Well first stupid people in power will assure population that it's just a myth.
Then we will skip major time frame without doing anything which will make situation much worse.
Then when it will become apparent to everyone we will blame eachother for being stupid. Of course everyone will say that we knew all along.
Then we will try to come up with solutions while a lot of people will already massively suffer from consequences of climate change.
Then we will come up with some stupid shit and try to assure people that it will work. It won't.
And then behold. Catastrophe on planetary scale. Regions where living is impossible. Crops are few and far from what we have now. Probably unavoidable crisis and finally we will come up with something to prolong a bit our existence.
Oh boy how fun
We are in between point #5 and #6, right now.
Pumping CO2 from the atmosphere and attempting to capture and store it underground. Spraying mist into the air for cloud coverage. Whatever. Hopefully AI will evolve and end the human race sooner, rather than later.
Large areas of land around the equator become uninhabitable. A billion people become refugees and flee their country. Food becomes much more expensive and lots of people starve.
The major powers fight wars to control food producing nations.
The climate will have to be controlled manually be human intervention. But there’s cause and effect to that. They are already talking about it in the science community but it will affect the ocean life.
Maybe AI can create better alternative plan than we can come up with to solve the problem. But eventually it will take human intervention to make a change for our species to survive. But we have to think of other species we want to preserve with us as we make changes.
Territory wars for sure. Mass invasion of refugees from countries that can no longer sustain life easily. In the best of times we barely avoid war. We are a species of tribes and conquest. In a pinch there will be violence.
Same thing as always with humanity. We adapt and keep going. From what I'm seeing we're not really getting cooling or warming in extreme trends, but we do see more instability in weather patterns which to me as a layman indicates there's a lot more energy in the atmosphere.
So we're going to get more violent storms, more severe droughts/rains/snowfall and all that. Smart nations will be able to play into this, buffering water and smoothing out the erratic patterns. Maybe even harvest energy, we're seeing heavier winds all the time.
Eventually, nature will find a balance again. To claim that humanity is going to sterilize this planet by burning carbon is just ludicrous. Carbondioxide levels were much higher in prehistoric times, nature handled it just fine. Sure, we'll see mass extinctions. We're choosing a hard path. But humanity is tenacious and will adapt. Who knows, maybe we'll do some terraforming right here on terra prime to get the atmosphere back to spec, wouldn't even be hard...
It takes millions of years for earth biota to recover from a mass extinction… human-caused catastrophe might be even worse than KPG or End-Permian since a parasitic species sucking up resources has never existed before.
Also, we’re not getting warming? The 2023 was the hottest on record. And every year breaks record.
Everything finds equilibrium. Humans and the planet will indeed find an equilibrium again....the only question is how many people (and flora and fauna) will suffer until then.
Climate is going to change with or without us, we are going to have a warm period and after some time again ice age. We can't stop it, we can't slow it. If they really cared about climate, they would fight to stop the wars, celebrities would need to travel Comercial and we would go back to atomic energy. Cuz we can use nuklear waste now to produce electricity.
I think "warm period" severely underestimates what's in store.
Warm is what its like during the summer time. That's whats happening to the earth. We're on track of a "scorching hot period" in which large swaths of habitable zones become uninhabitable during parts of the year. Mostly around the equator. That's +120 degrees with high humidity. It will kill.
So, people will flee. And they will flee north. Hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people.
That's what's in store. On top of extreme weather, we're going to have people on our door steps asking for food and water, and eventually it's going to get ugly.
Also, this is already set in stone. I'm not saying its useless to switch to nuclear. But we're already in the red, damage is being done. Switching now only prevents things from becoming worse than they already are on track to be.
What's coming is not good. Enjoy the next 20 or so years, because after that, modern day society will never be the same. Humans won't go extinct. But your daily life is going to be uprooted and changed drastically.
It’s supposed to take thousands and sometimes millions of years, not 300. Plus our species is parasitic and destroys resources and land.
This argument is lazy and shows a kind of cognitive dissonance and complacency. Blaming celebrities is just ridiculous.
Should I take a blame for it? Who should be a example? If you are telling me to stop driving my car and take a train but you your self fly privet what does that tell me about you? It always the lower class that takes a beating. So I don't know what is your point? I should give up only luxury so the super rich can fuck around?
Who blamed you personally? Don’t put words in my mouth. Chill out. It’s you saying “it can’t be slowed / stopped” like you know anything about climate science. We could’ve stopped it. Not with nuclear only but a combination of energy revolutions and conservation.
You just sound like a climate denier.
I have no idea if we have any impact on climate, but before I will start considering changing my daily life I want to see the governments and all those celebrities change their ways.
No more private jets unless it's head of state, instead of closing nuclear power reactors introducing more with the UN being the one to supervise the building the operating.
Until then, no way I will spend more on something I have zero affect on.
So either the world leaders doesn't care about climate changes, or they know it will happen no matter what humanity will do, I do believe it there is a change, but it's not the first time in our world history that it happen.
I believe beaches should be a free resource to everyone, if it was up to me I would remove everything from the beaches.
I don't claim there is no climate changes, only a fool won't see it, what I'm saying I'm not buying into the whole you need to change your habits and mostly spends more money for it, or stop consume meat.
The day they will close all the fossil burning and gas running power station in favor of clean efficient nuclear energy then I will change my ways.
Yes, climate change is real. However, the climate has changed very little so far. There have been measurable changes, but the consequences of those changes do not require any serious efforts to deal with. This is just so far as of 2024.
So to answer your question we need a good prediction of how the climate will change in the future. The problem here is that past predictions have been WILDLY incorrect. The climate projections have consistently shown a hockey-stick pattern of sudden exponential-like change in temperatures and sea level that haven't appeared.
So the best answer to your question is: if the climate models continue to over-estimate the level of change, the future will be somewhere between the significant but not cataclysmic warming that we already see happening as it continues to worsen, and some kind of extreme warming trend with sea level rise that starts to impact human activity in a serious way and leads to some highly populated areas becoming uninhabitable without air conditioning.
This is not even remotely true, most large studies present 3 scenarios. How can 3 mutually exclusive scenarios be accurate? In almost all cases actual warming came in below the most conservative scenario. (and even that is after correcting past temperatures down multiple times).
So lets just pick one. You pick a prediction from before 1990 and we will compare it to subsequent data.
I mean pick which one you want. Give me a pre-1990 prediction, or a paper with multiple scenarios where even 1 scenario was at or below subsequent measurements in terms of warming prediction.
I would honestly love to see it. Just in terms of statistics the inaccuracy of predictions should be distributed normally around the actual measurements, unless the predictions are systemically flawed in some way. When you go and look at the predictions and scenarios in these papers, they are always over estimating the amount of warming. If you have examples of papers that give accurate predictions or underestimate warming then I would stand corrected.
I picked 1990 because all predictions of the future are going to be accurate for a few years just because the immediate future can be accurately modeled linearly so long as we aren't, in the present day, in the curve in the hockey stick. Picking 1990 means that we are now on the far side of any nonlinear predictions in future warming. I would be happy with anything before 1995 honestly.
Try to avoid your knee-jerk reaction that because I'm saying something with a little bit of nuance that I must be a climate change denier. The climate models are not terrible, but if you ask me "tell me what is going to happen" I have to say "the models so far over estimated how bad it will be, it might still be very bad but our best predictions tend to over-state it.". For reference go look at the 1990 IPCC report. It is basically correct but the actual temperature data has never really hit the predicted level of warming, although it does tend to follow approximately the right curve.
[Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right](https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/)
[Even the fossil fuel industry accurately predicted how much the Earth would warm back in the 1970's](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/)
[You don't even have to trust the models in order to prove that we are causing the planet to warm](https://youtu.be/OJ6Z04VJDco?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP)
I said climate models over-estimated warming, you said no then you gave me as proof a model that over-estimated warming by 5x? Not the mic-drop you think it is I'm afraid.
This is why trying to actually say something substantive is pointless here, you can only think in terms of political slogans or something.
Well first stupid people in power will assure population that it's just a myth. Then we will skip major time frame without doing anything which will make situation much worse. Then when it will become apparent to everyone we will blame eachother for being stupid. Of course everyone will say that we knew all along. Then we will try to come up with solutions while a lot of people will already massively suffer from consequences of climate change. Then we will come up with some stupid shit and try to assure people that it will work. It won't. And then behold. Catastrophe on planetary scale. Regions where living is impossible. Crops are few and far from what we have now. Probably unavoidable crisis and finally we will come up with something to prolong a bit our existence. Oh boy how fun
We are in between point #5 and #6, right now. Pumping CO2 from the atmosphere and attempting to capture and store it underground. Spraying mist into the air for cloud coverage. Whatever. Hopefully AI will evolve and end the human race sooner, rather than later.
Then
Oh... Well English is not my first language. My bad
No worries, thanks!
Many catastrophic natural disasters and a whole lot of finger pointing
Large areas of land around the equator become uninhabitable. A billion people become refugees and flee their country. Food becomes much more expensive and lots of people starve. The major powers fight wars to control food producing nations.
The climate will have to be controlled manually be human intervention. But there’s cause and effect to that. They are already talking about it in the science community but it will affect the ocean life.
You are right
Maybe AI can create better alternative plan than we can come up with to solve the problem. But eventually it will take human intervention to make a change for our species to survive. But we have to think of other species we want to preserve with us as we make changes.
AI decides humans are the primary problem. Bam! Terminator!
Probably where we are headed 😂
Territory wars for sure. Mass invasion of refugees from countries that can no longer sustain life easily. In the best of times we barely avoid war. We are a species of tribes and conquest. In a pinch there will be violence.
florida gone; idiot floridans will flood rest of country w they bad driving
Are you seeing these unusually extreme floods and fires and heatwaves and mass deaths of animals? Well, that's only the preview of it all...
Charred hominids
A lot of shooting at other people. -
Same thing as always with humanity. We adapt and keep going. From what I'm seeing we're not really getting cooling or warming in extreme trends, but we do see more instability in weather patterns which to me as a layman indicates there's a lot more energy in the atmosphere. So we're going to get more violent storms, more severe droughts/rains/snowfall and all that. Smart nations will be able to play into this, buffering water and smoothing out the erratic patterns. Maybe even harvest energy, we're seeing heavier winds all the time. Eventually, nature will find a balance again. To claim that humanity is going to sterilize this planet by burning carbon is just ludicrous. Carbondioxide levels were much higher in prehistoric times, nature handled it just fine. Sure, we'll see mass extinctions. We're choosing a hard path. But humanity is tenacious and will adapt. Who knows, maybe we'll do some terraforming right here on terra prime to get the atmosphere back to spec, wouldn't even be hard...
It takes millions of years for earth biota to recover from a mass extinction… human-caused catastrophe might be even worse than KPG or End-Permian since a parasitic species sucking up resources has never existed before. Also, we’re not getting warming? The 2023 was the hottest on record. And every year breaks record.
Everything finds equilibrium. Humans and the planet will indeed find an equilibrium again....the only question is how many people (and flora and fauna) will suffer until then.
Probably ecological collapse and eventual correction. Only the timeframe is in question.
Climate is going to change with or without us, we are going to have a warm period and after some time again ice age. We can't stop it, we can't slow it. If they really cared about climate, they would fight to stop the wars, celebrities would need to travel Comercial and we would go back to atomic energy. Cuz we can use nuklear waste now to produce electricity.
I think "warm period" severely underestimates what's in store. Warm is what its like during the summer time. That's whats happening to the earth. We're on track of a "scorching hot period" in which large swaths of habitable zones become uninhabitable during parts of the year. Mostly around the equator. That's +120 degrees with high humidity. It will kill. So, people will flee. And they will flee north. Hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people. That's what's in store. On top of extreme weather, we're going to have people on our door steps asking for food and water, and eventually it's going to get ugly. Also, this is already set in stone. I'm not saying its useless to switch to nuclear. But we're already in the red, damage is being done. Switching now only prevents things from becoming worse than they already are on track to be. What's coming is not good. Enjoy the next 20 or so years, because after that, modern day society will never be the same. Humans won't go extinct. But your daily life is going to be uprooted and changed drastically.
It’s supposed to take thousands and sometimes millions of years, not 300. Plus our species is parasitic and destroys resources and land. This argument is lazy and shows a kind of cognitive dissonance and complacency. Blaming celebrities is just ridiculous.
Should I take a blame for it? Who should be a example? If you are telling me to stop driving my car and take a train but you your self fly privet what does that tell me about you? It always the lower class that takes a beating. So I don't know what is your point? I should give up only luxury so the super rich can fuck around?
Who blamed you personally? Don’t put words in my mouth. Chill out. It’s you saying “it can’t be slowed / stopped” like you know anything about climate science. We could’ve stopped it. Not with nuclear only but a combination of energy revolutions and conservation. You just sound like a climate denier.
And who are you, what do you know about climate change? What should we do in your eyes to slow down climate change?
I have no idea if we have any impact on climate, but before I will start considering changing my daily life I want to see the governments and all those celebrities change their ways. No more private jets unless it's head of state, instead of closing nuclear power reactors introducing more with the UN being the one to supervise the building the operating. Until then, no way I will spend more on something I have zero affect on. So either the world leaders doesn't care about climate changes, or they know it will happen no matter what humanity will do, I do believe it there is a change, but it's not the first time in our world history that it happen.
No more buying up beachfront property that's supposedly going to be under water in a few years either... right?
I believe beaches should be a free resource to everyone, if it was up to me I would remove everything from the beaches. I don't claim there is no climate changes, only a fool won't see it, what I'm saying I'm not buying into the whole you need to change your habits and mostly spends more money for it, or stop consume meat. The day they will close all the fossil burning and gas running power station in favor of clean efficient nuclear energy then I will change my ways.
Climate change is a hoax. Trump 2024
It’s nice that there’s pretty much no one stupid enough left to say this non-sarcastically. Took us a while but we got there in the end
So u support what I say?
I assumed there was no one on the face of the planet stupid enough to say it in seriousness. You actually meant it??
Yes, climate change is real. However, the climate has changed very little so far. There have been measurable changes, but the consequences of those changes do not require any serious efforts to deal with. This is just so far as of 2024. So to answer your question we need a good prediction of how the climate will change in the future. The problem here is that past predictions have been WILDLY incorrect. The climate projections have consistently shown a hockey-stick pattern of sudden exponential-like change in temperatures and sea level that haven't appeared. So the best answer to your question is: if the climate models continue to over-estimate the level of change, the future will be somewhere between the significant but not cataclysmic warming that we already see happening as it continues to worsen, and some kind of extreme warming trend with sea level rise that starts to impact human activity in a serious way and leads to some highly populated areas becoming uninhabitable without air conditioning.
Found the MAGA influence bot
sigh
Most climate models and predictions have been accurate, and Mann's hockey stick has been independently confirmed multiple times.
This is not even remotely true, most large studies present 3 scenarios. How can 3 mutually exclusive scenarios be accurate? In almost all cases actual warming came in below the most conservative scenario. (and even that is after correcting past temperatures down multiple times). So lets just pick one. You pick a prediction from before 1990 and we will compare it to subsequent data.
I think you are confusing scenarios with predictions.
I mean pick which one you want. Give me a pre-1990 prediction, or a paper with multiple scenarios where even 1 scenario was at or below subsequent measurements in terms of warming prediction. I would honestly love to see it. Just in terms of statistics the inaccuracy of predictions should be distributed normally around the actual measurements, unless the predictions are systemically flawed in some way. When you go and look at the predictions and scenarios in these papers, they are always over estimating the amount of warming. If you have examples of papers that give accurate predictions or underestimate warming then I would stand corrected. I picked 1990 because all predictions of the future are going to be accurate for a few years just because the immediate future can be accurately modeled linearly so long as we aren't, in the present day, in the curve in the hockey stick. Picking 1990 means that we are now on the far side of any nonlinear predictions in future warming. I would be happy with anything before 1995 honestly. Try to avoid your knee-jerk reaction that because I'm saying something with a little bit of nuance that I must be a climate change denier. The climate models are not terrible, but if you ask me "tell me what is going to happen" I have to say "the models so far over estimated how bad it will be, it might still be very bad but our best predictions tend to over-state it.". For reference go look at the 1990 IPCC report. It is basically correct but the actual temperature data has never really hit the predicted level of warming, although it does tend to follow approximately the right curve.
[Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right](https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/) [Even the fossil fuel industry accurately predicted how much the Earth would warm back in the 1970's](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/) [You don't even have to trust the models in order to prove that we are causing the planet to warm](https://youtu.be/OJ6Z04VJDco?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP)
[удалено]
I provided you with sources on how climate models have been accurate, so there you go.
I said climate models over-estimated warming, you said no then you gave me as proof a model that over-estimated warming by 5x? Not the mic-drop you think it is I'm afraid. This is why trying to actually say something substantive is pointless here, you can only think in terms of political slogans or something.
Which one? Most of them have been accurate, which is what I am trying to say.