Heat sickness sucks, but you pull through even if the sustained temperature does not great things.

Heat stroke is a life-threatening medical emergency (e.g. call 911) when they body has gotten so hot that organ systems that are capable of regulating temperature start malfunctioning, and things can go downhill extremely quickly from that point.

We tried talking about sea level rise and land area inundation, and more severe storms, and amongst many the collective response was to stick their fingers in their ears.

The real conversation we should have is about money talking; a huge amount of assets are facing being stranded by insurers. Insurance doesn't really care about ideology, they care about making money, and so the fact they are losing money to climate change is pretty irrefutable evidence. Though right now politicians are just reframing this as "greedy insurance", which isn't exactly untrue.

Number of tanks of gas for a Ford F-150 Supercab is the American standard unit.

> I think the disconnect between many people hearing "2C of warming" and the overall effects that will have is grossly underestimated.

The problem is that the loudest voices in the global discussion are people living in relatively cold-ish Western climates because, well, we are the rich and powerful people. And for many of us (maybe bar the Southern-most part of the US), even 10 °C increase of yearly average temperatures or even peak temperatures would still be perfectly fine.

The fact that 2 °C is probably enough to render the space of potentially billions of people uninhabitable is completely outside of the experienced reality in Western countries, we cannot relate from our lived reality to theirs.

And that kind of disconnect is prevalent among any kind of discourse in humanity. The fact that we can even do so, that right here on this website we have people worth billions of dollars (e.g. sama is Sam Altman!) debating with people that barely scrape by on their national poverty level, is a wonder that would have been unimaginable 200 years ago. Human biology, human society hasn't evolved mechanisms to keep up with our technological progress, and it breaks apart everywhere.

Basically given the choice of one kills in hours and other in decades. Can we try to take option c?

> The good thing about green energy is that one there is a sufficient amount of it, it can also be used for extensive air conditioning.

The heat doesn't vanish with AC, at least not unless you use a very expensive deep-underground well as a heatsink instead of the open air.

Even if everyone has AC indoor - the air outdoor will still be too hot and, most likely, humid, with all the expelled heat from the ACs added on top of that. Animals won't stand a chance, especially wild ones, and humans that absolutely have to work outside (e.g. policemen, firefighters, EMS) will be just as impacted.

We have to face the reality: large parts of the globe, impacting billions of people, will be unable to support human and a lot of animal and plant life during the summer months if climate change continues at the current pace in a short enough time that most people reading this text will eventually witness this.

It's hard to imagine if you have not experienced it. The air would still be hot even after the sun sets in some parts of India. Usually when wind blows over you you feel cool. With hot air it's like a blow dryer in your face. Just thermal energy being dumped on you making you feel even worse

If you are in the US then you can go to a hot place in the south west, even Eastern WA/OR or the California central valley when its >105F outside the wind blows and it feels like a hair drier or opening the oven, its not a cool breeze.