Current Events > Ice shelf the size of Manhattan broke off and lost forever

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/14/canadas-last-intact-ice-shelf-broke-off-it-took-our-research-station-with-it

ClIMAte cHaNGe iSN't ReAL

---

Well find it eventually

---

"Nothing we could have done about it. Climate changes and we're not responsible. In fact, let's kill nature before it kills us."

---

we are fucked

Imagine being those scientist rn.

Even not as scientist or communicator that shit gives me depression. Imagine actually working on it spending yourc life making hypotheses, collecting data, processing it etc and just to be dismissed by mobs with collective IQ less than 90

---

Isnt climate change natural? How many times has the planet frozen over and heated up? Hell wasnt there like x2 the oxygen levels at one point?

---

We better tell China and India to stop increasing their carbon emissions!

ViewtifulGrave posted...

Isnt climate change natural? How many times has the planet frozen over and heated up? Hell wasnt there like x2 the oxygen levels at one point?

It's natural, yes. However mankind is greatly increased the rate at which it is happening many times over. Nothing can adapt at this rate.

---

apolloooo posted...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/14/canadas-last-intact-ice-shelf-broke-off-it-took-our-research-station-with-it

ClIMAte cHaNGe iSN't ReAL

Isn't the climate change cyclical?

---

ViewtifulGrave posted...

Isnt climate change natural? How many times has the planet frozen over and heated up? Hell wasnt there like x2 the oxygen levels at one point?

Yes and no

Hyperliterally you're correct but you're talking about over the course of hundreds of millions of years. Before humans existed,let alone civilisation

Man made climate change, CO2 emissions specifically is exasperating the effects down to centuries. And once the global temperature rises a few degrees its going to snowball
---

420TwiZtiD420 posted...

Isn't the climate change cyclical?

No.

---

DrizztLink posted...

No.

Well technically it is

But not in relation to humanity/civilization
---

So the answer is yes.

---

If nature thinks it can beat us, then we'll REALLY fuck it up

FUCK YEAH

---

DuranOfForcena posted...

do you or do you not understand the concept of nuance

There's no point in responding because he's either purposefully being obtuse (trolling) or is a moron.

---

I asked a legitimate question. Apparently that makes me a troll. I don't understand why everything has to be confrontational on this board.

---

DuranOfForcena posted...

holy fuck thats perfect

Poop2 posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

holy fuck thats perfect

I love it.

---

NightMarishPie posted...

There's no point in responding because he's either purposefully being obtuse (trolling) or is a moron.

He's ignoring every point above explaining the accelerated nature of climate change due to our industry. It's people like him screwing everything up.

---

3PiesAndAFork posted...

He's ignoring every point above explaining the accelerated nature of climate change due to our industry. It's people like him screwing everything up.

Ignoring or perhaps I just read first post and asked a question before scrolling down and reading the rest?

I haven't denied climate change in the slightest. Where do you get off explaining my point of view?

You win. I give up.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Man made climate change, CO2 emissions specifically is exasperating the effects down to centuries. And once the global temperature rises a few degrees its going to snowball

Unfortunately, the "gotta do something!!" group is cleanly divided into people who don't realize that doing anything actually meaningful would mean severe limits on individual liberty and quality of life, and people who relish the thought of that.

420TwiZtiD420 posted...

So the answer is yes.

This is why we are calling you out. Please just leave the thread.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

mean severe limits on individual liberty and quality of life

liberty? no

quality of life as is maybe

but so what? do you want life at all?

Poop2 posted...

but so what? do you want life at all?

"Venus II" is an incredibly unlikely scenario.

BuT It StIlL SnOWs

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

"Venus II" is an incredibly unlikely scenario.

it wouldnt have to go that far to kill off human life and most flora/fauna on earth

Questionmarktarius posted...

"Venus II" is an incredibly unlikely scenario.

Life would die out way before Earth became like Venus.

---

To be fair manhattan is not that large

---

ViewtifulGrave posted...

Isnt climate change natural? How many times has the planet frozen over and heated up? Hell wasnt there like x2 the oxygen levels at one point?

Isnt dying natural? Why have medicine or doctors or paramedics or medical science/technology? Why make any effort at all to save lives or help anyone live longer?
---

The time to try and "prevent" climate change passed over a decade ago.

The focus needs to be on disaster preparation and infrastructure as well as cutting exacerbating factors.

Just doing the latter is going to get a lot of people killed.

---

CommonJoe posted...

The time to try and "prevent" climate change passed over a decade ago.

The focus needs to be on disaster preparation and infrastructure as well as cutting exacerbating factors.

Just doing the latter is going to get a lot of people killed.

How exactly will it lead to people getting killed?

Forever is a long time

---

Ruvan22 posted...

How exactly will it lead to people getting killed?

You dont deal with an oncoming hurricane just off the coast by having everyone migrate to hybrids.

Hence, disaster prep and infrastructure overhauls, the latter of which is something that the US needs regardless of climate problems.

---

What an odd coincidence that the planet is falling apart all at once as humans increasingly industrialize and pollute.

---

ViewtifulGrave posted...

Isnt climate change natural? How many times has the planet frozen over and heated up? Hell wasnt there like x2 the oxygen levels at one point?

Long term natural climate change does not look good for our survival. At x2 oxygen we are going to fucking die. Projections based on historical cycles (over hundreds of thousands of years) put us at "extinct" with an average temperature over 200 degrees in the far future.

That's not actually the problem though. The problem is the shit we are doing is making us get there ahead of schedule.

---

CommonJoe posted...

You dont deal with an oncoming hurricane just off the coast by having everyone migrate to hybrids.

Hence, disaster prep and infrastructure overhauls, the latter of which is something that the US needs regardless of climate problems.

A) I'm not sure how a hurricane is equivalent to climate change?
B) That still doesn't answer how "Just focusing on cutting exacerbating factors" will lead to a "lot of people being killed". Are you saying it's a direct consequence? or that LESS people would be die from climate change if we did both?

Ruvan22 posted...

A) I'm not sure how a hurricane is equivalent to climate change?
B) That still doesn't answer how "Just focusing on cutting exacerbating factors" will lead to a "lot of people being killed". Are you saying it's a direct consequence? or that LESS people would be die from climate change if we did both?

A) Im illustrating my point by making an analogy.

B) see A. It isnt a difficult point to understand. At all.

---

debate is stupid either way. we're already so far in the hole that even if we cut off carbon emissions from power plants and cars today we'd still see a global increase in average temps of around 1C. we're going to have to spend trilions of dollars on carbon recapturing technology just to keep all the coastal cities around the world from getting swallowed up by the rising oceans.

---

monkmith posted...

debate is stupid either way. we're already so far in the hole that even if we cut off carbon emissions from power plants and cars today we'd still see a global increase in average temps of around 1C. we're going to have to spend trilions of dollars on carbon recapturing technology just to keep all the coastal cities around the world from getting swallowed up by the rising oceans.

A) I understand that you were trying to make an analogy, but it didn't hold up.
B) You are making an analogy that people will be killed if we "cut exacerbating factors"? Did you mean an exaggeration to make a point? Either way you still haven't shown that something like reducing automobile emissions would lead directly to death...

monkmith posted...

debate is stupid either way. we're already so far in the hole that even if we cut off carbon emissions from power plants and cars today we'd still see a global increase in average temps of around 1C. we're going to have to spend trilions of dollars on carbon recapturing technology just to keep all the coastal cities around the world from getting swallowed up by the rising oceans.

So we can A) Do nothing and make it 10 times worse or B) Do some things to slow the bleeding. Seems a pretty obvious choice ...

Ruvan22 posted...

A) I understand that you were trying to make an analogy, but it didn't hold up.
B) You are making an analogy that people will be killed if we "cut exacerbating factors"? Did you mean an exaggeration to make a point? Either way you still haven't shown that something like reducing automobile emissions would lead directly to death...

what analogy?

https://earth.org/what-would-happen-to-the-climate-if-we-stopped-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

even if we cut off all carbon emissions today, we're already fucked. we're past the point where we can stem the tide without sinking a huge amount of money into recapturing all the CO2 we've put into the atmosphere.

---

Ruvan22 posted...

So we can A) Do nothing and make it 10 times worse or B) Do some things to slow the bleeding. Seems a pretty obvious choice ...

my point is we're arguing over how to plug a hole in a sinking ship that's already split in two...

we've got to start making investments, either in significant flood mitigation infrastructure or large scale carbon recapturing.

---

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Always relevant when the "Climate change is natural!" argument comes up.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

"Venus II" is an incredibly unlikely scenario.

What will happen within our lifetimes is that there will be millions of displaced climate change refugees.

---

Ruvan22 posted...

A) I understand that you were trying to make an analogy, but it didn't hold up.
B) You are making an analogy that people will be killed if we "cut exacerbating factors"? Did you mean an exaggeration to make a point? Either way you still haven't shown that something like reducing automobile emissions would lead directly to death...

You're arguing with the wrong person.

---

420TwiZtiD420 posted...

Isn't the climate change cyclical?

Welp I'll let all the scientists know that gamefaqs.com poster 420TwiZitD420 has figured it all out and they can go ahead and work on other shit.

---

monkmith posted...

my point is we're arguing over how to plug a hole in a sinking ship that's already split in two...

we've got to start making investments, either in significant flood mitigation infrastructure or large scale carbon recapturing.

You're being way too negative here. Just because the climate isn't going to go back to what it was 200 years ago doesn't mean we're in the endgame and need to prepare for the worst. If we can keep it away from that point where everything snowballs out of control, it won't be much different than what we have now.

Nothing in that article you posted above says this either.

We shouldn't give up things like reducing fossil fuels, because we can still stop the worst. Saying to do nothing and plan for the worst is just being overly nihilistic

Proto_Spark posted...

You're being way too negative here. Just because the climate isn't going to go back to what it was 200 years ago doesn't mean we're in the endgame and need to prepare for the worst. If we can keep it away from that point where everything snowballs out of control, it won't be much different than what we have now.

Nothing in that article you posted above says this either.

We shouldn't give up things like reducing fossil fuels, because we can still stop the worst. Saying to do nothing and plan for the worst is just being overly nihilistic

how am i saying to do nothing?

my point is that arguing with dunderfucks over the fact that climate change is real is pointless. they're not going to change their opinion. ignore them, and focus on the fact that we are absolutely going to have to sink money into mitigating the effects of a trend we're not going to turn around by just reducing emissions.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/donald-trump-climate-change-policy-global-warming-expert-thomas-crowther-a7450236.html

this isn't fatalism, this is fact, without actively pulling carbon from the atmosphere we're going to see huge releases of greenhouse gasses as permafrost soil and methane pockets in the oceans release due to warming temps. we need to do more then swap to electric cars and solar panels.

---