Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom

It never did me any harm, says man with leather for skin while dying from skin cancer.

You need to upgrade your monitor - I see various shades of red.

ye anad red shouldn't be used at all for all the temperatures that are good for people lol.

Unless you want to scare them on purpose.

For sure, but a lot them don't have much of a choice. But the people on suicide watch due to depression and hopelessness over a temperature that's actually lower than my states' preferred thermostat setting doesn't help those people much either - but it's all a sacrifice for the clicks and profits that lead to lower skin cancer deaths and higher suicides.

suicides from climate fear are still very low, but ypung adults cite climate panic as one of the main reason they don't have children, and that is genocidal when we look at it in the proper way: incessant propaganda to convince the population not to have children is at it's core a violent threat to society.

The climate is a big part of it. And the glorification of sexual practices and preferences which can't generate life is another part of it.

I'm playing devil's advocate here and I believe that we have been and will continue to face serious issues regarding warming temps but i think it's also possible to separate clearly concocted fear mongering for profit bullshit just because it happens to align with a person's political ideology.

I think we’ve gotten to the point where even the fairly extreme anti science anti math conservatives have sort of given up on straight pretending like higher global temps are a myth. The media is basically covering it like they do everything else hurricanes, fires, Biden pausing too long etc.

Yup. They've moved on to the wrong shades of red on weather forecasts now, a small victory but a victory nonetheless.

You are talking I think from the USA, which has hot areas.

You should try to think of Germany, a ****ing cold country which worst defect after shitty food was the cold weather for anyone evaluating moving there.

It's embarrassing to even try to claim higher temperature are anything but a blessing for Germany

If you're enough of a **** that you're into celebrating things that are of benefit to you but that will kill or displace hundreds of millions or even billions of others.

What does this 5 or 6C increase in average temperature mean for the summer highs?

We are at about 1.5C of warming since the industrial revolution and summer highs here have risen from around 30C to close to 40C, and this is a country surrounded by cooling water.

it means reaching the summer temperature of Florence or Rome in 1975 in Berlin or Hamburg.

an outcome so gorgeous, so splendid, the country should celebrate it as one of the best things that ever happened in German history.

meanwhile you get 30-40-50 more days of optimal temperature instead of "cold enough for a jacket" or worse, throughout the year.

exceptionally better, like people would pay a lot of money to get that and we know they do as they pay a lot of money to go away toward places that are hotter, from Germany, yearlong.

oh and German beaches become a nice destination for germans (instead of the horrible places they have been forever). Another economic blessing for the country.

and they can become a wine growing powerhouse, which they are slowly doing (Mosel wines are the best ever recently, ask any expert)

Stopped reading when it quickly became clear you had no interest in answering the question.

you quoted the literal answer. 5-6 Celsius more in Germany means they get summer highs like Florence and Rome got in 1975.

Ie, absolutely compatible with human life, sought after, summer highs

I'm referencing the degree at which specifically weather channels take in order to cultivate an audience for revenue, not whether a 75 degree day that's categorized in heat stroke category confirms the illegitimacy of climate change. It's the same tactic with guns, pharmaceuticals and a lot more.

You cited a 5 to 6 degree C rise over the 1850 to 1900 average. I’m asking what that means for the summer highs.

I am answering that they will be like in Rome and Florence were pre warming, because Germany is 5-6 celsius colder than central Italy.

Rome in 1880 was 5 (or more) celsius warmer than Berlin. If berlin warms 5 celsius you get to the hellscape, horrible weather or Rome (or Florence, or Perugia, and so on).

Yes take into account proximity to the sea, meters over sea level and so on, sure. Pretty sure we can find places with very good weather that are 5-6 celsius warmer than Berling was 1850-1900, with summer highs that are bearable, and with overall a far better weather for human beings than Berlin 1850-1900.

Anyone who argues global warming is ok cos a little area of the world becomes slightly more comfortable temperature-wise is a moron, edging towards imbecility.

Especially if they suggest trying to tackle it is pointless because it'll be fine.

Topic isn't if it is "ok", topic is if it is ok or not for that place.

Anyone denying that cold places get better for human beings with warming is in bad faith.

After we admit Germany has nothing to be scared about global warming, rather it significantly benefits from it, and anyone claiming the opposite is a bad faith interlocutor who loses of intellectual dignity and whose opinion on the topic loses all validity, we can move from there.

You have absolutely no idea of the entire knock-on effects of global warming on Germany. You have no idea of level of flooding, sea level rising etc.

Your tiresome use of sophistry to try and mitigate your ignorance or denial of possibilities of bad as well as good makes you come across as a fool, at best. However, your clear agenda of presenting all the good things that arise from global warming whilst minimising or ignoring the bad just marks you as a troll.

So there is a whole industry doing the exact opposite, paid with taxpayers money in many countries, if i try to counterbalance that obsessive, delirant taxpayer funded narrative i am a troll.

I know that the netherlands with 1960s technology managed meters of sea levels. So i know with an absolute certainty that sea levels, even if they rise at 3-4 sigma in the worst case scenario in IPCC models, are still extremely well maneageble for Germany. And with far far far better technology

I think the point being made is that assuming that a rise from the current +1.2C over 1760 global average to a possible 2.5C, 3C or worse brings with it vastly unpredictable effects (we already see some of these every year even at +1.2C), and that for you to proclaim that you alone understand all of these effects far better than climate scientists, and that they will be hugely beneficial to Germany, is plainly absurd which is why you've been accused of trolling.

However, I think I know you better and understand your point as a contrivance for not having to advocate for remedial action against extremely bad possible outcomes, as you couldn't give a damn about hundreds of millions or even billions of displaced or dead people around the world, as your stated attitude to refugees is to prevent them from immigrating if necessary by force (because if they are breaking a nation's laws according to you that should put them at risk of being killed).

Fair?

Luciom thinks only linearly .
He can’t see how certain region with 2 higher degrees may not necessarily have the same effect in another part of the world where they have the same climate .
He doesn’t understand what the butterfly is probably .
The weather is obviously interconnected but he try to say otherwise ….

For him +2 degrees is equal regardless your starting point .
He don’t know that a 2 degrees higher today as more volatile impact then if u add 2 degrees higher from a lower temperature from 300 years ago or w.e starting point he choses to pick .

What I would be interested of is why Luciom think scientist in climate changes are more bias then other scientist when the scientist method is always applied?

It would be so easy to prove how those that say , climate changes are big issue , are wrong .
There would be easy tons of more scientist reviewed paper to negate them and yet they just can’t , by a ratio of 100-1 ….

When a guy trust as truth what 1% of scientist say it while negating 99% of the others , there isn’t anything u can add to change his mind .
U just enter into faith territory…