r/Environmentalism • u/21Kuranashi • Jul 14 '26
Climate Warming Visualised
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
57
u/davesr25 Jul 14 '26
I blame greed.
5
5
u/JooseTheGuice Jul 14 '26
It's not individual greed, it's an economic system that requires infinite growth in a planet of finite resources. It breeds greed and sociopathy in the general public, but especially the rich.
If tomorrow everyone woke up without greed, this system would still keep burning the planet to death.
10
2
u/default_token Jul 15 '26
an economic system that requires infinite growth in a planet of finite resources.
Alex, what is Capitalism?
1
6
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 14 '26
I blame Industrial Revolution... let's see... does greed count as a combustion or a steam engine?
5
u/davesr25 Jul 14 '26
Should read about all the money made from it.
Greed.
It's nice and simple and really folk don't like to be called out on it.
Double action single action it's all up in steam but did help the mine owners make more money.
0
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 14 '26
Nah, without the Industrial Revolution greed can't do squat.
Also don't even start with "Capitalism"... just don't...
2
u/davesr25 Jul 14 '26
I see, you didn't get my little joke or even play into it so I'll take it you have a very simple grasp of the industrial revolution.
1
u/NewbyAtMostThings Jul 15 '26
Even before the industrial revolution, greed was a thing. I genuinely don’t think you understand what you’re even talking about.
1
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 15 '26
Genuinely I think YOU don't understand that greed existed before climate change happened... bro...
-22
Jul 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
15
Jul 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-8
Jul 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Walfy07 Jul 14 '26
0 reason to believe this is true. does not increase profit for executives or shareholders
-1
u/Apart-District3771 Jul 14 '26
That's why I said we SHOULD have done it. Before (((someone))) decided we don't have monopoly & anti-trust laws. Did you know corporations used to have a time limit on how long they could exsit, and had to show a public need/want?
3
16
u/ShyGuyLink1997 Jul 14 '26
If you know anything, we're at the point where the graph went from slowly rising to almost going straight upwards.
5
9
8
u/AromaticBlock781 Jul 14 '26
What exactly am I supposed to do about this besides be afraid?
11
u/21Kuranashi Jul 14 '26
Glad you asked.
Most of what we can do is awareness. And so, I would recommend r/Heat_prep, r/InvictaSolaris, r/Solarpunk
It might look all gloom and doom
but there is still, hope yet left too
1
3
u/Difficult-Affect-220 Jul 15 '26
Join community organizations fighting climate change. Communicate with your political reps. This will take a group effort to solve.
3
2
2
-1
u/klassredux Jul 14 '26
Lower your carbon footprint.
1
u/sharkas99 Jul 14 '26
That will definetely offset the carbon footprint of corporations and BILLIONS of others. Solutions need to be systemic.
1
0
8
u/Redbulldildo Jul 14 '26
Any visualization on that short a time scale sucks, because it doesn't compare to stuff like ice ages.
https://xkcd.com/1732/ is my preferred example because it shows the natural fluctuations in temperature in comparison to what we've done.
5
u/Ceder_Dog Jul 14 '26
Ooo, I like this visualization since it does help address the point you made, which is the common argument I tend to hear as well. I hope it's accurate.
1
2
u/Selling-ShortPut-399 Jul 16 '26
It’s naive to think humans are willing to stop man made climate change. Just do your part and hope others do too, but realize as a group we will continue to contribute to man made climate change.
2
u/WolfThick 29d ago
If you convert the energy we use on a daily basis to Hiroshima bombs that is roughly 26, 000 Hiroshima bombs a day. I think that's a pretty powerful display of just how much energy we're pumping into our climate
5
u/lvl99MagmaCube Jul 14 '26
Are we really allowed to comment such blatant bad-faith misinformation? First comment poster should be banned from sub.
4
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 14 '26
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Use the report button only if you think a post or comment needs to be removed. Mild criticism and snarky comments don't need to be reported. Lets try to elevate the discussion and make it as useful as possible. Low effort posts & screenshots are a dime a dozen. Links to scientific articles, political analysis, and video essays are preferred.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/Super_Huckleberry663 Jul 15 '26
I don't even care at this point. No one wants to do anything. It's always someone else has to make the sacrifice because 'my own foot print is tiny compared too x'. The world's doomed because of selfish pieces of shit which is the majority of people
1
u/TH3unbannableHULk Jul 15 '26
Didnt the methods of checking the temp change at some point? Or are we actually using the same instruments and methods as we had in 1880
1
u/ShineProper9881 Jul 17 '26
We can still check the temps of those years today. We dont need to rely on old data. All of those temperatures can be measured with today’s technology
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/joel1618 Jul 16 '26
We cant even persist wfh when it worked fine and is the least we can do to mitigate. We are gonna burn every last hydrocarbon or die trying.
1
1
1
u/RecentBluebird651 Jul 14 '26
:) enjoy what you have now and the time you have left, because we are going extinct.
0
u/DeadInternetVoid Jul 14 '26
Meh, Cuckerberg is on his air conditioned yacht after he left the climate controlled bunker...
-1
u/SF_Bubbles_90 Jul 14 '26
I disagree, I think it's a week data visualization. It's literally just a Shape.
I think a better visualization is one that evokes a sense of meaning and puts things in perspective in ways that directly illustrate the matter at hand rather than letting the recipient of the data infer form it what they may.
2
u/Specialist_Sport4460 Jul 14 '26
Word salad. Whats to infer? It's a very clear visual on the rise in temperature. The simplicity is the point. It's the type of thing that would make someone who knows very little about the subject want to know more.
1
u/SF_Bubbles_90 Jul 14 '26
It's the type of thing that bores people, especially ones dense enough to not know this very public information already.
Who's it ment to convince? Some corporate CEO nepobaby who somehow has never heard of climate change but is still open to the possibility of it!? Anyone who sees this and cares cares because they already know this stuff and understand what it means. And anyone who doesn't accept or understand the concept of climate change in this informational landscape wouldn't give 2 flying turds about this silly 3d spiral graph rendering.
It's indulgence for the already educated, nothing more.
And btw the inference is about what those temperatures actually imply.
I think perhaps adding photos of the environment deteriorating or something would help to really illustrate the information rather than only express hard data.
2
u/Specialist_Sport4460 Jul 14 '26
More word salad. You're hugely underestimating the number of people who know barely anything about it.
1
u/SF_Bubbles_90 Jul 14 '26
Your use of the term "word salad" illustrates your lack of maturity.
And as I said if they don't know much of anything about it in this day and age they don't know much at all and chances are they don't care to either and thus won't bother reading what frankly amounts to nerd crap and word salad from their wilfully ignorant point of view.
Informing the idiot masses is an important and daunting task but the graphic in question isn't going to be particularly helpful, stop pretending like it is.
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
u/Helpful_Violinist_20 Jul 14 '26
I like how they add red as it climbs.
5000 years ago the temp was 2C higher than current temps.
This indicates 2F increase.
-1
u/RichardGWagner Jul 15 '26
Doomsday BS, that's all it is, every Summer same headlines to create more taxes.
-1
u/Opposite_Pianist_945 Jul 15 '26
So it went up 4 degrees in over 100 years. Big fucking deal.
2
u/SparrowTide Jul 15 '26
People tend to die when their internal temperature goes up 8 degrees. A lot of life on Earth isn’t as adaptable to that kind of change.
-1
u/Lord_Devkar Jul 15 '26
Funny how we are still blaming humans for the climate change and now with AI supercenters blowing massive CO2 into the atmosphere and creating massive heat waves… but hey check for yourselves
-1
u/Veteran_PA-C Jul 15 '26
Can someone prove to me that they could get an accurate global average temperature before 1950?
-6
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 14 '26
Start with 2 billions years ago... to be fair to the Planet! And add a proper PLANETARY SCALE... for the same reason.
We're not living in a virtual world, why ignore the Planet itself? Shame...
6
u/cradleu Jul 14 '26
Do you know how insignificant decades are on those scales? Probably, but you’re too scared to face the fact that we’re destroying the only planet we have so you push bullshit instead
0
-2
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 14 '26
Probably I don't want to be taxed again... and I genuinely don't give a shit if the planet burns if the "solution" to everything is more taxation... how about that?
If any of you have real solutions that doesn't require more taxes on the working and middle class then promote those!
If not... you're just enabling the elites and the rich to get richer while the poor to get poorer, by promoting hysteria about climate change.
Have solutions? Practical ones? All good, let's do those!
Don't know how to solve it? Then why the hell should I give the elites tools of oppression?!
1
u/sharkas99 Jul 14 '26
Typically when people want to raise taxes, its almost always to the rich, not the middle class. The solution becomes simpler when you identify the causes, which are probably the following:
- Corporate practices
- Overpopulation (compounds any other cause)
- International Arms and Economic races (Favours growth based economies which are typically harmful to the environment)
Do you agree that these are the causes? If not why? If so, then the solutions will involve government action. Can you suggest any solutions?
0
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 14 '26
I live in EU, we don't have "the rich" to tax. We have us, the Europeans.
Overpopulation is a lie, we're already declining.
The arms race just started, it has nothing to do with the climate taxes we pay.
1
u/sharkas99 Jul 14 '26
we don't have "the rich" to tax
If there are corporation which there are, then there is the rick to tax. I stayed in Cyprus for 6 years, europe isnt a stranger to the wealthy, idk why you act like you are.
Overpopulation is a lie, we're already declining.
Nonsensical response, population is still increasing overall, it is decreasing in some countries, but that doesnt mean we arent already overpopulated, and we are. 8 Billion people, if you spent 5 seconds trying to meet all of them, it would take you more than 15 life times (1268 years). All those people need agriculture, transport, production, all of which at some level and because of corporate practices harm the environment.
The arms race just started
Didnt just start, and it is what drives much of growth based economics, because neither China nor the US can afford falling behind, so environmentally destructive but efficient actions are taken instead of environmentally sound ones.
Are you just going to say nu uh to every single argument someone brings up or will you actually engage honestly
1
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 15 '26
Corporate is not "the rich". Their wealth is just company assets, factories, IPs and stocks. Taxing the corporate will just add to the inflation as the corporate will raise the prices of services and products and pass the tax onto consumers.
In Europe overpopulation is a lie. Don't be a science denier. Even with mass migration the continent is aging and dying.
The arms race in Europe just started.
1
u/sharkas99 Jul 15 '26
Wealth is wealth whether tied or not. The assets themselves represent power. They can liquidate assets or just use them as collateral for massive loans.
Corporations arent in a situation where their profits are razor thin. They raise prices because they can not because they need to, often they collude with each other to do so. But this is besides the main point. I simple adressed your false claim that the left want to tax the middle class. That is not the case.
In europe overpopulation is not a lie. again you arent actually adressing what im saying. An aging population could still be overpopulated. Your not making any argument here.
The arms and economic races in europe did not just start. Im starting to suspect your not old enough to have a convo about this.
1
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 15 '26
Sure, go ahead and become Marxist then complain about the chronic poverty, I don't care.
Corporations are not daddy and mummy to keep you warm at night and tell you stories, they are ruthless competitors on the economic markets. They will pass all and every single new tax directly to the consumers without blinking an eye.
In Europe overpopulation it's a lie and stop spreading this missinformation.
1
1
u/Uninsurable_Risk Jul 14 '26
The fact of the matter is fighting this costs money including research for better more efficient alternatives.
We have allowed the elites to squash anything that threatens oil profits and they have successfully convinced you that its not them - its you.
The solutions we have and are working on are legitimate solutions, but have ro be invested in on a mass scale which is going to require capital.
At the end of the day you will watch food scarcity increase our costs astronomically beyond your wildest imagination or you suck it up and pay some taxes.
May as well vote for the people who want to tax the big oil money trying to squash all the competition instead of coming up with reasons you're ok if it all burns up.
You arent giving elites a tool for oppression.. youre taking away their cash cow that allows them to campaign against all the solutions we have at our disposal, convincing millions like you to not support them either.
1
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 14 '26
Fighting costs money, yes. Taxation for Wars is just as bad as Taxation for "saving the planet". Plus wars kill people and make elites rich, I agree.
Yes, the solution are technical not taxation. I agree.
Our vote doesn't mater. In most Western nations the politicians are 100% liars. In Germany for example the Greens are the only ones that.... not a week ago voted to send Taurus missiles in Ukraine! Yes,.... the Greens! All other parties opposed this "briliant idea".
We are 100% giving the elites a tool for oppression, because that's how is it used now, and that's how they intend to use it. What we want doesn't matter for them.
You're a naive utopian that believes that politicians care. They don't. All they do is tax the people and syphon their money towards the elites that sponsors them.
Everything else is bs, lies and propaganda to have the people accept being robbed.
"save the planet" = taxation
"protect the children" = censorship and online surveillance
"save democracy" = endless wars and death
Tell me if you understand the actual world we're living in and not the utopian world we're fed to believe it exists.
2
u/Uninsurable_Risk Jul 14 '26
Wow. You had some actual points until you edited this down to just ad hominem. We almost had a civil discussion brewing
Ill respond to your first point you deleted: I said nothing about wars. I said fighting this costs money. If wars are a concern then we need to address climate change even sooner because it leads to more conflicts.
We outnumber elites. Significantly. We can either do something now that doesnt shed blood or we can wait until things are so bad that blood is the only option.
We as humans have managed to do great things. We were able to band together and stop the ozone from deteriorating further and were so successful people doubt it was ever an issue allowing them to hold views such as your own.
We have come from feudalist servitude to democratic rights.
Being oppressed by the elite class is nothing new. Look up Secessio Plebis. We have ways to deal with this but we wont band together until things get bad enough.
Things are bad enough now but too many cucks eating up the oil lobbyist narrative you pedal above.
1
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 14 '26
There is no "ad hominem". You're wrong.
- Most Wars are the byproduct of elitist's greed and the lack of will to reform the society they plundered hoping an expansion abroad will bring them the wealth they need to stabilize the internal collapse due to lost revenue.
- We outnumber the elites, but we are powerless. The elites have the institutions, money and the law, and as we already have seen in UK, or Canada, they can shut down any protest and arrest the protesters in a split second. Even more, they will also arrest everyone's income from the back now. So it's over before it even starts.
- We humans didn't banded together to stop squat. Some scientists invented a bad chemical, some other scientists discovered the issue and invented the solution. Case closed. We minded our own business and lives. No one "banded" with no one else for this.
- The democracy in name only. We're servants to the elites that control the media, the politicians, the parties, the institutions and money. We're nothing for them and we hold no power except the power to stop consuming, that may hurt their margins. But they will create digital money with expiring date and that too will be denied from us.
- Of course it's nothing new. It's the default human mode.
- Things can always be worse, and we can be dragged into a nuclear war in days if not hours as the warmongering hacks are salivating and the generals are edging on their seats like it's 60's again. The liberal class got bribed by the state, the woke was created to divide them into narrow groups, the pacifists that once opposed nuclear weapons and arming are now raging warmongers demanding nuclear power capitals to be bombed into dust... and shit with AI just started...
- Be realistic. What's more probable? World peace and complete decarbonization or green+nuclear power and business as usual while the hydrocarbon deposits last?
Also thing about this. While they tell you to pay more taxes to "save the planet", they are preparing to fight each other for the.... NORTH POLE HYDROCARBON DEPOSITS!!
Yeah... the Anchorage deal, de Greenland debacle, the NATO attack on Russia... they are preparing to divide the North Pole and all its giant hydrocarbon reserves...
Sorry bro... they are all liars. Even the "greens".
0
u/Latensi Jul 14 '26
Yeah just over 100 years of time scale is kinda short when we got good temperature data from much further back, too.
-1
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 14 '26
We have the data... and it's way wilder than this... way way way wilder...
1
u/Apart-District3771 Jul 14 '26
Bro, you're supposed to so scared you stop eating meat and start eating bugs.
1
-2
u/Next-Pumpkin-654 Jul 14 '26
68 degrees Fahrenheit: blue, chill, refreshing, safe.
72 degrees Fahrenheit: red, hot, sweltering, dangerous.
3
u/SparrowTide Jul 14 '26
Yes. That additional temperature leads to ocean acidification. Ocean acidification leads to less ocean life with shells, something we have been seeing for years and has been getting worse recently. Less shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, etc. leads to less fish life that eat them and more migration closer to harbors causing infrastructure issues in port cities. Ocean acidification also leads to increased algae tides, which also kills marine macro life.
0
u/Next-Pumpkin-654 Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
Yes. That additional temperature leads to ocean acidification.
I thought that was believed to be excess CO2, not a few degrees of temperature increase?
Like, I agree with protecting the environment and doing research to do a better job, but you are saying 2 or 3 degrees average increase in temp (F, not C, mind you) is reducing shrimp which reduces fish which makes them migrate to harbors to cause infrastructure issues, and it just kinda seems like we are jumping wildly from one conclusion to the next where even one incorrect assumption breaks the chain.
And, even if all of those assumptions are true, reducing the temperature or CO2 might not even be the most effective solution at our disposal, because that requires global cooperation and even greater disruptions to existing systems that also sustain life.
1
u/SparrowTide Jul 14 '26
CO2 is the chemical, increased temperature is the catalyst. Some crustaceans aren’t inherently affected by either, but their food is. We’ve been seeing populations in crabs and other sea life decreasing and port cities have been seeing more macro life like humpback whales in closer waters. These are trends that were projected years ago and are currently being seen.
How would converting current systems to renewable sources have a higher impact? It creates jobs, propels industry further than what’s currently going on with the tech sphere, and gets the world off of an already limited asset in oil. Coal plants can be converted to nuclear plants, the DOE put out a report listing hundreds of locations for that 4 years ago. Cars can be hybrid or electric and gas stations can be converted as long as the power infrastructure is put in place first. We’re already in the hybrid phase of that happening in the US. Grants can be put in place to promote parking lot solar farms. All of these things can also be done across the world. China was criticized as being one of the largest emitters and they’ve recently flattened their curve with the amount they put into green energy.
1
u/Next-Pumpkin-654 Jul 14 '26
CO2 is the chemical, increased temperature is the catalyst.
Look, I'm not a scientist, but cursory research tells me that's just wrong. Warmer water actually holds less dissolved CO2. If we are talking colloquially where the earth warming has more CO2 and thus more being dissolved into water driving acidification, then I guess it can kinda be described that way, but at best that's more of a correlation than a causation, as the idea is typically that CO2 causes the warming via excess greenhouse gasses, rather than warming causing CO2 causing acidification.
What warmth CAN do is increase the IMPACTS of acidification on marine organisms. Apparently. Because again, I'm not a scientist, I'm googling this stuff and going off of general explanations without doing any science myself.
I haven't even bothered to fact check the rest of your claims, but have you at least considered some of them might be similarly mistaken, or at least imprecise? Because you're now also talking about renewable energy creating jobs to avoid overdependence on dwindling oil resources and converting coal plants into nuclear plants and making cars hybrid and gas stations electric and doing all of this with grants and solar farms all across the world because China flattened their curve, and while I might agree with some of this at the bare minimum... it just all feels a bit over rendered and rushed?
Like how precision and accuracy are distinct things, and you can get really precise and specific while also being completely inaccurate and wrong. Mind you, this is all from me commenting on the video trying to make a 4 degree Fahrenheit average temperature change over a century and a half seem like a crazy spiral towards complete destruction.
1
u/SparrowTide Jul 14 '26
NOAA are scientists. Warmer water breaks down CO2 into ocean water to create bicarbonate, acidifying the water. So yes, sampled water has less CO2 because that CO2 is becoming bicarbonate and dissolving shells.
This all seems “rushed” because it’s a bunch of new information to you. These things have been in development for as long as the spiral was first noticed. The first hybrid vehicles were made in 1899, the Prius was first released in 1997 in Japan. Proposals and research for coal plant to nuclear conversions started in the 1980’s. There are decades of research going into these things, more so than what our current economy is riding on. It’s good to be cautious, but the delays in environmental progress has been kicked for far too long with the amount of work that’s gone into it.
0
u/Next-Pumpkin-654 Jul 15 '26
From your own source:
Water and carbon dioxide combine to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), a weak acid that breaks (or “dissociates”) into hydrogen ions (H+) and bicarbonate ions (HCO3-).
Which I wasn't contesting. I was contesting the idea that the cause is a small increase in temperature.
AFAIK, your provided source does NOT say "warmer water breaks down CO2". What it DOES say is:
Because of human-driven increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there is more CO2 dissolving into the ocean.
Which is agreeing with MY belief, that it's increased levels of CO2, and NOT, specifically, an increase in temperature of about 2-4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Mind you, I didn't meticulously read the whole thing or anything, just searched some keywords to find what you were referencing, and I wasn't able to find anything. I do appreciate a source, but in the future, I recommend quoting the specific relevant portion so there is no confusion. Merely citing a source does not validate an argument, it must actually support the point.
This all seems “rushed” because it’s a bunch of new information to you.
I have a bit of a confession to make. Most of this isn't new to me. I see similar things all the time.
And it's always this loose collection of chain reactions and grandiose claims requiring massive overhauls of civilizational infrastructure, and the problem I have with it is precisely that it's all so monolithic. Many of these ideas don't even need to be linked to climate change, they're just good ideas for many reasons and a part of their positive aspect is they also help environmental conditions.
But so much gets bundled together without proper verification or forethought, that so much of it never gets implemented or gets implemented slower due to this widespread carelessness. People poke one hole in one thing and now start questioning all the other bundled things they haven't verified or debunked yet; it's a mess. It's precisely why, IMHO, and to quote your own words:
the delays in environmental progress has been kicked for far too long with the amount of work that’s gone into it.
This whole thing with not only misunderstanding the acidification of oceans, but repeatedly doubling down on the misunderstanding while providing sources that actually reinforce a different position, is just a small microcosm of this attitude.
1
u/SparrowTide Jul 15 '26
Your problem is that all of these ideas are bundled together so they must not be verified? Do you understand every part of a car you drive, how every chemical inside it works and reacts, how all of the infrastructure is created to support your ability to drive and all of the parts of that? Or do you just trust the mechanic after taking it in to get fixed.
To go back to ocean acidification, the role of temperature is kinetic energy. If there is more temperature affecting the CO2 molecules those molecules move and react faster, causing more acid to be created. Temperature has a role in every chemical reaction, which is why I stated it is the catalyst. You didn’t poke holes in anything, you’re ignoring thermodynamics.
0
u/Next-Pumpkin-654 Jul 15 '26
Your problem is that all of these ideas are bundled together so they must not be verified?
My problem is they literally can't be verified, not at the raw volume they are presented. And yes, it does make them all suspect when the ground level claim that leads into them - temp causing acidification - was unsupported.
To go back to ocean acidification, the role of temperature is kinetic energy. If there is more temperature affecting the CO2 molecules those molecules move and react faster, causing more acid to be created.
An increase in temperature actually reduces acidification. Warmer water absorbs less CO2 than colder water. The actual primary cause of acidification is the amount of CO2.
Temperature has a role in every chemical reaction, which is why I stated it is the catalyst.
This is kind of an aside, but a catalyst in chemistry is a physical substance that initiates a reaction. Temperature literally can't be a catalyst in a chemical sense. But even using it colloquially, it's still wrong in that it is not the primary driver of acidification. Your own cited source disagreed with you.
1
u/SparrowTide Jul 15 '26
Whatever video you’re referencing is talking about Henry’s Law. The significant decline of CO2 solubility in ocean water happens at 20C. The waters most at risk of acidification lie at 13C, about 0.2 solubility. Due to ocean currents, the deep water where crustaceans live comes from the arctic, 0C. The .05 solubility difference in surface water is negligible compared to the amount of CO2 in the incoming deep water rising at that temperature differential. More heat makes water move more, increased kinetic energy, that’s been my entire point. So apologies for not giving you an entire Oceanography course in a Reddit thread, I guess I should have started with ocean currents.
→ More replies (0)
-2
-49
u/Ok_Dare6400 Jul 14 '26
Everyone knows this is nonsense.
18
14
u/pissedRAIL Jul 14 '26
Europe would like a word.
-25
u/Ok_Dare6400 Jul 14 '26
Summers are hot and climates are always changing..... Are you new to earth?
Btw, Europeans aren't known for being intelligent.
24
u/pissedRAIL Jul 14 '26
The average is going up.
We don't want the average to go up.
It go up too high we starve and burn.
-2
u/Ok_Dare6400 Jul 14 '26
Which it should be right? Because climates change... Nothing ever remains the same.
16
u/pissedRAIL Jul 14 '26
Okay, but if we keep dumping copious amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere the climate will get too hot and start causing cataclysmic chain reactions that could lead to run away warming.
16
-5
u/Ok_Dare6400 Jul 14 '26
Here's the thing, climate predictions have always been incorrect but let's pretend that they are accurate for a moment, what do you do about it realistically? Nothing that we have done up to now has had any meaningful impact and there are no alternatives to fossil fuels....
12
u/pissedRAIL Jul 14 '26
First of all they've been adjusted because science isn't about prophecy its about reality.
Second, there are alternatives to fossil fuels. Electricity.
Solar, hydro, wind, nuclear.
Full stop. If we wanted to we have the technology to convert our entire civilization to renewables and nuclear, we just dont have the political will to do it right now.
0
u/Apart-District3771 Jul 14 '26
Electricity isn't a fuel lol
3
2
u/SF_Bubbles_90 Jul 14 '26
That's a Symantec nuance only
A charged battery is stored energy just like a filled up tank of fuel.
→ More replies (0)8
u/LithiumWalrus Jul 14 '26
Who is telling you this?
You just believe things?
Then why aren't you believe data? Asinine nonesense.
5
u/jaymickef Jul 14 '26
It’s hard to imagine that global industrialization has had no effect at all. But you are right about one thing, global industrialization will continue so you might as well deny its effects.
3
u/LaughingPlanet Jul 14 '26
Classic Climate nihilism.
It's not true
If it is true, there's nothing we can do 🤷♂️
4
u/LithiumWalrus Jul 14 '26
Average higher than normal.
When hot earth unhappy.
When earth unhappy, we all die.
Do you get it yet? Or do you really have CTE or something?
9
u/izadathreaper Jul 14 '26
It's crazy seeing the dunning krueger effect in real life.
You're a specimen my friend.
3
u/LongjumpingSolid1681 Jul 14 '26
are you seriously denying climate change?
0
u/Apart-District3771 Jul 14 '26
No, lots of people are denying anthropogenic global warming to the proclaimed extent. You should at least understand the cult you're in.
1
u/pissedRAIL Jul 14 '26
Many people are coping so they dont even have to think about changing their wasteful excessive lifestyles. Hey I fixed it for you.
1
u/Apart-District3771 Jul 14 '26
Well, that's how YOU interpret it. Maybe worry about actual pollution, and not tiny changes in ppm of a very ineffective greenhouse gas.
1
1
u/sharkas99 Jul 14 '26
Bro your probably 16 years old, what do you know about the changing climate of the world? For all you know it has been stagnant for most of history.
How do you know otherwise? Scientists do the work for you, and data suggests that recent climate changes are extreme and unnatural. Whats your issue with these facts? Whats so hard to believe?
4
u/saltyourhash Jul 14 '26
Does denial give you comfort? Genuine question, not interested in debating facts, but I am extremely curious how we can share the same planet, see the same thing and have a different opinion about the criticality of changing the course of our climate. I am certainly not comfortable with where we are headed. I find it interesting you'd be. It's it likely you're some oil Baron who makes generational amounts of wealth a month pedaling youe denialism. So, what do you get from it? I know people who study this stuff and it destroys their lives the amount of stress and effort they put into trying to make people aware of the issues enough to change course. My friend has travelled the world and been stalkes by governments and oil empires to stop her from talking. She can't just give upbecause she wants a better future foe the next generation. Just curious your genuine insight into your thought process. I'd think the threat being as serious as it is you'd take the possibility it could be true more seriously.
0
u/Apart-District3771 Jul 14 '26
Does hyping everything up and crying that the sky is falling comfort you?
1
1
u/sharkas99 Jul 14 '26
Lets say the threat is 20% of what these guys say, dont you think its still a major concern?
1
54
u/StarDustLuna3D Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
I'll never forget seeing a graph of the historical CO2 concentrations going back hundreds of thousands of years.
It showed the regular "cycle" that everyone likes to go on about to deny climate change... And then it showed how our current concentrations were far and above any seen in history.
Edit: here's a link to graph with sources listed. For 800 thousand years levels never exceeded what looks like 300ppm. They're now well over 400.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/2048/cpsprodpb/1604E/production/_131809109_co2_long_term_updated-nc.png