupid, but as cock-up, not as conspiracy.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Fair enough, we can all trust the major powers not to do something utterly fucking stupid.
Ha, ha. Of course they're capable of doing something utterly fucking stupid, but as cock-up, not as conspiracy.
At the beginning of Gulf II the British government published the 'sexed-up dossier' to back its action in support of the USA. As a whole that campaign was a cock-up, but it had its origin in a conspiracy and once the wagon was rolling there was no stopping it.
All that's needed is an out-of-proportion incident involving a hardcase regime like that of Syria.
[ 08. July 2012, 19:40: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
I'm afraid that's just routine stupid in my book. Routine stupidity of that sort is far more likely to lead to nuclear war than a deliberate decision to create a nuclear winter to cool the planet down.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
The relative height of settlements along oceanic coasts is just one consideration. I think a telling one will be the exposure to a considerable increase in storm energy.
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh dear. One summer does NOT a climate make. The most basic fallacy in the book.
Thank you. I was ranting to my wife just the other day about how global warming HAD to be true because Atlanta is just broiling and it's only July and she calmly informed me that she could remember a few dreadfully hot and steamy summers in Georgia when she was a teenager. I still don't know what to believe about climate change. Obviously, climates change and fluctuate but is it a result of humankind or just the natural processes of this planet?
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
I definitely believe that climate change is real and that humankind is making it far worse than it might be other wise.
But... let's just suppose for a minute that it's something Al Gore dreamt up after he finished inventing the internet. All of the mandates and suggestions to help the situation -- reducing use of energy; reducing-reusing-recycling; conserving water; keeping the air clean; preserving forests; etc. -- are sensible steps to improve our life on this planet whether or not it's warming up, and whether or not it's the fault of humans.
Why are the climate change deniers so determined to trash the planet just because they don't believe in something that just about anyone with any scientific background has been saying? Do they like breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water? Do they want their children and grandchildren to live in a filthy, polluted world with no forests, no deserts, no natural beauty? I just don't get it.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Why are the climate change deniers so determined to trash the planet just because they don't believe in something that just about anyone with any scientific background has been saying? Do they like breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water? Do they want their children and grandchildren to live in a filthy, polluted world with no forests, no deserts, no natural beauty? I just don't get it.
As explained to me by a Christian whose logic I vehemently disagree with: "God gave us this planet to do with as we please regardless of how much of nature is destroyed or what species of animals become extinct. It's here for our pleasure and to the materials are to be utilized to make our lives easier" I explained to him that we are stewards of this planet and God isn't going to be very pleased with what we've done with the place.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
Obviously, climates change and fluctuate but is it a result of humankind or just the natural processes of this planet?
BOTH. Ice Ages start due to small changes in the Earth's orbit. What we are doing by emitting additional CO2 is causing the sort of global CO2 rise that was a major factor in ending the last Ice Age (and the ones in the million years before that). First comes the CO2 rise then the global temperatures rise....
Except of course we aren't in an Ice Age. And the increased CO2 and the temperature rises is happening a lot quicker than the rises of CO2 that preceded the end of the last Ice Age.
The epidemic of stupid in Australia about the "carbon tax" is extraordinary. ("Carbon tax" is a deliberate political misnomer - it's a price on carbon of A$23/tonne emitted by and paid by the biggest emitters of the stuff). Does it take too much intelligence to stay "stop doing something which has been proven to cause temperature rises in the past...or else"?
In OZ the answer is Yes - thanks to the unscientific rantings of the likes of "shock jocks" Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones and the malign conjunction of a lack of public understanding of the science involved and self-interested lobbying to do nothing by the big emitters. So next election we will get Abbott et al, a repeal of the price on carbon and no coherent policy on climate change at all.
I hate the whole "stuff the planet" argument of climate change deniers.
[ 09. July 2012, 02:46: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
Obviously, climates change and fluctuate but is it a result of humankind or just the natural processes of this planet?
Oh, look: it's the stupidest fucking question possible. AGAIN.
Just crawl away and die without breeding, you useless ignorant piece of shit.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I definitely believe that climate change is real and that humankind is making it far worse than it might be other wise.
But... let's just suppose for a minute that it's something Al Gore dreamt up after he finished inventing the internet. All of the mandates and suggestions to help the situation -- reducing use of energy; reducing-reusing-recycling; conserving water; keeping the air clean; preserving forests; etc. -- are sensible steps to improve our life on this planet whether or not it's warming up, and whether or not it's the fault of humans.
Why are the climate change deniers so determined to trash the planet just because they don't believe in something that just about anyone with any scientific background has been saying? Do they like breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water? Do they want their children and grandchildren to live in a filthy, polluted world with no forests, no deserts, no natural beauty? I just don't get it.
Yeah, I never understand it either. As far as I'm concerned the most obvious argument to change our behaviour is waste management. We stopped letting people chuck their solid waste anywhere they like. Eventually we stopped letting people chuck nasty liquid waste as well. It's about time we did something about the gaseous waste that gets belched out with impunity.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
<snip> It's about time we did something about the gaseous waste that gets belched out with impunity.
It's started. The 1952 London smog killed arond 4,000 people and that led to the Clean Air Act which eventually removed the worst effects of the smoke from coal fires. The climate change deniers will do fuck-all until a clear causal link is shown and, possibly through legal action, their profits take a hit. Why else would anyone deny climate change?
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The ice is going away almost everywhere in the Artic. Every year there is less.
The ice levels in the Bering Sea are extremely high.
Moo
Those ice levels were caused by unusual weather (11-14F colder than the norm), consequently the extent of sea ice is high, but it is the highest since just 2003, and it's hardly as if a medium/long-term trend, like that from 1979, has been reversed.
the thing worth noting about the Bering and Chukchi seas is that the ice is locking in the land later and later in the season. normally, the ice has locked in by the time the really shitty winter storms beat the hell out of the place. this keeps the surf from eroding the land too far. no so much anymore. there's been so much damage from winter storm erosion that the US government (that's our tax money, fellow 'mericans) is paying millions upon millions to move entire villages.
this is happening right now, folks.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
further to my post above - yeah, we had a cold winter. lots of snow in these parts, too. but you'd only think it was some special thing if you'd only been here the last 20 years. when I was little, all our winters were more like this last one. only still, a lot colder. we used to have week-long periods of -40 or colder here. I rarely see -40 anymore - maybe once every three years or so?
to my mind, we've actually had a really long mild streak. and I'm not THAT old, ahem.
something I've also noticed - the last ten years we've always had at least a few times per winter where it warmed up enough to rain. this was unheard of in the 70's and even most of the 80's.
short term trends, but trends just the same. so one winter where it got good and cold and we got a decent snowfall isn't exactly proving wrong a trend that goes a lot longer than that.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I had to check when that Russian tanker had to get the fuel through to Nome and it was early December, which shows how early the winter set in.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Nobody seems to be thinking seriously about what to do about towns on the Norfolk coast for example.
I thought the plan was to treat it as an opportunity and not mention anything to them.
Or did you miss that meeting?
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Nobody seems to be thinking seriously about what to do about towns on the Norfolk coast for example.
I thought the plan was to treat it as an opportunity and not mention anything to them.
Or did you miss that meeting?
and let's face it most Norfolk folk are ahead of the curve with the webbed fingers thing anyway.
AtB Pyx_e
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Nobody seems to be thinking seriously about what to do about towns on the Norfolk coast for example.
I thought the plan was to treat it as an opportunity and not mention anything to them.
Or did you miss that meeting?
and let's face it most Norfolk folk are ahead of the curve with the webbed fingers thing anyway.
AtB Pyx_e
The Nawfuckians are OK, but them Lunnoners what 'ave moved in won't stand a chance. Why, they might get mud on the tyres of their Chelsea tractors.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I had to check when that Russian tanker had to get the fuel through to Nome and it was early December, which shows how early the winter set in.
you think december is early?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
I hate the whole "stuff the planet" argument of climate change deniers.
I do too . But it's what most of us wrap ourselves in when we see roads packed with vehicles, skies packed with air-planes , etc. etc.
Or you can use the planet's stuffed anyway philosophy . Ponder the influence of natural forces, (eg. Super-volcanoes and Asteroid impacts), that are capable of bringing about sudden catastrophic events making human activity insignificant by comparison.
Not that the planet will be stuffed anyway , just that particular species that concerns us.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture
... she calmly informed me that she could remember a few dreadfully hot and steamy summers in Georgia when she was a teenager
Are you sure it just wasn't a sly comment on your lack lustre sex life in comparison to the glories of youth?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Not that the planet will be stuffed anyway , just that particular species that concerns us.
Very true - it's a few trillion years 'till the planet goes 'phut'.
The question is, how long can we live here - however adaptable we become?
Only time will tell.
I would prefer that all our effort energy-wise was green. Chances of that happening when greedy oil lovers are around - small.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I had to check when that Russian tanker had to get the fuel through to Nome and it was early December, which shows how early the winter set in.
you think december is early?
Comparatively early then. I think the problem had been that the last fuel barge of (what passes for) summer couldn't get in, and this tanker-cum-icebreaker had to be hired, loaded and then sailed slowly and carefully through any amount of ice. Even then it had to be unloaded (very carefully) from about a mile offshore.
Is it going to be commemorated like the Iditarod? A race for 4wd vehicles, carrying a symbolic 45 gallon drum, to get to Nome by 5th December?
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture
... she calmly informed me that she could remember a few dreadfully hot and steamy summers in Georgia when she was a teenager
Are you sure it just wasn't a sly comment on your lack lustre sex life in comparison to the glories of youth?
Good one, Snags! Actually, with TWO wives now the sex is much better... but now I'll be quiet and await Lord God Rook's damning pronouncements of my imbecility.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The question is, how long can we live here - however adaptable we become?
I sometimes wonder if we, in this modern age, are adaptable despite our technologies .
Or are are we just incredibly vulnerable .
I mean take the last Ice Age for example . Our Neanderthal ancestors survived life on the ice sheet . We OTOH, not being able to reach our local supermarket, will very quickly be history.
[ 10. July 2012, 20:05: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I had to check when that Russian tanker had to get the fuel through to Nome and it was early December, which shows how early the winter set in.
you think december is early?
Comparatively early then. I think the problem had been that the last fuel barge of (what passes for) summer couldn't get in, and this tanker-cum-icebreaker had to be hired, loaded and then sailed slowly and carefully through any amount of ice. Even then it had to be unloaded (very carefully) from about a mile offshore.
the barge was unable to get there due to storms, not due to early ice. The storms are getting bigger and bigger each fall. fall, in this case, being August.
It's been years since I lived on the north coast (like, 24) but if memory serves, we were iced in in late September. I was much further north than Nome, but the difference wouldn't be more than a few weeks - say, mid-October. if Nome wasn't iced in in December it would be freakish and terrible. that's not even close to "early".
and comparing a fuel run to the diphtheria run that the iditarod commemorates is a little silly. yes, the fuel running out would have been bad. in 1925, people were dying. already. and it is possible to fly in small amounts (relatively) of heating fuel at insanely exorbitant costs. it would have gotten ugly. people may have had to abandon their homes and even their animals. but they weren't exactly facing the same kind of crisis as a killing diphtheria epidemic.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
That's me put straight then, innit.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
back to my earlier point, about the autumn storms and the lack of sea ice protecting the coast, here's an interesting site for more information on one of the villages. I hadn't personally made the connection on permafrost degradation as part of the problem, but it makes sense.
here's a link to research on arctic impacts of climate change.
give this one a read.
[ 10. July 2012, 22:09: Message edited by: comet ]
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
From - more or less - personal experience -
Two of our exchange sons live in Illuiset, Greenland. They tell us that when they were little kids they could drive to Disko Island to visit relatives in winter. They have not been able to do that for over 15 years.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
it's a few trillion years 'till the planet goes 'phut'.
The technical definition of 'phut' being to have survived the sun turning into a red giant and possibly engulfing the earth at a mere 0.008 trillion years.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
I'll be quiet and await Lord God Rook's damning pronouncements of my imbecility.
Did you breed? Because then I could categorize you as a Class-6 Moron - a fucking moron.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Should we buy bulk sunscreen now?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Should we buy bulk sunscreen now?
Only if you bother to check online to make sure that what you're saying isn't total bullshit. Otherwise, I hope you fry in the impending solar inferno.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Uh huh. Because as scientists predict, the Sun wiping out the Earth at about 7.9 Billion years will be irrelevant to human life on Earth because it will have ceased to exist about 7.1 Billion years before that.
We can now cease to worry about the Sun vaporizing the Earth. Isn't that nice?
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Tortuf,
You're such an optimist. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Great link, Tortuf. I had no idea that Gliese 710 was going to pay a visit. Yikes! Start planning!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'd start with a visit to Niagara Falls, to be on the safe side.
Posted by Olde Sea Dog (# 13061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
........Why are the climate change deniers so determined to trash the planet just because they don't believe in something that just about anyone with any scientific background has been saying? Do they like breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water? Do they want their children and grandchildren to live in a filthy, polluted world with no forests, no deserts, no natural beauty? I just don't get it.
I'm fascinated by this question since I've seen so much of denial, both in online communities and the meatworld.
Every time I bring up the fact that the scientists who study the matter, the climatologists, are almost unified in their belief that the climate is warming to a dangerous extent, and that human activity can make it significantly worse (or perhaps better), they become truly angry and insist it's a liberal agenda that causes the "so-called" experts to teach such things. They say with absolute certainty that it's simply part of a natural cycle, and not even enough of a one to be concerned about.
I think we in this country are influenced by rightwing radio shock-jocks just as Duo Seraphim said about Australia. I think there's something more insidious about radio than other forms of media propaganda, since one listens to it normally while concentrating on something else such as driving or a job, and thus there's less conscious screening of the information. Here in the US, radio talk shows seem to be mostly dominated by Republicans and other rightwingers, and the conspiracy theorist in me believes that has been purposely brought about by the big corporate players such as oil companies.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The ice is going away almost everywhere in the Artic. Every year there is less.
The ice levels in the Bering Sea are extremely high.
Moo
Interesting article that explains the increased ice due to circulation patterns. To quote from it:
Meier says any thicker ice that formed in the Bering Sea this year won’t stick around for long though. The Bering Sea's ice is seasonal and completely disappears by mid-summer. Meier says that makes the record-breaking ice extent less significant in terms of the overall Arctic
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Why are the climate change deniers so determined to trash the planet just because they don't believe in something that just about anyone with any scientific background has been saying?
I would like to put this question sort of the opposite way round.
I'm not a denialist, but (at the risk of incurring RooK's wrath) I'm suspicious that the human factor is over-estimated, simply because of our species' increasing tendency to see itself as more important than it is.
I got into a lot of trouble with a climate-change believer over lunch about a year ago discussing this. Where things really went downhill was when I asked him what he was doing to act in line with his beliefs. He and his family live in the largest house of anyone I know closely, his most recent job involved a 30-minute commute into work each way, and they are forever taking planes to and from the UK ferrying kids back and forth to university etc. He's only just started talking to me again a year later...
How many anthropic climate change believers are actually changing their lifestyles as a result of their beliefs?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Consider me invoked.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm suspicious that the human factor is over-estimated
I'm suspicious that this is exactly the idiotic mindset that will have hominids pointing fingers at each other in caves after society has collapsed. WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT BLAME?
Fact 1: Global warming is happening.
Fact 2: Given the rate of climate change, it's entirely possible that we could be fucked.
Fact 3: Human activity has some effect on the climate.
Just to say it - anyone who wants to quibble about Fact 1 at this point should fuck off right now.
Considering Fact 2, it makes me kind of hope that Fact 3 is a relatively large effect. Because if humans have a largish effect, then we might be able to maintain some semblance of our current status quo sustainably. If humans turn out to have negligible effect, then the question might be more about what portion of us survives rather than how inconvenienced some of us might be.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'm suspicious that this is exactly the idiotic mindset that will have hominids pointing fingers at each other in caves after society has collapsed. WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT BLAME?
Not me for one. To me it's less about blame than about comprehension.
Firstly, unless the precise way in which a particular process contributes to global warming is properly understood, taking massive measures to counteract that process seems like sorcerers' apprenticeship to me. (An analogy that springs to mind is the introduction of non-native species to combat endemic pests, with the former then becoming pests in their own right without any natural predators). So the causes of climate change matter, which you in fact implicitly acknowledge in your point 3.
Secondly, I put my own cards on the table in the interests of full disclosure, but that wasn't the point of my post. The point of my post was that I don't understand how someone so convinced of anthropic climate change (my friend) can allow it to have so little impact on their own lifestyle. Your post does not address this point at all.
I think this is important because, like so many global issues today, ISTM that the practical outcome of many prophecies of doom (be they financial or climatic) is not to achieve any actual, practical changes, but simply to make everybody more anxiety-ridden. In a deer-in-the-headlights sort of way, this actually tends to make people do less to address the issues, not more.
Personally, it looks to me as though civilisation as we know it is screwed and that the forthcoming changes in our lifestyles will be unpleasant, devastating in terms of short-term loss of life and long-term living conditions, and entirely unpredictable. This might take decades or even centuries rather than years. It's the end of the world as we know it, but not necessaritly The End of The World™.
In the meantime, along with Luther, I'm minded to plant my apple tree even if the eschaton is scheduled for tomorrow.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Isn't it strange that the climate change deniers, parrotting that 'we must be certain that it's due to human action before doing anything' are so often those demanding financial stringency, public spending cuts and deficit reduction with bugger all evidence that these policies work! Probably more common over The Pond, but not unknown here.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How many anthropic climate change believers are actually changing their lifestyles as a result of their beliefs?
I've changed to using the train to commute rather than driving. And I heat my house to about three degrees less than most people, to save energy. And I recycle pretty much everything that can be recycled.
Sure, it's not much. But I'm only one man, and every little helps.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Recycle everything I can, not even trying to replace a car, use bicycle and public transport to travel, don't fly anywhere (not just no money, I also choose not to), keep the thermostat low enough to make my daughter really unhappy.
Use green cleaning products (partly that's my allergies, but it's also my green conscience)
The one I haven't done is organise an allotment which would mean I could compost too.
[ 16. July 2012, 08:50: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think this is important because, like so many global issues today, ISTM that the practical outcome of many prophecies of doom (be they financial or climatic) is not to achieve any actual, practical changes, but simply to make everybody more anxiety-ridden. In a deer-in-the-headlights sort of way, this actually tends to make people do less to address the issues, not more.
Fair point. Here's my own take:
It is very difficult to get individuals to act cumulatively without some sort of elaborate mechanism. The mechanism we've developed is called "government". To make the sufficient magnitude of change to either make our society sustainable or to adapt to the unavoidable creeping horrors of the next centuries will require less fucktarded governments - governments which are currently mired by energy-company-funded interests to perpetuate the whole "denier" debate. Because humans are continuing down a path of exponential use, and that could be a problem.
That being said, it's more of philosophical issue for me. It seems pretty obvious that human collective stupidity will prevent us from acting in any way that's even moderately intelligent.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
Some people complain that they have to buy a plastic bag in Wales now, rather than get one free automatically every time they make a purchase. It's such a little thing to change, and if some people aren't even prepared to do that, I don't see much hope for us.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Hope of us acting before something large happens to make it be seriously in our face? Agreed; nil. As Rook posted a few years ago, humans are a bunch of stupid monkeys.*
*Yes apes, if you're feeling persnickety.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
If you're persnickety, all apes are monkeys.
I think climate change deniers should all be made to buy property on flood plains and beachfronts.
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
Oh, puh-leeze. I live 45 minutes southwest of New Orleans. The lands and climates change all the time. I'd know this if I never read a bit of research about it. Every volcano that belches changes it.
I doubt anyone intelligent, who thinks the Chicken-Little-level worry about it is stupid, is denying that both natural cycles and human population effects happen. How much of the desert effect on the upper "half" of Africa is due to mostly man-led deforestation? What percentage of the weather changes connected to the Dust Bowl effect in the U.S. came from changes people made in land use? Dunno if I trust anyone's figures, if they claim to calculate a specific percentage, but I know the percentage is there.
But, anyway, climate change is gonna happen no matter what. Wipe all the humans out tomorrow, and the changes and cycles will keep rolling on. No such thing as stability.
What do those who greatly fear climate change propose to do about the un-man-related cycles?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Is what's out there, among we the masses, really denial ? Or is it more a case of 'we'll worry about it when it happens .
Problem with climate change it happens little by little , and if change should start to accelerate then it's too late to do anything about it .
Bring on the self-loathing, but it could be said that we humans and our activity is merely just another cataclysmic event . Planet Earth will shrug it off as it has shrugged off worse stuff in the past.
If we really haven't had the sense, ability or desire to make draconian cuts in the burning of fossil fuel, since we knew it to be a problem, then what happens to us is simply tough titty .
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Oh, puh-leeze. I live 45 minutes southwest of New Orleans. The lands and climates change all the time. I'd know this if I never read a bit of research about it. Every volcano that belches changes it.
Every coal-fired power station, diesel locomotive, jetplane and even that cutesy li'l motorcar does too. We can do nothing about volcanoes (other than not living on top of them) but we can do cut fossil fuel use (and it'll piss off the Arabs ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
)
quote:
I doubt anyone intelligent, who thinks the Chicken-Little-level worry about it is stupid, is denying that both natural cycles and human population effects happen. How much of the desert effect on the upper "half" of Africa is due to mostly man-led deforestation? What percentage of the weather changes connected to the Dust Bowl effect in the U.S. came from changes people made in land use?
IIRC the dust bowl was caused by over exploitation of the land, plus over abstraction of water, caused by a sequence of dry years.
quote:
I trust anyone's figures, if they claim to calculate a specific percentage, but I know the percentage is there.
Go on then, you show me for once!
quote:
But, anyway, climate change is gonna happen no matter what. Wipe all the humans out tomorrow, and the changes and cycles will keep rolling on. No such thing as stability.
What do those who greatly fear climate change propose to do about the un-man-related cycles?
Mitigate damage. Like I said, move off flood plains (which you know all bout) and similarly high-risk areas.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Janine--
I think it's a combo of human and natural actions. We might not be able to affect the natural processes. But maybe we can at least work on pollution, etc.?
For some time, I've been thinking/hoping that it's like trying to get out of a space you're stuck in: sometimes, all you need is a *little* bit of help to wriggle your way out.
ISTM that the earth is pretty resilient. If she doesn't get totally sickened or destroyed, she'll probably find a way to survive, albeit with different conditions.
But that doesn't mean that humans will be around. If we want to be around, personally and/or as a species, we might want to do something to help ourselves.
FWIW.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
What do those who greatly fear climate change propose to do about the un-man-related cycles?
I don't disagree with what you say, but to add to Rook's analogy, if the bus is going down a mountain and the brakes appear to be failing, you can debate how much of the bus speed is due to gravity and how much is due to how the driver used the gas pedal, but it makes sense to focus less on gravity and more on the effect of the things you can control, namely things like the gas pedal. And the more serious and imminent the impending crash seems to be, the more it makes sense to try anything and everything that might help reduce your speed.
In the case of climate change, the only things we can control are, almost by definition, the man-related cycles you refer to. It may be that 90% of the change is beyond our control, but the question then becomes how much of a difference that extra 10% is going to make, and given the complexity and feedback in the global climate system, a relatively small decrement in the part we can control might go a long way to mitigating the worst consequences. It seems to me like a good idea to listen to what the climate experts have to say, no matter what you believe about what percentage of the problem is due to humans.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
And the more serious and imminent the impending crash seems to be, the more it makes sense to try anything and everything that might help reduce your speed.
Or jump off the bus!
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
And the more serious and imminent the impending crash seems to be, the more it makes sense to try anything and everything that might help reduce your speed.
Or jump off the bus!
So where will you go? Mars? Jupiter? Venus?
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
And I thought many Boomers were apathetic.
"About 5% of GenXers, born between 1961 and 1981 and now 32 to 52 years old, are "alarmed" and 18% "concerned" about climate change, reports the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research. Two-thirds, or 66%, of those surveyed last year said they aren't sure global warming is happening and 10% said they don't believe it's occurring."
ETA: I'm on the tail end of the boomers and many I know don't care. "I'll be gone by then"
[ 17. July 2012, 08:18: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Without taking sides in the inevitable v man-induced change I go with the man who said that being faced with a tsunami flooding his desert island he would call his wisest men togerther and study how to live under water.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
]Or jump off the bus!
Can we link hands ?
I'm reminded of the Chinese proverb about a man who was planting a small tree . Another man comes along and says " Have you not heard the world is about to an end ? ".
The first man continues his task much to the others bewilderment. "Why do you carry on with your work when you know everything will end ?" says the second man . The first replies "Nothing ever ends, it only ever changes".
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0