Look at this scientific paper. Just look at it.
I want to like this, but I have no more likes to give – so, <3
edit: got some likes back…
I read that as “librarians”.
I think I see your point and iceberg calving is difficult to correlate with global warming because calving is a complicated process that’s not well represented in current, continent-scale models (AFAIK).
But, from what I understand, it’s the growing consistency of the closer timing of the recent releases between events of these massive things (and growing number of smaller ones) that has climate scientists watching them closely - especially once we all consider this:
And things like this:
Once again, that looks like a good thing. There is always talk about the lack of fresh water, droughts, etc… That graph seems to indicate that we should be up to our armpits in fresh water soon.
The glory days of fresh water are upon us.
That’s Canadian metric in the parentheses.
That paper. Just look at it.
Melt, baby melt!
Yeah, it wasn’t a comment about global warming, just that this doesn’t seem to be a hurricane Sandy scale event in itself. On the other hand, it could be very big for a glacier calving rather than part of an ice shelf splitting off.
HMMM NASA’s video says EIGHT Manhattan’s yet BoingBoing’s headline and body say’s SIX
I prefer the “laid end to end, how many times they’d go to the moon and back” metric. I think this one would be “0.0000555” or so.
Makes it much clearer that way–wow!
That’s because NASA always calculates based on unladen Manhattans.
Only if you’re treading water, for far too many coastal people!
6 Manhattans is a cab ride home
Speak for yourself, I bathe more frequently than that.
Perhaps I can interest you in my new video on how you can invest in some cheap future beach side property now.
I already have: I live in Chicago, close enough to easily bike along the Lake Michigan shoreline but far enough away to remain non-submerged for at least another generation or two.
Cowicide, the best thing about Spam was that it replaced “Libertarians vs. Socialists” as the argument that all Usenet discussions eventually devolved into. As a Libertarian, I believed that we were right and y’all were wrong, but that didn’t mean I wanted to rehash the same old tired arguments yet again, especially with newbies from both sides who hadn’t really thought in any depth about what their positions meant.
“Global Warming Is A Hoax” isn’t a Libertarian position - it’s a Corporatist position that the folks in the energy production and consumption businesses have been trying to sell us, so that Congress doesn’t regulate their businesses and interfere with their profits, and if a century from now it means that Manhattan is flooded and billions and billions of dollars of once-valuable real estate and farmland are worthless, they’ll be safely dead anyway. (By the way, the propaganda groups that are selling that position are having a two-for-one special along with “Don’t trust scientists about evolution” - it’s a useful hook to attract some voting blocks, but the real payload is "Don’t trust scientists about Global Warming.)
“Government Shouldn’t Regulate Businesses” is one position taken by many Libertarians, but “Businesses that damage other people’s property should have to pay for it, and if you can’t afford it, you shouldn’t be in that business” is another. (Our most popular position on the topic is probably “What, me worry?”, but that’s every political group’s position on too many topics.)
Manhattan is flooded and billions and billions of dollars of once-valuable real estate and farmland are worthless, they’ll be safely dead anyway
Climate change is already negatively affecting our quality of life today. As someone that got to choke on wildfire smoke under a blood-red sky here in Colorado for the last few summers or so, I can assure you the effects are here and now.
On the plus side, I got some “pretty” photos of one of the several wildfires that were all happening at once in CO. This is a photo I took of the huge smoke clouds moving in. You could feel and smell the death in the air it brings with it:
I then snapped this photo below as the sky turned to night. This is a photo I took of the sun, not the moon. The rest of the sky turned a very dark, sickly blood color. Like dark, dried up blood:
I know some people that lost their homes and the lives of some of their neighbors.
And, I’ve got another news flash. Among a lot of other catastrophic damage, Superstorm Sandy already put parts of New York City underwater for a bit.
This was East 14th Street in Manhattan:
“Global Warming Is A Hoax” isn’t a Libertarian position - it’s a Corporatist position that the folks in the energy production and consumption businesses have been trying to sell us
The libertarians at reason.com have finally after long last admitted that global warming is actually real. But, even after this epic blunder, they expect the rest of the world to take them seriously at this point.
The truth of the matter is without funding from corporatist billionaires, etc. reason.com wouldn’t have survived because they’ve lost credibility with educated, reasonable people a long time ago.
Reason.com exists because they help to spread profitable, corporatist half-truths and lies like a form of digital pollution throughout top search engine results throughout places such as Google. Search engine results are the gateways to public opinion.
Kind of like how corporatists will run right wing radio at a loss because the real profits come from indoctrinating a listening public to be sympathetic (or even become zealots) for corporate talking points. It’s profitable to pollute the airwaves as well.
Now the libertarians at reason.com are on a relatively new kick that is climate change impact denial, God damn them. They’re doubling down on their utter lack of credibility among critical thinkers and others that can research their ways out of wet, paper bags and becoming even more hated bastards in the process.
So, yeah… the “global warming is a hoax” thing has gotten stale for a lot of libertarians, but now climate change impact denial is the new, destructive insanity. Is that your thing as well?
Personally, I’d stop labeling myself a libertarian if I couldn’t relate to most other modern libertarians except on a few issues. Otherwise, I would be in a constant state of feeling insulted and feeling misunderstood whenever anyone legitimately disses on them. It’s not worth the hassle of constantly trying to “correct” most people on what it means for you personally.
I don’t think you’re a libertarian in the most modern, common usage of the term and I hope you take that as a compliment. I’m on the same page with many libertarians on drug decriminalization but often not for the same reasons (no pun intended). But, I can’t even imagine labeling myself with the libertarian label in this day and age.
If you’re trying to bring the libertarian name back in good standing, it’s a lost cause. People like those at reason.com, the Koch brothers, “free market” stooges and climate xxx deniers have already ruined the libertarian name, hit it with hurricane force winds, burned it to the ground and flooded the name’s ashes with salt water.
Libertarians are often associated with similar “thinkers” such as teabaggers like Michelle Bachman, etc. - If Michelle Bachman and her ilk managed to “own” a label I related with and it became an accepted label by most people, I’d abandon the label like a contagious cancer and move onto something else. It just isn’t worth it.
Whether you like it or not, libertarians are going to now be forever associated with climate change denial, climate change impact denial and a blind worship of a mythical, unicorn “free market”. It’s not your fault, but like I said, I wouldn’t associate myself with that label either considering the livid resentment that’s building for those who’ve help corporatists drag our collective feet to do anything about global climate change. As more people are harmed by it, the more the resentment will grow.