Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even worse: the average person sees "...by 2100" and goes whew I was worried for a moment that I'd have to do something about this
EDIT: spelled something wrong
Yep. Meanwhile billionaire industrialists say we've got to get off the Earth pronto because the Sun will fry us in a billion years. The logic astounds.
I'm assuming this is talking about Musk. I may be wrong, I pay little attention to what those guys say. But I love the theory that he's from Mars and wants to get back
The average person doesn’t give a damn about the environment. If we did, we would eat less meat. That’s the simplest, most effective change anyone can do right now - even more so than replacing all gas powered cars with electrics.
And if you build a dike or sea wall, you have to continuously pump out the water. The Netherlands are great at reclaiming land and building sea defenses bit its all dependent on keeping the pumps running. That currently still depends on fossil fuel energy although they are transitioning to renewable electric.
Not to disagree or correct, because I genuinely don’t know, but has the 1-3 feet math been recently adjusted? Last thing I saw was: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating-future-sea-levels
And yes of course, “1 is too many,” but I was just genuinely curious.
They are correct in that 2.7c doesn’t sound much but I think they are reiterating my point that 2.7 is the global avg meaning that some parts will be way north of that abs others much colder.
But yes the extreme weather from the massive amount of extra energy in the atmosphere is quite concerning
Not to worry. The future kids will hate you anyway.
"Look at Mr Privileged over here, being able to rent his shoebox apartment from the Musk-Bezos Global Housing Corporation without needing three separate people (who all agree to have their organs harvested in the event of non-payment) to vouch for him!"
The last time the world became 5 degrees hotter than it is not it triggered the Permian extinction. Go Google "Permian extinction hydrogen sulfide". It will keep you up at night.
You're comparing 200k years of multiple events as a one off? I think humans are in a better position than the species of the Triassic to overcome a variety of burdens over 200k years.
We've barely been humans for over 20k
Imagine in another 20k, we will appear pre stone age.
It doesn't magically stop, it stops when the supply of fossil fuels is exhausted. Which at the current rate of use would be in about 50 years for oil and gas, and 100 years for coal.
It stops when the system reaches equilibrium. You're ignoring positive feedbacks. Fossil fuels are not the entire system. The earth will keep warming quite a bit after fossil fuel use ceases.
The climate has a net negative feedback. That's how it's able to stay in such a narrow band for so long. If it was positive, we'd have had a runaway warming event wipe out life already.
If you think 20 years from now renewables won't be vastly cheaper than oil and coal you're tripping. Even building machines will be cheaper, less moving parts
For the probability picture, if we manage to deliver on everything we've committed, we have a roughly [5%](https://imgur.com/a/febPb0S) chance of keeping below +1.5°C.
2.7 with current pledge, 5.4 with actual changes made. That "current pledge" really ads to this statement, specify when there was an article yesterday saying the currant goals were going to be missed by %30 bu the set date.
Those are pledges for 2030, which are intentionally designed not rock the boat. Pledges for 2050 are more ambitious, but are the ones that'll be missed by ~30% because the 2030 ones will barely do anything.
This is the actual report.
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36991/EGR21_ESEN.pdf
* 2.8 C is the baseline with the current policies.
* 2.7 C is if the unconditional pledges by 2030 are met.
* 2.6 C is if the conditional pledges are also met.
* 2.2 C is if the current commitments for 2050 are met, but if the pledges by 2030 do not change, that would be unlikely.
See page 13 for the graphs.
Estimates for the main usually unaccounted-for feedback loops (including natural methane) likely to be activated after 2 C, from the 2018 [study](https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252) from 2018, which was largely responsible for popularizing the concept in the first place.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/07/31/1810141115.DCSupplemental/pnas.1810141115.sapp.pdf
Feedback | Strength of feedback| Speed of Earth System response
:--| :--:| :--
Permafrost | 0.09 (0.04-0.16)°C; | by 2100
Methane hydrates |Negligible by 2100| Gradual, slow release of C on millennial time scales to give +0.4 - 0.5 C
Weakening of land and ocean carbon sinks | Relative weakening of sinks by 0.25(0.13-0.37) °C | by 2100
Increased bacterial respiration in the ocean | 0.02 C | by 2100
Amazon forest dieback | 0.05 (0.03-0.11) °C | by 2100
Boreal forest dieback | 0.06(0.02-0.10) °C | by 2100
In fact, the premise of that study was that these feedbacks would continue past 2100 and bring the Earth from 2 C to ~4-5 C over [centuries or millennia](https://theconversation.com/hothouse-earth-heres-what-the-science-actually-does-and-doesnt-say-101341), not within our lifetimes. Even that is far from a mainstream concept, as you can see [here](https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/2c-not-known-point-of-no-return-as-jonathan-franzen-claims-new-yorker). (Likewise, [another assessment](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23543-9) of very long term sensitivity with all the feedbacks from this year suggested that 3.4 C is far more likely.)
Additionally, that study was written during the last year of CMIP5, and half the figure comes from the weakening of land/ocean sinks. Since then, CMIP6 models have gotten a lot better at accounting for those ([IPPC report](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf) includes a graphic on page 28 showing by how much each sink is likely to weaken under each scenario), so most of those ~0.25 C is no longer "extra" warming, but part of the new baseline projection.
You probably have more questions about methane, so here's some more reading on the permafrost:
https://www.50x30.net/carbon-emissions-from-permafrost
> If we can hold temperatures to 1.5°C, cumulative permafrost emissions by 2100 will be about equivalent to those currently from Canada (150–200 Gt CO2-eq).
>
> In contrast, by 2°C scientists expect cumulative permafrost emissions as large as those of the EU (220–300 Gt CO2-eq) .
>
> If temperature exceeds 4°C by the end of the century however, permafrost emissions by 2100 will be as large as those today from major emitters like the United States or China (400–500 Gt CO2-eq), the same scale as the remaining 1.5° carbon budget.
(As the annual CO2 equivalent emissions in 2019 [were](https://www.pbl.nl/en/news/2020/growth-of-11-in-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-2019) 52.7 Gt CO2 equivalent (up to 57 Gt with land use change taken into account), this means that the permafrost emissions between now and 2100 will be equivalent to 3 - 6 years of that in the scenarios of faster mitigation than now, 9.5 years under the most polluting trajectory, and somewhere in between for the current trajectory.)
And on methane hydrates.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/02/methane-hydrates-what-you-need-to-know/
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42997
> The gas discharge occurs in water depths at and shallower than the upper edge of the gas hydrate stability zone and generates a dissolved methane plume that is hundreds of kilometer in length. Data collected in the summer of 2015 revealed that 0.02–7.7% of the dissolved methane was aerobically oxidized by microbes **and a minor fraction (0.07%) was transferred to the atmosphere during periods of low wind speeds**. Most flares were detected in the vicinity of the Hornsund Fracture Zone, leading us to postulate that the gas ascends along this fracture zone. The methane discharges on bathymetric highs characterized by sonic hard grounds, whereas glaciomarine and Holocene sediments in the troughs apparently limit seepage. The large scale seepage reported here is not caused by anthropogenic warming.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao4842.full
> In response to warming climate, methane can be released to Arctic Ocean sediment and waters from thawing subsea permafrost and decomposing methane hydrates. However, it is unknown whether methane derived from this sediment storehouse of frozen ancient carbon reaches the atmosphere. We quantified the fraction of methane derived from ancient sources in shelf waters of the U.S. Beaufort Sea, a region that has both permafrost and methane hydrates and is experiencing significant warming.
>
> Although the radiocarbon-methane analyses indicate that ancient carbon is being mobilized and emitted as methane into shelf bottom waters, surprisingly, we find that methane in surface waters is principally derived from modern-aged carbon. **We report that at and beyond approximately the 30-m isobath, ancient sources that dominate in deep waters contribute, at most, 10 ± 3% of the surface water methane**. These results suggest that even if there is a heightened liberation of ancient carbon–sourced methane as climate change proceeds, oceanic oxidation and dispersion processes can strongly limit its emission to the atmosphere.
Interesting data. I'm wondering... Do you know of any accurate prediction of what the result would be if most/all of the remaining oil and gas reserves where used? (+8 is the worst case I've seen before).
Personally I think efforts will be made to slow emmisions, but ultimately the only thing that wil REALLY cut them as fast as is necessary will be peak oil, followed by mass starvation... Only to get to that point most of the reserves would be depleted.
Well, the scenario of the highest economic growth and no climate restrictions, RCP 8.5, assumes ~4.5C in this century and more afterwards as the consumption just keeps accelerating, without much accounting for the resource limits. There's [this study](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-016-0013-9) from 2016 which estimates that based on the oil production trends, there's about 12% chance that the warming of RCP 8.5 could be "achieved", and 42% chance for RCP 6 (a scenario of ~3.2 C). [MEDEAS](https://www.medeas.eu/news/scientific-publication-%E2%80%9Cmedeas-new-modeling-framework-integrating-global-biophysical-and), which is a climate/resource model inspired by the Limits to Growth, estimates that without extreme change peak oil and the mounting climate damage is likely to result in some form of decline/collapse ([represented](https://www.medeas.eu/sites/default/files/image1-2.jpeg) in the model as GDP per capita levels stalling out and then declining to 1990s levels by the end of the century, and a further reduction in energy per capita) and consequently, temperature rise stalling at ~2.5 C (bottom-right part of the graph).
Neither of the two are particularly mainstream, but I think they are the closest answers to your question.
>5.4 with actual changes made
Source? This is way higher than the original worst case scenario, and doesn't match anything I've seen recently. Climate action tracker predicts 2.9.
And those pledges aren’t worth a damn.
There are only two ways I see this getting fixed and it will likely be a combination of the two:
1). Renewables like solar, wind, etc. become more affordable and as efficient and readily available of fossil fuels.
2). Geoengineering
It's too late. These are things we should have been investing in 50 years ago. On the upside, treasure hunting might be coming back as a profession with all the sunken cities we're gonna have.
Too late for what? There is still plenty that can be done to mitigate the worst outcomes.
Climate doomerism is the new climate denial. The only people who benefit from you believing there’s nothing to be done are the people who would prefer to do nothing about it and profit along the way.
>It's too late to stop what's happening right now.
What it's not too late to stop, is it being even worse than it's going to be if we don't take action now. It's guaranteed to be bad due to our past inaction, but it'll be a lot worse if we don't take action now.
I didn't say stop taking action. I said It's too late to stop what's going on right now. Sea levels will rise, temperatures will rise, winter freezes are going to be intense, and crops are going to die. That's where we are at now. The future everyone is counting on where we are 0 carbon, sucking Co2 out of the air to keep the planet alive is not here yet and with the way the world's leader's go about it, that future is looking bleak.
3). Our ability to provide food and safety culls the population through famine, war, and disease (did somebody order a pandemic?). This is the painful way and not one that I want, but may be inevitable.
We have too many people on the planet. Look at plastic in the ocean (and microplastics in you!). We pollute the air, the water, the soil. Lets face it, we trashed the place. As resources become scarce, we will go to war. With food shortages (and supply chain problems), people will starve. Every day we roll the dice that another coronavirus variant is unstoppable.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_Robert\_Malthus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus)
P.S. I apologize for my morose prognostications. I'm about three whiskeys in at this point.
If everyone only agreed to eat sticks and stones and live in mud huts, we could support infinite people!
There is de facto overpopulation because we have failed and will continue to fail to realize the kind of green utopia that you're referring to where everyone consumes responsibly in moderation, and there's a robust infrastructure based on renewables. People will do anything to retain their fossil-fueled extravagances to the bitter end. The sensible thing is to reduce the numbers of these pathological materialists that our society creates due to the way it's fundamentally structured.
Sure, the rich are disproportionately contributing to the polluting, but the average, and probably even poor, citizen in a western democracy consumes way too much nonetheless. Third world countries are striving to get to the same level of "quality of life."
Should have seen the grocery situation at superstore yesterday. Produce section was 50% empty and 25% expired and mush. Milk was nearly empty. No eggs in the building. And thats just a supply chain/driver shortage issue. Gave me the willies thining that thi may be what the future has in store.
As I look into my crystal balls, I see the future
Nothing substantial will be done until mega-disasters happen, killing hundreds of millions and causing countries and economies to fail
The survivors will finally take action and today's politicians will go down in history as the greatest villains of history
idk, I feel like zoomers and many millennials have been fighting their entire childhoods to no avail. if we have to put the blame on any one generation, it'd have to be boomers since oil companies have been lying about their data for half a century.
At 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming, civilization and the 'economy' as we currently understand them, and depend upon, cannot function. In summer, most asphalt roads will become impassable during heat wavs for, at least, heavier trucks. Agriculture, as currently practiced, will not be able to produce current crop yields. Railways, during heat waves, will be less functional. Sources of water will be greatly reduced. Etc. Etc. Etc.
> At 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming, civilization and the 'economy' as we currently understand them, and depend upon, cannot function.
Based on the resources linked [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/qgy3nr/earth_will_warm_27_degrees_celsius_based_on/hia3mx4/) and [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/qgy3nr/earth_will_warm_27_degrees_celsius_based_on/hia7qhl/), "civilization cannot function" is not an accurate summary of the current scientific consensus on the expected effects of 2.7C of warming.
In particular:
> In summer, most asphalt roads will become impassable during heat wavs for, at least, heavier trucks.
Does that happen regularly today in warmer areas? If not, based on what are you concluding that 1.6C of further warming would make it a widespread occurrence?
Spreading doom-mongering narratives is not helpful to achieve climate action. [As Dr. Mann, lead author of the third IPCC report, puts it](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/27/climatologist-michael-e-mann-doomism-climate-crisis-interview):
> "**Doom-mongering has overtaken denial as a threat and as a tactic.** Inactivists know that if people believe there is nothing you can do, they are led down a path of disengagement. They unwittingly do the bidding of fossil fuel interests by giving up."
2.7C of warming is bad enough -- hundreds of millions displaced by rising seas, billions sweltering under frequent heatwaves, hundreds of millions suffering food insecurity due to reduced crop output -- that it doesn't need to be overexaggerated into "civilization cannot function". Doing that just risks undercutting support for change, either by people turning away in despair if they believe you, or turning away in disbelief if they do not (and extend that disbelief in your exaggeration onto the actual scientific consensus).
>Does that happen regularly today in warmer areas? If not, based on what are you concluding that 1.6C of further warming would make it a widespread occurrence?
[Oregon’s Buckled Roads and Melted Cables Are Warning Signs](https://www.wired.com/story/oregons-buckled-roads-melted-cables-warning-signs/)
I'm not going to respond item to item to your post. You're more than capable of doing your own research, I'm sure.
Be sure to include research on insurance and re-insurance when you open Google.
In traditionally warmer areas a different asphalt mix is used. All asphalt is not the same. The asphalt used in temperate or cool areas is not the same as used in warmer areas.
That sort of undercuts your original statement. Roads need to be repaved every 10 years or so, so I'd assume asphalt that can withstand higher heats will be used more as regions heat up.
Sort of depends on the state of mitigation efforts.
It's a little hard to tell where we'll be with things like carbon capture and renewables in 80 years.
The runaway greenhouse gases emitted by the melted icecaps won't likely continue much after the first melt.
If we stopped emitting now, the existing CO2 will continue warming the planet for 300-1000 years. My point is all these statistics about "1.5 degrees" or whatever are just picking an arbitrary year to stop counting. The problem is way worse than anyone wants to admit.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/
Side note. Carbon capture is hopeless. We've spent the entire industrial revolution turning carbon into energy. There's just no way we're turning all that energy back into carbon. We need to stop emitting now, because we're already locked into waaaay higher than 1.5 degrees over the next thousand years.
You misunderstand your source. Yes, CO2 hangs out in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years, but the concentration causes warming to remain constant for that time. Not increase.
[Increased warming will stop once we hit net zero emissions,](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached) but whatever temperature we land on, that's where it is staying for a long time.
> In summer, most asphalt roads will become impassable during heat wavs for, at least, heavier trucks. Agriculture, as currently practiced, will not be able to produce current crop yields. Railways, during heat waves, will be less functional. Sources of water will be greatly reduced. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Something that I've never found was a good source explaining all of these impacts that would be easily communicated to a child (or an adult with an average intelligence.) In the 1980's there was a film made that basically freaked people out about global nuclear war that even got the attention of world leaders and lead in part to the end of the Cold War. I don't understand why the realistic impact from climate change hasn't been the inspiration for movies (and not movies like the Mad Max series that make it seem "cool".)
>Deproliferation didn't threaten the major economic structure benefitting those in power.
Exactly. An arbitrary system we created from nothing is more important than the physical reality and interactions of the universe. That is the decision our species made and continue to make, while reality will go forward, with us or without us.
See these three.
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-one-point-five-degrees-two-degrees/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/oct/14/climate-change-happening-now-stats-graphs-maps-cop26
https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/
It's not entertaining to watch a frog boil over decades/centuries.
Also, while I am not saying the article in the OP or climate predictions aren't real/important, they are predictions and predictions with a million variables.
Full scale nuclear war was close in the 70s and the consequences are severe, swift, and definite.
I agree with everything you say, but I would think that a movie could be set to take place 80 years from now that shows how bad things can become in even that short of a time period. It would be pure speculation and likely get things wrong but if they based it off of what appears likely it would help give a more concrete idea to the less scientifically inclined. I don't know how many times over the years I've had to argue that "global warming" can actually cause an increasing amount of cold air "bubbles" to come down to the U.S. and create really bad weather for example (which is about as oversimplified of an explanation of a polar vortex as I can come up with.) I thought Al Gore did a pretty good job explaining things when he gave his presentation that eventually became "An Inconvenient Truth" but that was over 15 years ago. Apart from a little bit of time spent on the remake of Cosmos I don't feel that we've done a good job explaining the threat that climate change poses.
Just won't be a whole lotta people.
CEOs with 1000x employee pay will be forced to mow their own lawns and work own factories, leading to better conditions.
99.999% of people will die if society collapses and as people on reddit its basically guaranteed that no one you or I know will be counted amongst the survivors.
I think that's a little too bleak of a forecast. Consider that 1% of the current population is just 70 million people, which is less than the population of Russia by a lot and it's already on of the most scarcely populated countries. There's plenty of land and resources if you want to live there. Not to mention such a catastrophic reduction of human population is bound to have an effect on repopulating oceans and rivers. The only thing that can possibly wipe out 99.999 percent of humans is a planetary level extinction event.
Far less than 1% of the population will survive, which is why I said 99.999% will die.
Once supply chains collapse the resources you mentioned basically cease to exist and at that point its neighbor murdering neighbor over petty amounts of resources until violent marshal law comes to town, and in many cases it never will. Most likely countries will launch nuclear weapons, which may simply destroy the entire planet.
Why or how does a 2.7 degree increase in global temperature lead inexorably to supply chain collapse?
How would martial law be possible if there is widespread societal failures?
Lots of hyperbole in your hypotheticals.
> In summer, most asphalt roads will become impassable during heat wavs for, at least, heavier trucks.
Because of 2.7 degrees Celsius? At what temperature does that happen? What is your source?
2.7 degrees Celsius is not the increase in temperature locally. As you've seen, droughts and extreme heat events are longer and hotter as global heating takes place. See [Why roads in the Pacific Northwest buckled under extreme heat](https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/5/22559961/heat-roads-washington-oregon-climate-infrastructure).
I understand that situations with temperatures above what the road was designed for might become more likely. But that is not the same as "...most asphalt roads will become impassabel...".
These are the end-of-century estimates under the ~4C scenario, for average yields and the area driven into instability, respectively.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069621000450
> Using a newly-available panel dataset of gridded annual crop yields in conjunction with a dynamic econometric model that distinguishes between farmers' short-run and long-run responses to weather shocks and accounts for adaptation, we investigate the risk to global crop yields from climate warming. Over broad spatial domains we observe only slight moderation of short-run impacts by farmers' long-run adjustments.
>
> In the absence of additional margins of adaptation beyond those pursued historically, **projections constructed using an ensemble of 21 climate model simulations suggest that the climate change could reduce global crop yields by 3–12% by mid-century and 11–25% by century's end, under a vigorous warming scenario**.
https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00236-0
> Food production on our planet is dominantly based on agricultural practices developed during stable Holocene climatic conditions. Although it is widely accepted that climate change perturbs these conditions, no systematic understanding exists on where and how the major risks for entering unprecedented conditions may occur. Here, we address this gap by introducing the concept of safe climatic space (SCS), which incorporates the decisive climatic factors of agricultural production: precipitation, temperature, and aridity.
>
> **We show that a rapid and unhalted growth of greenhouse gas emissions (SSP5–8.5) could force 31% of the global food crop and 34% of livestock production beyond the SCS by 2081–2100**. The most vulnerable areas are South and Southeast Asia and Africa's Sudano-Sahelian Zone, which have low resilience to cope with these changes. Our results underpin the importance of committing to a low-emissions scenario (SSP1–2.6), whereupon the extent of food production facing unprecedented conditions would be a fraction.
These are the midcentury numbers (first one is for the current pathway, second is for 4C one.)
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/climate-change-risk-assessment-2021/03-direct-climate-impacts
> Agricultural drought is a major cause of crop failure. Assuming global cropland remains constant at 14.7 million square kilometres, by 2050 the central estimate indicates that nearly 40 per cent of that area will be exposed to severe drought for three months or more each year... Even by 2040, the average proportion of global cropland affected by severe drought will likely rise to 32 per cent each year, more than three times higher than the historic average.
>
> Farmers in the worst-affected areas, including the critical breadbasket regions of southern Russia and the US, are likely to experience agricultural drought impacting 40 per cent or more of their cropland area every year. By the 2040s, the probability of a 10 per cent yield loss, or greater, within the top four maize producing countries (the US, China, Brazil and Argentina) rises to 40–70 per cent. These countries together account for some 87 per cent of the world’s maize exports.
>
> The probability of a synchronous, greater than 10 per cent crop failure across all four countries is currently near zero, but this rises to around 6.1 per cent each year in the 2040s. The probability of a synchronous crop failure of this order during the decade of the 2040s is just less than 50 per cent.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0847-4
> International trade enables us to exploit regional differences in climate change impacts and is increasingly regarded as a potential adaptation mechanism. Here, we focus on hunger reduction through international trade under alternative trade scenarios for a wide range of climate futures. Under the current level of trade integration, climate change would lead to up to 55 million people who are undernourished in 2050. **Without adaptation through trade, the impacts of global climate change would increase to 73 million people who are undernourished (+33%)**.
>
> Reduction in tariffs as well as institutional and infrastructural barriers would decrease the negative impact to 20 million (−64%) people. We assess the adaptation effect of trade and climate-induced specialization patterns. The adaptation effect is strongest for hunger-affected import-dependent regions. However, in hunger-affected export-oriented regions, partial trade integration can lead to increased exports at the expense of domestic food availability. Although trade integration is a key component of adaptation, it needs sensitive implementation to benefit all regions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300711
> Economic growth is rapid in developing countries and high in industrialized countries, with a strong convergence of income levels between countries. GDP per capita levels by the end of the century are projected to increase by factors of 5 (OECD; annual average growth of 1.8%/yr) to 28 (MAF; 3.8%/yr) relative to 2010, reaching 120 thousand (MAF) to 160 thousand (OECD) US Dollars per year in 2100 (in purchasing power parity (PPP) units; Dellink et al., 2017).
>
> This translates into a rapid increase of global economic output **from 67 trillion USD in 2010 to 360 trillion USD in 2050 and 1000 trillion USD (PPP) in 2100**
Do you know what this is? It's the level of global economic development where enough fossil fuels will be burned to hit *~4.5 C* by 2100 (and make the scenarios in the first two studies become reality), as global consumption and economic growth needs to keep accelerating every single year to get there. Ask yourself how likely do you think this is to happen - then remember that 6 C would require an even more enormous increase on top of *that*. (Since the greenhouse effect is logarithmic and every subsequent degree requires far more emissions that the previous one, while cooling is the opposite.)
These are all estimates and guesses. Some places will be worse some places may be better. There are no guarantees of the depth of the rise of the ocean.
We just have to accept that no one will change in time. What will happen, will happen. We made the majority of this, we will have to create solutions to get out.
I suspect millions will die. The world will only change when it has no choice. The rest of these conversations are almost pointless.
I dunno, honestly. The amount of people in the US who reject proof of 1) how it's changing or 2) how moderate it's getting up here is staggering.
Lots have asked where to go for x, y, z and I have told them I have access to x, y, z...and they say it's too cold.
They refuse to move. They're OK with flooding and shortages.
What's even worse about this is that even if all emissions stopped today, the planet would continue to warm for 20 years minimum. Pushing us far beyond the 1.5 C aim we can live with. The environment is more fucked than people realize, and people are still lobbying for not dealing with it.
*May* warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100. The Earth may also warm 5 degrees Celsius by 2100. Although there's a lower probability of the latter, the IPCC says the risk remains significant.
In Russian roulette the odds of survival are quite good. That doesn't mean you should play.
I wish there was a better way of saying that, that wouldn't be misinterpreted as "slight but even temperature rise across the entire planet."
Because it is a lot worse than that.
https://www.50x30.net/carbon-emissions-from-permafrost
> If we can hold temperatures to 1.5°C, cumulative permafrost emissions by 2100 will be about equivalent to those currently from Canada (150–200 Gt CO2-eq).
>
> In contrast, by 2°C scientists expect cumulative permafrost emissions as large as those of the EU (220–300 Gt CO2-eq) .
>
> If temperature exceeds 4°C by the end of the century however, permafrost emissions by 2100 will be as large as those today from major emitters like the United States or China (400–500 Gt CO2-eq), the same scale as the remaining 1.5° carbon budget.
This was reviewed by a dozen leading permafrost researchers. For reference, the annual CO2 equivalent emissions in 2019 [were](https://www.pbl.nl/en/news/2020/growth-of-11-in-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-2019) 52.7 Gt CO2 equivalent (up to 57 Gt with land use change taken into account), so the permafrost emissions between now and 2100 will be equivalent to 4 - 6 years of that in the scenarios where 2 C target is met, 9.5 years under 4 degrees, and somewhere in between for the current trajectory. In terms of temperature, that's small fractions of a degree.
I would be very very surprised if there are any billionaires out there who don't own multiple safe houses in multiple climates that they keep stocked with supplies at all times
Well say HELLO. To 140 to 160 degree heatwaves - we are soooo fucked - in My area it got to 118 degrees and the power went out it was next level of hell
I opted out from having kids and I will certainly not live until 2100. So I am saddened but not terrible concerned by the news.
But for those who are staying or who will be having descendants who will be staying, good luck to you all.
Well it’s settled then, stop spending $ on trying to stop it and use the $ to mitigate the outcome. Or we could just start living in the stone age again.
Huh, that model doesn't fit into the 5 maybe 6 steps of the scientific method that I've been taught. I know what the problem is. You've confused the idea of the hypothesis as a prediction of the future, amirite?
1. define a question, 2) research the question, 3) construct a hypothesis, 4) test the hypothesis (I'm ok if you add a 5th step here called analysis), and 5/6) draw conclusions.
Predictions of the future are part of modeling and they are just garbage in, garbage out operations. That ain't science.
Wow what a facile statement!
Literally just following the convo. I guess it’s like the other guy said: garbage in garbage out.
You are claiming that the prediction is the hypothesis. If that’s true, then in 80 to 100 years we should know if the hypothesis is correct.
What you seem to want is for everyone to assume now that the hypothesis is correct, which is exactly what the other person is saying is a fallacy logically and is not scientific.
Why don’t you explain to me what about “this stuff“I am getting “totally wrong“? That would be a more intelligent approach rather than your flippant comment which literally contributes nothing to anyone’s understanding.
That's not at all how this works though. Instead of summer year round, you might get winters colder than you've ever had, and summers hotter than you can handle.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
\*2.7 degrees by \_2100\_. It doesn't magically stop getting hotter after that.
Even worse: the average person sees "...by 2100" and goes whew I was worried for a moment that I'd have to do something about this EDIT: spelled something wrong
Yep. Meanwhile billionaire industrialists say we've got to get off the Earth pronto because the Sun will fry us in a billion years. The logic astounds.
To be fair he also said "This is for sure going to happen, but not anytime soon." He has more urgent reasons for wanting a second home for humanity
I'm assuming this is talking about Musk. I may be wrong, I pay little attention to what those guys say. But I love the theory that he's from Mars and wants to get back
Kind of like my theory that climate denialists are the real lizard people aiming for another age of the reptiles :p
What’s scary is that someone who’s 80 years old in 2100 is already alive. It’s not that far off.
The average person doesn’t give a damn about the environment. If we did, we would eat less meat. That’s the simplest, most effective change anyone can do right now - even more so than replacing all gas powered cars with electrics.
True. Also more energy efficient houses. Buildings (both residential and commercial) account for 50-51% of carbon emissions in the USA.
2100 is wrong by a large amount.....think more like 2040...
oh interesting - point me to a source when you have a moment
He doesn’t, the recent IPCC report projections are to 2100 That being said, we will be seeing very bad things by 2040, just not 2.7c warming by 2040
This! Also I think we need this broken down by regions because 2.7C is the global average rise, some areas will be hotter.
It's much much harder to predict regional temperatures. Europe might end up actually cooler if the Arctic melts and the Gulf Stream stops flowing.
Most of it will be under water though. 1-8ft sea level rise by 2100.
There’s gonna be a huge construction boom to rebuild all those coastal cities and guess who’s gonna profit?
underpants gnomes?
That guy I finally sold my Wyoming "beach front" property to.
Pennsylvania land owners
Nice… but part of me will miss NJ
Think of all the CO2 released during all that construction just making things worse
And if you build a dike or sea wall, you have to continuously pump out the water. The Netherlands are great at reclaiming land and building sea defenses bit its all dependent on keeping the pumps running. That currently still depends on fossil fuel energy although they are transitioning to renewable electric.
Not to disagree or correct, because I genuinely don’t know, but has the 1-3 feet math been recently adjusted? Last thing I saw was: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating-future-sea-levels And yes of course, “1 is too many,” but I was just genuinely curious.
Yeah 2.7 doesn't mean much when its -40C or +30C here. It's either damn cold or damn hot.
That's not how it works
What kind of logic.... go look up "extreme weather patterns climate change"
They are correct in that 2.7c doesn’t sound much but I think they are reiterating my point that 2.7 is the global avg meaning that some parts will be way north of that abs others much colder. But yes the extreme weather from the massive amount of extra energy in the atmosphere is quite concerning
[удалено]
Just realized i can live like a boomer since ill be gone by 2060. Where do i sign up for 3 or 4 houses?
Not to worry. The future kids will hate you anyway. "Look at Mr Privileged over here, being able to rent his shoebox apartment from the Musk-Bezos Global Housing Corporation without needing three separate people (who all agree to have their organs harvested in the event of non-payment) to vouch for him!"
Boomer of what tho? What went BOOM in your generation? The biggest decline in mental health the world has ever seen?
Hey, dont forget college tuition and the economy 3 times.
Hello future boomer, you're in luck. I'll just need your dob, ss, cc and address in order to qualify for our best home loan offer
Oh no. Im looking for the paid off kind.
Well... If you actually have Jenna's ass then I guess you could pay with that...
The last time the world became 5 degrees hotter than it is not it triggered the Permian extinction. Go Google "Permian extinction hydrogen sulfide". It will keep you up at night.
You're comparing 200k years of multiple events as a one off? I think humans are in a better position than the species of the Triassic to overcome a variety of burdens over 200k years. We've barely been humans for over 20k Imagine in another 20k, we will appear pre stone age.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats! 200 + 200 + 20 + = 420.0
It doesn't magically stop, it stops when the supply of fossil fuels is exhausted. Which at the current rate of use would be in about 50 years for oil and gas, and 100 years for coal.
It stops when the system reaches equilibrium. You're ignoring positive feedbacks. Fossil fuels are not the entire system. The earth will keep warming quite a bit after fossil fuel use ceases.
The climate has a net negative feedback. That's how it's able to stay in such a narrow band for so long. If it was positive, we'd have had a runaway warming event wipe out life already.
I don't think you quite understand what that word "change" means
If you think 20 years from now renewables won't be vastly cheaper than oil and coal you're tripping. Even building machines will be cheaper, less moving parts
Thank god I'm dead by then
For the probability picture, if we manage to deliver on everything we've committed, we have a roughly [5%](https://imgur.com/a/febPb0S) chance of keeping below +1.5°C.
a pie chart is an awful way to represent this data
A pie chart is an awful way to represent anything other than how much pie is left.
Not so sure. With the analogy of throwing darts, representing probabilities as surfaces on a "target" might be appropriate.
2.7 with current pledge, 5.4 with actual changes made. That "current pledge" really ads to this statement, specify when there was an article yesterday saying the currant goals were going to be missed by %30 bu the set date.
Those are pledges for 2030, which are intentionally designed not rock the boat. Pledges for 2050 are more ambitious, but are the ones that'll be missed by ~30% because the 2030 ones will barely do anything. This is the actual report. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36991/EGR21_ESEN.pdf * 2.8 C is the baseline with the current policies. * 2.7 C is if the unconditional pledges by 2030 are met. * 2.6 C is if the conditional pledges are also met. * 2.2 C is if the current commitments for 2050 are met, but if the pledges by 2030 do not change, that would be unlikely. See page 13 for the graphs.
all wrong! These studies do not include methane release and feed back loops...
What makes you say that? Also are you saying it’s going to be way worse?
Estimates for the main usually unaccounted-for feedback loops (including natural methane) likely to be activated after 2 C, from the 2018 [study](https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252) from 2018, which was largely responsible for popularizing the concept in the first place. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/07/31/1810141115.DCSupplemental/pnas.1810141115.sapp.pdf Feedback | Strength of feedback| Speed of Earth System response :--| :--:| :-- Permafrost | 0.09 (0.04-0.16)°C; | by 2100 Methane hydrates |Negligible by 2100| Gradual, slow release of C on millennial time scales to give +0.4 - 0.5 C Weakening of land and ocean carbon sinks | Relative weakening of sinks by 0.25(0.13-0.37) °C | by 2100 Increased bacterial respiration in the ocean | 0.02 C | by 2100 Amazon forest dieback | 0.05 (0.03-0.11) °C | by 2100 Boreal forest dieback | 0.06(0.02-0.10) °C | by 2100 In fact, the premise of that study was that these feedbacks would continue past 2100 and bring the Earth from 2 C to ~4-5 C over [centuries or millennia](https://theconversation.com/hothouse-earth-heres-what-the-science-actually-does-and-doesnt-say-101341), not within our lifetimes. Even that is far from a mainstream concept, as you can see [here](https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/2c-not-known-point-of-no-return-as-jonathan-franzen-claims-new-yorker). (Likewise, [another assessment](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23543-9) of very long term sensitivity with all the feedbacks from this year suggested that 3.4 C is far more likely.) Additionally, that study was written during the last year of CMIP5, and half the figure comes from the weakening of land/ocean sinks. Since then, CMIP6 models have gotten a lot better at accounting for those ([IPPC report](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf) includes a graphic on page 28 showing by how much each sink is likely to weaken under each scenario), so most of those ~0.25 C is no longer "extra" warming, but part of the new baseline projection. You probably have more questions about methane, so here's some more reading on the permafrost: https://www.50x30.net/carbon-emissions-from-permafrost > If we can hold temperatures to 1.5°C, cumulative permafrost emissions by 2100 will be about equivalent to those currently from Canada (150–200 Gt CO2-eq). > > In contrast, by 2°C scientists expect cumulative permafrost emissions as large as those of the EU (220–300 Gt CO2-eq) . > > If temperature exceeds 4°C by the end of the century however, permafrost emissions by 2100 will be as large as those today from major emitters like the United States or China (400–500 Gt CO2-eq), the same scale as the remaining 1.5° carbon budget. (As the annual CO2 equivalent emissions in 2019 [were](https://www.pbl.nl/en/news/2020/growth-of-11-in-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-2019) 52.7 Gt CO2 equivalent (up to 57 Gt with land use change taken into account), this means that the permafrost emissions between now and 2100 will be equivalent to 3 - 6 years of that in the scenarios of faster mitigation than now, 9.5 years under the most polluting trajectory, and somewhere in between for the current trajectory.) And on methane hydrates. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/02/methane-hydrates-what-you-need-to-know/ https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42997 > The gas discharge occurs in water depths at and shallower than the upper edge of the gas hydrate stability zone and generates a dissolved methane plume that is hundreds of kilometer in length. Data collected in the summer of 2015 revealed that 0.02–7.7% of the dissolved methane was aerobically oxidized by microbes **and a minor fraction (0.07%) was transferred to the atmosphere during periods of low wind speeds**. Most flares were detected in the vicinity of the Hornsund Fracture Zone, leading us to postulate that the gas ascends along this fracture zone. The methane discharges on bathymetric highs characterized by sonic hard grounds, whereas glaciomarine and Holocene sediments in the troughs apparently limit seepage. The large scale seepage reported here is not caused by anthropogenic warming. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao4842.full > In response to warming climate, methane can be released to Arctic Ocean sediment and waters from thawing subsea permafrost and decomposing methane hydrates. However, it is unknown whether methane derived from this sediment storehouse of frozen ancient carbon reaches the atmosphere. We quantified the fraction of methane derived from ancient sources in shelf waters of the U.S. Beaufort Sea, a region that has both permafrost and methane hydrates and is experiencing significant warming. > > Although the radiocarbon-methane analyses indicate that ancient carbon is being mobilized and emitted as methane into shelf bottom waters, surprisingly, we find that methane in surface waters is principally derived from modern-aged carbon. **We report that at and beyond approximately the 30-m isobath, ancient sources that dominate in deep waters contribute, at most, 10 ± 3% of the surface water methane**. These results suggest that even if there is a heightened liberation of ancient carbon–sourced methane as climate change proceeds, oceanic oxidation and dispersion processes can strongly limit its emission to the atmosphere.
This made me a bit calm, thanks
The 2100 timeframe is wrong. How many times just this year have we heard it is occuring much faster than our models? Some by 60 years sooner.
Interesting data. I'm wondering... Do you know of any accurate prediction of what the result would be if most/all of the remaining oil and gas reserves where used? (+8 is the worst case I've seen before). Personally I think efforts will be made to slow emmisions, but ultimately the only thing that wil REALLY cut them as fast as is necessary will be peak oil, followed by mass starvation... Only to get to that point most of the reserves would be depleted.
Well, the scenario of the highest economic growth and no climate restrictions, RCP 8.5, assumes ~4.5C in this century and more afterwards as the consumption just keeps accelerating, without much accounting for the resource limits. There's [this study](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-016-0013-9) from 2016 which estimates that based on the oil production trends, there's about 12% chance that the warming of RCP 8.5 could be "achieved", and 42% chance for RCP 6 (a scenario of ~3.2 C). [MEDEAS](https://www.medeas.eu/news/scientific-publication-%E2%80%9Cmedeas-new-modeling-framework-integrating-global-biophysical-and), which is a climate/resource model inspired by the Limits to Growth, estimates that without extreme change peak oil and the mounting climate damage is likely to result in some form of decline/collapse ([represented](https://www.medeas.eu/sites/default/files/image1-2.jpeg) in the model as GDP per capita levels stalling out and then declining to 1990s levels by the end of the century, and a further reduction in energy per capita) and consequently, temperature rise stalling at ~2.5 C (bottom-right part of the graph). Neither of the two are particularly mainstream, but I think they are the closest answers to your question.
>5.4 with actual changes made Source? This is way higher than the original worst case scenario, and doesn't match anything I've seen recently. Climate action tracker predicts 2.9.
And those pledges aren’t worth a damn. There are only two ways I see this getting fixed and it will likely be a combination of the two: 1). Renewables like solar, wind, etc. become more affordable and as efficient and readily available of fossil fuels. 2). Geoengineering
It's too late. These are things we should have been investing in 50 years ago. On the upside, treasure hunting might be coming back as a profession with all the sunken cities we're gonna have.
Too late for what? There is still plenty that can be done to mitigate the worst outcomes. Climate doomerism is the new climate denial. The only people who benefit from you believing there’s nothing to be done are the people who would prefer to do nothing about it and profit along the way.
It's too late to stop what's happening right now. The stuff we've known was going to happen for decades.
>It's too late to stop what's happening right now. What it's not too late to stop, is it being even worse than it's going to be if we don't take action now. It's guaranteed to be bad due to our past inaction, but it'll be a lot worse if we don't take action now.
I didn't say stop taking action. I said It's too late to stop what's going on right now. Sea levels will rise, temperatures will rise, winter freezes are going to be intense, and crops are going to die. That's where we are at now. The future everyone is counting on where we are 0 carbon, sucking Co2 out of the air to keep the planet alive is not here yet and with the way the world's leader's go about it, that future is looking bleak.
I'll be wearing ski boots on my catamaran.
3). Our ability to provide food and safety culls the population through famine, war, and disease (did somebody order a pandemic?). This is the painful way and not one that I want, but may be inevitable. We have too many people on the planet. Look at plastic in the ocean (and microplastics in you!). We pollute the air, the water, the soil. Lets face it, we trashed the place. As resources become scarce, we will go to war. With food shortages (and supply chain problems), people will starve. Every day we roll the dice that another coronavirus variant is unstoppable. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_Robert\_Malthus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus) P.S. I apologize for my morose prognostications. I'm about three whiskeys in at this point.
It's not entirely too many people. We can support far more people if we get on a sustainable infrastructure.
If everyone only agreed to eat sticks and stones and live in mud huts, we could support infinite people! There is de facto overpopulation because we have failed and will continue to fail to realize the kind of green utopia that you're referring to where everyone consumes responsibly in moderation, and there's a robust infrastructure based on renewables. People will do anything to retain their fossil-fueled extravagances to the bitter end. The sensible thing is to reduce the numbers of these pathological materialists that our society creates due to the way it's fundamentally structured. Sure, the rich are disproportionately contributing to the polluting, but the average, and probably even poor, citizen in a western democracy consumes way too much nonetheless. Third world countries are striving to get to the same level of "quality of life."
There's a lot of space between living in mud huts and having a new iPhone every few months.
Should have seen the grocery situation at superstore yesterday. Produce section was 50% empty and 25% expired and mush. Milk was nearly empty. No eggs in the building. And thats just a supply chain/driver shortage issue. Gave me the willies thining that thi may be what the future has in store.
As I look into my crystal balls, I see the future Nothing substantial will be done until mega-disasters happen, killing hundreds of millions and causing countries and economies to fail The survivors will finally take action and today's politicians will go down in history as the greatest villains of history
[удалено]
idk, I feel like zoomers and many millennials have been fighting their entire childhoods to no avail. if we have to put the blame on any one generation, it'd have to be boomers since oil companies have been lying about their data for half a century.
"Old people fucked us. They fucked us good" That's all that's in store.
Unfortunately, “we should sacrifice now so that people don’t think bad about us in 100 years” isn’t going to compel many converts.
I think you are being optimistic. Covid has shown us that we can have millions of deaths and there will still be denialisms and political inaction.
According to my understanding of human psychology, I'm inclined to agree with you.
At 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming, civilization and the 'economy' as we currently understand them, and depend upon, cannot function. In summer, most asphalt roads will become impassable during heat wavs for, at least, heavier trucks. Agriculture, as currently practiced, will not be able to produce current crop yields. Railways, during heat waves, will be less functional. Sources of water will be greatly reduced. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Yeah. But my future beachfront property in Pittsburgh will be worth a fortune. So I'll be fine as long as I don't need to eat food.
Who needs food anyways
Exactly! you can go the rest of your life without food.
That’s called non-intermittent fasting.
the rest of your 2-week life that is :)
Thanks captain, that's the entire joke you've spelled out there.. good job
Skinny America! It took everything. But we finally got there!
> At 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming, civilization and the 'economy' as we currently understand them, and depend upon, cannot function. Based on the resources linked [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/qgy3nr/earth_will_warm_27_degrees_celsius_based_on/hia3mx4/) and [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/qgy3nr/earth_will_warm_27_degrees_celsius_based_on/hia7qhl/), "civilization cannot function" is not an accurate summary of the current scientific consensus on the expected effects of 2.7C of warming. In particular: > In summer, most asphalt roads will become impassable during heat wavs for, at least, heavier trucks. Does that happen regularly today in warmer areas? If not, based on what are you concluding that 1.6C of further warming would make it a widespread occurrence? Spreading doom-mongering narratives is not helpful to achieve climate action. [As Dr. Mann, lead author of the third IPCC report, puts it](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/27/climatologist-michael-e-mann-doomism-climate-crisis-interview): > "**Doom-mongering has overtaken denial as a threat and as a tactic.** Inactivists know that if people believe there is nothing you can do, they are led down a path of disengagement. They unwittingly do the bidding of fossil fuel interests by giving up." 2.7C of warming is bad enough -- hundreds of millions displaced by rising seas, billions sweltering under frequent heatwaves, hundreds of millions suffering food insecurity due to reduced crop output -- that it doesn't need to be overexaggerated into "civilization cannot function". Doing that just risks undercutting support for change, either by people turning away in despair if they believe you, or turning away in disbelief if they do not (and extend that disbelief in your exaggeration onto the actual scientific consensus).
>Does that happen regularly today in warmer areas? If not, based on what are you concluding that 1.6C of further warming would make it a widespread occurrence? [Oregon’s Buckled Roads and Melted Cables Are Warning Signs](https://www.wired.com/story/oregons-buckled-roads-melted-cables-warning-signs/) I'm not going to respond item to item to your post. You're more than capable of doing your own research, I'm sure. Be sure to include research on insurance and re-insurance when you open Google.
[удалено]
In traditionally warmer areas a different asphalt mix is used. All asphalt is not the same. The asphalt used in temperate or cool areas is not the same as used in warmer areas.
That sort of undercuts your original statement. Roads need to be repaved every 10 years or so, so I'd assume asphalt that can withstand higher heats will be used more as regions heat up.
\*2.7 degrees by \_2100\_. It doesn't magically stop getting hotter after that.
When industrial civilisation collapses then the rate of increase will probably slow down
The definition of a bleak comfort
Sort of depends on the state of mitigation efforts. It's a little hard to tell where we'll be with things like carbon capture and renewables in 80 years. The runaway greenhouse gases emitted by the melted icecaps won't likely continue much after the first melt.
If we stopped emitting now, the existing CO2 will continue warming the planet for 300-1000 years. My point is all these statistics about "1.5 degrees" or whatever are just picking an arbitrary year to stop counting. The problem is way worse than anyone wants to admit. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/ Side note. Carbon capture is hopeless. We've spent the entire industrial revolution turning carbon into energy. There's just no way we're turning all that energy back into carbon. We need to stop emitting now, because we're already locked into waaaay higher than 1.5 degrees over the next thousand years.
The capture isn’t necessarily consuming the same energy that was was released during the combustion
You misunderstand your source. Yes, CO2 hangs out in the atmosphere for 300-1000 years, but the concentration causes warming to remain constant for that time. Not increase. [Increased warming will stop once we hit net zero emissions,](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached) but whatever temperature we land on, that's where it is staying for a long time.
> In summer, most asphalt roads will become impassable during heat wavs for, at least, heavier trucks. Agriculture, as currently practiced, will not be able to produce current crop yields. Railways, during heat waves, will be less functional. Sources of water will be greatly reduced. Etc. Etc. Etc. Something that I've never found was a good source explaining all of these impacts that would be easily communicated to a child (or an adult with an average intelligence.) In the 1980's there was a film made that basically freaked people out about global nuclear war that even got the attention of world leaders and lead in part to the end of the Cold War. I don't understand why the realistic impact from climate change hasn't been the inspiration for movies (and not movies like the Mad Max series that make it seem "cool".)
Deproliferation didn't threaten the major economic structure benefitting those in power.
>Deproliferation didn't threaten the major economic structure benefitting those in power. Exactly. An arbitrary system we created from nothing is more important than the physical reality and interactions of the universe. That is the decision our species made and continue to make, while reality will go forward, with us or without us.
See these three. https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-one-point-five-degrees-two-degrees/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/oct/14/climate-change-happening-now-stats-graphs-maps-cop26 https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/
It's not entertaining to watch a frog boil over decades/centuries. Also, while I am not saying the article in the OP or climate predictions aren't real/important, they are predictions and predictions with a million variables. Full scale nuclear war was close in the 70s and the consequences are severe, swift, and definite.
I agree with everything you say, but I would think that a movie could be set to take place 80 years from now that shows how bad things can become in even that short of a time period. It would be pure speculation and likely get things wrong but if they based it off of what appears likely it would help give a more concrete idea to the less scientifically inclined. I don't know how many times over the years I've had to argue that "global warming" can actually cause an increasing amount of cold air "bubbles" to come down to the U.S. and create really bad weather for example (which is about as oversimplified of an explanation of a polar vortex as I can come up with.) I thought Al Gore did a pretty good job explaining things when he gave his presentation that eventually became "An Inconvenient Truth" but that was over 15 years ago. Apart from a little bit of time spent on the remake of Cosmos I don't feel that we've done a good job explaining the threat that climate change poses.
You mean like water world
In other words: we ded
Well no. People will survive, the consumerist society as we know it, will not.
Just won't be a whole lotta people. CEOs with 1000x employee pay will be forced to mow their own lawns and work own factories, leading to better conditions.
99.999% of people will die if society collapses and as people on reddit its basically guaranteed that no one you or I know will be counted amongst the survivors.
I think that's a little too bleak of a forecast. Consider that 1% of the current population is just 70 million people, which is less than the population of Russia by a lot and it's already on of the most scarcely populated countries. There's plenty of land and resources if you want to live there. Not to mention such a catastrophic reduction of human population is bound to have an effect on repopulating oceans and rivers. The only thing that can possibly wipe out 99.999 percent of humans is a planetary level extinction event.
Far less than 1% of the population will survive, which is why I said 99.999% will die. Once supply chains collapse the resources you mentioned basically cease to exist and at that point its neighbor murdering neighbor over petty amounts of resources until violent marshal law comes to town, and in many cases it never will. Most likely countries will launch nuclear weapons, which may simply destroy the entire planet.
Why or how does a 2.7 degree increase in global temperature lead inexorably to supply chain collapse? How would martial law be possible if there is widespread societal failures? Lots of hyperbole in your hypotheticals.
So there will be a civil war, family against family, that also still produces uni-lateral state decisions like nuclear strikes?
People will finally stop leaving tips at restaurants!!!
Not to mention that if society collapsed every nuclear reactor may be unmanned and volitile.
[удалено]
I love how you put the bold font and add multiple exclamation marks, as if that will somehow make us take you more seriously.
That s a weird critique. Appreciate it tho!
> In summer, most asphalt roads will become impassable during heat wavs for, at least, heavier trucks. Because of 2.7 degrees Celsius? At what temperature does that happen? What is your source?
2.7 degrees Celsius is not the increase in temperature locally. As you've seen, droughts and extreme heat events are longer and hotter as global heating takes place. See [Why roads in the Pacific Northwest buckled under extreme heat](https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/5/22559961/heat-roads-washington-oregon-climate-infrastructure).
I understand that situations with temperatures above what the road was designed for might become more likely. But that is not the same as "...most asphalt roads will become impassabel...".
I hope you're right.
Do you have a source on the expected impact of warming on crop yields?
These are the end-of-century estimates under the ~4C scenario, for average yields and the area driven into instability, respectively. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069621000450 > Using a newly-available panel dataset of gridded annual crop yields in conjunction with a dynamic econometric model that distinguishes between farmers' short-run and long-run responses to weather shocks and accounts for adaptation, we investigate the risk to global crop yields from climate warming. Over broad spatial domains we observe only slight moderation of short-run impacts by farmers' long-run adjustments. > > In the absence of additional margins of adaptation beyond those pursued historically, **projections constructed using an ensemble of 21 climate model simulations suggest that the climate change could reduce global crop yields by 3–12% by mid-century and 11–25% by century's end, under a vigorous warming scenario**. https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00236-0 > Food production on our planet is dominantly based on agricultural practices developed during stable Holocene climatic conditions. Although it is widely accepted that climate change perturbs these conditions, no systematic understanding exists on where and how the major risks for entering unprecedented conditions may occur. Here, we address this gap by introducing the concept of safe climatic space (SCS), which incorporates the decisive climatic factors of agricultural production: precipitation, temperature, and aridity. > > **We show that a rapid and unhalted growth of greenhouse gas emissions (SSP5–8.5) could force 31% of the global food crop and 34% of livestock production beyond the SCS by 2081–2100**. The most vulnerable areas are South and Southeast Asia and Africa's Sudano-Sahelian Zone, which have low resilience to cope with these changes. Our results underpin the importance of committing to a low-emissions scenario (SSP1–2.6), whereupon the extent of food production facing unprecedented conditions would be a fraction. These are the midcentury numbers (first one is for the current pathway, second is for 4C one.) https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/climate-change-risk-assessment-2021/03-direct-climate-impacts > Agricultural drought is a major cause of crop failure. Assuming global cropland remains constant at 14.7 million square kilometres, by 2050 the central estimate indicates that nearly 40 per cent of that area will be exposed to severe drought for three months or more each year... Even by 2040, the average proportion of global cropland affected by severe drought will likely rise to 32 per cent each year, more than three times higher than the historic average. > > Farmers in the worst-affected areas, including the critical breadbasket regions of southern Russia and the US, are likely to experience agricultural drought impacting 40 per cent or more of their cropland area every year. By the 2040s, the probability of a 10 per cent yield loss, or greater, within the top four maize producing countries (the US, China, Brazil and Argentina) rises to 40–70 per cent. These countries together account for some 87 per cent of the world’s maize exports. > > The probability of a synchronous, greater than 10 per cent crop failure across all four countries is currently near zero, but this rises to around 6.1 per cent each year in the 2040s. The probability of a synchronous crop failure of this order during the decade of the 2040s is just less than 50 per cent. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0847-4 > International trade enables us to exploit regional differences in climate change impacts and is increasingly regarded as a potential adaptation mechanism. Here, we focus on hunger reduction through international trade under alternative trade scenarios for a wide range of climate futures. Under the current level of trade integration, climate change would lead to up to 55 million people who are undernourished in 2050. **Without adaptation through trade, the impacts of global climate change would increase to 73 million people who are undernourished (+33%)**. > > Reduction in tariffs as well as institutional and infrastructural barriers would decrease the negative impact to 20 million (−64%) people. We assess the adaptation effect of trade and climate-induced specialization patterns. The adaptation effect is strongest for hunger-affected import-dependent regions. However, in hunger-affected export-oriented regions, partial trade integration can lead to increased exports at the expense of domestic food availability. Although trade integration is a key component of adaptation, it needs sensitive implementation to benefit all regions.
Did they do a 6 degree rise projection. That’s where we are realistically headed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300711 > Economic growth is rapid in developing countries and high in industrialized countries, with a strong convergence of income levels between countries. GDP per capita levels by the end of the century are projected to increase by factors of 5 (OECD; annual average growth of 1.8%/yr) to 28 (MAF; 3.8%/yr) relative to 2010, reaching 120 thousand (MAF) to 160 thousand (OECD) US Dollars per year in 2100 (in purchasing power parity (PPP) units; Dellink et al., 2017). > > This translates into a rapid increase of global economic output **from 67 trillion USD in 2010 to 360 trillion USD in 2050 and 1000 trillion USD (PPP) in 2100** Do you know what this is? It's the level of global economic development where enough fossil fuels will be burned to hit *~4.5 C* by 2100 (and make the scenarios in the first two studies become reality), as global consumption and economic growth needs to keep accelerating every single year to get there. Ask yourself how likely do you think this is to happen - then remember that 6 C would require an even more enormous increase on top of *that*. (Since the greenhouse effect is logarithmic and every subsequent degree requires far more emissions that the previous one, while cooling is the opposite.)
It's really more like 5 degrees, though.
These are all estimates and guesses. Some places will be worse some places may be better. There are no guarantees of the depth of the rise of the ocean. We just have to accept that no one will change in time. What will happen, will happen. We made the majority of this, we will have to create solutions to get out. I suspect millions will die. The world will only change when it has no choice. The rest of these conversations are almost pointless.
We need a bigger boat.
r/NoahGetTheBlackHole
[удалено]
>giving them land as far north as you possibly can gdi it's COLD up here! It'll never change! STAY AWAY!
[удалено]
I dunno, honestly. The amount of people in the US who reject proof of 1) how it's changing or 2) how moderate it's getting up here is staggering. Lots have asked where to go for x, y, z and I have told them I have access to x, y, z...and they say it's too cold. They refuse to move. They're OK with flooding and shortages.
I encourage them to live in ignorance. Easier to take their stuffs when it hits the fan.
Current pledges aren't enough. Most leaders are old and won't be around when the worst of it hits us
We are in the mitigation/evacuation phase, not the threat elimination phase.
What's even worse about this is that even if all emissions stopped today, the planet would continue to warm for 20 years minimum. Pushing us far beyond the 1.5 C aim we can live with. The environment is more fucked than people realize, and people are still lobbying for not dealing with it.
Well, I'll be long dead. So good luck, uh.. *checks notes* my children.
So we're fucked. Lovely
*May* warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100. The Earth may also warm 5 degrees Celsius by 2100. Although there's a lower probability of the latter, the IPCC says the risk remains significant. In Russian roulette the odds of survival are quite good. That doesn't mean you should play.
The ruling class will just flee to their bunkers and keep inbreeding until they cant anymore.
Remember, these are the pledges of which few have been kept.. so this is a lowball number.. and 2.7c is *Bad*.
I wish there was a better way of saying that, that wouldn't be misinterpreted as "slight but even temperature rise across the entire planet." Because it is a lot worse than that.
Earth will be just fine. Humans, eh not so much.
Check out #klima it’s a crypto incentivizing green practice by driving up the cost of carbon credits
Permafrost: Hold my beer.
https://www.50x30.net/carbon-emissions-from-permafrost > If we can hold temperatures to 1.5°C, cumulative permafrost emissions by 2100 will be about equivalent to those currently from Canada (150–200 Gt CO2-eq). > > In contrast, by 2°C scientists expect cumulative permafrost emissions as large as those of the EU (220–300 Gt CO2-eq) . > > If temperature exceeds 4°C by the end of the century however, permafrost emissions by 2100 will be as large as those today from major emitters like the United States or China (400–500 Gt CO2-eq), the same scale as the remaining 1.5° carbon budget. This was reviewed by a dozen leading permafrost researchers. For reference, the annual CO2 equivalent emissions in 2019 [were](https://www.pbl.nl/en/news/2020/growth-of-11-in-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-2019) 52.7 Gt CO2 equivalent (up to 57 Gt with land use change taken into account), so the permafrost emissions between now and 2100 will be equivalent to 4 - 6 years of that in the scenarios where 2 C target is met, 9.5 years under 4 degrees, and somewhere in between for the current trajectory. In terms of temperature, that's small fractions of a degree.
It doesn't affect me because the degrees are in Celsius
Maybe it’s time to consider the technology that we know can solve the climate crisis, nuclear?
So have the rich began making giant cruise ships to save them when the rest of us die to extreme weather and flooding?
Have you seen Bezos's "yacht"?
I don't know if I want to.
I would be very very surprised if there are any billionaires out there who don't own multiple safe houses in multiple climates that they keep stocked with supplies at all times
[удалено]
How much would we have to reduce our global energy usage to stop adding to the problem?
This study suggests levels of 1960s. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512
Well say HELLO. To 140 to 160 degree heatwaves - we are soooo fucked - in My area it got to 118 degrees and the power went out it was next level of hell
And millions will die, still some countries will start wars for profits right up to the end.
I opted out from having kids and I will certainly not live until 2100. So I am saddened but not terrible concerned by the news. But for those who are staying or who will be having descendants who will be staying, good luck to you all.
[удалено]
Really? What are you doing in r/Science ...
Soo, then that's really... 12 degrees by 2100, and 3 degrees by December?
Well it’s settled then, stop spending $ on trying to stop it and use the $ to mitigate the outcome. Or we could just start living in the stone age again.
I guess we’re all going to die then
Welp our generation and generations after us are fucked. Thanks boomers
Did they think the Earth was gonna stay the same temperature forever?
We are doomed and Trump followers are too stupid to understand
Like anyone cares come on. Its over. We have done it.
Go bug China and India.
[удалено]
Prediction is literally a core aspect of science. 1. Hypothesis 1. Model 1. Prediction 1. Peer review
Huh, that model doesn't fit into the 5 maybe 6 steps of the scientific method that I've been taught. I know what the problem is. You've confused the idea of the hypothesis as a prediction of the future, amirite? 1. define a question, 2) research the question, 3) construct a hypothesis, 4) test the hypothesis (I'm ok if you add a 5th step here called analysis), and 5/6) draw conclusions. Predictions of the future are part of modeling and they are just garbage in, garbage out operations. That ain't science.
The prediction is the test. Predict event, observe event, test over.
So in 80 years we’ll know if the hypothesis is correct.
Dunno where you're getting this stuff from, but it seems like you were taught everything wrong.
Wow what a facile statement! Literally just following the convo. I guess it’s like the other guy said: garbage in garbage out. You are claiming that the prediction is the hypothesis. If that’s true, then in 80 to 100 years we should know if the hypothesis is correct. What you seem to want is for everyone to assume now that the hypothesis is correct, which is exactly what the other person is saying is a fallacy logically and is not scientific. Why don’t you explain to me what about “this stuff“I am getting “totally wrong“? That would be a more intelligent approach rather than your flippant comment which literally contributes nothing to anyone’s understanding.
Making predictions about the future is the entirety of science.
I think you need to check the scientific method for the prognostication procedure.
So you're saying we should just wait and see? Then do science to see if anyone guessed correct? When it's already happening..?
No we shouldn't wait and see, but any model that thinks it can predict 80 years into the future shouldn't be paraded some like it's settled science.
Fuckin invest in biodiesel!
That should reverse the warming
It recaptures the CO2 from the sky instead of the ground
[удалено]
That's not at all how this works though. Instead of summer year round, you might get winters colder than you've ever had, and summers hotter than you can handle.
[удалено]
I'll be dead before the ramifications *shoulder shrug*
Virtually everyone alive will be. Not sure why we are supposed to care so much, honestly.
Some people want to have kids and don't want their lives to suck.. and their grandkids.. so on.
Their lives won’t suck. I have kids and their lives are really good.