Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google search will find you thousands of links
of course there are the climate change deniers
and there are those who say what little we can do won't be nearly enough
just one link:
from the article:
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "
couldn't resist one more link - story about Siberia, one of the coldest places on earth where there is human habitation - they now face 100 degree days and multiple wildfires caused by them
https://eos.org/articles/siberian-heat-w....
.
It's possible that there are areas where warming caused net-negatives. But i won't discuss the topic in general with anyone who denies the positives, or who isn't willing to weight all of them.
You never even admitted how massively, exceptionally positive for europe and the UK it is to have milder winters. How even the fact alone that we need to buy less fossil fuels from dictators thanks to that is so good, that all the negatives for europe and the UK of a warming climate disappear and look nonexistant in comparison.
I don't understand how it is defensible to discuss a warming world without listing the great amount of positives (especially for countries colder than the human optimum, like most of europe clearly is) and exclusively focusing on the negatives.
It's like discussing industrialization by EXCLUSIVELY focusing on the negatives lol, it's so bad faith it's appalling to think anyone would do that.
Certainly in isolation warmer winters are a good thing for higher latitude countries, but it comes at the expense of much wetter weather and more flood damage and rising sea levels, yet you present this as a win without losses.
The study concerns precipitation, not temperatures, and doesn't talk about "areas where where warming caused net-negatives", unless you mean the North, Central, South, East and West ie all of the USA. It would be good if you could stop bulshiiting and try to engage honestly:
The flooding in Valencia was caused by a Dana phenomenon - when warm, moist air meets cold air, creating an unstable weather system.
Scientists say the effects of climate change made the floods worse.
Luciom says FAKE NEWS
Jal, look at this
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
@AOC
It’s 70 degrees in New York in the first week of November. Please vote.
Denying 70F is objectively strictly better for human life than 66 or 64 or 62 (and so something to be celebrated as a massive positive development) is denial of reality, much more than any denial of "scientific models" could be.
The only equivalent to that massive denial of real truth are republicans who deny the economy is good just because Biden is president.
Temperature rises matter because it means much more extreme weather events etc. Not because it isn't often nice when it's a bit warmer
That is the science. You're not such much ignoring reality as missing a huge part.
What chez said. You must be trolling. No one's talking about a steady 21C all year round.
man'o'man .... i scrolled through this threat, read a couple of posts, and gotta say: my head hurts.
few remarks:
1. discussing with people that simply ignore/negate facts is impossible and a huge waste of time.
2. lack of education, ignorance, basic stupidity ... but mostly just trolling i see as reasons
3. some folks are actually that bad, that one could think it might be a good idea to get a little 'earth-self-correction" ... but then again, a lot of decent people will suffer also.
4. facts: we are actually almost too late to change the inevitable, it's unclear if the worst can even be stopped, but to do so would require a huge combined (meaning, all states together) effort, which will never happen due to conflicting interests, politics, etc. ... so yes, it's too late.
for anyone actually interested and willing to invest some time (warning: long read, but worth it), there's a great blog by Tim Urban about the Fermi Paradox, with my conclusion being, that our current situation might actually be our "great barrier" (you'll understand after reading)
cheers.
It can't possibly resolve the Fermi paradox. The window for climate type extinction and viable off planet expansion is way too small.
At best he might write well
That's unkind as he does write well and it's a good intro to the Fermi paradox.
Climate change cant solve it. Nor can MAD etc. All great filter theories have to be many orders of magnitude more likely than our ability to expand beyond them That rules out everything related to self destruction. It's going to have to be cosmic.
At best he might write well
That's unkind as he does write well and it's a good intro to the Fermi paradox.
Climate change cant solve it. Nor can MAD etc. All great filter theories have to be many orders of magnitude more likely than our ability to expand beyond them That rules out everything related to self destruction. It's going to have to be cosmic.
best solution to Fermi paradox is this
At best he might write well
That's unkind as he does write well and it's a good intro to the Fermi paradox.
Climate change cant solve it. Nor can MAD etc. All great filter theories have to be many orders of magnitude more likely than our ability to expand beyond them That rules out everything related to self destruction. It's going to have to be cosmic.
sorry friend, and i don't mean this to be disrespectful ... but then you either don't understand or can't comprehend the magnitude of destruction that awaits us
That's a non sequitur
sorry friend, and i don't mean this to be disrespectful ... but then you either don't understand or can't comprehend the magnitude of destruction that awaits us
you don't understand his answer.
even if you believe humanity is going toward extinction because of climate change (lol), you need to believe that would happen to all alien species even those without individualism or any other human characteristics, even "bee-hivemind" aliens and so on, every time in the history of the universe, for that to be the solution to the Fermi paradox.
and it has to happen in the microscopic timeframe for every species between reach energy-harnessing powers that can cause climate collapse and before the species goes multiplanetary/multi system. every single time in the history of the universe. otherwise it doesn't solve the Fermi paradox.
and btw it requires to think that all species need a very narrow climatic ideal to survive, which is false already for human beings so it's kinda insane as a proposal
you don't understand his answer.
even if you believe humanity is going toward extinction because of climate change (lol), you need to believe that would happen to all alien species even those without individualism or any other human characteristics, even "bee-hivemind" aliens and so on, every time in the history of the universe, for that to be the solution to the Fermi paradox.
and it has to happen in the microscopic timeframe for every species between reach energy-harnessing powers that can cause
that is 100% not (!) what i'm saying, and i actually can't believe i'm arguing with people that obv didn't read the article on which my thesis is based upon ... c'mon guys :-)))
ok, for the cheap seats, one more time:
the great filter theory within the fermi paradox gives one (!!!) possible explanation for why we haven't discovered other intelligent life forms in the universe (or they us)
there can be a ton of other reasons, and of course, they can all be different ones.
all i'm saying is that climate change and all its consequences will be so severe that it possibly can lead to the extinction of humankind (which would then be one of the examples explained in that article)
now if you have any other ideas or suggestions on why i'm wrong, be at least so respectful to not quote me wrong or say the complete opposite of what just laid out.
peace
It might wipe humanty. It's not a solution to the fermi paradox. It's not really anythign to do with the fermi paradox which is about why we're not seeing any other civilisation.
Being on topic. The specific claim that wiping ourselves out is inevitable is deeply unhelpful and not backed by the science.
It might wipe humanty. It's not a solution to the fermi paradox. It's not really anythign to do with the fermi paradox which is about why we're not seeing any other civilisation.
Being on topic. The specific claim that wiping ourselves out is inevitable is deeply unhelpful.
ok, i give up ... you clearly don't want to understand me, and while i engage with your arguments, you simply ignore mine.
you are right, i am wrong.
satisfied?? :-)))
I thnk i understand you. I could be wrong.
I'll be sataisfied if you dont think climate change causing humanities extinction is inevitable. That actually matters
I thnk i understand you. I could be wrong.
I'll be sataisfied if you dont think climate change causing humanities extinction is inevitable. That actually matters
well, since this is a really important topic, i would gladly explain my reasoning to you and give examples, but that would require that you actually listen and engage with my arguments (something you don't seem to be interested in)
I take it that you do believe that it's inevitable
if so how long have we got?
leftism has far higher chances of wiping out humanity (by centralizing power worldwide which comes with existential risks) that climate change by orders of magnitude.
if we want to eliminate existential risks leftism is one of the first things that we should fully eradicate worldwide, but it's impossible to do so without leftist tactics, so we are in this conundrum currently.
More nonsense from Luciom.
The west did far better under vaguely leftist governments since the war than under the right wing crap that replaced them.
