Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthortg2
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2009
     
    The date of the previous demo was (supposedly) made to coincide with the Live Earth concerts. The "strategy" according to Steorn was:

    "Sean has stated that it will begin in the first week of July, and that it is intended to coincide with (and ride the wave of environment-friendly media attention generated by) Al Gore’s Live Earth concert on July 7th. "

    If Steorn is trying to use the same "strategy" the date for the demo could well be between 7 and 18 December, which is when the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen happens.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2009
     
    It could be timed with the Fairy Festival in Madagascar just as logically.
  1.  
    I guess you are right and that would explain why Al Bore cancelled the talk in Copahagin yesterday. Sean finally told him the truth.

    This is going to leave 007 upset as on Tuesday Steorn reassured him the debut would be in four weeks time, which basically means the few days before New Years.
  2.  
    There sure has been a lot of build up to Copenhagen, with adverts for 'renewable energy' abound - not to mention the latest round of hysteria in the news over shrinking ice caps - they fail to mention the build up year on year of the arctic sheet though. If Steorn are gonna pull it out of the bag then the time is now, or at least during the new world order conference in Scandinavia......
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2009
     
    Posted By: turbinatorThere sure has been a lot of build up to Copenhagen, with adverts for 'renewable energy' abound - not to mention the latest round of hysteria in the news over shrinking ice caps - they fail to mention the build up year on year of the arctic sheet though.


    Why is news of a shrinking arctic ice cap 'hysteria'? And why do you think build up of inland ice sheets is somehow anathema to that? The loss of sea ice changes albedo across a vast, continent sized area from .9 to .1 - a very simple fact that explains both why feedbacks are critical and why the arctic is warming two to three times as fast as the rest of the planet. Increase in ice sheets thickness (ice resting on land) indicates an increase in precipitation, presumably caused by an increase in evaporation from the surrounding seas due to warmer sea and air temperatures. In other words, both are evidence of warming.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2009
     
    @tg2
    You made a good point.
  3.  
    @pc... I'm not denying global warming - of that there is no doubt. My point is that the media are driving this forward with stories of drowning pets to scare the kids etc. There are places in the world that are changing for the better - but not a lot of media coverage for them as it doesn't suit the agenda....
    •  
      CommentAuthorGrimer
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
     
    Posted By: pcstru
    Posted By: turbinatorThere sure has been a lot of build up to Copenhagen, with adverts for 'renewable energy' abound - not to mention the latest round of hysteria in the news over shrinking ice caps - they fail to mention the build up year on year of the arctic sheet though.


    Why is news of a shrinking arctic ice cap 'hysteria'? And why do you think build up of inland ice sheets is somehow anathema to that? The loss of sea ice changes albedo across a vast, continent sized area from .9 to .1 - a very simple fact that explains both why feedbacks are critical and why the arctic is warming two to three times as fast as the rest of the planet. Increase in ice sheets thickness (ice resting on land) indicates an increase in precipitation, presumably caused by an increase in evaporation from the surrounding seas due to warmer sea and air temperatures. In other words, both are evidence of warming.
    Well an increase in the ice thickness on land must compensate for a decrease in the ice thickness on the sea. And since the ice on the sea is floating it will lead to a decrease in sea level.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: Grimer
    Posted By: pcstru
    Why is news of a shrinking arctic ice cap 'hysteria'? And why do you think build up of inland ice sheets is somehow anathema to that? The loss of sea ice changes albedo across a vast, continent sized area from .9 to .1 - a very simple fact that explains both why feedbacks are critical and why the arctic is warming two to three times as fast as the rest of the planet. Increase in ice sheets thickness (ice resting on land) indicates an increase in precipitation, presumably caused by an increase in evaporation from the surrounding seas due to warmer sea and air temperatures. In other words, both are evidence of warming.
    Well an increase in the ice thickness on land must compensate for a decrease in the ice thickness on the sea. And since the ice on the sea is floating it will lead to a decrease in sea level.

    Frank - that's a testable hypothesis you have put forward - a first for you! Trouble is, sea level is currently rising by about 2.5-3mm per year.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
     
    Posted By: turbinator@pc... I'm not denying global warming - of that there is no doubt. My point is that the media are driving this forward with stories of drowning pets to scare the kids etc.


    "Drowning pets" - Where do you get this stuff from?


    There are places in the world that are changing for the better - but not a lot of media coverage for them as it doesn't suit the agenda....


    Where exactly is changing for the better? Is that better now than 100 years ago? Will that be better in 100 years or 200 years with a continued rise in temperatures (i.e. assuming we go on business as usual)?
    •  
      CommentAuthorGrimer
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
     
    True, but it would be rising faster if ice wasn't building up on land.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
     
    Posted By: GrimerTrue, but it would be rising faster if ice wasn't building up on land.


    Unfortunately again, it's the interior that is getting thicker. The southern perimeter is losing mass and the latitude where glacial acceleration is being measured is moving north, year on year. Overall, Greenland ice sheet is losing volume and this is accelerating - from an estimated 96 Km^3 in 1996 to 220Mk^3 in 2005.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGrimer
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
     
    Posted By: pcstru
    Posted By: GrimerTrue, but it would be rising faster if ice wasn't building up on land.


    Unfortunately again, it's the interior that is getting thicker. The southern perimeter is losing mass and the latitude where glacial acceleration is being measured is moving north, year on year. Overall, Greenland ice sheet is losing volume and this is accelerating - from an estimated 96 Km^3 in 1996 to 220Mk^3 in 2005.
    I will soon be the green land it used to be and all the people from the deltas will be able to settle there.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
     
    It was pretty marginal even back during the Icelandic settlement.
    • CommentAuthortinker
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
     
    The Sahel is greener than it has been for many years.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
     
    As green as the Steorn investors?
    •  
      CommentAuthorthebadger
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
     
    Posted By: DuracellAs green as the Steorn investors?


    Do you think they're green? I would have suspected they alternate between ashen white and puce.
    •  
      CommentAuthorthebadger
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
     
    Posted By: tinkerThe Sahel is greener than it has been for many years.



    http://www.unep.org/Themes/Freshwater/Documents/pdf/ClimateChangeSahelCombine.pdf

    Rainfall variability is a major driver of vulnerability in the Sahel. However, blaming the ‘environmental crisis’
    on low and irregular annual rainfall alone would amount to a sheer oversimplifi cation and misunderstanding
    of the Sahelian dynamics. Climate is nothing but one element in a complex combination of processes that has
    made agriculture and livestock farming highly unproductive. Over the last half century, the combined eff ects
    of population growth, land degradation (deforestation, continuous cropping and overgrazing), reduced and
    erratic rainfall, lack of coherent environmental policies and misplaced development priorities, have contributed
    to transform a large proportion of the Sahel into barren land, resulting in the deterioration of the soil and
    water resources.  e intertwined processes of land degradation and desertifi cation, which have prevailed in
    the Sahel over the last few decades, are nothing more than the embodiment of a degenerative process that
    started several decades back.  e drought years of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s were not necessarily the cause,
    but certainly the culmination, of this environmental crisis. Even if rainfall has come back to near-normal and
    food security improved in recent years, the Sahel remains an environmentally sensitive region and climate
    change is likely to exacerbate the vulnerability of its ecological and socio-economic systems.

  4.  
    Posted By: pcstru
    Posted By: turbinator@pc... I'm not denying global warming - of that there is no doubt. My point is that the media are driving this forward with stories of drowning pets to scare the kids etc.


    "Drowning pets" - Where do you get this stuff from?


    There are places in the world that are changing for the better - but not a lot of media coverage for them as it doesn't suit the agenda....


    Where exactly is changing for the better? Is that better now than 100 years ago? Will that be better in 100 years or 200 years with a continued rise in temperatures (i.e. assuming we go on business as usual)?


    You've not seen the TV advert where the guy is telling the story about climate change to his kid then??

    As for places changing for the better, of course this is subjective.. better for some wildlife, not for others. Rains allowing for the growth of crops where land was once arrid. Change maybe causing disruption but it ain't all bad..
    •  
      CommentAuthorthebadger
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2009
     
    Posted By: turbinator
    As for places changing for the better, of course this is subjective.. better for some wildlife, not for others. Rains allowing for the growth of crops where land was once arrid. Change maybe causing disruption but it ain't all bad..


    It's all relative and to be honest, all this 'good' and 'bad' discussion is just silly. Our society and civilization has been built in a very short period in a period of relative climatic stability. Playing Russian roulette with the climate by throwing up your hands and either saying 'we can't fix it' or 'it's not our fault' is just dumb. The consequences of climate change are, like the weather, inherently unpredictable. It may well be in 300 years that there may be more arable land than there is today, and able to support a larger population. On the other hand, it may be rising sea levels and desertification (often caused by population pressures on minimally habitable areas) will cause far bigger problems than we face today, and mass starvation, population migration and economic collapse will trigger societal breakdowns in large parts of the world, including parts of Europe.

    Playing fuckwit games over our response to climate change, as many people (indeed the majority) seem want to do, is just plain dumb.