I have doubts over the OP claim. It sounds like sensationalism. Review & time will be needed to verify the claim.
I have doubts over the OP claim. It sounds like sensationalism. Review & time will be needed to verify the claim.
The only way to deliver this opinion in a non-suspect way would be something like: "I'm aware that all metrics show it's the hottest month on record, and everyone is experiencing that everywhere, but <a detailed reason why for some reason your model of the world invalidates that experience that doesn't just wave your hands and dismiss all the evidence>".
Like, it is obvious in the last fifty years. Your argument is "well maybe 200 years ago was hotter and we forgot". Who cares? People are worried about this because it is bad for humans, now.
Geologically speaking, we have just left a mini-ice age. Our efforts are better invested in adjusting to these inevitable changes.
It has no bearing if it changed in the past if we can do something about it not killing most (non-rich) people in the future.
Well it was one bearing if it was like this in the past: it gives people a convenient argument for dismissing it now. So if your goal is "definitely let's make sure we don't handle this well", then at least, if you're right, you can justify that. Pretty pointless, though, unless your goal is destruction.
The question always is if we can even do something about the climate now or if we should spend the energy and resources into preparing for a potentially inevitable future.
Humans have always been champions of handling change. Why should this be different?
It's usually easier to stop doing something than to deal with the consequences of doing something.
> Humans have always been champions of handling change. Why should this be different?
Humans have never faced this kind of change. It will be different because it's not just a different temperatures, it's the collapse of the ecosystem which we rely on for food.
Can you point to any time during the existence of our species with a similar kind of change?
> and it's collapse of whole ecosystem.
That's mostly based on scientific studies, existing examples of rapid changes in ecosystems, and previous mass extinction events. Do you have any evidence counter to this idea?
You didn't ask for "evidence for my worlds".
I don't take a nihlist approach. I take a realistic approach. The changes will occur. What will we do about it? Go into a delusion that we can stop the change or take steps to prepare?
> Well it was one bearing if it was like this in the past: it gives people a convenient argument for dismissing it now
I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying it IS HAPPENING & nothing we do will stop it. So what are we going to do? Sacrifice to the gods to stop the inevitable? Good luck with that...
I would prefer to mitigate these changes by hardening our infrastructure, utilize tech & social systems to improve quality of life, and address pollution like the toxic sludge byproduct to mine materials for your "renewable" equipment.
If you can do work now to make "the planet getting very hot and messed up everyone's lives" take thousands of extra years, during which time it is more livable, why would you not? Obviously you would balance this against other economic and policy concerns, which everyone is, and it comes out way ahead because warming is very bad for everyone.
"It has happened in the past, therefore turn your brain off and tell everyone else to stop thinking also." is not a "realistic" approach, it's a delusional one. It doesn't involve a realistic model of the present or the future. It's profoundly unconcerned with any sort of causal model of reality that makes predictions about the future and therefore analyzes what we ought to do based on their expected outcomes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Pett#/media/File%3AWhat...
The biggest threat to a thriving world economy with high degrees of personal freedom is climate change.
I would suggest it is lack of low-cost, easily-accessible energy. Energy has been the driving force behind virtually every technological and economic advance in the past century.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricit...
But extinction of pollinators or key species, extreme temperatures causing mass crop failures, extreme droughts, several meter sea rise or a cascade of tipping points could certainly make some serious damage too.
[0]: https://www.eenews.net/articles/investigation-texas-failed-t...
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-f...
https://electrek.co/2023/07/26/thanks-to-wind-and-solar-texa...
The biosphere will not be able to keep up with these changes and we already know that we are causing a mass extinction event and destabilization of the biosphere. Our food system depends on the biosphere.
Our society also depends on the conditions that have been relatively stable for the last several millennia. Sure, there was a mini ice age, but we're talking about a smaller change in climate and far more gradual in that ice age, than what we are currently experiencing and causing. And that mini ice age was enough to cause mass disruption to human societies in areas most impacted by it.
Our current human caused climate change - if allowed to continue unabated - is likely to cause disruption on scales that lead to the death of billions of humans and the likely collapse of societies. We cannot ignore the cause of it (us) and simply adapt to the new reality. The way we adapt to this is by changing the behaviors that created it in the first place: We stop burning fossil fuels. That way it stops getting worse, then we work to return the climate to what it was previously, or we work to adapt to our new (now, hopefully, stabilized) reality.
We're quickly losing the window to even do that, however, because we're triggering feedback mechanisms that make this change self-replicating. So we likely need to go heavily into carbon removal and fast as well.
Of course. If those changes would happen in a timeframe spanning hundreds of centuries we could dedicate some effort to progressively adapt to them, when it looms to violently happen upon us in the next 50-100 years and it's known it could've been partially avoided I don't think we can just magically wave it away to "it will eventually be solved technologically". It might as well not be, that's the scary part.
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-r...