View Full Version : Arctic ice melts to record low
Rainbow Dash
September 21st, 2012, 01:09 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/20/arctic-sea-ice-melt.html
wow
also in before climate changing deniers
EX12693
September 21st, 2012, 01:34 AM
Lol but climate is supposed to change. I'm not denying the existence of man-made climate change, but really we're not going to ever be able to affect the planet in a catastrophic way.
Also the U.S. has a National Snow and Ice data center. Lol.
neuro
September 21st, 2012, 01:37 AM
'we couldnt possibly fuck up the planet too much'
really, so all the countless of animal species that are simly extinct, rainforrests that are simply gone, sealevels rising, coral reefs simply dying off, ISLANDS OF PLASTIC in the ocean, are all completely natural occurances.
Warsaw
September 21st, 2012, 01:41 AM
Don't forget the jellyfish swarms!
DarkHalo003
September 21st, 2012, 02:14 AM
We've done a lot of shit to the planet. A lot. However, saying we're the sole proprietor of climate change is over the top. Now do we add to it? Hell yeah, but the Earth also does a lot more to itself than we do in terms of what is causing climate change. Though whether or not this cycle is being accelerated by us is to be analyzed, this increase in warming can be regarded more as a global trend. But this industrial pollution shit has to stop. We are doing way too much fucking environmental damage.
Warsaw
September 21st, 2012, 02:37 AM
It's actually still unclear whether we've accelerated a warming period or delayed a cooling period.
Either way, we've done a serious number on the Earth's biospheres.
The funny thing about the pollution is that in the long run it's far more efficient to reuse as much stuff as possible. Leave it to businesses to sacrifice the long-run profits for short-term gains.
Bodzilla
September 21st, 2012, 02:37 AM
IGNORE FACTS, STATE UNFOUNDED OPINIONS.threadpost
When the fuck are you idiots gunna pull your head out your ass and listen to what the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence, and science practitioner tell you.
Would you guys accept medication from a doctor when 99% of doctors thought he was a dangerous moron.
Would you service your car with a mechanic that 99% of mechanics tell you is incompetent.
Why the FUCK is it any different with climate change.
I WANT TO BELIEVE.
It's time to grow up, accept it for what it is, and then maybe we can try to do something about fixing it.
EX12693
September 21st, 2012, 02:50 AM
Bodzilla, you realize I AM a car mechanic, right?
Also you apparently only read half my post.
Pollution and climate change are not one in the same, even though one affects the other. I'm all for reducing/eliminating pollution, hell I'm going to be specializing in alternative fuels/energy. But the point of my post is that we are not going to change what the climate is going to do naturally.
Warsaw
September 21st, 2012, 02:56 AM
Tell me that you know how to diagnose a problem beyond plugging for codes...most mechanics these days say "computer says no..." and that's the end of it...then they charge you for stuff they did that you didn't ask them to look at and didn't need looked at.
The climate isn't behaving naturally, we've definitely catalysed something. Whether we catalysed a roast or stalled a freeze is not yet clear.
neuro
September 21st, 2012, 03:02 AM
WOdjCb4LwQY
PopeAK49
September 21st, 2012, 03:29 AM
My step-dad has seen sees an average of 3 polar bears (some could be the same polar bears) a day when he work up on the slope. Which is like 200 miles from where they naturally stay.
Kornman00
September 21st, 2012, 03:44 AM
My step-dad has seen sees an average of 3 polar bears (some could be the same polar bears) a day when he work up on the slope. Which is like 200 miles from where they naturally stay.
Guess the polar bears are...Lost :caruso:
I take it he works 200mi north of their natural habitat?
EX12693
September 21st, 2012, 04:19 AM
Yeah I do. All a trouble code does is give a recording from a sensor, not necessarily the cause of the problem. But what I do in response to the code really depends on what the code is indicating. Computers are actually fairly new to me though. I started out working on stuff from the 1910's-1950's, so most of my diagnosing skills come from that.
I've worked with (and been the victim of) the type of mechanic you're talking about though. Hate 'em. Kill them with fire.
BEARS MIGRATING SO THEY CAN SURVIVE OHNO. [/sarcasm]
I'm not saying that man-made climate change is nonexistent. I'm just saying that maybe it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Patrickssj6
September 21st, 2012, 05:41 AM
I am not going to make a statement on how much humans affect the changes on Global Warming but I am glad that this problem accelerates the evolution of newer technologies like renewable energy etc.
Water Power + Wind Power + Solar Power + Pumped-Storage Hydroelectricity
Also,
uYhtEBfLMlo
Pooky
September 21st, 2012, 07:13 AM
'we couldnt possibly fuck up the planet too much'
really, so all the countless of animal species that are simly extinct, rainforrests that are simply gone, sealevels rising, coral reefs simply dying off, ISLANDS OF PLASTIC in the ocean, are all completely natural occurances.
Hey, the planet will still be here. Just complex organisms might not be :downs:
EjmtSkl53h4
=sw=warlord
September 21st, 2012, 08:12 AM
I'll just leave this here:
http://i1141.photobucket.com/albums/n599/cobby87/179587_439177296123134_477302994_n.jpg
Timo
September 21st, 2012, 10:21 AM
call da cops
Emmzee
September 21st, 2012, 10:23 AM
IGNORE FACTS, STATE UNFOUNDED OPINIONS.threadpost
When the fuck are you idiots gunna pull your head out your ass and listen to what the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence, and science practitioner tell you.
because 35 years ago the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence and science practitioners told us that in 50 years we'd be in a new ice age
Bodzilla
September 21st, 2012, 11:16 AM
pretty sure climate change and global warming are terms that where created in the 50's.
Emmzee
September 21st, 2012, 11:19 AM
pretty sure climate change and global warming are terms that where created in the 50's.
what does that have to do with scientists from the 1970s being totally wrong
check out this cool climate change documentary i found
lKXatI4zTpw
Bodzilla
September 21st, 2012, 11:19 AM
m-AXBbuDxRY
you where saying Brah.
Jelly
September 21st, 2012, 11:32 AM
wow the ice melted in summer?????? im a surprised idiot
Emmzee
September 21st, 2012, 11:39 AM
you where saying Brah.
you never answered my question
Emmzee
September 21st, 2012, 11:42 AM
p.s. humans are only responsible for roughly 5% of the worlds carbon dioxide output (which includes all greenhouse gas emissions such as cars and power plants and man-made fires and explosions etc etc) so we have a negligible effect on the climate at most
checkmate bitch
Bodzilla
September 21st, 2012, 11:55 AM
you do realize that carbon dioxide cycles, are a self feedback system.
meaning they grow exponentially more unstable, regardless of the initial starting point.
hth.
Rainbow Dash
September 21st, 2012, 01:15 PM
what does that have to do with scientists from the 1970s being totally wrong
and the changes that were made in response delayed the issue???
Rainbow Dash
September 21st, 2012, 01:18 PM
p.s. humans are only responsible for roughly 5% of the worlds carbon dioxide output (which includes all greenhouse gas emissions such as cars and power plants and man-made fires and explosions etc etc) so we have a negligible effect on the climate at most
checkmate bitch
I love this argument. Guess what, regardless of whether it's just a natural cycle (it's not) or an issue our infrastructure is creating, it's still a problem that we have to address either way. Also pretending 5% of anything on a global scale is insignificant lol lol lol lol lol lol you're cute.
DarkHalo003
September 21st, 2012, 03:59 PM
I would like us to find a way to use Geothermal, but given how even our safest forms of energy like Wind cause issues with the environment, I'm kind of scared with scientists fucking with the heating of Earth's INSIDE let alone its outside. For instance, the placement needs to be incredibly specific. If done wrong, the ground beneath the generators can be badly damaged which can lead to problems if there are aquifers near by.
If it worked well though, Geothermal + Electricity would equate to a lot of energy problems being fixed with less pollution and higher energy yields.
On the topic of C02 emmisions, it's sadly the 3rd World countries are susceptible to most industrial waste pollution because they're stuck on shittier technology than 1st World countries are. There is also China, who doesn't give a fuck about the environment and doesn't want to listen to anything besides their own convictions. Point being, the 1st World needs to help the 3rd World transition out of their highly pollutant and hazardous tech into tech that doesn't straight up cause environmental damage. Regardless, technology is still at a crossroads with entirely environmentally safe technologies.
=sw=warlord
September 21st, 2012, 04:04 PM
Er, What are you talking about?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_ capita)
Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (CDIAC)
RankCountry199019911992199319941995199619971998199 9200020012002200320042005200620072008
1.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Flag_of_Qatar.svg/22px-Flag_of_Qatar.svg.png Qatar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar)
25.2
36.7
54.3
60.9
58.7
58.6
59.2
65.8
57.0
53.3
56.3
43.2
40.9
41.8
50.5
64.2
49.5
55.4
53.5
2.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Flag_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago.svg/22px-Flag_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago.svg.png Trinidad and Tobago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinidad_and_Tobago)
13.9
17.1
17.0
13.5
15.8
16.6
17.1
15.0
15.0
17.7
18.9
19.2
20.6
21.2
24.0
23.5
26.1
27.9
37.3
3.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg.png United Arab Emirates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates)
29.4
30.2
29.5
31.1
33.1
30.3
16.9
16.4
34.2
29.0
39.1
33.3
23.3
28.2
28.7
28.3
28.7
31.6
34.6
4.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Flag_of_the_Netherlands_Antilles_(1986-2010).svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Netherlands_Antilles_(1986-2010).svg.png Netherlands Antilles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Antilles)
32.6
26.9
22.6
35.0
34.3
34.1
32.5
34.2
1.5
11.6
31.6
32.2
31.0
30.1
31.3
30.7
29.4
32.5
31.9
5.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Flag_of_Bahrain.svg/22px-Flag_of_Bahrain.svg.png Bahrain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain)
24.1
22.6
20.1
27.8
27.2
27.7
26.3
28.5
29.6
28.4
30.4
22.7
24.7
25.3
25.4
27.1
28.6
29.6
29.0
6.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Flag_of_Brunei.svg/22px-Flag_of_Brunei.svg.png Brunei (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunei)
25.0
22.0
21.4
20.0
18.8
18.7
18.5
18.7
18.8
14.1
19.6
18.2
17.1
16.4
16.7
15.4
14.5
24.8
27.0
7.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Flag_of_Kuwait.svg/22px-Flag_of_Kuwait.svg.png Kuwait (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait)
19.0
5.1
10.0
16.9
20.8
30.8
28.5
33.8
32.3
31.4
31.9
28.8
26.2
28.9
31.1
33.3
31.1
25.6
26.3
8.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg/22px-Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg.png Luxembourg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg)
25.9
27.6
30.2
27.3
25.4
20.4
20.4
18.8
17.3
17.8
18.9
19.4
21.0
21.9
24.1
24.4
24.1
22.8
21.9
9.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Flag_of_Aruba.svg/22px-Flag_of_Aruba.svg.png Aruba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aruba)
29.1
29.4
25.0
24.3
23.2
22.5
22.1
22.0
19.5
19.3
24.9
24.4
24.1
23.6
23.1
22.9
22.5
23.0
21.7
10.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Flag_of_the_Falkland_Islands.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_Falkland_Islands.svg.png Falkland Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands)
18.5
17.9
17.2
16.4
15.7
16.3
17.2
18.1
13.4
13
12.8
15
14.9
16.2
17.2
17.1
19.8
19.7
19.6
11.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/Flag_of_Australia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Australia.svg.png Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia)
17.2
16.6
16.9
17.2
17.1
17.1
18.1
18.0
18.7
17.3
17.2
16.6
17.1
17.1
16.9
17.9
18.0
17.9
18.9
12.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)
19.1
18.9
18.6
19.5
19.5
19.3
19.4
19.7
19.5
19.5
20.0
19.3
19.4
19.2
19.3
19.3
18.8
18.1
17.5
DarkHalo003
September 21st, 2012, 04:16 PM
Oh, whoops, I didn't mean to state just CO2. I meant all industrial wastes.
I do want to point out that for CO2, however, many 3rd World countries do not have emissions testing as well, so all information calculated from those tests is relatively unclear. Regardless, we are still in a bad way. For those graphs, you also need to keep in mind the percentages and ratios of those countries. Countries with high populations like the U.S. and UAE having high CO2 content is expectable, not saying it's good. Smaller countries having a lot is where the problem lies at. That means more CO2 is being used per entity than in other locations. In other words, those places are not optimizing their tech to emit less CO2.
I also refuse to believe the information reported for China is accurate. I feel that we also need to keep in mind who is reporting the information and who we're gaining the info from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_China
PopeAK49
September 21st, 2012, 04:46 PM
Guess the polar bears are...Lost :caruso:
I take it he works 200mi north of their natural habitat?
Yeah, but it use to not be this bad. You could see the bears walking around the vehicles and equipment. The fact that they are looking for food doesn't help either. They have to wait until the bears leave.
Hell, it is sad that most of these arctic species will go extinct but maybe since the environment changes, it will bring forth new species. Almost every animal species has to die out during some time, which is sad to say.
DarkHalo003
September 21st, 2012, 04:56 PM
Yeah, but it use to not be this bad. You could see the bears walking around the vehicles and equipment. The fact that they are looking for food doesn't help either. They have to wait until the bears leave.
Hell, it is sad that most of these arctic species will go extinct but maybe since the environment changes, it will bring forth new species. Almost every animal species has to die out during some time, which is sad to say.
Environmental affects from our involvement get me the most, especially for those bears and incredibly so for aquatic life. The Pacific Garbage Patch? Yeah, changed my outlook on environmental damages we're doing completely.
Rainbow Dash
September 21st, 2012, 05:05 PM
Hell, it is sad that most of these arctic species will go extinct but maybe since the environment changes, it will bring forth new species. Almost every animal species has to die out during some time, which is sad to say.
Yeah man it might bring forth new species in 10 thousand years or something oh boy!
PopeAK49
September 21st, 2012, 06:01 PM
Yeah man it might bring forth new species in 10 thousand years or something oh boy!
lol, I was looking at the bright side of things, but I do admire your sarcasm.
It wouldn't take long for some new microscopic species to by discovered or even species we have not seen under the ice.
But you seem to be more into furries, so you probably could give less than two shits.
Environmental affects from our involvement get me the most, especially for those bears and incredibly so for aquatic life. The Pacific Garbage Patch? Yeah, changed my outlook on environmental damages we're doing completely.
Indeed.
TVTyrant
September 21st, 2012, 06:33 PM
Yeah man it might bring forth new species in 10 thousand years or something oh boy!
ten thousand years ago we would have thought that was fine lol
Rainbow Dash
September 21st, 2012, 06:35 PM
lol, I was looking at the bright side of things, but I do admire your sarcasm.
I'd hardly consider, "maybe some microscopic life forms will develop in tens of thousands of years", a bright side to us wiping ourselves out.
Warsaw
September 21st, 2012, 06:49 PM
Bright side:
No more politicians.
:haw:
Rainbow Dash
September 21st, 2012, 06:54 PM
that's better
PopeAK49
September 21st, 2012, 08:57 PM
I'd hardly consider, "maybe some microscopic life forms will develop in tens of thousands of years", a bright side to us wiping ourselves out.
Welp, maybe those life forms would serve a better purpose than ours. I forgot...What is our purpose for living again?
Bodzilla
September 21st, 2012, 11:21 PM
to survive.
Warsaw
September 22nd, 2012, 02:19 AM
Welp, maybe those life forms would serve a better purpose than ours. I forgot...What is our purpose for living again?
To end, Mr. Anderson.
Cortexian
September 26th, 2012, 04:08 AM
Video in OP is funny. Makes it sound like Canada alone can do something about global climate change. Welp, blame Canada.
Rainbow Dash
September 26th, 2012, 12:07 PM
http://wonkette.com/485198/climate-change-will-kill-pretty-much-everyone-says-report-about-to-be-ignored
TVTyrant
September 26th, 2012, 03:08 PM
The vikings believed that when the ice melted, it would allow them to travel to distant lands, and conquer the world.
Norway shall rise again.
Patrickssj6
September 27th, 2012, 11:24 AM
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01954/Breivik_1954358c.jpg
Cortexian
September 28th, 2012, 09:47 PM
The vikings believed that when the ice melted, it would allow them to travel to distant lands, and conquer the world.
Norway shall rise again.
If they weren't such pussies they would have just got off their boats and walked across the ice like men.
TVTyrant
September 28th, 2012, 09:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting#Norway
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.