from the A.I. interventions, unfortunately.

It's obvious even to laypersons that warming is exceeding many of the models. It's incredibly scary--and we won't hear very much about it in the United States during the Trump dictatorship. He will probably ban the use of the words "global warming" and "climate change." And he'll roll back as many of Biden's climate programs as possible.

Suicidal stupidity.

A few years at least…

It is highly unlikely that the temperature alone will do in civilization. That will happen due to extreme weather events in food producing regions. The probability of such events occurring continues to increase. A 2C increase in temperature doesn't guarantee such devastating effects, it just raises the likelihood. That likelihood, though smaller, still exists at 1.5C -which is where we were last year. While such a catastrophe is still unlikely, it has still never been more likely than it is now.

One year with food producing regions being devastated really is all it will take to unravel civilization. The poor nations will starve. The rich nations will face price inflation of food prices that haven't been seen on a global scale ever, likely resulting in riots and widespread political instability.

The upshot of all of that is that we may have plenty of time to prepare, or none at all. And not a person on Earth can tell you with any real confidence which is closer to correct.

As climate pressures mount, and territorial disputes increase, the chance that some “rogue state” decides to start lobbing nuclear warheads could bring a whole new world of trouble.

Even without a nuclear exchange, if the GOP thinks we have an “immigration problem” now, just wait…

I can’t help wondering if the drones seen flying about in the "tri-state area" are doing reconnaissance flights for some purpose.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143354574

The Himalayan glaciers provide huge amounts of water to China, India, and Pakistan -all of whom possess nuclear weapons. Those glaciers are melting rapidly. When the fresh water supply is diminished enough, it's fairly probable that one or more of those nations will lob nukes to try and keep an adequate water supply.

All things being equal, that probably is a late 21st - early 22nd century problem -if nations and nukes still exist in any meaningful way by then.

I hadn't seen that particular paper. I will read it. Just off the graphics, I think I have a handle on the situation generally.

The best case scenario seems to be that by 2100, the area of the glaciers will be at about 70% less than it was in 2001.

We aren't doing enough right now. This incoming administration will literally add fuel to the fire. Businesses are too busy creating shareholder value to cut back.
What my immediate family does to cut back is of almost no consequence.
I won't be around to see the worst.

I do my very best to conserve. I fret about an “unnecessary” 10 miles of driving. Then I hear about friends, relatives, acquaintances literally flying all over the globe.

I don’t believe anyone who is alive will “be around to see the worst."

three flights to Europe from CA with the family....
We just went to Lyon, from Munich, by train. Much more relaxing.
We limit our return flights to the US unless needed. Now the requirements to be there have fallen away.
Our lights are all LED and keep our apt around 68-70 in the winter.

...taking all of our fresh water and electrolyzing it to make hydrogen won't work to save every living thing on the planet?

Can't we just repeal the laws of thermodynamics in Congress?

Here I was, thinking everything was just great because so called "renewable energy" was so great.

Oh well, it's not as bad as Fukushima, is it? Isn't there a nice University Press release that will show us the way to nirvana?

If anyone wants to know who is responsible for this, a mirror could be a useful device for making the discovery. This is particularly reactionaries.

Let’s all sit on our thumbs and wait for all of those miraculous Gen IV reactors to get out of the dream & development, approval & deployment phases, swapping thumbs occasionally, while carbon emissions continue to grow. Yeah! That’s the ticket!

Or, we could deploy technology today that works today, like other countries are successfully doing. No, that would be stupid!

Let's choose a form of energy, conceived by the finest minds the world has ever known, that survived decades of mindless vituperation, specious attacks, and insipid scsre mongering from anti intellectual uninformed clowns and has functioned at a high level for decades.

The nuclear industry exists, in spite of ignorant attacks on it, saves lives and is independent, unlike solar and wind, of the fossil fuel industry. One must be clueless indeed not to know that it consistently produces more primary energy than solar and wind combined, has done so from decades.

Of course there are a lot of clueless people who have prevented the growth rate of the existent industry matching its previous success, with specious reasoning, if one can call insipid selective attention "reasoning." Their ignorance killed people.

There are now 64 nuclear reactors under construction around the world. This is near the pace set in the late 20th century when we built the reactors that serve us still. The triumph of ignorance, if surely not in politics then at least in energy technology, is drawing to a close.

We should stop funding the reactionary and wasteful cult of so called "renewable energy" that soaks up trillions of dollars for no result other than accelerating the use of fossil fuels and the destruction of the atmosphere. I note that the wind and solar industry failed to slow extreme global heating in an atmosphere of wild bachnalian but stupid cheering for them. The bill has come in for this idiot's party. The planet is in flames. Waiting for the "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, is now purely out of absurdity theater, pure Beckett, "Waiting for Godot."

Second, we need lots of clean power ASAP. There are greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of renewable energy, mining for minerals, construction, etc. Similarly, there are greenhouse gas emissions associate with nuclear power. Nuclear plants must be built from concrete and steel, which all comes from somewhere. The uranium must be mined refined and enriched.

Third, other countries are deploying renewables. The EIA believes that renewables are the primary driver of any effort to decarbonize our energy systems.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly the “decision makers” don’t give a damn what you or I think. So, your incessant harping regarding any advance in renewable energy accomplishes absolutely nothing other than annoying people in this discussion.