You know...

You know, maybe it's not a lie that humans are responsible for climate change—but maybe it's what the governments are doing, rather than what individuals are driving?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=frwBLtv3EN8
youtube.com/watch?v=JmmyPeGv80g
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

how does thousands of gigatonnes of excess carbon emissions not impact the carbon cycle and the climate? coupled with methane emissions, for example?

why would a giant antenna be considered a more reasonable option?

Butterfly effect, senpai.. Artificially move a warm front higher than normal, begin melting the permafrost, and boom--more methane added into our global ecosystem. Kill off a bunch of monocropped corn fields, due to different-than-normal weather patterns, and boom--more CO2 released from the already high CO2 producing shit-tier soil microorganisms (this shit adds up) of the massive corn fields.

>Artificially move a warm front higher than normal
how?

No shit. Just like the cigarette industry was used to cover up the mass pollution of the large factories back in the day. Cant sue the factory down the block if you get cancer and you smoke ;) Top kek jew trick

>muh butterfly effect
God your stupid.

Electromagnetism of the ionosphere influences weather patterns, including cold and warm fronts, no? It's demonstrative, you know--like when we're hit with peaks of solar radiation--doesn't that affect weather patterns? Well, if we could manipulate the ionosphere some how, then surely....

How could "electromagnetism of the ionosphere" influence weather patterns?

Peaks of electrical activity within the ionosphere positively correlates with substantial weather patterns. That's how it *could*, but of course, correlation ≠ causation.

It's called geoengineering and it's... lmao you don't even know how bad it is.

Spill it! Inside source fucking spill

>Peaks of electrical activity within the ionosphere positively correlates with substantial weather patterns
What do you mean by "peaks of electrical activity"?
How has these peaks been demonstrated to be positively correlated with "substantial weather patterns" (vague)?
How would activity in the ionosphere be able to affect the air and humidity in the atmosphere at much lower altitudes?
How would these peaks be man-made?

Haarp super heats the ionosphere by exciting the ions with more ions. When you heat one of the coldest parts of our atmosphere, you're going to see heating everywhere else.

When you change regions of hot and cold you're going to modify the jet stream. When you modify the jet stream you modify the weather patterns which are moved around by the jet stream.

Pretty fucking simple.

> exciting the ions with more ions
It doesn't work like that user.

No. That is an utterly nonsensical spout of bollocks. Think of disrupting the ionosphere as like gate switching a larger current with a smaller one in a transistor. What you said violates thermodynamics I.e. if I heat small A, big A must get hotter in the same way, which is dumb.

Go on...

Is haarp legit?

Climate change will become just as important for MAGAranians, as anyone, when homeowners insurance goes up another $1000/yr.

Insurance companies base their rates on the ability to predict how much they'll pay out in claims the next year AND make a profit.

When was the last time your rate went down? It hasn't and it won't. It's going to keep rising for at least the next 10 years. You'll think that $1000 increase was a kiss.

So if I put boiling got water in you bath tub you won't feel it? Because thermodynamics.

Real brains out here today

It's all because of Jewish consumer societies and no respect for nature by Jewish religions like Christianity

Carbon can be sequestered. more plants grow with an abundance of atmospheric carbon

>adding a little bit of water to sulphuric acid creates an interesting reaction
>lets dump all of the water in, because maybe it will prevent that reaction!

>super heats the ionosphere
Superheating is what happens to liquids when they are heated above their boiling point without boiling. How is that relevant for the ionosphere?

>exciting the ions with more ions
In what way? How would an antenna add ions to the ionosphere? I thought they were sending or receiving electromagnetic radiation?

>When you heat one of the coldest parts of our atmosphere, you're going to see heating everywhere else.
Not at all. The density and the specific heat capacity of the particles there is extremely low. There isn't a lot of energy that can be stored there, nor transferred from there. How could an antenna specifically target a certain part of the ionosphere? How could it transfer the amounts of energy required?

>The density and
>The density there*
see air pressure

How much energy are you trying to say is required?

Haarp is built to output 3.6million watts, maybe more now that it's under private management. Multiple other sites around the world, some are stronger and less well documented.

Enough to put a fucking temporary hole in the ionosphere.

You seem to underestimate the scale of what they're doing.

Back to your text book!

You didn't answer my questions. I'll try to phrase them in a clearer way.

1. Why did you use the term "superheating"? What did you mean by it?

2. How could "ions be excited by more ions"?

3. How could an antenna "add ions" to the ionosphere?

4. How could an antenna target a specific part of the ionosphere, or even the ionosphere in general?

5. How could an antenna transfer the amount of energy required to heat up an extremely low-pressure area and then have that energy change weather?

>How much energy are you trying to say is required?
Well, the theory is flawed from the beginning so that can't be calculated. But feel free to try your hand at basic heat capacity calculations and see how little change this amount of energy can do. Also, have you ever heard of the inverse-square law?

>Back to your text book!
cease with the ad homs.

Looks like you have put together nearly all the questions you need to figure it out, now go do the research, I'm not your fucking research assistant.

You're pretty high on your education and it's painfully clear from your posts that's it's feeding your confirmation bias.

Cease being an un/intentional shill.

>>humans are responsible for climate change
>>posts submarine communications array

These are very basic questions and can be answered quite quickly.. It's obvious that you don't know the answers to them, hence all the different ad homs. The short answers to them would be:

>1. Because you didn't know the meaning of the term "superheating"
>2. Only if they were carrying a high kinetic energy and then forcibly launched at them, exciting the others. This is not something an antenna can do.
>3. They can't.
>4. It generally can't.
>5. It can't.

You seem to have misunderstood basic physics.
I'd recommend that you study more physics, and then you'll be able to see in what way your understanding and theory is wrong.
In short: there is no rational and empirical basic for HAARP weather manipulation.
I'll let your ego have the last word. Take care

>Superheating is what happens to liquids when they are heated above their boiling point without boiling. How is that relevant for the ionosphere?
Just call it heating if you want. It is scientifically proven as (((effective))).

>In what way? How would an antenna add ions to the ionosphere? I thought they were sending or receiving electromagnetic radiation?
The level of 10 MHz on a power of 960 kW excites precise zones of the ionosphere and the heat is transferred on the earth.

>Not at all. The density and the specific heat capacity of the particles there is extremely low. There isn't a lot of energy that can be stored there, nor transferred from there. How could an antenna specifically target a certain part of the ionosphere? How could it transfer the amounts of energy required?

Heat/excitation is accumulated. Knowing where a low pressure weather zone is heading is like powering a bomb that will release its power in a few hours.

There are videos about it, expecially regarding a huge rain in Mauritius:
>HAARP Weather Modification Spotted coming from Marion island and targeting Mauritius island – 11 dead from floods

youtube.com/watch?v=frwBLtv3EN8

Or:

Italy 6.2M Earthquake "WEAPONIZED HIT" caused by HAARP Activity.
HAARP CLouds images by NASA Sat from Aug 23, 2016, i day before the earthquake.

youtube.com/watch?v=JmmyPeGv80g

>humans are responsible for climate change

that is a lie
it implies that humans are the reason climate changes and that climate never changed before humans
are you fucking retarded?