refute this drumpftards

>>127887808

They can't do science and just believe whatever they want

>>127887808
>earth
>round
um no sweetie the earth is flat and since the heat just bounces off rather than float around like it does with a globe, global warming isnt real, what's happening is actually flatal warming :)

>>127887808
It's a theory that hasn't been proven. Not even those who argue for it has evidence that, that's what's happening
Until that happens I may as well make a theory that dwarves from neverland are causing global warming and I'd be just as correct.

>>127887808
Now is it possible that less heat can escape, but the same amount of heat can enter? Shit pic.

Well we enhanced it, so it must be good.

File: CleanEnergyCartoon.jpg (74KB, 564x377px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 564x377px

>>127887808
My country is full of retards. You're wasting your breath mr.toothpaste. it's a sad day for Mother Gaia.

>>127888644
Nuclear power plants don't do that.

They are actually one of the safest sources of power.

>>127888454
>Muh theory

So you clearly don't know what a scientific theory is.

>>127887808
>binary infographic
>science

pick one

>>127888926
What do you do with the nuclear waste?

Everyone hear agrees man made global warming is a thing. we are against giving algore carbon taxes. Id rather invest the money in green energy projects.

>>127887808
fuck off climate nigger

>>127889332
Bury it in the ground.

Well, if the science is settled, surely they've made accurate models that can reliably predict climate trends. Wait, all of their climate models failed to predict the actual climate trend and instead extremely over-exaggerated warming and even used temperature data revised upwards to fit their models instead of raw data? So it's not settled, it's bullshit!

>>127889622
This

>>127889332
put it here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

however current plants are old designs from the sixties. more modern designs produce far less waste, so there won't be as much waste to begin with.

File: ohno.jpg (90KB, 1195x900px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1195x900px

Does it never bother anyone how negative everything and everyone always is on /pol/

Is this site a breeding ground for depression? Can't you cunts come up with something nice to say for a change?

>>127889332
use one of elon musks rocket to fire it up to the sun

>>127888926
They are the safest. Even compared to solar power. Solar has 4 deaths to every one nuclear death

>>127889806
its the nihilism u experience after getting red/black pilled and feeling tht the earth is a meaningless place. Lurk more, and youll find urself like everyone else here.

>>127888926
Tell that to Japan

>>127888926
Safest and cleanest. If (((climate scientists))) wanted to be taken seriously they'd be furiously demanding nuclear.

>>127889806
It would be nice if everyone who annoys me perished in a ball of green flame.

>>127887808
obviously bait but... please compute the expected increase of temperature if you burn all the fossil fuel available on planet earth, from greenhouse effect alone (the only part of climate science that is sound), discounting the alleged positive feedback from water vapor.

The result will surprise you.

>>127887808
implying we care.

File: deebly_goncerned.jpg (33KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x500px

>>127887808
h-holy shib, the image on the right is so red? What do we do?!

>>127887808
Turns out "less heat escapes into space" models were BTFO by reality, where "more heat escapes into space", as hot air rises.

Who knew.

>>127889806

Not when you keep posting homicidally stupid shit.

Control your population to extinction before you try to genocide mine.

File: IMG_0801.jpg (332KB, 1242x1799px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1242x1799px

>>127887808
If that pic is true, then why don't these two current maps correlate?

1/2

>>127887808
Its happening no matter what we do at this point. Its being pushed so as to prevent any industrialised countries sending money to developing countries.

Batteries, wind turbines and electric cars are all made in the west.

File: IMG_0802.jpg (384KB, 1242x1814px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1242x1814px

>>127890933

2/2

>>127888951
I honestly think you have no fucking clue about what the scientific method is just by the way you approach this whole thing.

>>127888926
This. It fucking infuriates me to see nuclear put next to the likes of coal and oil.

>>127890995
I should add, just in case its not clear, that there are still considerable oil and gas reserves in developing countries. Nigeria and Venezuala being good examples.

If they have our money (because we are buying fossil fuels) all the young people, all the cheap labour and all the energy they can ever need, what will happen to western manufacturing?

It will move away from the west.

I hope global warming irreversible and real. We need another mass famine.

>>127891343
If Africa and South america become more arid, we will just sell them food in return for minerals.

>>127887808
prove it right

File: IMG_7452.jpg (1000KB, 2706x1944px) Image search: [Google]

1000KB, 2706x1944px

>>127887808

so why decreasing temps though?

should be one way - up..

trend is down.

also- no one gets funding to study the NATURAL bases for ongoing Climate changes

>>127888155
It appears you can science really well, anon

>>127890040
Wind has big blades that can chop people up. Basically that is more likely. Also you can fall off a roof installing solar.

>>127891115
Maybe you shouldn't be looking at carbon dioxide levels only on the surface? And maybe you should add the effect of sea currents as well? Sweden is much warmer than alaska despite being on the same latitude for a reason. Maybe you shouldn't just be looking at a snap shot where cloud coverage has a much bigger effect than greenhouse gasses?

Guy we gonna grow as big as Dianosores and shit.

>>127891787
Only 12% of the population actually have a graduate degree. Most of the "muh Science" whinner have no fucking clue about most of what they say, they just parrot pop scientist and globalist bs.

>>127888951
The only thing there is tangible proof of is an increase in anthropogenic-derived atmospheric co2. There is no tangible proof as to what the implications are because this is a historical first for humans. The earth has seen co2 3-4x higher than what it currently is and well, life is still here.

There is no ocean acidification, there is no crazy pH shift in lakes and seas, the sky is not falling. Biota will generate more stomata to uptake the additional co2 and we will see a global greening like no other.

If anything, retards need to keep an eye on methane emissions.

The second picture assumes the same amount of radiation makes it to the earth's surface from the sun, when it should be reflected back into space by the increased co2 in upper atmosphere.

File: 1__.png (377KB, 600x574px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 600x574px

>>127889332
>What do you do with the nuclear waste?

You put it in another type of reactor designed to recycle nuclear fuel...

>>127890040
total Fukushima radiation deaths : 0 and counting

The incoming radiation >>> than the radiation re-radiated by earth. What is able to escape into space from the earth is less, but much, much less is getting to earth in the first place.

In a few more years (new generation of kids) they will factor this into their theories and begin telling us how we must change our lives to avoid becoming an ice planet like Hoth.

>>127890040
Tell Japan not to put a mountain reactor near the ocean.

>>127892167
Wind turbines have a history of bursting into flames or exploding.

They have done this before. Someone should ask NASA scientists how they are able to predict planets light years away of being hospitable without knowing the exact composition of gases in the atmosphere.

>>127893493
And yet an entire area of land and water is contaminated for decade. I think Japan would rather have a single death

>>127889332
Why don't we just drop it on our enemies?

File: 1496173716406.jpg (51KB, 640x417px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x417px

>>127887808

>>127892799
>No ocean acidification

So what do you think is happening to the barrier reef right now?

My crazy theory is that after billions of years the biggest factor in a planet's temperature is the distance to nearest stars. It seems to roughly fit data from our solar system.

>>127888926
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjM9E6d42-M
what do you think of this? Not against nuclear power but what about Thorium?

>>127891523
That image is a known fake and the "climatologists" are climate change deniers without real or meaningful qualifications.

Cliff Harris worked in insurance and is now a retired whacko somewhere in Montana. Randy Mann was a weatherman at local TV and radio channels all his life.

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/General%20Chat/2011-12-20-Climatologist_%20-%20Cliff%20Harris.html

File: NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif (23KB, 500x257px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x257px

>>127891523
>no scaled y-axis
come on now, if climate scientists would show up with that graph you people would laugh them out of the country, and rightly so.

here's what an actual quantitative temperature reconstruction looks like (in this case for the Northern Hemisphere)

p.s. temps aren't falling, they're rising at a statistically significant rate

>>127895254
Venus is hotter than mercury despite latter being closer.

>>127895126
amateur climatology of the worst kind

>>127891523
>"warm"
>"cold"
>"very cold"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It is fun to extrapolate fake reports and sensationalized science now. According to them we are doomed, unless the first world "pays" the third world not to develop. Each round of sensationalized stories has to up the ante so be on the look out for when you can extrapolate what they are saying to show extinction of all life no matter what. That is sign they will be switching to coming ice age alarmism.

>>127887808
Why don't greenhouse gasses deflect solar radiation as it enters the atmosphere?

File: pirates_vs_global_warming.png (52KB, 480x359px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 480x359px

Global warming is correlated by lack of high seas piracy.

We need more pirates.

File: co2.png (151KB, 595x600px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 595x600px

>>127887808
CO2 absorbs energy at a limited set of wavelengths. If you absorb all the energy at those wavelengths it doesn't matter if you have more CO2 their is no energy left to absorb.

We are at the point of CO2 energy saturation. More CO2 is physically unable to cause more heating.

Why regulate carbon then? Because energy is the largest sector of every economy in the world and CO2 is a byproduct of 90% of that.

Pick a single output to regulate to give you the most money and most control. Maybe water might be more important, maybe. Otherwise nothing comes close to CO2.

>>127895148
Can you be more specific regarding the coral reefs and where it's supposedly happening?

Not sure, but as someone who has worked directly with and seen the data sets from the main researcher covering the pacific ocean I can confidently state that there is no ocean acidification.

>>127896166
because GHGs absorb in the long-wave spectrum that is reflected off of Earth's surface, not the incoming short-wave radiation. Otherwise they wouldn't be GHGs

>>127889332
Breeder reactor and you can extract the other 99.97% of the fuel value in the 'spent' fuel elements.

>>127889835
You are a stupid fucking moron.

>>127889835

>čevapi intellectuals

>>127896496
If this is true then the term "Greenhouse" is misleading and OP's picture is dogshit.

>>127895652
Venus is hotter than mercury despite latter being closer.

Mercury was so hot it lost its atmosphere. Mars too cold. That is what "goldilocks zone" is.

File: Atmospheric_Transmission.png (75KB, 850x857px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 850x857px

>>127887808
>>127888468
The spectrum absorbed is not the same as the spectrum emitted.

Blackbody radiation 101: The spectrum emitted by a radiating body peaks at the wavelength corresponding to its surface temperature (see Wien's Displacement Law).

The bulk of the light the Earth absorbs from the Sun peaks in the visible part of the spectrum (which most of Earth's atmosphere is optically transparent to), but the bulk of the light re-emitted by the Earth peaks in the infrared (which parts of the Earth's atmosphere like CO2, CH4, water vapor, etc are opaque to).


There's no question that the Greenhouse Effect works as described, and there's not really a debate over whether or not there is a general warming trend being observed (although there is some evidence to suggest it may be slowing down). The debate is over what natural and artificial sources are contributing to the effect and what, if anything, can or should be done to slow or reverse the trend.

t. Physics PhD candidate (feel free to ask more science questions!)

What about the ozone layer? What happened to that horror story? It was a big deal for a long time and suddenly everyone just stopped talking about it.

>>127896496

Shorter wavelengths dominate incoming, but incoming intensity >> outgoing.

>>127897257
it is misleading, since greenhouses work much more by acting as a convection barrier rather than differential absorption of wave lengths

as for the pictures, it's not dogshit, it's just mildly misleading
in an unperturbed climate, the incoming short-wave radiation is matched by the outgoing long-wave radiation. If you add additional greenhouse gases to the system, the radiative absorption properties of these gases cause a temporary imbalance in the energy budget: for a while the incoming radiation is greater than the outgoing radiation. This causes the atmosphere to heat up until it reaches a temperature (the new "equilibrium temperature") at which the outgoing energy is again matched by the incoming energy.

That's the greenhouse effect in a nutshell

DAILY REMINDER

* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.

* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming.

* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.

* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 17 years. They are all trending too high.

* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.

* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.

* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.

* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."

Incoming is a spectrum not narrow waveband.

>>127887808
>strawmanning this hard
None of us believe the earth is round. Nice try, spherecuck.

>>127897928
for the present climate that's true, but that's not the case in an unperturbed climate at equilibrium temperature

>We are at the point of CO2 energy saturation. More CO2 is physically unable to cause more heating.

there is just no evidence for that, neither in present observations nor in the climatic record of Earth's past.
For one, if that were the case, how do you explain Venus?

>>127898294
the second part was meant as a response to
>>127896292

File: chung.moistening.png (30KB, 690x316px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 690x316px

>>127898152
>If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.

too bad that there is

>>127887808
Don't have to. I do not base my skepticism on a denial of the greenhouse effect. You're a basic bitch.

>>127897351
Then why is the temperature in the upper atmosphere not increasing as in the model described ?

CHECKMATE

>>127889332

Africa

>>127897939
Thanks for the good answer. I would like to see the proofs of it all though.

>>127898294
The atmosphere of Venus is composed almost exclusively of CO2. A similar effect on earth would require the atmosphere to be 30,000 ppm CO2.

>>127898700
actually, cooling of the Stratosphere was one of the very first early predictions of increased CO2 concentrations

it was first predicted with calculations done by people at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in the 1950s

>>127898294
>For one, if that were the case, how do you explain Venus?
98 times the mass of the atmosphere than the Earth has.
How do you explain Mars which has even more CO2 than Venus are a portion of the atmosphere?
The Earth has 410 PPM of CO2. Mars has 980,000 PPM of CO2 while Venus has just 960,000PPM.

The evidence that CO2 isn't causing more warming is measured by satellites that directly observe the emissions from the Earth.

>>127898294
>>We are at the point of CO2 energy saturation. More CO2 is physically unable to cause more heating.
>there is just no evidence for that,
>"there's just no evidence for basic physics"
And you call conservatives "science deniers."

>For one, if that were the case, how do you explain Venus?
Venus receives 1.9x the solar energy that Earth does and has an atmosphere with 93x the mass. It's not even remotely comparable.

Scientists seek funding, scientist hate to admit they do not know. They all want to show each other they are so smart they figured everything out that has been puzzling everyone else for generations.

When systematic ego error becomes large enough, you can reach any conclusion from any data.

The chink in the armor (crazy similarities to politics here) is that you have to accept that they are 100% correct about every factor that leads to their conclusions. If you question anything, and get the "that is basic", "that is settled" reply, you know you are dealing with bullshitters.

>>127899069
I know that, I'm asking him how that mashes with his claim that we've hit a hard barrier at which CO2 can't cause any more warming

>>127898602
>hurr durr moisture automatically and always equals heat
Nope. FYI, this is why we have a 17 year "pause." It's not a pause, the GCMs are simply wrong in their assumptions regarding the interplay between CO2 and H2O, as well as H2O and temps.

>>127887808
Then we should create more holes in the ozone, so then more of the heat can escape :^)

File: ozone_omi_201010.jpg (263KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 720x720px

>>127897708
We drastically reduced the use of CFCs and the ozone layer... well, it hasn't recovered, but it at least stabilized.

>>127896488
The bleaching of the reefs

>>127899010
well you can start with this
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4314548?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

>>127889332

they should bring it to the moon every 10 years.

>>127899101
>How do you explain Mars which has even more CO2 than Venus are a portion of the atmosphere?

that's easy: it's not the proportion that determines the strength of the radiative effects, it's the absolute number of molecules. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the absolute amount of carbon in the atmosphere of Venus is orders of magnitudes higher than the amount in the atmosphere of Mars (which is so thin, it barely warrants getting called an "atmosphere")

>>127899512
Can some anon explain how using CFCs in a fraction of the northern hemisphere was supposed to have caused a hole in the ozone over fucking Antarctica?

>>127887808
the refutation is not that global warming isn't happening, it's that it's actually going to save humanity, create a better, more habitable climate in the temperate and arctic zones, and will disrupt the NWO plans for global domination :(

it's only being spun as a "great threat" to us because they're using the narrative as a control mechanism for a variety of reasons. 1) inherent guilt as a control mechanism, similar to the idea of "original sin" 2) global wealth redistribution 3) tighten regulations that disproportionately hurt small business, leaving humanity and even further enslaved to the upper classes.

there are more too but i'll leave it to you guys do a little critical thinking on your own :(

>>127889835
Good question. Why don't we just fire all of our pollution into the sun on a rocket?

>>127899108
it may receive more solar radiation but Venus also has an albedo of 0.77, which means that 77% of the radiation that hits it gets immediately reflected back into space.
Compare that the terrestrial albedo of ~30%.

That's the first problem with that explanation, the second one is why Mercury is cooler than Venus, if the incoming solar radiation and therefore the distance from the sun is the determining factor.

>>127899357
>>hurr durr moisture automatically and always equals heat
yes, it literally does. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (as most other skeptics will be quick to mention)

>>127898152
Chronic modelitis. Many such cases. Sad!

The rate of acceleration in the amount of CO2 ppm in atmosphere has increased in direct proportion to the number of stories in the media.Soon as more and more stories are published we will reach the point where all life is doomed.Its 410 ppm now, was under 400 a couple of years ago.It used to take decades to go up 10 ppm. Soon 10 ppm in a month. Face it, its over nothing we can do but party. Like an impending asteroid strike.

>>127887808
Prove that it causes a runaway feedback effect that ends up in catastrophic climate change.

File: 1472663906839.jpg (2MB, 1891x4901px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1891x4901px

>>127887808
>Look, ma, I posted it again
Co2 is a lousy greenhouse gas. Whatever is causing "global warming" or "climate change," it ain't Co2.

>>127899646
That can be attributed to one or several phenomena at once:
>static rebound of land mass
>decrease in water depth
>EMR intensity w/m^2
>wavelength penetration
>water temperature change (cyclic variation)
>pollutants

To name a few

>>127887808
Maybe you should actually READ something in lieu of checking out normie memes with inconclusive facts.
https://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315

>>127888644
Yeah, what are a few thousand dead birds?

File: 1492603577103.png (120KB, 500x476px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 500x476px

>>127899512

i've been wondering how are penguins still alive if they're under the ozono layer?

and how is it that from all the people that went to antartica nobody has cancer from the missing ozone layer

>>127899892
>it's not the proportion that determines the strength of the radiative effects, it's the absolute number of molecules.
That's only half correct.

CO2 absorbs energy that has struck the ground and lost energy then is emitted back up. On Venus the clouds block most of the energy that would reach the ground. Venus on the surface has a lower solar radiance than the Earth does even while being much close to the Sun.

The CO2 isn't what causes the constant temperature of Venus, it's having an atmosphere so thick that it stores the heat over the day night cycle. The thermal mass of the atmosphere of Venus has been uniformly warmed to that temperature. The actual gasses of the atmosphere are a minor factor. What's important is that their are a fuck ton of it.

From direct observations we know that the Earth has no more unabsorbed energy on the wave lengths that CO2 absorbs on. Which is why every creditable climate model depends on and demands other gasses to cause the runway warming. The most common being methane.

That we have been 19 years without any warming should be a clue that over the last 250 years we have capped up the limited extra room of CO2 warming that is possible.

File: deniers.jpg (37KB, 314x499px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 314x499px

>>127887808
Books: Check em out!

>>127901214

ozone layer hole*

>>127899649
That is a $44 download my friend. Why does ALL this global warming stuff (even learning about it apparently) involve me becoming poorer?

>>127887808
This is your reminder that the earth has gone though periods of time where no ice has existed and life still persisted

>>127900314
Nigga are you serious?

What happens if the rocket explodes?

Like they do fairly frequently.

>>127899177
>scientist hate to admit they do not know
Internet scientists hate to admit they don't know something, actual scientists will readily admit they don't know something (yet).

>>127900142
Stratospheric flow patterns - basically the upper atmosphere in the Arctic and Antarctic are like big vortices that don't interact that much with lower latitude flows. Depletion of ozone around the globe led to a lower average level for low latitudes, and concentrated losses near the poles (the Antarctic one being larger than the Arctic one).

>>127900775
There are almost certainly other drivers (both natural and artificial), but the effect of CO2 shouldn't be discounted and we should continue making effort to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The real problem is that liberals keep pushing all these shitty half-measures like carbon credits and emissions standards when what we should really be doing is funding a massive overhaul of our wind, solar, hydroelectric, natural gas, and *especially* nuclear capacity. Uranium fission is still our best hope of freeing ourselves from coal and oil within our lifetimes barring some miraculous breakthroughs in the next decade.

>>127888454
>It's a theory that hasn't been proven
LIE

>>127900425
>the second one is why Mercury is cooler than Venus,

Because Mercury has no atmosphere to store heat.

>>127900562
>yes, it literally does.
No, it literally does not. General humidity does, as well as some clouds. But other clouds and forms of weather result in a cooling effect.

>Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere
Because H2O is the most abundant. Small changes would not necessarily result in detectable warming even if we ignore weather. And you cannot ignore weather.

>>127889918
>Solar has 4 deaths
Like from the " Solex Agitator"?

>>127887808

It's already been refuted you fucking retarded liberals. Go kys.

>>127901527
I'd like to believe that a major breakthrough is around the corner, but my Dad worked in the nuclear energy field with the Navy in the 60's at Oak Ridge. He said "they" had been saying fusion power was right around the corner back then. Here's hoping.

>>127902120
>Because H2O is the most abundant.
It also covers the largest spectra of wavelengths to absorb energy on. See -> >>127897351 for a graph.

>>127889332
You reuse 99% of it and bury the other 1% in a secure container several miles below the ground.

The US *has* a completely finished long-term storage facility for nuclear waste just sitting under Yucca Mountain waiting to be used because a bunch of liberal politicians won't let us use it.

File: globavg.temperatureanomaly2016.png (380KB, 738x525px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 738x525px

>>127901224
>what causes the constant temperature of Venus, it's having an atmosphere so thick that it stores the heat over the day night cycle
that's right but notice that what you're talking about (a low-amplitude diurnal temperature cycle) is much different from the equilibrium temperature of the planet, which is what is being effected by the greenhouse effect.

A thick atmosphere is a perfectly good explanation why Venus' temperature doesn't vary much between night and day, but it can't in and of itself raise the equilibrium temperature. That's also demonstrated by the fact that Mercury's day-time temperature is still lower than the lowest temperatures on Venus.

As for the 19 year pause: I think it was more like 16 years when you get down to it but nevermind that, what actually happened is that the temperature increase was lower than what come before and after it. That's first of all very far from a standstill in warming and it's secondly also very far from being unexplained. It's a textbook case of internal climate variability because it was most likely caused by the combined effects of a dominantly negatively-phased PDO, a nadir in the 11 year solar cycle and increased sulfate aerosol emissions in East Asia

If the left gave two shits about AGW and its potential affects on the carry capacity of Earth wouldn't they be all for closing the borders and keeping the refugees out?

Due to the fact AGW is used to push Poz and other nonsense I'm inclined to find it all bunk. Even if true? More is done to protect 'the environment' by keeping third world trash in the third world and bringing industry back to our homelands (where we can regulate, as opposed to China where hahaha good luck kid).

File: solar power in Germany.jpg (98KB, 728x626px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 728x626px

>>127890120
>climate scientists wanted to be taken seriously they'd be furiously demanding nuclear.
But wouldn't that be outside their field of science?

The problem in the US is that nuclear energy has been privatized. The government still has to approve the reactor design and facilities, but the corporations that run them immediately start cutting corners.
-->Minimum wage security guards who get caught napping all the time.
-->Falsified testing and maintenance logs
-->Sub-sub-sub-contractors incapable of following basic instructions
-->Lapses in insurance coverage
-->Socialized risk, privatized profits

In Florida, Duke Energy is still charging residents a new construction fee for nuclear plants it cancelled years ago. It is surcharging customers because a sub-sub contractor with no insurance cracked a containment vessel at Crystal River. It is using the state government to crack down on residents with solar panels on their homes as an intimidation tactic. It had the state laws changed to force homes to have on-grid electricity or lose their occupancy certificate.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/florida-utility-keeps-unearned-millions-yet-causes-arrest-over-fees/

Nuclear energy would be a great idea if the corporations involved were so busy fucking us over.

>>127902534
The problem we have with fusion is that while the physics involved are thoroughly understood and they work fine on paper, in practice they're a fucking nightmare to get working. We can make incredibly powerful, industrial scale fusors, but they're unimaginably tricky to keep confined, go unstable at the drop of a hat, and we have yet to come up with a reliable way to make them self-sustaining the way stars are.

I'm optimistic, but I believe in planning according to the worst case scenario. There's no point in basing our energy policy on what *might* become available - keep funding fusion research, but focus on better utilizing what already works - wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, natural gas, and uranium fission.

>>127902120
>But other clouds and forms of weather result in a cooling effect
doesn't negate what either I or the poster I was responding to or the paper I posted talked about, which was increased concentrations of water vapor.

>Small changes would not necessarily result in detectable warming
sure, if you add only 1 water molecule to the atmosphere, you wouldn't be able to detect its effect. Not sure how that is relevant to the overall radiative effects of water vapor

>you cannot ignore weather
climate means the 30 year average of all meteorological processes and phenomena, while weather is short-term by definition. You can absolutely ignore daily short-term fluctuations because they are immediately averaged out when you look at longer time scales

>>127887808
Take up your grievance with China.

>>127896176
fucking kek

>>127901455
where have you heard that life on earth is dependent on ice sheets?

>>127888644
Remember that whale family that was killed by off shore windmills?

>>127903918
Blame the bureaucrats - corporations wouldn't cut corners if they didn't have to go through tens of billions of dollars of red tape to get a plant built.

My state generates about 10% of its electricity through nuclear. A few years back a company was planning on building a new plant that would have tripled that. They had to abandon the plan before ever breaking ground because they got buried in lawsuits and regulatory bullshit from anti-nuclear groups and politicians trying to prevent it from being built.

>>127901520
>What happens if the rocket explodes?
we get xmen origin stories

>>127891523
>IMG_7452.jpg
Cliff Harris is a 'chemtrails' conspiracy theorist.

https://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/one-of-top-climatologists-covered-chemtrails-geo-engineering-in-coeur-dalene-press/

Well-played.

>>127888644
>cleanfags unironically believe nuclear power plants spew out radioactive waste like this

>>127887808
so you are basing your 'climate change' theory on what looks like a middle school science fair poster? my suggestion is to completely reverse warming, just re-label the arrows on the poster to suit your needs - that is apparently what the original designer did.

>>127889332
>What do you do with the nuclear waste?
we put it in the water of course
don't you people watch alex jones?

File: lacis.png (23KB, 732x295px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 732x295px

>>127900775
>Co2 is a lousy greenhouse gas
good luck trying to explain the temperature evolution on Earth without this lousy gas

>>127897351
what is your personal opinion on man made global warming?

t. another physics phd student

File: nuclear blast.jpg (1011KB, 2980x1996px) Image search: [Google]

1011KB, 2980x1996px

>>127904714
>Blame the bureaucrats - corporations wouldn't cut corners if they didn't have to go through tens of billions of dollars of red tape to get a plant built.

No, I blame the criminals for committing the crime. Malfeasance by corporations is exactly why we have so many rules, and still these companies find new loopholes to put us all at risk. The corporations are literally putting profits before people.

We're far better off without nuclear energy if corporations refuse to be serious about nuclear safety.

File: figure-6-2.jpg (97KB, 417x500px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 417x500px

>>127903309
by the way, if you don't accept the Venus argument, you can also attempt to explain how your idea of a CO2-warming-barrier deals with the fact that CO2 was able to cause significant warming in Earth's past, even though concentrations were much higher than this alleged barrier we've run into

>>127906034
>what is your personal opinion on man made global warming?
I think there's enough evidence to suggest that human activity is at least a factor - if we're not the main cause, than we're at least exacerbating a naturally driven shift. I think we need to stop taking bullshit half measures like government regulations and facebook campaigns to cut energy consumption and start looking at real solutions like overhauling our usage of wind, solar, natural gas, and nuclear power and (if necessary) look at strategies to actively scrub GHGs already in the atmosphere.


What area are you focusing in?

>>127908093
fyi the anthropogenic factor became the dominant forcing in the planetary climate system sometime during the 1980s. Before that, temperature trends mostly followed solar irradiation with some minor deviations due to sulfate aerosols (either from explosive Volcanism or human burning of sulfur-rich fossil fuels)

>>127908093
i need to look into this myself, i literally have zero insight in the question beyond what a physicist is expected to know about this. however, if there is a real problem i must say i do not have much faith in humanity. but i believe that the irrational fear of nuclear power must be dealt with, at least. the nuclear fear mongering is really helping us


>what area
im doing theoretical condensed matter

you cant test this using the scientific method therefore it's not real science.

if it was real then everyone would be panicking and not using electricity.

>>127909837
*not really

t. retard

File: 1490086520330.jpg (303KB, 750x416px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 750x416px

The flat earth disagree

File: IMG_9472.gif (3MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x225px

>>127887808
Implying round earth. Fuck off jew.

>>127910409
this violates newtons laws

its liek 0.004% of the atmosphere and not even as much as it has been in human history.

its a distraction from heavy metal pollution into rivers

>>127903309
The equilibrium is not from the greenhouse effect. The heating is the greenhouse effect, the equilibrium is from the mass of the atmosphere.

>>>127906971
>you can also attempt to explain how your idea of a CO2-warming-barrier deals with the fact that CO2 was able to cause significant warming in Earth's past, even though concentrations were much higher than this alleged barrier we've run into

You have confused cause with effect.

The CO2 levels always trail the change in temperature. The activity of the carbon cycle follows raises and falls in temperature. It doesn't cause them.

>>127887808
infographic doesn't take into consideration that "more re-emitted heat" leads to more cloud formations which blocks more solar radiation.
It's like it was made by someone who has no clue.
Also co2, which is from my understanding is the big deal here, all legislation is made towards lowering "carbon emissions" has zero effect on the Infra Red spectrum after 180ppm, a diminishing return so to speak. No other gas comes close to water vapor.

The whole science regarding anthropogenic climate change is just a commie pipe dream and is nothing more than a hypothesis that was taken as truth because it became popular.

>>127896630
This is the only real answer

>>127887808
Refute how a molecule with the molecular weight of 44g/mol has a bigger impact than cycles of the sun, which is 100 times bigger than earth.