I think that by controlling export through fram/garlic press/Bering stretch , enough ice could be saved to prolong the demise of the Arctic.The problem with this idea along with that of trying to pump seawater to the top of the ice to build it up, is both fail to understand the scale of resources and energy necessary to implement them.
Very nice Cid, and very true.It's pretty true. However I think many of us are inclined to grasp at straws now as there's no lifeline left to reach for.
The future was ours, and be blew it.
Terry
When there is nothing that can be done, that which cannot be done will be grasped at, rather than admit it is beyond us.I think that by controlling export through fram/garlic press/Bering stretch , enough ice could be saved to prolong the demise of the Arctic.The problem with this idea along with that of trying to pump seawater to the top of the ice to build it up, is both fail to understand the scale of resources and energy necessary to implement them.
While they are presented as "simple" solutions they do not begin to address the work required. Blocking the Fram and the channels in the CAA would without question take more resources and energy than every other major civil enterprise ever attempted, combined.
The pump idea would require the placement (and continuing maintenance...) of literally 10's of millions of pumps, which would themselves require the energy to pump thousands of KM3 of sea water across the ice. To keep that incontext, the City of New York pumps only about 2.0 KM3 of waste water during an entire *year*; we're talking about pumping over five thousand times that.
In short, I consider even the *discussion* of such a solution utterly nonsensical, and a distraction from much more effective and rational discussions about mitigating the proximate cause of the problem we are faced with.
I do not fail to grasp the magnitude of what I'm suggesting. Whatever is done to stop or reverse climate change will take a significant percentage of the total energy used during the 20th century. That is unthinkably large.
That something is extremely difficult doesn't mean it is impossible.
I'm struggling to understand things myself 5to10?
I worry that there is such a thing as 'The Elite' and that they do only have their interests at heart. If so then they know full well what is coming but feel secure that they can avoid harm?
My concern is part of their 'belief' relies upon us ripping ourselves apart and leaving them alone.
I have seen the way they have divided the developed world with fear of 'other' and set person against person. I have seen the way Media was utilised in providing these conditions.
Why would they suddenly decide to try and undo all they have achieved over the past 30 years???
As with a lot of things I believe the only way for us to bring about meaningful change is from the 'bottom up'. We, the people, have the expertise and access to our own 'media' so it is up to us to force an understanding of the peril we face to a distracted populace? The more people aware the bigger the chance of finding folk whose ideas/outlook are what we are needing but we need to organise.
I think that by controlling export through fram/garlic press/Bering stretch , enough ice could be saved to prolong the demise of the Arctic.
While they are presented as "simple" solutions they do not begin to address the work required. Blocking the Fram and the channels in the CAA would without question take more resources and energy than every other major civil enterprise ever attempted, combined.
. If collapse is NOT a certainty, they are not being merciful but pure evil.
. If collapse is NOT a certainty, they are not being merciful but pure evil.
And what if they wish to continue in position after the collapse? Do they force an issue to cover the environmental dangers their kind has brought into being and so leave them 'blameless' post apocalypse?
I gave up concerns over a Nuclear mishap with the fall of the USSR but the past few years have raised those fears back to their cold war levels. Would they really use a Nuke exchange to topple todays civilisation but retain enough modern technology to rebuild post 'war'? If they know the middle east is to become uninhabitable due to temps over the coming decades then why not depopulate the region ( mass refugee crisis) then nuke the region leading to the very 'panic collapse' you envisage?
They lose a portion of the planet they know is doomed and they over halve the global population...... then they use modern technologies to rebuild the globe on a low workforce/high robotic reality ......
And what if they wish to continue in position after the collapse? Do they force an issue to cover the environmental dangers their kind has brought into being and so leave them 'blameless' post apocalypse?
I gave up concerns over a Nuclear mishap with the fall of the USSR but the past few years have raised those fears back to their cold war levels. Would they really use a Nuke exchange to topple todays civilisation but retain enough modern technology to rebuild post 'war'? If they know the middle east is to become uninhabitable due to temps over the coming decades then why not depopulate the region ( mass refugee crisis) then nuke the region leading to the very 'panic collapse' you envisage?
They lose a portion of the planet they know is doomed and they over halve the global population...... then they use modern technologies to rebuild the globe on a low workforce/high robotic reality ......
And what if they wish to continue in position after the collapse? Do they force an issue to cover the environmental dangers their kind has brought into being and so leave them 'blameless' post apocalypse?
I gave up concerns over a Nuclear mishap with the fall of the USSR but the past few years have raised those fears back to their cold war levels. Would they really use a Nuke exchange to topple todays civilisation but retain enough modern technology to rebuild post 'war'? If they know the middle east is to become uninhabitable due to temps over the coming decades then why not depopulate the region ( mass refugee crisis) then nuke the region leading to the very 'panic collapse' you envisage?
They lose a portion of the planet they know is doomed and they over halve the global population...... then they use modern technologies to rebuild the globe on a low workforce/high robotic reality ......
That is what is happening. Xenophobic protectionism. The image attached is what they have in mind.
Of course that is a very foolish way to protect themselves from global climate change. That Ark will have leaks that can only be solved in cooperation with other countries. It will sink with the rest of the world as the chosen fight with each other over scraps.
At the end there will be some winners, but most will be losers. If you exclude life losses, then the rule will be that the ones who have the most today will lose the most. If you include life, then the ones who have the least will lose the most.
It doesn't add up at all. They know that it won't protect them. If you know it, certainly they do too with an even deeper grasp given the information available to them.
And what if they wish to continue in position after the collapse? Do they force an issue to cover the environmental dangers their kind has brought into being and so leave them 'blameless' post apocalypse?
I gave up concerns over a Nuclear mishap with the fall of the USSR but the past few years have raised those fears back to their cold war levels. Would they really use a Nuke exchange to topple todays civilisation but retain enough modern technology to rebuild post 'war'? If they know the middle east is to become uninhabitable due to temps over the coming decades then why not depopulate the region ( mass refugee crisis) then nuke the region leading to the very 'panic collapse' you envisage?
They lose a portion of the planet they know is doomed and they over halve the global population...... then they use modern technologies to rebuild the globe on a low workforce/high robotic reality ......
That is what is happening. Xenophobic protectionism. The image attached is what they have in mind.
Of course that is a very foolish way to protect themselves from global climate change. That Ark will have leaks that can only be solved in cooperation with other countries. It will sink with the rest of the world as the chosen fight with each other over scraps.
At the end there will be some winners, but most will be losers. If you exclude life losses, then the rule will be that the ones who have the most today will lose the most. If you include life, then the ones who have the least will lose the most.
It doesn't add up at all. They know that it won't protect them. If you know it, certainly they do too with an even deeper grasp given the information available to them.
The highest possibility in my mind is that it is all pure distraction. None of it is meant to go anywhere, because it won't matter soon anyways. It's just political dick-swinging to the max as a means of distracting us, so we don't panic. Again, Trump has been a bit of a career actor for many years prior to this. He is a reality show actor. Reality shows are designed to distract, we all know how well they did that for a long time (Until they mostly became patently unrealistic and people lost interest). This is a reality show on the biggest stage in the world for the same purpose: Distract the world. Finally, a reality show we can all commit to! This time there's no denying it's reality, it's happening, right? So my GOD is it ever enthralling, because now it's really real! Is it though?
Nothing else makes sense unless you think the highest of the elite are oblivious to the coming, unavoidable, crippling effects of climate change. Unless they have some kind of insane terraforming technology that none of us can fathom or conceptualize as being possible. The black swan.
Doubt it. I don't have direct evidence of the claims that they know collapse is imminent, but based on some fair assumptions we can make (especially the access to and amount of knowledge they have vs us) I don't see any more logical hypothesis for what's happening right now.
And what if they wish to continue in position after the collapse? Do they force an issue to cover the environmental dangers their kind has brought into being and so leave them 'blameless' post apocalypse?
I gave up concerns over a Nuclear mishap with the fall of the USSR but the past few years have raised those fears back to their cold war levels. Would they really use a Nuke exchange to topple todays civilisation but retain enough modern technology to rebuild post 'war'? If they know the middle east is to become uninhabitable due to temps over the coming decades then why not depopulate the region ( mass refugee crisis) then nuke the region leading to the very 'panic collapse' you envisage?
They lose a portion of the planet they know is doomed and they over halve the global population...... then they use modern technologies to rebuild the globe on a low workforce/high robotic reality ......
That is what is happening. Xenophobic protectionism. The image attached is what they have in mind.
Of course that is a very foolish way to protect themselves from global climate change. That Ark will have leaks that can only be solved in cooperation with other countries. It will sink with the rest of the world as the chosen fight with each other over scraps.
At the end there will be some winners, but most will be losers. If you exclude life losses, then the rule will be that the ones who have the most today will lose the most. If you include life, then the ones who have the least will lose the most.
It doesn't add up at all. They know that it won't protect them. If you know it, certainly they do too with an even deeper grasp given the information available to them.
The highest possibility in my mind is that it is all pure distraction. None of it is meant to go anywhere, because it won't matter soon anyways. It's just political dick-swinging to the max as a means of distracting us, so we don't panic. Again, Trump has been a bit of a career actor for many years prior to this. He is a reality show actor. Reality shows are designed to distract, we all know how well they did that for a long time (Until they mostly became patently unrealistic and people lost interest). This is a reality show on the biggest stage in the world for the same purpose: Distract the world. Finally, a reality show we can all commit to! This time there's no denying it's reality, it's happening, right? So my GOD is it ever enthralling, because now it's really real! Is it though?
Nothing else makes sense unless you think the highest of the elite are oblivious to the coming, unavoidable, crippling effects of climate change. Unless they have some kind of insane terraforming technology that none of us can fathom or conceptualize as being possible. The black swan.
Doubt it. I don't have direct evidence of the claims that they know collapse is imminent, but based on some fair assumptions we can make (especially the access to and amount of knowledge they have vs us) I don't see any more logical hypothesis for what's happening right now.
Who are these, the highest of the elite? .....
Who are these, the highest of the elite? .....Shortening the quote chain. I bet they know more about stocks and monetary derivatives than about steam engines.
Who are these, the highest of the elite? .....Shortening the quote chain. I bet they know more about stocks and monetary derivatives than about steam engines.
Some crazy thoughts about strengthening the ice cap... not sure if this has been proposed before, but its quite a simple...
In order to more fully take advantage of the FDDs, we need to constantly flood the top of the cap with sea water. The right flow should all freeze with the minimum effort. Something on the order of 1 cm top ice per FDD with a constant flow of near freezing sea water.
In this manner 5M thick ice could be produced over large area each winter. The pumping technology should be easy.... wind power perhaps. Not so easy maybe, given the environment, but a good challenge for the oil majors anyway.
Flame away... 8) 8) 8)
Exactly correct. Too many here seem to characterize "the elite" as an amorphous or monolithic force. They're a collection of individuals, very diverse. They individually rise to the top of their particular realms by a single-minded focus on achievement in their fields. Very few understand basic physics, let alone climate science.Who are these, the highest of the elite? .....Shortening the quote chain. I bet they know more about stocks and monetary derivatives than about steam engines.
Exactly correct. Too many here seem to characterize "the elite" as an amorphous or monolithic force. They're a collection of individuals, very diverse. They individually rise to the top of their particular realms by a single-minded focus on achievement in their fields. Very few understand basic physics, let alone climate science.Who are these, the highest of the elite? .....Shortening the quote chain. I bet they know more about stocks and monetary derivatives than about steam engines.
Those in political power have a variable appreciation of intelligence. And intelligence services have a variable interest in modeling socioeconomic consequences of climate change. If folks have been reading the thread "conservative science and its consequences" you'll appreciate that some of the most authoritative science out there routinely errs on the side of least drama--a great phrase used by AbruptSLR. Reading the science material most intelligence services would rely on, they wouldn't be telling their leaders that global socioeconomic collapse in a few decades is a plausible scenario.
By and large, I believe "the elite" are as clueless here as the typical viewer of Fox News.
Exactly correct. Too many here seem to characterize "the elite" as an amorphous or monolithic force. They're a collection of individuals, very diverse. They individually rise to the top of their particular realms by a single-minded focus on achievement in their fields. Very few understand basic physics, let alone climate science.Who are these, the highest of the elite? .....Shortening the quote chain. I bet they know more about stocks and monetary derivatives than about steam engines.
Those in political power have a variable appreciation of intelligence. And intelligence services have a variable interest in modeling socioeconomic consequences of climate change. If folks have been reading the thread "conservative science and its consequences" you'll appreciate that some of the most authoritative science out there routinely errs on the side of least drama--a great phrase used by AbruptSLR. Reading the science material most intelligence services would rely on, they wouldn't be telling their leaders that global socioeconomic collapse in a few decades is a plausible scenario.
By and large, I believe "the elite" are as clueless here as the typical viewer of Fox News.
I don't view them as a "force". I view them as having access to an information bank that we do not. The reports they receive are different than the reports the public receives. The IPCC for example would have been told "Make it conservative" when their findings were likely very different.
Hiding the truth of climate change is profitable. Hiding the truth of cilmate change prevents panic. Hiding the truth of climate change allows you to continue directing the focus of humanity, rather than have humanity direct YOUR focus.
It is simply ludicrous in my mind to postulate that they are, on average, as or less informed and thus aware than the average individual when they logically have access to and are given better information. It makes no sense at all, and I ask how you get around that statement.
Intelligence agencies, think tanks, R&D, etc... We don't have those, we have the internet, or maybe all the studies from a university and our own research. They have nigh unlimited resources and time to pay smarter people to put all that shit together for them and give them the most likely predictions, or data based on events. You're telling me they pay for all that and then ignore all the results when their pocketbooks or influence is at stake? That's a good one.
You are not giving at least SOME portion of powerful people enough credit mentally.
You can't begin to tell me that the Bush and Clinton families couldn't be aware, for example, and their history as huge figures in American politics is a pretty long one.
What you are suggesting is just plain unlikely.
I think it's quite variable, depending on which paticular elite individual you're thinking about. I'm fairly confident that the US DoD and CIA have a reasonably good grasp of future possibilities. I think Obama paid attention, and thus stated that climate change is the greatest single risk to global security. But Trump, as a counter-example, refuses to meet with such experts, and doesn't believe them, and has no patience with long briefing papers.
For example, the DoD has decades of detailed, precise arctic sea ice data, courtesy of nuclear subs continuously in the arctic since the 1950s. The DoD has been notably active in focusing on developing a climate-resilient force. But the underlying data and analysis is classified. Its there for the President and member of the Congressional Intelligence committees, and nobody else.
All other "elites" have, at best, only the available science that errs on the side of least drama. Most aren't interested in anything that happens after the next election, or next corporate quarterly repot, or after they enter retirement. They know that the only other thing that matters to them, their own families, can be best protected by amassing wealth. They don't have time for any other concerns, nor much interest, nor much comprehension.
Very nice Cid, and very true.
The future was ours, and be blew it.
Terry
Whether or not any of this is true, and I realize I can't produce evidence here, it is all more than plausible at the very least. In fact all of the ideas I'm sharing here fit together to compile a very sensible hypothesis of what's been going on behind the scenes for many years perhaps: They've known about this for a long time and have been distracting/keeping us ignorant as long as possible either out of self-interest, or to save us from ourselves, or some combination of both.
Whether or not any of this is true, and I realize I can't produce evidence here, it is all more than plausible at the very least. In fact all of the ideas I'm sharing here fit together to compile a very sensible hypothesis of what's been going on behind the scenes for many years perhaps: They've known about this for a long time and have been distracting/keeping us ignorant as long as possible either out of self-interest, or to save us from ourselves, or some combination of both.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to Malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
[
I find it hilarious that so many people view the elite tier as unaware buffoons like the rest of society appears. Sure, some are, but a lot of them are way more aware than the average joe, because they have better quality information, which destroys cognitive dissonance quite often when lesser quality/less convincing info would not have.
https://youtu.be/VvQ2FUwvcqw (https://youtu.be/VvQ2FUwvcqw)
Whether or not any of this is true, and I realize I can't produce evidence here, it is all more than plausible at the very least. In fact all of the ideas I'm sharing here fit together to compile a very sensible hypothesis of what's been going on behind the scenes for many years perhaps: They've known about this for a long time and have been distracting/keeping us ignorant as long as possible either out of self-interest, or to save us from ourselves, or some combination of both.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to Malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Who funded 'Denial'? Why would they have any issue with what is occurring/about to occur?
For global panic this has to happen in many locations at once. It will, but I agree it' s a long process (luckily I guess).
This kind of discussion pushes me to come out of lurker mode.
For me, the answer is simple. As any form of life, we are overly optimistic, fighting daily to survive, with no consideration for the future, either short, middle or long term. I live in mountains where trees and other living things grow and thrive in places where no one would have given a damn of their bare survival. This blind optimism of life made it successful across billions of years and so many local and global catastrophes. So we are, at the bottom of ourselves, confident. We keep having children, although we pretty well know there are way too many of them on this planet. But what else? Surrender? Life never surrenders. Full stop.
This kind of discussion pushes me to come out of lurker mode.
For me, the answer is simple. As any form of life, we are overly optimistic, fighting daily to survive, with no consideration for the future, either short, middle or long term. I live in mountains where trees and other living things grow and thrive in places where no one would have given a damn of their bare survival. This blind optimism of life made it successful across billions of years and so many local and global catastrophes. So we are, at the bottom of ourselves, confident. We keep having children, although we pretty well know there are way too many of them on this planet. But what else? Surrender? Life never surrenders. Full stop.
5to10, Sounds like Tommowland. If you haven't seen it, it's worth a watch for those with your mindset. I'm totally surprised that Disney would address the end of the world so directly.
I give this movie a big thumbs up.
Sort of Technocopia meets the power of positive thinking. Hope is the greatest of all defense mechanisms.
Not that I ascribe. But isn't it best to meet the end with hope and go down swinging? If you can't get to the point of acceptance, it's the next best thing.
I think that by controlling export through fram/garlic press/Bering stretch , enough ice could be saved to prolong the demise of the Arctic.The problem with this idea along with that of trying to pump seawater to the top of the ice to build it up, is both fail to understand the scale of resources and energy necessary to implement them.
While they are presented as "simple" solutions they do not begin to address the work required. Blocking the Fram and the channels in the CAA would without question take more resources and energy than every other major civil enterprise ever attempted, combined.
The pump idea would require the placement (and continuing maintenance...) of literally 10's of millions of pumps, which would themselves require the energy to pump thousands of KM3 of sea water across the ice. To keep that incontext, the City of New York pumps only about 2.0 KM3 of waste water during an entire *year*; we're talking about pumping over five thousand times that.
In short, I consider even the *discussion* of such a solution utterly nonsensical, and a distraction from much more effective and rational discussions about mitigating the proximate cause of the problem we are faced with.
I think that by controlling export through fram/garlic press/Bering stretch , enough ice could be saved to prolong the demise of the Arctic.The problem with this idea along with that of trying to pump seawater to the top of the ice to build it up, is both fail to understand the scale of resources and energy necessary to implement them.
While they are presented as "simple" solutions they do not begin to address the work required. Blocking the Fram and the channels in the CAA would without question take more resources and energy than every other major civil enterprise ever attempted, combined.
The pump idea would require the placement (and continuing maintenance...) of literally 10's of millions of pumps, which would themselves require the energy to pump thousands of KM3 of sea water across the ice. To keep that incontext, the City of New York pumps only about 2.0 KM3 of waste water during an entire *year*; we're talking about pumping over five thousand times that.
In short, I consider even the *discussion* of such a solution utterly nonsensical, and a distraction from much more effective and rational discussions about mitigating the proximate cause of the problem we are faced with.
Totally absurd, maybe...but 1.0 KM3 would add 1 meter thickness to 1/4 the area of everything North of 80N. Properly located I imaging that volume of extra ice would help stabilize the pack, reducing mobility. Maybe stop the garlic press or reduce Fram export, who knows. Further, 5000hp operating 200 days can draw said 1km3 20 vertical ft. How much distribution could be coerced from gravity, gives an idea of how many pumps would be required... Sea ice being relatively flat, especially this top-engineered type, lets let a pump flood an area of 200 km^2. So we need 5000 1HP pumps for this exercise.
Or maybe the experts can agree that strategically placed 2m enhancements on 50000 km^2 can help. You are down to 500hp and maybe 250 sites.
Its ridiculous, sure, but not more than an order of magnitude out.
Nonsense, all of it.
The problem with this idea along with that of trying to pump seawater to the top of the ice to build it up, is both fail to understand the scale of resources and energy necessary to implement them.
Regarding the Fram - do you have any idea of the scale of force that would be applied to a 100 KM long barrier to prevent ice flow? Do you have any idea of what sorts of forces materials would need to be engineered to to resist that force? ?
I refuse to accept any argument for these things which doesn't include numbers to address scale, reliability and emplacement of the solution. If you do, you'd better do a lot better than what's been posted so far.
Nonsense, all of it.
If the world is going to end on Tuesday, they want you showing up for work Monday morning. Simple as that.
The average IQ is 100 regardless of social-economic status. That is why we are witnessing Idiocracy vs Armageddon.
Maybe we could pump Brawndo onto the ice. It has electrolytes.
There is truth in that, but there is also fallacy; those technologies transformed the world and in fact led to the innovations in science and technology we see now.QuoteNonsense, all of it.
If only one had more wisdom and foresight to see the long-range outcome of what he does than the inventor of the internal combustion engine or of the first coal powered anything. Those people and the observers of their day, no doubt marveled at their accomplishments.
The internal combustion engine and coal-fired steam plant did not cause us harm, people did.I can't argue with that. The same greed that led to this situation stands in the way of implementing all these technical solutions. Still, if these original inventors were alive today, they might feel a little remorse, just the same.
Sea ice being relatively flat, especially this top-engineered type, lets let a pump flood an area of 200 km^2.
The same greed that led to this situation stands in the way of implementing all these technical solutions.No, physics does, and it has the casting vote.
The same greed that led to this situation stands in the way of implementing all these technical solutions.No, physics does, and it has the casting vote.
Sure it's nonsense. And of course it wouldn't solve humanity's problems even if it could be built. I just find it disrespectful to suggest that the authors' didn't even consider that gee, pumped water might freeze in the arctic.Did you read the same paper I just did? They explicitly didn't consider distribution, only the steel necessary to make a giant turbine and the buoy required to float it.
QuoteThe internal combustion engine and coal-fired steam plant did not cause us harm, people did.I can't argue with that. The same greed that led to this situation stands in the way of implementing all these technical solutions. Still, if these original inventors were alive today, they might feel a little remorse, just the same.
that's where the "SOLUTIONS" lay. every source of energy and the hardware needed to provide it in usable form to the greater public will destroy this planet in one or another form.
that's where the "SOLUTIONS" lay. every source of energy and the hardware needed to provide it in usable form to the greater public will destroy this planet in one or another form.
I have to wonder, solutions to what? The very fact we are increasing the surface temperature of this planet means that we are causing a local decrease in entropy. We are capturing more of the Sun's energy as it passes the planet than before. The problem is that this is probably unsustainable -- and also probably meaningless in Universal terms. Whether it kills off all carbon lifeforms is beside the point.
"We" discuss problems and solutions from a limited perspective i fear.
"We" overpopulate, pollute, and warm the planet.
"We" think of techno fixes which fall short and bring new dillemas.
"We" discuss the elite etc etc.
Do we really?
No, not those of us who have remained outside of industrial society, and arguably to a lesser degree agrarian society.
And that would be some staggering percentage, like 99.9% of anything that has ever lived on Earth.
Yet "we"can't even see their fine example, we destroy them as well and choose for over complication and denial.
Like knowing you took a wrong turn in the road and are heading off course but imagine finding a hitherto unknown new path that will magically lead to your destination.
It is quit obvious we need to get rid of industrial society, go back where you took the wrong turn.
"But you would have us all be cavemen again and we would not live past 35 years old!"
That would be the usual reply, which is nonsense as is clearly visible in hunter gatherers today still.
One needs not copy their customs, clothing, attire or language, and yes they do grow old too.
What is their nature, what is it they do?
They occupy themselves looking after primary needs and culture.
They don't require exponential destruction and depletion of environment.
Industrial society however can do nothing else, that is it's nature.
"We" discuss problems and solutions from a limited perspective i fear.
"We" overpopulate, pollute, and warm the planet.
"We" think of techno fixes which fall short and bring new dillemas.
"We" discuss the elite etc etc.
Do we really?
No, not those of us who have remained outside of industrial society, and arguably to a lesser degree agrarian society.
And that would be some staggering percentage, like 99.9% of anything that has ever lived on Earth.
Yet "we"can't even see their fine example, we destroy them as well and choose for over complication and denial.
Like knowing you took a wrong turn in the road and are heading off course but imagine finding a hitherto unknown new path that will magically lead to your destination.
It is quit obvious we need to get rid of industrial society, go back where you took the wrong turn.
"But you would have us all be cavemen again and we would not live past 35 years old!"
That would be the usual reply, which is nonsense as is clearly visible in hunter gatherers today still.
One needs not copy their customs, clothing, attire or language, and yes they do grow old too.
What is their nature, what is it they do?
They occupy themselves looking after primary needs and culture.
They don't require exponential destruction and depletion of environment.
Industrial society however can do nothing else, that is it's nature.
that's where the "SOLUTIONS" lay. every source of energy and the hardware needed to provide it in usable form to the greater public will destroy this planet in one or another form.
I have to wonder, solutions to what? The very fact we are increasing the surface temperature of this planet means that we are causing a local decrease in entropy. We are capturing more of the Sun's energy as it passes the planet than before. The problem is that this is probably unsustainable -- and also probably meaningless in Universal terms. Whether it kills off all carbon lifeforms is beside the point.
Do not put your trust in princes; Nor in a son of man, who cannot offer salvation.
QuoteDo not put your trust in princes; Nor in a son of man, who cannot offer salvation.
King David
<wry look>
Can we at least get back to the *pretense* of a discussion about the Arctic?
that's where the "SOLUTIONS" lay. every source of energy and the hardware needed to provide it in usable form to the greater public will destroy this planet in one or another form.
I have to wonder, solutions to what? The very fact we are increasing the surface temperature of this planet means that we are causing a local decrease in entropy. We are capturing more of the Sun's energy as it passes the planet than before. The problem is that this is probably unsustainable -- and also probably meaningless in Universal terms. Whether it kills off all carbon lifeforms is beside the point.
If heat is increasing there is no reduction in entropy. increased heat increased kinetic energy increased disorder
Specifically, a cultural inability to act wisely. Even when we knew what the risks were, we failed to mitigate those risks, because that involves costs.There is truth in that, but there is also fallacy; those technologies transformed the world and in fact led to the innovations in science and technology we see now.QuoteNonsense, all of it.
If only one had more wisdom and foresight to see the long-range outcome of what he does than the inventor of the internal combustion engine or of the first coal powered anything. Those people and the observers of their day, no doubt marveled at their accomplishments.
The key problem is, has been, and always will be, the failings of people - men and women who put their interests above that of everyone else around them, and ignore science either through malice or stupidity.
The internal combustion engine and coal-fired steam plant did not cause us harm, people did.
Specifically, a cultural inability to act wisely. Even when we knew what the risks were, we failed to mitigate those risks, because that involves costs.There is truth in that, but there is also fallacy; those technologies transformed the world and in fact led to the innovations in science and technology we see now.QuoteNonsense, all of it.
If only one had more wisdom and foresight to see the long-range outcome of what he does than the inventor of the internal combustion engine or of the first coal powered anything. Those people and the observers of their day, no doubt marveled at their accomplishments.
The key problem is, has been, and always will be, the failings of people - men and women who put their interests above that of everyone else around them, and ignore science either through malice or stupidity.
The internal combustion engine and coal-fired steam plant did not cause us harm, people did.
At the risk of sounding authoritarian [which I'm not] it's a problem with democracies. A benevolent and sufficiently intelligent dictatorship would be better equipped to handle long-term existential risk.
Democracies will always be at the mercy of the electoral cycle, and the political attention span of humans, whose average IQ is 100, and whose average main nerve terminates in the hip pocket.
"We" discuss problems and solutions from a limited perspective i fear.
"We" overpopulate, pollute, and warm the planet.
"We" think of techno fixes which fall short and bring new dillemas.
"We" discuss the elite etc etc.
Do we really?
No, not those of us who have remained outside of industrial society, and arguably to a lesser degree agrarian society.
And that would be some staggering percentage, like 99.9% of anything that has ever lived on Earth.
Yet "we"can't even see their fine example, we destroy them as well and choose for over complication and denial.
Like knowing you took a wrong turn in the road and are heading off course but imagine finding a hitherto unknown new path that will magically lead to your destination.
It is quit obvious we need to get rid of industrial society, go back where you took the wrong turn.
"But you would have us all be cavemen again and we would not live past 35 years old!"
That would be the usual reply, which is nonsense as is clearly visible in hunter gatherers today still.
One needs not copy their customs, clothing, attire or language, and yes they do grow old too.
What is their nature, what is it they do?
They occupy themselves looking after primary needs and culture.
They don't require exponential destruction and depletion of environment.
Industrial society however can do nothing else, that is it's nature.
The primary benefit of hunter/gatherer lifestyle is the de facto limit on density. We broke from that limit with agriculture, some 6000 years ago. Further density of human population comes from that industrial society you decry.
Your touted primitive lifestyle is not in fact a fix for overuse of natural resources. A good read perhaps is Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. You will find examples of pre-industrial ecological catastrophes.
Of course we can solve all the problems by limiting humankind to a small percentage of our current population. Implementation may be a bit tricky.
No. The future is forward, not backwards, however frightening that may be.
In addition to considering the media's role in perpetuating the over-consumption economy in the developed world, you also need to realize that ~2 billion of our fellow earthlings live in complete poverty. For them, the challenge is helping them skip over the consumption economy and move right into a balanced, post-growth and sustainable means of existence.THeir poverty is a result of inequity, which again is a result of differences in global consciousness, which are caused by newsmedia.
...
c: exploding population in humans directly resulting from industrialization, not vice versa.
just as 90% of other problems we see. Warming, greenhouse gases for example is measured from a pre-industrial baseline for that reason as well of course.
It's the car's fault? Or as my 13 yr-old would say 'Logic much, brah?'
It's the car's fault? Or as my 13 yr-old would say 'Logic much, brah?'
ah from the mouths of snarky 13 year olds!
I have lived and worked in many countries either in or exiting from dictatorships. I failed to find one either intelligent or benevolent.Unfortunately for our survival as a species, intelligent benevolent people don't seem to lust after power. There must be an evoluionary reason for that.
Trying to be brief here...
5to10 - There is no conspiracy here beyond unenlightened self-interest. Which is to say, greed coupled with stupidity coupled with egocentricity and narcissism . The energy oligarchs aren't motivated by the prospect of watching the world burn. They just aren't wired to connect the dots between what they do now and bad things happening in their own future.
If they were born poor they would be the people setting up meth labs in their own apartments, oblivious to the fact that the inevitable consequences range from bad (they stink up the building and end up in jail), to terminal (they blow-up themselves and everyone around them).
The only way to win with such people is to convince them that they will be getting the better of you if they do what you want them to do. E.g. If you know that they think that the sooner all the ice melts, the more money they can make, and you know (hypothetically) that smashing the ice-cover to fragments in mid-December will actually make it thicker in April, then you push for them to bomb the crap out of the whole arctic in mid-December, on the public justification that it will prevent moslem insurgents from ice-sailing into Alaska under cover of darkness, whilst whispering into their ears that the real purpose is to make it easier to move the drilling rigs in.
<wry look>
Can we at least get back to the *pretense* of a discussion about the Arctic?
Yes, intelligent benevolent people probably see that many intelligent benevolent leaders of the past were assassinated. They are ousted quickly in a machine that is mostly evil and built on deception.I have lived and worked in many countries either in or exiting from dictatorships. I failed to find one either intelligent or benevolent.Unfortunately for our survival as a species, intelligent benevolent people don't seem to lust after power. There must be an evoluionary reason for that.
In the bible, beast are used to represent kingdoms and governments. The number seven always represents completeness or perfection. Therefore six represents something that comes up short or is imperfect. Repeating the six three times for emphasis shows just how imperfect the human political system has been. The book of Daniel which goes into much detail about governments, explains at 2:44 that," In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever."
Part of Armageddon involves God "bringing to ruin those ruining the Earth." Rev. 11:18
After this war of Armageddon, the 1000 years begins, not before.
In the bible, beast are used to represent kingdoms and governments. The number seven always represents completeness or perfection. Therefore six represents something that comes up short or is imperfect. Repeating the six three times for emphasis shows just how imperfect the human political system has been. The book of Daniel which goes into much detail about governments, explains at 2:44 that," In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever."
Part of Armageddon involves God "bringing to ruin those ruining the Earth." Rev. 11:18
After this war of Armageddon, the 1000 years begins, not before.
even though i do not believe in the old man with the beard i love that book and if everyone would read and follow all the wisdom in there (not every word is wisdom but almost all the wisdom is somewhere) we would be far far far better of.
from your except i guess that you did not read that up just to reply ;) interesting in many aspects (positively of coxurse)
I have lived and worked in many countries either in or exiting from dictatorships. I failed to find one either intelligent or benevolent.Unfortunately for our survival as a species, intelligent benevolent people don't seem to lust after power. There must be an evoluionary reason for that.
The notion that the "media" can somehow be unified and evangelize a biosphere saving (and therefore humanity preserving) message is interesting but has little to no chance of success. The media is a human construct not unlike most others: composed of people with a multitude of perspectives, frames of reference, motivations, and missions.
If we have observed and verified that current human societies, nations and communities are unable to move as one to recognize and mitigate existential threats to the biosphere and the future of humanity, there is no reason to believe that the "media" will achieve such a mind shift.
And these days, the media is a much broader sweep of individuals inputs due to evolution of technology and communication vehicles. There is no central point of reference that defines media, and there is no possible way to centralize and standardize a singular message.
This sums it up for me . . .
The notion that the "media" can somehow be unified and evangelize a biosphere saving (and therefore humanity preserving) message is interesting but has little to no chance of success. The media is a human construct not unlike most others: composed of people with a multitude of perspectives, frames of reference, motivations, and missions.
If we have observed and verified that current human societies, nations and communities are unable to move as one to recognize and mitigate existential threats to the biosphere and the future of humanity, there is no reason to believe that the "media" will achieve such a mind shift.
And these days, the media is a much broader sweep of individuals inputs due to evolution of technology and communication vehicles. There is no central point of reference that defines media, and there is no possible way to centralize and standardize a singular message.
Well that is our only hope to unite consciousness towards pressing matters.
Certainly newsmedia comprises of many various views and opinions. I would wager to guess that most individuals within it are rational and the rest can be lead to rationality by way of mass majority influence.
It would not be an instantaneous shift. The key is raising the awareness of the majority, in fact directing awareness to a specific place: You are the ones with the power to change this, but only together.
I realize the logistics are unimaginable. Yet we stlll can't say impossible, thus unless anyone else has a better idea as to a starting point with a higher probability of success (however low this one is)... What are we waiting for? Impactful work ASAP requires unified consciousness, media directs consciousness. The only weakness of the beast that is the media machine, is the humanity within the reporters as individuals and the epiphanic awareness waiting to be aroused within them.
Act now however we can or accept that your certainty of our inevitable demise is based on high improbability, not impossibility, and thus your inaction is irrational and tantamount to longterm suicide or the murder of future generations.
It is time to start feeling the guilt we deserve and not accepting "the inevitable". Call it the highly probable, and lay down and die then, if you must. Reporters/editors/all moral individuals within newsmedia must be made aware that they are doing the same and will thus slowly come to realize their direct, serious influence on the situation AS INDIVIDUALS, not just as a collective. They are not aware yet, they don't understand their individual role in the big picture, they are not subject to the related pangs of conscience yet or they would be facing the moral dilemma therein with every single story they publish.
Logically this must lead to something big, and we must admit that barring unknown technological, spiritual, or exo-planetary black swans that we have no more likely or optimistic way to start something here.
Interesting thoughts, but -
> Humans are more biologically and cognitively instinctual vs rational, and the meaning of "rational" could be debated to no end. What's rational to you may not be to me, and so forth.
> There is no such thing as a "unified consciousness". It's all relative, and subject to the same variables of frame of reference, motivation, meeting basic needs for self and loved ones.
What's irrational is the belief that any form of mammal is meant to persist ad infinitum. That does not square with the biologic and fossil record.
The notion that the "media" can somehow be unified and evangelize a biosphere saving (and therefore humanity preserving) message is interesting but has little to no chance of success. The media is a human construct not unlike most others: composed of people with a multitude of perspectives, frames of reference, motivations, and missions.
If we have observed and verified that current human societies, nations and communities are unable to move as one to recognize and mitigate existential threats to the biosphere and the future of humanity, there is no reason to believe that the "media" will achieve such a mind shift.
And these days, the media is a much broader sweep of individuals inputs due to evolution of technology and communication vehicles. There is no central point of reference that defines media, and there is no possible way to centralize and standardize a singular message.
The notion that the "media" can somehow be unified and evangelize a biosphere saving (and therefore humanity preserving) message is interesting but has little to no chance of success. The media is a human construct not unlike most others: composed of people with a multitude of perspectives, frames of reference, motivations, and missions.
If we have observed and verified that current human societies, nations and communities are unable to move as one to recognize and mitigate existential threats to the biosphere and the future of humanity, there is no reason to believe that the "media" will achieve such a mind shift.
And these days, the media is a much broader sweep of individuals inputs due to evolution of technology and communication vehicles. There is no central point of reference that defines media, and there is no possible way to centralize and standardize a singular message.
agree 100%
and a bit more bluntly said:
a) they sell advertising
b) they do it for money
nothing wrong with that but then it's part of the problem and certainly prevents any sound moves that go against the advertisers and those they live from are not the small ones who place tiny ads for a few bucks, it's those who do "Public Relation" more than advertising and in the millions, or did anyone ever fuel his car because of an exxon or british petroleum "AD" certainly no-one i know about. :-)
Interesting thoughts, but -
> Humans are more biologically and cognitively instinctual vs rational, and the meaning of "rational" could be debated to no end. What's rational to you may not be to me, and so forth.
> There is no such thing as a "unified consciousness". It's all relative, and subject to the same variables of frame of reference, motivation, meeting basic needs for self and loved ones.
What's irrational is the belief that any form of mammal is meant to persist ad infinitum. That does not square with the biologic and fossil record.
I would argue that we have in many ways overcome many base instincts via heightened awareness. In conjunction do these things happen and this is evident throughout history and in the present.
Thus a gigantic shift in awareness is still totally rational.
It may be irrational to believe that "any form of mammal is meant to persist" but it is just as irrational to believe that life here NOW is 100%, certainly, no way out meant to disappear here.
The only rational perspective is "It's highly improbable we get out of this and save the natural world such that it can heal, but we cannot say it is impossible, thus there may be a fleeting chance we may not be aware of right now." and thus the only rational course of action is to look for that fleeting chance.
If you aren't doing that, you are long-term suicidal as well as presently and henceforth allowing the destruction of most or all living things as a result of individual and collective inaction EVEN STILL when it looks impossible (But we still can't say it is...). Perhaps you're okay with that, but that's on you and your values.
In essence, I'm doing to you as you read this and cognitive dissonance fades, what we need to do to the reporters. Everything I said is truth, despite any probabilities you can throw at me.
Now that you are acutely aware that you cannot scientifically propose that it is impossible, you have to do everything you can think of from this moment forward to help save the natural world with the rest of us who understand this, or admit you are okay with the natural world being murdered by yours and everyone elses inaction in the present.
It was never inevitable. It still isn't. WE ARE, AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MAKING IT INEVITABLE IN OUR OWN MINDS.
You will understand if you are honest and rational that as I am speaking nothing but the truth, there is no rebuttal that cannot be easily cast aside with further truth, and I don't believe one is gifted truth for any purpose other than sharing it and trying to raise awareness for the better. The truth is not mine, it has nothing to do with me as a person, and I deserve no credit for its appearance within my consciousness should it be truth.
We must all accept and cannot avoid the truth, and the moral ramifications of the truth once it is clear to us. If we do not accept it, it is still as yet unclear.
It is our choice what to do with it.
Although it's an interesting rhetorical strategy to cast others as suicidal and murderers whilst trying to educate and influence towards a "unified consciousness", may I suggest that's it really not an effective consensus building strategy and is more likely to cause a negative response to your perspective and end goals.
But to entertain the concept, the reality is that this "murdering" has always been and will always be a central characteristic of humanity. Humans have either transformed, subjugated, or murdered every form of flora and fauna that we've encountered in our brief tenure as a species. The only forms of life to escape this intentional fate are the undiscovered, and even so we indirectly do the same things to them via our collective human activities within the biosphere.
Of course efforts should continue and need to ramp up considerably to shift energy consumption away from fossil fuels, and to repair and preserve what remains of the natural world for today and future generations. Harnessing the media and other entities to assist with that is a perfectly reasonable and rational approach. But the observational record of human behavior, and what we appear to understand about the physical forces we've unleashed, would strongly suggest that we are time limited as a species. There is nothing murderous or suicidal about reaching that conclusion.
Your thoughts and intent are admirable, though likely Quixotic.
I smoke ... and drink Ayahuasca . These interactions have shown me how pliable this world is . Our thoughts .. all of them .. are the creative forces that make this world what it is . However the only thoughts we can truely change are our own .
Ayahuasca visions have shown me that this world is an illusion where the sleeping children of the Creator are given endless opportunity to awaken . As the bible says .. Adam slept. There is no reference to him (us) awakening . As Jesus says .. ye are all Gods !
He also said 'judge not' .. but we always are , denying ourselves experience of our Divinity. When we allow ourselves , we too will see the 'New Jerusalem' and a world of love and light will embrace even the Donald Trumps :)
Where then our fears and worries about Climate change ?
When there is nothing that can be done, that which cannot be done will be grasped at, rather than admit it is beyond us.
By the time we knew there was a problem, we were far past solutions. Sometimes you just don't realize until it's too late.
Irrigation, dams and agriculture put us outside the envelope, beyond the environment governing our numbers and impact.
Which puts us thousands of years late in grasping the consequences. Shit happens.
We had a good run.
...
c: exploding population in humans directly resulting from industrialization, not vice versa.
just as 90% of other problems we see. Warming, greenhouse gases for example is measured from a pre-industrial baseline for that reason as well of course.
My great-granddad travelled by horse. I travel further because I have a car that has 400 mile range on a tank of gas. My problems:
1) I'm 400 miles from home and out of gas
2) I don't know my way around in this unfamiliar place
3) I'm hungry
It's the car's fault? Or as my 13 yr-old would say 'Logic much, brah?'
It won't help but ... if I view the Yin Yang symbol as duality and my sense of existing/being is the edge of the circle. What is outside of the circle is true, infinite and unborn and the context for what is inside to arise in. What is inside is the play.
It does not mean "I" don't do something "I" will always do something ::) Sorry just babbling as usual.
Nothing like immanent crises to bring focus.
I agree it's a mistake to think of evolution as a goal: evolution is purely a process, but it undoubtedly is responsible for [almost] everything we are as animals.I have lived and worked in many countries either in or exiting from dictatorships. I failed to find one either intelligent or benevolent.Unfortunately for our survival as a species, intelligent benevolent people don't seem to lust after power. There must be an evoluionary reason for that.
this depends whether evolution is the goal
Civilization created the problem, and civilization needs to go gently into the night lest it take all of us along.
Terry
>I agree it's a mistake to think of evolution as a goal: evolution is purely a process, but it undoubtedly is responsible for [almost] everything we are as animals.
Although CRISPR has the potential to change all that!
I hear you 5to10 like you are in my own head.Ooof! And three billion people promptly die from starvation, exposure, disease and fighting. There is a difference between lowering a basket of eggs to the floor, and simply knocking it off the shelf. We have the means and time to do the former.
If the media miraculously get it and want to get us all onto the right road, do you know what they need to say?
If I was elected dictator of the world tomorrow with a magical wand to make everyone follow me rules, I would decree, with immediate effect:
Shut down all nuclear power and store the toxic wastes as best as possible.
Stop all production.
Stop all transportation.
No more ff generated electricity. Electricity exists only from existing renewable until it breaks.
Eat whatever you can find.
Everyone must plant trees and dig swales.
No cutting down of trees.
There are enough hand tools and clothes and housing etc needed for the foreseeable future.
Even then there is no guarantee that AGW is reversible and that homo sapiens get to exist longer than the foreseeable future.
So I would kindly ask everyone to pray.
No cutting down of trees.
QuoteNo cutting down of trees.
I humbly request, your majesty.
Would it be ok if someone cut down the thousands and thousands of dead ones that died last year across the street from my home? I mean, they are dead already.
If 350 ppm CO2 is the manageable level how do you think we are going to get there, very fast?Like I pointed out in another thread a while back, if you look at surface concentrations around the world, these are 30 to 40 ppm's higher than they are near the mountain peak in Mauna Loa. So that's a long ways from 350 ppm, with 280 being ideal.
I would love if humanity got it and turned this freight train around. If it doesn't happen genocide is guaranteed. We are all culpable. Breathe deep, make the choice and carry on if you want to.
Chou chou...
It's rather hard these days to be both well informed andcompletelyat all optimistic.
But if you mean, with Antonio Gramsci: Optimismo de la voluntad y pesimismo de la razón, then I can perhaps follow you, at least on some days. :) :(
It's rather hard these days to be both well informed andcompletelyat all optimistic.
But if you mean, with Antonio Gramsci: Optimismo de la voluntad y pesimismo de la razón, then I can perhaps follow you, at least on some days. :) :(
"Optimism of the will and pessimism of reason"
The duality of thought that I've often tried to find the words for.
My intellect screams that there is no hope. The rest of me says that 'this too shall pass', that 'every problem has a solution', and that 'it's always darkest near the dawn'.
Intelligence at war with cliches.
Intellect vs. life experience.
Knowledge against instinct.
Different mental processes produce divergent answers even though the data is equivalent. A single mind accepts the inevitable, yet it fights & struggles as though change might somehow prevail.
I can't believe there is any glimmer of hope, yet to do nothing, even with certainty that nothing can possibility prevail, seems monstrous.
Optimismo de la voluntad y pesimismo de la razón
[/size]
[/size]Terry
>I agree it's a mistake to think of evolution as a goal: evolution is purely a process, but it undoubtedly is responsible for [almost] everything we are as animals.I had to Google that. That's pretty cool. Except in the hands of politicians.
Although CRISPR has the potential to change all that!
Beyond a shift in consciousness, what about quantum computing? A focused effort on a specialized rig that can offer us solutions based on the vast amount of data?Unfortunately, realty is a far more powerful processor then even quantum computers. There's no point at which a sufficiently detailed model of a tree becomes a tree. Thus, the tree will always have the potential to surprise us. Large, dynamic, natural systems commensurately more so.
Dearest 5to10 - if you think you know what actions are needed on the global level to fix AGW and planetary destruction then it's time to live those changes. Be the change you want to see.
I'd also love to hear your ideas as I want to include more actions on my personal side.
if we have the vast majority of humanity, the issues of manpower and as such time begin to disappear.If we get humanity working on AGW with total focus I totally believe we can solve this. Explain to someone in a hospital who is on life support the new focus on solving AGW and if he/she has enough energy to plant 1 tree before he/she dies and I am sure they will get out of bed to plant it and die happier.
Getting people on the same page is the goal, and we can be doing that right now in many ways. Educate people, but always stay optimistic.
As for my idea "arising out of fear", it's not.
Media paradigm shift is, in my mind, one of the fundamental first steps, a necessity.
Building on what 5to10 is saying, there is a pretty deep literature on how social movements begin and build. It is a highly non-linear process. Ideas do sweep through populations in a dramatic way and it's not well understood exactly how it happens (and it may not really be fully understandable). Sometimes it has it roots in self-preservation. Think the change in public attitudes about smoking in this country.One problem is that there's a powerful shift already underway, and its towards nativism and nationalism. It could be argued that this is a misguided response to politics, but if it takes hold then it'll be as hard to stop as other populist movements.
But there are lots of examples of huge shifts in the public zeitgeist: slavery, gay marriage and LGBT rights, drunk driving, seatbelt use, etc. The media play a role but they are not the be all and end all of how these changes arise.
Obviously the shift we need is far vaster and more universal than any that has ever occurred on the planet. It will come, if it does, after it is "too late" in many ways, but it may yet come. Like many here, I think some irrefutable weather disasters will probably be needed to catalyze it. So far, what seems irrefutable to us is still roundly ignored by most. We shall see...
Cid, I will choose to live my life in such a way that I can die with the satisfaction of knowing I tried all I could to prevent or limit a terrible catastrophe and with hope for the goodness of human nature.
If we fail then so be it. But to go to the grave having done sod all to attempt to limit such a disaster as we are facing is a terrible thought to my mind. Even if it were clear that this is inevitable (I do not think it is really even possible to know that at this point, even though the prospects aren't great), I would still gain far more satisfaction in my life from actually trying to do something about it anyway, and die happier knowing I represented the final burning flame of human optimism for all that we love.
I do not wish to go quietly into the night
I simply need it, to continue my life as a mother. Maybe it is selfish&naive-but what would be the alternative? I told my kids about the mess a little, I told them about our tries to make it better (our energy efficient home, our electric car, our garden with eatable stuff and the plan of a own PV powerplant...)
One problem is that there's a powerful shift already underway, and its towards nativism and nationalism. It could be argued that this is a misguided response to politics, but if it takes hold then it'll be as hard to stop as other populist movements.
I think a lot of the current turn toward insularity and xenophobia is in fact a response to a looming sense of resource scarcity and competition. Naomi Klein has characterized the future as a battle between "disaster capitalism" and communalism. It appears for now that the battle lines are being drawn and our better angels are losing.A very intelligent comment.
I find myself coming back to a sort of old-fashioned word for what I think we need: "conviviality". We need a rise in neighbors working with neighbors within a relocalized and vastly constrained economic model. To do that, we need to learn to get along and appreciate one another. While I try and surround myself with people that appreciate that view, I find the world around me increasingly hostile to it.
I think a lot of the current turn toward insularity and xenophobia is in fact a response to a looming sense of resource scarcity and competition. Naomi Klein has characterized the future as a battle between "disaster capitalism" and communalism. It appears for now that the battle lines are being drawn and our better angels are losing.
I find myself coming back to a sort of old-fashioned word for what I think we need: "conviviality". We need a rise in neighbors working with neighbors within a relocalized and vastly constrained economic model. To do that, we need to learn to get along and appreciate one another. While I try and surround myself with people that appreciate that view, I find the world around me increasingly hostile to it.
I have to say, after reading some responses here and elsewhere, I am very optimistic, where I had given up all hope days before. I actually see that this shift we are describing is slowly happening - we are a part of it right here. It is happening, and we ARE in for unbelievable things together. There is much to see. Real impactful change and a future full of love and compassion beyond that could happen, together. We are so close to trying. That's why "they" are discrediting the news and information now, in advance - They know that this is humanity's chance. They have chosen inaction, destruction, unless they have proven to be truthful and productive in what THEY choose to talk about as politicians. It is high time we discard their opinions unless they are wiling to be honest.These are fine sentiments, and I hope you're right, but the good people you describe are such a small minority. Even the upwelling of rational, liberal sentiment in the United States now is the work of a small minority. It looks big, because it's loud, but the voting majority don't want to know about it. They'll be convinced by some proof of something that interests them, such as personal financial loss, or a challenge to their national pride.
These are fine sentiments, and I hope you're right, but the good people you describe are such a small minority. Even the upwelling of rational, liberal sentiment in the United States now is the work of a small minority. It looks big, because it's loud, but the voting majority don't want to know about it. They'll be convinced by some proof of something that interests them, such as personal financial loss, or a challenge to their national pride.
The best hope for the world may be that Russia really did collude with the Trump campaign, because then a cache of progressive issues might enter the mainstream on the coattails of dissent.
These are fine sentiments, and I hope you're right, but the good people you describe are such a small minority. Even the upwelling of rational, liberal sentiment in the United States now is the work of a small minority. It looks big, because it's loud, but the voting majority don't want to know about it. They'll be convinced by some proof of something that interests them, such as personal financial loss, or a challenge to their national pride.
The best hope for the world may be that Russia really did collude with the Trump campaign, because then a cache of progressive issues might enter the mainstream on the coattails of dissent.
And then you have people like me. I used to be a member of Greenpeace, but back in 2000 when A greenpeace campaigner accosted me my reply was "too late, leave me alone."
I think a lot of the current turn toward insularity and xenophobia is in fact a response to a looming sense of resource scarcity and competition. Naomi Klein has characterized the future as a battle between "disaster capitalism" and communalism. It appears for now that the battle lines are being drawn and our better angels are losing.A very intelligent comment.
I find myself coming back to a sort of old-fashioned word for what I think we need: "conviviality". We need a rise in neighbors working with neighbors within a relocalized and vastly constrained economic model. To do that, we need to learn to get along and appreciate one another. While I try and surround myself with people that appreciate that view, I find the world around me increasingly hostile to it.
My point is the time we have left. Wasting it or using it.
Now is the time to live as it is the only time you will have. Think quality instead of quantity. Leave that job you hate. Stop planning for a future that will never be.
Make peace with yourself. Love your family.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCOuXJUNu3Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCOuXJUNu3Q)
I miss A-Team. I reeaaaallly miss A-Team.
Off topic. Ban magnamentis from the forum. ;) ( I assume something like that is what you mean)I miss A-Team. I reeaaaallly miss A-Team.
then you have never been the victim of one of those rude outbrakes, lucky you ;)
5to10. It is not black and gray and it is not "with us" or against us. We are bound by nature and physical phenomena. Mass balances, heat and mass transfer, materials. Some things are going to be physically impossible and we just have to accept it and spend our resources to what is possible even if it's very hard to do.
5to10,
Your premise of imminent existential threat is not accepted as a fundamental truth. You build a personal philosophy around it, as is your right. You project it on others at risk of being called out as a charlatan.
hi.. 5to10 .. little problems .. scientists waiting on peer review and the newsmedia bypass that are twatter and farcebook .. Then there is the antagonizing of the like minded .. result .. a Voice inthe Wilderness (what's left of it ) .
You need to find a different level of consciousness in which , as cause , you can effect change .. remember this is quantum world .. every sub atomic particle is waiting to do your bidding ..
...Forget the semantics. Admit that global unity is the only hopeful way forward if there is any chance at all. Admit and accept within your own mind that your unwillingness to do everything possible towards real change is tantamount to ensuring the living world will find no way out of what appears to be near total destruction. Can you? ...
If you cannot say for certain it is impossible, then you must say there may be a chance that we aren't seeing to literally save the world and ourselves.
If you cannot say for certain it is impossible, then you must say there may be a chance that we aren't seeing to literally save the world and ourselves.
The world will be just fine, and I don't see why we need "saving." This is simply another abrupt climate change, and even Homo Sapiens has survived several so far.
If you cannot say for certain it is impossible, then you must say there may be a chance that we aren't seeing to literally save the world and ourselves.
The world will be just fine, and I don't see why we need "saving." This is simply another abrupt climate change, and even Homo Sapiens has survived several so far.
Can't let that go, Jiim, having been involved in cleaning up the aftermath of societal collapse here and there. Being a reluctant father-confessor to both the victims and perpetrators of atrocities teaches one not to regard the very possible future of humanity with equanimity.
If you cannot say for certain it is impossible, then you must say there may be a chance that we aren't seeing to literally save the world and ourselves.
The world will be just fine, and I don't see why we need "saving." This is simply another abrupt climate change, and even Homo Sapiens has survived several so far.
Can't let that go, Jiim, having been involved in cleaning up the aftermath of societal collapse here and there. Being a reluctant father-confessor to both the victims and perpetrators of atrocities teaches one not to regard the very possible future of humanity with equanimity.
If you cannot say for certain it is impossible, then you must say there may be a chance that we aren't seeing to literally save the world and ourselves.
The world will be just fine, and I don't see why we need "saving." This is simply another abrupt climate change, and even Homo Sapiens has survived several so far.
Can't let that go, Jiim, having been involved in cleaning up the aftermath of societal collapse here and there. Being a reluctant father-confessor to both the victims and perpetrators of atrocities teaches one not to regard the very possible future of humanity with equanimity.
It isn't "the very possible" future. It is, by far, part of the most likely future. However, I think the development of Computer Science is progressing even faster than Climate Change, and that Mankind will not even notice when Homo Sapiens goes extinct. (In fact, even the last of the species might not notice.)
If this 'reality' is even real to begin with...
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/elon-musk-simulated-universe-hypothesis
QuoteIf this 'reality' is even real to begin with...
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/elon-musk-simulated-universe-hypothesis
Just another way to rationalize your way out of doing something so you can continue being lazy in selfishness.
...
QuoteIf this 'reality' is even real to begin with...
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/elon-musk-simulated-universe-hypothesis
Just another way to rationalize your way out of doing something so you can continue being lazy in selfishness.
...
Just my way of saying that you have beat your point to death.
5to10
As I understand your argument you're saying that if we all come together as a unity, something magical may happen, and this may save us all.
You then attack everyone with a different perspective, thereby proving not only that unity doesn't exist at present, but that anyone dividing the world into those that believe (in unity), and those that don't believe, will forever preclude a unity of thought, and that your magical moment will never occur.
Terry
5to10
As I understand your argument you're saying that if we all come together as a unity, something magical may happen, and this may save us all.
You then attack everyone with a different perspective, thereby proving not only that unity doesn't exist at present, but that anyone dividing the world into those that believe (in unity), and those that don't believe, will forever preclude a unity of thought, and that your magical moment will never occur.
Terry
5to10
As I understand your argument you're saying that if we all come together as a unity, something magical may happen, and this may save us all.
You then attack everyone with a different perspective, thereby proving not only that unity doesn't exist at present, but that anyone dividing the world into those that believe (in unity), and those that don't believe, will forever preclude a unity of thought, and that your magical moment will never occur.
Terry
You must see by now that it's nigh impossible, because what I am saying is almost certainly true.
You must see by now that it's nigh impossible, because what I am saying is almost certainly true.
I am a Primitive Buddhist. I believe: No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Simply by asserting that something is True you have completely lost any possible support from me and people who think like me. I do not believe in Truth.
5to10
As I understand your argument you're saying that if we all come together as a unity, something magical may happen, and this may save us all.
You then attack everyone with a different perspective, thereby proving not only that unity doesn't exist at present, but that anyone dividing the world into those that believe (in unity), and those that don't believe, will forever preclude a unity of thought, and that your magical moment will never occur.
Terry
First completely meaningful statement I have read on this thread -- thank you.
Thanks Jim... I find your commentary to be always of the highest quality as well.
Thanks Jim... I find your commentary to be always of the highest quality as well.
Unfortunate that his statement was again easily refuted by the truth.
Still waiting on one of you 3-5 people to present some kind of rational statement in contradiction to what I'm explaining.
You'd think there would be strength in numbers here as usual, but the truth doesn't lose to the deception of the majority.
Refute it or accept it.
Thanks Jim... I find your commentary to be always of the highest quality as well.
Unfortunate that his statement was again easily refuted by the truth.
Still waiting on one of you 3-5 people to present some kind of rational statement in contradiction to what I'm explaining.
You'd think there would be strength in numbers here as usual, but the truth doesn't lose to the deception of the majority.
Refute it or accept it.
Yours are the ramblings of a madman. They cannot be refuted, as they are not framed in a common belief system. We would have to begin with the meaning of truth... who has the time.
I hope you get banned.You must see by now that it's nigh impossible, because what I am saying is almost certainly true.
I am a Primitive Buddhist. I believe: No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Simply by asserting that something is True you have completely lost any possible support from me and people who think like me. I do not believe in Truth.
So you believe it's true that there is no truth? That's ironic.
Openly contradicting yourself in such a small comment is not a good way to support your argument.
Ahh, a direct personal attack.I hope you get banned.You must see by now that it's nigh impossible, because what I am saying is almost certainly true.
I am a Primitive Buddhist. I believe: No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Simply by asserting that something is True you have completely lost any possible support from me and people who think like me. I do not believe in Truth.
So you believe it's true that there is no truth? That's ironic.
Openly contradicting yourself in such a small comment is not a good way to support your argument.
Where in the history of mankind has this been able to be before?
The United Nations has failed, but not by lack of effort. How can you organize something greater than it on here and expect to outdo it. First of all, if you don't work your goals through the U.N., it will not allow you to do so outside of it. Billions of dollars have been poured into it and no lack of effort. It would take a lifetime to build up any organization to come even close to it in scope and magnitude. Furthermore, it can't ever accomplish what it has been made out to be and do.
The UN does not direct us towards an exactly clear purpose.
QuoteThe UN does not direct us towards an exactly clear purpose.
The main goals of the U.N. are to achieve peace and security. Averting climate disaster would fall under the security part. It is hard to focus on the security part, without assuming first that you don't have war, having achieved peace. I wouldn't assume that by the way.
GrayWolf - What you are seeing in the dissent is an individual struggle with an effectively inescapable truth they had as yet not seen. If it is not, I have yet to see logical opposition. Show me some, or accept it once you recognize it.
GrayWolf - What you are seeing in the dissent is an individual struggle with an effectively inescapable truth they had as yet not seen. If it is not, I have yet to see logical opposition. Show me some, or accept it once you recognize it.
No, the problem isn't that anyone is unwilling to consider your vision and plan. Some see the human problem differently, but these are smart, open-minded folks here.
The problem is that the vigorous proponent of unity has been repetitive, long-winded, dogmatic, and dismissive of others.
If such proponents of unity can only sow discord, then this may portend a bad outcome for humanity.
The UN does not have the influence that news-media does.
5to10
"All I can say is that truth has a powerful "feedback" mechanism built in that kind of makes it spread itself as it goes until it overwhelms the bullshit."
The truth is abstract. I think? While I agree with your line of reasoning I think, coming to a unified truth is like looking for the singularity. It most likely exists, but if found, most will not likely be able to wrap their heads around it.
For any situation there are as many truths as there are observers. Each holding that their version of the truth is the correct one. Getting an agreement between observers increases in difficulty with the increase in their number. Having a consensus between 76 people on how anything should function is an amazing feat. Getting 7.6 billion to agree well now that's optimism. So long as there is power and profit to be made from corrupting any such truth it will be nye impossible to pull it off.
The temptation to deceive is as old as the human race,
and so is the inclination to succumb to deception,
which is credulity.
Joseph Jastrow
I'm not sure an "open thread" like this really belongs in the Cryosphere subforum - worth moving it to "The Rest" subforum with the rest of the general threads?
QuoteThe UN does not have the influence that news-media does.
All the media talks about anymore are political leaders and the only solutions the media points to are political solutions. If they did make everyone aware of the what is happening with the climate, and the people united and protested in the streets for their leaders to find a solution, it would only go full circle to the one institution the world leaders have in common and at their disposal, the U.N..
I'm not sure an "open thread" like this really belongs in the Cryosphere subforum - worth moving it to "The Rest" subforum with the rest of the general threads?
Ramen !!
Very little here relates to ice.
Cid Yama
Any chance you attend RGs & Ags?
Terry
I'm not sure an "open thread" like this really belongs in the Cryosphere subforum - worth moving it to "The Rest" subforum with the rest of the general threads?
If it's about the Arctic and 2017 with no obvious home here's where it belongs.
This paper outlines the area l've been thinking about http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2505 (http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2505) illustrated here.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2505/figures/1 (http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2505/figures/1)
Whenever i thought tides and turbulence were running high in Baffin/Labrador there'd be streamers emerging from the ocean, there must be a more technical name for them but illustrated here. http://go.nasa.gov/2lpzqDm (http://go.nasa.gov/2lpzqDm) just by Hudson strait last full moon. So now when i see streamers i suspect vortices, this implies that angular momentum is carried through phase transition, is that possible? c+d in fig 4 from the paper illustrate the current across the north barents sea slope, it's my contention that this is a tidally driven current that is increasing as the resistance of the ice in the Arctic weakens. The weakening has two immediate causes the first is the reduction in the amount of kinetic energy needed to forge a path through the ice, that is when there was thick ice the underside caused huge amounts of turbulence dissipating any coherent stream, like a baffle, the second is that the ice has less mass and moves more readily. This second means that given the right/wrong wind conditions the current will be accelerated or slowed by mass ice movement. The only analogy that springs to mind is where every turn of a roundabout you add a little to the momentum,and when the current reaches some threshold the fractions within it become organised and an overturning c/w current evolves, so as the tidal forcing continues and the resistance fails the current increases and we may have some way to go before both its flow and vorticity peaks.
In the first image below, despite being long after the full moon some streamers are showing, and possibly some ice is being accelerated away from the front. The second shows some streamers a little closer to Svalbard.
Food for thought.
Someone mentioned praying earlier. I would suggest praying intently and more reading your Bible before putting you trust in any political organisation(s). Bible prophecy does not point to the outcome you may expect. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)QuoteThe UN does not have the influence that news-media does.
All the media talks about anymore are political leaders and the only solutions the media points to are political solutions. If they did make everyone aware of the what is happening with the climate, and the people united and protested in the streets for their leaders to find a solution, it would only go full circle to the one institution the world leaders have in common and at their disposal, the U.N..
Ahh, now we're getting somewhere, when your argument proves my point. Humanity would be united behind a clear purpose and willing to try. Now we could start at the important work. Now the U.N. could actually do something. Now scientists would be listened to. So many great things could start from here.
You mentioned praying earlier. I would suggest praying intently and more reading your Bible before putting you trust in any political organisation(s). Bible prophecy does not point to the outcome you may expect. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)
A couple people have pointed out the original intention of this thread and that it has derailed. I will let that be my closing comment on the matter on this thread.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
And all that is why I miss A-Team.
8)
I'm not sure an "open thread" like this really belongs in the Cryosphere subforum - worth moving it to "The Rest" subforum with the rest of the general threads?I can't help but agree.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
And all that is why I miss A-Team.
8)
Twas stuff like this drove him off.
Glad it's quaranteened here.
Jim Williams - I believe in Physics, which is slightly off from your "no Truth" but close enough for us to get along fine, I'd wager.
5to10 - You're arguing a losing battle here, and semantic philosophical argument about "Truth" and "Unity" are unlikely to get traction, and in fact highlight in part why we need robust political structures in place to deal with dissent.
You will not have unity until you have equality.
You will not have equality until human needs are addressed.
As long as human need fails to be addressed, those in need, and those who obstruct addressing it, will have little interest in any sort of metaphysical truth.
Your arguments smack of the conceit of privilege which neither feels need, nor has the experience of inequality.
Your prideful continuing insistence in repeating them is become tiresome.
You had the privilege to choose.You will not have unity until you have equality.
You will not have equality until human needs are addressed.
As long as human need fails to be addressed, those in need, and those who obstruct addressing it, will have little interest in any sort of metaphysical truth.
Your arguments smack of the conceit of privilege which neither feels need, nor has the experience of inequality.
Your prideful continuing insistence in repeating them is become tiresome.
Your assumptions are false. I have sacrificed a normal life and many relationships in the search for truth. I have given up almost everything and I make only enough to pay for what I need, plus a couple vices I need to give up. Between 600-800 a month CAD, to be exact, depending on how many days I work.
I am well aware of the causes and effects of inequality.
This "metaphysical truth" will continue to prove itself true until the majority are aware of it. I am certainly not the only person realizing these obscure irrefutable truths - am I?
I'm not prideful. I'm obligated to share and defend the truth. Especially in relation to our circumstances. Since you nor anyone else can logically refute it, and continue to focus mainly on symptoms on the disease rather than the cure, as well as spread deceptive information and commentary on the truth, I feel an obligation to respond.
You had the privilege to choose.
You have the luxury of a first world nation to live in which supports that choice.
You are obligated by nothing.
You have the smug irrefutable certainty of rectitude appropriate for a zealot. That is the epitome of pride.
As I said, you may argue ad nauseum, but will gain no traction.
I'm not sure an "open thread" like this really belongs in the Cryosphere subforum - worth moving it to "The Rest" subforum with the rest of the general threads?
+1I'm not sure an "open thread" like this really belongs in the Cryosphere subforum - worth moving it to "The Rest" subforum with the rest of the general threads?
Yes Please.
"Truth" and "unity" are words that send shivers up my back - the rallying cries of ayatollahs of every creed.Ayatollahs who distort the truth into deceit towards impure causes, and present a distorted version of the true unity I speak of, which will not be an option until the fundamental truth is understood by all. This is not the same. I speak of a fundamental unity born out of love.
"Unitiy" can only be achieved with violence, and "truth" is a man-made construct that has little to do with reality. "Facts" are only what we make them. In our current political climate, the term "post-truth" has been bandied about, but in reality "truth" has never been anything other than the statements that best fit the belief system and emotional status of the receiver.
My belief system presupposes me to accept that global warming is a very large danger to our current society - but it also precludes me from accepting calls for "unity" and "truth". There are no magic solutions to the dire future that many rightly fear, but semi-religious delusional ramblings on "unity" and "truth" are never going to solve anything.
"Truth" and "unity" are words that send shivers up my back - the rallying cries of ayatollahs of every creed.Ayatollahs who distort the truth into deceit towards impure causes, and present a distorted version of the true unity I speak of, which will not be an option until the fundamental truth is understood by all. This is not the same. I speak of a fundamental unity born out of love.
I have presented nothing but IRREFUTABLE truths about our situation and about our fundamental choice here. What you do with it is, well, your choice.
(Firstly, please do move this to a different section of the forum - it doesn't belong here!)"Truth" and "unity" are words that send shivers up my back - the rallying cries of ayatollahs of every creed.Ayatollahs who distort the truth into deceit towards impure causes, and present a distorted version of the true unity I speak of, which will not be an option until the fundamental truth is understood by all. This is not the same. I speak of a fundamental unity born out of love.
I have presented nothing but IRREFUTABLE truths about our situation and about our fundamental choice here. What you do with it is, well, your choice.
Unfortunately, those are the words of all the above-mentioned ayatollahs of every creed.Thank you for a great response. I recognize the similarities, but stand by the statement that I only provided irrefutable truth and the only path to our salvation. Awareness of truth, of the fundamental moral choice in the most difficult crisis, leading to unity by way of our collective good will, which is hidden beneath our ignorance and confusion. The understanding will destroy those barriers and awaken that goodwill.
Look, 5to10, the problem is that what you have is a beautiful dream, which has been dreamed many times before, and which has never turned out to be anything other than a dream. Is it possible, in the distant future, for everyone to think in the same way? Possibly, but we're talking about a distant future; first we have to homogenise the cultures, languages and religions of the world, and I for one would be very sad to see that happen. It would also be far too late.
Even given that, is it possible for all humans to act selflessly, and not for personal, familial or national gain, when the pressure on resources increases? No matter what your dream, I don't believe this is even close to being viable.
What it comes down to is that you are asking a lot of very talented, energetic and intelligent people to drop what they're doing and adopt your strategy of persuading journalists of the Truth. There are some major problems with this.
1. Few people here believe that humans have the technological ability, at present, to stop catastrophic climate change. A dream of some technology in the future doesn't help.
2. No-one here (I think) is persuaded that all journalists are persuadable; and unless they speak with one voice then it's pointless. Given that the media thrives on controversy, it's probably not possible to have an open media that speaks with one voice. That point is surely decades away, if it's even possible.It will be sparked by sudden global awareness that yes, in fact, the end IS nigh. Be that 2 years from now or decades away, as you say. This will unify the focus of the media naturally, once the truth of the situation can no longer be avoided in the minds of the vast majority. Many events could lead to this awareness and the weather is predicted to be more violent and unpredictable. Unless it all comes crashing down and kills us all at once, people will be asking questions. Journalists included. This is already happening.
3. Energy spent on your project takes energy away from other things, such as monitoring Arctic ice, trying to understand it, planning for the skills needed after potential societal collapse, etc. People who are extremely good at those aspects are not necessarily good at persuading reluctant journalists that what they are reporting on is more important than their livelihoods. What you are suggesting is a waste of skills that are likely to be essential for the well-being of society when the collapse starts to kick in.Aside from "preparing for societal collapse" (I truly believe we are headed for an amazing future beyond this present despair, that energy is spent towards the wrong cause. There is a solution in unity, we should spend energy on that) I accept much of this as true in relation to the communication issues that may arise there.
4. By arguing for your dream of putting all our energy into planning for what is probably an impossible pre-emptive solution, you are taking energy away from a detailed understanding of what is happening, how it will progress, and how we can best survive in a post-overpopulation world.I would say that creating a detailed understanding is what has been done for quite some time now, yet the situation continues to worsen, and faster as time progresses. You have the understanding of the fundamental physical situation. Now gain the understanding of the fundamental moral, spiritual situation. Some people have one or the other, few fathom both. All will understand both intimately when events unfold. Most people are moral but misguided, confused. When understanding arrives, we will unite behind our general desire to live and let live (when we aren't irrationally afraid of ethereal threats. These threats will fall to the wayside for all in comparison to the threat we will all soon see and understand together)
Telling people that they are selfish and lazy because they do not see the situation in the same way that you do, even when some of them have done an enormous amount towards reducing their carbon footprints and/or making their communities self-supporting, is arrogant and insulting. Personally, I think you are well-intentioned but misguided, and your 'solution' will set back our ability to cope with the crisis. I hope I've covered everything, because I don't have time to get sucked into this debate - I'm too busy helping the local community to become more sustainable, while attempting to earn enough to get by.Reducing our carbon footprints and recycling is not enough. We will have to sacrifice so much more first in the name of what is right. We will have to give up almost the whole world we are used to for goodness or be a part of the destruction. Our supermarkets. Our oil addiction. Our differences. Our jobs. This is the difficulty of the fundamental choice we will all soon be faced with. We must sacrifice our wants for the needs of everything and everyone else, and ourselves.
@all except 5to10
Don't you feel like I do, that this thread is a waste of time/energy?
@5to10
Just a few personal questions
- How old are you?
- Do you have children?
- If not, do you intend to have some?
Just bare answers, w/o comments, please. Those answers seem important to understand where you speak from.
(I am 63, 3 children, 3 grandchildren)
@all except 5to10
Don't you feel like I do, that this thread is a waste of time/energy?
@5to10
Just a few personal questions
- How old are you?
- Do you have children?
- If not, do you intend to have some?
Just bare answers, w/o comments, please. Those answers seem important to understand where you speak from.
(I am 63, 3 children, 3 grandchildren)
The thread is fine, much of the recent content is a waste of time and energy. Certain posts/posters can be read or ignored, as with every thread. Most that have been reading this thread from the beginning would probably not have done what you just did. DFTTAnother false representation.
I compiled this last year regarding Franz Josef Land. An open thread about the Arctic seems a good place to post a link for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpw2QVWnw6E&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpw2QVWnw6E&t=1s)
FWIW, I have him (her?) on ignore. There's a place somewhere on the ASIF, I suppose, for bashing and berating those who refute, or just simply disagree with, your profound thoughts on how we'll all, I don't know, gather together at the base of The Tree of Souls and use a tsaheylu to tap our neuroconductive antennae into the spirit of Eywa to help save us from our self-made climate catastrophe.
But this thread probably isn't that place.
I suppose the term "open thread" can mean different things to different people. But to me it simply means this particular forum is for discussing things associated with Arctic sea ice that aren't easily categorized. This isn't where we should discuss fried chicken recipes, or association football, or stock prices--or, you know, comparative religions.
So: as many others have suggested, can we *please* move this conversation elsewhere?
Here's an interesting pair of images...
I've been tracking for 3 week via Polar View some large blocks turning the NE corner of Greenland into the Fram, but they are kind just sitting there. Hoping to make an animation at some point. Images are from 2/13 and 3/4.
I compiled this last year regarding Franz Josef Land. An open thread about the Arctic seems a good place to post a link for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpw2QVWnw6E&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpw2QVWnw6E&t=1s)
......I have asked 5to10 to tone it down, even though I believe he would be happier and more productive in another venue.
"Truth" and "unity" are words that send shivers up my back.....
One note of caution. Even if the melt season turns out that there is not a great melt off and therefore a conclusion could be reached that the melt season was too cold or not right for melting, the ice is still in very bad shape. On top of that the winter months are getting so much warmer and stormier that what ice hangs around and actually grows is not in very good condition. In conclusion, the Arctic ice that is there is on life support and unless we humans get our act together, the rest of the earths systems are going to change so much that the normal will not be as it was even 20 years ago.There is certainly a teleconnection between the Arctic and the rest of the Earth. Where I live, the trees have always been a rich green for my whole life til now, a place where everything could thrive with little effort. Now the trees are dead or dying with pale Autumn-ish looking leaves. Heatwaves, wildfires, floods, and droughts are happening all over the place. Don't be fooled by the TV media because they won't report everything at one time, so as to give you the big picture. The heat energy has built to a point that the Earth can longer hold it back from being harmful, even with the help of the vast oceans.
LRC1962QuoteOne note of caution. Even if the melt season turns out that there is not a great melt off and therefore a conclusion could be reached that the melt season was too cold or not right for melting, the ice is still in very bad shape. On top of that the winter months are getting so much warmer and stormier that what ice hangs around and actually grows is not in very good condition. In conclusion, the Arctic ice that is there is on life support and unless we humans get our act together, the rest of the earths systems are going to change so much that the normal will not be as it was even 20 years ago.There is certainly a teleconnection between the Arctic and the rest of the Earth. Where I live, the trees have always been a rich green for my whole life til now, a place where everything could thrive with little effort. Now the trees are dead or dying with pale Autumn-ish looking leaves. Heatwaves, wildfires, floods, and droughts are happening all over the place. Don't be fooled by the TV media because they won't report everything at one time, so as to give you the big picture. The heat energy has built to a point that the Earth can longer hold it back from being harmful, even with the help of the vast oceans.
Will there be impact on the Greenland surface melt, like we had in 2012? So far not much? (tick 2017 to compare 2012 with 2017 in NSIDC interactive graph)I was curious about this conversation in PIOMAS, and was hoping you all would continue it here.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/greenland-surface-melt-extent-interactive-chart (http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/greenland-surface-melt-extent-interactive-chart)
Notice NSIDC stated April 3, 2017
Daily updates have resumed for the 2017 melt season. Bit puzzling, according to the data not a single melt day so far?QuoteIn recent decades, the Greenland ice sheet has experienced increased surface melt. However, the underlying cause of this increased surface melting and how it relates to cryospheric changes across the Arctic remain unclear. Here it is shown that an important contributing factor is the decreasing Arctic sea ice. Reduced summer sea ice favors stronger and more frequent occurrences of blocking-high pressure events over Greenland. Blocking highs enhance the transport of warm, moist air over Greenland, which increases downwelling infrared radiation, contributes to increased extreme heat events, and accounts for the majority of the observed warming trends. These findings are supported by analyses of observations and reanalysis data, as well as by independent atmospheric model simulations using a state-of-the-art atmospheric model that is forced by varying only the sea ice conditions. Reduced sea ice conditions in the model favor more extensive Greenland surface melting. The authors find a positive feedback between the variability in the extent of summer Arctic sea ice and melt area of the summer Greenland ice sheet, which affects the Greenland ice sheet mass balance. This linkage may improve the projections of changes in the global sea level and thermohaline circulation.http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0391.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0391.1)
I was curious about this conversation in PIOMAS, and was hoping you all would continue it here.Ofc, would be nice to get some expert opinions on this years projected melt rates and the data.
Thought this might be a sign of fresh water break-out at Z/79N
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.polarview.aq%2Fimages%2F106_S1jpgsmall%2F201704%2FS1A_EW_GRDM_1SDH_20170419T072129_CD0F_N_1.jpg&hash=45bd14193e6d6f77ffcf8e4242a3195b)
Thanks for sharing this, Terry. That is indeed stunning!
i love science, but i do hate amazing announcements without peer review nor corroborations
https://www.amazon.ca/Summer-Leprechauns-Story-Tanis-Helliwell/dp/1577330013 (https://www.amazon.ca/Summer-Leprechauns-Story-Tanis-Helliwell/dp/1577330013)
Oren Yes as is the mslp chart :)Ramen 8)
It takes a while for reanalysis to put this years up.
Terry Agreed, wish i could do them. I used to think it was the high tides but now think it's the tidal range that matters, very low and very high tides, and just a little bias to breaking at low, here because it's a persistent high pressure system I think low water [not that the tides up there are very big] and am thinking water moves away from the center of the high, then there's the wind.
All too fascinating, a great distraction from political lunacy though.
For one thing in the U.S. most people have enjoyed the changes rather than being harmed by them. I hear people all the time saying how much they like the warmer winter. People go around in shorts and t-shirts, happy and care free, when it should be snowing and cold.I expect there will eventually come a time where the number of climate change deniers will dwindle to the point where they're essentially irrelevant, like the flat earthers. I would love to think that we could reach that point earlier rather than later, maybe because some event like an ice-free North Pole some year soon would convince certain prominent voices among them to change their minds.
It's a thin hope, but I think it's behind why some part of me roots for a record low extent each year.
If it makes you feel better, this is actually the case literally everywhere besides the US. Parties that deny the reality of climate change have been continually eviscerated; UKIP was the latest example. Insofar as that reflects the views of the electorate, it does seem to indicate that most people in the world accept that climate change is happening and caused by humans.
Edit: Sorry, realized this is probably too off topic. Won't respond any further.
It seems the natural thing to ask next is:Quotethickness vs area curves is that this year the very thick ice is almost gone, the thick ice that will make it through the summer will be very thin, and there's lots of thin ice that will melt out.Right. It would seem a given volume spread out over a large extent -- eg Oren's Inner Basin chart for the end of the month -- favors heat access modes and so collective top and bottom melt. Wind over long fetches then mixes warm water from depth and disperses weak ice over it.
Preconditioning from the extraordinary conditions last fall is easy to forget with the freeze forum split off but certain to manifest itself. Throw in unfavorable (or even unremarkable) weather and we will have quite a few weeks of extensive open water in late season exposing vulnerable residual ice to further risk and putting the dampers on the fall 2017 refreeze. There's no turning back.
But if winter 17-18 replicates last winter and the ice-cap enters winter in an already enfeebled state....Too much open water late in the season is one thing that will cause another rough winter for the Arctic, along with the oceans' warmth all over.
QuoteThe mistake you and others make is the assumption that this year's ice is anything like previous years. Or that this year's climate is anything like previous years. Or that atmospheric circulation or ocean currents and temperatures are anything like previous years.
You can crunch numbers all you want, but if circumstances in the past in no way resemble current circumstances, then it's just GIGO.
You can't treat a transforming system as if it's a static one and derive anything useful.
We have variations on this post LITERALLY EVERY YEAR. One year they will be right, much like a stopped clock. When that year comes, don't delude yourself that you deserve credit for your foresight.
Where did THAT come from? You may be fighting some personal demon, but it's not me.
Personal attacks are out of place here, especially when they are based on nothing but your own issues
You told other people that they're wrong. Peter Ellis told you that you're wrong. His language was perhaps slightly more pointed than yours, but not that much.
He is right that every year people say "conditions this year are totally different from any other previous year" and then most of the time the season proceeds more or less as it did the year before and the year before that.
We're about six weeks away from the minimum. Over the past six weeks, extent has decreased by 3.51 million km2. For the previous decade, the average was 3.59. Seems pretty typical to me.
I agree with Cid that the system is dynamic, but I think that an extent based thread is not where this discussion belongs. The Arctic Sea Ice extent is about as meaningless right this moment as it will ever be. It doesn't even have the usual value in regard to albedo because so much is so thin that the sun's rays pass right through it.
Anyway, extent has been used so much everyday of every year, it has become a stumbling block. We need to look at the overall picture, and on a large enough high res. screen, not a tiny phone.
They are actually looking at data, with all the caveats required.
You have made up your mind as to the outcome and seem to have no goal but to remind people of that.
Which is not to say you will not be correct eventually, but only one of those discussions is in any way interesting.
I know that I sound like a broke record, but I keep reading arguments over extent as a gauge for the melt season and the year overall. I reiterate that we use extent daily because it is available daily not because it is the best metric that we have.I don't think there is a "best" metric. They each have their advantages and disadvantages.
Houston; We have a problem!
Antarctic sea ice extent is the culprit.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1759.msg123514.html#msg123514
Houston; We have a problem!
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F&hash=35d7d5d7526c9897dfb55501e320295a)
you're right but why reaches ? it has been like that for most of the year or do i translate the word "reach" wrongly. until now i thought reaching is to get to a point/state/place where one has not been the moment before? would gladly make sure that i'm not mistaken or learn.If you can make a vertical line for this date or rather yesterday's on the graph, you can see how far below we are to the lowest per date or day of year. For example, yesterday it is the lowest for the 10th day of August compared to equivalent past days of the year in satellite history. So it reached a new low. Yes it has been low, but not this low. It looks to have beat the record by a few hundred thousand km2.
...I recently was sent two warnings that my accounts would be transferred to "State abandoned property" because i hadn't been in contact with them for >3 years. ...This has been the 'law of the land' (in the USA) for decades (for bank accounts). About 25 years ago the social service agency I worked for (as financial manager) managed (on behalf of a community focus group from a decade earlier) a special 'passbook savings account' that held funds for a very rarely needed purpose. When I got the job, I dutifully took the passbook in to get interest updated (a couple years worth of monthly additions!) and then got it updated 2 or 3 times a year. We then got the notice that it was about to be considered an 'abandoned account' as there had been no deposit or withdrawal in X years (bringing in the passbook didn't count, obviously) (from when some law was enacted, actually). I promptly 'donated' $1 to the enterprise to reset the clock. The two remaining-in-the-community members of the original focus group then decided to 'donate' the several hundred (thousand? - I don't recall) dollars to my agency. (The account required two signatures, and the two happened to both be among the five authorized signatures!)