Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 That absolutely correct, since Canada isn't the sole source cause of the current rapid change in the Earth's climate. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Then it was a poor attempt at it, because it seemed as if the sarcasm was being directed at the report of the melting, in contrast to melting that occurred in the 1800's. If you've come around on climate change and its affects around the world and the anthropogenic cause of its current rate of change, then great, glad to see you've recently come around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Well, time to throw our hands up and wait for someone else to try and lead the way. Let's hope they don't use the same excuse, "We're only part of the problem, so anything we'd try is futile". Man, I'm glad the government doesn't apply the same rationale (using the term loosely here) to other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 No surprise to me. The planet is naturally A LOT warmer. The only reason we have ice caps in the first place is from the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs. And blocked out the sun long enough for everything to freeze over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 No surprise to me. The planet is naturally A LOT warmer. The only reason we have ice caps in the first place is from the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs. And blocked out the sun long enough for everything to freeze over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Wow the competition for stupidest posts in this thread is heating up faster than Greenland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 Wow the competition for stupidest posts in this thread is heating up faster than Greenland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Then why do you keep posting expensive and insane ideas like a rocky mtn trench or creating a salt water lake in Africa?We may not be able to stop global warming today but we certainly slow it down by taking a number of simple sustainable actions. We managed to reduce the size of the hole in the Ozone, we can do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 Changing the climate of the planet is such an enormous task I dont even know when the technology nor energy required would become avail. Even if we get this, we have no idea what the long term effect of it would be. How about we roll with mother nature and adapt to her instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Changing the climate of the planet is such an enormous task I dont even know when the technology nor energy required would become avail. Even if we get this, we have no idea what the long term effect of it would be. How about we roll with mother nature and adapt to her instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Then it was a poor attempt at it, because it seemed as if the sarcasm was being directed at the report of the melting, in contrast to melting that occurred in the 1800's. If you've come around on climate change and its affects around the world and the anthropogenic cause of its current rate of change, then great, glad to see you've recently come around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 I haven't "recently" come around... I guess I should have put a sarcasm block around my post to make it easier for you... [sarcasm] The melting of the ice cap in Greenland in 1889 was caused by the Oil Sands. [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Then why do you keep posting expensive and insane ideas like a rocky mtn trench or creating a salt water lake in Africa?We may not be able to stop global warming today but we certainly slow it down by taking a number of simple sustainable actions. We managed to reduce the size of the hole in the Ozone, we can do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 So you accept climate change as reality, and still are Pro-Oil Sands development?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 For once I agree with you up until the last point anyways. I agree any engineered solution to climate change is dangerous and generally a bad idea, instead we need to focus on reducing our fossil fuel dependency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Sure we COULD slow it down but it's not going to happen. Do you really think that poor countries that are living without electricity right now will decide they don't really need it instead of say opening up a coal fired plant when they have the chance? This isn't an issue about having slightly more expensive aerosol containers or refrigerators. This is about finding alternate energy sources for everything we do. Given how increadibly important it is regarding what everyone everywhere does I seriously doubt there's going to be some sort of consensus any time soon! Have you seen the world's abysmal track record? Even if (and that's a massive if) we convince the world to greatly reduce the amount of CO2 it releases there's still going to be enough in the air to warm things up. Ergo, we had better start thinking about what we are going to do about this warmer climate, higher sea levels, and more people. Hence the plans to bring water to dry areas. We're going to need those plans, and many more. For example, all that excavated material for the canals can be put to use for all the dykes we're going to need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 So you accept climate change as reality, and still are Pro-Oil Sands development?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Sure we COULD slow it down but it's not going to happen. Do you really think that poor countries that are living without electricity right now will decide they don't really need it instead of say opening up a coal fired plant when they have the chance? This isn't an issue about having slightly more expensive aerosol containers or refrigerators. This is about finding alternate energy sources for everything we do. Given how increadibly important it is regarding what everyone everywhere does I seriously doubt there's going to be some sort of consensus any time soon! Have you seen the world's abysmal track record? Even if (and that's a massive if) we convince the world to greatly reduce the amount of CO2 it releases there's still going to be enough in the air to warm things up. Ergo, we had better start thinking about what we are going to do about this warmer climate, higher sea levels, and more people. Hence the plans to bring water to dry areas. We're going to need those plans, and many more. For example, all that excavated material for the canals can be put to use for all the dykes we're going to need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonk Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I'm sure heat absorption does play a part as well, but there are other primary external forces such as contrasting ozone depletion and anthropogenic influences that appear to be behind just how much ultraviolet radiation is being allowed to penetrate at different concentrations, at the different poles, which then fits very well with the radiation absorption from the increased surface area of sea water versus sea ice. I agree with you that there is more UV radiation being absorbed at the arctic than the antarctic, however, that has to do with how much sea ice there in relation to the two regions to create those conditions, which seem to be based on how much ozone protection is available for sea ice formation. In fact, according to other reports, the problem in the Antarctic is that it's gaining sea ice, but losing land ice. Quite the paradox. However, what isn't in question any longer, is whether or not, anthropogenic influences are speeding up the changes we're seeing in the ice loss in both areas, and the rapidity of natural change in our planet's climate or its cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 It's probably especially warm in Greenland this year due to La Nina. If they are surprised clearly their models aren't working right or are not keeping track of all the variables. Either way this article makes it seem like the whole thing is melting away. The top layer is melting a bit but will freeze up again soon. The edges are melting a bit faster than normal. It's not the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.