/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11993508
if it actually gets bad enough we can dump sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere and reduce the solar radiating we get. Man caused climate change is a legitimate thing but there’s a lot of interest in promoting alarmism to justify funding pork barrel programs

People tell me AI is the bigger risk. And that this won't matter since we will either be dead or living on silicon chips.

>>11993508
If humans can modify the weather in one direction why cant we modify it in the other direction?

>>11993508
no its not you dumb fucking nigger

>>11993562
Greed.

>>11993574
well then once the cost of letting climate change continues outweighs the cost of doing something about it it’ll get fixed. God why does everyone feel the need to fucking panic all the time.

>>11993579
By then it may not be possible to turn back.

>>11993533
I knew I'd heard of this before, so I googled it. 1) Oceans are still acidifying from atmospheric CO2, so we could still get the warming gun of all the methane ice; 2) We don't know what this would do to precipitation, which idk anything about but sounds bad potentially; 3) once we start we'd need to keep doing it basically forever; 4) you'd somehow need the geopolitical consensus of the whole dang world, and once you start places like China would be motivated to just keep making the problem worse; and 5) we're still not totally sure how to make it work or what the side-effects are. So it's an option, but imo doesn't seem like a good one.

>>11993579
Because the whole point of climate change, the reason people are scared, is because it's not some linear, short-response-time equation in pollution -- most models show that once it goes, it goes hard enough we can't undo it (the pollution and the heat are there either way, and the atmospheric system is too complex). Shit we did five years ago might be catching up with us, and there's no reason to assume doubling the pollutants wouldn't quadruple or octuple the heating, given all the feedback components.

>>11993603
this.

>>11993533
>if the pandemic actually gets bad enough we can just wear masks
sounds simple on paper, doesn't it

>>11993508

>>11993831
The mask thing is a whole mess because it requires the cooperation of normal people, sulfur dioxide dumping would be like any other government engineering project. Probably overbudget but it’ll get the job done. We wouldn’t need any more tankers than the USAF alone already has so the cost projections are honestly pretty cheap (relatively).

>>11993508
>AAAAAAAAAAAHHHH THE GIANT ROCK WE ARE ON IS CHANGING

>>11993562
it's expensive

>>11993946
you're on /sci/, fag, not /pol/

>>11993579
>well then once the cost of letting climate change continues outweighs the cost of doing something about it it’ll get fixed.

The thing is that we are beyond this point even right now.
People are just to dumb and greedy and climate change is to slow to warrant any drastic measures. People are generally to retarded to think about any timescale that is bigger than 5 years - and much less inclined to do anything that will be a problem in several decades

>it will get really bad in 2050?
>well think about jobs and economy NOW! Also: if we do something that will only give China an advantage, because they surely won't do shit.

when it is 2050 the people will have grown accustomed to the 3 degrees warmer climate and to seeing the vegetation dying everywhere

>it will get really bad in 2100?
>would you please think about jobs and economy NOW! We are still doing fine (kinda). No reason to change everything just because in 50 years MAYBE it will get even worse.

when it is 2100, another generation that grew up under the conditions of 2050 and beyond will rationalize not doing anything ...

>it will get really bad in 2150?
>so what? we are already living in bunkers because we can't go outside. It's fine. If it gets REALLY bad we could (probably) reverse it.

I hope the future generation will be ready to sacrifice more; because this one is too stubborn to eat less meat and fly several times per year

>>11993562
>If humans can modify the weather in one direction why cant we modify it in the other direction?

Sure, we could. Just convince everybody to sacrifice anything resembling modern technology. Electricity, heat, transportation ...

We would basically need to go back to living in huts and doing agriculture like indian farmers 100 years ago.

Then we could reverse it. We are fucked.

>>11993508
>is the future for most of the planet, am I right?
Yes. Unless there is a GLOBAL agreement on fighting the climate fuckery.
Singular, average people dont have the minds for basic, even short term consequences for their actions most of the time - and you're right to doubt/be scared of their capability of engaging with the topic when the consequences won't be felt by them for another twenty years into the future.
We need a globalized committee with every country on board to oversee our planets interest and its survival.
There is no other way - There is no point in trying to minimize the damage and cripple your country if every other country around you will literally shit on your efforts and profit off of it.

>>11994499
kek

>>11993597
>>11994279
>>11994305
>>11993852


If CO2 were the big problem it's portrayed to be, the governments would be pushing CO2 scrubbing rather than shutting down industries. There were no issues with getting rid of CFCs when science showed facts, so why is CO2 special?

Why are governments not banning people from shitting in drinking water? Water treatment plants are expensive, and shitting in the fields is what humans had done for a long time, so why not push for that?

Problem with CO2 is the same. Surely a few scrubbers and catalysts, with some forest planting would fix any possible shit humans have done, no? It could also mitigate any garbage rest of the world does, if a single power like US chose to invest modestly in CO2 scrubbing. So, again, why is CO2 different?

I could talk about how it's not CO2, as greenhouse effect is 95+% due to water molecules, how it's not supposed to be humans either, as 75-90% of CO2 is from vulcanic emissions or how historic correlation has always shown temperature leading the way, with CO2 always only following the trend, but that won't change your opinion. And as it turns out, the facts don't actually matter, they never have.

The approach to CO2 is very dogmatic, and any opposition is being religiously persecuted. I think the reason is probably related to people who've taken this "movement" on to further their political goals. Same as 2016 & 2020 BLM movement getting hijacked by people with dark triad personalities pushing it towards their own political goals, so has environmental science seen it's share of "prophets", preaching "facts" that science does not support, using tricks like appealing to people's emotions to push their own agenda. Think Al Gore, the inventor of internet, who made an oscar-winning film where he talks about how his sister got cancer for not wearing a seatbelt, or something like that.

The CO2 movement is old, and has been quite heavily infiltrated by the dark triad mentality, unfortunately
(1/2)

>>11994608

(2/2)

The CO2 movement is old, and has been quite heavily infiltrated by the dark triad mentality, unfortunately.

This was highlighted in the 2014 leak of a few emails, where scientists can't come to correct conclusion from the data, so they result to fudging it. I appreciate this is what university students do with their homework, as it's far more likely the student did something wrong rather than data or conclusion showing something else, but a respectable scientist should never result to that. The scientific community should have been shocked, but instead it received a big support from the media.

Take the superluminal neutrons as an example, from 2011. Few researchers got a bit eager and reported something that went against consensus. Their paper managed to get published, and eventually their finding got overturned. Can you imagine something like that in the "CO2 community"? Climatologists have lost their jobs for not agreeing with the consensus, and climate science papers refuse to publish anything that diviates from the norm. This is not science, is it?

So, if science doesn't even matter, what does, and how is this still called science?

But more importantly, why is the "CO2 community" (as in, people pushing the narrative, not the researchers) proposing solutions that are not the most effective, harm a whole lot of individuals and benefit only selected few?

>>11993508
Are we back to weekly monday GW propaganda threads? Do you ever wish you had a better job?

>>11993508
Entropy is a bitch. You have 2 choices: go along with it and profit, or don't.

>>11993562
Entropy. You can't reverse a shattered glass.

>>11994657
>>11994655
It's really easy to scrub co2 out actually.
You just need excess solar capacity to run the scrubbers with which is coming soon™

>>11994608
>>11994621

Yeah, that's the attitude that makes me think we are fucked.

>>11993597
yeah agreed that it’s not first pick for fixing this mess, but the way I see it it’s definitely the most realistic one. Countries have a decent enough track record on cooperation when it comes to engineering projects (ISS for example), and are way more likely to agree to chipping in on a fleet of tankers than on reducing their industrial capacity.

>>11994608
>>11994621
wall-of-text schizo
errytime

>>11993508
The Earth has been there before just not while modern species have been on the planet. So we already know what to expect, it certainly won't be good but at the same time it won't make Earth an unlivable wasteland.

What will happen.
There will be parts of the Earth which will become unlivable but we already have places like that now such as Antarctica and places within the Sahara desert. Expect unlivable places to expand. Whole nations will become abandoned for all but the heartiest of communities.

Communities which rely on weather patterns staying stable and water resources to function will become uninhabited. Such as cities that rely on glacial meltwater. These people will be forced to leave and they've got to go somewhere.

Cities will start to flood. We're already seeing it happen in Florida. Most cities are on the coast. Expect these cities to become abandoned. These people will have to go somewhere.

Droughts in the midwestern US and Southern Russia. I mention these specifically because these areas produce more food than the rest of the world combined. Although other areas such as China and Brazil generate a great amount of food this has more to do with self sufficiency than food requirements. Brazil produces mostly fruits, oil seeds, and coffee that are sold overseas which are not staples of diet while China mostly grows rice which is eaten in China. Expect these areas to move northward as stress on regional aquifers become untenable. Non essential crops will go up in price as people are forced to put more effort on staples.

Fishing will take a hit as fish stock migrate toward the poles. Many fishing villages will vanish both as sea levels rise to swallow them but as fishermen are forced to go elsewhere.

All of this can be avoided if we burn less fossil fuels. The cost of doing nothing is thousands of times higher than the cost of changing our behavior even if it means disrupting modern conveniences and capitalism.

>>11994660
Go along to get along. Your hero/savior shtick goes over well in the corporate board room, but in reality you're just another parasite that feeds on the decay.

>>11994679
>>11994692

>insulting instead of talking about the points presented
I know this is 4chan, but this kind of behavior is typical for dark triad personalities and butthurt idiots.

>>11993508
>We are going to kill ourselves, aren't we?
>We won't stop until earth is pretty much uninhabitable.
We've gone full bacteria mode with our numbers. Live like bacteria, die like bacteria too.

>>11993562
Real answer is that right now there are a bunch of systems in place that keep things basically on an even keel. These kind of feedback loops are why we have long periods of continuous climate, including ice ages. The issue we may well have is that by jerking the needle so far in one direction, we break all those feedback systems keeping us in an equilibrium, and wild-ass swings become the norm. At that point it's not just "take the carbon back out of the atmosphere" we have to manually adjust the climate constantly to keep it stable.

tl;dr: You can smash your phone with a hammer but you can't fix it with a hammer.

>>11995095
There's no real poinst, it's basically just a blog - the post
Take some for instance

>I could talk about how it's not CO2, as greenhouse effect is 95+% due to water molecules
Water is pretty much controlled by the temperature. 95% of guns force is in the bullet but squeezing the trigger is what counts. If the planet warms up a little because of extra co2 then that heat generates more water vapor, if it cools down a little due to higher albedo there will be less vapor, the water vapor itself doesn't really contribute but merely amplifies

>how it's not supposed to be humans either,
It's about 100% humans, which is trivial to prove with co2 isotope analysis

>historic correlation has always shown temperature leading the way
Normally temperature changes first and then plants and oceans adapt to those conditions which releases or binds co2. That doesn't mean co2 doesn't change the temperature if you dig it up and throw it into the atmosphere

Facts don't actually matter to bloggers like him. He just post what the blog tells him to post

Hypothetically if we could consider developing a process which extracts energy from coal without combusting it, we'd be good. Combustion is already a highly inefficient process, but it's just bringing the coal down to a lower energetic level in theory. However any anoxic energy extraction process would yield less energy per unit than combustion, but at least it would remove CO2 from the picture entirely.

A reminder that when someone claims that global warming is bad, he just wants you to eat less/live less/don't ever travel and so on.

Its all bullshit dont worry, its good for plants here in europe. Climate refugees will be coming make sure you live someplace that wont balk at neatly spaced machinegun nests on its borders, i do so i dont care.

Let the ones who will be hit the hardest come up with a solution it will be fun to see what they come up with

>>11995246
Yes, that's exactly correct. Your yearly vacations to Hawaii are killing the Planet and us. Your ancestors barely traveled more than 100 miles from their birthplace, I think you can stand it.

>>11995255
That's exactly why climate truthers from elites are just malignant, but climate truthers from the common people are both malignant and idiotic.

>>11995191
>only counts europes deaths
>when the black death MASSACURED the chinks much harder
discredited

>>11993508
>We are going to kill ourselves, aren't we?
More or less, yes. There are a host of other environmental issues which have been sidelined by CC. Some of them never received much attention in the first place, yet remain strong contributors towards global catastrophe. CC is just the icing on the cake.

The only remaining unknowns are going to be the extent and duration. Best case scenarios simply involve a severe J curve followed by economic and population recovery over many centuries. Middle case scenarios involve severe depopulation and species loss from which results an indefinite period of subsistence survival. Worse case scenarios involve partial extinction events, where humans and many other life forms vanish, and total extinction.
Within these scenarios there are also variations in the time estimated for each to happen and the time it takes for each to complete.

Its pretty grim, but the best case scenario does offer the greatest hope despite the immense upheaval and suffering it will cause. Essentially this is a very sudden J curve which happens soon. Within the next few decades. Human population plummets to pre-industrial levels and while much of the modern economy and industry is shut down a significant number of survivors are able to retain technological knowledge in a number of areas around the world. This scenario assumes that key tipping points have not already be reached. The hope then would be an eventual rebuilding would take place by emergent civilizations who avoid the mistakes of the past.

The bad news is the best case scenario has to happen within the next few decades or so, certainly no less than a century, which means either you or your children ( if any ) will have to endure it.

Finally, to the trolls, deniers and the willfully ignorant: I am no going to argue these points with anyone here. I am long done with that. Waste your ad hominems and ignorance on someone else.

>>11995423
what the hell are you talking about, schizo

>>11993574
Non-explanation.

>>11995613
boomers got drunk and built a house of cards.
absolutely horrifying - what they did as a society

>>11995255
Hard sciences aren’t my forte but i can tell you now as a historian/anthropologist, there’s a big difference between our ancestors you speak of and us today. Yes, we could all go back to not going 100 miles from where we live, in fact, people have been shown to be happier in those instances. But this also means the dissolution of modern technology. Social media and modern conveniences along with a cult around “science tm.” destroys the human spirit and his metaphysical purpose. You would force people to know about and see magnificent things and live their boring bug like lives. We are not bugs, we are higher animals. A lion takes space. One of the most important things for an animal is owned space, and you deprive man of that by doing so. Fuck the climate, or fuck modern as in digital technology. Preferably both.

small brainer here but
>warmer water fuels hurricanes
>big storms bring massive amounts of water deeper into the inland consistantly
>but the US and Japan are somehow expected to be deserts

>>11994621
I don't see how the massive amounts of CO2 we're putting out can be *not* having an effect, and there's no way volcanoes are outpacing it, or methane, let alone fucking water
you can dip a pH tester in the ocean and check for yourself, it is getting more acidic, you won't check because you're exactly what you're accusing people of being-- stubborn and conceited and lazy

>>11993508
Yes retard if it gets hotter it becomes dryer, oh wait it doesnt. You need actually an cold spot where water can condense to make something dry with heat. So if we look at out earth the opposite will happen if the climate gets hotter.
Btw. climate change is fake.

>>11993508
It's less about desertification and more about oceans being deadly to marine life and the atmosphere being too poisonous to breathe.

>>11993508
you are born just in time to see the explanation to fermi's paradox, rejoice!

>>11995873
>/sci/ user denies the greenhouse effect

Is the earth flat too?

>>11993508
No.

>>11996589
you can say anything you want, and people will think it's true.
Even if it's refuted, less people will read the refutation than the original post.
The first person to open their big fat mouth wins

Honestly, if you're ever talking to a stubborn ass or a gullible idiot this is the best way to handle them. With clarity and authority

>>11993579
LOL, those suffering are completely different from those who would implement the solution, so that will never occur.

>>11993940
You forgot that politicians are cowards.

>>11994305
CO2 egoistic are not necessary to produce electricity.

Global greening threw a wrench in all the calculations.

Fucking lol at anyone who takes 30y out "risk assessment" projections seriously first of all, complete scientific swindle, especially in realms of nonlinear effects like climate change

I thought this board were decent at math

greening my ass, this is what German forests look like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En7S_GNq31Y

>>11994608
>If CO2 were the big problem it's portrayed to be, the governments would be pushing CO2 scrubbing rather than shutting down industries.
Which industries are being shut down? If emissions controls are too much then companies would scrub CO2, but emissions controls are not even stringent.

>There were no issues with getting rid of CFCs when science showed facts, so why is CO2 special?
CFCs were banned, not scrubbed. Nice job destroying your own argument.

>Surely a few scrubbers and catalysts, with some forest planting would fix any possible shit humans have done, no?
Surely you have no clue what you're talking about.

>I could talk about how it's not CO2, as greenhouse effect is 95+% due to water molecules
The greenhouse effect keeps the planet warm. The entire greenhouse effect is not the issue, it's the change in the greenhouse effect since the industrial revolution which is the issue. That change isn't caused by water vapor. No change is, because the concentration of water vapor is controlled by temperature. It's part of a feedback loop which responds to changes, not the cause of those changes. So please explain what caused the change.

>how it's not supposed to be humans either, as 75-90% of CO2 is from vulcanic emissions
This is simply a lie. We emit more CO2 in a few days than all the volcanoes do in a year.

>how historic correlation has always shown temperature leading the way, with CO2 always only following the trend
Another lie.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22481357/

>The approach to CO2 is very dogmatic
Scientific facts are not a dogma. Denial of them is.

>>11996863

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#Consensus_begins_to_form,_1980%E2%80%931988

Yeah, fucking lol.

>In June 1988, James E. Hansen made one of the first assessments that human-caused warming had already measurably affected global climate.[70] Shortly after, a "World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security" gathered hundreds of scientists and others in Toronto. They concluded that the changes in the atmosphere due to human pollution "represent a major threat to international security and are already having harmful consequences over many parts of the globe," and declared that by 2005 the world would be well-advised to push its emissions some 20% below the 1988 level.

Literally LMAO over her. So funny.

Funny how a completely natural process that has nothing to do with human activities, follows the predictions made for human made climate change so closely.

>>11995191
>We've gone full bacteria mode with our numbers. Live like bacteria, die like bacteria too.

Thing is, we won't just die. We will prolong the suffering and the strain on the planet as long as we can, by any means we have (technological means mainly).

If we were bacteria and multiplied beyond any reasonable number, we would die in masses very quickly.

Won't happen with humans. The world population will grow to 11 billion who will do their best to fuck the planet up beyond repair.

>>11994621
>This was highlighted in the 2014 leak of a few emails, where scientists can't come to correct conclusion from the data, so they result to fudging it.
Please show these emails do I can have a good laugh at your illiteracy.

>Can you imagine something like that in the "CO2 community"?
What is the "CO2 community?" This is like calling creationists calling biologists "evolutionists."

>Climatologists have lost their jobs for not agreeing with the consensus
Which ones?

>climate science papers refuse to publish anything that diviates from the norm.
You mean journals? You can find plenty of published climate science quacks as you would in every other field, you just won't find them in good journals that have actual standards. You are falsely conflating competent researchers who made a methodoligical mistake and accepted their mistake with deniers who persist in publishing pathological science contrary to all evidence and reasoning.

>But more importantly, why is the "CO2 community" (as in, people pushing the narrative, not the researchers) proposing solutions that are not the most effective, harm a whole lot of individuals and benefit only selected few?
You have no clue what is the most effective solution. CO2 scrubbing takes energy, where does that energy come from?

>>11996846
Bullshit.

>>11993508
>Blocks your path

>>11996872
>it's the change in the greenhouse effect since the industrial revolution which is the issue.
What do you think the resolution of temperature/climate data is prior to the industrial revolution?
>>11996866
It's funny because this forest is the equivalent of a wheat field: man made monoculture. Harz was almost barren for hundreds of years, they only planted those trees in the 18th century, that's why it is a near monoculture of pines (fast growing).
All that aside, satellite pictures clearly show a greening of the erath and free air co2 experiments consistently show that heightened co2 levels lead to bigger/more plants.

>>11996866
Bark Beetles? They're decimating spruce population in Czech Republic as well.

>>11993562
We can, there is just no interest in doing so.

There are several experiments on recreating forests, first you study the native species, then you study their cycles and which comes first, you gather resources to do it and do it.

Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Aw3JEtQoU

But this is simply not profitable, it depends on ecological consciousness alone.

>>11993508
>am I right?
No you are not.

>>11993564
You dumb fucking faggot dog fucker.

>>11997725
You faggot kike nigger bitch.

>>11993508
Places that are already hot might become deserts.
But we’ll have all of Antarctica, which will be a lush forest land

>>11997859
Antarctica would need more than 30 additional degrees to be liveable. Northernmost America, Southernmost America, Northernmost Europe and Northernmost Asia is more realistic in the near future if the global warming predictions are correct (press x to doubt). Either way, temperature is not the issue but rather the fact that too much Co2 in the atmosphere would fuck with our brain at some point, starting with mild headaches to and ending with actual brain damage.

>>11998013
>Co2 in the atmosphere would fuck with our brain
I don't think that's really an issue for "humanity" since natural selection will result in people who can operate at higher co2 concentration (smokers etc.) will be the people who pass on their genes to the next generation

>>11997584
yes, but mainly two years of drought, there is just not enough water for older, bigger trees

>>11998032
also the societies that pollute the most will end up on top since self-regulating ones just handicap themselves to give more room to the ones that don't give a shit.

>>11997510
Unfortunately it's just not scaleable to be viable. These even can give people the wrong idea: telling them that it's okay to keep polluting, when in reality it's not. These carbon capture machines can be a trap.

>>11998229
That picture is extremely depressing. I've seen similar dead forests like that in Canada. You think humanity will realize how much they fucked up when all the trees start dying?

All current nuclear powers should switch fossil fuel production to fission, using seawater for uranium sourcing. This is untenable for non-nuclear powers due to political fears. Like other solutions proposed, this is not an economical proposition, but an existential one. We currently let ancient reactors languish until eventual decommissioning, while pretending that nations are totally being green by switching from coal to natural gas. Though this is only one problem, we are also running out of fertile topsoil and freshwater the world over.

>>11995873
there's your cold spot, retard

>>11998691
forgot to add this is also a consequence of a civilization built on endless infinitely accelerating growth. don't get me wrong though, going the complete opposite direction is also synonymous with extinction as far as I'm concerned.

>>11993508
Another doomer, i'll repeat this again but i'll put the price...fund me with 5000 dollars a year and i'll reduce the emissions in three years

>>11998337
>Unfortunately it's just not scaleable to be viable.
What do you mean not scaleable? Put a few million of these around the world and you're good.

>These even can give people the wrong idea: telling them that it's okay to keep polluting, when in reality it's not.
You're only polluting if you damage the environment. So if you capture Co2 and sequester it at the same rate in which it's released into the air and the Co2 in the atmosphere remains constant which does not affect the environment anymore, then it's not polluting. In fact nothing is a pollutant as long as you use the correct disposal methods for it.

>>11998760
>another deluded market worshipper cultist boomer who believes in economics fairy tales like infinite resources

How cute!

>>11998760
And how's the energy balance on carbon capture look?

Because from where I'm sitting it looks like you need more emissions in terms of energy production than you can ever successfully capture in any currently feasible scheme.

>>11999012
You can use solar energy, nuclear energy and potentially fusion energy or other non-emission energy sources. As for the financial aspect, you could turn 90% of the captured Co2 into fuel which you can sell to finance the entire project and sequester the rest 10% you captured, gradually sinking Co2 content in the atmosphere over time so it's definitely feasible. The only problem is that directly pumping fuel out of the ground is much cheaper, so as long as there are no laws that make fossil fuels illegal or laws that would make fossil fuels more expensive than recaptured Co2 fuel, it's not going to happen.

Also car centric countries like the U.S, Canada and Australia would have to start building more pedestrian/public-transport oriented cities again because more expensive fuel would make driving 50-100 km to work every day almost impossible to pay for the average joe.

>>11999062
>market worshipper cultist believes in fairy tales like nuclear fusion to support his delusions

why am I not surprised

>>11998337
There is no silver bullet for climate change, just silver buckshot

It can be apart of a number of solutions

>>11994608
>CFCs
CFCs are nothing like CO2. They are a comparatively niche application that was very easily replaced. CO2 is produced (indirectly) when we consume energy. In other words, all the time, everywhere. We don't replace it with renewables because we can't.

>a few scrubbers and catalysts
Memes. CO2 is the end-product of a reaction which releases energy. There's no way to scrub it cheaply.

Not gonna bother with the rest because it's gibberish.

>>11994608
>>11994621
remember /sci/ there are millions of people like this, and they vote.

Please guys, tell me it's gonna be ok. Just give me some good news about climate change. I need to believe.

>>11999870
It's a political problem, not a scientific one. Where there is a widespread will to lower emissions, there is a way to combat climate change. Famine and displacement will create political will like nothing you have ever seen before, and as long as this happens before we are entirely fucked from forcings (that I do not fully understand) we can and will change course.
However this will not come without a large loss of life. Try to be optimistic in terms of the survival of our race and cultures rather than your own descendants.
Anyone who can see the writing on the wall, it's now a question of doing what we can do educate those who cannot, and having a deep faith in their ability to progress and understand.

>>11994657
This

>>11999870
i'd like to anon, but i can't. mostly because it's not the only problem heading our way, we have overpopulation and resource depletion too, and they all hit together. if you investigate the various "revolutions" (industrial, green, informational, you name it) that allowed us the ridiculous population and consumption levels of today you see that at their core they are powered in non-renewable ways and their external effects (like climate change) mostly ignored. which means this is not a stable situation but a clear (and huge) overshoot.
overshoot always ends in death and suffering, sometimes full extinction.
we're just using all possible cheats to postpone the reckoning a bit.
but we know very well that death doesn't like to be cheated.

>>11993508
>I'm 39 and I never did give much of a shit about climate change so far. Just read this article though
Well done, you just fell for the propaganda. CC was debunked years ago.See the Climategate emails.

Relax. Once it gets bad enough, we will deal with it. Yes, people will die, mostly in the third world, but humanity as a whole will be fine. Antarctica might even become habitable.