CNN Visualizes Climate Change-Driven Arctic Melt With 360-Degree VR Video (cnn.com) 163
dryriver writes: CNN has put up a slickly produced and somewhat alarming 360-degree browser video experience that allows the viewer to see firsthand what arctic melt looks like in Greenland. The video takes the viewer to the "Ground Zero" of climate change. Throughout the 7-minute long video, the viewer can interactively look around the locations visited. Voice narration and various scientists featured in the video explain what is happening in the Arctic, what causes the melting, and what the potential consequences are for the world.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a little cardboard viewer icon in mobile chrome. Will that work with other VR?
Re: (Score:1)
I think this was the whole movie water world. Perhaps CNN missed it.
Re:Fake News (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
CNN does a pretty good job scaring people.
There's a reason they used the voice of Darth Vader to say "This is CNN".
https://youtu.be/BuHfSo5YI_M [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
For a long time, that phrase from James Earl Jones held the record for most $$ paid per word spoken. Probably still does, but I'm not going to check from work.
Re: (Score:2)
I think of CNN as fake news as much as the every other next guy and don't buy into the global warming crusade but I like this video. It's just cool to watch.
Re: Fake News (Score:1)
I doubt it, this looks like another ice melts in summer shock video paid for by previously big oil companies that now arenâ(TM)t so big since their oil feilds ran dry.
we should be getting the propaganda begging for money to pay the Chinese for more solar cells again any day now.
Re: (Score:1)
Please do society a favor and die.
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
I saw in the news somewhere that CNN had replaced all their on-air reporters with animatronic puppets. So I turned on CNN and watched for a few minutes. It appears to be true!
Re:Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't true at all. Otherwise everyone would be dead in summer. Amazingly we have all survived, and people actually live in hot environments before airconditioning existed. I know, hard to believe, but AC didn't always exist and people actually lived in deserts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your partially correct, partially wrong.
If we have shade and cover and water we can survive, uncovered and exposed it's a matter of physics that external temperatures above our body temperatures lead to hyperthermia.
Most desert dwelling people adapt by the usage of water and coverings designed to deflect heat as well as staying out of direct sunlight during high noon periods.
We do sweat to cool down, but can only do so to the point we exhaust our internal water supply and even then this is only partially ef
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/chs... [texas.gov]
I saw on Fox, one Officer Barbrady said there's nothing to see here, move along.
Re: (Score:1)
The fearmongering of the troll post claims that temps above 37 degrees C will result in extinction le
Re: (Score:2)
When the external environmental temperature tips above our body temperature we begin to slow cook within our own skin unable to release heat.
Only when the humidity in the air is 100%. Otherwise, regular old sweating will reduce body temperature through evaporative cooling. Drinking cool water, having air conditioning and/or refrigeration all help too.
Re: (Score:1)
Taipei can get above 37% and is very humid. Humidity never gets to 100% but it's dang hot and humid
http://www.taiwan.climatemps.c... [climatemps.com]
Humans have been living in conditions like this long before there was airconditioning.
Then again maybe that's the reason people decided to do the contemporary equivalent of an interstellar journey - a series of risky boat journeys across the pacific eventually reaching Hawaii
Sure a lot of people must have ended up dieing of thirst in the middle of the Pacific ocean but perhaps
Re: Fake News (Score:3, Insightful)
It's 36C where I'm sitting right now. Most folks here think this is pretty comfortable. But I guess if the temp goes up one degree this afternoon we're all gonna die??
Re: (Score:2)
36C is comfortable to you? Where do you live, Death Valley without an AC?
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
Ho Chi Minh City =)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, around the corner from hell, explains the temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
sorry there is no way that 36c without ac is comfortable. Unless you are posting from the pool, in the shade, with a breeze and many many iced drinks available.
you might as well say -30 is comfortable. I've been in both extremes (canada) and its really not. Both these extremes you have to make many adjustments to your regular life to live in. For instance adding or removing layers of clothing, drinking more water, or covering all exposed flesh in the case of extreme negative temps.
You may have been socializ
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
Naw broham. I don't post to /. while standing in the sun. When I wrote that I was sitting at an outdoor cafe, under shade, next to an artificial waterfall. Maybe fan maybe not - wasn't obvious. Still pretty comfortable, no AC needed.
But it does take a while to get used to high temperatures. You know you're half way there when you can (willingly) wear long sleeves and an undershirt in >90F.
CNN = FAKE NEWS (Score:1, Insightful)
Why is /. posting stories from this garbage source? BeauHD is a far-left antifa type methinks.
Data is not the plural of anecdote (Score:2, Insightful)
Nor is the plural of '360-degree browser video experience'.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think what they're doing is admirable, once you understand the sort of society they operate in.
They are a minor house, bannermen sworn to House Democrat. As a feudal vassal they are expected to inveigh against the current ruling King Donald of House Trump and attempt to restore what they see as the rightful ruling house.
You can't judge them by modern standards, you have to judge them according the standards of morality which operate in the feudal society they live in.
Expecting them to think about things l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Eh. You can make an argument that one US party is worse than the other and you should vote for the other party's candidate, however flawed, to keep them out of power. E.g. I might decide don't want a party in power which is racially divisive, authoritarian, treasonous, economically and morally illiterate and plays Orwellian games with language and censorship.
But I'd never say the Republicans are 'honestly looking for truth'. I'd just say the alternative is worse. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still
Re: (Score:2)
But I'd never say the Republicans are 'honestly looking for truth'. I'd just say the alternative is worse. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for a party which is pretty damn evil, and you need to be intellectually honest enough to admit that.
You know, if Americans actually consistently voted for the lesser evil, both parties would be forced to compete for those votes by actually becoming less evil.
Personally, I think the greatest tragedy of American politics is that so many Americans are convinced that their government is so irredeemably evil that the only thing they should do is give the government more and larger guns and hope the government is so grateful that it only uses them on people in other countries...
Re: (Score:1)
I think you can make a case for some sort of absolute morality. E.g. Ben Shapiro made the case for the Republicans ditching Roy Moore, when moral relativists like me would say 'Accusations unproven in court. Fuck the Democrats'.
Well the odd thing is, as much as I disagree with the religious basis of Shapiro's morality you can see if it works. E.g. right now the GOP could offer a trade of Moore for Franken. If they'd have dumped Moore earlier, as Shapiro points out, they could have run someone else as a writ
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously some of those "alternatives" seem to be living in an alternative universe to our own. But in fact it is arguable that the most morally and ethically upstanding, and honest, politicians of late have been of libertarian bent.
Re: (Score:2)
It has been well above the mean for about a year and a half.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to the intelligent and respectful people who used to be on Slashdot?
I remember about the time it all went downhill.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's kind of disingenuous to require scientific precision from journalism. That's not its role. It's for promoting awareness. The actual arguments and data have been around a while.
Well people disagree about that
https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-r... [thegwpf.org]
If you are serious about learning more, I highly recommend http://skepticalscience.com/ [skepticalscience.com]
As a friend of mine, who was an actual peer reviewed published scientist, observed - '"Meta Studies are not science". I.e. as soon as you get someone doing a metastudy they can use ad hoc criteria to decide which paper they include and which one they exclude. In the case of "Skeptical Science" John Cook is not a scientist, he's an environmental activist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So his summaries of science include a big chunk of edi
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see a paper with his name on it that deserves the name "science".
There may be some. But if so I haven't seen them.
Re: (Score:1)
I am continually amazed by your ability to comment on Trump regardless of the subject of the article. It's incredible - after only a year of him being president, you've somehow managed to condition yourself to immediately think about him no matter the stimuli. Rent-free, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they say. You always pull the pigtails of the girl you fancy.
Re: (Score:1)
"Fox News is doing a 360 degree VR video of the President's tremendous asshole."
How do they keep their tongue out of the picture?
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. It's a pretty big asshole they're dealing with, there's plenty of room for the camera team.
Re: (Score:2)
You raise an excellent point!
If the other article I read is correct... (Score:1, Insightful)
they refused to release before and after pics, so this isn't very convincing evidence. It's almost like they're trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
This I'd need an explanation for. We are already at the point where it's warmer than anywhere in the documented history of mankind and we're getting warmer as we speak, yet it's no concern?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
some parts of Greenland have ancient layers of snow....others melt all the time. other parts were melted a few centuries ago and were green. wake me up when the truly ancient stuff melts away
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want to wake up before the fat lady sung?
Re: (Score:1)
TL:DR Chill the caps, dude. Are you an adult?
You need to address these anger issues. It's not healthy. It certainly won't solve any problems, not yours nor theirs, and least of all climate. You can't treat or think of roughly half of your countrymen as mortal enemies and expect to get anything done. As good, 'righteous', or 'necessary' as you may feel it to be to react with anger at times, the vitriol doesn't help and actually hurts your goals.
You know, maybe there's a magma plume under the Arctic responsib
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the oceans have been rising since the last ice age as things have been melting since the last ice age. It's normal.
I will label you as a victim of your own paranoid hysteria and self-loathing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the oceans have been rising since the last ice age as things have been melting since the last ice age. It's normal.
No, they haven't. Oceans levels were pretty stable for thousands of years, with a slight decline as additional water became trapped in the Greenland and Antarctic land glaciers. That's because temperatures rose for centuries after the end of the ice age, but had been slowly declining for millennia since then.
The natural trend would be global cooling, the net effect of global warming trend is entirely anthropogenic because natural factors would have an net negative effect on temperatures without the additi
Re: (Score:2)
yes they have
https://commons.wikimedia.org/... [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, take a look at zoomed in view, the sea has risen 2.1 meters in the last 1,000 years
Re: (Score:2)
According to this article [realclimate.org], if we ignore the modern climate change induced sea rise, there was about 24cm of sea level rise over the past 1800 years, almost all of it concentrated in the period of 1000-1400 AD.
Re: (Score:2)
So they should go back and shoot some before 360 degree video? Can they time travel?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, my Tardis is still in the shop.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be an awesome name for a model of short bus.
Re: (Score:2)
they refused to release before and after pics, so this isn't very convincing evidence.
Convincing? What makes you think they are trying to convince people? And of what?
That the arctic is melting? We know it's melting.
Re:If the other article I read is correct... (Score:5, Insightful)
they refused to release before and after pics, so this isn't very convincing evidence.
They don't need convincing evidence because they're showing something we already know is a fact. This is like you demanding that they need to show evidence for claiming that Donald Trump is the current president.
It's almost like they're trolling.
It's almost like you're an idiot.
The arctic ice is shrinking. It's been covered many times both here and just about anywhere that covers news. At this point ignorance of the fact (especially as yo're happy to weigh in!) is wilful. Wilful ignorance is stupidity, plain and simple.
Extend of sea ice (Score:5, Informative)
If you wish to prove a point, claiming "I already did!'" is not evidence. Global warming is happening, but you must be consistent and not lie to convince others. 2017 arctic ice is within historical norms unless very, very careful selection of beginning and ending years to start at peaks (1972, 1981, 1996, 2008) and end in valleys (1985, 1995, 2007, 2013, 2016).
I agree with your points that it's important to be careful with data, but no, at the moment it looks like Arctic ice is significantly lower than historical norms. Here's the graph as of last month: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen... [nsidc.org]
Interactive chart is here: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaice... [nsidc.org]
If you want total volume, and not coverage, the best data is from the NASA GRACE mission (measuring gravity). That mission is now over. But here's data: http://polarportal.dk/en/groen... [polarportal.dk] , and here's a visualization through 2014: https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/r... [nasa.gov]
How to do statistics right (Score:3)
No, the chart gave the average from 1981 to 2010, and also the the two standard deviation error bar. This is an example of how to do statistics right: compare to averages, show standard deviations, and link to the data.
And 1981 is not "a peak"-- in fact, if you look at the data (I assume you didn't), it is pretty much identical to 1979, 1980, 1982, or 1983.
The interactive version is here, allowing you to look at individual years: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaice... [nsidc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I notice that you say "the data in those graphs is atypical!" but you don't show any data yourself, or any evidence for your assertion whatsoever.
Bye.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a median, not a trend line. Medians, since they involve adding a bunch of numbers together and dividing by the number of data points that you are averaging have no particular sensitivity to their start and end values. In particular, in this case, any 30-year period that includes 1981 would be affected the same way by the "outlier" effects of 1981.
Who cares? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yawn....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let that be a lesson to you, maybe Canadians aren't as evil as you.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I'm inland, about 500 miles from the nearest coast, about 150m above sea levels and we currently have freezing temperatures, I wouldn't mind a few degrees more.
Plus, I have no kids so who gives a fuck if you can still live on this planet in half a century when I'm dead?
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing out, they're better at lampooning news formats than Weekly World News and The Daily Show combined.
In related news ... (Score:2)
CNN Visualizes Climate Change-Driven Arctic Melt With 360-Degree VR Video
Re: (Score:1)
Prior Art (Score:1)
Photoshop 2018 is amazing!!! (Score:2)
It's really an impressive piece of software. In skilled hands it can fool just about anyone.
Again, not scientific evidence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But what about the other sources that present evidence, that have been around for a decade? If you are serious about learning about climate change, take a look at http://skepticalscience.com/ [skepticalscience.com] where they discuss other possible sources of the changes and mitigating factors. (spoiler so as not to be misleading: only CO2 seems to be effective at explaining the trend)
All I'm saying is the evidence and arguments are out there. Please look, instead of requiring each new news article on the subject to be everythin
Re: (Score:2)
And if it is, there's not one F'n thing that we can do about it. We don't have the tech to NOT burn fossil fuels. Try it, and food doesn't get to market, commerce goes to near-zero, people starve, etc. We _need_ the energy from fossil fuels, and whining about it just won't change that.
Wind and solar is cool, we should keep building it, and battery tech is getting better too. Will battery tech get to the point that it can replace the internal combustion engine? Maybe. If not, we then have to figu
Re: (Score:2)
And if it is, there's not one F'n thing that we can do about it. We don't have the tech to NOT burn fossil fuels.
But we do have the tech to use them much much more efficiently.
A lot is already being done. Solar power is being implemented on a large scale, for example.
My suggestion for what else to do would be to put some next-generation nuclear power plants into operations. We basically know the problems with nuclear power now; and it is possible to design better power plants; let's do it.
Try it, and food doesn't get to market, commerce goes to near-zero, people starve, etc. We _need_ the energy from fossil fuels, and whining about it just won't change that.
The fact that we can't (easily) drop fossil fuel use to zero doesn't mean that we can't reduce the use, and make wise choices abo
Re: (Score:2)
If we were to geo-engineer, we should do it in a reversible manner. That is, say, do something in outer space that we could reverse by crashing whatever it is back into the ocean, rather than doing something to the ocean itself and maybe have that run away with itself and turn the planet into a snowball. Using biological entities to change things would seem particularly dangerous since they range from difficult to impossible to control if they start doing something counterproductive.
And I don't think "red
Re: (Score:2)
"And return to the Gilded Age, where most families were literally owned by company towns and runaways were shot on site by private armed forces? No thanks."
Hadn't heard about that. Gilded age was 1865 - 1900, right? That was when many men carried firearms routinely, right? Must have been a real dangerous thing to try to chase one of those, when they can return fire.
I really doubt the ability to return to such a situation, esp. with >300,000,000 firearms in the country now.
Re: (Score:2)
My suggestion for what else to do would be to put some next-generation nuclear power plants into operations. We basically know the problems with nuclear power now; and it is possible to design better power plants; let's do it.
I'm not against nuclear power by a long shot, but this is a bit overly optimistic. We know the problems with current nuclear power plant designs now. It is possible to design new power plants that fix the short comings of current designs, but we don't know what problems those new designs would have. Although, we can predict some of the problems with new designs, it's the ones we can't predict that are going to be the real problem. For example, Canada designed a pair of new reactors [thetyee.ca] to produce medical is
Re: Climate Change (Score:1)
Since when are Trump lovers a race? Just because they are mainly white does not make it racist. If someone would connect race to stupidity then it would be racist. However, in the previous post the reference to men and white where only descriptive. Anyway, I do believe that this reductionist view of Trump followers is of any use, as it does not provide any insights into the motivation of these people. Where I agree with you is that part of the present mess is the huge inequality in western societies and esp
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! First post with a clue. Yep, we don't have the tech to stop using fossil fuels. So, what we should probably be doing is working on that AND geo-engineering. One of them may eventually work. But the global warming people hyperventilate when you mention geo-engineering, its almost like they want to push their scarecrow to attempt to wreck the world economy by "conserving" fossil fuel usage when its not really possible. Couldn't be that, could it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's cute, but the sunspot cycle is the first thing everyone looked at. Sorry, no match.