Why is the goal 2°C by 2100 copilot

[Mushroom]

And once again, for your response you use Artificial Idiocy.

 

[Hafar1014]

The 2°C climate goal (aiming for 1.5°C) is a threshold set by the IPCC and the Paris Agreement to avoid severe, irreversible damages. Exceeding this limit by 2100 risks triggering tipping points like rapid ice sheet collapse and massive biodiversity loss, leading to extreme sea-level rise, severe heatwaves, and food shortages. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key Reasons for the 2°C Limit:

• Preventing Irreversible Tipping Points: Scientists warn that a 2°C rise could trigger climate tipping points, such as the total collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. Once triggered, these processes may become unstoppable, causing significant sea-level rise over centuries.
• Limiting Catastrophic Weather: Beyond 2°C, the intensity and frequency of droughts, extreme heatwaves, and severe weather events increase dramatically, according to the IPCC report highlighted by Active Sustainability.
• Protecting Ecosystems: A 2°C increase would cause significant damage to ecosystems, including the potential death of almost all tropical coral reefs by mid-century, says research cited in this Active Sustainability article.
• Ensuring Human Security: A 2°C increase is projected to cause major disruptions to food and water security, economic stability (e.g., loss of 11% of global GDP), and human health, according to data analyzed in this article and this report from unclimatesummit.org.
• Scientific consensus & Feasibility: While 1.5°C is considered safer, 2°C was historically set as the maximum "guardrail" to avoid the most dangerous impacts. The Paris Agreement aim is to keep warming "well below" 2°C, say Climate Action Tracker and BBC Science. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Current Outlook:
While the target is 2°C, current global policies and emissions put the world on track for a likely increase between 2.1°C and 2.9°C, which would exceed the goal as discussed in this Wikipedia article. [1]

Its all BS now no one cares the science is flawed the UN is even backing away from its dire predictions. Any nation that limits CO2 and builds renewable energy will destroy its economy. The big lie is dead

 

[catatomic]

and hence 97% of Earth ice on AA and Greenland completely refutes the BS "interglacial" term since both have grown a new ice layer every year for at least the past million.... and have grown ice every year since CO2 FRAUD began in 1988...

How does that change anything?

 

[catatomic]

And once again, for your response you use Artificial Idiocy.

Ai is very trusted and you can challenge what it says

 

[catatomic]

Its all BS now no one cares the science is flawed the UN is even backing away from its dire predictions. Any nation that limits CO2 and builds renewable energy will destroy its economy. The big lie is dead

*It's most dire scenario.

There's a difference.

Some countries are doing it right now

 

[Mushroom]

Its all BS now no one cares the science is flawed the UN is even backing away from its dire predictions. Any nation that limits CO2 and builds renewable energy will destroy its economy. The big lie is dead

There is a need for renewables. You will never hear most rational people say otherwise.

But unless you have an abundance of hydroelectric power available, it is completely foolish to base your infrastructure around it. It is great for a gap power source, for more remote locations where the power requirements are low and transmission takes as much as is received at the other end, or if the demands are simply low enough that more conventional sources are not practical.

But for a nation to build their entire power grid around it is lunacy.

And a lot of nations have built their economies on "renewable". However, it is not the idiotic systems like wind and solar, but instead on hydroelectric. Especially as that can do a great many things other than simply producing power. In a lot of dams in the US, they were built for flood control or to impound water for irrigation and farming. Hydroelectric was many times only added at a later date.

Case in point, Lucky Peak Dam just outside Boise. It was built in 1949 for flood control, just ten miles upstream on the Boise River which used to regularly flood the city prior to the construction. The generators for producing hydroelectric power were only added in 1988, almost four decades later.

And the generators were not even added by Idaho Power, they already had plenty of power from other hydroelectric dams in the state. It was actually added by the Seattle power company.

 

[Mushroom]

Ai is very trusted and you can challenge what it says

Right, sure it is.

Tell me what it says about cooking with gasoline. At least they were finally able to get it to stop telling people to put glue on their pizza to keep the cheese from sliding off, but they have never been able to get AI to stop telling people to use gasoline in recipes.

The funniest thing about AI I see, is that most of us who are actually in the computer industry know how bad it is. But a lot of people who claim to be really smart but are really very stupid praise it.

It is just a fancy search engine. It has no "intelligence". Really no different than the old "I Feel Lucky" button on Google which would take you to the first result. And that is based on nothing but the algorithm.

The go to place for people that can not actually comprehend the science or even facts, and instead want something that validates their claims without effort.

 

[catatomic]

Look. It's complicated what you mean by ice growing or shrinking. I have no interest in debating forever.

I wish I could do optics like you guys but I should be content. I have a sound mind and I know the truth if you don't pray for the holy Ghost

 

[catatomic]

Right, sure it is.

Tell me what it says about cooking with gasoline. At least they were finally able to get it to stop telling people to put glue on their pizza to keep the cheese from sliding off, but they have never been able to get AI to stop telling people to use gasoline in recipes.

The funniest thing about AI I see, is that most of us who are actually in the computer industry know how bad it is. But a lot of people who claim to be really smart but are really very stupid praise it.

It is just a fancy search engine. It has no "intelligence". Really no different than the old "I Feel Lucky" button on Google which would take you to the first result. And that is based on nothing but the algorithm.

On a large scale...

What does it get wrong about cc?

 

[Mushroom]

What does it get wrong about cc?

It is impossible for it to get anything "wrong" or "right". It's simply a search engine. It does not "think". It is not "intelligent".



It is literally a variant of "Appeal To Authority" for people that can not even comprehend the science or put it in a logical format.

 

[catatomic]

It is impossible for it to get anything "wrong" or "right". It's simply a search engine. It does not "think". It is not "intelligent".



It is literally a variant of "Appeal To Authority" for people that can not even comprehend the science or put it in a logical format.

I get that

 

[Mushroom]

On a large scale...

What does it get wrong about cc?

Ahhh, so yet another variant on logical fallacies.

You are aware of how search engines (including AI) come up with their results, right? They see it repeated, therefore it assumes it is true. That is how we have been fooling search engines for decades, AI is no different.

And by your vomiting this up yet again is in itself another logical fallacy.

 

[Mushroom]

I get that

No, you do not. That is why you keep failing.

Here is a classic example, one I already alluded to.

Those of us that work on computers have known about these flaws for decades. That is why some of us were successful in getting things highly placed on Yahoo and other search engines three decades ago. And then when Google rose to dominance we learned how to manipulate it also.

AI is not "intelligent". And the more that you rely upon it and are not able to actually comprehend the information and actually put it into your own words, the more you fail. And in a science thread, not actually being able to discuss the "science" but relying upon what some search engine tells you is a complete fail.

I am about at the point where I am just going to assume this is all that you are capable of doing.