This is just not true. We're watching ocean currents collapse in real time. You're the frog getting boiled being angry at the thermometer. Wake the f- up.
> “The likelihood that the AMOC collapses, let's say, before the end of the century, according to numerical models and our understanding, is pretty small. Most likely the weakening will be modest,” he says.
'Land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size.'
'Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics.'
Also: "Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration"
Politicians, almost without fail, subscribe to climate hysteria, as that allows them to do whatever they want and claim they are doing it for the climate. It's a perfect boondoggle for them.
Not exactly a catastrophe. But I did hear that the summer this year in Norway is particularly harsh. I hope you get some days this year when it's possible for you to go outside without getting heat stress. It's important to stay safe out there.
School chemistry means it was a ~20 year old prediction 30 years ago, based on known oil deposits 50 years ago.
It would have been a hopeful prediction from today's perspective, as we would necessarily have stopped pumping and burning oil by now, but unfortunately we haven't.
No, it wasn't wrong, because "oil reserves" are defined as: "quantities of crude oil and natural gas from known fields that can be profitably produced/recovered from an approved development", which means they change over time, when we find new oil or develop new technologies. And that's also what happened.
Also maybe at one point accept that "Oil" with an EROEI dangerously getting to below the 1.0 mark is not the same "Oil" as was talked-about 30 years ago: if your shale sands have to get burnt with local coal or natgas to get a pipeline-able liquid, but the total energy spent on the process is about as much as will be dispersed by combustion engines down the line... then you're treading very murky waters indeed.
