Why didn't we react to climate changes earlier?

Above: the advantage of the ozone hole in years 2004-2018

The purpose of futurology is to predict the things that people are facing tomorrow. The prediction makes it possible to make the model. And then the model makes it possible to create solutions for the challenges of tomorrow. The biggest challenge at this moment is climate chancing. But the question is, how we couldn't predict that thing? 

Or why we woke up for this threat too late? Now when we are trying to make solutions for stopping climate changing and the greenhouse effect have so short time to make something that we cannot make any real solutions. The greenhouse effect along with climate changing, global warming. And the loss of the ozone layer is seen 1980's when weather satellites show that there was an ozone hole near the South Pole. In those days there was no reaction to global warming. 

And after that researchers are made their reports and warned people every year nobody reacted. The thing is that if the papers that researchers are made are not read. Or if they are causing any reactions the fault is not the researchers. When we are read and written about climate changes those writings are stamped as climate anxiety. Then the floods were becoming more common and in a couple of last years, the winter did not exist. The question is, why everything must do at the last moment? 

If we would begin the reform of the energy production when the global temperature rising was confirmed, maybe we would have enough green energy capacity to replace the energy sources that are releasing carbon. But because we didn't react early enough, we are in the middle of a panic. The thing is that the storm floods in the 1960s were the thing that should alarm people. The fact is that climate chancing is the worst problem what the entire human race has ever faced before. 

Energy is the thing that keeps wheels rolling in western society. And energy production is the thing which causes the worst problem that the human race ever faced. The global temperature is rising because of carbon dioxide emissions. When the level of carbon dioxide is rising that causes the greenhouse effect. The first marks of global temperature rises were seen in the 1960s when the speed of wind in the northern storms rises. And since the 1980s the researchers tried to warn that the climate is changing but nobody listened. 

Or even if the global temperature rising seems minimal the ozone hole was noticed in the 1980s above Antarctica. And researchers noticed a similar phenomenon soon above the North Pole. 

The problem with global warming is the global temperature is not rising the same way in every area. The thing is that the global temperature rising is higher in the equatorial area. 

And another thing that is making the medium temperature lower than it is is the colder summers in the northern area. That means that the cold or cool weather continues long during summer. June is cold and then in July, the temperature rises to an extremely high level. Or in northern Europe, the weather is cool. But in Canada and the Northern USA, the entire summer is burning hot. Or otherwise in Europe and Sibir, the temperature is about 40 degrees and in southern areas of Earth, the temperature is -40 degrees Celcius. 

https://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/changes-in-earth-temperature.php#:~:text=Mean%20global%20temperatures%20then%20stabilized%20at%20roughly%2014.0%C2%B0C,than%20the%20average%20temperature%20for%201951%20to%201980.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Ozone#:~:text=But%20in%20the%20early%201980s%2C%20through%20a%20combination,came%20to%20be%20known%20as%20the%20ozone%20hole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1962

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_surge

https://aboutspaceandtech.blogspot.com/

The energy crisis will be the next big problem in the EU.

  The energy crisis will be the next big problem in the EU.

At the beginning of this text, I must say that everybody on this planet knows about climate changing. But what kinds of actions should we do to stopping that process? We can always discuss things. We can repeat that the climate chancing is coming. But when we must do something. There are lots of problems to make decisions. People must give up something if they want to make a change for this global problem. 

But what is that thing that should give up? That is the old fashion attitude.  "Because my ancestors did something, I must do something like they do" is the attitude. Because my grandparents went to the workplace every single morning I must do the same thing. When something new is introduced I must always say "no", and if I say something against the common opinion that makes me the black cheap. 

While we are thinking about things like remote working, new ways to travel, and other kinds of stuff, the normal reaction is negative. There are arguments that those things have never been made before. And that's why we are against the change. 

Our grandparents had no laptop computers and mobile systems. So they had other rationales than we have in the working life. They had no internet where to find the solutions. So they lived in a different world than we are living.

The main problem is that the energy sources must not create carbon dioxide. And in that case, outsourcing and buying electricity outside the borders is not the answer for global warming. But if global warming can be stopped that thing would give a solution also for refugee problems. If people can produce their food in their homelands they must not move to another country. 

But there is still lots to do in the third world countries. A guarantee for food production would help to solve some of the problems. Sometimes the reason for domestic conflicts is the loss of pasture and agricultural lands. When the area of the arable land area decrease and the desert area is growing that causes competition for the right to use the decreasing land resources. 

Energy is the thing that keeps the infrastructure rolling. All our equipment like AI and other things require electricity. And the problem is that when the things like new and powerful computers are made those systems require electricity. When we are thinking that we are getting more and more effective mobile systems. 

That are using more effective microprocessors. We forget that those systems are using more electricity. Powerful microprocessors need lots of electricity. And in the case of mobile systems, the thing that highlights the effect of those things on electric networks is the mass effect. When million people are updating their mobile systems there is always some kind of effect on energy use. 

We might think that there is no effect if one or two cellphones are using 1 watt more power than others. But if the electric use of the billion cell phones grows one watt, that means the use of electricity grows 1 billion watts. The powerful microprocessors are using more power. And the cell phone must reload all the time.

The answer for the battery use is introduced that when the cell phone is in sleep condition the system uses less powerful auxiliary processors for keeping the system standby. And when those systems are started to use again the main processor will activate. But we must realize that there are lots of other things than just those billions of mobile devices that need electricity. 

The problem with electric supply is that it should not create carbon dioxide. And the second big problem is that it should not just outsource outside the borders of the EU. We must decrease our carbon dioxide production or we are in deep trouble in climate change. So in this case we must understand one thing. Many power sources can seem to renew like wood and methane. But the thing is that those energy sources involving carbon. And carbon is the major problem in climate chancing. 

Only fuels that are not involving carbon can stop climate chancing. Electric cars and other kinds of things are not creating carbon dioxide or monoxide themselves. But the problem is how to produce the electricity for those vehicles. 

Outsourcing energy production outside the borders of the EU gives the energy deliverer power to control the power supply in the EU. And that thing doesn't give answers for the climate changing. We can think that individual people can make things like changing their lights to LED lights. People can switch off their lights and decrease the temperatures of their houses. But the major problem is how to cut the carbon dioxide emissions very fast. We all know about things like climate chancing. There is very much data about that thing. But the thing that is needed is some kind of action to stop that thing. As I wrote at the beginning of this text. 

()https://networkedinternet.blogspot.com/