Virtually every forecast assumed that humans would at least try to stop it instead of deliberately accelerating it in competition to squeeze every penny out of the planet first.
I don’t think the forecasts necessarily built in “trying to stop it” but they certainly didn’t include “accelerating it” with dumbassery like AI.
I live in Western Wyoming. It is the middle of January and most of my yard is grass. My lawn is supposed to be under three or four feet of snow. Instead, grass. This is all fucked.
I live in the mountains and they aren’t even snowcapped this year. Still feels like September and I can easily go outside in a t-shirt most days. Even when it does snow, which has only happened three times so far this season, it melts by the late afternoon.
I’m feeling pretty smug about opting to not have kids between this and the fascism— though I admit I didn’t see the fascism coming when I got my vasectomy.
That’s not a surprise. Experts always gave the most conservative assessment. They do that because they didn’t want to look like they are alarmists and lose credibility. So everybody was conservative all the time, always calculating with the optimistic numbers and ignoring all possible feedback loops.
When I was getting my bio degree in the late 90’s, early 00’s we learned a lot of worst case scenario models for climate change, many of which seem to be coming to pass. Those scenarios were for ~2080 - 2100.
