ACG

So the technological accelerationist way.
That seems to be way the people elected with Trump, but it's risky. Cutting off aid to the Southern Hemisphere a step in the right direction, but don't you think employing more nuclear fission reactors would buy us more time? I'm really surprised how even scientists don't really point out their mid-term viability any more.

It will fail, because that kind of monumental task would require a predominantly white population driving all the progress forward, and the politicians are working in the opposite direction.

lmfao personally I blame the internet for deforestation and I blame crypto mining for temperature rises

That's not entirely true, in fact, a lot of the decisions that destroy humanity in the long term are usefull for faster scientific progress, in the short term at least, since they benefit economic growth.
There is a naive assumption, we'll be able to safely master genetic engineering soon enough for the dysgenic effects of current moral standards not to matter, but that wouldn't matter to a breakaway civilization.

Well you see that's because of the ice caps melting. When the poles melt, they're like big ice cubes and they cool the earth right back down. It's a self-regulating effect that the scientists won't tell you about.

While nuclear fission reactors by themselves produce no CO2.
To mine and transport uranium we need to burn fossil fuels for powering the mining equipment which produces 1.1 kg of CO2 per kWh.
Also a nuclear power plant needs about 200000 tons of concrete.
The concrete industry is one of two largest producers of CO2 according to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
To make 1 tonne of concrete it produces between 290 and 410 kg of CO2 according to University of Dundee.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute(NEI) nuclear power plants provided 11% of worldwide electricity with about 450 nuclear plants.
We would need to build nearly 4500 more power plants to replace fossil fuels with nuclear power. (not including an energy demand increase of 100% in which case we need 9000 more power plants)
There is probably not enough sand on the Earth to produce that much concrete.
Proper sand for concrete is already a scarce resource.

People who support nuclear power never look at the big picture.

This is true, but once the ice caps have melted the cooling stops and warming increases even faster, because there is no longer any ice to absorb the heat.
Also currently the polar and Himalayan ice caps melt faster than that they can regenerate.
If they didn't the ice extend would remain relatively stable.

Lmao, who fucking cares if you starve to death without water and 60C outside in your cardboard shacks, tropical monkeys. I am glad, we'll have cherries and apples growing in polar belt in next 50 years.

They are mined with GM-free organic African manual labor. Haven't you seen that Intel video about how they get their minerals and precious metals?

/thread

You'll probably instead master a good kick in the ass by a genetic defect. We can't even build non-defective CPUs or software, and here you want to play god, instead of just keep the white race around to do what we've been doing well for thousands of years.

Why don't we just shoot a rocket towards the sun with all the waste as a payload?

Because

1. It costs a lot of money.

2. It's incredibly risky given how rockets have a tendency to... well... explode. Worst case scenario you end up with a literal nuclear detonation. Best case scenario the explosion propels radioactive waste over an area hundreds of miles in diameter.

That is why we bury it rather than shoot it into space.

Who cares, I will be dead when the real fallout comes. It is rational for me to extract as much as possible from the world, as the profits are privatized and the costs are socialised.

Why the fuck is this alarmist bullshit on Holla Forums?

Plus not to mentions the manpower needed/time and the resources to feed the said manpower.
It's a never ending fucking reaction chain, the only way to more or less solve the whole problem is massively reduced world population and keep it small.
Anyway it will ultimately happen the question is how will it go:
1-WW3
2-World wide fascism and forced eugenics
3-World wide acceptance of not having children and voluntary eugenics

Beating on 1 and/or 2.

You have your cases backwards. The extremely dirty bomb is a far worse result than a nuclear detonation, and a nuclear detonation is nearly impossible.

That's 1800 million tons of concrete. Worldwide concrete production in 2016 was 4200 million tons. 9000 power plants is not a whole lot of power plants (the US has 8000 alone): it's a damn big Earth.

This kikery has nothing to do with tech. Tell me, what does shlomo hope to accomplish by fucking up this dead board?

What the hell happened in 2012?

Only feeble-minded gays don't know that global warming is a hoax.

"While we can" is a damn long time. Even in the worst case scenarios of climate change the Earth is still far more habitable than anywhere nearby. Instead of rushing it'd make far more sense to move when the technology to do so is there, not before. Say, 10k years from now.
I'm sure you're already putting all your money on that, or you'd be an hypocrite, but "we" won't be burning my money for your doomsday cult unless you can take it by force.
The fascist solution would be to not kill the goddamned planet so quickly that we need to devote 100% of our effort into escaping to some dead rock.

We can't even pay for saving monkeys from malaria and you think we can use magic to turn them into kangz? Maybe we'll be able to select eye or hair color "soon", but intelligence is still way off, and it won't be affordable (much less dirty cheap for us to foot the bill for a trillion niggers). Genetics taught in school is oversimplified, there's no single +10 INT gene.

Wow! I guess I should just stop using my one (1) device that I can use for years and replace it with tens of thousands of pieces of processed paper!
Because at least you can make your half inch commie penis erect to a whole inch!
try again.

That's what I meant, it's a naive assumption, but plenty of young scientists gobble it up

We basically have that in Europe now, but the effects are just borderline retarded people from the mid east and africa and replacing us.

Chart showing that if we want to stay under 2 degrees Celsius warming each person may only take 1 airplane flight per year.

Air travel is one of the biggest polluters.
And we cant have air travel without fossil fuels.
Even if the electric grid is 100% renewables.
Airplanes still need kerosene to fly.

The collapse is already here it's just not evenly distributed yet.

come back to me at the end of 2018
in 2020
and 2025
if you are still alive by that time.
If the hurricanes won't kill you, the snowstorms will.
If the snowstorms won't kill you, the pollution will.
If the pollution won't kill you, the large scale starvation will.
If even that won't kill you the diseases will.
It ok tho. We will all die someday.
It will just be sooner than expected. I hope you don't have big plans for the future.

AHAHAHAHA
i agree about the air travel, but that's just mental illness

They were saying shit like that in the 80's. Now they're doing it again, even though science isn't advanced enough to even accurately predict the weather next month. You're a fool, and a tool. A useful idiot, basically. The only people pushing climate change agenda are the globalists and UN so they can rake in their easy tax shekels.

The energy and CO2 issues they are complaining about would be solved if countries mass adopted nuclear energy, currently nuclear is the only energy source we know of which realistically can replace all fossil fuel usage. However nuclear threatens the petro-dollar hegemony so unlike things like solar and wind its suppressed.

I like how they didn't include motorbikes, probably because it would make the Tesla not look quite as good by comparison.

Effects of greenhouse gasses are well known. We can also measure the concentrations of them accurately. It's not a coincidence that huricanes are getting stronger and more devistating every year. Sea levels are rising at an increased rate compared to the last century. Last year was the hottest year on the record. It doesn't take long to find what leading factor for this change is.

Was banning of CFCs also globalist and UN agenda?

...

They actually have been saying this since 1912.
Global Warming is an exponential curve.
We are reaching the end of the curve now, back then things were not as bad yet.

This was written in 1912 New Zealand newspaper:

"The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries."

Climate is not weather.
Localized systems are different from global systems.

Did you read the thread? There is literally is not enough minerals to change all cars in the world into electric vehicles. Tesla is a big scam and a bubble.

So what, the answer is to continue burning gas that has an efficiency rate of 30%?

The answer is to reduce the human population. You can do this in one of two ways: holocaust Africa and Asia wholesale, or build colony ships and get a new planet where there are no Africans or Asians.

[Citation Needed]

Man, I hate these cultists.

Western society is the largest contributer to climate change.
Nuking Europe and North America would instantly solve global warming.
Africa and South America practically contribute nothing to CO2 emissions.
It's like comparing ants to lions.

Polar ice caps will never be gone completely. But 90% will be gone around 2060~2100 onwards. Unless the Methane Clathrate gun fires, we it will happen around 2030~2045 onwards.
Al Gore is an idiot and a sellout.

You do realize that a rise in 2 degrees means the oceans will absorb more carbon dioxide which means more acid rains.

So you mean replacing Whites with niggers might contribute to saving Earth since they can't into technology?

Exactly, which is why you either get another planet or reduce the number of "all people on Earth".

Does Holla Forums consider Island-type Space Colonies a feasible solution for human survival independent of Earth's dwindling natural resources?

Yes, but that's type I civilization technology. We are still type 0. We're currently living in most critical time period. Actions we do now decide if we'll ever move up the scale or die. We'll have to leave Earth eventually, there is no question about it. Building rotating habitiats, colonizing other planets or asteroids and eventually building a dyson sphere around the Sun would be a way to go.

They should offer infertilization in exchange for food supply or whatever to the third world. This would be humane, but would probably not work because muh right to breed. Worst case build walls and let famine/war/plague regulate the population down.

Improving energy efficiency of virtually everything that already exists would be a more immediate priority. One method would be utilizing machine learning algorithms and specialized AI-optimized chips to learn and optimize energy usage for a variety of systems. Deepmind for instance already deployed a solution that reduced Google's energy usage by 15% by managing their cooling systems with ML.

Being able to do more with less energy also reduce the rate of energy demand growth. That in turn would make energy production solutions more affordable long term (as you won't have to build as much immediately to account for future growth).

This is bullshit, they will just use whatever is saved to make things cheaper. Modern processors are insanely fast, yet the popular web apps are not and simply fill out the performance gain with bloat so they can spend less on developers.

Someone save this thread so I can laugh in 2030 when Musk crashes the precious metals markets with no survivors through use of the real memeteor.

He'll shoot himself in the back of the head six times before attempting such a venture in earnest.

You never heard of Jevon's paradox have you?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

bigthink.com/politeia/the-energy-efficiency-paradox

The same thing happened with car engines. The more efficient the car engine became, the more fossil fuels were burned.

Compared to what?
Before Google existed Google's energy usage was reduced by 100%
That's Jevon's paradox for ya.

You need fossil fuels to extract fossil fuels from the Earth. Same goes for asteroids.
This is called ROI (Return of Investment)
How are you going to mine minerals from asteroids without burning fossil fuels?

youtube.com/watch?v=8akSfOIsU2Y

cityprojections.com/CarbonBudgetPlot.html

librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/hypotheticals-hype-and-the-hyperloop/

Yea bullshit there are more trees and plant life than ever before because of increased co2 in the air. The world will become GREENER with longer growing seasons.

If literally every piece of ice on the planet melted the sea levels would rise obviously a few islands will get fucked but there would be a shit ton of land left and the idea that cities cant move in the 100 years this takes to happen when most of the big buildings were built in less time than that is just wrong. This kind of climate change is a good thing.

t. Patrick Moore
youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc

At this point I don't think we can even consider reducing fuel consumption. Everything that's not fossil or nuclear is solar by nature; maximum solar harvest we can hope for is 174 PW @ 100% efficiency if you leverage 100% of solar radiation in stratosphere, current power consumption is 150 PW already. Nuclear fission provides too little power and nuclear fusion is nowhere near powerworthiness. The only thing you can really do now is reduce power drain by increasing efficiency of everything. E.g. using prop planes instead of jets, reducing car weight and abolishing regulations that reduce mileage, making people use more fuel-efficient modes of transportation e.g. ships and trains. Or you can go "fuck it" with nuclear and radiation safety and make thorium portable nuclear generators, like on Mars rovers. They generate 500 watts or thereabouts, plenty of power to run a bike or a sub-micro car, assuming you let it charge the batterries overnight.

No, the green will shift towards the poles, the equatorial zone will be too hot to support most life, oceans particularly.

because they mostly live alike animals. Those population increases in Africa aren't going to go nowhere. Cities like Lagos, relatively developed in Africa, spread across the continent will cause masses and masses more CO2 pollution than North America and Europe currently produce.

I mean plutonium.

Actually the Plutonium-238 is a good source of low hazard nuclear power. It's an alpha emitter, meaning it needs no radiation shielding (power harvesting mesh will shield from its radiation), and with half-life of 90 years each pellet of Plutonium is basically good for 10 centuries, and even past that you can still use them, it's just you'll need more of them. You can't use it as nuclear weapon, you can't even breed it into conventional nuclear fuel in a reactor. It produces half a watt per gram, which as of today costs about $8000 to make, but it only makes 4.3 kWh of power a year, first few years, then it slowly drops, that's 80 cents a year and dropping (assuming no inflation). But I guess it could cost less than that to make it if it was made in industrial quantities, right now it's only made for space exploration missions in minuscule quantities. Maybe if it was produced on a scale of several tons per year, the price would drop to like $100 per gram, making it $20 000 for lifetime 100 watt power supply. Doesn't sound like much but consider that you will literally never have to buy another one, and you will be able to trade it in for most of its original price since it barely loses its power output over time. The only serious risks is that it can be used as poison, but a lot of commonly available shit is poisonous, and it's pretty fucking expensive for a poison. And that it will alpha-irradiate wildlife in small radius if it gets discarded or lost (e.g. car crash) creating an eerie looking dead circle, but everyone would know there are $100k/kg nuclear fuel in the middle of it, so it'll get salvaged quickly. And the only downside it has as a power source is that you can't throttle it, it's power output is constant, so you'll either have to dump excess power as heat, or connect it to the grid so it can feed into it.

Sounds like perfect solution, it's just it'll take a while to actually implement, due to small production quantities.

The only reason to solve it is to help humanity. Destroying the village to save it isn't usually considered a good solution.
That doesn't seem too bad. We're like 1 billion, if with a 7-fold growth we'd need 3 Earths it means we're using way less than 1 Earth right now.
Pretty easy when they don't grow their own food, much less gadgets.

autism

You retards.

No it wont be too hot to support most life. Its not like the temperature is going to rise three degrees and everything is going to die.

The difference year by year within a region is bigger than that (obviously global does not change like that every year) and the world survives.

1. Plants stop growing at higher temperatures. Plant cells and DNA start breaking down at even small temperature changes. Causing food crops the have less nutrients.
2. Plants have an upper limit of how much CO2 they can absorb. At higher levels of CO2 they either die or reject the extra CO2
3. Climate change is more than just sea level rise.

True. Which is why the problem is not really population, but consumption and energy demand.
With decreased energy demand and lower consumption the planet can support a higher population with a minimum healthy live.

We no longer have "a while".
See

1.
No small temperature changes dont just cause most plants to die or the earth would be barren. Most plants do fine within a fairly wide margin of what humans consider livable.

2.
A plant has a limit *plants* don't. The fact that one plant has a limit is irrelevant.

3.
Obviously lol

It's not the temperature rise itself that will kill the plants, it will be the lack of water for irrigation. Where do you think farmers get their water from?

Solving desertification is a matter of getting water to the region. This is a solved problem. The only *crisis* approaching related to this is that farmers keep pumping out all the cheap aquifers. It's not like farming is impossible if you have to have water moved a great distance its just more expensive. All of this assuming the world turns into a whole desert because of a few degrees which it wont (more land will be usable). Hell we will likely even get MORE rainfall.

No, *plants* do. In particular, the carbon fixation activity of the enzyme RuBisCo seems to be a common bottleneck. However, cyanobacteria don't seem to have that limitation. Good news for all the giant toxic algal bloom aficionados out there :^)

plants meaning number not species jfc

Still, once the limit is reached, adding more CO2 won't cause more plants to pop up than at a lower CO2 level. Plants simply will not be able to keep up.

Yea and that limit is never going to be hit.

We have gone from like 300 to around 400 PPM as far as I know. CO2 is very beneficial to around 1500 and starts to hit issues near 2000. This is a non issue. We should be increasing CO2.

Nice moving of the goalposts. Cool evidence.

Source?

It is used in indoor farming setups to increase yields all the time. Obv most farming indoors is weed but its a common example. It is very well known fact that CO2 levels are good for plants well beyond the ambient level. Just google it.

I'm not moving the goal post lol. Obviously if CO2 was 100% of the atmosphere everything would die. I'm saying we are well well below the harmful point and that we should be adding more CO2.

300 ppm to 1500 ppm is a 5x increase in concentration. What's the increase in productivity? I strongly suspect there are diminishing returns due to . Also consider that whatever diminishing gains we get from an increase in CO2 will have to outweigh the losses from droughts and floods, for instance.

Hey Climate Cuck
My planets hotter than yours

How do you solve acid rain from oceans absorbing more carbon dioxide?

So we've looked at CO2 production caused by transport and the industry. But what about agriculture, especially animal farming? According to youtube.com/watch?v=dSjE8xw_-Dg farming causes more greenhouse gasses than transport. It also consumes 1/3 of all drinkable water and a massive amounts of land to grow food for the cattle. I haven't checked the sources so I can't confirm credibility of their claims, but we might be focusing here on the wrong part of the problem here.

The main issue of acid rain is it changes soil PH. This is easily solvable farmers do it every day.

And two:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

I understand that acid rain doesn't harm humans who drink it. The problem is that acid rain drastically causes change in the biosphere. Farmers may be able to control soil pH on their plots of land but they won't be able to stop the rest of the flora dying off as a consequence of soil pH levels.

The difference is that farm animals are not introducing new carbon in the biosphere that wasn't already there. Animals do produce CH4 which is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but CH4 is relatively short-lived in the atmosphere.

Not it's not.
What is happening in EURSS is comparable of passive genocide (like in Tibet) and not eugenics.

Acid raid wont cause all the soil to just die.

You don't fall back to things

and then jump to

this requires MUCH more evidence and so far climate modeling has had some of the worst predictive power.

okay but it plants need water
okay but what evidence do you have to think this amount of water will cause it to drown

We know for fact that certain plants only grow in certain climates and soil qualities. There aren't too many plants that grow in a wide range of climates and soil qualities. What acid rain will do is cause the native flora that have evolved to survive in a specific climate to just die. We know for a fact the effects caused to a biosphere when one part of the biosphere is taken out of equilibrium - drastic changes to the overall fertility of the land.

We also know for a fact that many regions will be improved and that many plants will do better.

I disagree. In my opinion, the negative effects of acid rain due to climate change will have a stronger negative effect over the whole world than it will have a positive effect.

shit thread

this is why the entire thread is shit and we're all gonna end up dying on this rock.

Well glad we sorted that one out

That's a new one for me. It's surprising because:
1) Acid rain is generally known to be caused by sulfur and nitrogen oxides from bad combustion.
2) When ocean water evaporates, it should separate from most solvated gases, including CO2 (unless water and CO2 somehow form an azeotrope that I'm not aware of?)
Please clarify.

bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/context_chemistry/acidrainrev1.shtml
epa.gov/acidrain/what-acid-rain

I'm just making it clear to distinguish between facts and opinion. I always keep in my worldview regarding knowledge which are hard falsifiable facts and knowledge which is opinion, speculation and conjecture.

Your sources point out that CO2 dissolves in rainwater to form a weakly acidic solution, which is true (and causally distinct from oceans absorbing more carbon dioxide, by the way). However, they emphasize that:
and that
>Normal rain has a pH of about 5.6; it is slightly acidic because carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolves into it forming weak carbonic acid. Acid rain usually has a pH between 4.2 and 4.4.
In other words, CO2 has little to do with what we mean by "acid rain" because we know its influence on pH is relatively small.
Be careful not to conflate distinct environmental issues.

...

Protip: any space colony is going to have even fewer resources than Earth.

You're just baiting right?

Well your "opinion" is that fairly weak effects are going to have horrible effects on the world

I guess I should have linked you to the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration whose mission statement is to watch and document what happens in the atmosphere and ocean.

pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean Carbon Uptake

Average temperature rises three degrees. Peak temperature rises more than that. 5 degrees over current temperature will make tropical oceans exceed 35 degrees, this is too hot for most plankton.

Or we can cull billions of inbred niggers out and have higher than minimum healthy lives.

fuck off NASA shill
you probably unironically believe space exists :^)

The temperature wont change 5 degrees. Every climate model that has predicted these drastic changes have always been inaccurite. The scientific consensus is that climate modeling is horrible.

Additionally most of these numbers are relative to 1900 or so which is the bottom of the fluctuation very misleading. Compare the current peak to the other peaks in the past 1000 years and the difference is miniscule.

Stop saying bullshit

Baseline average temperature is derived from either 1750 or 1850. (Industrial revolution)

Climate models have been accurate and the ones that were not accurate actually showed less warming than was really the case.
Several environmental scientists have stated the warming will be worse than climate models predict.

See pic related. That won't solve the problem.

lol wrong pic.

This is absolutely wrong.

Climate models have not been accurate nearly all over estimating the results.

This graph is from noaa.gov

The second image is 90 models vs actual observation

Additionally here is a wikipedia graph collected from 11 different reconstructions to increase resolution showing climate peaks in recentish history

Another wiki graph over the recent few thousand years mostly within the ranges of human what is considered the start of civilization. This is relative to 1950 starting at 0.

As you can see the world is not a wasteland after these previous recent larger temperature changes.

Global warming is bullshit and even if it wasn't, I don't care and want everyone to die anyway so the earth can be relieved of niggers and kikes.

Nuclear war will fix the problem, so I wouldn't worry much.

Fucking Australians killing them planet. Why can't they be more like China or India?

Did you respond to the wrong post? I'm claiming that the weak effect CO2 on rain pH is not the main component of acid rain and will therefore not have "have horrible effects on the world".

That source says nothing at all about acid rain. Acid rain and ocean acidification are two different issues. The cause of ocean acidification is CO2 and the cause of what we consider to be acid rain (pH < 5.7) is SO2/NOX.

Yes

It's okay, I've already been dead multiple times. I've been baked alive because my area got too hot to be habitable, then I moved north but I drowned because the north pole melted and raised the sea level. A famine also took my life and I was also blown to bits by a bomb of peace, Al Gore told me they were caused by anthropogenic climate change.
Your alarmism is still shit, though as only UN led world communism can solve this issue.

How do you know this? I can't help but notice how that graph's data ends about 100 years before year 0 (1950), thereby omitting any recent change in temperature. Due to a lack of source, it's also not clear whether it's representative of global or just local temperature variations.

This graph only shows temperature anomaly of the northern hemisphere and is thus not an global average.
During that same time period the earth globally was on average slightly cooler than it is today. (Evidence from arctic ice cores by Russian research teams)

This graph clearly shows the peak of 2004 is at least 2 times larger than even the medieval warm period.

These seem pretty accurate to me. The average of all the models combined follows the observations.
This is called standard deviation in statistics.
Researchers run various models with different inputs and parameters to check multiple possible scenarios. Like for example Methane Clathrate feedback loops or Blue Ocean Event feedback loops.

If designed correctly they would essentially have weather control and would yield more crops than they would with the same amount of fields on Earth. As long as travellers are tightly restricted and everything brought up there was sterilized, there would probably be no invasive species at all besides microscopic ones. Solar power would be easier to obtain in space, but if that isn't enough power they could build a nuclear power plant with a modern design, and just dump the toxic waste into the void of space. Asteroid mining, manufacturing in space, harvesting atmosphere from planets with some sort of robotic vacuum, mass drivers, and an obscene amount of money would be the pretty hefty prerequisites though, and it would have to be at a lagrangian point. But do all of that and you've got an unbearably livable paradise, better than life on Earth could ever be.

...

not a seriously considered theory by scientists total conjecture

okay so we agree small difference peak to peak no big deal here

yea .4 degrees with an effect that has diminishing returns not a big deal

calculating at different SD does not mean the calculations are accurate

youtube.com/watch?v=iYwiCzJUpUg

Yeah well, as per factual observations temperature had increased anyway, just not by as much.

No we peaked at 2000 having been below that peak since then

i feel like more people would listen to him if he didn't come across as some unwashed 'intellectually superior' asshole

There is a lot of chemical energy bound into fuel.
The byproduct of fuel is commonly CO2 but... CO2 is not the reason of temperature increase the reason of is the spending of fuel itself to move things and thus creating heat.
There is a lot of energy bound in atoms. When atomic energy is spent it releases a lot of heat. The heat is dissipated into the atmosphere warming it up. Saying that changing the energy source stops warming the earth makes no sense. Energy doesn't disappear.
ALL SOLUTIONS ARE RETARDED
Spending fuel is just converting bound potential energy into heat. If you want to cool the atmosphere you need to take away the kinetic energy from it and convert it into static form. But then when you do spend that stored wind energy or whatever it just heats up the air all over again.

Well no, actually, the greenhouse effect is not due to energy release from chemical bonds. The greenhouse effect is due to certain gaseous molecules being good radiation absorbers that prevent heat put into the atmosphere by the sun from escaping back into space. The more you have of these molecules, the warmer the climate gets.

We don't have to worry about the atmosphere getting hotter if there is no heat for the gas to contain

there is a star called 'sun' that emits radiation towards this planet

What the fuck? Who put it there and how do we get rid of it?