[1970-01-01]

Absolutely this. Arrogance isn't going to hold against the sun. It's very stupid of EU to ignore the fact this is how hot it will be from now on, and 1000 year old dwellings using only windows to cool are no longer acceptable living standards.

[antonvs]

> Arrogance isn't going to hold against the sun.

You mean against human-induced global warming.

[userbinator]

s/human/sun/

[wiseowise]

Keep dying from the heat while the oligarchs live their lives in villas near expensive lakes.

[ActorNightly]

The thing about rich people is their life is only possible by paying enough people to fight entropy. Robotics isn't advanced, and nobody rich is even close to being smart enough to be able to maintain equipment on their own.

[1970-01-01]

No, I mean against the sun. Humans can try and engineer a way out of this in 100 years, but they can't stop the sun.

[defrost]

It's certainly legitimate to question the role of solar variability in climate change, and it's absolutely something that has been looked at seriously.

The consensus, with increasing solidarity, from the 1990s through until now is that the sun is much the same as it has ever been for the majority of modern human civilised life and has contributed minor amounts to the observed changes of the past century; those changes primarily driven by human caused change to the insulation properties of the atmosphere.

  \1 Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts. The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged. The next crucial question was whether a rise in the Sun's activity could explain the global warming seen in the 20th century?

  By the 1990s, there was a tentative answer: minor solar variations could indeed have been partly responsible for some past fluctuations... but future warming from the rise in greenhouse gases far outweighed any solar effects.

~ https://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm

  \2 Couldn't the Sun be the cause of global warming?

  If the Sun were to intensify its energy output then, yes, it would warm our world. Indeed, sunspot data indicate there was a small increase in the amount of incoming sunlight between the late 1800s and the mid-1900s that experts estimate contributed to at most up to 0.1°C of the 1.0°C (1.8°F) of warming observed since the pre-industrial era.

  However, there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, which is when we have observed the most rapid global warming.

~ https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun...

  \3 The Basics of Climate Change: https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

[jackyinger]

Sure the sun is a proximal cause…

But are you really going to tell me that you me that tho evidence that temperatures are getting warmer is bunk? For starters check out the top diagram here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#

Would you argue against the physics of greenhouse gases? https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-pinpoint-the-quant...

Are you too young to have noticed climate changes over time in your life?

Edit: And the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphe...

[1970-01-01]

The sun is the source of global warming and has been since the Precambrian. No, I would not argue against the science of the greenhouse effect and I'm older than you are. What are you even trying to state?

[_ihaque]

This is an uncharitable take on the original comment which literally said:

> the fact this is how hot it will be from now on

That sounds to me like an acknowledgement that, in fact, the climate has changed.

[greenavocado]

"Climate Change" is a term loaded with implication that humans are solely responsible

[_carbyau_]

XKCD has one for everything I swear....

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[adrianN]

Well, they are, for most reasonable definitions of „solely“.

[oceanplexian]

> But are you really going to tell me that you me that tho evidence that temperatures are getting warmer is bunk?

It's not bunk but there is a lot of lying by omission and lying with statistics. In the worst cases politicians use Climate Change to make very specific and incorrect predictions that aren't substantiated by the science (i.e. the ridiculous prediction that the polar ice cap would melt by 2014).

You can just pick up a book or an old newspaper to realize that hot weather has happened before. I live right outside the hottest place on the planet Earth and nearby Death Valley recorded 134F (57C) in 1913.

[crote]

> hot weather has happened before

Obviously, which is why it is called climate change. It doesn't mean "there were no hot day ever before", it means "there will be way more hotter days, and on average they will be significantly hotter".

Pick up any recent newspaper and look at the number of "hottest month X in recorded history" articles, or "once-a-decade heat waves happening 4 years in a row" ones. That's climate change.

> the ridiculous prediction that the polar ice cap would melt by 2014

Have you tried going skiing recently? Where did the glaciers go?

[userbinator]

Pick up any recent newspaper and look at the number of "hottest month X in recorded history" articles

Those are always lying. They didn't look far back enough, because that would require a lot more effort than they're willing to; or actually, one should wonder whether they're deliberately being manipulative.