Why the fuck is her microwave so big?
How else do you microwave a whole dog?
That's an oven, mate.
It isn't. She's just tiny.
>putting your milk in the oven to warm it up
Japanese people don't have the space for an oven in their tiny homes, so they use big microwaves for cooking.
That's not an oven. That's a time machine.
We do this because we don't own a microwave any more after the last one tried to kill our family
Why would you put anything in a microwave? Compact ovens are superior to microwaves in just about every way.
>Shes a girl
>She is Japanese
Everything looks larger when you put something smaller next to it.
Does that mean the Loli is as big as a microwave?
Japanase things are relative to Japanese size.
>microwave a whole dog?
What about speed?
Why does she have two blenders?
Why does she put a vase right next to two blenders too?
If you have the space for a microwave that big, you have space for an oven.
I do believe anon has nailed it.
>Not buying Oven - Microwave Oven - SuperSteamOven: All in One
And why is there not a lid on the blender?
>not just cooking everything on a bonfire
Quick send ... the Dmeru!
> not aware about global carbon emission
I think her overreaction to the loli sitting in front of the TV is something to be more worried about
What if it's actually a television?
It just her excuse to pickup a loli.
>still believing carbon emission means shit
Tsugi ni omae wa "B-but muh global warming!" to yu.
Not only that thing is ugly as fuck it takes too much space. At that point you could just use a proper oven.
It's the same with Japanese people still using fax machines.
>all in one kitchen appliances
>believing your 'intuition' over decades of scientific consensus
... that was acquired by intimidation and persecution. Evidence can be faked, anon.
>believing that if you cook something on fire it can cause something
Whole city can have gas cooker ON 24/7 and it'll do nothing to global carbon emission, that's how unimportant common people's carbon emission is. I'm not saying global warming is a problem, but you would achieve more by throwing knives at car drivers and factory or power stations managers.
I don't know anon, what if she ended up regularly sitting that close?
Isn't farming the main source of carbon emissions?
Where is this? I mean it looks Europe but there is that muslim flag or whatever right there. Is this one of those tourist places they have set up in the Gulf?
Submarine Crashes Through Streets Of Milan
>that's how unimportant common people's carbon emission is.
Shows you how little you know about the subject. 10% of the CO2 emissions are categorized as 'Residential' by the EPA. That includes heating and cooking, and does not include heating and cooking with electricity.
What you're doing is confusing the question of scale to the question of energy use. The 'common people''s carbon emission is significant. A single person's carbon emission isn't.
In the US, 14% Industry, 38% electricity, 31% transportation, 10% residential, 6% other.
Is that just CO2, or does it consider the brutal impact of agricultural methane, which has hundreds of times the effect per mole of gas released?
I got really thrown off by that Muslim flag. Although I guess that could be normal.
Jimmy status: rustled.
>has a big oven
How can one girl be so best?
From 2007 IPCC report:
>agriculture accounts for 10-12 % of total global anthropogenic emissions of GHGs.
Greater effects of gasses like methane were taken into account by converting the raw gas emissions into a CO2 equivalent, eg: a ton of methane emissions per year would be converted to 298 tons of CO2 emissions per year.
*1ton of methane = 25tons of CO2 equivalent
Why are the OP and ED so goooood.
So is she really going to get ravished by a dog?
>global anthropogenic emissions
Is the methane from the ongoing Siberian thaw considered anthropogenic?
Why don't they look at global emissions without a presumption of responsibility if the goal is to assess the magnitude of the problem?
Damn you catchy ED
The chart here shows natural and human contributions to methane concentrations as separate, so I don't think the permafrost emissions due to thawing were included as anthropogenic.
As to why human responsibility is assumed, while they may do some estimating and playing around with numbers when it comes to figuring amount of emissions per year, they can find out the concentration of gasses quite reliably. When you have trends like this
(explained here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html)
it becomes clear that human causes should be looked at. The full report does just that, and is considered THE go to source for climate change information, but I couldn't do a good job of summarizing their methodology/findings. The newest current IPCC report is from 2007, and while it's somewhat old the vast majority of it is still very much relevant. They are released every six years with the next one scheduled for sometime in the middle of this year if you're looking for something more recent.
I find that you are right; feedback related emissions are not considered anthropogenic.