Arctic sea ice likely to hit record low next week

[FalcoColumbarius]

When you first brought the name up of "The Georgia Guide Stones" I thought they were a back up band, say for Celine Dion.

Honestly I was not familiar with them until you mentioned them. I have read the article. In some respects the monument strikes me as a silver spike driven into the breast of the beast. Then I read about this chap Mark Dice with his Resistance Manifesto and claiming that the Guide Stones have a "deep Satanic origin". Makes me wonder just who the alleged Anti-Christ really is?

What really perplexes me is the concept of this "New World Order". I understand this to come originally from the American seal: "Annuit Cœptis - Novus Ordo Seclorum" which directly translates to: Undertakings Agreed - New Order Age. This makes sense, a group of people had an agenda to separate from Mother England and start a new country that would be ruled by "the people". This undertaking was agreed, it would be a new order in a new age. Where statesmen start coining the phrase "New World Order" in the 20th Century I would think is in reference to the situation after either of the World Wars ~ let's clean this mess up. Then President George H.W. Bush gives a speech on the 11th September, 1990 where he states:

• "Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided—a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order."

I'm thinking he got this from Winnie, who was talking about world order, post war, as he quotes him in the next line. I find the date he gave the speech is somewhat intriguing.

The thing is with world politics is that it's a tangled mess and I can visualise a catastrophic world war in the near future, judging by what's going on in the Middle East currently.

So... R.C.(Roman Catholic?) Christian commissions a monument to be erected in north east Georgia that gives us all a suggested moral compass to work from ~ after the Third World War has cleared the field for the so called new world order. Is this our "manifest destiny"?

Honestly? The stones strike me as a combination of the sword in the stone and the sword of Damocles.

Falco.

[rezdiver]

• "Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided—a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order."

color]

Thats a funny quote, seems like a feel good quote to the population that would be recited by every empire throughout history that has attempted domination.... followed by failure.

those stones look like a feeble and superficial north american attempt to place some meaning to the misguided ideals of such a young country and mold another generation, while realistically underneath those stones is a nuclear silo with a couple of warheads pointed east. People should read history and learn from the past, instead of reading ten lines on a rock and pretending they understand.

[FalcoColumbarius]

.... People should read history and learn from the past, instead of reading ten lines on a rock and pretending they understand.

Amen.

[glenn]

In case anyone missed it, the Arctic sea ice has, in fact, set a new record low - and it is expected to continue to melt over the next two weeks or so.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... lt/261684/

Who cares? More land for us? - well, this is one of those critical feedback loops that accelerate warming. The ice, is one giant reflector, bouncing sunlight back into space. The land and water underneath is, you guessed it, dark. It therefore absorbs more solar energy than the ice and accelerates the warming.

What is also a little alarming, is that the last record, in 2007 - was largely attributed to a "perfect storm" of weather patterns that resulted in unusual warming in the Arctic. This year, no such conditions exist and this melting was not predicted.

Anyone noticed how over the last the few years the climate change deniers have changed their tune from "global warming is not happening" to "it's happening but it is not caused by man" It natural.

Tough times ahead. Global climate is a very slow moving beast, and once it starts moving in certain direction, it takes 1000's of years to turn around. If you think technology will save us - think again. What technology? The sooner we change our ways, the less drastic the effects will be.

Our country was able to unite for the WW2 effort. Everyone pitched in, made due with less, changed their lifestyles. There was a common goal, for the good of us all.

Nowadays it's: "sure I care about the environment, just don't interfere with my right to drive an F150 and binge shop in US." What we need is some true leadership.

[FalcoColumbarius]

......Anyone noticed how over the last the few years the climate change deniers have changed their tune from "global warming is not happening" to "it's happening but it is not caused by man" It natural. ....

Not sure how one could miss the atmosphere change, if you've been around. For those whom have not been around there are always history books.

As I recall.... Winter in the sixties the snow plough came by the house twice a day, consequently we had to clear the driveway as the plough would leave a new wall across our driveway each time it passed. Christmas was white. In '62 it was so cold that the water mains in the down town core all froze and burst. There was always ice skating on Lost Lagoon, period. On occasion we would open the front door to a snow drift, the front yard was like four or five feet ~ wonderland to a young lad with a spade.

Winter in the seventies was pretty much the same except for the question of "would it be a white Christmas this year?". I remember a full frontal poster of a woman skier doing a "daffy", she was wearing a toque, goggles, gloves, ski boots & skis. Life was beautiful.

In the eighties I was in the UK. The Winters were pretty cold but contained. Every year there would be a dump on London around the middle of January of about a foot or so and London Transport would shut down stating that "they didn't expect it to be so bad this year". It was really a casual two week holiday for everyone, after the first week things started to move a little, after the second week everything was back to normal, apart from all the snow. Sometime in February the snow was gone. Outside of London there would be quite a bit of snow. In Devon one year it was reported on the BBC that there was five feet of snow.

In the nineties I was back in Vancouver and noticed major changes with the Winters. Not so much snow, some dustings in December &c., but started in earnest in January. The ice skating on Lost Lagoon was limited to safe areas with lots of orange cones marking where the ice became too thin. Overall the amount of snowfall was growing less.

In the new millennium there was no ice on the Lagoon, in 2003 it was twenty degrees (centigrade) in January. The closest thing we got to Winter was in 2008 where we got close to a foot in December. I found it odd how people could complain how brutal the Winter was.

Prior to 1960 the Winters in this area would be quite substantial. In the 19th century a ship was caught in the ice on the Fraser River, two days downstream from Fort Langley. They didn't have paved highways back then, at least not like today. Nor were there motor cars but I think it is important to point out that on the Fraser near Fort Langley the water is well mixed with salt water from the Pacific, which requires the temperature to be even colder for ice to form. In fact this is why North Road was built by Colonel Richard Clement Moody and the detachment of Royal Engineers (nick named "Sappers") that he commanded. This is why the road to Port Moody is so straight. The idea behind the road was to insure Winter provisions could be delivered to the new capital of the colony of British Columbia, Queensborough, later to be renamed "New Westminster", as well to the base camp of the Sappers, now know as "Sapperton".

Overall I still think globally it is a natural occurrence, perhaps with the aid of mankind but would be happening whether we were here or not. In the case of Vancouver with her increasing size and people turning the heat up, combined with the prevailing sou-westerly winds that blow the radiant heat of the city into the surrounding mountains is likely affecting the local environment. The HAARP project and any possible "Chem-trail" activity would make more sense to me as being environmentally upsetting, as this scenario could potentially screw with the weather. When you consider the amount of pollution that was created in the late 19th century and the early 20th century with all the factories spewing out group three coal exhaust, as well as all the steam trains and steamships; all the household fireplaces in the world ~ London, England was given the nick name "The Smoke" for a reason. The smoke could been seen from places like Newcastle upon Tyne, 350 miles to the north. Pea soup fogs in London were so thick that one could not only not see their hand in front of them but could be easily suffocated. Thousands of people died in the pea soup fogs of London ~ yet there was lots of snow and ice in the Winters. Lots of ice floating around in the north Atlantic, just ask Captain Edward J. Smith of the RMS Titanic, he came across big ice in the middle of April.

Falco.

[rezdiver]

Nowadays it's: "sure I care about the environment, just don't interfere with my right to drive an F150 and binge shop in US." What we need is some true leadership.

Sometimes we have to step back and evaluate our train of thought. As delica owners we would be hipocrits if we thought opposite to that statement. we are doing just as much to the environment as the guy driving the F150. we own a van shaped like a brick with poor milage and inefficient old technology. I bet there is not one L300 owner with a catalytic converter. Also you just shipped your delica thousands of miles across the ocean on a container ship burning thousands of gallons of bunker oil.

[glenn]

Fair enough, but my family only drives about 10-12000 km a year, including roadtrips (we don't fly). Most drivers drive closer to 20 000 (so 40 000 for two drivers) I'd say that's pretty decent for a family of 4 with 2 kids in lessons etc. My wife rides her bike to work - I walk my kids to school (2km each way), I work from home. My van is usually parked for the majority of the week. I live an a typical suburb - we could all drive a lot less.

When I dismiss f-150 drivers, I am dismissing the f-150 mindset. The why-should-I-change-it-won't-make-any-difference attitude. Everyday, I witness people strap their kids into their cars, to only drive them 3-4 blocks to school before they rush off to starbucks or whatever. I've discovered that my kids aren't made of sugar, they can actually walk in the rain. The kind of mindset that supports the 5 billion dollars spent on the new bridge/hwy - which will only serve to spread more sprawl into the Fraser valley. Ask any urban planner and they will tell you that increasing road capacity to relieve congestion is like loosening your belt to deal with obesity. It doesn't work. In short order, you just have even more cars idling in gridlock. I have friends that spend nearly 3 hours a day in their cars, just so they can afford a detached home in a suburb. Something is wrong with this.

It's true that our vehicles are not shining beacons of efficiency - but as they say, the first R of the three Rs is to reduce. And the best way to reduce your carbon footprint is to drive less. As far as shipping it from Japan - how do you think almost every consumer good at walmart, or canadian tire, or wherever gets here? Why single out our vehicles?

We've all got our reasons for living the way we do, but this is what I'm talking about. All this consuming isn't leading to a better quality of life - and I think it's time to take a step back and really think about what is important. Unfortunately, things will need to get a lot worse before most people could bother with making any sacrifices. Especially when there are lunatics spreading misinformation that only cast doubt on the need to change anything. Or how about a prime minister that runs his office under the premise that God is sovereign over creation and therefore humans can do no permanent damage to the environment.

You guys want a real conspiracy to get fired up about, just google the Cornwall Alliance. They are coalition of right-wing politicians, scholars, economists and evangelicals. The Alliance questions mainstream science, doubts climate change, views environmentalist as a "native evil," champions fossil fuels and supports libertarian economics. Sound familiar?

[FalcoColumbarius]

...we own a van shaped like a brick with poor milage and inefficient old technology. I bet there is not one L300 owner with a catalytic converter. ...

My girl runs ship shape and Bristol fashion. She has good compression and a nice balance of clean diesel and compressed air. She gets 12ltr./100K in the city and almost 8ltr./100K on the open highway. She gets a good report card from Aircare, too.
Regarding catalytic converters, the diesels may not have them but I'm pretty sure the gassers have them, the 6G7 has a three way converter, it would be good to know definitively if the 4Gs have converters.

I might point out as well that the Miss Lil' Bitchi will be twenty years old this year. That's good longevity and she's pretty solid. One good thing about the brick shape is the crazy amount of space you get for payload ~ like stowing 4'x8' sheets of plywood flat between the wheel wells. I would think that one would get more drag with an open pick-up box than with a starwagon.

Falco.

[nxski]

The other nice thing about our vehicles is that they can be run on WVO and we are in fact recycling Japan's waste. By buying a used vehicle we are avoiding the production of a new vehicle which would produce a lot more pollution in and of itself. Someone who buys a car and keeps it running for, let's say 50 years, will produce far less pollution than someone who buys a new car every 10 years (4 cars more over this timeline) regardless of how much of a fuel hog the 50 year old car may be.

[rezdiver]

I dont think we need to worry about recycling Japans waste by importing a few hundred vehicles, Japan just had an enema, and we will be dealing with recycling their waste for quite a few years as it floats across.

china is a lot closer to Japan and it costs less to the environment to crush and ship the scrap to be recycled than to ship a whole vehicle taking space on a container ship across the pacific, only to have it get into an accident here, get crushed and shipped back across the pacific to china to be recycled.

you can also run any diesel vehicle that is already in Canada on WVO, even natural gas that is a very clean burn.
there are thousands of very good and economical used diesel trucks, suvs, vans, and cars on the market here. all good candidates for conversions. but they dont have the cool factor.


we can justify











and justify










and justify........

[glenn]

It's kind of ridiculous that I drive a relatively inefficient vehicle, then spout off about carbon foot print, I know.

Nxski - you're right - WVO use changes the picture completely - especially when it now can take 1-2 litres of gas to produce one litre of gas. Imagine a big dirty piece of equipment following you around everywhere you go. We can all effectively double our fuel consumption to get a truer picture of how efficient our vehicles are. Fuel acquisition and production has to be part of the picture. WVO, on the other hand, is just that - waste. Sure, we can't all run our cars of WVO, but those who can and do can justify their air of superiority about their rides. I'm not there yet.

The other thing you touched on (and Falco) is the concept of the embeded energy within the vehicles we drive. That is all the energy that is required to produce, from raw materials the fine machines that we love so much. This is a very slippery number to try pin down though, so any calculations regarding this are very loose - but there are many estimates available which also vary with the age of the car, and how efficient it is, how clean it runs, etc, etc.

However, as a general rule of thumb, most researchers estimate that the embeded in most older vehicles is approximately 1 to 1.5 times the average energy to drive that vehicle for a year. When you compare that to the amount of energy you would save by driving a modern efficient and clean burning vehicle, annual energy savings could be in the 60% range (unless you buy an F150) In this scenario, the embeded energy you invest in a new vehicle would be paid off within about 20 months. Adjust accordingly relative to the new vehicle you want to compare to.

It may take a little more or less time depending on the specifics for any particular older vehicle - but most definitely, it is not more efficient overall to keep an maintain an older vehicle relative to scraping it in in favour of a more efficient one.

Thing is, the environment doesn't care how efficient your ride is. All it cares about is the total amount of carbon you pump into it. So, if you have an older vehicle - drive less and you can still be good.

[Drumster]

...

If I may turn this back to you, Drumster, what do you make of it?

Hey Glenn, I honestly don't know what to make of it, which was kinda' why I put the question out there. Not as though what any of us thinks about these matters would really make any difference but it's pretty interesting sh!t. Odd in the extreme and somewhat ominous in light of so many other phenomena.

[konadog]

I don't think it matters much at the end of the day about what cars we drive. I hear lots of talk about energy efficient cars and so on, but the hard truth is that the rapid transportation we've all grown up with is unsustainable. There is no magic energy source on the horizon that will see us happily whizzing about free of environmental consequences. When my grandfather was born people walked or used horses. In just a few generations we've come to take these magic carpets we call automobiles completely for granted and assume we will always have them - How could we possibly live any other way?! The solution isn't in buying more, newer things that ultimately spew the same fossil carbon - it's just a sales pitch to get us to buy stuff and so consume yet more resources. The real solution, the one we will only achieve the hard way, is adapting to - gasp - a life without cars...
Looking back at our specie's track record in such matters is a grim litany of utter failure to change habits to stave off disaster - Easter Island and the Maya collapse are just a couple of examples. We're in a heaps big pickle now and, for the first time the problem is fully global, and this time there are no new lands to move on to. Nothing will change, at least nothing that matters enough to prevent the environmental collapse that we have precipitated. Hang on, the ride's only just starting to get rough...

[rezdiver]

We're in a heaps big pickle now and, for the first time the problem is fully global, and this time there are no new lands to move on to. Nothing will change, at least nothing that matters enough to prevent the environmental collapse that we have precipitated. Hang on, the ride's only just starting to get rough...

hang on a minute there, I thought with the arctic ice melting we were looking at new beach front property?

[drrod]

The whole topic of climate change/ man made/ normal cycle/etc/etc has many arguments presented by both sides. Arguments that, as presented, can be backed up with "presented" facts. "Presented" meaning those gleaned from a larger data base in such a way as to support the point of view being put forward.

One thing that, in my opinion, is not in doubt is that those who shout the loudest (no matter which side) seem to have the most to gain financially from their position. Be it the oil industry or the "environmentalist" groups whose existence depends largely on the continuation of the environmental scare. As a wise friend of mine once said "....chase anything long enough and you will usually find a $ at the end......"

One of the good things to come from all the climate change rhetoric is the increased awareness of the environment that it provides. And that cannot be a bad thing.

Rod