Climate eschathologists say we'll be dead from drowning /heatstroke in 5 years.Skeptics say nothing ever happens and we should invest more in black gold.What is the /sci/ consensus on this terrifying / annoying issue?
>>16870434meh it seems they kinds lost steam on their hysterics recently. Hopefully we could move on from hyper-fixating on "stopping" climate change to learning how to adapt to it, as well as the positives like cold climates becoming better for agriculture etc.
>>16870434Even if you don't believe climate change, do you really want polluted air like in Asia?
>>16870434what can we do when our leaders won't listen to the science and stuff?https://www.brighteon.com/881137b2-5d54-4182-a47e-bb42f7626b90
Look people who advocate for such alarmism and keep track how much land they get/buy.
They literally first predicted this might happen in the 1890's, its a very straightforward process to anyone who understands physics. The exception is that during the 1970's there was in fact a cooling trend due to high levels of sulfurous gases in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight, which have since gone away because of pollution controls on sulfur so the warming has returned.
>>16870441The costs will far outweigh the benefits, every billion tons of carbon dioxide released is essentially a tiny little debuff on the economy to perpetuity. We do have the technology to slow the growth of this little debuff, but electric cars charge so sloooooow and nuclear power is scary and windmills look stupid, so i guess we have to fuck up the economy 120 years from now
>>16870488>electric carsMeme >nuclear powerClosest to solution there is but too expensive>windmills Even bigger memeThere is no alternative to hydrocarbons.
>>16870492>electric carsThey work fine for most shorter trips, the Chinese have been rolling tons of them in an effort to avoid foreign oil lately>Nuclear powerYeah works fine ig>Windmills (and solar power)Not really a replacement for fossil fuels but it does tank demand during favorable weather (up to like 70% of the time) and they are cheap to install these days, they are genuinely quite practical.From everything I have gathered, coal electric power needs to go, oil demand could have a large chunk taken out of it, and natural gas would stay steady because heating would be electrified but more electricity would be needed and gas is a practical option to keep wind and solar reliable.
>>16870434Just numerological hysteria about the year 2000.
>>16870434The predictions of actual climatologists have been remarkably correct. Listen to them.Media retards have been consistently full of shit. Stop listening to them.Simple as.
>>16870441This is because they had to. If they so much as mention climate change in grant proposals, they'll lose funding. If they publish their doomsday rhetoric in papers, funded by grants, they lose their funding. This is a direct consequence of Trumpenomics
>>16870488>we have to fuck up the economy 120 years from nowWe're fucking up the economy right now.
>>16870434Climatology is dead. The West folded to illegal invaders even without the pretext of climate refugee. The purpose of the lie is redundant and that is why they will let it whither and die.
Say Kermit, that water ain't even near boiling yet.
>>16870434>climate eschatologyhttps://rumble.com/vlrjqq-beyond-thunderborg.html?e9s=src_v1_cbl%2Csrc_v1_ucp_v
>>16870434>Weather science:>Can barely forecast the weather two days from now correctly, but that's no biggie.>Can apparently predict the temperature in 100 years to 0.1 degree precision and it's proven by the science and if you don't believe it you should die.
>>16870785>Statistics >can barely guess what the next dice roll will be>can apparently predict the average value of sides a billion rolls later
>>16870434>Climate eschathologists say we'll be dead from drowning /heatstroke in 5 years.Nobody is saying this.
>>16870486they literally model centuries out in the future with dozens of different models, then no matter what happens at least one model was correct which gives them a license to continue peddling their end of days cultist behavior
>>16870877look at the variation in their modeling over 500 years!
>>16870877>then no matter what happens at least one model was correct which gives them a license to continue peddling their end of days cultist behaviorhttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378>muh cherry picking!Show me one model which was excluded from this study.
>>16870880Did you read your own source? That's a trivial question to answer. >We conducted a literature search to identify papers published prior to the early-1990s that include climate model outputs containing both a time series of projected future GMST (with a minimum of two points in time) and future forcings (including both a publication date and future projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations, at a minimum). Eleven papers with 14 distinct projections were identified that fit these criteriaBy obvious logic, any paper prior to 1990 that failed either criterion listed were not included. Likewise any paper after 1990 was not included. Are you brain damaged?
>>16870880LMAO HOLY SHIT>A number of model projections were inconsistent with observations on a temperature versus time basis but are consistent once mismatches between modeled and observed forcings are taken into account. For example, whileN77 and ST81 projected more warming than observed, their implied TCRs are consistent with observations despite forcings within—though on the high end of—the ensemble range of observational estimates. Similarly, while H81 Scenario 2a projects less warming than observed, its implied TCR is consistent with observations.
>>16871037>any paper prior to 1990 that failed either criterion listed were not includedYes, any model that didn't make meaningful predictions was excluded because they didn't make any predictions to evaluate.>>16871037>any paper after 1990 was not included.Obviously. The point of this paper was to evaluate historical models, not the modern, more accurate, ones. Are you retarded?>>16871038That's not the own you think it is.Note how neither of you could actually name a model that was excluded.Concession accepted.
>>16870434>Climate eschathologists say we'll be dead from drowning /heatstroke in 5 years.Literally who
i'm mostly worried about the rising CO2 levelsi don't want that shit anywhere near 1000 ppmthat much poison will globally affect people's critical thinking and concentration
>>16870877The sea level rise models have been very accurate out past 30 years though. This 30 year old projection of sea level rise has basically come true even without any of the advanced moselling techniques we use today. Data from this paper: https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF006533
>>16871289can't breathe, elon?
>>16871395Kek. When I was a kid, teachers would frighten us that sea level will grow 5, 15 or even 50 meters, half of countries will go under the ocean. Turns out the rise is even smaller then my penis.
>>16871395>One model>2-16 cm rise>We're all gonna die!Wow.
>>16871757Yeah bro my history teacher told me everyone before Columbus thought the Earth was flat, guess that makes history fake now
Also what is it with hoaxtards and their love for pixelated 'infographics' stolen from Bob's Harley Davidson Fanclub Facebook page?Seriously, get new material lmao
>>16870434Industrialised societies engaging in global trade cannot survive if the global temperatures, atmospheric activity and oceanic activity do not behave in a specific and predictable manner. We are moving away from these stable conditions and into extreme unstable conditions that, even if we can adapt to them, will transform human civilisation into something both unrecognisable and undesirable.The rate and cause of this process is debated, but as it progresses the debate becomes increasingly futile.
