The Stark Truth: A Step-By-Step Guide on How You Die From Hypothermia

I saw this article on Reddit and found it so well-written and informative I could not put it down. It is how you die (or possibly survive) from hypothermia. It is written by Peter Stark, a contributor to Outside and author of Driving to Greenland.

One of the most fascinating parts of Stark’s article in Outside Magazine is the part on “rewarming shock” where rescued individuals die after warming too quickly. In one case in 1980, 16 shipwrecked Danish fishermen were recused after an hour and a half in the North Sea. They were able to walk across the deck of the ship, go below, and drink warm drinks. They then promptly died . . . all 16 of them.

BTW, there is another snow storm supposedly heading to D.C. This article is a lot like reading Jaws before a summer beach trip. I may just stay inside and wait for Spring.

For the article, click here.

44 thoughts on “The Stark Truth: A Step-By-Step Guide on How You Die From Hypothermia”

  1. bdaman,

    my argument is that even if everything that you say is true, pollution control is good policy (economically, socially, on public health grounds, on moral grounds, on the grounds of sustainability…). If you are wrong, it may well be necessary policy (with the alternative being severe consequences).

    If you want to debate, then you have to refute my position – unless you agree with it – in which case, let’s start figuring out what the best way to reduce pollution is…

  2. The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

    The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

    The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

  3. Gore’s Lawyer Slams Global Warming Lawsuits?! ‘Federal judges have committed grave error by allowing global-warming suits to proceed.

    Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe represented Al Gore in the disputed 2000 Supreme Court case against George W. Bush but that didn’t stop him from attacking one of the favorite tactics of the anti-global warming crowd: Lawsuits. In an article posted today by the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, Tribe argues that federal judges have committed grave error by allowing global-warming suits to proceed instead of leaving the issue of limiting carbon emissions to Congress.

    “Courts squander the social and political capital they need in order to do what may be politically unpopular …when they yield to the temptatiuon to treat lawsuits as ubiquitously useful devices for making the world a better place,” write Tribe and his coathors, Joshua D. Branson, a third-year at Harvard Law; and Tristan L. Duncan, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, the Kansas City law firm perhaps best known for defending Philip Morris and other tobacco companies.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/01/al-gores-lawyer-slams-global-warming-suits/

  4. Authors veteran meteorologists Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception? The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global warming” at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of “global warming”.

    That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century.

    you can read the full PDF here

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

  5. Considered the climate Bible by governments around the world, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is meant to be a scientific analysis of the most authoritative research.

    Instead, it references literature generated by Greenpeace – an organization known more for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than sober-minded analysis. (Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.)

    In one section of this Nobel-winning report, climate change is linked to coral reef degradation. The sole source for this claim? A Greenpeace report titled “Pacific in Peril” (see Hoegh-Guldberg below). Here the report relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower-end of an estimate involving solar power plants (Aringhoff).

    GREENPEACE-GENERATED LITERATURE CITED BY THE 2007 NOBEL-WINNING IPCC REPORT

    * Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands
    * ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK
    * Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07
    * Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
    * GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07
    * Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.
    * Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.
    * Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07

  6. There is no need for fishermen to chain their boats to the shores of Juhua Island; they have all been frozen firmly to the spot since the Bohai Bay turned into a massive ice rink.

    From the beach, the seascape is a glistening, unmoving block that has become impossible for ferries to navigate. Tricycle riders are the only ones brave enough to transport residents across the 7.5-km of ice that separates the island from Xingcheng, the closest city on the mainland in Liaoning province.

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-01/27/content_9381068.htm

  7. The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

    Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

  8. NOAA, NASA: Water Vapor Largely Responsible for Global Warming

    NASA researchers and climate scientists around the world have reviewed the NOAA water vapor research in advance to its recent publication in the journal Science, one of the most respected in the world. Describing the effect of water vapor on atmospheric temperature as “enormous,” researcher Andrew Dessler said that “everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result. The real question is how much warming?” A Texas A&M researcher working in conjunction with NASA, Dessler pointed out that warmer air can contain contain higher amounts of water vapor, which could create a runaway positive feedback cycle.

    The research, facilitated by a state-of-the-art NASA satellite codenamed AIRS, suggests that water vapor is responsible for twice the global warming effect of carbon dioxide, both man-made and naturally occurring. While this theory was has been carried by climate change skeptics for some time, global warming advocates dismissed them, saying that water vapor in the atmosphere was only a feedback effect caused by human emissions. NASA scientist Eric Fetzer say that the new study created models much more accurate to past events than those previously used by climate change advocates, and proves that “water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

  9. Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges

    Yesterday the London Times broke the latest news on the fate of disgraced British climatologist Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia (UEA). Jones breached the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. The Times reports that the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided that the UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late.

    What the Times and the rest of the media are overlooking is that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), not the ICO, is responsible for announcing the results of the police investigation into the Climategate scandal. The ICO is merely a non-departmental public body which reports directly to Parliament, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice and deals solely with data protection, FOIA regulations, privacy, electronic communications regulations and environmental regulations.

    http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges

  10. bdaman,

    my argument is that even if everything that you say is true, pollution control is good policy. If you are wrong, it may well be necessary policy (with the alternative being severe consequences).

  11. Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified

    Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dwi8NW9h

  12. This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the “Glaciergate” claims are made. There, is the startling claim that:

    At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees:

    This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/

Comments are closed.