Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Science)   When even Popular Science mocks your offer to observe climate change firsthand via cruise ship, it's time to reconsider it   (popsci.com) divider line 43
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

3750 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Jul 2014 at 9:59 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-28 08:43:51 AM  
Yes, they should use pirate ships.


/dumbass tag for TFA and subbs
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-28 09:15:43 AM  
What if I take the cruise not to cry over climate change, but to enjoy it? Is it OK then to emit carbon dioxide out the smokestack?
 
2014-07-28 10:05:20 AM  

ZAZ: What if I take the cruise not to cry over climate change, but to enjoy it? Is it OK then to emit carbon dioxide out the smokestack?


It's the guilt cruise.
 
2014-07-28 10:11:48 AM  
http://www.crystalcruises.com/OfferDetail.aspx?OG=220

As per the link, nothing indicates this is intended to be about observing climate change and ecological issues but simply taking advantage of the newly opened waters since generally this has been inaccessible to people on holiday.

However, kudos to the article for this line: In addition to being the second-best bear, As the following article is rather amusing.
 
2014-07-28 10:17:57 AM  
Hasn't the Northwest Passage been navigable for decades if not a near century?  Why is it unprecedented?
 
2014-07-28 10:22:52 AM  

ZAZ: What if I take the cruise not to cry over climate change, but to enjoy it? Is it OK then to emit carbon dioxide out the smokestack?


Hunt the polar bears while you're at it.

Look at them all helpless on ice floes.
 
2014-07-28 10:24:15 AM  

styckx: Hasn't the Northwest Passage been navigable for decades if not a near century?  Why is it unprecedented?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker.
 
2014-07-28 10:28:00 AM  

styckx: Hasn't the Northwest Passage been navigable for decades if not a near century?  Why is it unprecedented?


Uh...no?
 
2014-07-28 10:34:02 AM  
Incidentally, the carbon footprint of a cruise ship, per passenger, is three times larger than that of a 747 flight.

OK, has popular science really gone so far downhill as to not realize that the phrase 'carbon footprint' is meaningless wharrgarbl without giving some sort of units?

Are we talking carbon emission per mile?  Per time?  How exactly are you normalizing for energy use for entertainment versus energy use for what is most frequently necessary transportation (which would otherwise still occur via automobile).

Saying something that could potentially be scientifically pretty interesting or stupid, incorrect and boring and doing nothing to clarify which it is (a) sort of makes me assume the latter, given that journalists by default make up hilariously incorrect shiat because they're too lazy to use google and (b) is some old-people targeting Time magazine stupid fearmongering bullshiat.  You're PS, you're better than that.
 
2014-07-28 10:43:04 AM  

Jim_Callahan: OK, has popular science really gone so far downhill as to not realize that the phrase 'carbon footprint' is meaningless wharrgarbl without giving some sort of units?


While you are correct, I assumed that they are comparing the footprint for the same trips. That is, to go from point 'a' to point 'b' the per-passenger cost was triple.

Of course it is still a silly comparison as one is travel for the sake of getting some where and they other is vacation/luxury/entertainment travel. It is like comparing a monster truck to a Prius.
 
2014-07-28 10:51:35 AM  
Redefines the term Limousine Liberal.
 
2014-07-28 11:15:41 AM  

MindStalker: styckx: Hasn't the Northwest Passage been navigable for decades if not a near century?  Why is it unprecedented?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker.


Hollie Maea: Uh...no?


Roald Amundsen, from 1906, would like a word.

/intermittently, of course
 
2014-07-28 11:26:53 AM  

Feepit: MindStalker: styckx: Hasn't the Northwest Passage been navigable for decades if not a near century?  Why is it unprecedented?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker.

Hollie Maea: Uh...no?

Roald Amundsen, from 1906, would like a word.

/intermittently, of course


Because taking 3 years to get through it as parts of it thawed at a time is totally the same as it being "open".
 
2014-07-28 11:26:57 AM  

Feepit: Roald Amundsen, from 1906, would like a word.


I'm pretty sure being iced in twice (for two years the first time) really counts. At least not in the modern definition of the Northwest Passage being "open".
 
2014-07-28 11:56:45 AM  

Farking Canuck: I'm pretty sure being iced in twice (for two years the first time) really counts. At least not in the modern definition of the Northwest Passage being "open".


He didn't ask if it was considered "open" or demand a "modern" definition of what that entails. He asked if it was navigable.

Vikings also navigated it fairly routinely prior to the Little Ice Age.

Before them, the Innuits in canoes.

If you want to be pedantic, you could argue that this is the first time a modern cruise ship with AARP members drinking martinis have traveled it on their vacation without the need for an icebreaker, but that isn't as sexy.
 
2014-07-28 12:43:17 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Are we talking carbon emission per mile? Per time? How exactly are you normalizing for energy use for entertainment versus energy use for what is most frequently necessary transportation (which would otherwise still occur via automobile).

FTA: "Incidentally, the carbon footprint of a cruise ship, per passenger, is three times larger than that of a 747 flight"

I was genuinely surprised that a cruise ship only had 3x's the carbon footprint as an airplane over the same distance - considering takes at least 10x's as long to get there, and is powering far more services/lights/water making and a much higher crew-to-passenger ratio.

/they should be comparing particulate emissions . . .
 
2014-07-28 01:31:08 PM  

Vangor: However, kudos to the article for this line: In addition to being the second-best bear, As the following article is rather amusing.


That's really the best thing to come out of this horrid link.

13 Best Bears, in Order of Quality.

#12: The Boring Brown Bear.  Plus a link to this picture of sun bears looking like they're trying to figure out what to order at the deli:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-07-28 01:52:21 PM  

MrSteve007: FTA: "Incidentally, the carbon footprint of a cruise ship, per passenger, is three times larger than that of a 747 flight"

I was genuinely surprised that a cruise ship only had 3x's the carbon footprint as an airplane over the same distance - considering takes at least 10x's as long to get there, and is powering far more services/lights/water making and a much higher crew-to-passenger ratio.

/they should be comparing particulate emissions . . .


I have a sneaking suspicion those numbers come from the cruise industry itself and may have been optimized.
 
2014-07-28 01:52:26 PM  
It's horrible, but I would only be amused if it hit an iceberg and sank.
 
2014-07-28 02:08:22 PM  

Feepit: Farking Canuck: I'm pretty sure being iced in twice (for two years the first time) really counts. At least not in the modern definition of the Northwest Passage being "open".

He didn't ask if it was considered "open" or demand a "modern" definition of what that entails. He asked if it was navigable.


Taking three years to go 2000 miles isn't considered "navigable" in any sense of the word. We get it, you're a hair splitter. The fact of the matter is the northwest passage wasn't navigable until the ice melted year round, an occurrence which didn't happen until 2006.
 
2014-07-28 02:35:09 PM  

AgentPothead: Taking three years to go 2000 miles isn't considered "navigable" in any sense of the word.


So I guess you feel Lewis and Clark were wandering about aimlessly, as it took them roughly a similar amount of time to cover a similar distance.

Imagine sailing through a several thousand square mile maze without an accurate map and with ice randomly impeding avenues of progress. That's the difference between sailing the passage now and 100 years ago, where we have live satellite feeds and detailed maps. If Amundsen had access to those resources, I bet he could've done it much quicker.

But sure. "It doesn't count."
 
2014-07-28 02:54:04 PM  

SVenus: I have a sneaking suspicion those numbers come from the cruise industry itself and may have been optimized.

I agree, although I do have some verified proof to base the math on. WARNING, math ahead. When I was on a bridge tour of a ship in the South Pacific in 2012, I snapped a photo of the fuel meters they rigged up. The ship was underway at 18 knots. I enjoy their read-outs "Fuel Consumption in Dollars per Minute" & "Cubic Meters Per Mile"
fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net

So, a large Holland America ship (Westerdam) consumes 0.23 cubic meters of fuel per nautical mile. It carries 1,848 passengers and 800 crew. Where the math becomes difficult is if they're referring to US gallons or imperial gallons. I'll go with US. 1 cubic meter of fuel is 264 US gallons. So it looks like they use 61 gallons per n-miles. A trip of 3,000 miles would consume 183,000 gallons of fuel - which works out ot be 99 gallons per passenger (ignoring crew).

in contrast, a 747 burns 54 lbs of fuel per mile at cruising altitude (that's 7.8 gallons of jet fuel.) Multiply that by 3,000 miles, and it'll burn 23,400 gallons. A fully loaded 747 carries 550 passengers, which is 43-gallons consumed per passenger, and doesn't include the fuel consumed during take-off and ascent.

It would be interesting to run with this by factoring in the average occupancy rate of cruises vs. that of 747's. I'd wager the cruises are far more often completely full vs. that of an airplane.

So put another way:
747 = 550 passengers
7.8 gallons per mile (at cruise speed)

Cruise ship = 1848 passengers
61 gallons per mile (at cruise speed)
 
2014-07-28 03:06:32 PM  

MrSteve007: So put another way:
747 = 550 passengers
7.8 gallons per mile (at cruise speed)

Cruise ship = 1848 passengers
61 gallons per mile (at cruise speed)


Nice work.
Probably very close, now that I see where they come from.
So, the factor of three is certainly right there.
 
2014-07-28 03:12:06 PM  

chimp_ninja: Vangor: However, kudos to the article for this line: In addition to being the second-best bear, As the following article is rather amusing.

That's really the best thing to come out of this horrid link.

13 Best Bears, in Order of Quality.

#12: The Boring Brown Bear.  Plus a link to this picture of sun bears looking like they're trying to figure out what to order at the deli:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x480]


The zombie bearpocalypse. Even has the patchy fur from being dead for a few days.
 
2014-07-29 02:52:51 AM  

Feepit: AgentPothead: Taking three years to go 2000 miles isn't considered "navigable" in any sense of the word.

So I guess you feel Lewis and Clark were wandering about aimlessly, as it took them roughly a similar amount of time to cover a similar distance.

Imagine sailing through a several thousand square mile maze without an accurate map and with ice randomly impeding avenues of progress. That's the difference between sailing the passage now and 100 years ago, where we have live satellite feeds and detailed maps. If Amundsen had access to those resources, I bet he could've done it much quicker.

But sure. "It doesn't count."


Exactly as you said:  "with ice randomly impeding avenues of progress".  So, which part of "it wasn't open" aren't you getting?

It wasn't open or navigable (in any reasonable amount of time).  It now is.  It's not like this is rocket science or something.
 
2014-07-29 08:21:39 AM  

karmachameleon: Exactly as you said:  "with ice randomly impeding avenues of progress".  So, which part of "it wasn't open" aren't you getting?

It wasn't open or navigable (in any reasonable amount of time).  It now is.  It's not like this is rocket science or something.


The part where it was open, because people sailed through it in the past, just as in the link I posted. You can say "it doesn't count," but that is an incredibly disingenuous statement to make. Either that or ignorant. Either way, try for a moment to comprehend how much easier modern technology like a live satellite feed and modern charts makes it to plot a course through a complicated area subject to frequent change as opposed to doing the same shiat a hundred years ago.
 
2014-07-29 01:21:19 PM  

Feepit: The part where it was open, because people sailed through it in the past


Being frozen over twice during the trip (once for two) years and finishing the last 500 miles on skis is very, very far from "open". I don't care how pedantic you are - claiming it was open is an idiotic position to take.
 
2014-07-29 01:53:06 PM  

Farking Canuck: Being frozen over twice during the trip (once for two) years and finishing the last 500 miles on skis is very, very far from "open". I don't care how pedantic you are - claiming it was open is an idiotic position to take.


That's a nice twisting you're doing there. Yes, while iced in, he traveled 500 miles to report success in discovering a passage, then he returned to his ship and completed the journey to Nome, Alaska, thus completing the passage. Why the dishonesty?
 
2014-07-29 02:00:52 PM  

Farking Canuck: Being frozen over twice during the trip (once for two) years and finishing the last 500 miles on skis is very, very far from "open". I don't care how pedantic you are - claiming it was open is an idiotic position to take.


Also, I thought you knew the difference between weather and climate. A ship traveling the passage today could also get iced in if they tried to do so without modern technology that let them know  where the ice was and what routes were open. Heck, even with modern technology, ships get caught in sea ice. That happened earlier this year in the Antarctic, and there was an article on Fark about it.

If your argument is that it is only open because we can easily tell what routes are clear for travel, that's one thing. To say it wasn't open because a ship bobbing around half-blind happened to get stuck in the ice, well, that's another.
 
2014-07-29 02:38:59 PM  

Farking Canuck: I don't care how pedantic you are


Oddly enough, you are the one introducing a whole lot of variables in an effort to feel correct. Claiming it isn't open because his ship got temporarily stuck in ice, that the voyage took longer than expected, that it wasn't practical for commercial shipping, etc, is just being a pedant. I'm only saying that he traveled, by ship, through the northwest passage, which, by definition, means it was open. If it wasn't open, he couldn't have made it through one end to the other.

But go on, pretend an historical event didn't actually happen because of "reasons."
 
2014-07-29 03:01:13 PM  

Feepit: But go on, pretend an historical event didn't actually happen because of "reasons."


You have no way of knowing if at any point it was clear ... all you know is that for short periods of time over a 3+ year period a ship was able to find clear spots and move forward.

Any claim of knowledge beyond is just being dishonest.
 
2014-07-29 03:06:11 PM  

Farking Canuck: You have no way of knowing if at any point it was clear ... all you know is that for short periods of time over a 3+ year period a ship was able to find clear spots and move forward.

Any claim of knowledge beyond is just being dishonest.


That almost sounds like the type of argument a creationist would make to refute evolution.
 
2014-07-29 03:12:19 PM  

Feepit: That almost sounds like the type of argument a creationist would make to refute evolution.


If you are wondering what I meant, let me put it this way.

You can't possibly know man evolved from an ape! There are only x-number of transitional fossils over the course of millions of years. There is no proof of a continuous progression from one to the other! Herp-derp! Evilution is a lie!
 
2014-07-29 03:29:39 PM  
But in all seriousness, some scientist somewhere probably has a model that reconstructs arctic ice extent in the early 1900s, and that could be used to indicate whether there was any clear continuous route open enough time for a ship to travel through the passage. Maybe you are right, and the answer is no. However, I think you are wrong to say it is unknowable.
 
2014-07-29 04:03:39 PM  

Feepit: However, I think you are wrong to say it is unknowable.


I did not say that ... I was referring to "any claim of knowledge" by you as I know you have not done the research required to make your ridiculous argument.
 
2014-07-29 04:28:44 PM  

Farking Canuck: I did not say that ... I was referring to "any claim of knowledge" by you as I know you have not done the research required to make your ridiculous argument.


My "ridiculous" argument is that someone sailed in one end and out the other.
 
2014-07-29 04:33:12 PM  

Feepit: My "ridiculous" argument is that someone sailed in one end and out the other.


Really? Because I thought it was:

Feepit: The part where it was open

 
2014-07-29 04:49:27 PM  

Farking Canuck: Really? Because I thought it was:

Feepit: The part where it was open


If it was closed, it would not have been possible to sail in one end and out the other. See how that works?

If you somehow interpreted my comment to mean something more specific, that is on you.
 
2014-07-29 04:53:29 PM  

Feepit: Farking Canuck: Really? Because I thought it was:

Feepit: The part where it was open

If it was closed, it would not have been possible to sail in one end and out the other. See how that works?

If you somehow interpreted my comment to mean something more specific, that is on you.


And we are back at the beginning. A full circle.

Do you understand how locks work? Are you aware that ships travel through them but at no point are they open from end to end?
 
2014-07-29 06:41:06 PM  

Feepit: karmachameleon: Exactly as you said:  "with ice randomly impeding avenues of progress".  So, which part of "it wasn't open" aren't you getting?

It wasn't open or navigable (in any reasonable amount of time).  It now is.  It's not like this is rocket science or something.

The part where it was open, because people sailed through it in the past, just as in the link I posted. You can say "it doesn't count," but that is an incredibly disingenuous statement to make. Either that or ignorant. Either way, try for a moment to comprehend how much easier modern technology like a live satellite feed and modern charts makes it to plot a course through a complicated area subject to frequent change as opposed to doing the same shiat a hundred years ago.


After reading this and your replies to others, I think I need to recall the wise words my grandpa once told me:  never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

Good luck at life.
 
2014-07-29 07:00:27 PM  

Farking Canuck: And we are back at the beginning. A full circle.

Do you understand how locks work? Are you aware that ships travel through them but at no point are they open from end to end?


Yes, I understand how locks work, moreover, I understand why they work that way. Without the locks temporarily "closing," ships wouldn't even be able to move from one end to the other. In short, they have to "close," using your definition, to be able to move forward.

See how that comparison is not at all applicable to the NWP?
 
2014-07-29 07:41:37 PM  

Farking Canuck: And we are back at the beginning. A full circle.

Do you understand how locks work? Are you aware that ships travel through them but at no point are they open from end to end?


Maybe a different example would be better. How about a doorway? If a doorway has no door on it, obviously people can pass through completely unobstructed. If it has a door on it, like one of those revolving doors at the airport, people can still pass through with relative ease. Even a regular door, where you turn a knob, pull, and pass through, is still reasonably open for all intents and purposes. Suddenly, the door gets a jam, and you have to put a bit of pressure on it to make get through, but then it works smoothly. Still not unreasonable. Now say the doorway was filled with a mountain of trash you have to kick out of the way or climb over. You can still pass through, but things have gotten more inconvenient. At some point, inconvenience becomes impassibility, but until that happens the way from point a to point b is still open.
 
2014-07-29 07:46:37 PM  

Feepit: See how that comparison is not at all applicable to the NWP?


It perfectly demonstrates how parts can be open at different times ... how a ship can pass through ... and how, at no point, the lock is open from one end to the other. Much like it probably was during the 3+ years they took to get through it.

Your hand-waving explanations are getting pants-on-head retarded at this point. You have absolutely no evidence that the entire NWP was open for his trip which is your claim..
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report