LibriumArcana.Games

wired.com wrote:Gravity—yes, gravity—is the latest victim of climate change in Antarctica. That’s the stunning conclusion announced Friday by the European Space Agency.

“The loss of ice from West Antarctica between 2009 and 2012 caused a dip in the gravity field over the region,” writes the ESA, whose GOCE satellite measured the change. Apparently, melting billions of tons of ice year after year has implications that would make even Isaac Newton blanch. See the data visualized above.

To be fair, the change in gravity is very small. It’s not like you’ll float off into outer space on your next vacation to the Antarctic Peninsula.

The biggest implication is the new measurements confirm global warming is changing the Antarctic in fundamental ways. Earlier this year, a separate team of scientists announced that major West Antarctic glaciers have begun an “unstoppable” “collapse,” committing global sea levels to a rise of several meters over the next few hundred years.

Though we all learned in high-school physics that gravity is a constant, it actually varies slightly depending on where you are on the Earth’s surface and the density of the rock (or, in this case, ice) beneath your feet. During a four-year mission, the ESA satellite mapped these changes in unprecedented detail and was able to detect a significant decrease in the region of Antarctica where land ice is melting fastest.

The new results in West Antarctica were achieved by combining the high-resolution gravity field measurements from the ESA satellite with a longer-running but lower resolution gravity-analyzing satellite mission called Grace, which is jointly operated by the United States and Germany. Scientists hope to scale up this analysis to all of Antarctica soon, which could provide the clearest picture yet of the pace global warming is taking in the frozen continent. Current best estimates show that global seas could be as much as 50 inches higher by century’s end, due in large part to ice melt in West Antarctica.

Previous research with data from a third satellite, CryoSat (also from ESA), has shown ice loss from this portion of West Antarctica has increased by three-fold since just 2009, with 500 cubic kilometers of ice now melting each year from Greenland and Antarctica combined. That’s an iceberg the size of Manhattan, three-and-a-half miles thick.

Tumbling down the slippery slope now. The next hundred years or so on this planet should be interesting.

I look forward to the finger-pointing, panicked screams, and moralizing.

And incidentally that's not what a slippery slope is, idiomatically.

General Havoc wrote:And incidentally that's not what a slippery slope is, idiomatically.

That's fine, I wasn't using it idiomatically - I was using it in a literal fashion. We're starting to see the worst-case events already, though seeing them unfold and hearing about what will happen in advance are two very different things.

At risk of sounding pedantic, that's not what it literally means either. For that, the melting of ice in Antarctica would have had to have melted into an incline made slick by meltwater down which you were physically tumbling.

I apologize for resorting to errant pedantry here, but then I don't exactly have much of anywhere else to go with this, now do I? This isn't a debate or a discussion or a call to action, merely a passive observation of what you term the "worst case scenario". But of course it's not that either, now is it? Because this is merely the prelude to the actual worst-case scenario, one which you will soon be seeing, which involves the total extinction of the entire Biosphere. And you WILL see it. Soon. As of course will I, if I live that long, which is admittedly a low probability.

You see, I've gotten a lot of flack before for objecting to these little one sentence snarky throwaway comments about how bad everything is or is about to be, usually under the formula that what is actually being done is "informing" people. I don't see it that way, of course, but that's more or less irrelevant. Because all my guesswork and motivations aside, what we are actually discussing is two ineluctable facts. One is the impending, agonizing death, of misery and want, of every human being on the planet, something both inevitable and impending, with nothing but the precise timeline up for discussion. And the other is the parallel fact that the world would, with mathematical certainty, be an indubitably better place if I had never existed, because I had a hand in producing the above result. I could have chosen otherwise, but did not. So rather than using some pantheistic elocution about how some nonexistent "we" caused all this, or some passive absurdity about how this "happened" without cause or reference thereto, I think it might be useful, if we are indeed seeking to inform, if we actually spoke the truth. And this is the truth, not some sarcastic attempt to put words in other people's mouths, this is the literal truth. And we all know it.

Of course what's true of me here is also true of you. But then what right have I to point fingers? And perhaps you will object that you said none of these things, or that I am mischaracterizing you or others, but at risk of bypassing the inevitable sarcastic denunciations in favor of approaching the crux of the question, given the incontestable horror of the subject in question, the absolute impossibility of rectifying it, the personal culpability we all share in, myself as much as any other person alive, and the universal agreement that we all, on this board, hold as to the above three facts (and I'll ask you not to now, after five years of constant drum beating, pretend that these facts are not in universal agreement in this place), what exactly are we doing here?

Because if we are simply trying to "inform" people, which is the reason I have been given every time I raise any objection, then I just think we have something of a responsibility to speak correctly, instead of dancing around the subject with one-line gesticulations and confusing phraseology. Hence the pedantry.

Fun thing about human psychology, verbally observing and discussing a situation feels very much like doing something about that situation. This is why the infamous, "Egads, this is a terrible and urgent problem! Let's form a committee to discuss this immediately!" thing happens. That is generally considered a bad response, but in a situation about which we cannot do anything it is actually pretty useful. It salves away worry and feelings of helplessness, with the nice side effect that amiable discussion in which everyone agrees helps to strengthen social bonds. Perhaps you don't care for these benefits, Havoc, but at the very least I do.

I might also add that, regardless of the above, I think rhoenix's post is informative because frankly I did not know quite the scale of the runaway melting. I had the notion that there are huge pools of waters and massive torrents of ice water running out of the poles on a daily basis. I'm also aware that we are already experiencing irreversible climate change, and that we as a species do not intend to do anything about preventing more climate change. Nevertheless seeing it put in terms of 500 cubic kilometers of ice melting off the two largest ice-covered landmasses in the planet is, in fact, new to me, and hence informative.

I should also point out that the entire biosphere is not going to die. While humanity is no doubt an ongoing mass extinction event, the biosphere has survived worse things than us, and I think we too can survive worse things than us. I also cannot let the comment that the world would be a better place without us pass without comment. Perhaps it might have been better without you or me, specifically, but it would not most assuredly be better without humanity as a whole. The notions of better and worse are entirely dependent on having human observers, it is us who give meaning to the world, as the rest of the universe is utterly beyond giving a damn about anything. Without us the world has no meaning, and without meaning the world is not better, it's just indifferent and uncaring.

General Havoc wrote:At risk of sounding pedantic, that's not what it literally means either. For that, the melting of ice in Antarctica would have had to have melted into an incline made slick by meltwater down which you were physically tumbling.

I apologize for resorting to errant pedantry here, but then I don't exactly have much of anywhere else to go with this, now do I? This isn't a debate or a discussion or a call to action, merely a passive observation of what you term the "worst case scenario". But of course it's not that either, now is it? Because this is merely the prelude to the actual worst-case scenario, one which you will soon be seeing, which involves the total extinction of the entire Biosphere. And you WILL see it. Soon. As of course will I, if I live that long, which is admittedly a low probability.

You see, I've gotten a lot of flack before for objecting to these little one sentence snarky throwaway comments about how bad everything is or is about to be, usually under the formula that what is actually being done is "informing" people. I don't see it that way, of course, but that's more or less irrelevant. Because all my guesswork and motivations aside, what we are actually discussing is two ineluctable facts. One is the impending, agonizing death, of misery and want, of every human being on the planet, something both inevitable and impending, with nothing but the precise timeline up for discussion. And the other is the parallel fact that the world would, with mathematical certainty, be an indubitably better place if I had never existed, because I had a hand in producing the above result. I could have chosen otherwise, but did not. So rather than using some pantheistic elocution about how some nonexistent "we" caused all this, or some passive absurdity about how this "happened" without cause or reference thereto, I think it might be useful, if we are indeed seeking to inform, if we actually spoke the truth. And this is the truth, not some sarcastic attempt to put words in other people's mouths, this is the literal truth. And we all know it.

Of course what's true of me here is also true of you. But then what right have I to point fingers? And perhaps you will object that you said none of these things, or that I am mischaracterizing you or others, but at risk of bypassing the inevitable sarcastic denunciations in favor of approaching the crux of the question, given the incontestable horror of the subject in question, the absolute impossibility of rectifying it, the personal culpability we all share in, myself as much as any other person alive, and the universal agreement that we all, on this board, hold as to the above three facts (and I'll ask you not to now, after five years of constant drum beating, pretend that these facts are not in universal agreement in this place), what exactly are we doing here?

Because if we are simply trying to "inform" people, which is the reason I have been given every time I raise any objection, then I just think we have something of a responsibility to speak correctly, instead of dancing around the subject with one-line gesticulations and confusing phraseology. Hence the pedantry.

So, to boil down your pedantry, you're annoyed that I used the metaphor "slippery slope" when it comes to environmental news, with the perspective that I'd just be "raising awareness" as opposed to doing something about it, specifically because this concerns some of the effects of global climate change.

It's not impossible to rectify, it's not impossible to mitigate, and it's not impossible to use it as a catalyst for positive changes in the way we live - but we as a people have to demand it of our leaders to do so. If you view this as "raising awareness," then so be it.

Besides - it's not like I'm going to stop posting articles like this just because you're pedantic about my word usage. ;)

Lys wrote:Fun thing about human psychology, verbally observing and discussing a situation feels very much like doing something about that situation. This is why the infamous, "Egads, this is a terrible and urgent problem! Let's form a committee to discuss this immediately!" thing happens. That is generally considered a bad response, but in a situation about which we cannot do anything it is actually pretty useful. It salves away worry and feelings of helplessness, with the nice side effect that amiable discussion in which everyone agrees helps to strengthen social bonds. Perhaps you don't care for these benefits, Havoc, but at the very least I do.

I might also add that, regardless of the above, I think rhoenix's post is informative because frankly I did not know quite the scale of the runaway melting. I had the notion that there are huge pools of waters and massive torrents of ice water running out of the poles on a daily basis. I'm also aware that we are already experiencing irreversible climate change, and that we as a species do not intend to do anything about preventing more climate change. Nevertheless seeing it put in terms of 500 cubic kilometers of ice melting off the two largest ice-covered landmasses in the planet is, in fact, new to me, and hence informative.

I should also point out that the entire biosphere is not going to die. While humanity is no doubt an ongoing mass extinction event, the biosphere has survived worse things than us, and I think we too can survive worse things than us. I also cannot let the comment that the world would be a better place without us pass without comment. Perhaps it might have been better without you or me, specifically, but it would not most assuredly be better without humanity as a whole. The notions of better and worse are entirely dependent on having human observers, it is us who give meaning to the world, as the rest of the universe is utterly beyond giving a damn about anything. Without us the world has no meaning, and without meaning the world is not better, it's just indifferent and uncaring.

The end of the biosphere is not merely a theoretical possibility but an absolute fact due to come if we are lucky some reasonably brief time after the natural end of our lives and if we are not then in the course of the unnatural end thereof, which is decades and not millennia away. I have tolerated and been made to tolerate far too many repeated, sledgehammer-driven proofs of this matter from literally every person I have ever met to turn around now and pretend otherwise to spare OTHER people's feelings, not after being spat upon for the better part of two decades for even daring to suggest the contrary. Please do not employ upon me the same platitudes that I am regarded in contempt for having contemplated.

And insofar as this is the case, the philosophy of who or what gives or does not give meaning to life is irrelevant. Though actions that include my own, the entire world will die. Without me, the chance of that happening, while still high-if-not-certain, would be at least reduced, perhaps enough to present a chance for it to not occur. As this is an absolute evil, the conclusion is obvious. The same is true of others, but I'm not here to point fingers. I'm here to ask the question I have continuously been asking because I still don't get it, and every time I do ask, I get lectures on the fundaments of human conversation, as though I just asked why people dislike pain.

I'll also point out that, as before, such elocutions as "we as a species" are meaningless obfuscations of reality designed to allow people to moralize at the expense of some imaginary, less-enlightened "other". It implicitly excludes the one speaking and includes everyone else in the group as a question. Do not speak to me of what we as a species wish or do not wish to do, as we are not an ant colony with a hive volition. Generalized statements as to what "everyone" wants or does is fine when one is speaking in extremely general terms, but I am sick of people hiding behind general terms to pretend that they are not saying what they are actually saying. Speak of what I have done or wish to do, or if you want to be particularly self-aware, what you have. Because if we as a species actually do not care to act about global warming, then that includes you, personally, and of course myself as well. And that's a subject that nobody wants to talk about, and I think might behoove a little attention in the midst of our "informative" posts about how the rest of the world has not solved our problems for us yet.

rhoenix wrote:So, to boil down your pedantry, you're annoyed that I used the metaphor "slippery slope" when it comes to environmental news, with the perspective that I'd just be "raising awareness" as opposed to doing something about it, specifically because this concerns some of the effects of global climate change.

It's not impossible to rectify, it's not impossible to mitigate, and it's not impossible to use it as a catalyst for positive changes in the way we live - but we as a people have to demand it of our leaders to do so. If you view this as "raising awareness," then so be it.

Besides - it's not like I'm going to stop posting articles like this just because you're pedantic about my word usage. ;)

Boiling down my pedantry is perhaps ill-advised. I objected to the Slippery Slope metaphor because it was the sum total of your contribution on the subject at hand. If you had mis-used the metaphor in the middle of a lengthy piece, I would not have said anything, or at least if I did say something, I would have less excuse to do so. But you gave me two sentences, one of which affirmed the precise opposite of what you just said above, and the other of which was the metaphor. I am a linguistic pedant. I worked with what I was given.

But to return to what was said above, I'm afraid, and I apologize that there's no way to say this without sounding hostile, but that is a grotesque lie, and you know it. Global warming is impossible to rectify, impossible to mitigate, and impossible to affect positively. It is absolutely all three of those things, as you yourself have stated, and attempts to pretend that it is not so as to somehow play Cassandra (or for whatever other reason) do not render it moreso. Why it is impossible to rectify and mitigate and positively affect I leave to everyone else to decide, but I will absolutely be goddamned if I spent the last twelve years being assaulted every time I dared suggest that these things were the case just to turn around and let other people employ the same goddamn platitudes to make themselves feel better at my expense. You cannot have your cake and eat it too here. You yourself, and every other person on this forum, as well as practically every person I have ever spoken to on this subject EVER online or off have stated as much more than once, whether because they believed it or wished to test said belief or felt it necessary that I believe it for some quixotic reaction I scarcely understand, I don't know. I have been called out hundreds of times on this very forum for daring to suggest that these things were not as absolute as imagined, ridiculed in person, in Email, on text and instant message and VOIP and by every methodology we have to communicate contempt to one another, and I will not permit the hypocrisy, now, of someone who wants to turn around and hide behind the shield of "it's not too late" after that. This matter is complete. Final. Unavoidable. Irretrievable. You implied as much in this very thread. You all heaped scorn on me for daring to ask why it was so, or for proposing otherwise. I have ceased to do so, but I will be goddamned if that was all so that you people could do it in my stead.

You can post any article you like, Rhoenix, on any subject you like for any reason you like. But when you post an article for public comment, sometimes you're going to get it commented upon publicly. And like yourself, I'm not going to stop either just because you think it is the height of wit to laugh at me for doing so. I have asked a hundred times the question of what you want me to do with information such as this, and a hundred times received mockery in return. Perhaps the mockery is deserved, and there's something to it that I just don't see, that my mind doesn't perceive the way other people's do, but the problem I have is that given everyone's acceptance, whether they will now admit to it or not, of the inevitability of these things, I have a great deal of trouble coming up with an explanation that doesn't involve some sort of attempt to displace guilt from the poster to the reader. And if that's inaccurate, as people keep insisting it is, then I'm afraid I'm going to need one that is more accurate. And so I ask for it.

And I will ask for it. I will ask for it every single time. Repeatedly. At length, ad nauseum, for every article you or anyone else ever posts on these sorts of things, I will ask for it a thousand times a piece, I will write scripts that do nothing but ask for it, I will do NOTHING ELSE but ask what it is you want from me with these things until the accumulated text makes your monitor fail and your eyes bleed. And no amount of mockery about how I 'just don't get it' or need to chill or shouldn't be speaking up if I have nothing nice to say, whether from you or from other people, NOTHING will ever cause me to stop. You can post as many articles as you choose to on these subjects, and I will respond the same way every single time without exception until I receive an answer. An answer other than "nothing", which I do not believe, "so that people can be informed", which is a lie, or my own private explanation, which I will extend the benefit of the doubt to assuming is simply wrong.

I may be crazy or worthy of mockery or any other thing that you wish to call me, but the question stands. And it will stand forever unless someone gives me a reason it no longer should.

Havoc, I don't know or particularly care about what you have been told for years prior to this conversation. The point is that right here, right now, from the place I'm standing, global warning looks like "this is going to suck" not "we're all doomed". There was life on this planet when the average temperature was nine degrees warmer and sea levels 200+ metres higher, there will be life on this planet when we get there again. I have plenty of reason to believe that some of that life will be human. I have never at any point until this very moment seen anyone suggest that global warning will render the planet dead and I am frankly finding it very difficulty to believe that you are not, in fact, being hyperbolic when you make statements to that effect. The whole notion is, to put it bluntly, insane.

I gave you the answer to the question that you asked. The reason you get that same answer every time you ask is because that is the actual answer to the question. What else do you want here? A different answer? I cannot give you one, not unless you want me to lie to you. Perhaps it would help if I put it in more crass terms? That I can do: We're having ourselves a circlejerk because it feels good to do so. There, it's not as pretty or nuanced as the way I put it in my prior post, but it's ultimately the same thing, that's what we are doing. I happen to like it that way just fine, I can only assume others do as well. For your part, you are free to participate or not participate as you see fit. I hope that clarifies the matter.

I shall not comment on the point that there are no practicable means available to rectify the problem because I agree that there are not. I have never at any point stated or implied otherwise. Far as I can tell, the public consensus required to summon up the will to do something meaningful does not exist, and efforts to change it have failed, therefore nothing meaningful will be done. At least not as a preventative measure. Now it's just a question of who is going to going to get fucked the hardest. Way it looks now, we who are most responsible, who have grown fat from this rich harvest even as it kills the very soil, are the ones who will least suffer the consequences. Whereas those parts of the world who are least responsible, who have least benefited from our harm to the planet, will be the ones to suffer most. Ain't we a bunch of lucky bastards?

So we're really doing this? Fine. So be it.

General Havoc wrote:Boiling down my pedantry is perhaps ill-advised. I objected to the Slippery Slope metaphor because it was the sum total of your contribution on the subject at hand. If you had mis-used the metaphor in the middle of a lengthy piece, I would not have said anything, or at least if I did say something, I would have less excuse to do so. But you gave me two sentences, one of which affirmed the precise opposite of what you just said above, and the other of which was the metaphor. I am a linguistic pedant. I worked with what I was given.

You nitpicked my commentary, and your entire contribution to the actual article at hand was "i dun liek it cuz unpossible to fix lol." And you nitpicked it, as you said, a completely pedantic fashion, because you didn't like the "slippery slope" metaphor, when that describes the state of affairs as it comes to human politicking and dealing with global warming quite well. That you don't like it is not my problem.

This is not your news feed, and you do in fact share access to it with other people.

General Havoc wrote:But to return to what was said above, I'm afraid, and I apologize that there's no way to say this without sounding hostile, but that is a grotesque lie, and you know it. Global warming is impossible to rectify, impossible to mitigate, and impossible to affect positively. It is absolutely all three of those things, as you yourself have stated, and attempts to pretend that it is not so as to somehow play Cassandra (or for whatever other reason) do not render it moreso. Why it is impossible to rectify and mitigate and positively affect I leave to everyone else to decide, but I will absolutely be goddamned if I spent the last twelve years being assaulted every time I dared suggest that these things were the case just to turn around and let other people employ the same goddamn platitudes to make themselves feel better at my expense. You cannot have your cake and eat it too here. You yourself, and every other person on this forum, as well as practically every person I have ever spoken to on this subject EVER online or off have stated as much more than once, whether because they believed it or wished to test said belief or felt it necessary that I believe it for some quixotic reaction I scarcely understand, I don't know. I have been called out hundreds of times on this very forum for daring to suggest that these things were not as absolute as imagined, ridiculed in person, in Email, on text and instant message and VOIP and by every methodology we have to communicate contempt to one another, and I will not permit the hypocrisy, now, of someone who wants to turn around and hide behind the shield of "it's not too late" after that. This matter is complete. Final. Unavoidable. Irretrievable. You implied as much in this very thread. You all heaped scorn on me for daring to ask why it was so, or for proposing otherwise. I have ceased to do so, but I will be goddamned if that was all so that you people could do it in my stead.

Oh look, flagrant hyperbole.

The issues at hand are not impossible to mitigate. Period. Though certain changes are inevitable at this point, from a technical standpoint, we as a species have the tools and resources necessary to deal with this problem decisively, and even take advantage of the problem to make proper advantages in power generation and resource management from a societal level.

The problem is politics, and what demands we as a voting public make upon our leaders.

You choosing to take the angle of "oh it's impossible to deal with so I don't want to hear about it," and that's fine. But to repurpose an old phrase, "those who say something is impossible should get out of the way of people doing it."

General Havoc wrote:You can post any article you like, Rhoenix, on any subject you like for any reason you like. But when you post an article for public comment, sometimes you're going to get it commented upon publicly. And like yourself, I'm not going to stop either just because you think it is the height of wit to laugh at me for doing so. I have asked a hundred times the question of what you want me to do with information such as this, and a hundred times received mockery in return. Perhaps the mockery is deserved, and there's something to it that I just don't see, that my mind doesn't perceive the way other people's do, but the problem I have is that given everyone's acceptance, whether they will now admit to it or not, of the inevitability of these things, I have a great deal of trouble coming up with an explanation that doesn't involve some sort of attempt to displace guilt from the poster to the reader. And if that's inaccurate, as people keep insisting it is, then I'm afraid I'm going to need one that is more accurate. And so I ask for it.

I give mockery back when I receive mockery, ridicule, or idiocy for something I post for public discussion. I will more gently mock people's answer in order to get them to think about their position.

To the latter point specifically: "I have a great deal of trouble coming up with an explanation that doesn't involve some sort of attempt to displace guilt from the poster to the reader. And if that's inaccurate, as people keep insisting it is, then I'm afraid I'm going to need one that is more accurate. And so I ask for it."

I just gave an explanation above. I am not posting this in a shallow and immature attempt to make you feel guilty for existing. I do not post ANY news articles as a way of shaming people. I post articles to inspire thoughtful discussion, which is why your pedantry irritates me as much as it does. I post articles regarding environmental news, such as this one, precisely because I do not think it is inevitable that the human species is doomed, and because I think there are many, many things that still can be done, if leaders of countries can be given proper pressure from their voting public.

I am not delightedly masturbating to the thought of the extinction of the human race. Okay?

General Havoc wrote:And I will ask for it. I will ask for it every single time. Repeatedly. At length, ad nauseum, for every article you or anyone else ever posts on these sorts of things, I will ask for it a thousand times a piece, I will write scripts that do nothing but ask for it, I will do NOTHING ELSE but ask what it is you want from me with these things until the accumulated text makes your monitor fail and your eyes bleed.

Aha. So you admittedly assume that when I post these things, I am doing so specifically to make you want to cry in a corner in guilt?

Seriously?

General Havoc wrote:And no amount of mockery about how I 'just don't get it' or need to chill or shouldn't be speaking up if I have nothing nice to say, whether from you or from other people, NOTHING will ever cause me to stop. You can post as many articles as you choose to on these subjects, and I will respond the same way every single time without exception until I receive an answer. An answer other than "nothing", which I do not believe, "so that people can be informed", which is a lie, or my own private explanation, which I will extend the benefit of the doubt to assuming is simply wrong.

Then I'll answer like this - if you stop assuming I'm posting a given news or science article specifically so that when General Havoc logs into the forums, he might feel like a terrible human being and feel bad upon seeing it, then I'll stop assuming that you're nothing more than a pedantic jackass about these things. Deal?

General Havoc wrote:I may be crazy or worthy of mockery or any other thing that you wish to call me, but the question stands. And it will stand forever unless someone gives me a reason it no longer should.

Well, I've given you an oblique answer about it in my previous post, and a much more direct reply in this one. Let's take it from there.