Just today there is a scientific article written by the Trump government that said Sea-Level rise is more than expected. This is not a linear rise but exponential, meaning it is accelerating. This isn't a now problem but temperature doesn't stop rising for at least a generation once we are carbon neutral, and ice doesn't stop melting until temperatures are returned to pre-industrial levels, which could take hundreds of years, even if done artificially. This means the feedback loops that are accelerating melting will continue for multiple generations of people once the water is high enough for people to change their behaviors.
Could you imagine if they did?Haha sure okay.
I’m sure they will listen to what I have to say
There are many computer models that have been used for the last 10-15 years. All of them are relatively close to broad things like Co2 levels and global temperature. Climate change effects are much more difficult to predict because every single earth system changes with warming, and then changes slightly the next year. For example ice melt, accelerates ice melt, because there is less ice to reflect sun back to space, but regional climate systems like El Nino, La Nina can change ice melt or even lead to ice growth, as can changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation caused by warming at the poles. Climate is long term, you will only live through two full scientific climate cycles as they last 30 years and our global monitoring has only been consistent over the last 30-50 years. And of course, any global problem like a cold war with Russia will effect the data, as Russia makes up a huge portion of the land surface, and they are a land of idiots like America who may not even want to spend the money on monitoring at surface level, although satellites do a lot of the heavy lifting.
Climate models from the 1970s to the 2000s have shown impressive accuracy in predicting global temperature increases, with 14 out of 17 projections (approx. 82%) from that era matching observed real-world surface temperatures. Notable accurate models include those by Hansen (1981), Sawyer (1972), and NASA’s GISS models, which correctly anticipated warming trends.
It provides sources. Go read the sources. I think a lot of ignorance is just people are lazy, want to be told stuff and if they don't like it they will just spout ********. For some reason, I have to provide evidence but the guy who said LA wildfires released more Co2 than all of human industry since 1850, he doesn't have to provide anything, because he has nothing.
Thank you. I am going to look at these. When I click on the links you provided it doesn’t take me to the study. I won’t make you send a link to the actual study because it might be a tech issue on my end.
I mean, this is a post board, you don't have to do anything. No one is here to get their mind changed. They are just killing time, trying to flex, acting like jackasses and being mean and/or funny.
I totally understand why people would be resistant to worrying about Climate Change. #1. Almost nobody older than 25 learned about climate science in school, so almost no American over 25 knows enough to know they don't know. So they are very susceptible to political rhetoric. Individual people are also helpless because there cannot be any change with complete social change at an infrastructure level. This is why not moving to Nuclear and actually disengaging from Nuclear was such a big problem. The good new is modular nuclear, solar, wind can plug into electricity generation infrastructure relatively easily. Nuclear just takes a while to build. My belief is by 2070 or so, this won't be a discussion. Fossil fuels will be retired, nuclear will rule, electrical cars will dominate outside of maybe air travel. Climate will be wack for a while, and then in 10k years we will have to worry about warming the planet up before the next ice age.
And we will know exactly how to warm the planet up 2 degrees in 100 years if we need to.
They ****** up going away from nuclear power.I totally understand why people would be resistant to worrying about Climate Change. #1. Almost nobody older than 25 learned about climate science in school, so almost no American over 25 knows enough to know they don't know. So they are very susceptible to political rhetoric. Individual people are also helpless because there cannot be any change with complete social change at an infrastructure level. This is why not moving to Nuclear and actually disengaging from Nuclear was such a big problem. The good new is modular nuclear, solar, wind can plug into electricity generation infrastructure relatively easily. Nuclear just takes a while to build. My belief is by 2070 or so, this won't be a discussion. Fossil fuels will be retired, nuclear will rule, electrical cars will dominate outside of maybe air travel. Climate will be wack for a while, and then in 10k years we will have to worry about warming the planet up before the next ice age.
I disagree about people changing their minds because science especially is an area of ignorance for Americans. Our schooling was awful when it came to science, especially those people over 25. There wasn't even consistent curriculum until 25 years ago. I bet only about 10% of the board even knows how the air actually heats up, and then they spout nonsense about climate change. They don't even know basic things, not because of stupidity but because of lack of exposure and maybe interest. Being under the sand is a cool and comforting place.
There is already momentum to rework infrastructure because hydrocarbons are actually quite expensive in 2026. Lincoln electric is actually part of a 13 state syndicate that shares electrical grids and power sources, renewables stay on ALL THE TIME because they are so cheap once installed. At high load times coal and natural gas plants will rev up because they are more expensive, not because it saves the climate. Solar saw exponential growth in places like China and Saudi Arabia, which are not "moral authorities" by any measure, but because of the economic growth attained by going away from a difficult to find and mine resource like hydrocarbons. America has large deposits of natural gas and coal, and still some shale so it makes sense to continue to lean into this, but every day this source gets more expensive while other technologies will get cheaper. Also keep in mind that Russians pay almost nothing for gasoline and natural gas but Americans, despite exporting more oil and nearly as much natural gas, pay many times more for our fuel. So are we really protecting the "economy" or protecting exporters. I would understand your economy argument if gas prices were 99 cents but we've paid high gas and energy prices for decades now, despite exports rising dramatically. What gives?
I agree 100% that the communication about climate change was dominated by political opportunists who had no understanding of the science or economic realities and those that did were terrible communicators. The scientists I know are great people, great scientists but are not trained to speak, and actually most dedicated scientists hate the public eye. This situation is not convenient, there is no good way to communicate or push change, there are a couple of advantages. The cause of the problem is naturally becoming more expensive and rare, and the technology to combat the issue is organically improving, and our new technology like AI and Crypto, are going to need more reliable energy than ever more expensive hydrocarbons. I imagine modular nuclear reactors are going to be installed at AI data centers first, and then they will go mainstream once the tech is tested and streamlined. One thing I do find interesting is the Trump admin, is so obsessed with a giant piece of ice next to America. So many Trump supporters are climate change deniers, yet they want Greenland and access to the Arctic? Why now? Lolthat sounds promising. I look at it similar to electric cars. My suggestion is, don’t tell us to buy an electric car to save the world. Instead, make them competitive, efficient, cost-effective, reliable and let the market take us there if that is the goal. Same with climate change. The alarmists have used a Terrible approach to this issue and have failed miserably as most would agree. Voters put it Eextremely far down their priority list because of the tactics that Have been used. But if we can have a discussion like the post you just made about costs, effectiveness, etc then we don’t have to even spend countless hours debating climate modeling.
People do not want to be scared into making these changes…. Whether it is one side instilling fear of what the weather might look like in 60 years …. or the more realistic, fear of economic damage to their lifestyle right now. It’s not moving the needle with voters in my opinion. Let’s discuss reasonable options that yes, can satisfy the climate crowd and their desires to address climate change, while addressing the other sides concern about loss of lifestyle, economic, and personal damage. Do that and you have a winner. Can it be done? Not sure
I know that’s an opinion from 10,000 feet… But I don’t like to go down too Far into the details on this issue because I get bored.
The people born in countries where things are not convenient, do not give one **** about if the climate is changing...trust me. America cares more than any other country about it and the reason we hardly care is because it is not really a big deal.
I agree that morality is overrated, I'm not being facetious. People in history didn't care about slavery, or human rights, or independence from an overlord, they were just trying to survive daily life and the same thing is happening today. I guess the only "caution" I would have is to not delay technological progress to support the coal or shale industries just because they have a lot of political power. Let the market work, hydrocarbons get more expensive the more they get used, there is massive money to be made in solar, wind, nuclear...and there is a benefit the average millions having cheap energy as they spend more on other commodities. If you are wrong about it being a "big deal", we will lose our capacity to supply food, water, and electricity at its current level. If the pandemic caused so much pain by shutting down the economy for a few months, then imagine losing 30% of our electrical generation, 25% of our potable water, and even a 10% drop in yields will cause a lot of suffering. Our economy and populace is too fragile to adjust to things quickly...a small crash in 2008 and a small pandemic in 2020 brought a lot of people down to their knees.
Especially listen to those actual climate scientists who are getting paid to talk about global warming.
Again, this is the mindset of somebody who knows so little that they think they know everything. If you worked in science you would know that environmental studies last for decades, and rely on long term funding that does not increase with "more attention". These scientists make about as much as a police officer with static salaries, they do not receive extra benefits or money for releasing studies. Who the hell is going to pay for a study? Some people, like university folks or politicians might write books and get paid but the climate scientists are busy working on gathering, interpreting and communicating data. Plus, what is unusual about climate science is that much of it is predictive, so the scientists are constantly taking new knowledge and working with developers to create realistic global simulations using the most powerful super-computers. They certainly are not fans of people who cut funding as this sort of work is non-profit and they can't work without funding, but they aren't acting like Dr. Oz and manipulating to become millionaires. I think you are just jaded by the psychopaths who you see in the media and are forgetting the millions of invisible people that just go to work every day and try to perform a service for their society while making enough to be comfortable and support their families. Only a tiny percent of people are sick enough to want to be seen and promoted ad nauseum, but those are the people we see. Every climatologist I know would quit their job tomorrow with joy if they found out that anthropogenic climate change was a hoax, sadly it isn't.
that's really only when they can identify the AI.. when it's not detectable? I don't think you will get the pushback, and that is precisely where the problems start.
Might I suggest an online course if you are truly interested in the subject? You would get a better idea of the underlying science and how accurate these climate models actually have been. I would stay away from the Ivies though, they tend to be full of ‘hot air’.
