Baked Alaska
September 30, 2004 9:18 PM   Subscribe

Melting into the ocean. In the Alaskan Arctic, villages like Shishmaref have a front row view of global warming.
posted by homunculus (19 comments total)

 
"'It's scary,' says village official Luci Eningowuk"

Ening-o-wuk Ening-o-wuk Ening-o-wuk Ening-o-wuk eeeeeen the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion sleeps toniiiiiiiight.

. . . oh. Yeah this is pretty terrible stuff.
posted by Ryvar at 9:26 PM on September 30, 2004


Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity
posted by homunculus at 10:21 PM on September 30, 2004


Ening-o-wuk Ening-o-wuk Ening-o-wuk...

*bangs head on block of ice*
posted by homunculus at 10:23 PM on September 30, 2004


what, no maps?

oooooeeeooooo oooo
ooo ooh ooh mommaway

posted by ethylene at 10:28 PM on September 30, 2004


Earth warned on 'tipping points'

Applying Climate Foresight
posted by homunculus at 11:37 PM on September 30, 2004


Does George Bush even know what science is? A new political advocacy organization, Scientists and Engineers for Change, is pretty sure the answer is no. And so they're going on the warpath.
posted by homunculus at 12:15 AM on October 1, 2004


So, we're back to global warming from climate change, eh?

Man, this stuff changes so quickly I expect the entire ocean to freeze by next week
posted by shepd at 12:50 AM on October 1, 2004


shepd - Nothing changes at all. You simply forgot to pay attention. Climate Change is a more accurate term than "Global Warming" (which many scientists have always disliked) for the reason that not all places on the Globe will warm evenly and some may even get cooler - but, on average, the Earth will get warmer.

Unless, of course, we touch off catastrophic (for us) climate change.

Of course, all of those pointy-headed scientists could be wrong - the Earth could be flat! :> "...there are problems with a spherical earth, and a now a new paradigm is emerging which seems to be a return to the wisdom of the ancients.

A sphere is bounded and hence is finite, which implies that there are limits, and in particular, there are limits to growth of things that consume the Earth and that live on
it.....a flat earth can accomodate growth forever, because a flat earth can be infinite in the two horizontal dimensions and also in the vertical downward direction.....The flat earth removes all the need for worry about limits. "


Meanwhile, back in reality :Russia Approves Kyoto Accords
posted by troutfishing at 1:09 AM on October 1, 2004


But, but, but, ... Dear Leader promised to use "sound science," not "junk science" so just SHUT UP!

junk science - science that contradicts closely held beliefs of extractive corporations and fundamentalists

sound science - "science" derived from "scientists" on the payroll of large corporations or right wing "think" tanks.
posted by nofundy at 4:34 AM on October 1, 2004


Now that I know George W. Bush is to blame for this, I'm definitely voting for him.
posted by Witty at 5:35 AM on October 1, 2004


Not very, Witty.
posted by troutfishing at 7:17 AM on October 1, 2004


Related: an Antarctic glacier the size of Rhode Island (!) recently became part of the ocean, and that's just "a little glacier, as Antarctic glaciers go" (again with the exclamation: !):

...ice sheets floating on the ocean at the edge of Antarctica keep glaciers in place. If rising temperatures cause the ice sheets to collapse -- as happened at one spot a couple of years ago -- glaciers could surge into the surrounding ocean and cause the ocean to rise rapidly. ...
posted by Shane at 7:30 AM on October 1, 2004


I reach the tipping point at about 7 beers.
posted by stbalbach at 4:28 PM on October 1, 2004


But, do you have a soft underbelly ?
posted by troutfishing at 7:17 PM on October 1, 2004


Hey, troutfishing, check this one out re: Kyoto.

According to that article, I've wasted $157 because of Kyoto and it doesn't feel good.
posted by shepd at 9:29 PM on October 1, 2004


shepd - That op-ed falls flat for me, sorry to say.

Take this : ".....Governments are notoriously bad at "inspiring" development of new technologies and encouraging their adoption." - Ummmmm......computers? The internet? Nuclear weapons and power plants? Rocketry? Advanced aviation? Radar?..........

That writer is a dumb hack, and even if the Canadian government did in fact waste $500 million in misguided efforts, that would be a case study of government waste, and not proof that cutting CO2 emissions was unwise or dis-economic. But - guess what? - government functions outsourced to private industry are also prone to waste and corruption, and with less government oversight.

I've said it before and I'll say it again : increasing energy efficiency is the smart way to go and does NOT exact an economic cost.

Example : From the late 1970's to the mid 1980's US energy consumption barely rose at all but the US economy grew at a healthy average pace. Hence : more wealth from less energy, and with the production of less CO2.

An energy efficient economy will always - all things being equal - outperform an energy wasteful one, and this is one reason why the Chinese economy threatens to beat the pants of (especially) the US economy.

The US industrial plant is still very wasteful, but the Chinese industrial plant is being built from scratch and so incorporates more modern, energy efficient technologies.

So - while we're having these sorts of debates and tying ourselves in knots, China will be laughing itself to the bank.

And that will only be just and also a case study in the dis-economic function of ideology ( anti-environmentalism, in this case ).

But from a more purely self interested perspective, I'd have to call American anti-environmentalists unpatriotic if not actually treasonous (and you're exempted from that, shepd, for being, of course, canadian) because energy efficiency is in the national interest and those who fight it, therefore, fight the national interest.
posted by troutfishing at 7:29 AM on October 2, 2004


troutfishing, you're not in Canada.

The Canadian government's way of inspiring technology:

- Let Bell build up all of the infrastructure.
- Let Bell destroy all competitiors through litigation
- Let Bell Reccomend new laws to the Canadian government
- Ensure laws are in place to hinder acceptance of new technology

Examples:

- Telephone (long distance to the US was $1 per minute until the mid 90's, CLECs were outlawed until about 1999)
- Music (Canada considers anyone owning a CD burner a criminal by default via a piracy levy on CD-Rs)
- Radio and Television (No station may broadcast less than 35% canadian content)
- Satellite TV (Canada was about 10 years late for DSS broadcasting due to restrictive Canadian laws, we are now set to ban the use of DVB receivers in Canada [this the primary method our forward thinking European counterparts use for satellite reception]) (Furthermore, despite that the government now owns and funds Bell ExpressVu satellite today, Canada's first satellite venture, Alphastar, fell flat due to a lack of Government funding. GO GO MONOPOLIES!) Here's a brief history.
- Computers (Canada's RCMP were instrumental in destroying Canada's BBS networks)
- "Environmentally Friendly" transport. Unlike other countries, mopeds must be licensed and insured in Canada, and 50 cc scooters require a full motorcycle license, and must be insured for the same level of insurance a $40,000 Harley Davidson would require. Progressive indeed.

Need I go on? I can be much more detailed, if you'd like. Government and technology don't mix, and their interaction is something I passively track.

>That writer is a dumb hack,

...With a PhD from one of Canada's leading universities.

>But - guess what? - government functions outsourced to private industry are also prone to waste and corruption, and with less government oversight.

Yes, so get rid of government involvement altogether. I agree.

>I'd have to call American anti-environmentalists unpatriotic if not actually treasonous (and you're exempted from that, shepd, for being, of course, canadian) because energy efficiency is in the national interest and those who fight it, therefore, fight the national interest.

Although it feels very Orwellian, studies can show that overconsumption improves the economy. Those who gauge a country's success by its economy would suggest that scrimping is a treasonous act. But hey, that's just me.

BTW: Despite the fact that not all countries have signed Kyoto, and despite the fact that Freon is still used in developing countries, the ozone hole is magically disappearing. How is that happening?
posted by shepd at 8:01 AM on October 2, 2004


shepd - "Those who gauge a country's success by its economy would suggest that scrimping is a treasonous act."

Some would suggest that gauging a country's success by its economy alone is in itself a treasonous act since it takes no account of the long term ability of that economy to survive.
But those people would be filthy hippies, and since I work in the oil exploration industry I say to hell with them (oil at $50/barrel yesterday! Bring out the champagne!).
posted by thatwhichfalls at 8:19 AM on October 2, 2004


"Yes, so get rid of government involvement altogether. I agree." - Yes, indeed. Who needs roads, universities, policeman and firemen, public schools, emergency management agencies, space exploration, government funded R&D........

Further, even if governments were unecessary - if Canada or the US were to eliminate their goverments, other countries would invade in a flash.

So, are you proposing unilateral, world elimination of governments ? Good luck! - Or, are you just suggesting that all nonmilitary government functions be abolished ?

By the way - as far as I'm aware - the Canadian economy is now outperforming the US economy in terms of worker productivity and it's currency strength compared to the S dollar.

I wonder why ?

".....Governments are notoriously bad at "inspiring" development of new technologies and encouraging their adoption." - I'll rephrase that : the writer is making a silly assertion there which amounts to rote, mechanical ideological sloganeering. The counterexamples - in which goverment sponsored research has led to whole new industries - are so numerous as to make this assertion laughable.

I don't have time at the moment to respond to the rest of your points.

Except this one : The Kyoto Accords concern the reduction of CO2 and other Greenhouse gasses. The Montreal Protocol - implemented many years ago - concerned the reduction of CFC's.

The Ozone Hole is related far more to CFC's than to human-caused Climate Change. I believe I've corrected you on this in the past. Don't you remember ?
posted by troutfishing at 9:50 AM on October 2, 2004


« Older Welcome to MeatShake!...  |  The legacy of the mutiny on th... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments