I said it before and I'll say it again....
Game over, man. Game over!

When the tundra is outgassing faster than grass can release, we're hosed.
When the ocean methane is outgassing enough that it can be seen with the naked eye in open ocean among the waves, we're toast.
That makes us soggy toast.
*doublepromote

Remains to be seen if EVERY star system contains life or if he just didn't properly describe the systems. More than likely, like similar games where you explore the universe, you will have a sustainability of life detector.

Also, you do realize that the exploration of a planet is one aspect fo the game? Assuming this is a sim, there will be city creation, ship creation, etc. I mean, really think about all the aspects of things in the actual universe and those things may all be possible.

I don't know anything about their plans for creativity, but if it's anything like Minecraft, you can do a youtube search to see the endless possibilities of that game. Now imagine it in an entire universe?

Or an entire planet's worth of ecology, ranging from desert to tundras to barrier reefs to Himalayanesque mountain ranges -- That's amazing.

But only as amazing as our imaginations can project. Not as limiting as we only see in the small space of time allowed to air on Colbert.

@newtboy

#1 and #2, fine, if you won't go there to read it's now pasted in full for you:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear. Here, we present measurements of rates of methane consumption in different vegetation types within the Zackenberg Valley in northeast Greenland over a full growing season. Field measurements show methane uptake in all non-water-saturated landforms studied, with seasonal averages of − 8.3 ± 3.7 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in dry tundra and − 3.1 ± 1.6 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in moist tundra. The fluxes were sensitive to temperature, with methane uptake increasing with increasing temperatures. We extrapolate our measurements and published measurements from wetlands with the help of remote-sensing land-cover classification using nine Landsat scenes. We conclude that the ice-free area of northeast Greenland acts as a net sink of atmospheric methane, and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under future warmer climatic conditions.

#3, regardless of if it make's sense to you, and regardless of if it means a 10C warming by 2100, the IPCC scientists collaborative summary says it anyways. If you want to claim otherwise it's you opposing the science to make things seem worse than they are, not me.

#4, To tell them those things would sound like this. The IPCC current best estimates from climate models project 2100 to be 1.5C warmer than 2000. This has already resulted in 2000 being 0.8C warmer than 1900. Summer arctic sea ice extent has retreating significantly is the biggest current impact. By 2100 it is deemed extremely unlikely that the Greenland and Antarctic iccesheets will have meaningfully reduced and there is medium confidence that the warming will actually expand Antarctic ice cover owing to increased precipitation from the region. That's the results and expectations to be passed on from the 5th report from an international collaboration of scientists. Whether that fits your world view or not doesn't matter to the scientific evidence those views are founded on and supported by.

You said the ocean's may be unfishable in 20 years, and the best support you came up with was a news article quote claiming that by 2040 most of the Arctic would be too acidic for Shell forming fish. Cherry picked by the news article that also earlier noted that was dependent on CO2 concentrations exceeding 1000ppm in 2100, and even that some forms of plankton under study actually faired better in higher acidity in some case. In a news article that also noted that the uneven distribution of acidity makes predicting the effects very challenging. If news articles count as evidence I then want to claim we'll have working fusion power to convert to in 5 years time from Lockheed Martin. I'll agree with your news post on one count, the world they talk about, where CO2 emissions continue accelerating year on year, even by 2100, is bad. It's also a bit hard to fathom with electric cars just around the corner, and if not solar and wind, fusion sometime before then too, that we'll still be using anywhere near today's emissions let alone still accelerating our use.

by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
And you link to a blog, and a blog that provides exactly zero references to any scientific sources for the claim. Better yet, even the blog does NOT claim that the access to water will be limited because of climate change, the blog even mentions multiple times how other forms of pollution are destroying huge amounts of fresh water(again with zero attributions).

Here's the IPCC best estimates for 2100 impacts regionally:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf

You'll find it's a largely mixed bag if you can be bothered to read what the actual scientists are predicting. Just bare in mind they regularly note that climate models still have a lot of challenges with accurate regional estimates. I guess your blogger isn't hindered by such problems though. If you don't want to bother I'll summarize for you and note they observe a mixed bag of increased precipitation in some regions, notably monsoons generally increasing, and other areas lowering, but it's all no higher than at medium confidences. But hey, why should uncertainty about 2100 prevent us from panicking today about more than half the world losing their drinking water in 10 years. I'll make you a deal, in ten years we can come back to this thread and see whether or not climate change has cause 2/3 of the world to lose their drinking water already or not. I'm pretty confident on this one.

Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
Lost 50% since 2005? That'd be scary, oh wait, you heard that from the same blog you say? I've got a hunch maybe they aren't being straight with you...
Here are a pair of links I found in google scholar to scientific articles on the Himalaya's glaciers:
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~braup/himalaya/Science13Nov2009.pdf
I you can't be bothered to read:
Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Riana, whose report notes that the glacier has "not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years" Which looks likely that your blogger found a popular press piece about that single glacier and then went off as though it were fact, and across the entire mountain range .

http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/glaciers%20and%20climate.pdf
Here's another article noting that since 1962 Himalayan glacier reduction is actually about 21%.

If you go back and read the IPCC links I gave earlier you can also find many of the regional rivers and glaciers in India/East China are very dependent on monsoons and will persist as long as monsoons do. Which the IPCC additionally notes are expected to, on the whole, actually increase through 2100 warming.

I've stated before up thread that things are warming and we are the major contribution, but merely differed from your position be also observing the best evidence science has for predictions isn't catastrophic. That is compounded by high uncertainties, notably that TOA energy levels are still not able to be predicted well. The good news there is the latest IPCC estimated temps exceed the observed trends of both temperature and TOA imbalance, so there's reason for optimism. That's obviously not license for recklessly carrying on our merry way, as I've noted a couple times already about roads away from emissions that we are going to adopt one way or another long before 2100.

@newtboy,
as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane.

More from charliem's article's abstract:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear.

The article he linked IS saying that they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets. They note this is a relatively unknown area as opposed to northern regions that emit methane. Charliem just didn't read the reference he pulled out at is it is counter evidence to his and your own statements.

As for your point:
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow
I never said anything about that, I said:
if we could magically remove all the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere
As in I was talking about not merely ending our emissions, but also sequestering and pulling out of the atmosphere all the CO2 lingering there from us over the last century as well. That's pushing CO2 concentrations back down from nearly 400 to under 300. Re-read my statements in the correct context and they'll make more sense.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now.
Again, context matters doesn't it? I'm describing how a person from 1915 would not look at our world today and wish they could go back to their time, end all CO2 emissions and avoid the catastrophic consequences we're suffering in 2015. If you want to talk about food distribution, your right and we've had problems with it forever. If you want to talk food production though, it's never been higher, if you go look at global agriculture output it's a steady increasing line as surely as the instrumental temperature record.

For the record, I absolutely state that the evidence throughout the entire instrumental record is a warming planet since records began in 1900. I absolutely state that the evidence is irrefutable that CO2 contributes to warming. I absolutely state the the evidence is irrefutable that we are raising global CO2 concentrations with our actions. Where I diverge from those like you is I do NOT see the scientific evidence declaring the results are catastrophic. It's simply not there to be found, in many cases it is in fact contrary to the limited evidence we DO have on it as well.

See, this is why it needs to be shown the rise in joules, and a total energy rise in the entire planetary system, not just some arbitrary surface temperature rise....because people like you (no insult intended here) genuinely see the small relative figure and think...eh its no big deal.

Its a huge deal.

We are losing gigantic chunks of the otherwise permanent ice shelf in south and north arctic areas.

With those gone, we have otherwise what would have been massive mirrors, which reflect light...now acting as big old heating blankets (the water is effectively a black body to sunlight, absorbs it like no other..).

That right there is called a positive feedback loop. You start with something small, and within no time (geologically speaking), its in runaway growth.

The frozen tundra in greenland is home to enormous pockets of trapped methane....not for much longer. (source: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n1/abs/ngeo2305.html)

Methane's impact on global warming (i.e. energy RETENTION within our planetary weather system) is 25 times greater than an equivalent amount of C02. (source: http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html).

Further to this video, when you heat up the ocean systems beyond a certain threshold, the natrual pumping systems which circulate warm surface water to the deeper parts of the ocean for cooling, just flat out stop working. (source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19895974), leading to the slow heat-death of a vast swath of temperatue sensitive biomes....which, when they are active and growing healthily, actually contribute to c02 depletion (carbon based lifeforms 'use up' carbon to be 'made').

...I could go on, but you see....even just a cursory glance at some of the 'smaller' impacts is pretty compelling enough to consider the phrase 'no big deal' a bit of a misnomer.

Do your research....it is catastrophic, and it is likely to happen in your lifetime (if you are under 30 atm).

Your grandchildren and great grandchildren will be living in a drastically different global environment.

No biggie though, cause we got electric cars coming online in the next 30 years or so

You are correct, I did not go to your link. In the past they have consistently been un-scientific right wing propaganda sites masquerading as science or news, so I don't bother anymore.
As has been pointed out, May to October IS winter in the south. What's ignored is that the reason the ice MAY have not melted as fast last summer in the North is that the heat that normally sits on the pole moved south and cause our heat waves all summer (well, yours, it stayed 70deg here). What was ignored was that it also didn't freeze as fast this winter because the cold that normally sits there was also moved south, causing our harsh winter. If you counted the entire year, it shrank....again....like it has for the last 20+ years.
One tiny incomplete data set is not climate. One season in one place is not a full data set. In the last decade, the trend has been for polar ice to melt FAR faster than it re-freezes, to the point of allowing a North West Passage and a lack of pack ice that's eroding the northern tundra.
It's way easier to have a significant increase AFTER there was a larger significant decrease in ice. It's no where near normal levels, even if your link is correct that this one season it increased (and I think it's likely either wrong or you misinterpreted it).
Science has said for decades that the polar ice will melt, and it is doing so. Your contention that it's increasing it asinine in my view, and flies in the face of over 100 articles I've read that said the exact opposite.
I did the most important thing a person can do to slow the rate of increase of climate change, I didn't have children. (you are correct, your ilk has denied the issue long enough that no one can stop climate change, it's happening now and will get worse for the next 100+ years even if we stopped adding CO2 today) That means as long as the food lasts another 40 years, I'm good and screw the rest of you. I also see the futility of petitioning the government or populace to get off their ass and stop screwing up the planet, that time came and went in the 70-80's, it's FAR too late to fix the problem, and some like you still sit back and say 'there's no issue to fix'. I only hope you have children that will blame you when they can't eat or drink anymore because of lack of food and water.

For some, everything is a 'debate' about 'state control' because that's all they think about.
You are wrong, most climate scientists are clearly in the 'climate change is happening and it's man made' camp, I've never met one that wasn't, and I know hundreds of scientists. The right wing has you by the brain banana and you would rather believe your party than science, because science wont' just tell you what you want to hear. To me that's sad and dangerous.
4%! Whoever told you that was a bold faced liar.

You seem passionately opposed to most Americans owning guns more so than simply harboring a beef with firearms in general-It seems from these determined comments on the subject running from a crack in the spillway that guns are just bad (m'kay), that you are opposed to peeps having guns please let us in on the cogent distillation of your consternation because I am clueless as to how someone can hope to brave a hike through the tundra without proper gear, and you seem like an educated and thoughtful fellow!

If all cops have guns, and most criminals have guns, and there are already enough fucking prisons, THEN (or how about fuck conventional logic because I can't dance so well) Why should I live somewhere where I am unsafe and unsecured without owing a firearm AND, if in choosing to exercise my free will (what a fucking concept, HUH!?) I am then subject to some fucking police-state run-a-round?

Piers Morgan. Who the fuck names their kid Piers?! The guys a moron or is intentionally coming-off as one to appeal to the contingent destined for unadaptive gene-pool elimination.

I've heard enough stupid arguments for the last 23 hours coming from heads in asses from all fronts on the internet and most of the bullshit comes from major news sources, and Piers here..What exactly can't you believe considering who we have to work with in the general pop. in the U.S??

Critically thinking people are part of a planned obsolescence worldwide, brother!

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^shuac:
Could we please have a generation of tweens that are not stupid, just one, is that to too much to ask for.
Well, I expect tweens to be kinda stupid but I've been kidding myself about the average Videosifter's ability to write correctly, which is, I believe, symptomatic of intelligence. Oh well.

I was curious to see if you ever made a mistake while writing English.
Took 30 seconds to find this gem.
>> ^shuac:
I'd just like to say that I have no opinion about this video. I am apathetic like you read about.



LOL! That's what I get for trying to use an idiom, a very new idiom, granted, but an idiom nonetheless. Some idioms only work when you say them aloud and this is one of them.

I'm going to come off as a bit nutty typing this all out but nutty is a label I'm ok with.

When people say "like you read about" they're being emphatic and pointed. For instance, I might say, "I'm fuckin' cold like you read about." People who've taken the time to write books and articles about tundra wasteland and life above the arctic circle typically don't spend that time on the page writing about how warm it is. When someone takes the time to read such a book or article, they walk away knowing something about chilly weather. It typically only works with extreme states: extreme cold, extreme heat, or in my case extreme apathy. So what I'm really saying with "like you read about" is an attempt to express solidarity with the writer of such books/articles.

Capice? I'm not surprised you may not have heard about it but all these sayings had to come from somewhere, no?

Without context, I admit, it reads kind of wrong. Oh well. I forgive you, Boise.

I had to watch it twice to make the following claim. And I do so with THE utmost careful consideration...

*terrible

Yep. Terrible.

After carefully weighing the pros and cons, I'm convinced that the civilized world as we know it will grind to a halt if she is elected into any office other than one in the frozen tundra of the Great White North.

>> ^vex:

Still unimpressed by the desaturated, almost monochromatic color scheme of most of the landscapes. Upvoted for the music!


Skyrim is a tundra. What do you expect?

On the other hand, if you run into the texture memory bug, you'll find lots of splashes of purple for the last few minutes before the game crashes.

>> ^Throbbin:

While I'm not crazy about the word 'Eskimo' (it's actually a Cree word that the French adopted), we do use it amongst ourselves.
As for others using it - a friend of mine once asked an Inuk Elder what he thought about the word. The Elder responded that we never asked white people what they wanted to be called (we call them Qallunaq), so why should we get upset about what people call us?



Awesome post. This needs to be re-read again. A word is not derogatory unless it is meant to be so. There are words for other cultures everywhere on the planet. Someone should see what Russia and China have decided to call peoples living in the Siberian Tundra. Same situation?

Eskimo in Canada became a political hot button issue, but the word was not meant to be offensive. It is mildly like the usage of Indian in place of Native Americans. All Indians I know do not mind; if they do they tell you what they prefer (Apache, Ute, etc...).

Go compare the history with "Eskimo" and bigotry. Then look up any of the rest that are very well known biased, derogatory, racial slurs, and more...like: Ni;#er, Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima, Apple (Indian (or N.A.) that acts white), and ethnic slurs across the world.

While I like your argument and your logic, I am forced to point out that the numbers are a bit off.

Toyota earns a profit of around $1700 per vehicle (it's higher for hybrids, lower for others). This means that their 524,160 Tundras will earn about $898,934,400 in profit. The value per worker would be closer to $400,000 than $4 million.

Either way, I agree with you that this is not necessarily fair - someone is making a lot of money with a lot less effort.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

See, the only problem I have with that is..
How many individuals do you think consistently earn a million based purely on the value they themselves generate?
Say you're an electrical engineer who comes up with a brilliant solution that saves multiple cities thru out California a million dollars a year each.
You went to University. Studied diligently. Paid for all your books out of pocket. Got your masters.
I would agree that you rightly deserve at least a million in compensation.
~~~
Now say, instead of glorious engineer. You were one of the 2100 workers on Toyota's San Antonia, TX assembly line in 2007
Do you think you'd make that same million dollar salary? Mostly like, no.
Tho if you look at the numbers:
That plant made one Tundra per minute starting in 2007. 60x24x7x52= 524160 Tundras
Average MSRP for an '07 Tundra = $32070 x524160= $16,809,811,200 in value.
Let's say the retailers make 5 Million and that half of the 16 Billion is break-even cost for Toyota.
$8,402,405,600/2100= $4,001,145 of suggested value per worker
The average auto worker makes 18 to 30 so we'll say hourly wage is $24.
Times an 8 hour shift 6 times per week. 24x8x313 = $60,096 yearly earnings.
Remember $4 Mill of profit per worker at $60k year compensation means those workers on retained 1.5% of the value they generated.
~~~
That example was one factory. In one industry.
Think of the millions of businesses that aren't so generous as to allot their employees 1.5% of the profits they themselves produce individually.
And then compare that to the number of CEOs of those businesses that pay themselves a million or more, plus bonuses.
And then compare that to the number of self made millionaire that rightfully earn 7 figure salaries.
Considering wages haven't risen much for thirties, I think the majority of those workers have a right to be unhappy.
Sorry for the rambling. It was just my way of putting things in perspective.
>> ^Xax:

Whoa whoa whoa. STEALING? Bullfuckingshit. Of course there are a lot of corrupt motherfuckers out there, but I have no trouble believing that many people make more money than the average bear without being unscrupulous. People who have used their smarts and/or luck to become successful have every single right to write themselves a big fat paycheck. If some snotty piece of shit working under them is unhappy that they're not making as much money, well that's just too fucking bad.

Given your bullet reply I will do likewise. (even though I think that turns our conversation into more of an argument, and I hate arguments)

I) Both sides had only mathematical constructs with a central notion of understanding behind the numbers. What I mean is, there was no NASA or anything to go look...there was only math. The Heliocentric model was exactly that, a (very) complex mathematical model (of exceptions) to explain the motion of the planets based on observed phenomena. Geocentrism had data as well, but lacked the cultural bias for it to be accepted as a valid view point. Which adds to my point, not detracts from it; as my point what theories get mocked or accepted has more to do with culture than premise.

A) I bet you didn't read the link I posted, and I can't blame you (Quine on a weekday and all!). But what I wrote was a hasty, and perhaps, oversimplified version of Quines waxing and waning on the politics of science. You can see examples of this today where scientists and large hang on the breath of the great intellectuals of the day, like Stephen Hawking. Or, how quickly Einstein is falling out of favor now that quantum doesn't quite add up. More than likely, within our lifetime, you will stop hearing about space time curves and it will be supplanted by some other thing. The main difference between planet orbits and the general laws of the universe are that you can go outside and look at the orbit (with a rocket). You can't go just "see" the laws of nature and therefore have no reason to thing Enstein was any more right about space time curves than of fundamental forces. You can explain, using Newtonian language and adapting its math, relativity and motion. The reason we don't has more to do with culture and self advocacy than evidence. And to the point, that still doesn't address the primary problem, that of which, the PEERS that review are under the influence of culture, they are the rose colored glasses to which I was referring all along.

B) See, I understand a bit of that. But ultimately that seems like an undersell to how life works on this planet. No doubt, change will bring hardship on certain species, but wouldn't also create new opportunities for others? A lack of snow on the tundra is bad for snow foxes...but good for regular foxes. Change is one thing life on this planet handles well...as for individual members their fates are less certain.

C) I disagree on 2 counts. One is my first example. Simply put, even if you idea treads water, it can be framed in such a way as to be demeaned of any value, regardless of merit. You can see this in media smear campaign stuff, if you can frame someone as a nut job, it will discredit them. For example, "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences" is a great read and has many, good observations....but is written by the uni bomber so not high on anyone's reading list. It isn't culturally acceptable to go...hey, the uni bomber is right, this is a problem! Same goes for here, it doesn't matter if it's 600 or 6000 scientists that disagree with the climate change model, if your ideas aren't popular, no one is going to be there to listen.

And second, you can't prove a negative. The only way the could prove that climate change isn't human caused is to completely understand the whole system and then point out how humans are trivial factors. In other words, they would have to be able to do the thing that no climatologist can claim, to know the whole truth about the weather and all its complexities. The burden of proof is actually on those making the claim, not the ones countering that claim. So really, the only thing they have to proof is nothing and just make the assertion that the doomsays math doesn't add up (and why). They just have to poke the holes in the boat in other words...which is what I think they are getting ostracized for. Get on board or get out kind of thing. But that is just an outsiders opinion.

See, the only problem I have with that is..

How many individuals do you think consistently earn a million based purely on the value they themselves generate?

Say you're an electrical engineer who comes up with a brilliant solution that saves multiple cities thru out California a million dollars a year each.

You went to University. Studied diligently. Paid for all your books out of pocket. Got your masters.

I would agree that you rightly deserve at least a million in compensation.
~~~

Now say, instead of glorious engineer. You were one of the 2100 workers on Toyota's San Antonia, TX assembly line in 2007

Do you think you'd make that same million dollar salary? Mostly like, no.

Tho if you look at the numbers:
That plant made one Tundra per minute starting in 2007. 60x24x7x52= 524160 Tundras

Average MSRP for an '07 Tundra = $32070 x524160= $16,809,811,200 in value.

Let's say the retailers make 5 Million and that half of the 16 Billion is break-even cost for Toyota.

$8,402,405,600/2100= $4,001,145 of suggested value per worker

The average auto worker makes 18 to 30 so we'll say hourly wage is $24.
Times an 8 hour shift 6 times per week. 24x8x313 = $60,096 yearly earnings.

Remember $4 Mill of profit per worker at $60k year compensation means those workers on retained 1.5% of the value they generated.
~~~

That example was one factory. In one industry.

Think of the millions of businesses that aren't so generous as to allot their employees 1.5% of the profits they themselves produce individually.

And then compare that to the number of CEOs of those businesses that pay themselves a million or more, plus bonuses.

And then compare that to the number of self made millionaire that rightfully earn 7 figure salaries.

Considering wages haven't risen much for thirties, I think the majority of those workers have a right to be unhappy.

Sorry for the rambling. It was just my way of putting things in perspective.

>> ^Xax:


Whoa whoa whoa. STEALING? Bullfuckingshit. Of course there are a lot of corrupt motherfuckers out there, but I have no trouble believing that many people make more money than the average bear without being unscrupulous. People who have used their smarts and/or luck to become successful have every single right to write themselves a big fat paycheck. If some snotty piece of shit working under them is unhappy that they're not making as much money, well that's just too fucking bad.

Please, if you like this video: these are mostly shots of China. Do not move to the Pacific Northwest. It does not look like that here. It's mostly just endless tundra covered in ice and snow. Please do not consider moving or even vacationing to this absolute hell-hole.