With the country getting hotter, the ground underneath most houses in London will be drying out and becoming softer due to clay soil shrink-swell, leading to a massive increase in insurance claims for subsidence.
No one will want to buy a house with known subsidence because insurance normally only covers repairs for subsidence if it wasn’t mentioned in the original survey report.
This is going to mean a huge reduction in houses prices all around London as they try to offload their houses that will need remedial action undertaking to prevent damage to the house.
This page shows a map of how London is going to be affected.
Most susceptible are properties in the highly-populated London areas, particularly in northern and central London boroughs, and Kent in the South East. Projections suggest that the number of properties in London likely to be affected by climate will rise from 20 per cent in 1990, to 43 per cent by 2030, and almost 3 times 1990 values (57 per cent) by 2070.
They can’t properly predict weather 3 days in advance and yet here they’re trying to predict climate in 45 years?
Yes.
Trying to predict the number a roulette ball will fall on is hard. Predicting that it’ll fall on a specific number X% of the time over 16,425 (the number of days in 45 years) spins is easy.
Yet that prediction will only work for a theoretical, perfectly even, perfectly flat and hermetically sealed roulette table with a perfectly round ball. Because you can never predict any microscopic material defects or any other influences on the ball in your model. Any piece of dust on the table will change the outcome.
And if you read up on the usually used models to “calculate” future climate, you’ll learn that those models need extra helper functions to e.g. declare water in mountain lakes at -10℃ as “ice” because the model doesn’t properly work that out on its own. It’s not that much better than Tasseography.
We’re coming out of an ice age, all the exact data we have to train those models is from the past 150-200 years. And even that data is questionable in parts. Of course, they’ll predict temperatures rising indefinitely, because they rose in the past 150-200 years. But nobody knows exactly when it’ll stop and where. So, how are the models supposed to predict that properly?
Was Earth hotter than now before? Sure, why else do we find mummified animals and perfectly preserved roads and settlements under the melting ice! Will temperatures rise indefinitely and kill us all? Probably not.
Ok so your prediction won’t be perfect, it’ll be a fraction of a percent off one way or another. It will be a figure that’s statistically irrelevant. Flip a coin a ten thousand you’re not likely to get exactly 5000 heads and 5000 tails. You’ll get a bit over five thousand of one and a bit under five thousand of the other. What your really fucking unlikely to get 10000 heads unless your name is Rosencrantz
Except the key point that denialists seem to forget is those changes happened over thousands to tens of thousands of years, not tens of years.
The rapidity is the issue as much or more than the change itself. The speed means plants and animals can’t migrate to areas that are better suited to them climatically, let alone give time for evolutionary based adaptations.
No it won’t kill us all well recognised.
But it will and has killed many many people. Heat in the climate is energy, more energy is stronger winds and more violent storms. Changes in temperature is winds not blowing as they have for generations. It’s failed monsoons or rains when you expect and need it to be dry. It’s flash floods. It’s droughts. It’s also countries becoming poorer so people migrate it’s increased racial tensions it’s riots, it’s concentration camps.
So, yes I agree it won’t kill us all but it’ll kill a fucking lot of us and a lot of the people it does kill will be the most valuable globally.
Also
The word exact is doing some heavy fucking lifting in that sentence
We have tens of thousands of years of ice core data and hundreds to thousands of years of tree ring data.
And here’s the kicker: the way climate models work is by predicting the next timeframe based on the previous one. Because of this, your “statistically irrelevant” error becomes larger and larger with each prediction, as the next prediction will be based on these small errors. And the next one will be based on those plus the further “irrelevant” errors. And so on… after a few iterations some values in these climate predictions get so out of line that there are actual routines in the models that force these values back into realistic ranges. And then, the next prediction gets calculated based on this out-of-realistic-but-forced-to-reasonable-range value. And the outcome of this kind of calculation is what all these climate researchers want to sell to us as the bitter truth.
There were similar rapid temperature rises in the past, the latest one around 800-1000AD (if you want to trust the GISP2 data) or around 7970BC (if you want to go with the multi-core reconstruction method). Plants and animals are still here, aren’t they? Also, these graphs show that temperatures were way over +2.0 in the past.
Ice core data is just calculated based on the oxygen isotope solved in that ice. However, you can’t properly make deductions from a single ice core, so later models use the data from multiple cores. And even there, they had to “tune” the data to make it fit.
Which would be an issue if new models weren’t being made and refined
The poor interpretation of that data you mean?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
So around the time of the Quaternary extinction event.
Again you seem to be arguing that just because not everything died it’s ok that a lot of stuff died.
Day to day may be chaotic.
Long term effects are based on averages that paint a bigger picture.
Have you taken any data analysis classes in college, if not I suggest you find a local higher education facility and pay the required fee to expand your mental library.