Global Warmimg?
- Home
- Board: /pol/ - Politically Incorrect
- Reading: Global Warmimg?
Is it real, is it not real?
Is it happening, is it not happening?
Discuss...
Lol k, fuck you guys.
>>70029980
Rare.
Climate change is real. Not an issue. Pollution is an issue. Climate change rhetoric is pushed to keep countries underdeveloped which leads to pollution. Anyone who blindly believes in Global Warming is racist.
>>70029980
Even though climate change is disputed because temperature levels are rising at a natural rate. There is a lot of evidence supporting that high CO2 omissions from human activity play a major role.
Pollution is also a very serious issue and you think someone from the Faroe islands would understand that, after all. Half your fish and whale population is contaminated with mercury and lead as a result from pollultion
There is no debate about whether there's global warming. Global warming is a fact.
Question is whether it is natural or man-influenced.
According to most of academia it is man-influenced. Humans produce the excess CO2 outside of natural cycle and it doesn't get removed.
Think of it as a straw that broke camel's back.
>>70029980
Go nuclear, then who cares?
The whole thing is drummed up by the energy industry, big oil, and coal to distract people from the fact that nuclear energy would literally annihilate their jewish profits.
Normal uranium reactors are around 40,000 times more powerful than standard combustion (in joules/gram).
Thorium reactor output is 7,000,000 times more powerful than combustion(in joules/gram).
Don't have the numbers for fusion, but it's probably greater than both of them.
Wind and solar aren't even close to combustion, so why the hell would anyone seriously use them?
>>70031792
this
>>70031792
>Question is whether it is natural or man-influenced.
Kill yourself, you fucking moron,
Did all /pol/ tards skip science at school?
>>70032198
I didn't mean to say global warming can't happen naturally, I'm just talking about this cycle.
Of course not you dummy.
It is a hoax created by CHI-NAH!
>t. Trump
>>70032425
>I'm big on nuclear
t. trump
Every other candidate is afraid of nuclear power. Or jewish. In the case of sanders, both.
>>70032079
People are so anti-nuclear without bothering to consider the fact that safety procedures advanced a lot.
Nuclear power is the future, but I wouldn't discard solar either. Wind is kinda of a meme, true.
yes its real
both cause it
Anthropogenic climate change is a fucking hoax.
dont bother hitting me with the concensus among scientists meme
it used to be called global warming then when that didnt actually happen they panicked and re named it climate change
do they seriously think the suns temperature or earths orbit are eternally constant and never fluctuate?
if the sun got switched of rn we would plummet to absolute 0, so dont try to convince me a 1-2c rise over a period of decades is because of the big bad plant food particles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBLVlVlO254
>>70032673
Solar plants might work in large open spaces, like the Midwest or Australia, or space itself, but it isn't really valid to power, say a city. It takes up too much space for too little reward.
Although, it is perfectly valid on a smaller scale, say with home mounted panels.
>>70029980
Its a scam, they're trying to literally tax people for breathing.
>>70031588
the focus should be on pollution.
GET THE DAMN PLASTIC OUT OF THE OCEAN BEFORE YOU TELL ME i SHOULD SWITCH OFF THE LIGHT WHEN I LEAVE THE ROOM AND DRIVE A TESLA FAG MOBILE
>>70029980
Considering how many leftists want to punish people for questioning it, I'm going to say fake.
>>70029980
Human-caused climate change is 100% real, and anybody on here who says otherwise are being edgy contrarians
>>70029980
We can prove conclusively that we released x amount of co2 and its warming the atmosphere. We know roughly how many billions of tons weve released since the industrial revolution and we know how much the oceans have sequesterd (the carbon footprint is from fossil fuel sources - nuclear decay proces it)
So it is real and we are causing it but to what extent is the question.
Its also absurd that we outsource oyr emissions to china and then make them sign co2 output pacts , the tgird wirld is right to be pissed.
>>70032863
I agree.
>>70032809
Why are you people so stubborn and contrarian?
Look, even if global warming isn't man-made, there are even more pressing concerns about health effects of fossil fuel burning.
There is literally no reason to not drop fossil fuels and go nuclear/solar, besides lobbies buttressed by useful idiots like you.
Also, reason why scientists claim that this cycle is man-made is because temperatures started increasing at the same time industrialization happened.
>>70032809
Ao explain how like 400 billion tons of carboxic acid was added to the oceans that just happens to have radioactive decay indicating its co2 origin was fossil fuels? Explain that to me mister tinfoil
Is it possible to make global freezing happen? If weather here were three degrees colder life would be great.
>>70032998
>if leftists support something it means it's bad
As I said, contrarian idiots who want to feel special.
>>70033177
lobbies buttressed by idiot geography MSc students like myself who have actually studies this garbage at an academic level/
if you want to base a conclusion on a graph that spans 0.01% of geological time then be my guess fool.
back to your sociology class
>IF YOU DONT BELIEVE CLIMATE CHANGE THEN YOUR AN IDIOT!
serious red flags shhould be waved at any junk statements like that
same as fucking holocaust denial being illegal, I wonder why it has to be illegal
lol I thought /pol was Redpill not bluepill cucks in the green movements pockets
>>70033275
it's early spring here and it was like -3 Celsius today. we're not even that far north (New York). climate change pushing all that arctic air south
feelsgoodnigga
>>70033275
>Is it possible to make global freezing happen?
Sure.
It'll be a bit trial and error but it's definitely possible.
>>70033362
>>70033547
>climate change
>le sociology
>le bluepill
>le holohoax
Climate change (or global warming) is not even debated dummy. Global warming is an objective fact.
What's debated is whether it is anthropogenic.
Global warming is real, although man's impact is very small on the grand scale.
Every GW fanatic's claims have all been debunked.
>>70032990
>GET THE DAMN PLASTIC OUT OF THE OCEAN
I actually volunteer my time to pick up trash in the gulf of mexico
>i SHOULD SWITCH OFF THE LIGHT WHEN I LEAVE THE ROOM
you should already be doing this if you want to be smart with your energy bil
>>70033722
I think it would be as easy as pumping a lot of thick chemicals into the air to give a permanent "smog" but why you'd want to freeze the earth is beyond me. Plants and animals love the heat.
>>70033872
>very small
Very small is enough buddy. I suggest you read the basics and understand how it works.
Man is not the biggest CO2 producer, but what we produce is what's tipping the scale, because nature can't remove it, balance is broken.
>>70033547
Big Oil and Coal as well as the energy jews fund both sides m8.
The energy industry is especially dangerous, considering these are the people who when the US government said, "Our energy grids are extremely vulnerable to terrorism. A few small teams of terrorists who knew what they were doing could knock the country back to the stone age", replied, "Give us money." Then they took the money, without fixing the infrastructure, because "it would hurt their temporary profits."
Then they set back science for years with all the bullshit anti-nuclear propaganda.
Unlike you cunts, I don't enjoy the taste of kike dick.
>>70033783
because climate change has and always will occur,
you greencucks seem to thing the world should remain in eternal equilibrium
it used to be far hotter than it is now and that was before people
BTFO
>>70029980
If it does exist, then it's a less urgent problem than White extinction.
>>70034171
>because climate change has and always will occur
No one is really denying that.
>you greencucks seem to thing the world should remain in eternal equilibrium
World does remain in equilibrium, of course depending on what time-scale are we talking about.
>it used to be far hotter
Yes, but point is this cycle was caused by humans.
>greencucks
What exactly is wrong with thinking about how to preserve nature?
Dude, you're anonymous here, you won't score points by acting ''manly'' and shitting on electric cars and ecology.
>>70034006
Well it's probably a bit harder than that since we gotta take into account the long term effects of these chemicals too, but that's generally the gist of it.
>but why you'd want to freeze the earth is beyond me.
Snow is pretty.
>>70032809
Well technically speaking it is basically a constant. Because of our large mass and the distance from the sun, a couple of miles either way wouldn't make a difference. And that's the most the earth could ever possibly move (and even that notion is ridiculous) as our velocity will stay constant because of gravitational effects, energy cannot just disappear, so wanna explain to me where we are transferring our velocity?
Lol at anyone thinking rising CO2 levels are going to lead to impending catastrophe
Historical CO2 data shows levels as high as 7000 ppm in the atmosphere, while the current levels are around 400 ppm
More CO2 is also extremely beneficial to increased plant life and diversity
>>70034815
>Historical CO2 data
From when exactly?
>impending catastrophe
It's inevitable. You don't know what you're talking about. You like your buddies are relying on being loud and ridiculing others.
You and leftists (in Western sense) are just two sides of the same coin. Fucking cancer.
>>70034375
>this cycle was caused by humans
you know that for a fact do you? don't be so arrogant
>protect species that should go extinct anyway
sorry mr Jew shill, not drinking the kool aid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFJKBgDu1LY
>>70034815
you are correct ignore the green peace shill
>>70034960
no, you don't know what your talking about with your fucking Wikipedia research, i've spent 4 years studying this and I still don't buy it, leonardo.
>>70034145
>more nuclear energy
>less agriculture
problem solved
>>70032079
Assuming a 50/50 deuterium-tritium fuel in a tokamak you get energy density of around 2,57*10^18 J/g
Google gives coal an energy density of 33 J/g so it'd be about 78,000,000,000,000,000 fold increase
Though I don't think fusion will be viable even if ITER ends up igniting.
With the shitty power cables still used for power transfer you'd either get stupidly high transfer losses unless you pile an entire country's worth of industry in some kind of a 40k-style hive blob
