Alaska’s top-heavy glaciers are approaching an irreversible tipping point

As the plateau of the icefield thins, ice and snow reserves at higher altitudes are lost.

See full article...

 

[alexvoda]

We all know that if the orange felon wins, he will once again roll back all forms of climate action therefore accelerating this even more.

 

[Cycledoc2210]

He and his friends all own “secure” hideaways or billion dollar yachts. Only suckers worry about climate when there is money or power to gain. Besides Putin thinks he’s the man.

 

[ARSBodger]

Who you gonna' believe? Verifiable data from some science nerds or your favorite right-wing politician? Clearly the latter have a more robust media arm so they must be right: climate change is a hoax and if it wasn't then doing something would reduce corporate profits. And who cares a about a bunch of far-away polar bears and glaciers anyway... /s

 

[ColdWetDog]

We all know that if the orange felon wins, he will once again roll back all forms of climate action therefore accelerating this even more.

While Trump getting a second term is firmly in 'worst case scenario' territory, it isn't like even Democrats have been able to push through substantive changes. Let's face it - there is pretty much no effective mitigation strategy that would not involve significant (if hardly life-changing) restrictions on American consumptive behavior. That's a Bozo No No. Can't have gas go up $.50. Or some speed limits. Or a carbon tax or two.

We've pretty much boxed ourselves into a corner in terms of politically acceptable climate mitigations. Ones that don't require a behavior change or cost too much money. Not that we shouldn't quit trying but at this stage all we can hope for is that it doesn't get too awful bad.

But if Trump gets in again we may not have the luxury of worrying about the climate.

I, for one, would welcome any alien overlords that happen to be in the neighborhood. Stop by and give us a tentacle lashing or whatever. Send an email. We could use some assistance here.

 

[cameron2]

Pretty sure that we've already proven that we're willing to push things past the tipping point in the rare cases that we haven't already done so.

I'm not sure if there are any answers left, since we're going to keep on pumping and burning oil, making and discarding plastic, and widely spreading toxic pollutants like PFAS (it's even in dental floss).

 

[arcite]

We all know that if the orange felon wins, he will once again roll back all forms of climate action therefore accelerating this even more.

Not to sound like a DOOOMER, but we've probably passed the point of no return. The oceans are boiling, globally. Glaciers are melting....everywhere. Permafrost is....melting....huge quantities of methane are entering the atmosphere. None of it will be stopped with platitudes. Indeed, we're gonna add another 2 billion humans to this planet over the next twenty years or so. The world is about to get so much worse....before it gets better.

 

[Yamata]

Meanwhile, another Ars journalist is writing a review for a monster SUV / sports car.

 

[foofoo22]

Not to sound like a DOOOMER, but we've probably passed the point of no return. The oceans are boiling, globally. Glaciers are melting....everywhere. Permafrost is....melting....huge quantities of methane are entering the atmosphere. None of it will be stopped with platitudes. Indeed, we're gonna add another 2 billion humans to this planet over the next twenty years or so. The world is about to get so much worse....before it gets better.

And yet leaders run around begging people to have more and more children...

 

[bebu]

To be clear even if humanity doesn't address its part in climate change we are still unlikely to destroy the planet, or all life on the planet, or even our species but of what we can be fairy certain is that civilisation would be obliterated within a couple of generations followed by a collapsing population.
I would guess with the current recalcitrance within the next 300 years at the most, perhaps as soon as 60 years.
The barbarian aren't at our gates they inhabit our cities having assumed the purple long ago.

 

[cameron2]

And yet leaders run around begging people to have more and more children...

Not just that, but the US (whenever a Republican is president) forces [1] international agencies (e.g. the UN) to stop teaching about birth control and providing access to it in developing nations. As a direct result of this idiocy, we're about to have an extra billion people born in Africa [2].

It is somewhat ironic that the racist theocratic right wing that quite literally fears brown people [3] is accidentally increasing humanity's average melanin level ("the global south"), and by a dramatic amount.

It's quite possible that, had we been responsible about helping the developing world adopt family planning practices used in more developed countries, instead of explicitly blocking the teaching and use of these practices, that we'd now be at 5 or 6 billion people now instead of 8 billion heading straight to 10 billion in the next 25 years [4]. This was (unsurprisingly) the cost that the Republican Party was happy to pay to dislodge religious Catholics (who oppose contraception) from their traditional support for Democrats. On the other hand, at least we now have most of the pedophiles and child rapists captured in one party [5][6][7][8].

--

[1] https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/a-101-on-the-global-gag-rule/
[2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/the-children-s-continent/
[3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-ne...cans-agree-with-poisoning-the-blood-language/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth
[5] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...trump-jeffrey-epstein-documents-b2475210.html
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation.html
[7] https://sports.yahoo.com/rep-jim-jo...al-abuse-coverup-by-exwrestler-165329175.html
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

 

[chefboy]

To be clear even if humanity doesn't address its part in climate change we are still unlikely to destroy the planet, or all life on the planet, or even our species but of what we can be fairy certain is that civilisation would be obliterated within a couple of generations followed by a collapsing population.
I would guess with the current recalcitrance within the next 300 years at the most, perhaps as soon as 60 years.
The barbarian aren't at our gates they inhabit our cities having assumed the purple long ago.

I hope that you are right, but I am not too sure of this. As COVID clearly demonstrated, civilization and society are a lot more fragile than we think. I would agree that the biosphere is more resilient, but maybe not in the ways that we expect and probably more fragile in others.

 

[Oldmanalex]

Not to sound like a DOOOMER, but we've probably passed the point of no return. The oceans are boiling, globally. Glaciers are melting....everywhere. Permafrost is....melting....huge quantities of methane are entering the atmosphere. None of it will be stopped with platitudes. Indeed, we're gonna add another 2 billion humans to this planet over the next twenty years or so. The world is about to get so much worse....before it gets better.

We may be about to add 2 billion people to the planet, but I will be very surprised (well, not really, as my life expectancy means I almost certainly will not be around at crunch time) if we do not lose more billions than that. And that is the optimistic scenario, as the stresses that the massive upcoming eco-disaster will provide are pretty likely to trigger a nuclear war, at which point a billion in total sustainable population will be an optimistic goal for quite a while. And given the combined stupidity and venality of those we are going to allow to lead us into this existential crisis, the pessimistic scenario is quite a probable one.

 

[JoHBE]

Climate Change as a problem sucks at so many levels. It has many properties that make it easy to deny it. To solve it, almost EVERYONE needs to acknowledge it and point their noses in the same direction, though. But the rich and powerful, both in terms of nations and individuals, are the ones least affected. Basically, the future of hundreds of millions is co-determined by their fellow-earthlings. But "asking nicely" is not among the available instruments to convince them, and factual arguments seem to have lost a lot of power over the last decades.

And in the middle of this clusterfuck, as a relatively small detail (but nevertheless frustrating and unfair), the people who are unaware or don't give a shit, are just living the Life as if everything is fine. While everyone ELSE is stressed out, losing sleep, suffering from high blood pressure and getting increasingly depressed and frustrated.

You would think that at some point there's going to be a movement that thinks "we're going down, but before we do, we're gonna make YOUR life miserable, too!"

Has anyone started putting a target list together?

 

[Madestjohn]

Not to sound like a DOOOMER, but we've probably passed the point of no return. The oceans are boiling, globally. Glaciers are melting....everywhere. Permafrost is....melting....huge quantities of methane are entering the atmosphere. None of it will be stopped with platitudes. Indeed, we're gonna add another 2 billion humans to this planet over the next twenty years or so. The world is about to get so much worse....before it gets better.

We are definitely past multiple points of no return and are just barely begun to experience the damage we have already done to what has been an unusually hospitable and mild period of earth’s climate (basically all of human civilization has been extremely lucky climate wise in the holocene).
The fact that we continue to do damage, often at an accelerating pace, while the effects of previous damage is just starting to be felt and When We Know Better isn’t going to hurt us (the effects we are already feeling are all ready locked in and will happen regardless) its just gonna doom future generations our kids and their kids.
We’ve ruined our climate and we will suffer for it, the only thing we can possibly do now is not make it 100X worse for our grand kids.
- but the truth is, I don’t think we will.

 

[fl4Ksh]

In Sept 2019 I visited Whittier, AK to view the glaciers before they disappeared. You could still get close enough by boat to see a few of the glaciers calving. Others had receded from the water's edge, some by hundreds of meters.

 

[cameron2]

In Sept 2019 I visited Whittier, AK to view the glaciers before they disappeared. You could still get close enough to see a few of the glaciers calving. Others had receded from the water's edge, some by hundreds of meters.

When I bought my house in 2007, I looked at the worst case sea level rise, and bought a house that will become beachfront property.

At the time, it seemed like a bit of a stretch. Now it seems like brilliant foresight. If I live long enough, the street in front of my house will be underwater, but my house is built on a hill that slopes down to (what will be) the newly expanded Atlantic Ocean. And then ...

I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

I do not think that they will sing to me.

I have seen them riding seaward on the waves
Combing the white hair of the waves blown back
When the wind blows the water white and black.
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.

 

[real mikeb_60]

Climate Change as a problem sucks at so many levels. It has many properties that make it easy to deny it. To solve it, almost EVERYONE needs to acknowledge it and point their noses in the same direction, though. But the rich and powerful, both in terms of nations and individuals, are the ones least affected. Basically, the future of hundreds of millions is co-determined by their fellow-earthlings. But "asking nicely" is not among the available instruments to convince them, and factual arguments seem to have lost a lot of power over the last decades.

And in the middle of this clusterfuck, as a relatively small detail (but nevertheless frustrating and unfair), the people who are unaware or don't give a shit, are just living the Life as if everything is fine. While everyone ELSE is stressed out, losing sleep, suffering from high blood pressure and getting increasingly depressed and frustrated.

You would think that at some point there's going to be a movement that thinks "we're going down, but before we do, we're gonna make YOUR life miserable, too!"

Has anyone started putting a target list together?

So Putin's nuclear war is just climate change mitigation? /s/

He's said that a world without Russia (meaning without him) is not a world (that should be - adding words) worth living in. He's got friends (including one running for president in the US) who track with that.

So yes, there's a lot of room for DOOMERs. But the nukes haven't started falling yet so there is still some level of hope. And the turnaround in the UK also offers a glimmer of hope, offset of course by other things in Europe. But anyway, I'm not going to go full doomer just yet, but it's not looking good.

 

[Dr. Midnight]

When I bought my house in 2007, I looked at the worst case sea level rise, and bought a house that will become beachfront property.

At the time, it seemed like a bit of a stretch. Now it seems like brilliant foresight. If I live long enough, the street in front of my house will be underwater, but my house is built on a hill that slopes down to (what will be) the newly expanded Atlantic Ocean.

Lex?



/s

Jokes aside, NOAA's interactive sea level rise map is quite something when you compare it with particular regard to what regions have been calculated to be most impacted, and then further contrast that with the buying practices, housing prices, and voting patterns of people in those areas.

 

[Madestjohn]

To be clear even if humanity doesn't address its part in climate change we are still unlikely to destroy the planet, or all life on the planet, or even our species but of what we can be fairy certain is that civilisation would be obliterated within a couple of generations followed by a collapsing population.
I would guess with the current recalcitrance within the next 300 years at the most, perhaps as soon as 60 years.
The barbarian aren't at our gates they inhabit our cities having assumed the purple long ago.

I‘m not quite so optimistic.
The thing with tipping points is they don’t necessarily tip back.

True the planet will still be here, unless Jupiter decides to go on another great trek, and life will likely still be on it doing its thing.
But its important to note that the vast majority of the history of life on earth does not involve humans, mammals or anything that would recognizable to your average citizen as an animal.

Networks of Bacteria and Archaea, possibly subterranean, are the true landlords of earth. They’ve been nearly since the earth cooled from liquid rock and will likely be here almost until it’s swallowed by the sun. They will survive almost certainly.. the rest of us is a coin toss.

Wet bulb temperatures aren’t just critical for animals like us that can perspire to cool.

Since multicellular animals started up there have been maybe a half dozen mass extinction events on the scale of the one that we’ve started, yes .. animals and ecosystems recovered but they were radically changed, and pass luck doesn’t guarantee future success. (there is some recent evidence suggesting there was a mass extinction of previous multicellular life before Cambrian period that they didn’t recover from) You can drive thru a red light with your eyes closed and maybe make it unscathed 4 or 5 times, doesn’t mean you’ll make it the 6th or 7th.

Even if we don’t go anywhere near that dire there’s the James Lovelock supposition that earth has two roughly stable climatic states. One with ice caps blue oceans and boney fish the other is no ice caps purple oceans and jelly fish, that would still be an earth with life, just very alien to what we now know and unlikely habitable by us. Lovelock pegs the methalhydrate ice under the seas as the tipping point for that and expects them to rupture and vent when ocean temperatures and salinity get to critical state - which melting glacier would tend to increase risk of.
Lovelock is well known for playing in fields outside his core disciplines and has suggested some pretty wacky sounding things …. but allot of them have turned out to sound pretty sensible after a while.

So yeah .. the Earth will survive and likely life, but we certainly might not and the Earth that comes out the other side will likely not look like any thing recognizable to us.

 

[chefboy]

When I bought my house in 2007, I looked at the worst case sea level rise, and bought a house that will become beachfront property.

At the time, it seemed like a bit of a stretch. Now it seems like brilliant foresight. If I live long enough, the street in front of my house will be underwater, but my house is built on a hill that slopes down to (what will be) the newly expanded Atlantic Ocean. And then ...

The drawback to this is that the warming is going to put A LOT of energy in the oceans. I hope it was a houseboat you built, and one that could ride out a cat 5 hurricane at that.

 

[iollmann]

While Trump getting a second term is firmly in 'worst case scenario' territory, it isn't like even Democrats have been able to push through substantive changes.

The IRA was substantive change. It was even landmark change. The impacts on the grid and transportation will be profound.

 

[Dr. Midnight]

The drawback to this is that the warming is going to put A LOT of energy in the oceans. I hope it was a houseboat you built, and one that could ride out a cat 5 hurricane at that.

I believe it wasn't even a week ago wherein the first ever recorded Hurricane of this season hit Category Five and broke the record for the earliest Category Five ever recorded, and came rather relatively close to the earliest ever recorded major hurricane in the Atlantic. While there have been others in the past, they can be largely considered as outliers compared to the strength exhibited by Hurricanes later in their respective seasons. What has been observable to even the most casual of layman is that the sheer frequency of major storms has had a dramatic increase in just the last 10 years - coinciding with ever rising temperatures globally, and ever increasing sea temperatures (which, on another note, has some rather strong implications for the North Atlantic Current).

 

[cameron2]

Lex?

...ington

The drawback to this is that the warming is going to put A LOT of energy in the oceans. I hope it was a houseboat you built, and one that could ride out a cat 5 hurricane at that.

I'm sure I can qualify for federally subsidized flood insurance, and the government will bring in more sand for my front yard after every storm.

 

[aliksy]

The answer is violence. The question is when.

We can wait until we get to like absolute crisis and end up like fallout or mad Max.

Or we can start removing conservatives from power now.

 

[jdale]

While Trump getting a second term is firmly in 'worst case scenario' territory, it isn't like even Democrats have been able to push through substantive changes. Let's face it - there is pretty much no effective mitigation strategy that would not involve significant (if hardly life-changing) restrictions on American consumptive behavior. That's a Bozo No No. Can't have gas go up $.50. Or some speed limits. Or a carbon tax or two.

We've pretty much boxed ourselves into a corner in terms of politically acceptable climate mitigations. Ones that don't require a behavior change or cost too much money. Not that we shouldn't quit trying but at this stage all we can hope for is that it doesn't get too awful bad.

But if Trump gets in again we may not have the luxury of worrying about the climate.

I, for one, would welcome any alien overlords that happen to be in the neighborhood. Stop by and give us a tentacle lashing or whatever. Send an email. We could use some assistance here.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(23)00096-0/fulltext
By mandating reduced emissions from power generation, industry, and transportation, the three economic sectors responsible for most GHGs, and requiring reductions in methane emissions by the oil and gas industry, the IRA is projected to reduce US GHG emissions by 42% (3.3 Gt) by 2030, compared to 2005. This will come close to the US 2030 target of 50% reduction relative to 2005. It will put the US almost on track to achieve 100% reduction by 2050.

There's more to do but it's absolutely untrue that no substantive changes have been made.

I'm not even convinced that "significant restrictions" will be needed. Incentives, sure, but an incentive is very different from a restriction.

 

[johnnoi]

While Trump getting a second term is firmly in 'worst case scenario' territory, it isn't like even Democrats have been able to push through substantive changes. Let's face it - there is pretty much no effective mitigation strategy that would not involve significant (if hardly life-changing) restrictions on American consumptive behavior. That's a Bozo No No. Can't have gas go up $.50. Or some speed limits. Or a carbon tax or two.

We've pretty much boxed ourselves into a corner in terms of politically acceptable climate mitigations. Ones that don't require a behavior change or cost too much money. Not that we shouldn't quit trying but at this stage all we can hope for is that it doesn't get too awful bad.

But if Trump gets in again we may not have the luxury of worrying about the climate.

I, for one, would welcome any alien overlords that happen to be in the neighborhood. Stop by and give us a tentacle lashing or whatever. Send an email. We could use some assistance here.

Well if us humans don't do something about climate change nature will. humans may not like her option though.

 

[moriad]

Climate Change as a problem sucks at so many levels. It has many properties that make it easy to deny it. To solve it, almost EVERYONE needs to acknowledge it and point their noses in the same direction, though. But the rich and powerful, both in terms of nations and individuals, are the ones least affected. Basically, the future of hundreds of millions is co-determined by their fellow-earthlings. But "asking nicely" is not among the available instruments to convince them, and factual arguments seem to have lost a lot of power over the last decades.

And in the middle of this clusterfuck, as a relatively small detail (but nevertheless frustrating and unfair), the people who are unaware or don't give a shit, are just living the Life as if everything is fine. While everyone ELSE is stressed out, losing sleep, suffering from high blood pressure and getting increasingly depressed and frustrated.

You would think that at some point there's going to be a movement that thinks "we're going down, but before we do, we're gonna make YOUR life miserable, too!"

Has anyone started putting a target list together?

I believe Forbes publishes one fairly regularly.

 

[Madestjohn]

Which they are right to do. Human population is expected to start declining around 2050. The economic catastrophe of having a top heavy population is severe. Not only will the elderly be demanding their food, housing and transportation be paid for, but the extra strain on the young will induce them to have fewer children making the problem worse. We see it today with bitter millennials not putting out, and given the lack of sharing in this society we shan’t blame them.

A very large segment, close to all of it, of US economic growth is population growth. If you want to preside over a shrinking economy and Detroit like civil service collapse then by all means advocate for fewer children, because that is where that leads. Politicians who advocate for larger families are right to do so. If the babies don’t appear on schedule then the window is gone and immigration is the only solution. Pick one.

We don’t get out of our present difficulties by having fewer children. We need to get to zero emissions. The fewer children plan reaches zero emissions when everyone is dead. It is the worst possible solution and a damn selfish one. Future generations don’t get to live because we don’t want to make any changes to how we live?! What kind of monster does that?

We get out of this conundrum by switching technologies to one that do not require combustion. Your kitchen is all electric. There is no reason why we can’t do that for everything else. It is just a matter of prioritizing the future over sunk cost fallacy and the nihilism.

Yeah .. not so sure about that
our economic system is based on the idea of perpetual growth and we’ve know since the early seventies that on a limited resourced planet that’s not a sustainable system

the dates have shifted since the initial Limits of Growth report in 1972, also the hothouse effect wasn’t really a concern yet, but the trends seem consistent.

We simply can’t support an ever expanding population and likely can’t sustain the population we currently have without risking extinction levels of environmental damage.
To suggest that we need to expand our next generation‘s population to economically support our previous generations boom is chasing our tail into oblivion.

Look, our current economy is based on expansion through exploitation and its doomed, we have to face that fact. Our economy must shrink, future generations are going to be poorer than us and going to be dealing with a climate much more hostile with far fewer available resources to manage it.

If our civilization has a hope of surviving the coming ecological destruction its caused then our consumption and population must be reduced (perhaps drastically) to something approaching sustainable levels - which we are currently very very far away from.

Yes the reduction in population of productive youth makes sustainability of the unproductive elderly economically untenable.. but we’ve known that for awhile and its not like that the only untenable future we face .. ecological damage is gonna do allot more damage to economy than lower rates of reproduction.


Besides there’s an immediate and necessary solution to unsustainable population levels in Northern economies ( and face it that’s where this is an issue) and that’s immigration.
As sea levels rise and the planet warms there are going to be increasing areas in the tropics where human occupation is untenable..
less and less of the planet is going to be habitable and the melting of the northern tundra isn’t going to solve that. Populations are going to have to move towards the poles and that means mostly north.

You want younger productive generations to sustain you in your old age? Open up your southern borders.

 

[moriad]

A very large segment, close to all of it, of US economic growth is population growth. If you want to preside over a shrinking economy and Detroit like civil service collapse then by all means advocate for fewer children, because that is where that leads. Politicians who advocate for larger families are right to do so. If the babies don’t appear on schedule then the window is gone and immigration is the only solution. Pick one.

What's the problem with immigration?

I mean, it simultaneously helps to maintain economic growth in developed countries, while reducing the pressure on developing ones.

What is so very much better about having more American babies and contributing to the increase in global populations, in a country made up almost entirely of immigrants and their descendants?

Just curious. Because it can't be that I already know the answer, can it?

Edit:

Future generations don’t get to live because we don’t want to make any changes to how we live?! What kind of monster does that?

The kind of monster that grew up listening to the right-wing preach against social safety nets by saying over and over, "If you can't afford children, you should not have them."

So... go preach to the billionaire club. You can pick Elon Musk as your mascot. He's vying for the job.

 

[real mikeb_60]

The IRA was substantive change. It was even landmark change. The impacts on the grid and transportation will be profound.

Remember that the IRA authorized those programs. The funding comes from appropriations, which are under the annual control of Congress. Worst-case, Trump and a Republican Congress (at least one House) can repeal the IRA, but even without that blocking further appropriations will effectively shut it down. They could, even, claw back previous funding, but that's harder.

 

[moriad]

Well, there's one positive to a less than all-out nuclear exchange: it would mitigate global heating faster than anything else.

A few unpleasant side-effects, to be sure. But you'll be fine if you just sail out into the ocean on one of those mega-yachts. The extremely rich aren't worried. Obviously. Or they'd spend every last dime trying to change the trajectory we're on.

 

[ColdWetDog]

The IRA was substantive change. It was even landmark change. The impacts on the grid and transportation will be profound.

Until next year when the MAGAidiots repeal most of it. And even if they don't, it is only going to cause a modest deflection in the curve. If any at all. The fact that the IRA will undoubtedly be the strongest anti climate change legislation that the US could possibly push through shows exactly how fucked we are.

 

[markgo]

While Trump getting a second term is firmly in 'worst case scenario' territory, it isn't like even Democrats have been able to push through substantive changes. Let's face it - there is pretty much no effective mitigation strategy that would not involve significant (if hardly life-changing) restrictions on American consumptive behavior. That's a Bozo No No. Can't have gas go up $.50. Or some speed limits. Or a carbon tax or two.

We've pretty much boxed ourselves into a corner in terms of politically acceptable climate mitigations. Ones that don't require a behavior change or cost too much money.

The problem isn’t the Democratic Party, it’s the GOP. The last time Democrats had sufficient control of government, it was Obama and it only lasted until they used that power to pass DACA.

The “Democrats haven’t done anything” complaint from progressives on climate change, criminal justice reform, foreign policy and more totally ignores complete unwillingness of the GOP to any notion of compromise, split control of congress and two vote majority in the Senate (with two of those being Manchin and Sinema).

Want better results? Stop whining at current Democrats and get more of them elected.

 

[terrydactyl]

Some years ago, I had a coworker who told me with a straight face that the glaciers are not melting. That scientists are comparing photos taken in winter vs ones taken in summer (part of some conspiracy, I guess). I realized that no counter evidence would be accepted. It was a moment that showed me how severe their idiocy is.

 

[Madestjohn]

Some years ago, I had a coworker who told me with a straight face that the glaciers are not melting. That scientists are comparing photos taken in winter vs ones taken in summer (part of some conspiracy, I guess). I realized that no counter evidence would be accepted. It was a moment that showed me how severe their idiocy is.

Mines was something similar but during first Trump campaign started with the response to my criticism that Trump lies with the reflexive ‘everyone lies!’ Then me pointing out even if that’s true that doesn’t excuse Trump.
Then I got ‘Trump has good policies’ and then me asking for an example and getting back ‘make America great again‘ explaining jingoism isn’t policies .. then watching them be stumped as the policies they wanted to say even they knew would just sound racist to say out loud.

things rapidly degenerated from there but when we got to the point of outright holocaust denial - because “the german officer class was too noble to ever do such a thing” I had to walk away.

… I was laughing as I walked away .. but it was a sad bitter ironic laugh

 

[Mindstatic]

(Snipped)

I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

I do not think that they will sing to me.

I have seen them riding seaward on the waves
Combing the white hair of the waves blown back
When the wind blows the water white and black.
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.

This you or a quote?
It's beautiful either way!

 

[Madestjohn]

This you or a quote?
It's beautiful either way!

Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock. ?

 

[ianmcf]

I believe it wasn't even a week ago wherein the first ever recorded Hurricane of this season hit Category Five and broke the record for the earliest Category Five ever recorded, and came rather relatively close to the earliest ever recorded major hurricane in the Atlantic. While there have been others in the past, they can be largely considered as outliers compared to the strength exhibited by Hurricanes later in their respective seasons. What has been observable to even the most casual of layman is that the sheer frequency of major storms has had a dramatic increase in just the last 10 years - coinciding with ever rising temperatures globally, and ever increasing sea temperatures (which, on another note, has some rather strong implications for the North Atlantic Current).

Just like with Ethernet cables, where we thought Cat-5 was all we’d ever need, I think we’re on the verge of Cat 6, and perhaps 7 and 8. We already need new colors on our temperature maps, and ‘the second highest recorded temperature ever’ has now been exceeded multiple times in multiple geographies.

Too bad (to someone else’s point) that even Ars readers and writers are so into SUVs. (Sealevel Updating Vehicles?)