| - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672: humankind (including "trusted" bodies such as the IPCC) have underestimated the dangers associated with anthropogenic climate change - https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252: we have also underestimated the speed at which the climate will depart from the relatively stable Holocene equilibrium we've lived under for the past ~10,000 years - https://www.farmprogress.com/farm-operations/usda-crop-progr...): we are already seeing consequences to crop yields in the U.S. - https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/201...): heat waves are becoming more frequent and more damaging - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab13bf), etc: so are other extreme weather events - https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/29/2002084200/-1/-1/1/CLI...: the DOD recognizes climate change as an extraordinary threat to the U.S. - https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/docu...: so does the intelligence community - https://iflas.blogspot.com/2019/07/compendium-of-research-re...: a good aggregation (the commentary is speculative; read the papers) Our global industrial society relies, more precariously than most realize or admit, on conditions which will soon diminish or disappear. For example: - Stable, predictable weather patterns (industrial agriculture depends on this)
- Just-in-time global shipping/logistics, by which food and other necessities get to supermarket shelves (threatened by extreme weather, political crises, fuel availability, etc)
- Relatively cheap, easy availability of fossil fuels (extraction costs will continue to rise over time, and competition will likely grow more intense)
- Plentiful fish/marine life stocks (we are destroying coral reefs extremely quickly, which are a key part of the ocean lifecycle; ocean acidification due to carbon capture also threatens sea life, as does oceanic warming) on which many rely for food
- Low atmospheric CO2 content for breathability (cognitive ability decreases as CO2 levels rise)
- Thriving coastal cities, as centers of both population and economic activity (many are under threat of regular flooding if not complete loss this century) It will likely take indefinite human intervention to keep the climate system habitable for anywhere near our present numbers, if we're even capable of the sort of coordination required. |
You are linking to the interpretation of data not actually scientifically demonstrated claims.
I could post rebuttals to each of them here is just one:
https://www.thegwpf.com/ignore-climate-hysteria-brazil-set-t...
but it's not really an argument about the future either.
The facts are the facts and they are:
We are better than ever to deal with unpredictable weather patterns and can produce food places that used to be impossible. We are better at living places that used to be impossible. We are better at producing food than ever, we are better at using resources than ever, we are better at dealing with floods than ever, with drought than ever, with extreme weather than ever and I could go on.
You are claiming that this will change based on speculation and single points of reference, not science and thus we can then have a speculative debate if you'd like not a scientific one.
I haven't seen any evidence that would point to us not being able to deal with the climate in the future better than we are today.
So what's your point? What's your suggestion? What is it you want me/us to do we aren't already doing that wouldn't be worse than what we are already doing?