61–70 of 247 posts
And yet many Europeans will still argue that ACs are evil and they shouldn't have them despite an estimated 175k heat related deaths per year. Although maybe this heat wave will change some minds.
Why such short term graphs? One of them only goes back 1991, and the longest term only goes back to 1946.
Let's go back... ah, I see mile-high glaciers over London.
Global warming did occur in the past as well.
If you’re wondering who to blame, as little as ten years ago: “Republican Senate environment chief uses snowball as prop in climate rant”[0] It’s an interesting plot twist in Termination Shock, where the popularist right shifts overnight from “it’s fake” to “real, but the liberals/globalists/experts betrayed us by doing nothing useful”. A reframe from environmentalism into grievance politics, which is already becomin…
What strikes me is the relative sharp change. CO2 has been rising since, what 250 years ? However real effects of global warming seems to be felt since, like 10 years old ?
Also the ocean and arctic were absorbing the majority of the heat. The arctics been going through these heat waves for 10 years, its white albedo decreasing and potentially permafrost melting making more effective emissions now.
We must act. Stop eating beef. Stop taking trips if possible. Vote for those who care about climate, not bugaboos like immigration. We have real problems like climate, and jump-scare tribal problems like immigrants and foreigners, which are actually good for a nation.
Saying this just having emerged from a heat dome, New England forest is not built for feels like 105F. Many living things in my own backyard are now heavily stressed by climate. We. Must. Act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question, are you doing a simple extrapolation and assuming in 10 years Europe is going to have 60C heatwaves or something?
This doesn't sound like a serious question
What I find most amusing is people somehow think climate change will end humanity faster than what's _actually_ on track to do so, and quickly: people having children well below replacement levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Climate change itself is not gonna endanger humans as a species, but secondary effects might. Such as wars resulting from dramatic shifts in the value of territories and wars over resources.
War won't end human existence. If there's one thing you can learn from the recent wars in Iran and Ukraine, it's that conventional air-bombing has acquired a terrible cost:efficacy ratio that cannot be sustained, that drones have leveled the playing field on the ground, and that attackers generally appear to lack the stomach for mass mobilization and mass casualties in war. Again, there'll be winners and losers. Some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because rich people want more money. They keep saying it's for the good of humanity and some useful idiots keep repeating that. A more balanced tax policy, regulation of financial markets, incentives to renewals, stopping investment in fossil fuels, increasing energy efficiency, and rewilding could all help, but we won't do a lick of it, because every single one of those things goes against the billionaires who own t…
I'm 100% behind it, but would regulation of financial markets and balanced tax policy do for global warming ? Sure heavy regulation of industries and fossil fuels usage but financial markets, im not sure.
Nobody is steering the ship. It's just drifting aimlessly in random self-perpetuating cycles. That's because financial markets are steering the ship but they don have any brains. If we put humans in charge of the ship again, we might be able to actually steer it and then we could steer it away from the iceberg that is climate change before we hit that iceberg.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of worry about the future, and has been since world-ending threats became apparent However while apocalypse scenarios (Nuclear war, asteroid impact, AI powered biological warfare) are low likelihood, extreme impact, climate change is extreme likelihood and high impact, not just the immediate effect on places like Europe, Canada etc, but also from the conflicts that climate change will drive, which in tu…
Space weather that would bring down our systems is not such low likelihood. I am not convinced nuclear war or biological warfare are as unlikely as you think. We have historically had narrow escapes from nuclear war.
If you’re wondering who to blame, as little as ten years ago: “Republican Senate environment chief uses snowball as prop in climate rant”[0] It’s an interesting plot twist in Termination Shock, where the popularist right shifts overnight from “it’s fake” to “real, but the liberals/globalists/experts betrayed us by doing nothing useful”. A reframe from environmentalism into grievance politics, which is already becomin…
It's not a fully invalid view in Europe to an outsider's eye. There is a world where nuclear power and ACs were built to prepare Europe for this without increasing global warming. That world was blocked by environmentalists. Now it's no ACs and russian natural gas imports anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Space weather that would bring down our systems is not such low likelihood. I am not convinced nuclear war or biological warfare are as unlikely as you think. We have historically had narrow escapes from nuclear war.
Climate change also greatly increases the chance of a huge global conflict breaking out.