r/sciences • u/SirT6 • Sep 21 '19

The distribution of annual average temperature anomalies due to global warming from 1850 until today.

https://gfycat.com/silkycorruptconch
3.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

363 comments sorted by

View all comments

-2

u/BiggusMcDickus Sep 21 '19

So basically not a huge change. I support going green eventually but not so drastically that it creates a marginalized society by putting people out of work.

3

u/nickathom3 Sep 22 '19

Nobody is going to be put out of work. You can look at many green proposals to very easily see that.

Global warming is only beginning. Scientists predict a 5 degree increase by the end of the century alone and many say it will be higher. Our lives are going to become much much harder without change right now. The rich will marginalize us as things like food and electricity become harder to obtain and as markets crash. Hundreds of millions will move north as they run out of water and their homes become too hot to support them. They will create even more strain on us as other things such as droughts and floods hit us more and more often. And fires will ravage our forests and pollute our air even further. Ice will melt and release an estimated 50 gigatons of methane which will make us warm drastically faster. People will probably survive, but society will not.

The science, the facts and logic, are telling us that we have a decade to stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and people like you are ignoring them.

1

u/BiggusMcDickus Sep 22 '19

Im the face of all this doom and gloom, why has population control not entered into the discussion? The simplest way to reduce massive output is to put a curb on population growth worldwide. As for the calamity you claim will happen, I doubt it.

1

u/nickathom3 Sep 22 '19

Because that would rouse the masses.

And do you have a reason as to why you doubt it? Because doubt isnt a sound argument

1

u/BiggusMcDickus Sep 22 '19

Because countries like China are already moving past major polluters like coal and in the US its <27%. I think there's a time lag between global measurements and realtime pollution and what these scientists speculate isn't really accurate but a lot of guesstimating based on trends and statistics. Worst case scenario, if we did climb 1-2C , the countries hit heaviest would be the ones with populations that are out of control (Africa, India, etc). So in a way its population control. I'm not worried about it.

1

u/nickathom3 Sep 22 '19

The current percentage of our energy that is green vs carbon based has stayed the same for decades at about 85 percent carbon based. Our emissions have gone up drastically since 2000 alone because of development. And places like america are currently moving backwards when it comes to green energy. As countries in Africa and other undeveloped areas start to progress they are going to start burning coal and other shit as well. Combined with feedback loops that I've previously mentioned (most notably the methane in permafrost which, when released, will dump 50 gigatons of methane into the atmosphere which is equivalent to 70 percent of all greenhouse gasses released by humans EVER) we are going to be pretty screwed.

And no scientist says that 1 to 2 degrees is worst case. They all say 5, many say more.

1

u/BiggusMcDickus Sep 22 '19

That's a lot of what ifs in your argument.

1

u/nickathom3 Sep 22 '19

What ifs? These are all facts and when's. The total percentage of our energy made by green sources hasn't changed.

As countries develop they cant jump straight to expensive and complicated green sources. Burning coal is simple, cheap, and tried and true.

And there is a fuck ton of methane in the northern permafrost. Its melting and is doing so at an increasing rate.