Do you mean like this? https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ And no, I'm the same

Do you mean like this? https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ And no, I'm the same age as you. I do not remember nearly as many devastating hurricanes in the first 20 years of my life, whereas in the second half I've seen Katrina, Harvey, Maria, Sandy, saw California in drought for what, a decade? I have personally seen the glaciers in New Zealand that have receded by miles and miles. And the temperature record is undeniable. And the ocean temperature measurements. And the ocean acidification measurements. And the ice cap melt measurements. The linked report, by the way, suggests that while the current trends are in line with increases that actual statistically significant diversions from usual won't be detectable until the possible to see until the end of the century (for Hurricanes). Of course by then the temperature will be 3C or so hotter, and lots of other things will be impacted more directly sooner like crop yields, fish populations, and other things. The problem with this thinking is that, as I said, the timescale that responses show up is on par with the human life span. This is a huge problem for a species with massive future-discounting built into our DNA. No, we don't see these things (strongly) yet. That's not the point, the point is that the impact on our lives to change this is shockingly small compared to the enormous and extremely likely risks of doing nothing. The timescale might be wrong, that wouldn't be surprising. But given a choice between "do something that might not be needed" and "do nothing until it's too late even if it is needed" shouldn't be hard. Current technology can remove CO2 from the atmosphere for $90-230 per ton. That's with current technology to capture it from literally the air. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611369/maybe-we-can-afford-to-suck-cosub2sub-out-of-the-sky-after-all/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611369/maybe-we-can-affor... A gallon of gas emits 8.9kg of CO2. So capturing that emission with current technology costs $2.25 per gallon. If that sounds expensive, compare that to the further collapse of fish stocks, massive water and food insecurity globally forcing mass migrations, and entire cities being flooded. Suddenly that sounds a lot more reasonable. Anyway. I don't think your attitude is a good one. Switching to a carbon neutral economy is just frankly not nearly as costly as people seem to think, and the risks of not doing it are way too big to ignore. Of course, people with this attitude that we shouldn't act until proof of specific harm that impacts them specifically is available... not going to lie, I think that's a huge moral failing.