Okay sure, but if we tried to curb fossil fuel consumption hire would billionaires be able to afford mega-yachts?

Yep, we learned about Global Warming in middle school and high school in the 90s, and id heard about it in then80s as a little kid.

📌

Climates have always changed...over billions of years

And all species living then have disappeared.

As we will..with or without the UN WEF and all these con artists who wish to enslave us using this bogus bullshit to do it

I pity you.

You need a wake up call

Done already, I am woke.

A woke dope bloke...geddoutahere

2080 is when the crap hits the proverbial fan. Can you say Dinosaur.?

You're off by at least 40 years (and not in the direction we'd like).

Even before we had solid modelling, we knew this was going to be an issue. This newspaper clipping is from 1912 paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/R...

Good luck kids! You will spend trillions of dollars trying to survive what could have been prevented. Our "leaders" told us it didn't exist because oil gave them money. We were too busy fighting for our dwindling paychecks while the earth burned up. So sorry.

I guess what they are really modeling indirectly is human behavior. 😬

Only a tiny specific piece of it. Humanity's been around for a lot longer than our oil industries, and had been a positive regulatory impact on environments in the past.

drill 👻 baby drill 👻 Solar power at the White House en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_p...

Scientists often get it right, especially when they are cognizant of the admonition of “what if I’m wrong” built into the scientific method. Frightening how accurate these were.

And have done......🤷‍♂️

And half of American voters are so enraged at the thought of liberals doing good that they willfully - and *knowingly* - condemn their children and grandchildren to a literal hell. One where the heat is insufferable in summer, and food is harder to come by. I hope the deplorables suffer equally.

It's not about children (let alone grandchildren) any more. 20 years ago it made sense to talk about those for emotive impact but it's here *now* and going to be inescapable within a decade. All the warning signs of imminent* global famine are here already. * (~2030-2040 on current course)

And Rolling Stone gets full credit for their excellent coverage of it over the years. Some fine, fine writers contributed.

Yes. We knew and did not act. We deserve what’s coming—but it’s not us who will pay the price. It’s our children and grandchildren.

Exactly, the key time to act was then/is now, not for us, but for future generations of humans and other inhabitants of this planet. Man seems to not have an ability to act now to make the future better/cheaper/less troublesome.

John - do you have a reference for the plot you posted? I like to show this in my class but I’m still using the figure from the 2020 article you linked to

The 1970 one 😭

This graph had no right being this pretty tho

What? Even the devil incarnate, William Nordhaus?

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....

📌

📌

What if... the no-nuke environmental movement had been a pro-nuke movement? Fighting for nuclear power and against fossils. What if the Sierra Club sticked to its first pro-nuke point of view?

It was not possible to be pro-nuke at that time with the corporate practices and technology of the 1970s. We still don't have real-world proof of inherently safe PWR/BWR reactor designs. That humanity mostly turned away from reactor tech is unfortunate but understandable after TMI and Chernobyl.

TMI: no casualties. Chernobyl: USSR design, nothing like it in western countries. An incident like many other industries. But both were used by environmentalists to spread fear. We have real world proof, you don't want to recognize it. Nuclear was and is the most safe industrial activity we have.

You're glossing over very serious safety incidents and accidents in the US and elsewhere. The consequences of a significant nuclear accident act on a widespread area, and the risks even today surprise us. Fukushima - loss of offsite power and local backup power. Chernobyl - human error.

Fukushima still has radioactive water dumping into the ocean. TMI released radioactive water into the Susquehanna. Davis-Besse released radioactive water into Lake Erie. Davis-Besse later - negligent maintenance, hole in reactor vessel. Windscale, Santa Susanna, Browns Ferry, etc....

We must be clear-eyed about the risks while taking advantage of the benefits.

Have you looked at the deaths per gigawatt charts for these technologies? Nuclear looks very good regardless of which decade you look at.

Fukushima, no casealties. The water is drinkable. It was the demonstration of the extreme security of an NPP. Built in the 60s had no damage from the fourth earthquake ever recordered with a tsunami of 13m. Your info comes from no-nuke propaganda, not from science. www.unscear.org/unscear/en/a...

I'm an engineer with training in power distribution and nuclear power generation. I'm not parroting talking points.

This is good. But, about Fukushima and nuclear risks, you are wrong anyway. Nuclear is the safest industrial activity we do. link.springer.com/article/10.1... pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...

Instead we killed tens of millions pumping fossil fuels yay

Even just the burning, not pumping, kills millions

WITHOUT Chernobyl casualties the deaths are ZERO. While NPPs, used instead of fossils plants save millions of lives. Do the math. ourworldindata.org/grapher/deat...

📌

Painful

I remember talking/reading about the greenhouse gas effect in high school in the early 70s. We’ve known this for a looong time. So mad, so sad.

…

Blame the oil and gas industry. They’ve spent billions to muddy the studies.

Citizens vote for the enablers of the fossil fuel industry. That's why Cook et al. 2016 used the term Human-caused Global Warming.

I almost understand people whose jobs depend directly on the industry to support the oil biz. But I think there’s something inherently wrong with human beings that we can’t grasp the existential danger that’s heading right for us, like we can beat the train across the track.

If I recall correctly, it was first hypothesized in the 19th century when scientists were considering the impacts of industrialization.

Yeah I was right — en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History.... Of course it was Fourier too

Record heat globally every day.

For reasons of balance and to insult climate deniers, these scientific climate models should be presented alongside modelling of their published claims.

Sad to be so right about something so bad, and still losing ground convincing the doubters/liars before it is too late. 1975 Supertramp album cover sticks in my head: Crisis? What Crisis?

Global human civilization will not be sustainable very soon.

thank you, James Hanson

So, turn off your screen to save the planet

So does it happen because they measure it?

Isn't it weird - the more climate change is proven and obvious, the less people seem to believe it.

💯 amazing. Climate models from 1970s predicted the global warming now happening. Science has known since then. Politics and greed have used ridicule and propaganda to hide the reality of climate change from the public.

I saw some articles that suggested it might not be too bad. There would be a carbon dioxide layer reflecting heat from space and a lower carbon monoxide layer trapping heat from escaping to the atmosphere. With the success in reducing carbon monoxide pollution, that model is obviously redundant.

Earth's atmosphere reflects only 6% of incoming solar energy. The atmospheric reflectors for solar energy are mostly clouds, dust, aerosols, and some molecules like ozone. The contribution from CO₂ is virtually none; the reflection is almost entirely due to other atmospheric components.

In other words - the models showed we should reign in burning fossil fuels 50 years ago. The companies and their lobbyists focussed on the uncertainty. We need to act now to stop it getting even worse

I agree,but rein rather than reign. An equine metaphor.

😂 true. I really should proof read my posts

Even Exxon nailed it! #ExxonKnew

📌

Most (of those accepted by IPCC) underestimate it but only in ways that are not really apparent yet. Once you get hte direction right it's hard* for them to be obviously off over that time period. * not impossible

I will shout this a million times: if you have not watched Extrapolations, you need to it is a brilliantly written & acted limited series that extrapolates current climate data & policy to create our likely climate future i wish there was a hell so climate deniers could burn it it #cancervatives

Where have the climate models gone with exponential growth in temperature after 2000? Btw with the massive urbanisation and deforestation this seems better in 2025 than what was to expected.

Looks like they underestimated a bit.

Exxon’s scientists made a solid prediction, too, in their 1982 report on the CO2 Greenhouse Effect.

The graph posted earlier comes from this report issued to Exxon management in 1982:

It’s a good review of the concerns in 1982 about a warming climate caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Again, scientists for Exxon — the oil and gas company — prepared the report.

If only we weren't all morons, and listened to them.