Archives: [f] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [news / qst] [trash] Boards: [meta]
/b/stats 2.0: beta edition
since 27 Jan 2013
Please send questions/comments/spam/death threats/love letters to webmaster (at) b-stats.org
All times EST/EDT
Active development is on GitHub



Thread #245078
View on 4chan

Replies 48 (48)
Image Replies 0 (0)
Lifetime 1d 4h 25m 45s
Deleted Posts 0
file.png (255 KB, 660x371, 1523509301736.pngiqdb google reposts full
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43713719

>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
>>
At this point it's too late to do anything about climate change/pollution. So when I see shit like this I'm just like "yeah so?"
>>
>>245172
>it's too late
Who's been telling you that?
It's not true.
>>
>>245172
That's a shit opinion. Oh no, we broke the thing, oh well, there's no point in fixing it.

One, we CAN fix it, two, it's not completely broken, it's IN THE PROCESS of breaking, and we can keep it from getting worse.
>>
>>245172
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.
>>
>>245078
put your trip on climateshill
>>
>>245182
Have I even used a tripcode here?
I thought most of my terror has been inflicted through posting with banner images.
Maybe i used this simple one once?
>>
>>245174
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.
>>
>>245185
You're a defeatist.
Probably a fossil shill or an American.
You complain about China while you choose inaction yourselves.
Disgusting tbqh.
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.
>>
>>245186
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.
>>
>>245190
*Correction
Anthracite coal and natrual gas are the cleanest fossile fuels we can use.
>>
>>245191
>>*Correction
>Anthracite coal and natrual gas are the cleanest fossile fuels we can use.
piss off
>>
>>245190
>You frankly missed my entire point
You first post said it was all too late.
Now you're shilling coal.
Just leave tbh.
Your MO is too obviously.
>>
>>245195
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?

>>245196
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.
>>
>>245196
>too obviously.
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.
smh
Don't talk to me on my wife's son ever again.
>>
>>245198
>You may learn a thing or two
I already know your game.
You should jog on tbh.
>>
>>245200
What is my game? What do you think I work for Exxon or something? Or do you really think I like having black skies and poisonous air?
>>
>>245199
>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.
>smh
Not all coal is the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bituminous_coal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite

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.
>>
So may solutions you could have chosen to shill.
Keep it in the ground tbh.
>>
Troll or shill I don't care what your game is.
You play it the same way.
>>
>>245204
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.

>>245205
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.
>>
>>245206
*edit
I meant fossile fuels, not fissile fuels. This key board is pissing me off. But there are also many good fissile fuels like Uranium 235, and Technetium 99.
>>
You are full of strawmen.
This was over ages ago.
>>
>>245208
>my argument is a strawman
Name one.
>>
>>245206
I said don't talk to my wife's son.

>>245207
Your slip betrays the fact that you know nuclear is superior.

>>245209
>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.
>>
>>245206
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=330tNCysXZQ
Example of "clean" coal burning.
Notice the lack of smoke.
>>
>>245211
>Notice the lack of smoke.

>me think smoke cause climate change

smh
troll i think
shills are usually smart than this
>>
>>245212
>At this point it's too late to do anything about climate change/pollution.

Of course it was Lulu.
And you know it.
And we all know you only indulge them so you can bump the thread.
I don't know why you get yourself so worked up.
>>
>>245213
>I don't know why you get yourself so worked up.
implying i'm genuinely worked up
you can't see my grin ;^)
>>
>>245210
>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?

>>245212
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.

>>245214
>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.
>>
>>245215
>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
>>
there's no need to reply
>>
i have real need of discussion to keep the thread alive
>>
>>245220
>have real
have no real

even typos provide an excuse
>>
>>245221
>provide an excuse
not that it was need then

i should really come back after a hour or something
>>
>>245217
>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.
>>
> and not kill the planet as fast as other means.
>as fast as other means.
except all the renewable and nuclear
smh
still shilling those fossils with lies
>>
>>245078
KYS hippie scum.

You spread lies so you can destroy the society coal and oil built.
>>
>>245247

Society has existed before coal and oil and will after they cease to be profitable/efficient
>>
>>245249
go live in the woods then commie, show us how it's done
>>
>>245172
It's too late for nature to correct itself, we as the owners of earth have to help it along with our technology now or else it's toast.
>>
>>245078
>Climate change

Shilling again I see.

It seems everything is responsible for so-called climate change.
>>
>>245174
>>245176
>>245177
>>245185
Man made climate change is nonsense and there is no scientific data to back up the claim.

Stop spreading the climate chill nonsense.
>>
>>245186
man made climate change is a lie.

>>245199
you're a climate hoax shill.
>>
>>245217
>i remember now why i just spam half a dozen threads here and leave
at least you finally admit you're just a spammer.

Nobody believes the shit you alarmists post anymore.
>>
>>245331
Except, you know, the mountains of scientific papers that support it.
>>
>>245334
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.
>>
>>245348
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.
>>
So what are the odds on climateshill being al gore?

page took 0.0113 seconds to execute