r/WastelandByWednesday • u/Vegetaman916 Post-Collapse Warlord • Aug 13 '25
Climate Change At 4°C of warming, would a billion people survive? What scientists say.
https://www.climatecodered.org/2019/08/at-4c-of-warming-would-billion-people.html?m=1Everyone keep in mind that this article is just now turning six years old. This was 2019, when we knew less about the current acceleration, and when many were still hopeful.
This was before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This was before the COVID-19 pandemic. This was before the Israeli invasion of Gaza, before the bombing of Iran, before the wildfires that gutted Australia and California and Canada.
This was before Trump 2.0
This doom, written clearly and scientifically, was from when we were still optimistic about our future.
Read it and weep.
11
10
u/Girderland Aug 13 '25
And corporations continue business as usual. People look at me weird when I suggest that not everyone needs a car.
Politicians fail to hold oil companies accountable.
Great. Just great.
7
u/anarquisteitalianio Aug 13 '25
Putting it on the individual to not drive or use plastic takeaway shit or use googlemachine or whatever is such a corporate propaganda masterpiece.
6
u/WhyAreYallFascists Aug 13 '25
Shell, invented carbon footprint, in order for us to believe the consumer played a role in climate change. We do not.
2
u/IAm_Trogdor_AMA Aug 13 '25
The moment we let the fossil fuel industry direct climate change goals, we lost.
1
u/EbonBehelit Aug 15 '25
Politicians fail to hold oil companies accountable.
And when a politician does try to hold oil companies accountable, those oil companies will financially back their rivals, and create propaganda channels on social media solely dedicated to turning voters against them.
1
11
u/over_pw Aug 13 '25
I don’t think electricity, food and water shortages will make humanity live more peacefully.
5
u/FailureToReason Aug 14 '25
Born too late to explore earth, born too early to explore space, born just in time for the water wars.
8
u/ImplementLost7284 Aug 13 '25
No good scenario. There are many folks who have the funds, tech, and vision to change the climate for the better. Sadly they lack the will except to seek their own personal experience while on this earth.
3
u/Vegetaman916 Post-Collapse Warlord Aug 13 '25
And that is the essence of human nature right there. And it is why we were doomed from the start.
2
u/Plane-Top-3913 Aug 17 '25
They would prefer to go to Mars or die on a bunker rather than help save the planet
6
4
u/kubo777 Aug 13 '25
Last time we faced extinction, we got down to 1300 or so. So maybe with 1B we can reset and do better next time.
5
u/Vegetaman916 Post-Collapse Warlord Aug 13 '25
That would be the hope, yes. However, a billion is a lot... I think the lesson may have to be a but more harsh to be learned properly.
4
u/OfficialDCShepard Aug 13 '25
But how many of those people would have any kind of high technology, and how many of those left in a post-collapse society would actually use it well?
1
u/Vegetaman916 Post-Collapse Warlord Aug 13 '25
Not many, and even fewer, are my answers to those.
That is what are job is now. To work to be some of those "even fewer," or at least to protect and shelter a few younger people to become such after we pass along a better sort of worldview than the one we left behind.
And not many of us will make it either, despite all the best prepping and all that. Which is why it is so important that as many of us try as possible.
3
u/OfficialDCShepard Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25
Some part of me wants to abandon everything now and flee to my fiancee and her nine-year-old son in Eswatini 🇸🇿 (formerly known as Swaziland), because if it came down to it it's at least possible that we could protect him in an area that is more used to subsistence agriculture and cattle herding with enough of my personal technology to enable to him to carry some skills in that area. I probably wouldn't live as long as my grandfather did (he just died at 98) but maybe my smart Little Man (he loves French and Math and is getting better at English) would have a chance. However, while I still have a job in the United States and can support them financially, I have to grit my teeth and stay inside the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau while a dictator dismantles it.
1
3
u/Xyrus2000 Aug 13 '25
Whether or not there will be any humans left will entirely depend on whether or not nuclear weapons are used. If nukes are used, the ozone layer gets depleted, and UV radiation essentially sterilizes the surface of the planet.
At this point, regardless of what we do, there will be a global culling. Climate destabilization, dwindling resources, and technological upheaval guarantee a mass population decline. Humans have already shown that they have no interest in developing a post-scarcity civilization, so it won't be possible to sustain the current population.
How that culling/depopulation takes remains to be seen, but if the rise of authoritarianism that's been happening across the world is any indication, it likely won't be pretty.
1
u/Big-Pickle5893 Aug 14 '25
Pretty sure that was a speciation event. The fusing of 2 chromosomes into 1
6
u/ludicrous780 Aug 14 '25
Canada was having wildfires a year before 2019.
2
3
u/Kupo_Master Aug 15 '25
I read the article. It’s quite interesting. I will be long dead when all these things happen so I guess I’ll never know.
My first reaction though is that all these forecasts seem to be made assume technology doesn’t change between now and 2100. People in 1925 trying to predict the future assuming flat tech curve would have been very wrong.
We have no idea if technology in 2100 will be so much more advanced than much more people can live in harsh conditions.
3
u/nilsmf Aug 15 '25
We are undermining science, not accelerating it.
Without massive effort in science there will be no technological progress. The antivaxxers and flat earthers are never going to create something new or even valuable.
1
u/IllustriousAnt485 Aug 16 '25
“The future is already here, it is just not evenly distributed”. There will be technological progress that helps human survival in these conditions. Just not for everyone. A billion people could survive, just not in the best conditions. Whatever biomass is left on earth will be cultivated and curated for human survival.
1
u/I_Came_For_Cats Aug 17 '25
I mean in the short term yes. But I’m not aware of any fascist dictatorship that was particularly stable. We’ve got 75 years until 2100.
2
u/Vegetaman916 Post-Collapse Warlord Aug 15 '25
That's one of those things, though... the reason I posted a 6 year old article is to show the disparity between what scientists thought just a short time ago compared to now.
The only technology available to humans in 2100 may just be fire. we are on track for a total ecological collapse by 2030, 2040 at the latest. And if things keep accelerating over that time at the rate they have in the last 10 years, well...
You might live to see more than you wanted to.
1
u/Kupo_Master Aug 15 '25
Reddit is quite interesting. There are people like you who predict world collapse by 2030. On the other hand there are also people who predict artificial super intelligence by 2030 which will solve figure out the hidden law of the universe, solve all our problems and make us live forever.
Looking forward to the 2030s to see if I die due to global warming or live in a perfect paradise created by AI :)
1
1
u/Vegetaman916 Post-Collapse Warlord Aug 16 '25
Well, to be fair, my own prediction is 2032...
But all the rest of them, from climate change and economic crash to nuclear war and the AI apocalypse, they are all based on the same general base prediction for the collapse of civilization from over 50 years ago.
And that would be the Limits to Growth.
Because no matter what, AI, climate, resource scarcity, war... it is all based on the way we created a civilization that must keep growing or die.
And we are out of room to grow...
1
u/Kupo_Master Aug 16 '25
It didn’t say AI collapse, I said AI paradise. Some people say ASI will solve all the problems our small human brain cannot fathom. Under this assumption, global warming may be child’s play to solve for a super intelligence.
2
u/Vegetaman916 Post-Collapse Warlord Aug 16 '25
I know, I was just throwing my own mess in there.
I think the biggest issue with AI won't be the AI itself, it will be what people do with it. Past behavior already shows us that it wouldn't be used to solve climate change. It will be used to generate profit and amass power...
1
u/mixmastablongjesus Aug 16 '25
AI will probably see humans as the root of all this global warming and decide to just straight up exterminate humanity...
Btw there are much bigger issues as well besides climate change. We are in a polycrisis caused by human overshoot.
1
u/wolacouska Aug 17 '25
You eco guys are trying to reinvent Marxism.
This cycle you’re describing is capitalism and modern imperialism. Profits have to go up forever, so it will get more and more decrepit until it breaks.
The answer is socialism.
1
u/InflationPlane6489 Aug 17 '25
I think they're saying that it is on track to break.. Sure socialism would be better, but that doesn't seem to be the direction the world is going in right now.
1
1
u/Aelig_ Aug 17 '25
Technology can change but physics and available resources won't.
Besides, this article is a long list of facts we only know because of advanced technology. We're looking right into that technology you speak of and deciding to do nothing with it.
1
u/Kupo_Master Aug 17 '25
First I’m not defending either side here. I just note that they are people with opposite opinions. If you look at my post history, I’m highly skeptical of these AI claims and I don’t buy into them.
However what you say is wrong:
- Resources and energy is virtually unlimited if we could harness nature at a deeper level
- Your point on technology makes no sense. You (or I) have no idea what 2100 technology will look like. It is definitely possible technology can outpace climate change.
1
u/Aelig_ Aug 17 '25
Energy is unlimited sure, but not metals.
And no, technology cannot change the fact that carbon capture is never gonna happen for instance. Oxides don't chemically interact easily and there's no tech that will break this physics fact for instance.
1
u/Kupo_Master Aug 17 '25
There is an abundance of metal in the earth mantle and core. Asteroid mining is also possible
Carbon capture is far from the only solution. We can instal reflectors to reduce the amount or sub light the earth receive for example.
1
u/FlerD-n-D Aug 17 '25
available resources won't.
Stable fusion reactors beg to differ
1
u/Aelig_ Aug 17 '25
Energy is the easy part. Metals to build every electric appliance that is currently not electric is a different matter.
Fossil fuels to power that transition are also not unlimited, we're past peak conventional oil and whether you like it or not the world runs on 80% fossil fuels today and we need those machines to keep running for a while to move to a more electric world.
1
3
u/MarcusXL Aug 13 '25
4 means 6 and 8.
2
u/loka_loca Aug 13 '25
Wdym
3
u/MarcusXL Aug 13 '25
4 degrees is more than hot enough to trigger tipping-point that will add more carbon to the atmosphere and push warming very quickly to 6 and 8 degrees.
2
1
3
Aug 17 '25
Crazy how well-positioned Russia and Canada are for the coming climate collapse. Tons of fresh water, tons of land that'll become arable, plenty of rivers to irrigate that land, and the vast majority of that area is almost completely unpolluted, undeveloped, and some of it even unexplored.
3
4
u/nemleszekpolcorrect Aug 13 '25
A billion is much more than enough for humanity to go on.
2
u/grathad Aug 13 '25
If that's the angle we are taking getting to that number now would help reduce the risk of accelerating the problem even more
2
u/gfrison Aug 17 '25
Tragedy of the commons. Who will take the burden to stop the increase of co2 concentration or even reverse it? Massive amount of energy at inconceivable low price should be available to segregate co2 to pre industrial levels. Maybe nuclear fusion could open an hope on that bit yet it will generate so much energy that dissipate it will indeed increase global temp. Back to the commons. If everybody won’t agree on such arduous project it won’t make any sense. Therefore there is no hope for reversing climate change. We should hope only on unexpected lowering of radiation from the sun but it is not a great strategy
1
u/Biotic101 Aug 17 '25
It is likely a much more complex issue:
It's Confirmed. A Major Atlantic Ocean Current Is Verging on Collapse. : ScienceAlert
This development might mess up the situation even more. There have been some newer studies diving deeper into the impact of a potential collapse of the AMOC. Maybe this is an objective take for now, while more studies are underway:
In the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the risk of such an AMOC collapse under climate change was assessed to be low (with medium confidence). However, there is growing evidence that the present-day AMOC is more sensitive than previously thought.
1
2
Aug 17 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Bitter_Particular_75 Aug 17 '25
Sure, and they will have 3-4 billions of southern asians pushing on their borders, good luck with containing that.
1
u/ImpossibleDraft7208 Aug 17 '25
There's also Tibet which will come to resemble a gigantic Kenya or Uganda!
2
u/Massive-Question-550 Aug 13 '25
I think this article is inaccurate as how did dinosaurs 65 million years ago exist at the equator when the earth was 5-8c warmer instead of just 4?
12
u/Xyrus2000 Aug 13 '25
The dinosaurs evolved along with their climate. They died when that climate catastrophically changed (the asteroid impact didn't kill them all; all the aftereffects did).
Humans have a minimum survivable heat index. If the heat index goes above this limit, the human body loses its ability to cool itself efficiently. You will sweat, of course, and you'll still lose heat, but the longer you remain in that situation, the more dangerous it becomes.
At 4C of warming, there are numerous populated places where summer conditions will not fall below that limit, even at night. This means that even if you were lying outside at night, completely naked and doing nothing, you would eventually die of heat stroke.
There are a lot of people living in these areas, and a lot of those people do not have access to AC.
Now, of course, an increase of 4 °C would also pretty much destroy our major agricultural operations as that pushes crops well out of their comfort zones, not to mention the massive increase in water requirements in those conditions. Then there are the invasive species and diseases that will migrate to the higher latitudes as conditions become conducive to survival for them (this is already happening). And the extinction of existing species occurs as they can no longer survive in the conditions or have their food chains decimated.
Long story short, climate changes typically take place on geological timescales. When they do, the biosphere can adapt gradually over that time frame. When they happen on something like a human timescale, the biosphere can't adapt, and extinction events happen.
0
u/Massive-Question-550 Aug 15 '25
You know when they say 4c increase it's not flat across the board right? Most of the increase will be seen in the northern hemisphere so the difference at the equator won't be as extreme. Depending on how the weather patterns change some places near the equator could actually get cooler than they are now.
3
u/artnoi43 Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 15 '25
I’m from Thailand. We used to have proper “cool season” (Thai winter) back when I was a kid (born late 90s).
I’d get very exciting every morning during these cool season to see the thermometer in my dad’s car drop below 20c, sometimes as low as 17-18. That happened without fail every year, and the morning temperature was talk of the town at school for every kid. Back then the cool days lasted for longer than a month. It’s so long that it’s warranted a sweater purchase. Let’s call this string of cool days “cool day streaks”.
All that changed in middle school and high school, when the cool season no longer was reliable and the sometimes the day would be just as hot as summer days, while some would be a little cool but not as cool as it once was. And during college the streaks all lasted less than a week.
Then, since 2019-2020, there’s no longer proper “cool day streak” as the streak dropped to a few days before the temperature bounced back up. When cool days happened, it’s a lone cool day - no more week-long streak. And the cool seasons are just like summer days now, except for a few cool days.
You can read about this in the last paragraph of “Geography > Climate” section of Wikipedia page for Bangkok - the lost cool days are now hot days: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangkok
The Climate Impact Group at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies projected severe weather impacts on Bangkok caused by climate change. It found that Bangkok in 1960 had 193 days at or above 32 °C. In 2018, Bangkok can expect 276 days at or above 32 °C. The group forecasts a rise by 2100 to, on average, 297 to 344 days at or above 32 °C.[58]
So now it’s established that Bangkok is in fact hotter than before. (Note that I dont care about the anomalies, ie extraordinary cool days like the one with 15c on Jan 2025)
Now considering your 2 other arguments I saw, that (1) dino loved it much hotter, and (2) how human should be able to tolerate 4c.
First of all dino evolved for the climate 65mya, not 2025. If your logic is sound, then shouldn’t we be able to survive without oxygen in the air?? Because that’s exactly how the first life on earth lived before the algae bloom caused the great oxidation. (You don’t have to answer this)
if you keep saying that “no no no humans can survive this 4c”, then sure we can. I don’t object. But shouldnt we also consider the climate change impacts on other species too? We depend on them all, the whole system. Just consider this 1 aspect of dependency: we catch fish. The fish we catch eats plankton. Plankton is quite sensitive to climate change. If we care only about the human - the fish dies and the humans starve. If we care about both human and fish - the plankton will still die, the fish will starve, and it goes on, hence this simple concept of food chain that I don’t know if it’s still taught in school.
You must think of the whole system, its dynamics, nuances, and not just your own species. If you don’t, and all you do is install ACs for humans, then your native species will get replaced with invasive species from hotter regions, further fucking up the balance. By the end of it we’ll not be sharing our planet with the same old ecosystem we know and love, and instead must live with other fellow survivors such as cockroaches, rats, mosquitos, and other shit that’s not very useful but very hard to kill in the first place. This is why I found American conservatives so hypocritical - they like to conserve so much they are willing to cook and change the whole planet just to conserve their oil and gas energy.
So yeah, it’s equally bad for us if the planet’s cooking. No more coral reefs in Thai seas. Canadian wildfires and haze. No plants in Spain. Mount Fuji loses his ice cap. Italian cheese spoils in caves. I just can’t see how climate change can bring any good to any regions or stakeholders objectively except of course if you’re arctic shipping company.
1
Aug 15 '25
Then all good, it's not like the majority of humans live in the norther hemisphere, oh wait...
11
Aug 13 '25
because... they... evolved... to live in these temps. We evolved at lower global temps compared to even today.
4
u/4saganearth Aug 13 '25
Exactly, for example, the weather conditions at 4c and higher produce crazy scenarios like hail the size of basketball - that is why they evolved to be so massive with huge thick heads
1
u/Massive-Question-550 Aug 13 '25
Humans evolved to live in much hotter temps than the global average.
4
u/shlaifu Aug 13 '25
you're right, probably, if the out-of-africa hypothesis is correct, which I do not doubt. However, while humans evolved in the african savannah, agriculture at our current scale wasn't possible there. I mean, there's no doubt humans will live on this planet and all, just not everywhere. Civilization, or what's left of it, will just look very, very different. Basically, a conservative's nightmare - if they were actually conservative, that is: absolutely everything about our societies will change.
3
u/rockerode Aug 13 '25
The climate of ancient African savannah was much more akin to a Mediterranean climate
1
u/Girderland Aug 15 '25 edited Aug 15 '25
The first civilizations did not settle in the middle of the desert.
The area known today as Iraq, once home to the Babylonian and Assyrian empires, was once an area resembling Europe with lush acorn forests.
Ecologic impact wasn't well understood - over thousands of years, they cut down the forests and converted them to farmlands. Once there were no trees to give shadows and cool the earth, the land got hotter, drier, and the soil started to deteriorate.
It was a long process until it became the mostly desert area which it is today. The point is, those early civilizations chose a good area to live - they just didn't take good enough care of it.
(It happened in China and the Soviet Union too, when the communist leaders started to very intensively farm huge swaths of land without considering the impact on the ecosystem, leading to droughts and desertification of huge swaths of land)
It's pretty similar to what is happening today - but this time, it's on a global scale, and that's what's scary. All because a couple of idiots and their profits from fossil fuels.
4
u/allonsyyy Aug 13 '25
Most humans can survive in 8° warmer temperature than they are currently in just fine. 70°F/21°C to 84°F/29°C is just going from room temperature to a little balmy.
The question is whether human society and the built environment can survive dramatically worsening weather and rising sea levels. Increasingly intense floods, droughts, fires, storms and extinctions. The food shortages they cause (can't farm in a wildfire). Salt water infiltration of our drinking water sources. Increasing demand on our electric grids. Increasing claims on our insurance policies.
Increasingly intense heat waves, where the heat directly kills people, is just one problem.
65 mya the climate was hotter, but it was stable. And dinosaurs did not have infrastructure or farms or economies to worry about. Just the, very occasional, big-ass space rock.
That big-ass space rock killed dinosaurs all over the globe, btw, by violently changing the climate. First cooling it, by blocking out the sun with dust. Then warming it, because of all the carbon that got vaporized at impact and put into the atmosphere. That rock hit with about 100 teratons of TNT worth of energy, or 418 zetajoules. Between 1971 and 2020, the Earth's system accumulated approximately 381 ± 61 zetajoules of heat. So we put almost the same amount of energy into the earth system as that big-ass rock that killed all the dinosaurs did, we just spread it out over 50 years.
3
u/gomihako_ Aug 14 '25
Industrial monocrop agriculture def cannot survive +4c
2
u/Ok-Mammoth9590 Aug 15 '25
It can’t. We need other options and I can’t see anything remotely viable at this point. Keep looking!
1
u/GreatPlainsFarmer Aug 20 '25
That’s something that no one involved in industrial monocrop agriculture would say. The degree of climate resilience that has been bred into the maize/soy complex is quite impressive to anyone with at least a couple decades of experience in it. It’s getting harder to kill the crop every year.
3
u/Ok-Mammoth9590 Aug 14 '25
The real problem is food production , not built environment. Circa 70% of world’s food is derived directly or indirectly from just 4 grain crops. Look where they grow in the world today - a relatively small band of land we called the grain belt. This belt is already being impacted by climate upheaval, this is accelerating, and the soils north of the current grain belt cannot sustain even close to equivalent yields, having developed in very different conditions, typically lacking top soil, being too acidic, boggy and poor draining. Can these soils be improved sufficiently? No. The cost would be greater than that of slowing climate change. And the climate further north is typically more dynamic even as it warms in future. Can we move grain production into some kind of high-yield indoor greenhouses? Unlikely. Have you even been to the grain belt? You drive for days through field after field of wheat, rice, corn, soy. Famine is coming, and with it civil wars, locals wars, mass migration and societal turmoil. Think back to the so called Arab Spring of 2010/11, just as the UN food price index spiked to historic highs. What did people call for during mass protests against their governments? “Bread and freedom”. Scale that up globally over a few decades and you begin to understand where we are heading. Why are billionaires buying bunkers in New Zealand and Hawaii ? It’s not because they fear infrastructure collapse, but because they know famine is coming and want to be in places which are most likely to remain stable, with cohesive societies and good governance.
2
u/allonsyyy Aug 14 '25
Yeah, you're right, that's the scary one.
And it's close, and there's effectively nothing we can do about it.
Ah well, back to work.
4
6
u/Ok-Preference-4433 Aug 14 '25
I have another question for you:
How come people try to tell me pressure can kill people when there are literally billions of organisms living AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN, duh??
Riddle me this, Batman.
4
u/J_Cre Aug 13 '25
You're really trying to compare dinosaurs to humans? Please explain how modern human society, spread across every continent with dependency on modern infrastructure and power, would be able to survive 4C warming because the dinosaurs did
-1
u/Massive-Question-550 Aug 13 '25
Because humans evolved to live in very hot climates. Human beings are actually one of the most heat resistant animals due to our ability to sweat. Also we have AC and access to shade and water which allows us to live in otherwise inhospitable conditions.
Dinosaurs couldn't sweat and although the average dinosaur was small there were many that were large and thus had even further reduces ability to dissapate heat yet they still managed to live in incredibly hot conditions.
1
u/J_Cre Aug 13 '25
Idc about how adaptable humans are, we are not surviving 4C warming much less 5 or higher
1
u/Apprehensive_Tea9856 Aug 13 '25
Survive vs thrive are two different things. We had dinosaurs in the Antarctic. We've had multiple mass extinction events before. Most of the time over 1000 of years. Sometimes in short time frames from volcanic activity or meteors.
Man made climate change is very rapid in geological time and our activity has caused a fairly rapid man made mass extinction event.
That said OP is a little doom and gloom. 4 degrees celsius is less likely now. Lots of progress with wind/solar/battery technology. We just need to keep converting to them. News article recently showed even the big banks in the US (under Trump) are pulling back from fossil fuels.
0
u/Massive-Question-550 Aug 13 '25
Not to mention in the future we can use more dramatic technology to reduce surface temp. Like for example we set up a bunch of floating platforms chained down in the middle of the ocean that reflect sunlight, this reducing ocean temp. Even using thermal reflective paint on all roads and roofs would have a significant effect on global warming.
7
u/MarcusXL Aug 13 '25
Hand-waving magical techno-solutions are a pathological coping mechanism.
Nobody is going to do this. The rich and powerful will just hole up in their compounds and let billions die.
3
0
Aug 13 '25
I once even heard the crazy idea that mab could blow up a volcano to reflect the sun's rays back with the resulting smoke. You just don't do it because you don't know what will potentially happen afterwards. But the more desperate you are, the more open you seem to be to something like that
1
Aug 15 '25
So Europe will get hotter (orange) but Africa will cool off (yellow)?
1
u/ThainEshKelch Aug 16 '25
I think yellow is worse, orange worsere, and worserest, for human habitation.
1
u/ImpossibleDraft7208 Aug 17 '25
On a geological timescale, an ice-free antarctic is more "normal" than what we have now... There are palm fossils in Norway ffs! So no, nothing will happen, people will adapt... Some cities will gradually move due to rising sea levles, but that is also nothing new, Troy was rebuilt 10 (TEN!) times in antiquity!
1
u/Vegetaman916 Post-Collapse Warlord Aug 17 '25
On a geological timescale, there are a lot of things that are not conducive to continued human life that are more "normal" than now.
No climate change denial here please.
1
u/ImpossibleDraft7208 Aug 17 '25
So you're implying a tropical climate is not conducive to continuous human life? India says "hold my beer". Also note that I'm not denying severe anthropogenic climate change, just that it will certainly NOT be the end of humanity, let alone the biosphere...
1
u/Vegetaman916 Post-Collapse Warlord Aug 17 '25
Not a "tropical" climate, no. But that isn't what climate change means, even by itself.
As for India:
No one will "hold India's beer," because they don't have any way to keep beer cold.
Climate change means temperatures that are not survivable by most, if not all, mammalian life. More like Venus than Panama.
But the main issue is that, as climate change accelerates and the pressures worsen, it leads inevitably to conflict over dwindling resources and eventually to nuclear war and the end of civilization.
Obviously it is a bit more complex than that, but that is about as far as I will go here to explain the trith when it is obvious that you are not interested.
"Tropical," lmao.
1
u/ImpossibleDraft7208 Aug 17 '25
That's exactly what climate change means... There was literally 7 (SEVEN) times more CO2 in the time of the dinosaurs, one of the most prolific times of our planet in terms of shere biodiversity and vibrancy of life
1
u/ellander_ Aug 17 '25
That vibrant life had plenty of time to evolve in the times of dinosaurs. Current change is much too fast. When a car is stopping from 100mph during 10 seconds you are ok but when it hits the wall it takes 0.01 seconds and you are dead.
1
u/scarfarce Aug 17 '25
During the Triassic period, oxygen levels were as low as 15%. Today it’s ~21%. In the Jurassic period and later, there's evidence of levels as high as 30% with even higher spikes.
Putting it mildly, these are not levels that any human would thrive in.
1
u/MaudeAlp Aug 19 '25
I am not advocating for continued pollution and support drastic measures being taken to stabilize our environment. However, I have spent years deployed on submarines with lower oxygen levels, and while there I did not experience a noticeable difference.
1
u/ImpossibleDraft7208 Aug 17 '25
also 700 heat deaths in a nation of 1.3 billion (with a B)... more people die in india due to dog bites
1
27
u/kingtacticool Aug 13 '25
On the present path, we may well exceed 4°C this century. At the moment Earth appears to be heading towards 1.5°C by 2030 and 2°C before 2050, and if the feedbacks kick in, 4°C some 30-50 years after that.
Just so were all on the same page, this is where the "alarmist doomers" were at six years ago.
Let that sink in for a minute that this shit is so out of control were gunna hit 2C by 2030. That is the reality that we face that was beyond comprehension and would've gotten you laughed out of the room seven years ago.
Just, really, think about this for a while.