There are actually quite a few places where they buy bunkers - but with luxury and stuff. it's also marketed as a way of safe spot to retreat when the surface goes bad.

obviously, it's rather a big ,"we found a way to make money out of rich peoples fears and doubts" rather than actual security measures. if things really go bad, how are they going to know, that their security guards aren't going to ditch them? and if they isolate, then they cannot sustain their lifestyle in a bunker with bunker food.

all their wealth is basically dependent and built on the labour of all society, they're not escaping this. They'll have more privilege to suffer less relatively to the majority of the people on this planet, but they're not escaping this

It’s long past time we pull the best quote from a scientist just saying, “we fucking told you.”

In this case, one could assume tumbling is related to the temperature and not the situation, leading to an observation that the situation is improving. It is a poor choice of words for this headline.

Taking a tumble referring to something that is worsening is another common definition that I've read countless times in reference to something problematically decreasing, I've never heard or read "tumble" used until very recently to describe a situation in which something is rising. Have you?

"falling rapidly" would make perfect sense in many other situations. "Food storage tumbles, democracy tumbles, winter temperatures tumble", etc. But nothing is falling, all of the temperature records are rising.

Summer temperatures are so high they tumble?

This is a genuine grammatical question. I'm not trying to detract from your answer or the article itself.

I'm just very confused by this usage of the word "tumble" that I've seen at least twice now to refer to rising temperatures.

Tumbling of temperatures slams former record.

Does this mean we’re all going to die?

No; at least, that’s unlikely.

Well that "unlikely" there merits some debate I would say. Yes there is reason for cautious optimism, but there is also the very real possibility of climate change becoming an extinction level event for humanity, specifically by a cascade of tipping points through several globally relevant climate systems being triggered. The damages that will be caused just by optimistic projections of warming are not well understood either:

Even without considering worst-case climate responses, the current trajectory puts the world on track for a temperature rise between 2.1 °C and 3.9 °C by 2100 (11). If all 2030 nationally determined contributions are fully implemented, warming of 2.4 °C (1.9 °C to 3.0 °C) is expected by 2100. Meeting all long-term pledges and targets could reduce this to 2.1 °C (1.7 °C to 2.6 °C) (12). Even these optimistic assumptions lead to dangerous Earth system trajectories. Temperatures of more than 2 °C above preindustrial values have not been sustained on Earth’s surface since before the Pleistocene Epoch (or more than 2.6 million years ago) (13).

Even if anthropogenic GHG emissions start to decline soon, this does not rule out high future GHG concentrations or extreme climate change, particularly beyond 2100. There are feedbacks in the carbon cycle and potential tipping points that could generate high GHG concentrations (14) that are often missing from models. [...]

There are even more uncertain feedbacks, which, in a very worst case, might amplify to an irreversible transition into a “Hothouse Earth” state (21) (although there may be negative feedbacks that help buffer the Earth system). In particular, poorly understood cloud feedbacks might trigger sudden and irreversible global warming (22). Such effects remain underexplored and largely speculative “unknown unknowns” that are still being discovered.

Source

So is the extinction of humanity through climate change certain? No. But is it possible? Yes, and the likelihood is very poorly understood.

Another aspect that is often overlooked in this debate is that the beginning of the holocene mass extinction is very much pre-historic, insofar as the spread of homo sapiens over the globe closely matches to the extinction of mega-fauna wherever we appeared, unsettling ecosystems millions of years old, and reducing biodiversity further and further. Other ecosystems will only be able to compensate for so long before they go extinct, and so on, and the explosion of complexity that usually follows after a mass extinction happens on timescales longer than humanities existence. If or when this cascades to the top of the food chain is anybodies guess.

What do you mean by no way? People cant live underground forever, and itll get worse for more generations than is sustainable.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/9SLbEDMZMAk

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

I'm absolutely not denying those changes, quite the contrary. It's just another anomaly that our winters became a lot warmer and summers colder (not always though). It looks like we're losing seasons completely. I remember winters here where we had snow for 2 or even 3 months, while now I'm not sure if we had at least 2 weeks of snow last "winter".