|Image Replies||0 ()|
|Lifetime||1d 4h 25m 45s|
>A significant shift in the system of ocean currents that helps keep parts of Europe warm could send temperatures in the UK lower, scientists have found.
>They say the Atlantic Ocean circulation system is weaker now than it has been for more than 1,000 years - and has changed significantly in the past 150.
>The study, in the journal Nature, says it may be a response to increased melting ice and is likely to continue.
>Researchers say that could have an impact on Atlantic ecosystems.
>Scientists involved in the Atlas project - the largest study of deep Atlantic ecosystems ever undertaken - say the impact will not be of the order played out in the 2004 Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow.
>But they say changes to the conveyor-belt-like system - also known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) - could cool the North Atlantic and north-west Europe and transform some deep-ocean ecosystems.
>That could also affect temperature-sensitive species like coral, and even Atlantic cod.
there's more but i'm not going to post it
you should just visit the website
there are a couple more pictures and a video as well
A number of thresholds have been passed, including the ones that will likely melt the North Pole within 100 years if as much methane is trapped as most (not all) measurements suggest. The resulting effect would be irreversible for at least another century regardless of technology.
However, there are several more predicted thresholds of greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations that we have yet to pass and can still realistically prevent. Each threshold models another piece of our climate system that if disrupted will create either irreversible damage to biomes or positive feedback to the Greenhouse Effect.
And of course, all significant change in natural environment cost shitloads of money -- way more than investment in clean energy ever will. Rising water levels with expanding floodplains gradually can make entire cities unlivable like Venice and New Orleans. Desertification, overirrigation, and soil erosion does the same to places like Timbuktu, Mexico City, Phoenix, Baku, etc.. Smog has thoroughly fucked up Beijing and Shanghai, and garbage dumps Ulanbataar and Delhi. That's why these countries actually invest in environmental cleanup.
Pretty sure we passed certain thersholds by this point. And huge polluters like India and China have fucked the rest of the world by forcing us to abide by very strict rules and they get almost no regulations, in fact they pollute so much and have no rules until 2030 or so that even if the rest of the world reduces our damage further these dipshits will still ruin us all.
Our best bet at this point would be to try to invest in terraforming technologies and new engineering techniques and infrastructure to combat the changes done to our planet.
And dare I mention that we still have retards out there that prefer combustion based power over nuclear.
So yeah, its not like those voting or in power even understand what needs to be done.
You're a defeatist.
Probably a fossil shill or an American.
You complain about China while you choose inaction yourselves.
You even list a bunch of possible solutions.
>So yeah, its not like those voting or in power even understand what needs to be done.
Pretty sure now you must be from the USA.
The rest of the world has leadership that takes these things seriously, and a population not hoodwinked by a greedy fossil fuel industry.
We where abide by the rules the rest world followed, but the exceptions they made essentially said "Fuck your economy, unless your china, if your china, keep on pollution".
So we have to choose between no economy and a failing planet. Or an economy and a failing planet.
You frankly missed my entire point that there are solutions, but the solutions that have been drafted failed because it gives exceptions to the biggest polluters. All other sollutions are going to fail because A. people don't understand how the technology works and are afraid of it. B. they are just outsourcing their pollution and are too retarded to understand it.
There are clean fossil fuels, natural gas, and anthracite coal specifically are the cleanest fuels we can use, with the lowest emissions and impact. Or use cleaner manufactoring methods than what the chinese are doing. But you have these greenies that would rather not see a power plant at all even if it where cleaner, and outsource it to someone who will give you the same power, but double the carbon foot print and noxious gasses.
Im serious. Compared to diesel, petrol, Bituminous coal, peat, and bio-fuels their environmental impacts are the fraction of what these fuels do in terms of enegry per carbon burned and other emissions such as sulfates.
Its not perfect, but what do you want us to do, stop all energy production and go become anarcho primitives?
I am a different guy, and not all coals are the same dipshit. Go take a look at geology. You may learn a thing or two. Anthracite coal, specifically has the highest carbon to other crap ratio. It burns way more efficiently than other coal and of course there is no reason why we simply can't scrub pollutants out of the emissions.
That of a fossil fuel shill.
You think we live in this little corner of the internet unaware you play this game elsewhere?
I've seen this patter before.
It starts out with the claim it's too late but before you know it he's selling you "clean" coal.
Don't talk to me on my wife's son ever again.
>You think we live in this little corner of the internet unaware you play this game elsewhere?
>I've seen this patter before.
>It starts out with the claim it's too late but before you know it he's selling you "clean" coal.
Not all coal is the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthr
All very in the carbon concentration ratio. The more carbon in the coal means there is less emissions of noxious gasses. And it also burns more efficiently.
Indeed there is no clean coal. But there are cleaner coals.
But the best energy comes from the ground. Not to mention the uses that crude or nuclear have good uses in the polymer industry and the medical industry.
Its called I am not a fucking retard.
You simply can not just stop all fossile fuel usage because "REEEE I don't like it" I have already explained that there are many different fissile fuels with different carbon/power inefficiencies and other emissions and I have even said we could scrub our emissions of pollutants. yet you call me a shill and stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and act like I want to darken the entire earth in a thick black smog for the lols or something.
I said don't talk to my wife's son.
Your slip betrays the fact that you know nuclear is superior.
>You simply can not just stop all fossile fuel usage because "REEEE I don't like it"
Not my position.
>and stick your head in the ground like an ostrich and act like I want to darken the entire earth in a thick black smog
And another ridiculous pantomime from your imagination.
I call you a shill because I recognise the slippery tactics.
>Your slip betrays the fact that you know nuclear is superior.
No shit, but why can't I shill two types of power. I like both, but for the short term I don't see why we can't shift to Anthracite and Natural Gas, especially since this has been the trend for most of the United States since 2008.
>I use slippery tactics.
What are my slipper tactics?
Smoke is another pollutant along side CO2. If anything smoke would provide more damage in the short run.
When I say cleaner fuels. I don't mean no carbon dioxide. I mean fewer pollutants as a whole. Even though CO2 is a heat trapper and will cause long term damage, it is not poisonous in the air. When your evaluating a power source or fuel you need to evaluate the total emissions and evaluate the damage done from each emission, and this goes as far as including water vapor.
>Implying that your not an idiot.
>Implying that your not worked up because you think I am a retard, because I support burning some fuels.
>At this point it's too late to do anything about climate change/pollution.
was that you at the beginning?
if not i take it all back
you're probably just your average moron
that's really daft statement
i'm only interested in here someone defend that tbh
it's such a ridiculous statement
we can always become more fucked through inaction
really it's dire /pol/ tier bait
i remember now why i just spam half a dozen threads here and leave
this board is only useful as a place to list stories
discussion is pointless because of the anonymity and the trolls
>Was that me
No. But I think we have done irreversable damage. At this point our best bet is to do a slow transition to cleaner fuels. And to engineer methods to combat effects of climate change, such as some way to artifically control the grand oceanic convener belt, synthesizing O2 from CO2, and buildin dykes to protect low lying areas.
Anthracite Coal, and Natural Gas , and I supposed Deisile depending on the engine design are better than other forms of power, and not kill the planet as fast as other means.
No there are none. There is Zero scientific proof that shows that Humans cause man made climate change or that there is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
So far ZERO of the alarmist predictions have come true,
Just take a look at the climategate emails.
There are numerous journals, including those such as Science and Nature, that have published papers supporting the theory of AGW.
>So far ZERO of the alarmist predictions have come true
Many predictions from the 2001 IPCC report, a mainstream view within climate science at the time, have come to pass.
Climategate found nothing of interest.
page took 0.0113 seconds to execute