/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11178293
delete asia and africa
problem solved

>>11178293
Outlaw planes and hamburgers and being white

>>11178293

Why contain it? Let it spill over into the schools and churches. Let the bodies pile up in the streets. In the end, they'll beg us to save them.

>>11178293
>Vote Left-wing politics
>Elect Bernie as president of the USA aka president of the World
>Shame and name every retarded /pol/-right wings politics/humans

Problem solved in less than 4 years.

>mass produce Fission cores for rapid construction of power plants globally
>replace internal combustion engines with electric everywhere it's viable
>convert coal to methane but still limit the use of combustibles

>>11178300
Step 5: enjoy mass starvation and tyranny.

even a very limited nuclear exchange would launch enough particulate matter into the atmosphere to cool is down a couple degrees

just get India and Pakistan to fucking do it already

Seriously, just don't be a retard and don't vote for a fucking republican/conservative/far right

>>11178370
Because we all know how well that is working for California, Chicago, Seattle, and pretty much every Democratic supermajority city or state. Mass homelessness, high cost of living, and the literal resurgence of Medieval era diseases like the bubonic plague.

You do realize that none of the Democratic politicians care about the environment, right? They care about appearing to care. I'm not saying that the right is much better, but to say that the dems have it figured out is beyond stupid.

If you were serious about cutting emissions, then you would be focusing on the countries that output the most emissions per capita. America is near the top in emissions only because of sheer size. Per capita, America is nowhere near the top of the list.

The best thing America can do right now is focus on making clean energy cheaper in general, then spreading that knowledge to the world.

>>11178387
It's always better when it's Left. Always. It's maybe not the best but it's always better than retarded right-wing.

>>11178387
One more thing, the AOC admitted that the Green New Deal was about implementing Socialism, not about taking care of the environment. The democrats are using environmentalism as a buzzword to get what they want. Go to a environmentalist protest in a big city, and you will find it dirtier after the event than before.

>>11178403
The right practically admits to not caring about the environment. At least I know that they aren't lying about it. The dems are using environmentalism as a smokescreen to get their policies passed.

>>11178300
literally this desu

>>11178361
but we need literal genocide anon

commie shit just give us a good excuse to do it

>>11178420
Yeah the right admits to not caring about environment, about people, about economics, about science, about education, about health, etc. And there are retards to vote for them and defend them. Breathtaking.

>>11178420
>practically
they think it is a hoax nigga

>>11178405
>One more thing, the AOC admitted that the Green New Deal was about implementing Socialism, not about taking care of the environment.

Not trying to start an argument or anything but when did she say that?

>>11178300
Bernie has no actual solution for climate change.

>>11178447
never, it's just the retarded trumptards propaganda. You see it when the word "socialism" is used, supposed to scare you lol.

>>11178436
If dems care about people, economics, education, and health so much, then please explain California having massive homelessness, Chicago having insane violence (shootings daily), San Francisco and LA having shit in the streets, all while having some of the (in the minds of the dems) ideal laws to fix those problems. Either the dems care but are incredibly incompetent, or they don't care and you're brainwashed.

>>11178463
https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/

>>11178447
"The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” - Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

>>11178293
>realistically, how do we stop this?

High temperature nuclear breeder reactors used to directly synthetize methane fuel from seawater.

No need for renewables or battery electric vehicles. We had the tech since the 70s.

>>11178472
He said "actual" not make believe nonsense that would never work.

>>11178293

People don't need leadership; they need management.

Solution1. Eliminate half the population. Thanos was on to something...

>>11178472
>phase out of nuclear power

Oh lawd. Your average climate change denying republican would probably do a better job of reducing carbon emissions, purely because they are not anti-nuclear. Jesus fucking Christ.

>>11178293
Third Impact

>>11178293
Hmmm

>>11178494
This. A prime example of the hypocrisy of the left.

>Save the environment and reduce carbon emissions!

>Get rid of our best alternative energy sources because it can't be good for the environment if it is effective!

We don't need to do anything OP. At the rate technology is progressing how solar capacity, battery density and especially fusion experiments are progressing we can all just keep going like we're currently going and it'll all fall in place on its own without giving it any thought.

The people panicking about global warming assume that we'll somehow still have 2019 technology when "shit hits the fan" in reality we'll automatically transition to a green technology out of sheer economic viability as green and nuclear tech is out-competing polluting tech.


>>11178506
>>11178486
>Posting the overpopulation myth again.
It's like you people don't even look at the actual numbers.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

>>11178494

France figured it out in the 90's. Nuclear power. Nowadays we could add some wind and solar into the mix since they're becoming more economically viable.

>>11178293
Why do they measure at Mauna Loa and not where the ice cores came from?

>>11178683
Mainly because it's the longest continuous record of direct measurements. There's tons of other stations around the globe you can check out the data yourself here.
>https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/

>>11178293
how the hell can you be such a brainlet to not understand that all this meme is intended to be leveraged against china? It's just a made up trick to put ah handicap on chinese production, making them pay more than western companies to sell CO2 heavy products. How can you unironically believe that CO2 is man made for real?? If there is money involved, arguing about true or untrue is pointless. It simply is an economical tool.

Honestly, who cares? This society isn't worth saving.

>>11178782
Just wondering, how did you get here? Why would someone like you ever think clicking on the science and math board was a good idea?

>>11178792
>like you
I'm curious, what do you mean with "like you"

>>11178798
the type of person capable of unironically posting >>11178782

>>11178800
I'm quite confident that what I've posted is quite near to reality. Or at least is not more distant than believing that some correlation largely based on indirect measurement and interpolation of historical data can prove something more than, well, correlation it self. If you really think that a literal retarded kid can have such a visibility and impact out of sheer force of being the good one, well, you are a brainlet. This thing is accurately governed with economical ROI as the only goal. It always gets me mad how apparently normal people can be tricked so easily by a well-orchestrated communication campaign.

>>11178811
So back to my question, why would someone like you ever think clicking on the science and math board was a good idea?

>>11178817
>So back to my question, why would someone like you ever think clicking on the science and math board was a good idea?
whatever you mean by "like you" (as you evaded the question), well, this board is quite funny. I see it as a /pol/ with slightly less ((())) and some more numbers. Scientific content is mainly concentrated into OP and 1st-3rd reply, from 4th on the difference wiht /pol/ get thinner. And i like it quite a lot

>>11178387
>Mass homelessness, high cost of living, and the literal resurgence of Medieval era diseases like the bubonic plague.
These are just symptoms of large cities. Large cities are never run by conservatives because metropolitan voters are too intelligent to vote for them. You're confusing the cause for the effect.

>You do realize that none of the Democratic politicians care about the environment, right? They care about appearing to care.
Then how did all the environmental regulations Trump is removing get created?

>America is near the top in emissions only because of sheer size. Per capita, America is nowhere near the top of the list.
LOL, you're delusional. Americans are pigs.

>The best thing America can do right now is focus on making clean energy cheaper in general, then spreading that knowledge to the world.
You mean a carbon tax.

>>11178823
thanks you answered my question, now do you mind if I ask what the highest level of education you've achieved is?

>>11178298
Based and Deuspilled

tax breathing

>>11178293
Just vote for Bernie Sanders. Your life, my life, everybody's life are going to be better with him

>>11178387
Those things are directly or indirectly caused by the ones you shouldn't vote for.

>>11178593
>At the rate technology is progressing how solar capacity, battery density and especially fusion experiments are progressing we can all just keep going like we're currently going and it'll all fall in place on its own without giving it any thought.
What do you mean by "fall into place?" There is already warming in the pipeline from our emissions today. In order to avoid harmful effects we would have to reduce emissions now, not wait for future technology. You don't seem to understand the problem at all. Stopping emissions in the future does not solve the problem.

>>11178470
No one here cares about the people. They're all gonna die sooner or later, why not die as a sardine packed into a 100 sq ft apartment with a view of the 20000sqft properties on the other side of the road?

>>11178831
quite low, I have a bachelor in computer science and a master in interaction design.
The little I know about math and statistics suggests me to think that the models used to support man made global warming are bullshit, and they are based on a inflated scientific consensus, biased by the action of very focused founders to push a political agenda. I recognize that the idea is very good and well designed, in terms of impact and reach over idiots around the world. The carbon tax is pure genius.

>>11178848
interesting, have you ever taken a chemistry class, do you understand what CO2 is, and what produces it?

>>11178849
/thread

>>11178849
>have you ever taken a chemistry class, do you understand what CO2 is, and what produces it?
yes, we produce more CO2 than ever. I agree. Yes it is a greenhouse gas and yes, it makes the atmosphere warmer. Things start to be more complicated now on: if the mechanics is so simple and well understood, I expect we can demonstrate the causality of CO2 for the measured anomalies. But we can't. but wait, we have some correlation! And an entire western economy struggling to keep growing to sustain itself. This green business seems to good to be real isn't it?

>>11178848
you are attempting to signal high status by saying things like "quite low" and then humblebragging about le stem qualifications

what a contrast with your retarded assertion of "increased greenhouse gas emissions from human industrial activity aren't a concern, it's just a political trick used by those in power to maintain hegemony against other superpowers"

pretty amazing juxtaposition there

>>11178826
>These are just symptoms of large cities. Large cities are never run by conservatives because metropolitan voters are too intelligent to vote for them. You're confusing the cause for the effect.

San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston are all in the top 10 largest cities in the country.

Houston is roughly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, and San Antonio and Dallas both have congressional districts roughly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

None of those cities are infamous for gang violence, disease, or literal shit being everywhere. Oh, and all of those cities are in a red state. It's almost as if you have no idea what you are talking about.

>Then how did all the environmental regulations Trump is removing get created?

You're right.

>LOL, you're delusional. Americans are pigs.

0/10 argument. Nobody cares about your opinion.

>You mean a carbon tax.

No, I mean the people who are working on making alternative energy better should continue to do so. How does knowledge = tax stuff?

>>11178875
That's quite a different opinion than is expressed here. >>11178782
To answer your second statement, we can measure the decrease in outgoing long wave radiation which match up exactly with the absorption spectrum of CO2, we have predictions from Exxon Mobil in the 80s which predict current global average temperature increases incredibly accurately. At this point your only argument seems to be climatology isn't easy enough so it must be a global conspiracy.

>>11178297
This.
Eat bugs and pay taxes to change the weather

>>11178293
Don't.
Talk to any climate scientist and they'll tell you the worst thing about climate change is sea levels rising. But sea levels are only predicted to rise a few metres over CENTURIES. All the while, more land becomes temperate and habitable. So there is no mass displacement of people. The sea will get closer to beach front housing by a couple inches every few decades. That's literally it. Any discussion of extinction is moot considering 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct.

It's climate ACTIVISTS that screech endlessly about how the world is burning, all life on the planet will die, etc etc

TL;DR worry about climate change when the billionaires start selling their sea front mansions. Until then, you're fine

>>11178903
you wouldn't know a climate scientist if he beat you to death with a brick.

>>11178882
Correlations again. How come nobody on Hearth can provide Just One single scientific proof?

>>11178908
you mean that measurably decreasing the rate at which heat is lost to space must by definition increase the temperature of the planet? At this point I don't think even you understand what your asking for.

>>11178907
My A-level geography teacher was a massive climate cuck and even he failed to make climate change sound like the disaster the left is so desperate for it to be.

Be wary of anyone who tries you to convince you of one universal evil we must all prevent, it's always just a grab for power

>>11178293

>CO2 rising linearly

It won't stop; it will slow down and reverse in about 800 years when the planet's oceans finally cool down enough to begin reabsorbing it again (yeah, it's a cycle).

In the meantime, the increase in CO2 is actually good because it will help plants grow. More plants, more food. CO2 is not a threat. CO2 is not a pollutant.

It's all natural and humans burning hydrocarbons have virtually no influence compared to natural forces.

Watch the first half of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" for particulars...

>>11178903
>>11178939
You are both liars.

Localized extinctions may not look statistically significant on the scale of all geographic history, but in the present context, they are both incontrovertible and catastrophic. Yes, most species from the past are dead, but only five times in the last billion years have there been extinctions like we're seeing in the past FIFTY YEARS. Statistical consequence is real whether your weak minds can comprehend it or not.

Further, the primary damage in the immediate sense is not sea level rise, as troubling and dangerous as that is (and it is; Miami floods in clear skies now). It is the massive disruption of rainfall patterns that have led portions of Australia and California and Brazil to literally IGNITE, and the destruction of massive carbon sinks that implies, accelerating the process. It is the Siberian and German forests crumbling and the Great Lakes' shores eroding away and the Falkland islands sinking into the sea and the Malay peninsula flooding thanks to disruptions in rainfall, it's snowstorms in Texas and plant life spreading over permafrost in Greenland, NONE of which happen except in the presence of atmospheric and oceanic disruption that sixty years of satellite and aereonautic observation have extensively mapped.
Further, the suggestion that there will be no mass displacement is also a lie. What do you think caused the Syrian war in the first place? A catastrophic drought. A drought worsened by global warming, as evidenced by scientific efforts on the site and by both Syrian and Lebanese authorities before the war started. And that displacement led to hundreds of thousands of migrations that rat fuck trash like you pretend is out of laziness or envy or whatever you're claiming now.
Get out. Science has no place in it for your kind.

>>11178293
We don't let it happen and apart

>>11178949
>Get out. Science has no place in it for your kind.
What is your highest level of education? Because frankly this sentence makes you sound like an undergrad who spends a lot of time on climate subreddits.

>>11178949

Watch the video, study the graphs. If you still can't make sense of simple concepts, then GTFO.

I'm not arguing with your 'alarmist' ilk any more...

>>11178967
your video has been debunked so many times, it's an outright propaganda piece, and please for the love of god, do study the graphs, they expose how full of shit you are.

>>11178949
>snowstorms in Texas

Lol, we wear shorts on Christmas day some years. What are you talking about?

realistically, how do we stop this?

>>11178987
Reminder: this is /sci/, not /pol/.

So, may I suggest you take your 'argument' to where it will bear the kind of 'fruit' you are seeking...

>>11178293
>realistically, how do we stop this?

No first world aid to any African nation until they have a PROVEN record of population control.

>>11179003
>realistically, how do we stop this?
Stop what? The passage of geological time? The occurrence of natural geological forces? Long-term solar cycles?

Seriously, GTFO...

>>11178910
Is It you failing to understand. Nobody can proove that the increase in CO2 Is caused by humans but only that it Is correlated. Everything that proves how CO2 relates to warming adds nothing

>>11178939
Attention all you human-induced, global climate change crybabies:

Deal With It...

>>11179077

>>11178848
>The comp sci major thinks he is a real scientist with any valuable input

>>11178300
You're not right, but you're not wrong either.
So long as the U.S. government isn't 100% behind doing everything it can to fix the problem, the problem won't get solved at all.
So long as so-called """conservatives""" are in power, nothing will be done, at all, ever. They'll just sit back, deny it's all real, meanwhile continue consolidating their money and power, preparing for the day they retreat to their private, self-contained secret compounds, with their own private armies to defend them from the plebian hordes, where they'll wait out The End in comfort and luxury.
So-called """liberals""" aren't all that much better overall than the other side of the aisle, but at least they acknowledge climate change is Real and needs something done about it. Without that nothing else matters.

>>11179077
Why should we continue to burn shit to produce energy when there are cleaner solutions we already know of? The exhaust from burning fossil fuels is toxic as fuck and bad to breathe. There's literally no reason to continue doing it long-term.

>>11178593
Shit started hitting the fan several years ago mate. My country just experienced more extreme bushfires in one week than the combined total of extreme bushfires across it's recorded history.

>>11179689
>Why should we continue to burn shit to produce energy when there are cleaner solutions we already know of? The exhaust from burning fossil fuels is toxic as fuck and bad to breathe. There's literally no reason to continue doing it long-term.

I'm not promoting the continued of use petroleum as a fuel. It's downright primitive, actually.

Trust that in the *very* near future, not only will electric cars be standard but there will be a way to charge them solely with clean energy.

How? Well, one way is continued use of hydroelectric where available. But, if not, then a grid of small-scale, decentralized fusion reactors will be the solution. The patent for such was just recently released to the public. No joke. Look it up.

It signals big changes are just around the corner. Have hope...

>>11178293
Magically make everyone in power care about more than the next two years

>>11179689
>Why should we continue to burn shit to produce energy when there are cleaner solutions we already know of? The exhaust from burning fossil fuels is toxic as fuck and bad to breathe. There's literally no reason to continue doing it long-term.

I'm not promoting the continued use of petroleum as a fuel. It's downright primitive, actually.

Trust that in the *very* near future, not only will electric cars be standard but there will be a way to charge them solely with clean energy.

How? Well, one way is continued use of hydroelectric where available. But, if not, then a grid of small-scale, decentralized fusion reactors will be the solution. The patent for such was just recently released to the public. No joke. Look it up.

It signals big changes are just around the corner. Have hope...

>>11179077
Temperature lags CO2 in that graph because it's a polar ice core sample. During a normal glacial cycle increased solar energy from gradual shifts in the earths orbit cause increases in temperature which melt ice and release greenhouse gasses further increasing warming, if you look at non polar temperature reconstructions, CO2 and temperature increases are exactly aligned. Right now there are no natural forcing contributing to warming, it's only a massive increase in CO2 from human activity, and to the surprise of absolutely no one it's rapidly increasing global temperatures.

>>11178293
1st world: reduce consumption
3rd world: reduce population

1st world protip: do things smarter, and the co2 cutback will be a lot less painful
3rd world protip: women's rights & functioning pension system

>>11179077
>>11179798
CO2 leads and lags temperature, at different stages in the glacial cycle.
https://youtu.be/WLjkLPnIPPw?t=4m44s

>>11179701
Your country should have had a more active prescribed burning program for the past 100 years.

>>11179810

Look: even if everyone in the world stopped burning hydrocarbons tomorrow, CO2 levels would STILL continue to rise -- and for hundreds of years (800, give or take, to be more precise). It's because the oceans are still releasing it as a consequence of warming that occurred ~800 years ago. Fact.

But, in addition to that, all the volcanoes going off at any given time + all the vegetation that's always dying back and returning its CO2 to the atmosphere, absolutely, positively TROUNCE anything produced by human activity. Period. End of argument.

In summary:

1. CO2 has never been a driver of climate change
2. Human production of CO2 is so laughably small compared to natural forces that it would be irrelevant anyway
3. Far and away, the primary greenhouse gas is, by far, WATER VAPOR, which humans also are not responsible for its increase
4. Solar cycles are closely correlated with global temp cycles in the longer term of things
5. I'm tired of arguing with climate-tards. G'nite all.

>>11179701
>(((anecdotal evidence)))
this is a science board, if you want to virtue signal by spreading rumors an innuendo on the internet you should go back to facebook

>>11178387
>America is near the top in emissions only because of sheer size. Per capita, America is nowhere near the top of the list.
utterly wrong, we blow everyone else out of the water per capita. that's why our share of global carbon output is so high even with 5% of the world population

>>11179884
oh go fuck yourself pompous retard

>>11178387
>nowhere near the top
*cough*

>>11179907
it is all fat people farts

>>11179880
>2. Human production of CO2 is so laughably small

Vegetation & Land: 439-450= -11
Ocean: 332-338= -6
-11 + -6 = -17
Humans: +29

Humans are the only contributing factor, you lying shitstain retard

>>11178293
Carbon sequestration, but it is highly energy intensive and doesn't really solve the problem. You need to convert CO2 back into useful resource through something like dry reforming, but the problem there is that water gas shift is an energetically favorable reaction that would take place after the reformation process.

>>11179982
Point is there are a lot of different people working on different ways of solving the problem (such as renewables and the such), and a final solution would probably involve bits of everything. Problem is funding for any energy research that isn't coal in the US by the Department of Energy was slashed like crazy by the current administration, and NSF grants are stupid hard to get lately. Research funding is just down in general, but the energy sector is hit hard because "fundamental research is pointless" for the current administration and "should be done by industry," despite fundamental research being the foundation for any technology developed ever.

>>11178293
As long as we treat this as a political problem and not a scientific one, we can't stop it. We're doomed.

If you are being literal, stop coal-burning plants is how we stop CO2 from increasing ridiculously; planes, trains, and automobiles contribute a significant portion too.

If you are trying to start a global warming thread, there is no unequivocal study that is repeatable that shows as CO2 increases, the temperature of the atmosphere increases.
Correlation =/= causation

>>11178293
fuck the planet, genetically modify plants to survive it

>>11178293
Heat, electrolysis, factory for factories for producing nanotech carbon out of thin air.

>>11178593
There's a good chance that what's already in the pipeline is far more than enough to fuck agricultural yields and thereby bring down civilization. Future tech MIGHT save us if we're really lucky, but CO2 emissions just keep on rising and rising every single year, despite advances so far. We're gonna need massive breakthroughs very very soon.

KILL ALL NIGGERS AND CHINKS

>>11179026
Here you go anon, I've got what you're asking for

>>11179884
Its not anecdotal this is public knowledge
Do you even know what "anecdotal" means?

>>11179682
>be leftie
>own ngos
>receive millions from richfags
>invest 1% in climate change
Nice one breh
>>11179689
Fossil fuel power station exhaust isn`t a problem anymore, a machine can clean the fumes (E.P.)

I won`t talk about one of the main problems (only biochems and biologists know about it) because i`ll use that to get some money

>>11180012
It's physically impossible for it to not be the case, your ignorance can't re write basic physics.

If i was at the top of the pyramid I would nuclear war to reduce world population

>>11179880

>1. CO2 has never been a driver of climate change
completely false, virtually all of climate science directly disputes this idiocy
>2. Human production of CO2 is so laughably small compared to natural forces that it would be irrelevant anyway
We're the only significant contributors currently human activity is responsible for 100% of the increase of atmospheric CO2 to the highest levels in 5 million + years
>3. Far and away, the primary greenhouse gas is, by far, WATER VAPOR, which humans also are not responsible for its increase
water vapor is a feedback mechanism which cannot on it's own cause any temperature changes, CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere which increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. Water vapor amplifies the warming effect of CO2.
>4. Solar cycles are closely correlated with global temp cycles in the longer term of things
TSI and recent warming have been anti correlated. The increased warming from the greenhouse effect has been warming the planet at unprecedented rates even though solar activity has been decreasing throughout the period of most warming.
>5. I'm tired of arguing with climate-tards. G'nite all.
Tired of utterly failing at making an argument because all your points are easily dismantled by anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject.

>>11178293
Decrease the sun’s temp to cease co2 in ice from “evaporating.”

>>11180187
Nice.

>>11178298
And we'll look down, and whisper...

"This is fine."

>>11180330

There isn't enough carbon on this planet to cause the type of Venusian climate change that you and your fellow chicken littles insist is going to inevitably occur. If there was that much available carbon then then our planet never would have been able to establish life to begin with, the Venusian runaway scenario would've already occurred.

>>11180341
Sooo... carbon does exist to you.

>>11180341
The fact you've shifted the goalposts all the way to 400+ degrees of warming is extremely telling.

>>11180349
*Burps*

>>11178910
I'm questioning the base problem. More CO2 = warmer hearth it's ok. Problem is you and nobody else can prove that the human cause. Only some sort of correlation and that's all. Our CO2 production is skyrocketed but remains negligible. Like a fart during a storm. Increase of gas production from your ass during the storm? +4000%. Increase of overall gas moving around during the storm?

We must FEAR the carbon dioxide bogeyman. Who cares if spectral analysis clearly indicates a net cooling from CO2, or that a good explanation for the mechanism of a greenhouse effect which makes a lick of sense to anyone who understands the principal of equal and opposite reaction? It's time. CARBON TAXES FOR ALL (except the tax recipients).

>>11180358
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

I think i understand the issue, you seem to be unable to understand the scale of the problem. 2000 gigatonnes of CO2 has to go somewhere. And we can measure exactly where it went.

>>11180360
>Who cares if spectral analysis clearly indicates a net cooling from CO2
Please provide this, you won't because it's an outright fabrication.

>greenhouse effect which makes a lick of sense to anyone who understands the principal of equal and opposite reaction?
please explain how slowing the rate at which heat transfers out of a system doesn't increase the average temperature of the system. I guess you're just re writing the laws of thermodynamics as you go at this point.

>>11178593
Shit is hitting the fan right now and it's going to get worse. Even if we stopped producing greenhouse gases today the planet will continue to warm for decades because of what we already pumped into the atmosphere. That's what makes this so dangerous: by the time the worst of it hits it will be too late to stop it.

ITT: deniers running around with goalposts like crazy. Do you people even hear how retarded you sound?

>>11180360
based retard

>>11178300
Fuck yall america centric faggots. I fucking despise you. No I'm not asian or african.

>>11178387
>If you were serious about cutting emissions, then you would be focusing on the countries that output the most emissions per capita. America is near the top in emissions only because of sheer size. Per capita, America is nowhere near the top of the list.

these emissions are created bc of american and other colonizer markets. it's our wasteful standard of living that drives demand for imported goods, goods whose production is causing climate change. its like how the US is the no. 1 world consumer of beef while most of said beef comes from brazil and is fueling the destruction of the amazon

>>11178293
Nothing to do. Let it happen.

>>11179682
>meanwhile continue consolidating their money and power, preparing for the day they retreat to their private, self-contained secret compounds, with their own private armies to defend them from the plebian hordes, where they'll wait out The End in comfort and luxury
that's all top players and not just
>"conservatives"
you think clintons or bernie don't have a bunker ready?

>>11178293
>how do we stop this?
You scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, but you didn’t stop to think if you should.

>>11180451
Also to add to that America has some horrible infrastructure and habits like driving huge cars to supermarkets. Partly because in the suburbs there's one in a sea of houses, so you basically have to. And while you can explain some emissions through its size, because transportation costs must be tremendous compared to densely populated countries like Japan or central European ones, urban planning probably plays just as much of a role in it.

>>11178293
lower population of africa by 90%

>>11180517
so the poor get poorer while the rich gets richer? poor africa and india.

>>11178494
I could at least understand a slow, gradual phasing out over decades, keeping nuclear as a baseload for as long as possible. But this retard literally wants to close down every nuclear plant in the 4 years of his presidency.

>>11180577
And African Americans too pls

>>11180698
And Americans
And Asians
And Europeans
Let's just live in a comfy Jintai like world.

LFTR

>>11179014
ouch,
that sounds like slavery with extra steps

How about we all go to the banks and withdraw our money and induce a bank crash. Its not all that far from the next one anyway, so we might as well control this one. But instead of letting the economy break we all keep gojng to work but make a new kind of money, one that rewards time spent doing social work.
Im sure a App would do the trick.
Litterally saving the planet in 5Years max.

>>11180360
>Boomer artstyle

>>11178294
the most underrated post itt
also best post itt
vast majority of all greenhouse gasses are produced by developing nations in asia nad africa
also most of the world's "overcrowding" predictions are based on them
just blast them with some dioweapons and close borders and block international transport from those countries
here we saved the world

>>11179924
facts.

>>11180312
thanks for the input
mr. Rothschild

>>11180312
the only based post here

>>11178826

It's because we have larger houses and cars. Believe me, if you could afford it, you'd have them too.

>>11178826
Urban public schools are shit.

Most "metropolitan" childless liberals were raised in the suburbs or smaller towns by white families.

>>11178293
OP are you there? What did you mean by realistic? Were you serious or just stirring stuff up? I breezed through and It looks like you switched on a homing beacon for retards. When people stare taking individual power, we don't need to change the world. Toss excess packaging at store fronts. Refuse to stop in a 4way when you are the only one there. Figure out how to cook without preheating. These are realistic and never discussed.

>>11180789
>>11178294
What about >>11180451? Lots of shit comes from international trade. You'd basically ruin the other countries in the process.

Ironically enough, I can almost see some green fanatics get to power in a western country and press the nuke button on China. Current climate change movement kinda seems to have a "end justifies the means" attitude and it's becoming pretty extreme. If some of them get into power and China doesn't abide their demands at lowering their emissions, I can almost see it. Although it's unrealistic.

>>11181009
the problem with >>11180451 is that people will always use all aviable to them resourcess
you cant change market top to bottom because wealthy western markets will just find other ways and other countries to exploit

>>11180577
>lower population of africa by 90%
Only 90%? You're being generous.

>>11178293
Fuck with the Y axis

>>11180451
Meming a demand for quality goods can improve things. We are buying $0.99 earbuds each month and not $7.00 every six months.

>>11181246
just switch it to parts per thousand dude

>>11178293
Just tax the polluters at the point of sale. Roll the revenue into renewables.

Create a cabinet level position to monitor it and free the EPA to levy fines and regulate.

>>11178293
Why should we stop it?

>>11178472
>actual solution
>"green new deal"
Look, I understand this is 4chan and therefore it's full of idiots. But if your tested IQ is <90 could you please stay the fuck out of /sci/? I mean isn't there a pony board you could visit?

Unless there is clear-headed, sober, and rational decarbonization now, there will be absolute Ecofascism in the future, and then these retarded /pol/acks will really have something to complain about

>>11181358
yeah good luck
countries that wont be devastated will just close borders and countries that will be will not have any forces left to do anything about it

>>11181273
Just kill all the useless eaters. It's a far more pragmatic solution.

>>11178370
>Don't be a retard
>Trust politics dude, just don't vote conservative and everything'll be great.
I have the feeling you browse sci just for homeworks.

>>11178403
So you don't care about environment, you only care about hating the right.

>>11178436
I don't want to hear that from people that says gender is an spectrum.

>>11178470
The left-wing people don't care, they hate everything they perceive as right wing, that's core of their religious belief.

>>11178403
>>11178420
>>11178436
>>11178293


climatards are dumb

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/06/buffett-says-occidental-petroleum-investment-is-a-bet-on-oil-prices-over-the-long-term.html

>>11180725
Correct however Chinas gonna get to it first unfortunately. Their already investing in protypes and making deals with EU countries to build LFTR's for them

>>11178436
I admit you're full of nonsense.

>>11178403
>>11178420
>>11178436
>>11178293 (OP)

Climatards don't realize the golden age of fossil fuel is upon us

>>11178293
>>11178294
>>11178297
>>11178298
>>11178300
This but instead of Tomoko's mouth juices it's CO2 and instead of a vacuum container it's used to make hydrocarbons from renewable energy like nuclear

>>11181433
I care about environment. Left is always better for environment. Right is always worst.

>>11181691
The greatest of all memes. The right has many farmers and outdoorsmen. The left has rappers.

>>11181700
Amazing how right wing voters will always vote against their own interests as long as you give them a group outside the tribe to hate. It's brainwashing that Orwell himself would call implausible.

>>11181718
Right wing voters are the true retards on Earth. There is no other explanation.

>>11181721
>>11181718

yes, redistribute your tax money to Tyrone is in your best interest goy

>>11181718
how did you know that i'm interested in rappers?

>>11181671
Finally someone with brains

>>11181794
A rational human being would have responded with how the political policies of the right actually somehow benefit nature and those who love the outdoors, and how the left's policies harm them. Instead you deflect by attacking two groups you're told to hate, perfectly illustrating my point. I couldn't have done it better if I had samefagged.

>>11181718
Im not brainwashed and, if you read, you would know that Orwell sucks.

>>11181920

https://socialist-alliance.org/alliance-voices/ecological-disaster-was-ussr-0

>>11181920

most of the left's public infrastructure projects are bad for the environment, like building lots of highways and building high speed rails. Building a high speed rail in California would be like putting an extra 500000 cars on the road.

>>11182102
Yeah, but look at gains you will have from people using it instead of driving cars, after some time it will be beneficial. It's about balancing.
I am no leftist, but trains are actually great.
They can be faster than car, and you can actually work comfortably while riding instead of focusing on driving.

>>11182116

>Yeah, but look at gains you will have from people using it instead of driving cars,

you think transporting people using a 1000kg tube is more energy efficient than transporting people with 1kg tube?


>They can be faster than car, and you can actually work comfortably while riding instead of focusing on driving.

did you not know there's something called bus?

>>11182127
>>>/pol/
Yes it is, because steel on steel resistance is much smaller than tyre on asphalt. Also they experience less air resistance.
Buses are cool, but aren't good for moving a lot of people, also high speed trains are AT LEAST twice as fast. Not to mention trains are usually much more spacious inside than buses.

>>11182066
If the best you can do to defend your party's ecologically disastrous polices is compare them to a defunct totalitarian regime, you should probaly just give up now

>>11182127
Yes, electric high speed rails are far better for the environment by every possible metric than the tens of thousands of ICE vehicles they replace
They can even reduce reliance on domestic flights which is another huge benefit.

>>11181827
I did not. But dems are. I reverse engineer my finger pointing.

>>11182167

ecological disaster is a meme
some people just want to feel self-important, like only they know what's really happening and everyone else is stupid

>>11182469
>it is da joos

>>11178293
>how do we stop this?
stop burning coal, oil and gas + put green plants everywhere
simple as that

>>11178294
here you can see which nations are really responsible

>>11182469
Al Gore made a $500 million dollar profit when he sold he environmentalist cable TV empire to Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is state owned and the state gets all its money from fossil fuel sales so Al Gore made his money directly from fossil fuel profits, something he isn't already unfamiliar with as an Occidental Petroleum heiress. Gore spent some of his well earned money on plastic surgery, but apparently he didn't pick a good surgeon and he looks Chinese now lol

>getting to live out my comfy post-apoc dreams
absolutely based.

>>11180517
this is obviously wrong, every northern nation should bee deep red. e.g. last year Germany got a foretaste with an warm and dry year, almost no wheat and corn was harvested, if it just happens to one rich country this can be fixed with imports and raising food prices, but once global food production suffers everybody will start starving

>>11178300
>Whyte peepo dun did climate change
You fucking mong it's literally just China, India, and the USA. Europe did nothing wrong.

>>11182898
>Europe did nothing wrong.
Over 99.3% of all European forest have been cut down (99.9% if you don't include Russia), virtually all carbon storage on the continent eliminated, not to mention burning up all the coal and oil in the region as well. Europe is solely responsible for the climate catastrophe and expecting other regions to capture carbon while Europe is stubbornly remaining almost entirely deforested is ridiculous. Europe must pay for the crime it has perpetrated on mother Earth

>>11180693
They had it coming

>>11178293
If it were up to me and I managed the world, I'd say let's just see what happens.

>>11178293
Why would you want to stop a net positive phenomemon?

>>11178361
Step -5. Become aware of your psychosis and take your meds.

>>11182775
Imagine the bugs

>>11178826
>Large cities are never run by conservatives because metropolitan voters are too intelligent to vote for them
lmao this is what spoiled yuppies actually believe

>>11178782
You are right. And do we even have proof that CO2 exists?

>>11178293
You don't.
Even if it was true (it's not) then by the alarmists own "science" and predictions there is nothing we could do to stop it. It would make more sense to plan for this future than spend time and money to prevent the unpreventable.

>>11178300
The sad thing is there are people that actually believe that.

>>11178463
he has no solution for anything.

>>11178370
This is what left wing morons actually believe but then again you believe the climate change alarmism so i'm not surprised.

>>11178949
>It is the massive disruption of rainfall patterns that have led portions of Australia and California and Brazil to literally IGNITE,
Califag here. Good friends with a firefighting family (grandfather, father, son). California is not IGNITING due to any disruption of rainfall patterns. It is IGNITING because of bullshit changes in fuel load (forest and brush) management over the last half of the 20th century. California used to do far more controlled burns and set far more fire breaks. California also used to be more serious about enforcing laws regarding brush on private property. And of course there was less private property butted up against massive fuel loads.

AQM now blocks most controlled burns. There are far fewer fire breaks. There are almost no fire breaks set on hill and mountain tops because stripping the top bald "looks ugly OMG my property values!" And there is ZERO enforcement of laws on private property. Builders build homes right next to brush and homeowners don't even bother removing brush that's literally touching their homes. Fucking California isn't even removing brush from around problem power line and railroad areas FFS. My friends talk about this often and the father has gotten spitting mad at the TV news when they blame "muh global warming" for firestorms that are entirely the fault of ignorant fucking people and their ignorant fucking policies.

As for 'muh rainfall patterns' massive continual disruption IS THE PATTERN for the American southwest. California has always had wild swings from massive flooding to droughts. Lookup some of the famous floods in the late 1800's / early 1900's that wiped out entire towns. Or better yet, open a book and spend some time reading about the history of the Salton Sea. The CURRENT sea is man made. That basin has been filled much higher then evaporated dry MANY TIMES and in SHORT TIME PERIODS.

Don't cite Cali fires as "muh proof" of global warming.

>>11181691
Its a bullshit issue there is no such thing as "climate emergancy."

>>11181718
>right wing voters will always vote against their own interests
>>11181721

Actually thats false. Right-wing governments always create the most prosperity.

>>11181718
>left wing voters worry about the environment and climate change
>left wing voters vote to import millions of people who will have much larger carbon footprints and many more children in western nations
>left wing voters vote to export jobs to countries with no pollution controls what so ever
>left wing voters believe a gasoline tax and solar rebate program can offset this shit
>"hurr durr right wing voters vote against their own interests"
You are not serious at all about climate change unless you are against all migration and extremely pro nuclear. And I literally don't want to hear a single fucking word from any leftist who claims to be worried about the Earth yet is pro migration or anti nuclear. You are literally the problem.

>>11180002
Recognized.

>>11181718
Recognized for lack pf recognition. Recalibration in order.

>>11181718
Recognized for no recognition. Recalibration is in order.

>>11178293
We don’t.
Start lifting for war.

>>11178293
literally and figuratively eat the rich.

>>11185509
>left wing voters vote to import millions of people who will have much larger carbon footprints
Fucking huh?

>>11185833
not him but you retarded niggers love to post the co2 per capita charts, but then pretend they don't exist when you vote to import millions of 3rd worlders to the US and other 1st world counties.