Why don't you believe in man made climiate change?

Why don't you believe in man made climiate change?

Attached: saves americans.jpg (1080x809, 159K)

Other urls found in this thread:

rule34.paheal.net/post/view/3005905#search=potato
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States
ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

Because this girl is a retard

"made in china" - all her clothing

I believe.
I just dont think that doing small meaningless things really will change something, other than burden the poorest with greater expenses for energy and companies with stalling development.

If humanity was SO CONCERNED, we should
1. stop buying so much chinese shit. They are biggest polluters. Americans are oblivious how fucking much pollution china, india, russia create.
2. Have some global agreement to rather continue buring fossils, but invest A LOT more in quicker development of green or efficient energy - hydro, nuclear, incl. nuclear fusion, sun panels (they are ok now, but cost and utilisation could be less), wind (really expensive maintenance) and so on. If you clip investments by making current energy sources more expensive, companies who develop green energy will suffer.
3. And finally I think we are actually doing pretty ok for now. Thanks to Tesla half of the World is already eyeing electric cars.
Most manufacures have decent filters. Cars will change into e-cars soon. Forests are in great condition.

In developed countries the problem is actually almost non-existent.
Problem starts with poor countries, and I think rather than giving them tons of money and enriching few corrupt politicians, it is easier to develop technology in the West (euro, usa)/ East (aussie, japs, skorea) and just carefully give it away to the poor.

I think it is rather simple overall. Requires lots of international negotiations. I do not buy into local "green thinking" as in my view it is meaningless on global scale.

Attached: 95f9b740cdbbde8cd507b78e5878086d.jpg (500x300, 24K)

I'm a physicist that works in the energy industry, I have some background in climate change science. This right here is the correct message. In my opinion, Greta, a child, is a very bad way to overcome the problem, sincerely, and most of the times the most worried countries are the ones that are doing the good job.
Besides, nuclear power is always out of the question, but in reality, I'd say it's one of the best solutions. The scientific problem of climate is starting to become a political problem, where rational analysis is turning into irrational social measures, this is the easiest way to do a poor job fixing a real, complex problem that can lead to a global crisis in a century

Who is to say I don't? Maybe I just choose to be quiet about it because I actually want nature to remove half the human race. The planet will only benefit from humans doing anheros.

This. 100 times this.

Because the Jews made it up

checking them trips user

electrical power grids basically run on fossil fuels numbnuts

Humanity as a whole has become increasingly concerned, i.e. over 60% of brits believe in catastrophic climate change now.

But it took a little girl to get there and politicians and fossil fuel industries are not so worried.
All these old, psychopathic near death wealthy men don't give a flying fuck.

>I'm a physicist that works in the energy industry, I have some background in climate change science.
haha, I doubt you need to affirm authority on user board.
I think Greta is ok. Noone really talks about her here. Let the people have their heroes, it won't result in anything much as always.

Attached: vielfrass-3b4b0094-e6b8-4413-b564-7af88c479a54.jpg (1687x1080, 629K)

With climate change in particular I believe it's important to hear honest information from people who actually know what they talk about. I didn't want to sound like a smartass, but the problem is so complex that a certain degree of knowledge is required to fully grasp it. That knowledge is also needed to have a glipse of the solution, many people believe renewable energy sources are key, but in reality, they aren't at the moment (energy storage from them is a problem right now, they're more poluting than they seem, most of them don't give enough energy to even justify a transition, ...)
I don't have a problem giving some visibility to the problem, but we need to focus the effort on the solution, instead of complaining all the time, and true solutions, not just placebo ones
I'll be lurking a bit if anyone has any questions about this topic

Oh it will, its the type of shite the media likes to run with to rile people up. It will be followed with the usual knee jerk reaction that fixes nothing and fucks everyone.

Not concerned enough to reseach where and how their shit is manufactured though.

If you think internet dwellers are a good representation of the actual ideological leanings of population you are wrong.
General public will not read so much and will not care so much, they have their own lives to live.
And we still don't need ALL businessmen to suddenly have a change of heart. We only need a few. USA has excellent list of very influential people - Bufett, Gates etc.- actually doing A LOT more than any NGO/ government/ political structure ever did.
I think if you capture attention of the brains, bodies will follow.

Attached: waardenburg-syndrome-in-ferrets-5371fce614cc9.jpg (1280x853, 76K)

what do you chose:
solar or wind?
>Solar city (is it even operational?) should show example. Havent heard anything new other than attempts to build more.
or shitty, but still a dyson's sphere? lel

Attached: 140685383022.png (314x329, 145K)

Would it matter if I did? Would it make any difference if I, one single person out or billions, went full hippie mode? Isn't the Earth fucked anyway according to environmentalist scientists?

Ok Thanos.

solar is more efficient than wind, but also, more contaminant, both are really bad options that depend on the climate itself. I'd say (from research) that solar has the better potential, but I insist, they are not reliable energy sources
A dyson sphere will never be built
Solar city can be a reality, but will still require fossil fuels, and the cost can make it not worth it. It can be a good option in places near the equator, but still, fossil fuel needed
Nuclear power is the best option in my opinion, thorium fuel (thorium is a fertile, not a fissile) is safe, cheaper, more powerful than other fuels, and waste can be recycled... and thorium can't be used in wars. Nuclear is totally clean, the steam you see from nuclear plants is actually water, literally
Renewable plants that are better than solar or wind are hydro and geothermal, the first requires rivers and uses gravity, and the second requires specific geological points, both are very efficient and can provide a steady supply, but are scarce

the man made component is a small part of the whole story, magnetic pole reversal is another part. as are long term solar cycles, and other space weather factors.
so there.

>A dyson sphere will never be built
You, sir, hush your face!

Attached: 4111cdcd9c3bfd3dd874675998e17ade.jpg (1856x1000, 228K)

assburgers with a touch of syndrome

Attached: 1567774338734.gif (250x250, 993K)

You don't know what you're talking about. We (scientists) take all of that into consideration and more. Man made climate change is a fact whether you incels want to accept it or not.

you're not a science you larping fagtard

I know! Dyson spheres are cool but... they're just a beautiful idea, nothing more :(

Because "men" aren't responsible for global warming, WOMEN are.

Why don't you believe in downs syndrome?

Magnetic pole reversal (it's called geomagnetic reversal) don't have enough influence to change the climate in such a way (we're talking 1 celsius degree in 20 years), and most of the times it can be ignored (the effect is minimal), those periods are called chrons btw.
Much more important in climate are solar cycles, both orbital variations and solar activity, and while it's true that those affect a lot the earths climate, they don't explain the climate change (by a long shot in fact). Milanković cycles, that make changes in earths orbits, can make oscilations of 7% at most (in temperature), these are usually called mini-ice ages or mini-glatiations, and mini-greenhouse ages. These changes (including solar activity, that can have an influence of 1% at most, and those ever last for more than a week) require waaaay more than 20 years, and in fact, we should be in a mini-glatiation right now, but instead, there's a +1º C in 20 years
The only thing that explains the difference is man made, there's like 40-50 different sources (sea temperature, algae concentrations, greenhouse gasses concentrations, climate temperature, gas density by atmospheric zone, ice surface measurements, C14 measurements of trapped air, differences in plant maduration (and animal too), wind speed and cloud density, satelite measurements of black body radiation, satelite measurements of typhons and storms, tidal measurements and water level risings, ...), they all match, consistently, in any part of the globe, and they all match in every year
The evidence is there, it is true that most of climate change is natural, but the part that isn't is almost exactly the part that is responsible of the problem, and in fact, is a way worse problem than it seems

Because it's more apparent now than ever that corporate influence is ruining legislation.

You stay that till one day a bunch of space aliens turn up and bulldoze the planet to gentrify this part of the galaxy.

Is there rule 34 of Greta yet?

Attached: 1404803602066.jpg (524x542, 70K)

Well.. they'd need to bulldoze several planets to build that Dyson sphere, wish them luck tho!
BTW, if they have the energy to come here in the first place, chances are they don't need a Dyson sphere, they can probably make several suns if they want to (and we better pray they are chill and cool, because if they don't like us, well.. it won't be pretty)

suit yourself
rule34.paheal.net/post/view/3005905#search=potato

kek

Climate change is real but China and India are the real culprits

Attached: 1566338286727.png (3000x2100, 392K)

Attached: 1570583520899.jpg (679x960, 80K)

lmao no they aren't. their per capita CO2 emissions are far, far lower than the US

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States

For now the energy produced by fossil fuels, gas and coal basically, are about 62%. Coal is on a sharp decline, in part because natural gas is expanding and it IS cleaner than coal by a bit, but renewable energy is expanding quite fast. It won't be long before renewables pass the 50% mark, and it'll only take up more of the energy generation market even faster.

Attached: 1920px-US_Electricity_by_type.png (1920x756, 282K)

I think it's funny that people leave that out of the equation. Sure, by volume China produces more greenhouse gas, but per person they produce 6.4 metric tons compared to our 15 metric tons. Also, US is the second place country, but they try to say that China and India are the 'only' troublemakers.

ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

Attached: 2016 Country Emissions Percentages GTC02_0.jpg (1200x835, 241K)

Are there r34 of her? Asking for a friend and again I'm no pedo

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you harassing a fucking child, a female child at that. A majority of scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is a man made phenomenon. Stop over populating the fucking planet, over using resources, burning shit, polluting shit and we wouldnt have climate change. Gengis khan did it best at restoring nature by killing his enemies and forests started growing back. Im sure the fucking whales are throwing plastics into the fucking oceans into building floating islands. The correlation between the rise of co2 during the industrial revolution til now is very striking. Using common sense, you really think that burning fuel is ok to the environment or atmosphere? How did the fuel get to your car? It had to be drilled and manufactured which required more energy. How was the fuel produced? With the energy provided by the sun that powered the plants/animals from millions of years ago compounded by the fact that it took millions of years the decomposition of organic matter into fuel. Matter cannot be destroyed or created. Burning this releases the stored energy. Where does it go? Into the air. Same thing with wood, made mostly of co2, when you burn this stored energy it is releases into the air. The very thinf that is causing the green house effect. Its quite funny that the energy sector would do whatever it takes to shut down the naysayer from what they are profiting from. Anyone believing anything else has been brainwashed and whitewashed by these greedy corporate sectors and 'their' scientists.

All European and North American countries have a birth rate below 2.1, which means that without immigration their populations are decreasing. If you want to do something to lower pollution, why don't we tell the Africans to stop breeding? Their population is projected to quadruple in size by the end of this century. We're doing our part to save the environment, why aren't they?

Im saying 'we' in a general sense of everyone in the entire planet is being over populated, over use of resources, and throwing shit everywhere. I never mentions US/europe. Our generation dont really fucking care about this situation tbh. Politicians are passing the buck to the ppl 100-200 years from now to fix our environmental and social issues.

This

I believe in man made climiate change.
I just wanna see Greta die

Because I am a retarded Americunt, like our president.

who the hell is this guy and why is he constantly pissed off?

HurrDurr Jyna Bad!

Most of that pollution is coming from factories that produce the electronics that you're currently shitposting on. If China shut down all those factories today, you would still buy your toys from somebody else. Then that new manufacturer would end pumping out the pollution now instead of China. Stop being fucking retarded.

Jyna Bad!

I forget where I head this but it made really good sense. If man made climate was real and as catastrophic as everyone thinks. All the big banks would have already stopped investing in coastal real estate. Just follow the money and that's exactly how you also see that this is just a scam to institute a carbon tax.

That whole argument is predicated on the assumption that humans are logical beings, which is obviously not true.

>Noone really talks about her here.

Nigga, you high.

because i dont get influence by down syndrome people
especially not when they cry and mumble shit like this one

>Why?

1 Don't listen to children
2 I don't give a fuck.
Fuck that ugly bitch

nigga be lookin like a skyrim child

i fail to see how atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (which have been rapidly decreasing for the last 100 million years) could contribute to global warming...

I only believe in woman made climate change. You want people to stop using takeaway containers and straws...get back to kitchen.

Because the sun is infinitely more powerful than humanity and thinking CO2 is a catalyst for climate change is just retarded.
Also these retards think more white clouds means more heat, they've had it exactly backwards this whole time.

Attached: space weather climate forcing.png (1216x631, 320K)

because I prefer not to belive things in generall as they then tend to be bullshit. Also not interested in doomsdaycults.

Look a retard

It doesn't even need to be a full reversal. It was recently discovered that the poles even more frequently do what's called an excursion. Where the magnetic poles wander toward the equator and then snap back to the geographic poles.

Attached: magnetic pole shift.png (401x599, 134K)

The dyson sphere nonsense also presumes stars are nuclear fusion reactors. The corona is so much hotter than the surface but we're supposed to believe that all that energy is radiating from the center of the star. Sunspots are even cooler and they're an opening into the star.

I'll try to explain as simple as I can, the two basic atmospheric effects are albedo and greenhouse effect.
When the sun rays (heat) reach the earth, some of it is reflected back, never entering the planet, this is the albedo, and white clouds, white snow and certain parameters are the cause of it. The part that do pass, is then reflected from the ground, making the earth heat up, and then, the reflected portion goes again into space, but after it manages to go out, some gasses refflect it again back into de earth, this is called greenhouse effect. The more greenhouse effect, more heat will be inside a planet, because those rays that try to escape the planet will have it difficult. The main gas that causes greenhouse effect is water, and after that, carbon dioxide, there two are the more common (I'm talking about concentrations), but not the only ones. The problem with carbon dioxide is that it is far more effective than watter, so smaller concentrations will cause a lot of greenhouse effect, but there are even worst gasses, some of them are forbidden.
The problem with carbon dioxide is multiple, I'll try to explain why with only a couple of parameters. Water is the main greenhouse gas (the most present), but not only carbon dioxide is worst, it also raises the levels of water, and destroys albedo. The more carbon dioxide there is, the hotter the planet will be, making white ice dissapear, making albedo to go down, remember that albedo is the shield that prevents some rays from entering the planet. There's another cycle, as water is hotter, it will evaporate more, making water concentration in the atmosphere greater, creating even more greenhouse effect, reinforcing all I've described. A secondary effect of carbon dioxide levels is acid rain, carbon dioxide + water creates carbonic acid, this isn't just bad as it is, the worst of it is that it decreases the pH of sea water (it makes it more acidic), so not only hotter sea watter, but also more acid

I see you are a man of culture!

Still, many more years needed and the effect is way smaller than what is observed. I'm not saying it's a non factor, it is, but it is so small that it doesn't even start to explain a tiny fraction of the problem nowadays, let alone the problem in a century (+4º C expected, if we are being conservative with the modelations)

I'm no pedo user I'm serial

Attached: 3084421 - Greta_Tintin_Eleonora_Ernman_Thunberg Thunberg politics.png (640x726, 767K)

there was no space left, I wanted to say that carbon dioxide doesn't contribute to white clouds, so it also makes it difficult for albedo, and there are another problems related, like absorption and some geographical cycles

TLDR: Venus

A politician's favorite thing: an invented problem with no actual solution other than government.

yup, pretty much (minus the pressure thing, we still can't explain reliably why venus has that much pressure in it's lower atmosphere)

Consider this. The earth's jet streams are held in place by the magnetic field. If the field weakens the jet streams are able to overspill their banks, as it were, and flow in an unpredictable and exaggerated manner.

Attached: earth jetstream.jpg (1908x919, 200K)

Venus' clouds are what color? Now what color are Earth's clouds?

Hurr Durr what happens when there's too much sulfur dioxide. Go read a goddamn book instead of asking retarded questions.

not a real argument, you wear the same chinaworkslave clothing

This. The climate changes, but rate is so slow that no one will notice it in a lifetime. People talking about "it was not as hot when I was a kid" are full of shit unless they have some magical power to be able to feel the difference between fractions of a degree. The climate is more likely to see significant change from a large asteroid impact in the next 100,000 years than it is from the liberal doomsday fantasy of waking up to find the oceans 20 feet higher and boiling.

>ruined her childhood

this wouldn't hold for more than mere seconds in a global scale, while it is true that those kind of spikes can happen (and probably do happen), solar wind makes the ionosphere polarize those "weak spots", so yeah, there's a statistical entropy that can happen, but in the end the entire system is not affected that much by those spykes. As I say, it can explain a certain degree (and it does), but it is so small and it needs some extreme situations (specially time) in order to produce a significant change. There are models about this tho, and it is a factor that needs to be considered, but still, most of the change is due to carbon dioxide concentrations, that develop other kind of effects, making a chain reaction. I repeat, what you describe CAN (and we don't know to what degree it does) affect the system, but in the best case scenario, it doesn't ammount that much, and can't explain successfully the problem

You seem well informed, I'll cite the solar wind and ionosphere interaction so you can see it by yourself:
Glassmeier, Karl-Heinz; Vogt, Joachim (29 May 2010). "Magnetic Polarity Transitions and Biospheric Effects". Space Science Reviews. 155 (1–4): 387–410

man made climate change has nothing to do with "believing" you retard it's a fact.

>Noone really talks about her

Do you even come here often everyday there is at least 2 thread on Greta i learned about her because of Sup Forums

>man made climate change has nothing to do with "believing" you retard it's a fact.

Where the belief comes in is when we ask the question of what degree does man contribute to climate change. One side says minimal. One side says we will make the planet uninhabitable in the next x years, with the goalposts constantly being moved back as we reach x year and nothing happens.

Attached: thunweiserb.jpg (2750x1540, 776K)