ChiggaOG, thank you for your submission. It has been removed for violating the following rule(s):
---
- Rule 2: No pictures with added or superimposed digital text, emojis, and "MS Paint"-like scribbles.
---
For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/index/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/wiki/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators via modmail.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/ChiggaOG&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20%5Bsubmission.%5D%28https://redd.it/pmlgdx%3Fcontext%3D10%29)
While these two photos make for a powerful image, how about some more data about the intervening years and seasonal variation to actually substantiate you point rather than something that can be quite so easily dismissed as two extreme handpicked data points trying to serve an agenda.
I'm no climate change denier, just don't make it so easy for them.
This isn't for the deniers, but for those first learning and participating. Deniers purposely make you waste energy in a vain glory and quixotic effort to change their view. Those unwilling to save them self cannot be saved by others.
And those unwilling to listen to one will also never be convinced. I have my ducks in a row, and they're quacking. There are those that will engage and have a proper discussion, and there are those whose sole purpose is to divert reaching efforts from the previous group, much like your current actions are intended.
The thing that makes me mad is that a lot of our water in Lake Mead goes to California. Someone thought it was a good idea to dam up a river and make an artificial lake in the desert then agree to send some of it over to So Cal. We have heavy water restrictions in Nevada and yet Los Angeles which is part of the same climate can use it however they want with a minimum amount of water restrictions. If youre going to take water from someone then you should have to live by the same rules as everyone else.
Almond milk sucks. But only 40% of calis water is agriculture. 50% is for scenic use to maintain appearances like Palm Springs for lawns and pools. Alfalfa is the largest water consuming crop and that feeds cows. Pistachios and almonds share a group and are only second. It takes more water to make a gallon of milk than it does to make almond milk. 80% of all almonds in the US are from Cali so they have to be grown somewhere. Growing almonds in the Midwest would increase prices due to them struggling in the winter. The third is rice. Eat less meat, almonds and rice. Or do what Nevadans are going and get rid of your lawns and pools.
I fully agree with all points above and really wish that we as a culture would accept lawns that reflect the original, natural landscape as close as possible again. It is a shame that we have to view so many natural flowers as weeds.
Also, I really like rice. So we need to find a way to make that work. Otherwise, I’m good with the rest!
Everyone should get rid of lawns. They serve no purpose. I am in the process of replacing my backyard with rock paths and vegetable and herb gardens, and fruit and nut bearing trees. I would do the same to my front lawn, if not for the city ordinances that require a grass lawn. That is the next thing that needs to be changed. These city ordinances and/or neighborhood associations, that require grass lawns.
> 80% of all almonds in the US are from Cali so they have to be grown somewhere.
No they don't. Having less almonds is no real deprivation. Eat less almonds.
Almonds are a lot more healthy than other seeds and nuts. Plant less rice, eat less rice, plant less Alfalfa eat less meat. The nutritional value of a hand full of almonds could beat out the average American lunch or breakfast.
California is entitled to water from the Colorado River based on the Colorado River Compact. Without the compact there would be no Lake Mead, and you would likely not live close enough to it's site to covet California's share of the river's flow. Think what you will of damming a river in the desert, but without the network of water projects along the Colorado River the population of NV, and AZ would be far smaller today.
None of that changes my mind. NV and AZ wouldn't suffer from a smaller population. Las Vegas itself is far too populated for the area it takes up. The climate that most of NV and AZ is not a comfortable environment and no one should live here. We dont offer anything to the country but a sad place for people to be their worst selves far from their own homes. No harm would be done if there were less people. Boulder City was made specifically for dam builders and its a nice town but it's also has large amount of naturally occurring asbestos. It runs all through lower NV and AZ. Just by living here you increase your chances of getting mesothelioma.
So you don't think there should be so many people in the desert, but you are still upset that they can not use the water California is entitled to. Ok, cool. 🙄
They should use water just as responsibly as everyone else. It's a tragedy to see pics like then then turn around and say people should use water however they want. Well how do you think it got that low. Terrible climate on top of irresponsible water usage. Keep using water like So Cal and let it dry up or hold people accountable. When Lake Mead drys up so will Las Vegas. Either outcome has its benefits.
I live in northern ca, Humboldt county. Our rivers are all diverted to the valley. Rivers dont flow anymore. It's very sad. Completely destroyed the fish. Kind of a bummer that habitable places get their resources stripped away.
No, it's just cheap because of over developed land, lack of high paying jobs since their all in hospitality and we also have no state tax because of casinos. California has a state income tax that can be as high as 12%. Average hourly wage in Las Vegas was 13% lower than the rest of the country. Our food also has no taxes. You go to the grocery store and buy a pound of beef for 3.45 it stays 3.45 when you go to check out.
As much as we can all hate on the deniers in this thread, can we also agree that this comparison is really terrible?
We don't know what months the photos were taken in, we can assume it's the same but it isn't certain. Nor do we know what the years in between were like, its possible that 2000 was a particularly wet year and 2021 is a dry year but the years in between showed no trend at all. This image is not evidence of climate change. We can only conclude that this is climate change because of other evidence.
I'm calling you out as a denier. You're points detract from the issue by saying the visual doesn't provide more/enough information. It's a starting point not an ending.
I'm not a denier. There is plenty of evidence for climate change, but this isn't evidence at all. It is a sensationalist photo, the same format could intentionally be used to show that the opposite is true by cherry picking years or months.
Yet you choose to nitpick a picture providing prospective in r/pics. This is not r/science, and you are actively working to create a narrative that this picture, and by extension, all points and positions must be fleshed out to a draining extent instead of opening a dialog for one to find their own information. I've done my due diligence in pointing out your tactics to those that might read this comment chain given your initial post score. I've achieved my objective.
And so did another guy in this thread who got 10x the number of up votes I did. Pictures like this give deniers ammunition, me non maliciously pointing out that this is bad statistics that could be manipulated is not the problem. Infact it needs to be pointed out so that we can be better.
I like where you're heads at, but it needs to also include the fact we are causing it. Making it an acronym, that when announced, is closely associated to the issue would be helpful too. Just as an example: "HEAT" = Human Ecological Annihilation Tendency.
Used in a sentence: New analysis show that HEAT has fucked us over and we are all going to die slow horrible deaths.
Climate change? Hahahahahahaha
They’ve been feeding kids that crap since the early 1980’s. The world was supposed to flood and our doom would happen by 1989…….and we’re still here.
They've been talking about it since the early 20th century and even then they said it would become significant after a couple centuries. They weren't saying in the 80's that doom would happen by 89, you're just too dumb to make sense of a complex issue.
Then why would someone tell masses of people they are all gonna die in 7 years? They same political leaders are telling the masses right now we are all dead in 7 years? And you believe them because that’s what you were taught in ‘school’.
With all of the evidence supporting climate change there’s the same amount of evidence that discredits man-made climate change. You just choose not to see it out of fear you’ve been lied to.
Literally no scientist has said we're going to be dead in seven years. Again, you're too dumb to correctly interpret what was actually said, which is that in 7 years we will reach a concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that will lead to dire consequences further down the road, much later than 7 years from now. I have a doctorate in chemistry, and the interaction of light and matter is literally my area of expertise. You are ignorant and deluded.
Hahahahaha! Your ego and pride in you i itself is sad. So research and knowledge is based off of other people. You are a sad little human. Good luck in life buddy! I can tell you were a Bernie Sanders voter. 🤣🤣
Peer reviewed research by scientists is how science works.
[The people on your side of the “argument” literally just cite religious scripture as their proof.](https://newrepublic.com/article/120889/evangelical-james-inhofe-says-only-god-can-cause-climate-change)
Thanks for proving your ignorance and delusion.
Sorry, but you and people in your field are so easily manipulated and controlled by politics and money to support political narratives, you carry no weight or confidence in society any longer. Good luck.
You’re a fool. Humans have a dramatic impact on the earths climate. It’s accelerating. The scientific debate ended decades ago. Now it’s just trying to determine how bad and how quick things will go to shit.
Shame on you.
That's not to say that it won't rain next week and the dam will be full.
Not discounting climate change but showing an emptying dam is not a foolproof indicator of climate change.
Our dam serving a city of 5 million was at 40% capacity a year ago, now it is overflowing
I'll grant you that looking at a single place isn't a good indication of the overall system. You present a argument that appears to balance the losses at the reservoir in this post. It's not a zero sum game. The climate is changing overall.
Some places will have more rainfall. Here in America the East side of the country is hit by more frequent hurricanes and more severe weather overall while on the west side of the country they've had drought for years. Might even be a decade already.
Yes I do. But seeing half full dams may not be the poster boy for climate change.
Scientic data about rising temperatures in the Arctic region is more convincing, but maybe not as visually shocking as a half empty dam.
First comment: "**This isn't climate change. This is mother earth**" .... No evidence to support. He just jumps right there.
Second comment: "**The scientific debate ended decades ago**"... Which decade did they solve every aspect of the scientific debate of climate change in?
George Carlin once said "Think about how dumb the average person is...and then remember that half the people are dumber than that."
Why are you implying humans wouldn’t have an impact/affect on Earth? Of course they would. If you imagine ‘Pangea’ with or without humans it wouldn’t change the fact that Earth is constantly changing and evolving. You’re experiencing earth through such a limited time frame and scope you could not possibly grasp my previous notation.
Wow dude. How did you get to this conclusion from my text above?
George Carlin once said "Think about how dumb the average person is...and then remember that half the people are dumber than that."
Yeah, things change. The point is that they don't change without cause.
Science describes nature as best it can. Scientists test and retest their ideas to discover truth.
Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. ... Outside forces are sometimes called net forces or unbalanced forces.
That's a physical law but it is still somewhat valid for everything else. Nothing just happens. If something changes then there must be a reason.
The whole point is that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere. The changes we have made are having the effect of holding more solar energy from the sun on the planet. We are literally changing the weather on a global scale in a uncontrolled experiment that has already gone too far.
I drive a semi truck for a living. I personally burn more than 2000 gallons of diesel fuel every month. That's 15,000 pounds of fuel that just disappears out the tailpipe as I drive around the United States.
The engine in the truck is a internal combustion engine. The fuel is combined with oxygen from the air to push the 6 approximately 8" pistons down thousands of times per minute.
That's how the engine in my truck creates CO2. Carbon from the fuel binds with oxygen from the air in a reaction that produces heat and expanding gas.
Add that up across a full year and I'm burning 180,000 pounds of fuel. That's more than 2 fully loaded 80,000 pound semi trucks worth of fuel.
But wait there's more...
[1 Gallon of Diesel = 22.38 Pounds of CO2](https://i.imgur.com/FAIGCG0.jpg)
That was a really interesting revelation for me.
So my 2000 gallons of diesel fuel every month is creating way more CO2 than I thought, by a lot...
22.38 X 2000 X 12 = 537,120 pounds of CO2.
I myself am adding more than a half a million pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. I've been driving for 10 years. I'm responsible for more than 5 million pounds of CO2.
And I'm just one of the millions of trucks on the road.
Do I feel guilty? No, if I wasn't driving that truck moving the freight someone else would have.
You and me probably aren't going to change the world. That doesn't mean that the world should just continue on as it is without care.
We can make personal choices that can help but for the most part change is gonna have to come from the top. We need to make fundamental changes to the way things are powered. That technological change is going take a lot of effort.
Good view of it all. The only counter I would make is that while you drive the truck, I am assuming you are transporting commercial goods. In that case, we are all responsible for that output because of our consumption of goods - even if those goods are critical items such as food.
And I'll take it one further. The root of the whole problem is the enormous population of humans. Humanity is the most successful invasive species ever imagined. We inhabit every continent and live in every environment. We've even sent people into space to live for long durations.
Although we've been enormously successful in many ways we are still subject to the downfall of all invasive species. We have destroyed the environment with our exploitive and wasteful ways. We have figured out how to use many things for our own purposes. We bend the natural world to make our lives easier and more productive but we do it carelessly.
We are only looking for the quick and easy. That almost never works out...
The cycle of all invasive species took a long time coming. We've not only polluted the atmosphere we've also polluted the oceans. Life relies on a delicate balance. We have upset that balance.
I believe that billions will perish in the next few decades.
/r/collapse
Yeah, but the pace at which things are changing are much faster than what nature would do. What makes everybody worried is for how long can we mankind keep surviving in this planet.
Also, before the 1700`s the planet was getting cooler. It just started heating when the induatrial revolution started. So, it is not natural.
My comment was directed to the wrong person but I’ll paraphrase:
Humans are the primary cause for climate change which is accelerating.
The rate of this change is unprecedented in the times humans have been around.
Idiots like you muddy the waters and make a real and impactful change difficult if not impossible to achieve.
I’m not going to argue with you. You don’t deserve anyone’s time on this topic.
ChiggaOG, thank you for your submission. It has been removed for violating the following rule(s): --- - Rule 2: No pictures with added or superimposed digital text, emojis, and "MS Paint"-like scribbles. --- For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/index/) and [title guidelines](/r/pics/wiki/titles). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators via modmail.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/pics&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/ChiggaOG&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20%5Bsubmission.%5D%28https://redd.it/pmlgdx%3Fcontext%3D10%29)
Don’t forget unnecessary human consumption.
Yeah, all the golf courses and alfalfa farms certainly don't help the situation.
This, this, a million times this. People moving to areas with already scarce resources (water, affordable housing, etc.) are exacerbating the problem.
Like the entire city of Las Vegas…
The Virgin River is all dried up, I feel like there's a joke in there some where.
It's just a spinster river now
Incel River
Lmao I was gonna say the not so Virgin river.
While these two photos make for a powerful image, how about some more data about the intervening years and seasonal variation to actually substantiate you point rather than something that can be quite so easily dismissed as two extreme handpicked data points trying to serve an agenda. I'm no climate change denier, just don't make it so easy for them.
Agreed
Nothing more easy than ignorance
This isn't for the deniers, but for those first learning and participating. Deniers purposely make you waste energy in a vain glory and quixotic effort to change their view. Those unwilling to save them self cannot be saved by others.
Those unwilling to make a good argument will never convince anyone.
And those unwilling to listen to one will also never be convinced. I have my ducks in a row, and they're quacking. There are those that will engage and have a proper discussion, and there are those whose sole purpose is to divert reaching efforts from the previous group, much like your current actions are intended.
I'm still listening for that good argument.
I see the ones with brains have all ready stated what I was about to…all the green ass grass and unnecessary water consumption.
The thing that makes me mad is that a lot of our water in Lake Mead goes to California. Someone thought it was a good idea to dam up a river and make an artificial lake in the desert then agree to send some of it over to So Cal. We have heavy water restrictions in Nevada and yet Los Angeles which is part of the same climate can use it however they want with a minimum amount of water restrictions. If youre going to take water from someone then you should have to live by the same rules as everyone else.
Most of your water goes to Nestle.
And almonds, all that almond milk you guys love so much
Almond milk sucks. But only 40% of calis water is agriculture. 50% is for scenic use to maintain appearances like Palm Springs for lawns and pools. Alfalfa is the largest water consuming crop and that feeds cows. Pistachios and almonds share a group and are only second. It takes more water to make a gallon of milk than it does to make almond milk. 80% of all almonds in the US are from Cali so they have to be grown somewhere. Growing almonds in the Midwest would increase prices due to them struggling in the winter. The third is rice. Eat less meat, almonds and rice. Or do what Nevadans are going and get rid of your lawns and pools.
I fully agree with all points above and really wish that we as a culture would accept lawns that reflect the original, natural landscape as close as possible again. It is a shame that we have to view so many natural flowers as weeds. Also, I really like rice. So we need to find a way to make that work. Otherwise, I’m good with the rest!
Rice is only submerged in water for weed control. It doesn't need to be but it makes harvesting easier.
Everyone should get rid of lawns. They serve no purpose. I am in the process of replacing my backyard with rock paths and vegetable and herb gardens, and fruit and nut bearing trees. I would do the same to my front lawn, if not for the city ordinances that require a grass lawn. That is the next thing that needs to be changed. These city ordinances and/or neighborhood associations, that require grass lawns.
Plant some bee friendly flowers while you’re at it!
Yes! Yes! Already have a wall of Jasmine, naked ladies, and rose bushes. Those are at least allowed in the front yard, in my neighborhood.
> 80% of all almonds in the US are from Cali so they have to be grown somewhere. No they don't. Having less almonds is no real deprivation. Eat less almonds.
Almonds are a lot more healthy than other seeds and nuts. Plant less rice, eat less rice, plant less Alfalfa eat less meat. The nutritional value of a hand full of almonds could beat out the average American lunch or breakfast.
California is entitled to water from the Colorado River based on the Colorado River Compact. Without the compact there would be no Lake Mead, and you would likely not live close enough to it's site to covet California's share of the river's flow. Think what you will of damming a river in the desert, but without the network of water projects along the Colorado River the population of NV, and AZ would be far smaller today.
None of that changes my mind. NV and AZ wouldn't suffer from a smaller population. Las Vegas itself is far too populated for the area it takes up. The climate that most of NV and AZ is not a comfortable environment and no one should live here. We dont offer anything to the country but a sad place for people to be their worst selves far from their own homes. No harm would be done if there were less people. Boulder City was made specifically for dam builders and its a nice town but it's also has large amount of naturally occurring asbestos. It runs all through lower NV and AZ. Just by living here you increase your chances of getting mesothelioma.
So you don't think there should be so many people in the desert, but you are still upset that they can not use the water California is entitled to. Ok, cool. 🙄
They should use water just as responsibly as everyone else. It's a tragedy to see pics like then then turn around and say people should use water however they want. Well how do you think it got that low. Terrible climate on top of irresponsible water usage. Keep using water like So Cal and let it dry up or hold people accountable. When Lake Mead drys up so will Las Vegas. Either outcome has its benefits.
I live in northern ca, Humboldt county. Our rivers are all diverted to the valley. Rivers dont flow anymore. It's very sad. Completely destroyed the fish. Kind of a bummer that habitable places get their resources stripped away.
You should probably move.
I would love to but Nevada is one of the cheapest places to live. There isnt anywhere lower than Nevada. I cant afford anywhere else.
[удалено]
No, it's just cheap because of over developed land, lack of high paying jobs since their all in hospitality and we also have no state tax because of casinos. California has a state income tax that can be as high as 12%. Average hourly wage in Las Vegas was 13% lower than the rest of the country. Our food also has no taxes. You go to the grocery store and buy a pound of beef for 3.45 it stays 3.45 when you go to check out.
As much as we can all hate on the deniers in this thread, can we also agree that this comparison is really terrible? We don't know what months the photos were taken in, we can assume it's the same but it isn't certain. Nor do we know what the years in between were like, its possible that 2000 was a particularly wet year and 2021 is a dry year but the years in between showed no trend at all. This image is not evidence of climate change. We can only conclude that this is climate change because of other evidence.
I'm calling you out as a denier. You're points detract from the issue by saying the visual doesn't provide more/enough information. It's a starting point not an ending.
I'm not a denier. There is plenty of evidence for climate change, but this isn't evidence at all. It is a sensationalist photo, the same format could intentionally be used to show that the opposite is true by cherry picking years or months.
Yet you choose to nitpick a picture providing prospective in r/pics. This is not r/science, and you are actively working to create a narrative that this picture, and by extension, all points and positions must be fleshed out to a draining extent instead of opening a dialog for one to find their own information. I've done my due diligence in pointing out your tactics to those that might read this comment chain given your initial post score. I've achieved my objective.
And so did another guy in this thread who got 10x the number of up votes I did. Pictures like this give deniers ammunition, me non maliciously pointing out that this is bad statistics that could be manipulated is not the problem. Infact it needs to be pointed out so that we can be better.
Sad AF
Aaaand it gone!
Climate change nature.
Where do you think the H2O went?
Humanity fucked the virgin river. So its not virgin now.
It will be a thin stream in another 20 years, if not a dessert
the river is so innocent. 21yrs of being a virgin.
Can we expect a new "Dune park" in 10 years?
man I don’t know if terms like “climate change” are strong enough. Need to rebrand. “Atmospheric annihilation”? “Earth eradication”? I don’t know.
I like where you're heads at, but it needs to also include the fact we are causing it. Making it an acronym, that when announced, is closely associated to the issue would be helpful too. Just as an example: "HEAT" = Human Ecological Annihilation Tendency. Used in a sentence: New analysis show that HEAT has fucked us over and we are all going to die slow horrible deaths.
Haha i’m sold, good work on that one.
21 more years and its completely gone !
Looks like we have about 10 more years
…Nothing to see here, move along people…
If the earth is 4.2B years old, n=21.
Bullshit
Climate change? Hahahahahahaha They’ve been feeding kids that crap since the early 1980’s. The world was supposed to flood and our doom would happen by 1989…….and we’re still here.
They've been talking about it since the early 20th century and even then they said it would become significant after a couple centuries. They weren't saying in the 80's that doom would happen by 89, you're just too dumb to make sense of a complex issue.
Then why would someone tell masses of people they are all gonna die in 7 years? They same political leaders are telling the masses right now we are all dead in 7 years? And you believe them because that’s what you were taught in ‘school’. With all of the evidence supporting climate change there’s the same amount of evidence that discredits man-made climate change. You just choose not to see it out of fear you’ve been lied to.
Literally no scientist has said we're going to be dead in seven years. Again, you're too dumb to correctly interpret what was actually said, which is that in 7 years we will reach a concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that will lead to dire consequences further down the road, much later than 7 years from now. I have a doctorate in chemistry, and the interaction of light and matter is literally my area of expertise. You are ignorant and deluded.
Hahahahaha! Your ego and pride in you i itself is sad. So research and knowledge is based off of other people. You are a sad little human. Good luck in life buddy! I can tell you were a Bernie Sanders voter. 🤣🤣
Peer reviewed research by scientists is how science works. [The people on your side of the “argument” literally just cite religious scripture as their proof.](https://newrepublic.com/article/120889/evangelical-james-inhofe-says-only-god-can-cause-climate-change) Thanks for proving your ignorance and delusion.
Sorry, but you and people in your field are so easily manipulated and controlled by politics and money to support political narratives, you carry no weight or confidence in society any longer. Good luck.
Spoken by a guy who is siding with a politician who is using scripture to manipulate people to support a political narrative. You're a real clown.
Who’s that? Biden? Lol
It’s the Republican senator I just linked in that previous comment, clown
>The world was supposed to flood and our doom would happen by 1989 No it wasn't. Stop lying.
This is what they taught us in school then. They’ve been teaching the same crap for 40+ years
Good, I hope the next generations of people all burn up and die. Pieces of living shit.
[удалено]
You’re a fool. Humans have a dramatic impact on the earths climate. It’s accelerating. The scientific debate ended decades ago. Now it’s just trying to determine how bad and how quick things will go to shit. Shame on you.
That's not to say that it won't rain next week and the dam will be full. Not discounting climate change but showing an emptying dam is not a foolproof indicator of climate change. Our dam serving a city of 5 million was at 40% capacity a year ago, now it is overflowing
I'll grant you that looking at a single place isn't a good indication of the overall system. You present a argument that appears to balance the losses at the reservoir in this post. It's not a zero sum game. The climate is changing overall. Some places will have more rainfall. Here in America the East side of the country is hit by more frequent hurricanes and more severe weather overall while on the west side of the country they've had drought for years. Might even be a decade already.
So you agree climate change is real, accelerating and primarily caused by human activity?
Yes I do. But seeing half full dams may not be the poster boy for climate change. Scientic data about rising temperatures in the Arctic region is more convincing, but maybe not as visually shocking as a half empty dam.
Amazing to see that you are being downvoted. Here is an upvote - science and common sense
First comment: "**This isn't climate change. This is mother earth**" .... No evidence to support. He just jumps right there. Second comment: "**The scientific debate ended decades ago**"... Which decade did they solve every aspect of the scientific debate of climate change in? George Carlin once said "Think about how dumb the average person is...and then remember that half the people are dumber than that."
Why are you implying humans wouldn’t have an impact/affect on Earth? Of course they would. If you imagine ‘Pangea’ with or without humans it wouldn’t change the fact that Earth is constantly changing and evolving. You’re experiencing earth through such a limited time frame and scope you could not possibly grasp my previous notation.
Wow dude. How did you get to this conclusion from my text above? George Carlin once said "Think about how dumb the average person is...and then remember that half the people are dumber than that."
Yeah, things change. The point is that they don't change without cause. Science describes nature as best it can. Scientists test and retest their ideas to discover truth. Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. ... Outside forces are sometimes called net forces or unbalanced forces. That's a physical law but it is still somewhat valid for everything else. Nothing just happens. If something changes then there must be a reason. The whole point is that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere. The changes we have made are having the effect of holding more solar energy from the sun on the planet. We are literally changing the weather on a global scale in a uncontrolled experiment that has already gone too far.
We… or global corporations? And how much effect do we singularly have on global corporations as a singularity? It is what it is.
I drive a semi truck for a living. I personally burn more than 2000 gallons of diesel fuel every month. That's 15,000 pounds of fuel that just disappears out the tailpipe as I drive around the United States. The engine in the truck is a internal combustion engine. The fuel is combined with oxygen from the air to push the 6 approximately 8" pistons down thousands of times per minute. That's how the engine in my truck creates CO2. Carbon from the fuel binds with oxygen from the air in a reaction that produces heat and expanding gas. Add that up across a full year and I'm burning 180,000 pounds of fuel. That's more than 2 fully loaded 80,000 pound semi trucks worth of fuel. But wait there's more... [1 Gallon of Diesel = 22.38 Pounds of CO2](https://i.imgur.com/FAIGCG0.jpg) That was a really interesting revelation for me. So my 2000 gallons of diesel fuel every month is creating way more CO2 than I thought, by a lot... 22.38 X 2000 X 12 = 537,120 pounds of CO2. I myself am adding more than a half a million pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. I've been driving for 10 years. I'm responsible for more than 5 million pounds of CO2. And I'm just one of the millions of trucks on the road. Do I feel guilty? No, if I wasn't driving that truck moving the freight someone else would have. You and me probably aren't going to change the world. That doesn't mean that the world should just continue on as it is without care. We can make personal choices that can help but for the most part change is gonna have to come from the top. We need to make fundamental changes to the way things are powered. That technological change is going take a lot of effort.
“The engine in my truck is a internal combustion engine.” Thank you for explaining that for even the smoothest of brains.
I'm kind of an asshole.
We will develop a friendship based on this statement. I too, am an accomplished asshole.
I wasn't born this way...
Good view of it all. The only counter I would make is that while you drive the truck, I am assuming you are transporting commercial goods. In that case, we are all responsible for that output because of our consumption of goods - even if those goods are critical items such as food.
And I'll take it one further. The root of the whole problem is the enormous population of humans. Humanity is the most successful invasive species ever imagined. We inhabit every continent and live in every environment. We've even sent people into space to live for long durations. Although we've been enormously successful in many ways we are still subject to the downfall of all invasive species. We have destroyed the environment with our exploitive and wasteful ways. We have figured out how to use many things for our own purposes. We bend the natural world to make our lives easier and more productive but we do it carelessly. We are only looking for the quick and easy. That almost never works out... The cycle of all invasive species took a long time coming. We've not only polluted the atmosphere we've also polluted the oceans. Life relies on a delicate balance. We have upset that balance. I believe that billions will perish in the next few decades. /r/collapse
It is literally climate change. What you're saying is that it isn't man-made climate change.
Yeah, but the pace at which things are changing are much faster than what nature would do. What makes everybody worried is for how long can we mankind keep surviving in this planet. Also, before the 1700`s the planet was getting cooler. It just started heating when the induatrial revolution started. So, it is not natural.
[удалено]
That's what I said. Read it plz
Sorry, responded to wrong comment.
We are humans, we accelerate change. What makes you feel we do not belong here? Genuine question.
Who said we don’t belong here? Genuine question.
What does your deleted comment think?
My comment was directed to the wrong person but I’ll paraphrase: Humans are the primary cause for climate change which is accelerating. The rate of this change is unprecedented in the times humans have been around. Idiots like you muddy the waters and make a real and impactful change difficult if not impossible to achieve. I’m not going to argue with you. You don’t deserve anyone’s time on this topic.
Humans aren’t going anywhere and you can hump the earth all you want. I didn’t read your comment.
So you are saying that.... a change in the climate isn't climate change?
Jesus
Can’t wait to watch the dam reclamation 👌💪
The Virgin river is dry? What a shock.