How many degrees of global warming in 27 years, your guess?
In 27 years/by 2050 – what is your prediction/tip on how much global warming will develop by then?
https://klimamediathek.de/wp-content/uploads/Broschuere-Klimagerechtigkeit_Ioej.pdf
(3 rating, 3 votes, rated)You need to be a registered member to rate this.
Loading...
I don't care what happens in 27 years because that's beyond my life expectancy.
Thank you for your honest answer, which seems to reflect the opinion of many other GF users in 2023 (also as a hint to later generations who may wonder how the development they now have to suffer from decades later could have come about).
Here is another survey from May 2023 that supports this opinion:
The chart itself says this is the most likely outcome. So far, the predictions have been astonishingly accurate. If there have been any inaccuracies, they've mostly been in the sense that they were initially expected to happen later, but then came true sooner.
The point of no return for the melting of the polar ice caps was already reached in 2020. This meant that the entire melting of the polar ice caps had to be brought forward from 2050 to 2035.
Individual regions must also be considered separately. With the melting of the polar ice caps, the Gulf Stream will likely stop flowing within the next 10 years. This will lead to extreme climatic changes in southern Great Britain and along the coasts of Denmark, the Netherlands, France, and even Spain. The entire weather pattern in Europe will be transformed.
Many people I know who own their own homes have already converted some things to self-sufficiency. People in rented apartments (without their own secure garden) will therefore likely be the first to be hit hard and will therefore be the first to die out…
However, the graph shows 3.2 degrees for the year 2100.
According to the graphic, in the worst-case scenario of climate projections from 2020, reaching 3 degrees of global warming would be possible from around 2065 onward. However, what tommgrinn wrote is true: the IPCC forecast for reaching 1.5 degrees of global warming has been reduced from 2050 to 2035 (although I've also read reports that stated 2030). If you apply this new data to the forecast in the graphic, you can see that the average forecasts were inaccurate and you should base your forecast on the worst-case (or worse) projections. In this case, global warming would probably reach 2.2 degrees in 2050. But it could also be more, because as tommgrinn also wrote, tipping points have already been triggered, or could be triggered, such as increased methane release in thawed permafrost soils in such enormous quantities (1kg of methane is about 84 times more harmful than 1kg of CO2) that global warming will have progressed much faster by then.
The only problem is that even self-sufficient people in Europe would probably not survive such a scenario, because it would then be highly likely that murder and manslaughter would occur over a single beet harvested in the garden.
I know someone who's already got a crossbow. Apparently, you can buy them legally in Germany. 🙈
My guess is that you can add at least the same number of illegal firearms to the legal weapons:
Proliferation of privately owned firearms
The number of recorded firearms and firearm parts in private ownership, however, increased over the past three years and stood at just over five million at the end of 2022. At the same time, there were approximately 2.88 million firearms permits nationwide.
Without further climate protection measures and with a continuing population growth, around 2.2 degrees.
Thanks for your answer!
Could you please post the question again, as I've already done it twice and can't repeat it. I'd also be interested in the opinions of those present at lunch. Thanks!
The German special path of replacing our six CO2-free nuclear power plants with 19 coal-fired power plants and the lignite under Lützerath without any reason, sense or reason will definitely not save the climate.
If this was done anyway, then one could also imagine that there could be other reasons for it that were not made public, either because they were based on speculation or conjecture, or because the information was classified and could not be made public in this case either. Furthermore, it could have been a party-political calculation not to disappoint their own electorate, but I don't believe the Greens considered this as the sole reason for their decision to shut down the last nuclear power plants, even though you and others would certainly like to assume this was the main motivation.
Habeck is an opponent of nuclear power. He has suffered a childhood trauma since Chernobyl, and he wants to overcome it by saving the world from nuclear power—no matter how and no matter the cost.
https://www.cicero.de/wirtschaft/cicero-klage-wirtschaftsministerium-robert-habeck-einsicht-atom-akten-akw
Chernobyl was an outdated reactor with known design flaws that was not allowed to be built in Germany even then.
It could be operated safely as long as the specified parameters were maintained. The sister reactor in the adjacent building ran smoothly until 1996.
Unfortunately, the other one was blown up by idiots and that's why there was so much fallout.
It is of course true that statistically there is always a major accident, but this particular major accident cannot be caused by our nuclear power plants, even if we make a lot of effort.
Nowadays, it takes gigantic earthquakes followed by tsunamis, and even then the accident wasn't as bad as Chernobyl.
Here is the link to evidence of Chernobyl fallout in sandpits and farmland in Germany:
https://taz.de/ !1865216/
Why did all kindergartens in Germany have to replace the sand in their sandboxes after Chernobyl? But not the soil in the fields?
How often do tsunamis occur in Bavaria?
https://vid.pr0gramm.com/2021/11/25/f58845685a481342.mp4
Oh, so you'd rather they statistically become victims of atomic contaminated food or air every 10-20 years?
"Globally, a major nuclear accident is theoretically possible every 10 to 20 years. This isn't the opinion of hardcore nuclear critics, but rather of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz – in a study recently published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics ."
https://taz.de/Alle-zwei-jahre-ein-Super-GAU/ !5093128/
No, but I don't want my children to have to swim.
Tell me, how come you have directly or indirectly promoted nuclear power 37 times in your last 50 answers?
Do you have/did you have a job in the nuclear industry, or are you a shareholder in energy companies, or even in the nuclear lobby?
So at the moment the public broadcaster's media is more controlled by the government.
But I am happy to have the top secret and super important reasons explained to me why, in the middle of an energy crisis, we are demolishing six CO2-free nuclear power plants 30 years too early for no reason and replacing them with coal and gas.
I suspect ancient green DNA
I don't understand what the problem is—you know yourself who is primarily responsible for the energy dilemma: the indifferent voters of the CDU/CSU and the economic lobbyists whose tune the CDU has been dancing to since the party's inception.
Hence the Green/traffic light bashing in the business-controlled media.
On the contrary, Habeck is as green as one can be, in the firm tradition of the Green idea.
I only know one thing: if good reasons are not communicated publicly, then sometimes there are good reasons for it, but far more often there are of course destructive, selfish reasons.
What one chooses to believe is up to each individual.
A vote is totally unnecessary, there's no point in doing anything with it.
We can't change it either way, whatever happens will happen.
Nature has set climate change in motion; we have at most accelerated the process but nothing more.
The belief that we can still stop this is complete nonsense.
Admittedly, the graph is outdated, as the majority of climate scientists agree that 1.5 degrees Celsius will definitely not be sustainable. But to compensate, I've expanded the scale upwards.
The graph shows the highest probability at 3.2 degrees Celsius. This is marked as the median.
I find the graph a bit odd. If we increase by 1°C, we'll have an unstable food supply. It sounds as if we currently have a stable food supply globally. But that's only the case in industrialized nations.
Are you sure about that!?
Sure with what?
That the food supply is already unstable? That temperatures will rise above 3°C?
I'm sure of the first one, otherwise so many people wouldn't die.
I'm not sure about the latter. I'm just repeating what the graphic creators indicate is the most likely scenario.
However, the graph shows 3.2 degrees for the year 2100.
Oh, I missed that. I automatically assumed the timeline, as per the question, went up to 2050.
just like that….! 😥
I wonder if it was German business and politics that launched an anti-climate protection and anti-Green campaign in the German private media, or if this was done on behalf of oil-producing countries and multinational oil companies with a lot of money!? Or perhaps the latter also bought off the opposition parties.
The world won't end because a few people shout loudly!
Exactly, those who don't have one have to go out into the heat to get it outside. Yesterday, I happened to see a documentary about the changing world of work due to global warming, not just in poorer parts of the world, but also in France and the USA. In this context, I can understand why there are fewer and fewer young people pursuing skilled trades and instead a job in an air-conditioned office (although, to be honest, I don't believe that the air conditioning systems there are primarily installed for people, but mostly for the technology, which would overheat without cooling).
What good is money when it's hot outside?
The young and the poor old, since about 90 percent of the old people control the total wealth of the Federal Republic of Germany.
So who dies first in hot weather? The young or the old?
The difference is that shrinking works much better when, as in previous centuries, there are significantly more young generations than old ones. If that were done today, there would simply be a lack of staff to care for the elderly.
Well, there's something to be said for downsizing to be healthy! We're still doing pretty well in Germany!
Your statement can be interpreted ambiguously, but if you mean that you think it is unlikely that humanity will die out as a result of global warming, I hope you are right – in that case, Germany should rather use the 50 billion special funds for the Bundeswehr to build a large space station in Earth orbit, on the moon, or Mars together with other countries, in order to be absolutely sure that nothing unforeseen goes wrong with the continued existence of humanity.