I got 81, 41, 100 on my first try

You did exceptionally well. Most people get outvoted by 2040, way before 2100 when the game ends. Second or third try can get them to the end, but maybe not with impressive scores like yours. It's only a game. Thanks for having a go.

---

flaming balloons

Looks like we need to make more cement.

And cut back on the use of "Total".

Cement is known to absorb water vapor

so that's why the sidewalks are wet after it rains.

---

me@rescam.org

Evangelicals, scientists join forces to combat global warming.
Will wonders ever cease...now this is real fun with global warming!

---

Account frozen...

I got 81, 41, 100 on my first try

You did exceptionally well. Most people get outvoted by 2040, way before 2100 when the game ends. Second or third try can get them to the end, but maybe not with impressive scores like yours. It's only a game. Thanks for having a go.

It was annoying that the game doesn't end on a "reduction goal" year. You end up voting for a CO2 reduction quota for a year falls after the end of the game... I was tempted to just boost the economy on the last turn to see what would happen.

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

An article on Greenland ice melting in the online edition of the NYTimes is really scary. Cannot link to it because you have to register.
Tullio

---

An article on Greenland ice melting in the online edition of the NYTimes is really scary. Cannot link to it because you have to register.
Tullio

NYT also ran articles stating that Iraqi citizens would have been better off with Saddam killing them. The paper is not what it once was.

NYT also ran articles stating that Iraqi citizens would have been better off with Saddam killing them. The paper is not what it once was.

What about the LATimes? here is a title from today's edition:
Niall Ferguson: Only a United Nations force could garner some legitimacy from Iraqis.
Tullio

---

I got 81, 41, 100 on my first try

You did exceptionally well. Most people get outvoted by 2040, way before 2100 when the game ends. Second or third try can get them to the end, but maybe not with impressive scores like yours. It's only a game. Thanks for having a go.

It was annoying that the game doesn't end on a "reduction goal" year. You end up voting for a CO2 reduction quota for a year falls after the end of the game... I was tempted to just boost the economy on the last turn to see what would happen.

As a 'strategy' type game it is interesting to try it again and again to see what happens if you change your strategy. Unfortunately it is too easy to suddenly become 'unpopular with the voters', be voted out of office, and for the game to suddenly end. As with other strategy games it might have been useful to have 'saved games' where you could go back to a certain point and try something different, without having to start the game all over again.

I'll pass this as feedback to Hannah Rowlands, the Project Manager at Red Redemption Ltd. who was trialling this on CPDN. This Climate Change game is officially launched today.

---

flaming balloons

An article on Greenland ice melting in the online edition of the NYTimes is really scary. Cannot link to it because you have to register.
Tullio

Hm, if it's just news it might have been about the Arktic-climate-report ACIA.
There will be a massive coordinated science project with 55000 scientists from all over the world organized by the WMO and ICSU from march 2007 on because of the urgent situation. Some Scientists guess that even if we'd stop to emitt greenhouse gas as of today completely, warming will still continue due to vicious circles - we have started a process we can't easily stop.


"Selbst wenn wir ab heute nichts mehr in die Atmosphäre entlassen, hätten wir immer noch eine Erwärmung", erklärt Peter Lemke, Leiter des Fachbereichs Klimasystem am Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung (AWI) in Bremerhaven. "Wir haben da eine Maschine angeworfen, die nicht so schnell zu stoppen ist."
http://www.n-tv.de/753423.html

BillHyland, as one of the sceptics here I wonder what your point of view about the issue is. You have children yourself, if I remember correctly.

http://amap.no/acia/ACIAGraphics.html

Interesting graphics.

Hm, if it's just news it might have been about the Arktic-climate-report ACIA.
There will be a massive coordinated science project with 55000 scientists from all over the world organized by the WMO and ICSU from march 2007 on because of the urgent situation. Some Scientists guess that even if we'd stop to emitt greenhouse gas as of today completely, warming will still continue due to vicious circles - we have started a process we can't easily stop.

What scares me is the SPEED of these climatic changes. We might be approaching what in thermodynamics is called a critical point.
Tullio

---

The problem is that there are a lot of "funny" studies and "nice pictures". But to achieve something people need to know what the results are for them personally. No more fish, exploding prices for food and water. Loosing your fancy beach house, facing storms, fire, flooding regulary, but insurances won't insure anymore. A huge wave of immigrants due to lack of food and water in their home countries. Large areas of farmland in the US getting unproductive, Southern Europe getting desert-like. Terrorism flourishing because we, the western countries, are accused of having caused this havoc are some issues I could think of.

I guess the biggest problem is that climate change, as a longterm process, is not that easy to see. But if the results are so clear that even the last one cryes out "OMG, something needs to be done!" it will be way too late to change anything, and that's the biggest danger.

Another problem is our current economy system of globalisation and market liberalism. Since the shareholders of the oil companies hold incredible power and fear losses they block alternative energy. Globalisation and less pollutive (usually more expensive) production methods don't go hand in hand. But alternative energy and environmental technologies provide the chance for millions of jobs and even increase the health of the planet. But globalisation also results in a fight for lowest possible wages and taxes and so national states and employees have a hard time being able to afford the (at least at the beginning) increased costs of energy and products. In the end boosting the buying power of the majority of the citizens will also help out the economy.

I guess there are quite some "Haha, I don't care - I can afford it!" guys in the current elites. But what they fail to get is that they risk their status and even their lives if they don't make sure that the "average guy" can achieve a satisfying life standard through honest work. It just takes a terrorist organisation which wants to punish the US with a bioweapon attack which goes wild or riots like the ones in LA just more extreme - where even a security service won't be able to protect you from the wrath of the masses or a charismatic, clever leader starting a WWIII (turning whole regions hostile is a good first step). I would rather enjoy being rich then trying to get on top of the Forbes 400 list at all cost, risking it all. The current system of "the race" isn't even healthy for it's beneficiaries. But the worst danger of global warming is that it increases the tensions which exist already and has the power to spark off the tinder box.

That's IMHO the worst effect global warming will have on mankind, if we don't work on at least minimizing it's effects, if we already can't stop it anymore.

I got 81, 41, 100 on my first try

You did exceptionally well. Most people get outvoted by 2040, way before 2100 when the game ends. Second or third try can get them to the end, but maybe not with impressive scores like yours. It's only a game. Thanks for having a go.

It was annoying that the game doesn't end on a "reduction goal" year. You end up voting for a CO2 reduction quota for a year falls after the end of the game... I was tempted to just boost the economy on the last turn to see what would happen.

As a 'strategy' type game it is interesting to try it again and again to see what happens if you change your strategy. Unfortunately it is too easy to suddenly become 'unpopular with the voters', be voted out of office, and for the game to suddenly end. As with other strategy games it might have been useful to have 'saved games' where you could go back to a certain point and try something different, without having to start the game all over again.

I'll pass this as feedback to Hannah Rowlands, the Project Manager at Red Redemption Ltd. who was trialling this on CPDN. This Climate Change game is officially launched today.

I have sent the feedback. The launched game can be found on the BBC site here and here

---

flaming balloons

An article on Greenland ice melting in the online edition of the NYTimes is really scary. Cannot link to it because you have to register.
Tullio

Hm, if it's just news it might have been about the Arktic-climate-report ACIA.
There will be a massive coordinated science project with 55000 scientists from all over the world organized by the WMO and ICSU from march 2007 on because of the urgent situation. Some Scientists guess that even if we'd stop to emitt greenhouse gas as of today completely, warming will still continue due to vicious circles - we have started a process we can't easily stop.


"Selbst wenn wir ab heute nichts mehr in die Atmosphäre entlassen, hätten wir immer noch eine Erwärmung", erklärt Peter Lemke, Leiter des Fachbereichs Klimasystem am Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung (AWI) in Bremerhaven. "Wir haben da eine Maschine angeworfen, die nicht so schnell zu stoppen ist."
http://www.n-tv.de/753423.html

BillHyland, as one of the sceptics here I wonder what your point of view about the issue is. You have children yourself, if I remember correctly.

MAC, I do not claim that climate change is occuring. My scepticism is focused on the issue of whether mankind is a major player in causing the climate change we are seeing. I have not seen convincing evidence that we started the process of climate change, it has been ongoing for the entire history of the earth. And I also think that it is idiotic to assume that we can or should even try to stop the process of climate change. My belief is that resources and efforts should be focusing on mitigating the effects of the changin climate.

I see your point, but it has a flaw IMHO. If we just contribute to some degree - wouldn't it be logical to at least reduce this amount as much as possible? Wouldn't this already migitate by slowing down the process to some degree?

But the great danger is that we are in fact - as more and more "neutral" studies point out - probably the main reason and there are dangers of our meddling causing vicious circles in the natural system to take effect, which we might not be able to stop and where as a result won't be much to migitate left, will not be the temp on Venus, but even 20 degrees more in average will do it and mankind will be pretty much finished. If the actual computer models are (I am pretty sure) not really taking all possibilities into consideration like the huge amounts of methanehydrate which might be released due to the warming our children would see this happen in their lifetime and if it's even worse we might do so, too.

I have just dug some about the methanehydrate issue - and it's indeed freightening: New studies estimate that 55 million years ago something similar already happened before. There are estimated 10.000 billion tons of C bound in Methanehydrate compared to the "just" 210 billon tons of C released as CO2 by mankind in the last 150 years. But even worse methane is a way stronger greenhouse gas compared to CO2.

I think it might be a good idea to actually work on preventive measures and be proactive in face of such a danger. Compared how proactive GWB is when it comes to terrorism I am really astonished that he keeps cool in face of such a danger for mankind.

Climate resets 'Doomsday Clock'

"Experts assessing the dangers posed to civilisation have added climate change to the prospect of nuclear annihilation as the greatest threats to humankind.

As a result, the group has moved the minute hand on its famous "Doomsday Clock" two minutes closer to midnight.

The concept timepiece, devised by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, now stands at five minutes to the hour."

---

flaming balloons

Interesting link Ice, thanks :)

---

Hm, if it's just news it might have been about the Arktic-climate-report ACIA.
There will be a massive coordinated science project with 55000 scientists from all over the world organized by the WMO and ICSU from march 2007 on because of the urgent situation. Some Scientists guess that even if we'd stop to emitt greenhouse gas as of today completely, warming will still continue due to vicious circles - we have started a process we can't easily stop. ...

BillHyland, as one of the sceptics here I wonder what your point of view about the issue is. You have children yourself, if I remember correctly.

MAC, I do not claim that climate change is [not] occuring. My scepticism is focused on the issue of whether mankind is a major player in causing the climate change we are seeing. ... My belief is that resources and efforts should be focusing on mitigating the effects of the changin climate.

A good and clear plot is given on page 2 and page 3 on Graphics Set 1 (pdf) from the ACIA Overview report graphics.

The rest of the slides make for "interesting" viewing also. And this is all very much for real, here, and now. No futuristic 'science fiction'.

I agree that we need to focus on mitigation. However, we also must focus on reducing the most easily influenced/controlled sources. That means us and what we pollute. We can much more easily (and cheaply) reduce the source effects, than blindly exacerbate the effects further and then desperately (and expensively) try stronger duct tape to attempt ever more desperate (and ever more expensive) remedial fixes.

Our atmosphere is very finite. Our pollution is great and still increasing...

We have been enjoying a very stable climatic period that has allowed our civilisation to rapidly expand. The past (long term) record shows climate swings of -20 deg C from our present comfort. Are we going to (forcibly) push in a few swings to +20 deg C?...


From another's post earlier:

And what about industry? They have their own interests to look after and, apart from nominal donations to charities, they are out to make money and beat their competitors. Industry will try in influence government, who have the ultimate say in what happens - government dictates policy and taxes to decide how Climate Change is managed. Government is made up of the greedy and the incompetent as well as those who try but cannot make happen what should.

Send letters to your MP? Protest? Join Greenpeace? Hope industry will do the right thing? Hope the government will see sense? Will any of it change a twig?

I wrote letters to my MP, I joined Greenpeace, I wrote to industry, I grew extra trees in my garden and run a tiny 1400cc car. At least I can say that I tried.

So have I, and with some success and with some very interesting meetings.

Have you?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

BOINC and Climate Change (SETI mentioned)

"A computer model of climate run on home PCs in conjunction with the BBC has yielded its first results.
About 250,000 people downloaded software from climateprediction.net onto their home computers, each running a single simulation of the future."

"Distributed computing has been used before, notably by the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (Seti), where several million people have downloaded software enabling them to analyse data from observations of distant stars for signs of alien life."

---

flaming balloons

Global warming real, group of scientists, evangelicals avows

---

me@rescam.org