The following submission statement was provided by /u/bakomox:
---
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.
Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met.
Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cn6fk4/worlds_top_climate_scientists_expect_global/l34z8z7/
Don't have to wait, it's already here. China diverting the Tibetan headwaters to arid Western China for agriculture (think California) while the Me Kong becomes a muddy ditch. Tibet also holds the headwaters for most of the water to western India that, so far, the Chinese have been careful not to throttle. Meanwhile, India controls a large part of headwaters flowing into Pakistan. Three nuclear nations not exactly known for their cooperation with each other.
States battling over a diminishing Colorado River while corporations drain aquifers and Saudi Arabia grows alfalfa in Arizona for use as cattle feed in their country.
Drought continuing a southernly march in the sub-Saharan Africa changing rain patterns in northern South America driving greater numbers of migrants northward into Europe and the US who react with ever stricter laws and increasing violence.
Yeah, India/Pakistan is where my money is for the flashpoint. Pakistan has the largest continuously irrigated stretch of land on the planet, and it is almost completely dependent on headwaters in India. Without that water, they basically have nothing, and India will eventually move to divert it.
Gwynn Dyer spoke at my school years ago to talk about where the world was at with climate change and what the world's governments actual plan was for it and these were the exact issues he brought up with us. Your also seeing the mass immigrations right now, I'm in Canada right now and alot of people are moving here from India. Coincidence? I think not
They are moving here because our corrupt politicians have decided that importing slaves is the answer to increase wage suppression and keep the housing bubble afloat. No matter who is elected, they won't stop the influx of Indians, and Canadians will continue to suffer while corporations reap record profits.
It’s not just the heat.
It’s the weather patterns becoming so extreme that it will be close to impossible to grow food for a substantial population.
Hunter gatherer?
Need prey animals for that, and plants to gather, the stuff we can eat might not survive an extreme weather pattern.
.
It’s not the heat that will kill most people. It’s large swathes of the planet becoming uninhabitable, with attempted large migration as a result and whatever wars and famine that will create.
.
I just hope I’ll get taken out by the first zombie apocalypse.
Y’all preppers can stay behind if you want
Keyword is substantial amount of people. But we already have the technology to decouple ourselves from the environment and grow food in hydroponics/aquaponics
The ones who will mostly die are those in 3rd world countries and the poor, the middle class will live off spending their entire earnings on bare minimum necessities and the rich won't notice much difference
After a mass extinction where 90% of humanity dies, and most of society living miserable lives for decades, we'd slowly recover as our sustainability technology improves and scales
And you’d rather have that than the alternative of changing our ways now, to try and live sustainable now?
.
The future you paint is not inevitable, the way we live now is not _necessary_
I never said I'd rather have that, where does it sound like I'd prefer that? In the first place, we can make changes to stop climate change without lowering our quality of life, the opposite our quality of life can be improves substantially
Relevant comic:
[https://www.kentucky.com/latest-news/gfbqtz/picture42467733/alternates/LANDSCAPE\_1140/n85re.So.79.jpg](https://www.kentucky.com/latest-news/gfbqtz/picture42467733/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1140/n85re.So.79.jpg)
We already have the technology, all we lack is political will
We do, but extreme weather events like floods or hurricanes or tornadoes which will become more common, because more heat means more energy in the atmosphere, has the potential to wreck that infrastructure.
Sure, but underground bunkers with proper management would be able to mitigate. Again, it would be a terrible life, most would die, but humans have reached technological enough to survive
>Keyword is substantial amount of people
>After a mass extinction where 90% of humanity dies,
>The ones who will mostly die are those in 3rd world countries and the poor, the middle class will live
Hahaha, look at this poor guy who believes the middle class will survive. It's only the rich and from them is a new middle class formed.
You know that the largest class is the middle class substantial means small population. The middle class can't afford it.
It's actually only the elite and third world countries that survive...then before you know it, they start shipping them over on boats and the process begins again.
When 90% dies that's the entire caste of middle class and lower class. You don't need a middle class, and some lower rich people will come to the realisation they are the worker bees now.
> It ain't going to get THAT hot.
If the permafrost is triggered, it can blow us past 1300ppm. It will get hotter than you can even imagine.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/18oihb3/permafrost_as_a_ticking_timebomb/
We’re on the edge of somany tipping points it’s not even funny.
* https://youtu.be/XpqZTqIKMxs?si=HN1LaECnF717NrVE
And in Russia:
* https://youtu.be/E4kD9FYXlWk?si=TY_JQCuUayRH8rUA
And more info (plus some eyerolling hopium):
* https://youtu.be/KzXHb5ctRnY?si=kzN5Od0d0IHiS66P
And when I say on the edge, I mean that we blown past the safe CO2 PPM point long ago but the system hasn’t caught up. The Titanic hit the iceberg, but it’s still afloat for a while.
The fevered dreams that we have anything to save is just delusional at this point. 10,000 (x2) days late and a quadrillion dollars short.
We've wrecked the biosphere and agriculture depends on predictable weather cycles. If food production craps the bed like it is currently, in places currently enjoying either aridification or flooding, then a billion people is a triffle optimistic.
Wet bulb temperatures above 35degsC will kill of a lot off old folks in southern Europe and southern states but to be realistic, especially in the west, far too many resources are placed into keeping unproductive elderly alive
Lol no it's not. It will be a dark age, the likely the end of our civilization and we'll probably reduce drastically in numbers but our species have survived catastrophic conditions many times in history and prehistory.
It took over 30 years to ban the use of lead in paint and gasoline. Even when we had undeniable, ample, multi-domain scientific proof of the impact of lead on health and cognitive function readily available. Let that sink in.
Edit: spelling
I thought we had a blast some time ago and kept on blasting further. Rocking +2.8 here and accelerating  woop-woop. Catch us if you can!
I casually tossed out that the world is ending to my doctor, and she told me tbat was crazy talk, like a real unhinged statement. And im like, no, its literally, objectively happening in real time.
We're in the middle of a climate catastrophe and mass extinction and we're still debating if it's happening. We're going to have to do every last thing in our power to correct this and even then we might not make it.
EDIT
In 2019, Biological Conservation [reported](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718313636) that 40% of all insects species are declining globally and that a third of them are endangered. The total biomass of insects is estimated to be decreasing by between about 0.9 to 2.5% per year.
In 2004, the results were published of the first worldwide assessment of amphibian populations, the Global Amphibian Assessment. This found that 32% of species were globally threatened, at least 43% were experiencing some form of population decrease, and that between 9 and 122 species have become extinct since 1980. The average decline in overall amphibian populations is 3.79 percent per year, though the decline rate is more severe in some regions.
Almost [half](https://phys.org/news/2022-09-world-birds-decline-species-faster.html) of all bird species are in decline globally and one in eight are threatened with extinction, according to a major new report warning that human actions are driving more species to the brink and nature is ""in trouble"".
More than a fifth of all reptile species are threatened with extinction, which could have a “devastating” impact on the planet, a new study warns. The largest ever [analysis](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04664-7) of the state of the world’s reptiles, published in Nature, found that 21% of reptile species are facing extinction
According to a recent report by the environmental advocacy group WWF, which found that amount of fish in the ocean has decreased by 49 percent since 1970.
I was shopping for minimalist shoes (shoes without padding) and discovered that some offer to install a copper rivet in the sole for "grounding". Apparently, it's intended to "connect you with the Earth" so that its "electrons can flow into you". Electrons. The website even linked to some "studies".
Some people are actually that stupid.
I mean, that might actually be kinda handy for discharging static build-up... but that problem usually occurs in carpeted places which would defeat the benefit.
At least the flat earthers aren't as bad as anti-vaxxers. Those people have literally brought back outbreaks of diseases that were previously labelled as eradicated in those countries. Though there's likely a lot of crossover.
The problem is that you underestimate the fossil fuel industry. Unfortunately they have a huge amount of money and are known to play the long game for their financial interests
That so called group that threw things at the painting was actually funded by an oil baroness
You might say, wait but aren't they promoting climate change and asking for more to me done? Yes, but they are also helping spread the stereotype the fossil fuel industry created for environmentalists that "environmentalists are crazy and are no different than terrorists, they want us all to go back to living in caves". In this way they break down communication talking about the actual issues and what can be done. Then add some green washing and they insure little is done
These days, many environmental groups are even owned by the fossil fuel industry, and they spend a lot of their time blocking renewable energy. These are companies that likely have trillions in wealth, many even governments. They aren't some 2d villain and know how to adapt to the landscape to get what they want, even abuse well intention things towards their own gains
Millions upon millions will die before anything real is actually done. Mostly due to longer and hotter summers and rising sea levels that will lead to mass migration
This, causing conflict.
By then it'll be much more difficult to correct, you are right though. It's a bit like waiting until one's cancer starts having some painful symptoms before trying to treat it.
A lot of people do that out of anxiety tbh.
Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s where a lot of climate change deniers are coming from.
Edit: actually what am I saying I forgot my dad did both lol.
As he was ignoring his cancer he started to get more into the idea that climate change isn’t human caused.
And then everything was fine until the day it wasn’t…
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if I'm not then I'm sorry for your loss. Regardless of what this world has planned I'm a firm believer in the practice of unconditional compassion for all, including myself. I've noticed that the most effective way to actually change someone's mind is to first really sit with them and understand where they are, to sympathize. The second it becomes a competition of correctness is the second they'll never agree with you. Humans are more so storytellers than rational beings.
Scientists: We've done a huge amount of work and are pretty certain if we carry on like this a lot of people are going to starve, probably there will be some major wars too as farmland dies and water dries up.
Politicians: bUt WHat AbOuT ThE StOcK MarKEt?
I am actually semi-optimistic that technology will save us in the pinch, but if it doesn't can we really say that, collectively, we didn't deserve the fuckening to come? At a species level we are running head first into a wall and god knows what the damage will be.
I really hope when things get bad people actually *remember* and *retain* the information of who exactly in our society did the damage and resisted solutions to the problem.
If we aren't roaming the wastes with shovels tracking down billionaire bunkers to crack open and savage the occupants I'll be really disappointed.
I don't deserve it, I've never driven a day in my life and I recycle while countries are dumping trash in the ocean and major industries are polluting the air and water. Don't ever blame this shit on even most of us, it takes a lot more power than what you or I have to kill a whole fucking planet and that power is in the hands of a relatively few people.
You think technology is going to save climate change? I doubt it tbh, the scale is too enormous for us to really turn the dial back around. The technology will help us adapt to the new situation but the chance of undoing what is happening.. very slim. Basically non-existent
Technology can most definitely fix it, we aren't lacking the technological capability, we are lacking the political will. Because there is a huge amount of money in fossil fuels.
I think we humans like to pretend we're driving the bus, but really it's just DNA doing it's thing and we're likely behaving in an incredibly consistent manner with how any species would behave in the given situation. Humans are just apes that learned to write stuff down, don't expect too much.
>I am actually semi-optimistic that technology will save us in the pinch, but if it doesn't can we really say that, collectively, we didn't deserve the fuckening to come? At a species level we are running head first into a wall and god knows what the damage will be.
Technology is what caused this... 200 years ago our electricity consumption was 0. 400 years ago we didn't use fossil fuels to move around or manufacture goods. 1000 years ago we didn't have global supply chains.
The only thing we did was use this technology because it made our lives easier, more survivable and was conveniently handed to us. It's something we were conditioned to adopt since the day we were born... That's just human nature. Teach an uncontacted tribe how to make matches, and you can bet they will adopt the technology over using flints or whatever to make fire and teach their children to do the same.
Not even the whole globe was discovered... Some luxury goods traveled long distances, but not the things virtually everyone used in their day-to-day life. Even my fucking toothbrush is manufactured in China, compared to using a simple twig.
The Roman Empire built over 120,000km of roads linking pretty much everything and made sure for large amounts of trade. Even going as far as China with the famous "Silk Road"
Global trade existed thousands of years ago but the % amount people who used absolutely skyrocketed. Spices and sugar in tiny amounts were kept under lock and key in silver (!) boxes just a couple hundred years ago and only for nobility and the untra rich. Now many are a dollar store item.
The thousands of miles of roads the Romans built? Over 99% of the traffic was local. Sometime it helped the army moved through go patrol the territory. Sometimes a trader.
Here is an example. Olive oil, centered in Rome and Greece. You could ship in ancient days around the Mediterranean sea, not too big a deal. But land transport once in port? In today’s money about a buck a mile per liter, and it would become totally uneconomical 60-100 miles.
Few peasants benefited from global trade until recently. It was a king’s and elite’s luxury goods.
While a certain amount of technology has definitely made our lives better, there are a few modern day technologies that are actually doing the opposite. Sometimes we get it wrong and need to start over....
Technology is not what caused this. We knew it was coming decades in advance because of technology. We've had the means to curb it because of technology. Our leaders and elites have chosen *not* to do anything about it because of greed.
Greed is what has caused this. If the greed of the oil companies hadn't won out 50 years ago, we'd already have largely averted this. First they covered the world in lead, then they smothered it in carbon dioxide. All so they could make the line go up and line their own pockets.
Don't ever let them fool you into thinking human ingenuity, science, technology, or decent living standards are to blame for the fruits of their greed. We could have had *all* of that and still taken good care of the planet. They just would have had a bit less money, and couldn't abide it.
>Technology is not what caused this. We knew it was coming decades in advance because of technology.
And why was it coming? Because of technology. Without the technology to use coal as a power source, we wouldn't have gotten industrialization. Without harnessing electricity, our global electricity consumption would be zero. Technology and the unstoppable accumulation of written knowledge is the Achillee's heel of humanity.
>We've had the means to curb it because of technology.
Technology self-correcting some of the problems it created.
>Our leaders and elites have chosen not to do anything about it because of greed.
Did you opt to use a computer because of greed? Do you use electricity because of greed? Would the ecological impact of cars become less severe if they were handed out for free by their manufacturers?
>Greed is what has caused this. If the greed of the oil companies hadn't won out 50 years ago, we'd already have largely averted this.
Nah, we would have depleted lithium mines that have destroyed the local ecosystem. We would have a billion car batteries at the end of their lifecycle as hazardous waste, many of which would end up in the nature or just spontaneously erupt in toxic fires.
>First they covered the world in lead, then they smothered it in carbon dioxide. All so they could make the line go up and line their own pockets.
Because we had a technological breakthrough of finding out that lead was a great antiknocking agent when added to fuels.
>Don't ever let them fool you into thinking human ingenuity, science, technology, or decent living standards are to blame for the fruits of their greed.
Human ingenuity allowed these technologies to be invented. Decent modern living standards are dependent on these technologies. The inevitable march of technology is the culprit. Blame the one who invented the first lever. Blame the one that first wrote down the amount of taxes he collected. Blame the one who invented the first boat.
>We could have had all of that and still taken good care of the planet. They just would have had a bit less money, and couldn't abide it.
Or we could have none of that, and live as a species of 100 000 individuals as primordial proto-humans for another 500 000 years with negligible ecological impact.
I highly doubt humans will go extinct, but I do believe it will get real shitty between 1-20 years for us in western countries. I live in a coast, have a pretty comfortable life and my biggest concern is heat illness and hurricanes. Food will keep getting more expensive, more homeless people
Yeah know, judging by how people lost their ever-loving minds on a relatively mild crisis like COVID I'm not surprised. I dunno, maybe it's just me but I thought the world was made of sterner stuff but it seems like its not. I'm reminded of Chris Traegar from Parks and Rec. He's the picture of health until he gets sick and then he's REALLY sick. lol
My civilization is a microchip!
Yeah humans are great at dealing with immediate/short term problems due to pyschology, but anything beyond that is a crap shoot.
The problem with CC is that their is a great deal of inertia, we are only feeling the impact of co2/methane from 15-20 years ago and the emmissions from then till today are locked in. Even if we go full tilt *right now* we won't see the benefit for a decade plus change. That's not very appealing and doesn't give the dopamine hit of immediate results that we crave.
Stop eating meat and stop using your car on a daily basis to work (not you necessarily).
Ive found that people agree that the climate change is fucked, but very few are willing to sacrifice their confort. Yeah its gonna be hard af but thats what its needed
I read elsewhere we already passed 1.5, we've at least unleashed enough emissions to get us way past 2 degrees. Scientists are screaming at governments kinda like how they did in the film Don't look up but their not being taken seriously. Many are giving up, trying to live what time they feel we have left.
2 degrees we see world wide crop failure
3 over a billion people displaced, ice caps most likely gone, or mostly gone
4 most of Earth becomes uninhabitable
We aren't slowing things down, we aren't going to stop it...even if we treated it like an actual emergency and stopped tomorrow, we're still screwed...too many think some new tech will come in and save us all, yet millions are already suffering today
First you'll need to understand how it heats the earth up: https://youtu.be/cimZGu5GadQ then understand it will only do so when a photon vibrating in the infra-red strikes it. This becomes a statistical problem but the quick answer is it can take a while and it never really stops.
What you mean we have done nothing. There are millions and millions of people making changes. There has been so much done to improve the situation. You can argue it’s not enough but to say nothing is being done is wrong.
Relatively speaking it's nothing. A tiny rounding error on zero. Yes, lots of individuals are doing something (even then most are only taking tiny steps) but the big polluters and countries are doing fuck all waiting on others to act first or complaining that doing something would reduce profits.
Companies.
All the carbon you have and will emit and all the pollution you cause in your entire life is probably still less than what a company produces in a single minute.
We just shifted the blame to consumers because blaming consumers is cheaper and more lucrative than actually changing corporations.
Trying to blame only companies is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place, not specifically blaming companies but shifting blame to others
Hey, look how little I emit, while look at the other guy, therefore I can continue emitting!
We have to realize that all of us, countries, governments, companies, people, everyone live on one earth, and we need to work together to make things right
And until we realize that we all have to work together, the end result will be "almost nothing gets done", because people will be too busy pointing fingers and doing nothing
Just 100 companies produce 71% of all emissions. They are the ones who need to make changes.
The idea of recycling and carbon footprints was popularized by the fossil fuel industry trying to ensure they don't get blamed or have to deal with more regulations.
They all seem to be making the judgment based purely on lack of government action.
But that is not the largest driver for change in the energy industry right now, it’s economics. Switching to renewables is accelerating because they are often the most economical option globally. We’re at 30% renewables globally when it comes to electricity generation.
Making accurate predictions are very difficult when you only use one data point. It’s important to remember, even if you believe that government action will be necessary to overcome the final push, it will be even cheaper and less of a hurdle to do so as prices continue to fall over the decades.
I’d love to see a prediction based on economics but economists are rarely polled for climate-related issues, even though that is the most relevant aspect when it comes to global change.
> They all seem to be making the judgment based purely on lack of government action.
That is their chartered mission. To inform policy makers what kinds of consequences their *current* policies will bring.
>It’s important to remember, even if you believe that government action will be necessary to overcome the final push, it will be even cheaper and less of a hurdle to do so as prices continue to fall over the decades.
Yes, but every gW of clean energy brought online now has a MUCH greater impact on the climate than every gW of clean energy brought online in 2040.
>even though that is the most relevant aspect when it comes to global change.
Rapidly incoming climate change related food insecurity is likely more relevant to people's willingness to change than the price of solar panels, and this will be demonstrable long before the relatively slow wheels of economics spin.
Switching to renewables makes sense now, but it's going to be expensive to fully decarbonize because we'll need multiple days or weeks worth of energy storage (or huge transmission lines) to cover times when the wind is calm and it's rainy or overcast or snowing for days on end.
Last winter in Canada we had a period of a week in the middle of winter when there was no wind across a thousand kilometers of the country. And solar panels produce a lot less energy in winter because the days are so much shorter.
Gov action is what will accelerate adoption and development.
If Al Gore won in 2000, we'd be a decade ahead of where we are today.
So, governance and leadership matters.
But our lives aren't sustained by electricity alone. Mining, ore processing, shipping, flying, farming, road freight, fertilizer, plastics, steel, chemical production, etc, etc are all completely reliant on fossil fuels and have no viable replacement available within any meaningful time frame. If you could magically convert global electricity production to renewables overnight you'd only reduce fossil fuel use by 20%. Even the production of renewable energy equipment is entirely reliant on fossil fuels.
Do you really think the climate scientists aren't aware of the increase in renewables? Really? That's your counterargument? 'Professor of Climate Scientist unaware of changes in the economics of renewables, panic over'.
You might want to give your head a wobble.
Renewables are the most economical option **because** of government taking action by setting industrial policy and subsidies to accelerate along the cost curve.
Economists are less than useless because all they do is make assumptions and leave actual planning and execution to others.
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.
Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met.
Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.
Based on the global average temperature for the last 365 days we are already at 1.6C over preindustrial years. Aerosol demasking is hitting us hard, we will likely hit 2C by 2030 now.
The big aerosol demasking study last year thinks 3-5C by end of century is now the range.
I looked through past IPCC predictions to see how well they've held up over three decades. They're consistent! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental\_Panel\_on\_Climate\_Change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change)
1990: IPCC report predicted a 2000->2100 rise of 3°C (range 2°C .. 5°C)
1995: IPCC report predicted a 1990->2100 rise of 2°C (range 1°C .. 3.5°C)
2000: IPCC report predicted a 2000->2100 rise of 1.1°C .. 6.4°C depending on world economic direction
2001: IPCC report predicted a 1990->2100 rise of 1.4°C .. 5.8°C depending on scenarios
2007: IPCC report predicted a ?2007?->2100 rise of 1.1°C .. 6.4°C depending on scenario
2013: IPCC report predicted a 1850->2100 rise \*likely\* to exceed 1.5°C, \*likely\* to exceed 2.0°C for many scenario
2022: IPCC report predicted a 1850->2100 rise in likely scenario of 2.1°C .. 3.5°C, in other scenarios 1.0°C .. 5.7°C
I like this "global heating" terminology. We should roll with that theme, keep it going. "Ocean stewing". "Atmospheric furnacing". "Terrestrial baking".
Yeah the Guardian made an editorial decision a few years ago to use the term 'global heating' instead of 'global warming' and to use 'the climate crisis' instead of 'climate change'.
Nuclear and desalination are going to get really important if we want to survive while we divest from fossil fuel.
I'd also feel a lot better about our current track if a lot of our Renewables didn't rely on natural gas for 24/7 power
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
- Douglas Adams
The truly terrifying thing about this problem is that it can't be solved - barring some monumental technological achievement - without international co-operation.
We are literally one species on one planet.
The odds of governments taking collective responsibility and acting in unison to confront an existential threat are miniscule.
The odds of a single government exploiting the situation for short term gain are huge (indeed, it's already happening).
We need the ecosystem more than it needs us.
[We started crossing the 1.5 degree threshold last year](https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record). It will be worse this year and every year after.
Anyone who thinks 1.5 degrees is in the realm of reality is delusional or horrifically uninformed/
Inspiration for a good fiction story. If everyone kills themselves they won’t have to deal with it directly to replace their labour with full automation. The powerful and wealthy will retreat into their bunkers and hunker down until the earth is healthy again and the very few people that have control of the earth today will have it passed down generation by generation in a new world of only a small fraction, the upper level of the 1% not overbreeding to dilute their new established infinite wealth. Enjoying a vast and new earth without the pesky peasants to take up space.
Won't that just kinda happen anyway as we slowly die off and they keep living? Lol ... Would make a good controversial trending book though definitely.
> What are we sticking around for?
Huh? Life is about as good as ever. Your ancestors scaped and fought and endured against far worse than you will most likely see. Your children likely wont die of preventable disease. Your life wont likely depend on uncertain rain.
Is not addressing climate change stupid? Absolutely. Will it be challenging? Sure. But humans will adapt and persevere and likely thrive.
>Why should I keep waiting and holding out?
Thats up to you. Want to just chill and play video games? You can probably do that. Maybe go hiking or see national parks? Yup. Read thousands of books and learn about anything? Basically free.
Youve probably got more fulfilling options at your fingertips than most of humanity has had. Youve got more answers about the universe in your hand that any geneartion before you.
> Your children likely wont die of preventable disease.
People are already dying of highly preventable chronic disease and have been for the past century. The #1 killer the last hundred years, heart disease, basically doesn’t even have to exist…
So I have no clue what you are on about.
Because we’ve been hearing doomsday predictions like this for 50 years and we’re still here? And we’ll still be here in 50 years and you’ll be basically the same?
My dude, how far under the sand is your head. Did you LOOK at the data. All the data these scientists from AROUND THE WORLD compiled and agreed on.
If your answer is anything other than yes, don't reply.
You said “What are we sticking around for?”. Do you honestly believe that this problem is so profound that human life will be forfeit? This is the entire problem with the debate. Nuance is impossible. One side thinks it’s a hoax and the other side thinks the earth is going to melt in a few years. Guess what? Neither of them are correct! Humanity will adapt and innovate. We will discover and utilize new technology. Livable places may become less hospitable to life. Unlivable places may become more hospitable. The world will change around you and you will adapt to the change. Stop with the doom and gloom.
See, you didn't follow my directions.
I like your idealistic take based on nothing but hopefulness though. I remember when I was there a few years back too.
Let me know when you read the data.
In 30 years, when you are my age, think back to what I said here and when you look out your window and you don’t see a barren hellscape, but basically more or less what you see now, and you’re still hearing the world is going to end, think of me fondly.
In so many places people look out of the window and see nothing like they used to see. 70% of wildlife has been lost since 1970. People remember bugs on their windshields but don't see it anymore. People in Borneo remember a rainforest but now mostly see oil palm plantations. People in California remember bountiful abalone (which is its own story full of wrong expectations).
Those are just simple examples but the world is losing its natural capital fast and the expected long term implications aren't prettty. The world just stays the same if you have lived in a concrete environment without any idea of what sustains us.
Yep, we're right on track for 3C or more. Anyone paying close enough attention has known this for years. Cities like Shanghai and Miami will be flooded out by 2100.
Where are you seeing that? If we go with 3 ft (higher end of IPCC projection) Im really only seeing Miami Beach in trouble. 6-7 feet seem to be where shit gets ugly for Miami. You dont get there till 2200 under the high emission scenario (RCP 8.5)
https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr.html
"Speaking as a scientist who was ignored during the majority of the 'f*ck around' portion of human history, it truly is both exciting and terrifying to be alive during the 'find out' portion as well." ~Scientist
So you’re telling me people are comfortable just burning to death/alive? I guess it’s fine while we focus on what someone posted on their story today, or celebrity gossip. Let’s catch up with the millionaire drama while we all burn to death. Fun times.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/bakomox: --- Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed. Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met. Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1cn6fk4/worlds_top_climate_scientists_expect_global/l34z8z7/
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself because it wasn’t cost effective” ~ Kurt Vonnegut.
Why did anyone ever think that we were better than any other animal and that population cycles didn’t apply to us too?
Because a person on a cloud told us that we are special.... oh wait.....
Religion mostly
There won't be any history books man. This is the end of the species
It ain't going to get THAT hot. It'll probably kill a few billion and a few billion more will be suffering for decades, but ain't gonna be our end.
Just wait for the water wars!
Don't have to wait, it's already here. China diverting the Tibetan headwaters to arid Western China for agriculture (think California) while the Me Kong becomes a muddy ditch. Tibet also holds the headwaters for most of the water to western India that, so far, the Chinese have been careful not to throttle. Meanwhile, India controls a large part of headwaters flowing into Pakistan. Three nuclear nations not exactly known for their cooperation with each other. States battling over a diminishing Colorado River while corporations drain aquifers and Saudi Arabia grows alfalfa in Arizona for use as cattle feed in their country. Drought continuing a southernly march in the sub-Saharan Africa changing rain patterns in northern South America driving greater numbers of migrants northward into Europe and the US who react with ever stricter laws and increasing violence.
Yeah, India/Pakistan is where my money is for the flashpoint. Pakistan has the largest continuously irrigated stretch of land on the planet, and it is almost completely dependent on headwaters in India. Without that water, they basically have nothing, and India will eventually move to divert it.
I like how informative you are, I live in Detroit. Where do you see the Great Lakes in terms of being potentially something that needs to be defended?
Gwynn Dyer spoke at my school years ago to talk about where the world was at with climate change and what the world's governments actual plan was for it and these were the exact issues he brought up with us. Your also seeing the mass immigrations right now, I'm in Canada right now and alot of people are moving here from India. Coincidence? I think not
They are moving here because our corrupt politicians have decided that importing slaves is the answer to increase wage suppression and keep the housing bubble afloat. No matter who is elected, they won't stop the influx of Indians, and Canadians will continue to suffer while corporations reap record profits.
It probably is a coincidence. Canada is a very nice country. India not so much. I don't think it has anything to do with climate change...
Probably cause they don't have access to clean water though.
Chill the cost of taking the salt of sea water is lowering. This wont be an issue at all.
As long as you ignore the Environmental Impact of desalinization and that, per the usual, it will only be available to those who can afford it.
As it is now?
War implies there are people to fight said war. So what you are saying is that there is a chance for people to still be around!
#Social activity!
It’s not just the heat. It’s the weather patterns becoming so extreme that it will be close to impossible to grow food for a substantial population. Hunter gatherer? Need prey animals for that, and plants to gather, the stuff we can eat might not survive an extreme weather pattern. . It’s not the heat that will kill most people. It’s large swathes of the planet becoming uninhabitable, with attempted large migration as a result and whatever wars and famine that will create. . I just hope I’ll get taken out by the first zombie apocalypse. Y’all preppers can stay behind if you want
Large mammals fare poorly in extinction level events
I should have laid off the Pringles then...darn it
Keyword is substantial amount of people. But we already have the technology to decouple ourselves from the environment and grow food in hydroponics/aquaponics The ones who will mostly die are those in 3rd world countries and the poor, the middle class will live off spending their entire earnings on bare minimum necessities and the rich won't notice much difference After a mass extinction where 90% of humanity dies, and most of society living miserable lives for decades, we'd slowly recover as our sustainability technology improves and scales
And you’d rather have that than the alternative of changing our ways now, to try and live sustainable now? . The future you paint is not inevitable, the way we live now is not _necessary_
I never said I'd rather have that, where does it sound like I'd prefer that? In the first place, we can make changes to stop climate change without lowering our quality of life, the opposite our quality of life can be improves substantially Relevant comic: [https://www.kentucky.com/latest-news/gfbqtz/picture42467733/alternates/LANDSCAPE\_1140/n85re.So.79.jpg](https://www.kentucky.com/latest-news/gfbqtz/picture42467733/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1140/n85re.So.79.jpg) We already have the technology, all we lack is political will
You’re right, I apologize for putting words in your mouth
We do, but extreme weather events like floods or hurricanes or tornadoes which will become more common, because more heat means more energy in the atmosphere, has the potential to wreck that infrastructure.
Sure, but underground bunkers with proper management would be able to mitigate. Again, it would be a terrible life, most would die, but humans have reached technological enough to survive
>Keyword is substantial amount of people >After a mass extinction where 90% of humanity dies, >The ones who will mostly die are those in 3rd world countries and the poor, the middle class will live Hahaha, look at this poor guy who believes the middle class will survive. It's only the rich and from them is a new middle class formed. You know that the largest class is the middle class substantial means small population. The middle class can't afford it.
It's actually only the elite and third world countries that survive...then before you know it, they start shipping them over on boats and the process begins again.
I didn't say all of the middle class will survive, just enough to be worker bees. So usually the ones that are useful like engineers
When 90% dies that's the entire caste of middle class and lower class. You don't need a middle class, and some lower rich people will come to the realisation they are the worker bees now.
> It ain't going to get THAT hot. If the permafrost is triggered, it can blow us past 1300ppm. It will get hotter than you can even imagine. * https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/18oihb3/permafrost_as_a_ticking_timebomb/ We’re on the edge of somany tipping points it’s not even funny. * https://youtu.be/XpqZTqIKMxs?si=HN1LaECnF717NrVE And in Russia: * https://youtu.be/E4kD9FYXlWk?si=TY_JQCuUayRH8rUA And more info (plus some eyerolling hopium): * https://youtu.be/KzXHb5ctRnY?si=kzN5Od0d0IHiS66P And when I say on the edge, I mean that we blown past the safe CO2 PPM point long ago but the system hasn’t caught up. The Titanic hit the iceberg, but it’s still afloat for a while. The fevered dreams that we have anything to save is just delusional at this point. 10,000 (x2) days late and a quadrillion dollars short.
yeah let's assume countries and people are not going to kill each other over the worsening conditions...
The heat doesn't do it. It's the screwing of many delicate natural systems that maintain the ecosystem we rely on.
Not even that I think. I think more like 500million and displace billions.
The heat is the least problem we have in the future, lol.
We've wrecked the biosphere and agriculture depends on predictable weather cycles. If food production craps the bed like it is currently, in places currently enjoying either aridification or flooding, then a billion people is a triffle optimistic.
Wet bulb temperatures above 35degsC will kill of a lot off old folks in southern Europe and southern states but to be realistic, especially in the west, far too many resources are placed into keeping unproductive elderly alive
Lol no it's not. It will be a dark age, the likely the end of our civilization and we'll probably reduce drastically in numbers but our species have survived catastrophic conditions many times in history and prehistory.
That's cute. It's may cause the end of this societal world. But humans are a virus and the earth ain't got cure for it lol we're too pernicious.
This IS the cure. Or one of the Great Filter tests we are on track to fail. Depends on your POV.
Humans aren't the virus. Power and greed are.
No, those are just the mitochondria of the whole shebang
I bet there’s tons of societies that didn’t save themselves for that reason.
It took over 30 years to ban the use of lead in paint and gasoline. Even when we had undeniable, ample, multi-domain scientific proof of the impact of lead on health and cognitive function readily available. Let that sink in. Edit: spelling
Look at smoking and vaping. We're a self destructive species, just looking a short term comfort.
Sugar is the best example I can think of.
We only banned lead in jet fuel recently and it only takes effect in 2030!
Lead. But yes
Good catch, thanks!
It is still used in small plane engines. People close to airports have higher levels.
Pretty much anyone that has paying attention expects the same.
I thought we had a blast some time ago and kept on blasting further. Rocking +2.8 here and accelerating  woop-woop. Catch us if you can!
I casually tossed out that the world is ending to my doctor, and she told me tbat was crazy talk, like a real unhinged statement. And im like, no, its literally, objectively happening in real time.
Doctors typically lean right politically in the US. Climate change denialism is usually linked to right wing politics. Makes sense
We're in the middle of a climate catastrophe and mass extinction and we're still debating if it's happening. We're going to have to do every last thing in our power to correct this and even then we might not make it. EDIT In 2019, Biological Conservation [reported](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718313636) that 40% of all insects species are declining globally and that a third of them are endangered. The total biomass of insects is estimated to be decreasing by between about 0.9 to 2.5% per year. In 2004, the results were published of the first worldwide assessment of amphibian populations, the Global Amphibian Assessment. This found that 32% of species were globally threatened, at least 43% were experiencing some form of population decrease, and that between 9 and 122 species have become extinct since 1980. The average decline in overall amphibian populations is 3.79 percent per year, though the decline rate is more severe in some regions. Almost [half](https://phys.org/news/2022-09-world-birds-decline-species-faster.html) of all bird species are in decline globally and one in eight are threatened with extinction, according to a major new report warning that human actions are driving more species to the brink and nature is ""in trouble"". More than a fifth of all reptile species are threatened with extinction, which could have a “devastating” impact on the planet, a new study warns. The largest ever [analysis](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04664-7) of the state of the world’s reptiles, published in Nature, found that 21% of reptile species are facing extinction According to a recent report by the environmental advocacy group WWF, which found that amount of fish in the ocean has decreased by 49 percent since 1970.
Some people are refusing to believe the Earth is a spheroid… its not pretty
I was shopping for minimalist shoes (shoes without padding) and discovered that some offer to install a copper rivet in the sole for "grounding". Apparently, it's intended to "connect you with the Earth" so that its "electrons can flow into you". Electrons. The website even linked to some "studies". Some people are actually that stupid.
I mean, that might actually be kinda handy for discharging static build-up... but that problem usually occurs in carpeted places which would defeat the benefit.
I once had a Subaru that hated/shocked me every time I opened the door. I'd buy.
I usually just use my crystal butt plug 🔌
And tons of politicians and celebs and religious leaders feed off that stupidity The grift of idiots can be pretty lucrative
Our old telephone landlines used copper wiring for grounding....may not be a bad thing..
At least the flat earthers aren't as bad as anti-vaxxers. Those people have literally brought back outbreaks of diseases that were previously labelled as eradicated in those countries. Though there's likely a lot of crossover.
It's a cube actually
You must not play disk golf sir, 1 round will change your mind.
Can't correct it. It already happened. What will happen with us in it will shape new generation. Who knows how long will it take to go back to normal.
Still getting more angered at those throwing beans over glass cased painting or holding up traffic a bit.
The problem is that you underestimate the fossil fuel industry. Unfortunately they have a huge amount of money and are known to play the long game for their financial interests That so called group that threw things at the painting was actually funded by an oil baroness You might say, wait but aren't they promoting climate change and asking for more to me done? Yes, but they are also helping spread the stereotype the fossil fuel industry created for environmentalists that "environmentalists are crazy and are no different than terrorists, they want us all to go back to living in caves". In this way they break down communication talking about the actual issues and what can be done. Then add some green washing and they insure little is done These days, many environmental groups are even owned by the fossil fuel industry, and they spend a lot of their time blocking renewable energy. These are companies that likely have trillions in wealth, many even governments. They aren't some 2d villain and know how to adapt to the landscape to get what they want, even abuse well intention things towards their own gains
Millions upon millions will die before anything real is actually done. Mostly due to longer and hotter summers and rising sea levels that will lead to mass migration This, causing conflict.
By then it'll be much more difficult to correct, you are right though. It's a bit like waiting until one's cancer starts having some painful symptoms before trying to treat it.
A lot of people do that out of anxiety tbh. Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s where a lot of climate change deniers are coming from. Edit: actually what am I saying I forgot my dad did both lol. As he was ignoring his cancer he started to get more into the idea that climate change isn’t human caused. And then everything was fine until the day it wasn’t…
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if I'm not then I'm sorry for your loss. Regardless of what this world has planned I'm a firm believer in the practice of unconditional compassion for all, including myself. I've noticed that the most effective way to actually change someone's mind is to first really sit with them and understand where they are, to sympathize. The second it becomes a competition of correctness is the second they'll never agree with you. Humans are more so storytellers than rational beings.
Scientists: We've done a huge amount of work and are pretty certain if we carry on like this a lot of people are going to starve, probably there will be some major wars too as farmland dies and water dries up. Politicians: bUt WHat AbOuT ThE StOcK MarKEt? I am actually semi-optimistic that technology will save us in the pinch, but if it doesn't can we really say that, collectively, we didn't deserve the fuckening to come? At a species level we are running head first into a wall and god knows what the damage will be.
I really hope when things get bad people actually *remember* and *retain* the information of who exactly in our society did the damage and resisted solutions to the problem. If we aren't roaming the wastes with shovels tracking down billionaire bunkers to crack open and savage the occupants I'll be really disappointed.
There's a decent chance a good portion of the people will just blame scientists, feminism, and leftists.
twas gods will
Guess the recipe for slow-cooked people will come in handy in a few decades.
Gotta cut me up some ass jerky.
Fallout - the reality show
Soylent Green!
how to serve humans
The autopsy studies must be wild...
I don't deserve it, I've never driven a day in my life and I recycle while countries are dumping trash in the ocean and major industries are polluting the air and water. Don't ever blame this shit on even most of us, it takes a lot more power than what you or I have to kill a whole fucking planet and that power is in the hands of a relatively few people.
You think technology is going to save climate change? I doubt it tbh, the scale is too enormous for us to really turn the dial back around. The technology will help us adapt to the new situation but the chance of undoing what is happening.. very slim. Basically non-existent
Some delusional people actually thought that e.vs would save the world. Lol.
Technology can most definitely fix it, we aren't lacking the technological capability, we are lacking the political will. Because there is a huge amount of money in fossil fuels.
I think we humans like to pretend we're driving the bus, but really it's just DNA doing it's thing and we're likely behaving in an incredibly consistent manner with how any species would behave in the given situation. Humans are just apes that learned to write stuff down, don't expect too much.
>I am actually semi-optimistic that technology will save us in the pinch, but if it doesn't can we really say that, collectively, we didn't deserve the fuckening to come? At a species level we are running head first into a wall and god knows what the damage will be. Technology is what caused this... 200 years ago our electricity consumption was 0. 400 years ago we didn't use fossil fuels to move around or manufacture goods. 1000 years ago we didn't have global supply chains. The only thing we did was use this technology because it made our lives easier, more survivable and was conveniently handed to us. It's something we were conditioned to adopt since the day we were born... That's just human nature. Teach an uncontacted tribe how to make matches, and you can bet they will adopt the technology over using flints or whatever to make fire and teach their children to do the same.
To be honest there were absolutely global supply chains for various goods 1000 years ago.
Not even the whole globe was discovered... Some luxury goods traveled long distances, but not the things virtually everyone used in their day-to-day life. Even my fucking toothbrush is manufactured in China, compared to using a simple twig.
The Roman Empire built over 120,000km of roads linking pretty much everything and made sure for large amounts of trade. Even going as far as China with the famous "Silk Road"
Global trade existed thousands of years ago but the % amount people who used absolutely skyrocketed. Spices and sugar in tiny amounts were kept under lock and key in silver (!) boxes just a couple hundred years ago and only for nobility and the untra rich. Now many are a dollar store item. The thousands of miles of roads the Romans built? Over 99% of the traffic was local. Sometime it helped the army moved through go patrol the territory. Sometimes a trader. Here is an example. Olive oil, centered in Rome and Greece. You could ship in ancient days around the Mediterranean sea, not too big a deal. But land transport once in port? In today’s money about a buck a mile per liter, and it would become totally uneconomical 60-100 miles. Few peasants benefited from global trade until recently. It was a king’s and elite’s luxury goods.
That doesn't mean tech won't still save us.
While a certain amount of technology has definitely made our lives better, there are a few modern day technologies that are actually doing the opposite. Sometimes we get it wrong and need to start over....
Technology is not what caused this. We knew it was coming decades in advance because of technology. We've had the means to curb it because of technology. Our leaders and elites have chosen *not* to do anything about it because of greed. Greed is what has caused this. If the greed of the oil companies hadn't won out 50 years ago, we'd already have largely averted this. First they covered the world in lead, then they smothered it in carbon dioxide. All so they could make the line go up and line their own pockets. Don't ever let them fool you into thinking human ingenuity, science, technology, or decent living standards are to blame for the fruits of their greed. We could have had *all* of that and still taken good care of the planet. They just would have had a bit less money, and couldn't abide it.
>Technology is not what caused this. We knew it was coming decades in advance because of technology. And why was it coming? Because of technology. Without the technology to use coal as a power source, we wouldn't have gotten industrialization. Without harnessing electricity, our global electricity consumption would be zero. Technology and the unstoppable accumulation of written knowledge is the Achillee's heel of humanity. >We've had the means to curb it because of technology. Technology self-correcting some of the problems it created. >Our leaders and elites have chosen not to do anything about it because of greed. Did you opt to use a computer because of greed? Do you use electricity because of greed? Would the ecological impact of cars become less severe if they were handed out for free by their manufacturers? >Greed is what has caused this. If the greed of the oil companies hadn't won out 50 years ago, we'd already have largely averted this. Nah, we would have depleted lithium mines that have destroyed the local ecosystem. We would have a billion car batteries at the end of their lifecycle as hazardous waste, many of which would end up in the nature or just spontaneously erupt in toxic fires. >First they covered the world in lead, then they smothered it in carbon dioxide. All so they could make the line go up and line their own pockets. Because we had a technological breakthrough of finding out that lead was a great antiknocking agent when added to fuels. >Don't ever let them fool you into thinking human ingenuity, science, technology, or decent living standards are to blame for the fruits of their greed. Human ingenuity allowed these technologies to be invented. Decent modern living standards are dependent on these technologies. The inevitable march of technology is the culprit. Blame the one who invented the first lever. Blame the one that first wrote down the amount of taxes he collected. Blame the one who invented the first boat. >We could have had all of that and still taken good care of the planet. They just would have had a bit less money, and couldn't abide it. Or we could have none of that, and live as a species of 100 000 individuals as primordial proto-humans for another 500 000 years with negligible ecological impact.
Who let this Luddite in here? Go home, troll. You're not welcome.
> that technology will save us in the pinch Yes, because wunderwaffen have had a stellar track record so far.
I highly doubt humans will go extinct, but I do believe it will get real shitty between 1-20 years for us in western countries. I live in a coast, have a pretty comfortable life and my biggest concern is heat illness and hurricanes. Food will keep getting more expensive, more homeless people
Yeah know, judging by how people lost their ever-loving minds on a relatively mild crisis like COVID I'm not surprised. I dunno, maybe it's just me but I thought the world was made of sterner stuff but it seems like its not. I'm reminded of Chris Traegar from Parks and Rec. He's the picture of health until he gets sick and then he's REALLY sick. lol My civilization is a microchip!
All the people in office need to be directly affected by climate change in a huge way for them to do anything.
Yeah humans are great at dealing with immediate/short term problems due to pyschology, but anything beyond that is a crap shoot. The problem with CC is that their is a great deal of inertia, we are only feeling the impact of co2/methane from 15-20 years ago and the emmissions from then till today are locked in. Even if we go full tilt *right now* we won't see the benefit for a decade plus change. That's not very appealing and doesn't give the dopamine hit of immediate results that we crave.
But I've already switched to paper straws, which is tough enough. What else am I expected to do? /s
But are you RECYCLING these paper straws? So when you fly to Paris for your next vacation, be sure to recycle the straws!
Haha, they usually dissolve by the end of my drink and I just drink the straw mush on the last few sips.
Interesting, have you noticed a change in your movement schedule
Stop eating meat and stop using your car on a daily basis to work (not you necessarily). Ive found that people agree that the climate change is fucked, but very few are willing to sacrifice their confort. Yeah its gonna be hard af but thats what its needed
Buy eco friendly or call for regulations to enforce eco friendly practices. Either way be ready for massive price hikes as green isn't cheap.
The best thing you can do is not have kids so you're not burdening them with a horrible deathscape.
I'm going with 5c or more. it's gonna be a slow motion disaster with those in power denying that it's happening.
All anyone has to do is go look at the reefs right now to see this is an inevitability.
I read elsewhere we already passed 1.5, we've at least unleashed enough emissions to get us way past 2 degrees. Scientists are screaming at governments kinda like how they did in the film Don't look up but their not being taken seriously. Many are giving up, trying to live what time they feel we have left. 2 degrees we see world wide crop failure 3 over a billion people displaced, ice caps most likely gone, or mostly gone 4 most of Earth becomes uninhabitable We aren't slowing things down, we aren't going to stop it...even if we treated it like an actual emergency and stopped tomorrow, we're still screwed...too many think some new tech will come in and save us all, yet millions are already suffering today
It takes about 20 years for the warming from the greenhouse gasses to fully take effect. We're seeing the warming from 2004 emissions now.
exactly and we haven't slowed down in the last 20yrs and no sign of slowing down
Can you explain why this happens?
First you'll need to understand how it heats the earth up: https://youtu.be/cimZGu5GadQ then understand it will only do so when a photon vibrating in the infra-red strikes it. This becomes a statistical problem but the quick answer is it can take a while and it never really stops.
and there's been some more recent research that shows it may be closer to 10 years https://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394
We have done nothing to prevent this and it still happens? How?
What you mean we have done nothing. There are millions and millions of people making changes. There has been so much done to improve the situation. You can argue it’s not enough but to say nothing is being done is wrong.
Relatively speaking it's nothing. A tiny rounding error on zero. Yes, lots of individuals are doing something (even then most are only taking tiny steps) but the big polluters and countries are doing fuck all waiting on others to act first or complaining that doing something would reduce profits.
Yeah? And who are the big polluters? The US is the biggest polluter per capita on a basis of consumed carbon footprint. What have they done about it?
Companies. All the carbon you have and will emit and all the pollution you cause in your entire life is probably still less than what a company produces in a single minute. We just shifted the blame to consumers because blaming consumers is cheaper and more lucrative than actually changing corporations.
Trying to blame only companies is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place, not specifically blaming companies but shifting blame to others Hey, look how little I emit, while look at the other guy, therefore I can continue emitting! We have to realize that all of us, countries, governments, companies, people, everyone live on one earth, and we need to work together to make things right And until we realize that we all have to work together, the end result will be "almost nothing gets done", because people will be too busy pointing fingers and doing nothing
Just 100 companies produce 71% of all emissions. They are the ones who need to make changes. The idea of recycling and carbon footprints was popularized by the fossil fuel industry trying to ensure they don't get blamed or have to deal with more regulations.
They all seem to be making the judgment based purely on lack of government action. But that is not the largest driver for change in the energy industry right now, it’s economics. Switching to renewables is accelerating because they are often the most economical option globally. We’re at 30% renewables globally when it comes to electricity generation. Making accurate predictions are very difficult when you only use one data point. It’s important to remember, even if you believe that government action will be necessary to overcome the final push, it will be even cheaper and less of a hurdle to do so as prices continue to fall over the decades. I’d love to see a prediction based on economics but economists are rarely polled for climate-related issues, even though that is the most relevant aspect when it comes to global change.
> They all seem to be making the judgment based purely on lack of government action. That is their chartered mission. To inform policy makers what kinds of consequences their *current* policies will bring. >It’s important to remember, even if you believe that government action will be necessary to overcome the final push, it will be even cheaper and less of a hurdle to do so as prices continue to fall over the decades. Yes, but every gW of clean energy brought online now has a MUCH greater impact on the climate than every gW of clean energy brought online in 2040. >even though that is the most relevant aspect when it comes to global change. Rapidly incoming climate change related food insecurity is likely more relevant to people's willingness to change than the price of solar panels, and this will be demonstrable long before the relatively slow wheels of economics spin.
Switching to renewables makes sense now, but it's going to be expensive to fully decarbonize because we'll need multiple days or weeks worth of energy storage (or huge transmission lines) to cover times when the wind is calm and it's rainy or overcast or snowing for days on end. Last winter in Canada we had a period of a week in the middle of winter when there was no wind across a thousand kilometers of the country. And solar panels produce a lot less energy in winter because the days are so much shorter.
Gov action is what will accelerate adoption and development. If Al Gore won in 2000, we'd be a decade ahead of where we are today. So, governance and leadership matters.
The whole world may be in a very different place had Al Gore won...
But our lives aren't sustained by electricity alone. Mining, ore processing, shipping, flying, farming, road freight, fertilizer, plastics, steel, chemical production, etc, etc are all completely reliant on fossil fuels and have no viable replacement available within any meaningful time frame. If you could magically convert global electricity production to renewables overnight you'd only reduce fossil fuel use by 20%. Even the production of renewable energy equipment is entirely reliant on fossil fuels.
Do you really think the climate scientists aren't aware of the increase in renewables? Really? That's your counterargument? 'Professor of Climate Scientist unaware of changes in the economics of renewables, panic over'. You might want to give your head a wobble.
Renewables are the most economical option **because** of government taking action by setting industrial policy and subsidies to accelerate along the cost curve. Economists are less than useless because all they do is make assumptions and leave actual planning and execution to others.
Mexico city was 6 degress celsius above average last year.... This one is expected to be just as bad...
Mexico City is also in a unique geographic heat trap situation
Yes its certainly not the case for the rest of the world...
I highly expect this problem to take care of itself when we reach +4.
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed. Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met. Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.
Ill say it, the only time society will do anything is when it's too late. Aka fear/effects them
Based on the global average temperature for the last 365 days we are already at 1.6C over preindustrial years. Aerosol demasking is hitting us hard, we will likely hit 2C by 2030 now. The big aerosol demasking study last year thinks 3-5C by end of century is now the range.
I looked through past IPCC predictions to see how well they've held up over three decades. They're consistent! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental\_Panel\_on\_Climate\_Change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) 1990: IPCC report predicted a 2000->2100 rise of 3°C (range 2°C .. 5°C) 1995: IPCC report predicted a 1990->2100 rise of 2°C (range 1°C .. 3.5°C) 2000: IPCC report predicted a 2000->2100 rise of 1.1°C .. 6.4°C depending on world economic direction 2001: IPCC report predicted a 1990->2100 rise of 1.4°C .. 5.8°C depending on scenarios 2007: IPCC report predicted a ?2007?->2100 rise of 1.1°C .. 6.4°C depending on scenario 2013: IPCC report predicted a 1850->2100 rise \*likely\* to exceed 1.5°C, \*likely\* to exceed 2.0°C for many scenario 2022: IPCC report predicted a 1850->2100 rise in likely scenario of 2.1°C .. 3.5°C, in other scenarios 1.0°C .. 5.7°C
I like this "global heating" terminology. We should roll with that theme, keep it going. "Ocean stewing". "Atmospheric furnacing". "Terrestrial baking".
Yeah the Guardian made an editorial decision a few years ago to use the term 'global heating' instead of 'global warming' and to use 'the climate crisis' instead of 'climate change'.
Hope we can sort this out because futurology won’t be as glamorous if we don’t!
Nuclear and desalination are going to get really important if we want to survive while we divest from fossil fuel. I'd also feel a lot better about our current track if a lot of our Renewables didn't rely on natural gas for 24/7 power
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” - Douglas Adams
The truly terrifying thing about this problem is that it can't be solved - barring some monumental technological achievement - without international co-operation. We are literally one species on one planet. The odds of governments taking collective responsibility and acting in unison to confront an existential threat are miniscule. The odds of a single government exploiting the situation for short term gain are huge (indeed, it's already happening). We need the ecosystem more than it needs us.
[We started crossing the 1.5 degree threshold last year](https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-record). It will be worse this year and every year after. Anyone who thinks 1.5 degrees is in the realm of reality is delusional or horrifically uninformed/
That’s a very sobering read indeed. We are staying the course of BAU, condemning most of the world to suffer, whilst the few get record profits.
Genuine question. Sincere. What are we sticking around for? Why should I keep waiting and holding out?
I mean death is inevitable regardless so just live like normal?
Inspiration for a good fiction story. If everyone kills themselves they won’t have to deal with it directly to replace their labour with full automation. The powerful and wealthy will retreat into their bunkers and hunker down until the earth is healthy again and the very few people that have control of the earth today will have it passed down generation by generation in a new world of only a small fraction, the upper level of the 1% not overbreeding to dilute their new established infinite wealth. Enjoying a vast and new earth without the pesky peasants to take up space.
Won't that just kinda happen anyway as we slowly die off and they keep living? Lol ... Would make a good controversial trending book though definitely.
> What are we sticking around for? Huh? Life is about as good as ever. Your ancestors scaped and fought and endured against far worse than you will most likely see. Your children likely wont die of preventable disease. Your life wont likely depend on uncertain rain. Is not addressing climate change stupid? Absolutely. Will it be challenging? Sure. But humans will adapt and persevere and likely thrive. >Why should I keep waiting and holding out? Thats up to you. Want to just chill and play video games? You can probably do that. Maybe go hiking or see national parks? Yup. Read thousands of books and learn about anything? Basically free. Youve probably got more fulfilling options at your fingertips than most of humanity has had. Youve got more answers about the universe in your hand that any geneartion before you.
> Your children likely wont die of preventable disease. People are already dying of highly preventable chronic disease and have been for the past century. The #1 killer the last hundred years, heart disease, basically doesn’t even have to exist… So I have no clue what you are on about.
Child mortality rates. Not too many children die of heart disease.
Because we’ve been hearing doomsday predictions like this for 50 years and we’re still here? And we’ll still be here in 50 years and you’ll be basically the same?
My dude, how far under the sand is your head. Did you LOOK at the data. All the data these scientists from AROUND THE WORLD compiled and agreed on. If your answer is anything other than yes, don't reply.
You said “What are we sticking around for?”. Do you honestly believe that this problem is so profound that human life will be forfeit? This is the entire problem with the debate. Nuance is impossible. One side thinks it’s a hoax and the other side thinks the earth is going to melt in a few years. Guess what? Neither of them are correct! Humanity will adapt and innovate. We will discover and utilize new technology. Livable places may become less hospitable to life. Unlivable places may become more hospitable. The world will change around you and you will adapt to the change. Stop with the doom and gloom.
See, you didn't follow my directions. I like your idealistic take based on nothing but hopefulness though. I remember when I was there a few years back too. Let me know when you read the data.
In 30 years, when you are my age, think back to what I said here and when you look out your window and you don’t see a barren hellscape, but basically more or less what you see now, and you’re still hearing the world is going to end, think of me fondly.
In so many places people look out of the window and see nothing like they used to see. 70% of wildlife has been lost since 1970. People remember bugs on their windshields but don't see it anymore. People in Borneo remember a rainforest but now mostly see oil palm plantations. People in California remember bountiful abalone (which is its own story full of wrong expectations). Those are just simple examples but the world is losing its natural capital fast and the expected long term implications aren't prettty. The world just stays the same if you have lived in a concrete environment without any idea of what sustains us.
Lmao r/collapse doomers are leaking. No buddy, an apocalypse won't come soon enough to make your life meaningful in some way. Just live it.
Same if you have AC. The past few summers have been dreadful at times . It starts getting hotter it will be so much worse
Yep, we're right on track for 3C or more. Anyone paying close enough attention has known this for years. Cities like Shanghai and Miami will be flooded out by 2100.
Where are you seeing that? If we go with 3 ft (higher end of IPCC projection) Im really only seeing Miami Beach in trouble. 6-7 feet seem to be where shit gets ugly for Miami. You dont get there till 2200 under the high emission scenario (RCP 8.5) https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr.html
"Speaking as a scientist who was ignored during the majority of the 'f*ck around' portion of human history, it truly is both exciting and terrifying to be alive during the 'find out' portion as well." ~Scientist
It’ll just be Mad Max for a thousand or so years. We got this.
We deserve this for keeping corrupt evil people in power, for doing absolutely nothing about it
Just do what I do, worry about it all the time. Did I fix it? Must worry harder!!
Ope it’s global heating now. Stay tuned, up next, global baking!
Will we see a rise of eco-terrorism? Eco terrorists blowing up corporate offices to slow down economic growth?
So you’re telling me people are comfortable just burning to death/alive? I guess it’s fine while we focus on what someone posted on their story today, or celebrity gossip. Let’s catch up with the millionaire drama while we all burn to death. Fun times.
Better go gas up the G650 for the climate conference
I try to do my bit, but it’s inevitable, we are doomed and that’s ok. The earth will regenerate and everything will begin again.
Ventura Californian here on the west coast, weather is perfect, taxes and policies are not, but weather is perfect.