/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10766640

>>10755954
>I don't know how that works on atomic level.
This is the part you have to know, by the way. Different gases are better at storing IR (heat) than others, which is why the greenhouse gases (such as CO2, abundantly produced by humans around the world) are the ones we need to cut down on.

Think about how many planes, cars, boats, rockets, and buses actually exist on Earth. Think about how much they get used, every day, and they basically have been since they were invented. For the longest time, we had no idea there was a problem with the waste emissions (or didn't care). That's going to build up. We know that the Earth is normally a slow motherfucker. Ice ages last thousands of years and tectonic plates move one centimetre every year. Glaciers move ever so slowly, as well. The planet usually isn't rushed when it comes to this kind of thing - which is exactly why we believe life could exist here in the first place, because of the right conditions forming ever so gradually over time. The Earth has been around for a long time. This much of a change this quickly cannot simply be "the Earth changing how the Earth changes". It isn't a coincidence that the gas that holds a lot of heat, which is produced as a waste product by 7.5 billion individuals on a large scale every day for decades, is warming the planet's atmosphere. Neither is it a huge leap to then investigate and discover that this has affected the planet's natural climate pattern (since even children know that warm air rises and this is partly the cause of storms). Now that we have overwhelming evidence this is true, why are you so resistant to understanding that?
Warming can positively affect crop growth in some places, but in others, this is detrimental. The only place that benefits from these warming changes are... oh dear.
Russia.

>>10413276
>implying leftists aren't trying to destroy the world by preventing climate change

>>10410360
>africans' lifes are worth less than europesns' lifes
>mfw European crops are going to skyrocket under climate change
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/crops.html

>>9541673
>Bigger crop yields don't mean shit if you lose all your arable land to desertification though.
Central and Northern Europe ins't threatened by desertification unde global warming, many other areas also aren't