As I've demonstrated with peer-reviewed research from Nature and extensive real-world examples of greenhouse gas-induced agricultural disruptions in other replys, your climate denial raises serious questions. Are you receiving funding from fossil fuel industries? If so, you should recognize that such funding directly finances Russian war efforts and enriches authoritarian oil regimes in the Middle East.

There is a Nature article on this topic from just 2 days ago: https://www.nature.com/article...

It's also in the eyes of the beholder to decide what accounts as 'global crop failure'. I'd say only a 10% drop would be very disruptive to our world as we know it, while 20-30% are easily enough to force us into global wars.
Above article calculates a 94.6% chance of that failure for wheat until 2050 - that is in 25 years from now.

Additionally there are plenty of crop failures already:

Climate-Related Agricultural Disasters 2022-2025:

Major Drought Events

2022 | Europe | €25-30 billion | European Mega-Drought
Worst drought in 500+ years reduced soil moisture to second-lowest level in 50 years, causing 16% corn and 15% sunflower yield losses.

2022 | China | $7.6 billion | Yangtze Basin Heat-Drought
Record-breaking 70+ days above 40C affected 2.2 million hectares across nine provinces, severely damaging late rice crops.

2020-2023 | Horn of Africa | $1.5 billion livestock losses | Multi-Season Drought
Five consecutive failed rainy seasons created driest conditions in 40+ years, killing 9.5 million livestock and affecting 43,000 human deaths.

2022-2023 | Argentina | $14 billion | Worst Drought in 60+ Years
Eight heatwaves and La Niña effects caused 43% soybean production collapse from 43.9 to 25 million tons.

Devastating Floods

2022 | Pakistan | $12.94 billion | Century Flood
Monsoon rainfall 726% above normal in Sindh destroyed 80% rice crop, 88% cotton, and 61% sugarcane production.

2022-2024 | Australia | $650M-1B AUD | Repeated Flooding
Multiple flood events destroyed 85% Queensland soybean crop and reduced cattle herds by 475,000 animals.

Wildfire Destruction

2023 | Canada | Not specified | Record Wildfire Season
15 million hectares burned (largest in Canadian history) with smoke reducing photosynthesis during critical May-June growing period.

2022 | Europe | €13-21 billion annual | Second-Worst Fire Year
900,000 hectares burned in EU, including 365,000 hectares in protected agricultural areas.

2024 | USA | $16.59 billion | Combined Drought-Heat-Fire
Wildfire component caused $1.8 billion in direct agricultural damage alongside drought and heat losses.

Pest Outbreaks

2016-2024 | Global (78 countries) | $9.4 billion annually in Africa | Fall Armyworm Expansion
Spread from 6 African countries to 78 worldwide, causing massive corn and crop losses across sub-Saharan Africa.

2022 | South Africa | Not specified | Largest Locust Outbreak in 25 Years
Destroyed 5 million hectares of pastureland following six-year drought that created ideal breeding conditions.

2020-2023 | Horn of Africa | 2.3M tons grain saved | Desert Locust Crisis
Required treatment of 2.3 million hectares to prevent losses equivalent to feeding 15+ million people annually.

Plant Disease Epidemics

2024 | Europe | €2.9 billion annually | Potato Late Blight Crisis
New fungicide-resistant strains emerged as "greatest threat to European potato production in years."

2005-2023 | Florida, USA | 80% production decline | Citrus Greening (HLB)
Reduced citrus production from 240 million boxes (2003-04) to 16.1 million boxes (2022-23).

2012-ongoing | Mexico | 50% production loss | Coffee Leaf Rust
Temperature increases above 1,200m elevation enabled disease expansion into previously unaffected highland areas.

Heat Wave Impacts

2022 | India | $159 billion economy-wide | Wheat Production Crisis
Early season heatwaves reduced wheat yields by 10-15% and forced India to ban wheat exports.

2024 | India | 3.2 million hectares affected | Multiple Climate Stressors
109 districts classified as very high climate risk, with projected 20% rice, 19% wheat, and 18% corn yield losses by 2050.

Combined Weather Disasters

2023 | USA | $21+ billion | Severe Weather Complex
Major disasters and severe weather caused over $21 billion in crop losses, with $9.9 billion remaining uninsured.

2024 | USA | Not specified | Hurricane-Heat-Drought Triple
Hurricanes, heat, and drought created compound stress across major agricultural regions during critical growing seasons.

No, no scientist ever told you we were 3-5 years from complete disaster.

Media did, and media does.

Scientists told 50 years ago that we will have 1.5 degree warming today, just as we have. They also tell that the inpredictability of wheather and biological sudden changes (mutations) will rise significantly. The 'alarmism' is, because all this was already set about 50 years ago. What we did the last 50 years will have impacts for the next 50+, and without 'alarmism' and disrupting changes, this will be way worse for future many many generations.

Or maybe you did just get wrong what '3-5 years from complete disaster' means. It does not mean that the disaster then happens, but that the future disaster then will be inevitable.

is:

3 years left to become a world with net zero CO2 and CO2 equivalent emissions.

3 years to zero Oil, Gas and Coal usage

3 years to zero meat consumption

3 years to zero concrete

When reducing CO2 from fossil carbon usage (that is Oil, Gas and Coal) to net zero only, we may continue with meat and concrete for many many more years.

Realism? Lost on any of above net zero conditions alone.

The Question is more: Do you want to be part of the cause? Do you want to have blood on your hands for billion of deaths? Do you want to send your children into global war? It's coming to you!

You did, you said we would have enough time to act without disrupting changes. I disagree with that.

We _could_, but we didn't and we are not doing it today. So when do u think that should be done? How long do u think it takes until newly planted trees reduce CO2? (Answer: first 1-3 years only very little, 3-20 years a bit more, 20-100+ years what we clear up now.)

Dark winters are a very minor problem compared to the unsecure and chaotic weather we are heading to. Industries relying on it would quickly implement energy storages themselfe, people would use fewer electricity in that short period if it costs like 10x for that 3 days each winter. People are very creative when it comes to saving money.

We have time till the harder impacts hit us, but we don't have time to prevent them. What we do today impacts the world for thousands of years.

These 8 years, until your nuclear reduces carbon dioxyde are quite critical. The impacts are later, but the cause is now (or yesterday).

That's wrong. Renewables are growing by far the fastest, and the relation of renewables used to fossil grew. It is way easier to build, way more resilient as it is decentralised and can be done: https://www.abc.net.au/news/sc...

Did u calculate how many nuclear reactors you would need? I did that for germany only, and with classical 'big' reactors that accumulates to about 200 reactors for germany alone. If you now use these newer, smaller gen3 reactors, that might be a thousand.

So if it is like 100 times more secure, the 100 fold number just comes down to the same risk.

That's a very optimistic way to see that. You might be right, but you might be wrong. So if you have any sense for risk-management, why do you propose the risky way for thousands of years?

your word in God's hands

I'm not holding anything. We should had done all of this 20 years ago. Fossil interests are the biggest brake on alternative energy for the last 40 years. The major problem is, that ppl still say 'we have time' cause the impacts are not visible. But due to the delay of 100 years from what we do today till the impacts makes it obviously too abstract for common sense. Science predicted global warming 50 years ago very exactly to what we have today. And the predictions only got better with computers and it's predictions are very clear.

I have to disagree with your characterization of climate change as a 'slow catastrophe.' We're already seeing severe impacts TODAY - not in 20 or 50 years. Record-breaking heatwaves, unprecedented wildfires, catastrophic flooding, and coral reef die-offs are happening right now.

More importantly, your timescale misses the crucial point: in geological terms, what we've done in the last 200 years IS like a meteorite impact. We've released carbon that took millions of years to sequester in just two centuries. That's not 'slow' - it's shockingly abrupt.

The rate of CO2 increase is roughly 100 times faster than natural climate variations. We're conducting an uncontrolled experiment with our planet's climate system at breakneck speed. Many tipping points (Arctic ice loss, permafrost thaw, Amazon dieback) are much closer than your timeline suggests.

Yes, we need to stop emissions now, but framing this as something that mainly affects future generations is dangerously misleading. Climate impacts are accelerating, not gradually unfolding.

Waiting another 10 years for nuclear power while continuing to burn coal is a recipe for disaster. We don't have that luxury of time. By then, cascading climate impacts will already be triggering economic collapse and climate-driven conflicts. We're talking 10-15 years until resource wars over water and arable land, mass climate migration that makes current refugee crises look trivial, and supply chain breakdowns that will devastate the global economy.

The solutions exist NOW - renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most markets. Every year we delay while waiting for the 'perfect' nuclear solution means more locked-in warming, more irreversible tipping points crossed, and exponentially higher costs later. This isn't about choosing the ideal solution anymore - it's about deploying what works immediately before the window for manageable adaptation closes entirely.

And we don't even have 10-15 years before major disruptions hit. Within the next 5 years, we'll see global crop failures - whether from pests gaining evolutionary advantages in warmer climates, extreme flooding destroying entire harvests, or unprecedented droughts. Most likely all three simultaneously, plus factors we haven't even considered yet.

Weather patterns are becoming chaotic and unpredictable. Agriculture simply cannot adapt to fundamentally different growing conditions every 3 months. Farmers need stability to plan crops, invest in equipment, and maintain soil health. When spring arrives weeks early, followed by late freezes, then drought, then flooding - that's not something you can just 'adapt' to. It's agricultural collapse in real-time.

Our food systems are built on predictability. When that breaks down, everything breaks down. We're not talking about gradual changes farmers can adjust to over decades - we're talking about whiplash between extremes that make farming as we know it impossible.

That's just fake information and lies. If you really believe that, google it and _read_ a few sites if you don't wanna have blood on your hands by actively spreading fud.

There is plenty of proof. Claiming there is no proof is like claiming there is no gravity. Simple trolling, no one in the world that does not actively prevent himself from trying to understand that is able to claim the opposite.

Just google 'human made climate change' or ask any AI to research and find proofs for human made climate change and then _read_ it. Just test yourself, or are you afraid you could change your mind?

Climate change accelerates evolutionary pressure, leading to faster mutation rates in pathogens and parasites. We're already seeing this with drug-resistant bacteria thriving in warmer conditions and new disease vectors expanding their range. The agricultural sector will face mounting challenges as parasitic species adapt more rapidly to changing environments, potentially causing widespread crop failures. Combined with weakened ecosystem resilience, this creates a perfect storm for more frequent and severe pandemics.

Best way to punish an AI is to let millions of non-developers talk to it endlessly with vibe-coding giving incomplete, contradictory unspecific prompts. Add personal problems, sexual questions you never dared to say out loud and i cannot imagine worse.

Actually, GHz is only the internal clock rate. Typical hardware achieves about 12-300 tokens/second depending on the GPU and model size - so we're talking Hz range, not even kHz. An RTX 4090 with 2.5 GHz clocks does roughly 20 tokens/second on 7B models, while an H100 manages around 250 tokens/second on larger models.

If models get bigger, that rate might shrink, while at the same time hardware gets faster, but altogether the effective "inference frequency" stays remarkably close to those 8Hz.

Interesting that phone buzzes seem to help me concentrate - maybe that's the 'sync' you're talking about? I've noticed simple monotone music with a clear beat helps me get into flow state. Could external rhythms actually help entrain these theta waves? Seems like our brains might naturally lock onto consistent beats to boost that midfrontal synchronization.

People should not only gather claims from different sources (ideally from sources in different languages and cultures), but also verify for themselves using scientific methods whether something can be true.

I think math education in school is exactly where you learn this: There are formulas and rules with which you can calculate something yourself. Then you don't need any news or opinion or answer from anyone - you can calculate it yourself and rely on it 100%. In doing so, you learn three things:

1) conducting scientific derivations correctly yourself,
2) trusting these derivations and thus being able to directly classify news articles as right or wrong, and
3) consequently learning which news articles or posters or sites are talking bullshit and which are not.

This works particularly well with climate change. But those who weren't good at math simply can't do this verification themselves and thus have to trust the many opinions without any possibility to check or conclude for themselves. Probably more than 90% of all climate change deniers weren't particularly good at mathematics in school.

The real problem isn't just that people get news from different sources - it's that most people lack the scientific literacy to independently verify what they're being told. When you can run the numbers yourself, you're no longer at the mercy of conflicting narratives.

I've never cared much about who creates the music I listen to - I just care whether I like it. Being able to generate music I enjoy locally, offline, and for free sounds great to me. I'm curious when it'll be good enough to actually meet my standards.

Yes, it disrupts the music industry, but that's how progress works. We don't use horses for transport or take clothes to the washhouse anymore either.

By giving access to nuclear power all over the world, to any country, you also enable those countries to develop the neccessary skills to produce and maintain radioactive stuff. The rest i leave to your imagination.

But you just ignored the important points of this discussion, so i guess you try to actively ignore the common sense and public knowledge just to "feel good" while having blood on your hands..