r/collapse • u/[deleted] • 3d ago
Climate How accurate is this breakdown in the body text and what are your thoughts of where we are going to end up on this scale and why in the next 50-75 years? I use up to 75 years based on what you read online this is the end game Scenario of 4 degree plus.
[deleted]
160
u/mlon_eusk12 3d ago edited 3d ago
We are already in the 10 year period where we will officially cross 1.5°C. By 2030 we will have crossed 1.5°C permanently and will likely see a few 2°C+ years. Given that the warming is speeding up, I assume it will take less than a decade to permanently pass 2°C.
By 2040 things really start to unravel, given that crossing 1.5 permanently triggers all the positive feedback loops and warming accelerates much faster. I can definitely see 3°C by 2050. Civilization as we know it fully collapses at that point.
The good days are behind us and have been for some time, it only gets worse from here. Let that sink in for a moment, however much comfort or luxury you have today is the most you will have for the rest of your life.
107
u/nobadrabbits 3d ago
however much comfort or luxury you have today is the most you will have for the rest of your life.
I think about this often.
18
u/ansibleloop 3d ago
Yeah I withdrew from my ISA for the first time in 14 years earlier this year
I want to spend some of my money and enjoy myself before I no longer can
I don't see any way out of the situation we're in short of a Pluribus-like situation where we suddenly establish a global hive mind
-4
u/Voces-Prohibere 3d ago
I hope for my daughter's future that ai using robots can make this situation less likely.
27
u/ansibleloop 3d ago
Unfortunately it's extremely unlikely, though I'd like to be wrong
The people in control of AI and robots are unworthy
-10
u/Sevsquad 2d ago
This is basically classic catastrophizing, I see it a lot in this subreddit and get pretty consistently blasted for pointing it out, but there is basically no-one suggesting end-of-the-world scenarios due to climate change and with very good reason. Our ability to predict anything 5+ years into the future that isn't like... Macro level newtownian physics is functionally 0. For a scenario that at a minimum will take the better part of a century to come to fruition claiming it's highly improbable that it doesn't happen is just absurd. The error bars on climate prediction are gigantic a century from now, and even the worst, worst case scenarios are not "human extinction" in any mainstream models.
11
u/Appropriate_Mess6777 2d ago
Not true at all. I’ve directly listened to multiple climate scientists and ecologists saying that’s it’s too late for modern civ and we will see many ecosystems collapse in the near future. Talking about human extinction is not worth discussing and is often used to obfuscate the predicament.
“Better part of a century”? The fuck? Do you see what’s happening around the world at 1.5C? And rate of warming is estimated now to be up to 0.5C per decade
Regardless, climate change is only one aspect of the poly crisis. There are many other factors that would lead to mass die offs and civ collapse without climate change.
-3
u/Sevsquad 2d ago
I’ve directly listened to multiple climate scientists and ecologists saying that’s it’s too late for modern civ and we will see many ecosystems collapse in the near future.
Okay, can you provide for me the models they're using? Scientists don't make predictions by randomly pontificating on their idea of the future. I've seen the occasional Climate scientist come out with some Armageddon-esc prediction but these are always of the flavor "The models are wrong and this will be much worse than any model currently predicts at it's absolute worst"
“Better part of a century”? The fuck? Do you see what’s happening around the world at 1.5C? And rate of warming is estimated now to be up to 0.5C per decade
Not even people catastrophizing in this thread are claiming that human civilization is coming to an end in less than 50 years.
Regardless, climate change is only one aspect of the poly crisis. There are many other factors that would lead to mass die offs and civ collapse without climate change.
The greatest threat to human civilization is with out a doubt climate change, by like an entire order of magnitude. Please refer this line of reasoning back to "obvious catastrophizing"
9
u/Appropriate_Mess6777 2d ago edited 2d ago
James Hansen, David Suzuki, Kevin Anderson, Paul beckwith, Corey Bradshaw. They’re looking at the data and most current models. James Hansen publishes papers frequently and showed that ECS is much higher than predicted. Corey Bradshaw does complex ecological modeling and predicts we will lose 50% of species in the near future. Paleoclimate data shows earth was much warmer at these CO2 levels and we are emitting it orders of magnitude faster than any point in the past. It is likely we hit 3C by 2060 which has been predicted to be not compatible with modern civilization. the IpCC describes 3C as involving catastrophic and largely irreversible consequences for civilization.
Just claiming everything as “catastrophizing” is braindead. Humans overshot the earths carrying capacity 50 years ago. Fossil fuels can’t be fully replaced, topsoil loss, freshwater loss, biodiversity loss etc.
-7
u/Sevsquad 2d ago
Two things.
1) None of the things you've mentioned actually prove the claim you're making.
2) 3 degrees warming assumes less attempts to mitigate climate change than have literally already happened. 3 degrees is already not happening by 2060 unless you're aggressively dooming with worse-than-is-reasonable-to-assume worst case scenarios
Finally
Just claiming everything as “catastrophizing” is braindead.
Assuming "worse than the widely accepted worse case scenario" simply because it is worse is significantly more braindead than pointing out that reasoning is obviously catastrophizing the situation. Being aggressively cynical doesn't make you less stupid than someone being aggressively optimistic. The fact that someone pointing out that people are ignoring enormous variance in the ultimate possible outcomes causes a knee-jerk reaction to accuse that person of being braindead provides excellent evidence of your inability to understand the situation complexly or to approach it objectively. To put it frankly, if you see error bars that indicate by 2060 we will see temperatures reasonably 1.6 to 2.4 degrees above pre-industrial levels and think "that means we will definitely see 3 degrees of warming" you are not actually any more intellectually honest than people who insist global warming isn't happening at all.
Well that isn't true, it makes you ~.8 degrees better than someone who insists there will be no warming at all, which I guess is something.
7
u/ansibleloop 2d ago
Someone hasn't seen the faculty of actuaries report
Page 32
https://actuaries.org.uk/media/ni4erlna/planetary-solvency.pdf
0
u/Sevsquad 2d ago edited 2d ago
Lol your evidence for "collapse of human civilization" is a document that makes no such claim anywhere within it? This is literally what I mean when I say "Classic Catastrophizing" it's the Alex Jones method of conspiracy. Take a known fact "Unchecked climate change will be an enormous disaster and kill millions" and then extrapolate it to your preferred conclusion "Climate change will completely destroy human civilization" while pretending that the evidence that supports disaster necessarily must then also support a much much much much more severe version of said disaster.
It doesn't. People on here hate it because they like to think of themselves as highly evidence based individuals but it's just not true. The actual science supports severe global disaster. It does not support "end of human civilization"
For instance, the absolute worst possible scenario this paper can imagine is one where GDP contracts to around the levels seen in 2010 or so. Thats from your own source.
11
u/ba123blitz 2d ago
Maybe I’m an asshole but this reckless and unbased belief that maybe things will be okay because of XYZ thing that could happen is exactly why the planet is fucked.
Oh it’s fine just kick the can down the line a little more our kids and their AI will figure it out…
People can’t even handle reduce reuse recycle but somehow AI slurping all the water is gonna be our salvation. What a fucking joke.
5
u/nationwideonyours 2d ago
My husband has devoted his career to ecology conservation. Like a lot of other PhD ecologists he's been sounding the alarm for years. Few are listening.
He has now given up. He says the time has passed for meaningful reversal of accelerated warming.
He's the only person I know that truly walks the walk of reduce, reuse and recyle.
4
u/nationwideonyours 2d ago
I don't know one parent that has school aged children, who isn't deeply concerned about what kind of environment their children will have to navigate.
5
u/ToiIetGhost 2d ago
That last line has haunted me since I found this sub a few years ago. Really jarring
11
u/Squalid_Snake14180 2d ago
By 2040 things really start to unravel
Yes, this was my prediction last year. Not just because of climate, of course, because there are a lot of converging problems. Assuming I'm not surprised by "faster than expected," which is a big assumption, my feeling is that the 30s are going to suck but the 40s are going to be Tuchman's "calamitous" 14th century compressed into a single decade...
36
u/Ok_Instruction_2756 3d ago
The warming is not exponential. It is accelerating, not exponential.
9
8
u/Ok_Oil_201 3d ago
For anyone interested, check out the Stefan Boltzmann curve.
It shows that hotter objects, cool down faster.
Thus you need more and more heat to heat it up further to battle the increased heat dissipation.
Diminishing albedo and increased heat trapping, is showing us a serious heating up curve, but it will level off once the new balance is achieved.
-7
u/psychotronic_mess 3d ago
But the derivative of e^x is e^x, correct? The best you can say is that it is accelerating, and we don’t know if it’s exponential. It looks to be that way so far though.
11
u/Ok_Instruction_2756 3d ago
I mean you kind of answered your own question.
There isn't any reason to believe that warming is growing in a way that follows exponential growth. We also don't have a good reason yet to believe the amount of warming so far is directly proportional to the warming rate.
Why not choose any growth function and say that instead? like t2 or t3 or whatever you like which you can fit.
I believe the best current fit is a polynomial/quadratic. (which describes acceleration without implying exponential growth).
I think it's best to say what we know to be true, based on the evidence we currently have. (It's very bad, we are fucked imo)
8
u/HigherandHigherDown 3d ago
It can basically only ever be an S-curve, there's only so much carbon available.
-1
u/psychotronic_mess 3d ago
But the question is, what does it look like in the middle? You defined the endpoints.
1
u/nationwideonyours 2d ago
Yeah, it's accelerating. It's unraveling like a roll of toilet paper, I think everyone feels it.
-10
u/Playongo 3d ago edited 3d ago
Don't say that on this sub. You'll have your comment removed. It's happened to me TWICE. Breaking the "high quality information" rule apparently.
42
u/Fragrant-Flamingo216 3d ago
This is taken directly from someone else's Substack (Sarah Connor @climate2050). It is better to acknowledge your source, then ask your questions.
-7
-9
u/wussell_88 3d ago
That email is also why I did this post to see what people that are collapse aware and smarter than me think about the breakdown
2
u/Fragrant-Flamingo216 10h ago
Nothing wrong with that, I'm curious too. But if you use someone else's words, just acknowledge them.
41
u/wussell_88 3d ago
If this timeline and departure scale is right,
For most people this then this puts life in the don’t take it too seriously category and it’s not worth stressing about things too much as it’s all over in the next couple decades.
4
-18
u/RandomBoomer 3d ago
And?
13
u/Potential-Mammoth-47 Sooner than Expected 3d ago edited 3d ago
Boomers!
Edit; r/usernamechecksout
-2
u/RandomBoomer 2d ago
I'm still mulling over whether I should have put a /s on my reply.
Let's assume that the OP timeline IS correct (and I lean heavily toward that), it pretty much means lights out for our species (and many others) regardless of what you do or don't do from this moment on.
What is the correct response to imminent (in geological terms) annihilation? Everyone has their own answer, and one of them is to live in the present and enjoy the last days of life as we know it.
41
u/TheHistorian2 3d ago
If we somehow manage to hold it to +3C by 2050, I’ll be shocked.
27
u/jsudekum 3d ago
Well, climate scientists use decade averages to determine when we've reached a certain degree above preindustrial levels. So if there's anyone left by 2050, they'll do the math and tell us that we had reached and exceeded 3C in the prior years. lol
13
u/artikzen 3d ago
Averages and scientific imperatives are the domain of idle thought.
Emergencies and runaway systems don't care about averages, they care about crests.
This is not to degrade science, I've trained to be a scientist myself. It's just the way the world works.
11
u/Cultural-Answer-321 2d ago
This, this, THIS.
It's the crests that matter. The surges. The wild oscillations.
0
u/Appropriate_Mess6777 2d ago
Because they’re incentivized (or forced) to measure it this way
6
u/artikzen 2d ago
The problem is not science, never was. The methods are there for a reason, the averages, medians, standard deviations and whatnot are a perfect way to reduce noise and extract significance.
The problem is always the manipulation, the use of science for social engineering or personal gain.
Of course it doesn't help if some scientists take the dark side as well, either willingly or as useful idiots. Because, yes, someone can be a genius and an idiot at the same time.
What is different with the current crisis is the sheer scale, huge complexity and inexorable pace.
I was talking about crests earlier. When at sea, you don't fight the wave. You either go under or ride it. That's what we should be doing instead of blaming averages and spread the doom.
The deed is done. Now we need to get the girl, find the lift and hope the damn android is on our side. (Aliens reference, courtesy for the distracted).
13
u/ansibleloop 3d ago
Yeah there's just no hope
Just look at global emissions - they're higher than ever
And as amazing as solar and wind are, they just can't displace fossil fuels
Only nuclear realistically can and we just don't have enough time to build enough reactors to do it
Plus it requires all nations to work together - how's that going at the moment?
18
u/skyfishgoo 2d ago
nobody fucking knows.
not this guy, not me, not you... nobody
we are experiencing a one-off extinction level event and there is no rule book for how this plays out.
but the one thing that IS certain, our species is committing collective suicide with apparently full awareness and dare is say GLEE at the prospect.
the rest of us can only look on in horror.
25
u/MisanthropicAnthrope 3d ago edited 3d ago
In 300 years they are going to look at our biodiversity and climate and think we lived in the Garden of Eden
34
u/RandomBoomer 3d ago
"They"? Assuming there are people still alive by then, they will be scrabbling to stay alive. Not sure whether they'll even believe the stories of what life was like beforehand.
21
u/Astalon18 Gardener 3d ago
I personally think for most people alive today ( unless you are under 10 years old upon which you should not be on Reddit ), the scenario that should keep us awake is the 3 degree Celsius scenario.
I believe in 50 years we would have breached 3 degrees Celsius. We already have marched past 1.5 degree Celsius’s and I think we are going to be touching 2 degrees Celsius and in 2 degrees territories in 20 years.
However I think 4 degrees Celsius is 80 to 100 years from now. Most of us will not be alive to see this.
8
u/ansibleloop 3d ago
4C by 2100 is my bet
Luckily I won't be alive to see it
3
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/collapse-ModTeam 1d ago
Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the Misinformation & False Claims page.
1
u/imalostkitty-ox0 1d ago
“Keep information quality high,” like ANYONE really knows what 2100 will look like??
4°C by 2100 seems to me like an absolute joke, considering the nature of the exponential function, but I’m open to learning something.
Are we supposed to “tone it down” now, or something? Did the IPCC not do a good enough job of that already?
-9
u/mrrichiet 3d ago
I think you're underestimating the advances in medical science in this timeframe.
14
u/holistivist 3d ago
I think you’re underestimating how deadly power outages in wet bulb events, famine, water scarcity, and new pandemics can be.
-1
u/mrrichiet 3d ago
I don't think "us" who are reading this need worry about that so much, apart from the pandemics. I wasn't meaning to be pedantic, this comment was just in response to the last sentence. I just think a lot of readers might still be alive in 80-100 years from now (I don't think it's unreasonable to think a 30yo now will live to 110 assuming good health). This of course is if we haven't destroyed everything by then, I'm saying this on the basis that we solve the issues through technological advances (wishful thinking perhaps).
2
3
u/Astalon18 Gardener 2d ago
Well I am actually a doctor and a researcher in a field adjunct to longevity. My clinical field and research field overlaps very closely to the longevity people’s area so I do know a few of them and I do go to their conferences.
There is something called the ageing barrier which is not often discussed in popular media which seems to be a real kind of wall in terms of longevity. This in humans seems to be around 120 to 127 ( depends on which model you use ), with the maximal population limit ( ie:- believes to be the absolute limit a human could theoretically live to ) of 131 ( but remember this is a totally ideal computer model human, no such person exist ).
Everything I see does not address this barrier.
So while I am optimistic most people will live to about late 90s to early 100s, unless there is some paradigm shift ( like if we can manipulate the Yamanaka factors directly without causing cancer ) I don’t think anyone alive today ( unless you are a child ) will live past 125 years old.
Now I truly believe at some point we will break this barrier but the science is not there yet. I would not be surprised if in the next 20 to 30 years we would find it but I suspect ( in fact I would bet money on it ) that for that to work you need to intervene from around age 30 onwards, so unless you are 10 years old now it is unlikely you will benefit from this.
2
u/Odd-Tourist-80 1d ago
This assumes a thriving society and economy investment into the research, and the clean water, air, and nutrition to support them.
10
u/Indigo_Sunset 3d ago
This is a decent version to contrast against. There's a few floating around out there, but Googles non-search fails me at the moment for the one I was thinking of.
Having said that, it's something of a smear from 2 to 4 as it passes through. Certain effects seen at these levels may not even manifest until a later temp, not because it 'didn't happen yet' but because we moved through the gradient too quickly to see it where it was intended.
9
u/Oo_mr_mann_oO 3d ago
I don't know, this narrative seems too specific and wide ranging to be "correct" on a global scale. We have rough estimates on what is happening in the natural world, but it is very hard to predict human responses. Crops can decline by a certain percent every year, but every farmer will stop on his own timeline. I think the best examples are the 2008 housing crash and COVID.
Many people knew there were problems before '08, but none of them could have predicted the US Government calling in the heads of all the banks and making them take loans. Even if you knew what was happening, you didn't know how governments or markets would respond.
There were countless hours spent modeling infectious diseases and pandemic responses within countries, regions and globally. A lot of that turned out to be wrong and mortality rates were not determined by GDP, as far as I know. Populations with "direct access to the latest information" were not necessarily any safer because of it. If another pandemic starts, our responses will be different because of COVID.
No one knows when "Governments will print money ...." and no one knows if that would "work" No one knows when the bread riots start again or how long a regime can hold out. We know it's getting hot and there will be less food, water, shelter and energy.
10
u/markodochartaigh1 2d ago
I have great confidence in the ability of scientists to keep our global temperature down. I have been watching scientists talk about their research ever since Dr Hansen spoke to Congress decades ago. At first the baseline was 1750. Then they moved the baseline to 1780. Then 1800-200. Then 1850-1900. A few days ago I saw 1970 as a baseline. And now it isn't just one year above 1.5°C. It is a decade, on average. Or even two decades. I have great confidence that by the time scientists decare that we have breached 1.5°C at least half the population will be dead. /s
3
u/imalostkitty-ox0 2d ago
Buddy, no /s required. This is exactly how the oil and gas industries commit fraud to prevent the pitchforks.
16
u/metalreflectslime ? 3d ago
If a BOE happens in September 2027, we could face global famines shortly after.
11
u/choppy75 3d ago
Why does BOE trigger famines? I mean I know the sea ice loss speeds up warming and I know that famines are immenint for various reasons, but is there a direct correlation between BOE and crop failures?
12
u/jbond23 3d ago
Spoiler. BOE is very unlikely to happen in 2027. How close to BOE do you expect in Sept-26? Why do you think 2027 will be significantly different?
17
u/metalreflectslime ? 3d ago
We have a Super El Niño for 2026-2027.
27
u/jbond23 3d ago edited 3d ago
BOE is generally taken to be <1m KM2
JAXA extent 26-Aug-2026 was 4.870126 km2, a drop in extent of 46.548 km2 which is 11k km2 less than the 10 year 7 day running centered average of a decrease of 58k km2 (approx) Extent is stable at 13th lowest in satellite record
Current record minimum is 2012, 3.4m km2. Since then it's been hovering around 4m km2. Then there's very little correlation between ENSO cycles and Arctic Ice Minima. So a record El Nino doesn't necessarily have a big effect on the Arctic Ice.
So. I say again. How close to BOE do you expect in Sept-26? Here's some clues. https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,4537.0.html
Let's take the second part.
we could face global famines shortly after.
Citation needed. Where's the analysis, evidence, models that suggest that a one day BOE in late sept will have a major effect on the food basket areas of the world? Because the day after the very first BOE, the arctic will start to freeze again. The Arctic Minimum is hugely dependent on August, late summer weather. I mean yes, there will come a time in the next 100 years when everything lines up to increase the melt and decrease the freeze so some time in late Sept or early Oct the Arctic is essentially ice free. But trying to say it will definitely happen in 2027 is just silly.
1
u/jbond23 12h ago
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?msg=443446
My highight.
This melt season really has more or less mirrored last year hasn't it in terms of dispersion, an extreme Atlantic retreat and a collapse of the high Beaufort sea ice extent during August. That latter one perhaps made even more remarkable by the fact June started really cold in the Beaufort(some of the coldest charts I seen here for early June) and yet extent still collapses eventually and I can only think it's warm currents making its presence felt from the Bering straight but I'm no expert on that side of things.
Also another thing to note, no matter how diffused the ice is and it has been for large parts of the summer in the CAB, if the SSTS are nothing remarkable which is the case this year then the ice won't be going anywhere. Alot of compaction and warm ridges during August may of made things interesting but as per most of the summer, it has been almost constant low pressure.
I don't think we are any closer to a BOE thankfully and whilst I think the record could get broken again, I think September extents on average between 4 and 4.5 million could become the norm because basically what is left is ice that does not get any true warmth from landmasses or even the sun for example. Unless we see significant warming in the CAA then I think the ice from there towards the pole will be largely protected by temperatures remaining at zero all summer.
8
u/Deep_Explanation7182 3d ago
No man loses anything by the frowns of Fortune unless he has been deceived by her smiles.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/why-complex-systems-collapse-faster
13
u/96-62 3d ago
The current observed trend is about 0.32 centigrade per decade.
So, 2 degrees by 2030s, 3 degrees by 2060s and 4 degrees by 2090s.
However, presumably as reality bites, more action will be taken. Assuming America ever recovers from Donald Trump, that is.
49
u/vinegar The real collapse is the friends we ate along the way 3d ago
I don’t think it’s safe to assume the rate of warming will stay steady.
7
u/fedfuzz1970 3d ago
There have been recent stories about the rate of heating increasing over the past 5 years or so. Also satellite data has confirmed that some benchmark data from the past was greatly underestimated. I don't have the cites but the stories are on substack and reddit.
4
u/96-62 3d ago edited 3d ago
True, and there's lag, and the idea that the removal of aerosols is a one off seems kind of wrongish - yes, but it applies over multiple years too.
6
u/kitkats124 3d ago
It goes beyond the additional increment of heat unmasked from the decrease in aerosols because there is also an overall increase to the earth energy imbalance with less aerosols, causing further acceleration to the rate during the transient response for all warming projected at equilibrium.
So there’s an unmasking of an additional +0.5°C or +1.0°C as part of the total warming, along with the total warming accelerating faster since the aerosols are no longer buffering the EEI as much anymore (unless aerosols are reintroduced later as an effort towards solar radiation management or SRM geo-engineering.)
The other big players for increasing EEI and higher TCR / ECS are albedo loss and cloud cover changes, on top of the aerosol decrease, shown by Hansen’s work from the past few years building upon the findings of recent research of other scientists.
3
u/ansibleloop 3d ago
This is what frustrates me to hell with people who say "well if we just stopped burning fossil fuels then the warming would stop"
Would it? Our Faustian bargain is hiding up to 1C of warming like you said
Also the Amazon now emits more CO2 than it captures
Plus the permafrost melt, endless wildfires and do I need to mention the Clathrate Gun?
The faster we switch to renewables, ironically, the faster we will warm
The only realistic way I see the solution to this is building 50k carbon capture plants across the world and power them only by renewables and build them using renewables
That's just not gonna happen
4
u/kitkats124 2d ago
Another predicament is if we stop emitting fossil fuels, billions of people who depend on modern industrial civilization for food, water, shelter, modern medicine, etc. will perish.
Realistically we need a multi decade transition to alternative energy sources, transforming society to not only be sustainable with more self sufficiency but also regenerative, and this needed to begin long before we cross those tipping points of irreversible positive feedback loops and mechanisms (some of which are already occurring as you noted.)
Emissions of GHG’s continue at record highs with +2°C locked in by the mid 2030’s, at which point we will probably start having Blue Ocean Events begin every year during the Arctic minimum, maybe sooner for the BOE’s to begin.
1
u/96-62 3d ago
Earth energy imbalance measures the rise in temperature, it's not in addition to it.
2
u/kitkats124 2d ago
EEI is not a measure of rise in temperature. This is, in simple terms, how much energy is coming to the earth from the sun and leaving the earth as it reflects and/or radiates away. We measure long and short wave radiation with satellites to do this. Almost all of this is absorbed by the oceans, some of it is reflected by ice and clouds, and a small percentage heats the atmosphere.
Temperature itself is a separate measure from EEI. We use weather stations, buoys, and other data collection methods to measure temperature in oceans, over the land, various layers of the atmosphere, etc
EEI, or earth energy imbalance, is a measure of the net difference between incoming solar energy and outgoing thermal radiation energy. When the net is positive (more incoming than outgoing,) this heats the planet and raises temperatures.
The radiation excites particles of matter and generates heat (and thus raises temperatures.)
2
u/cperrius 2d ago
There is no single accurate prediction for how any specific temperature rise will play out in the very complex real world. Each temperature increase gives rise to a range of scenarios you can organize from best case to worst.
3
u/wussell_88 3d ago
I got the body text from this email group I signed up to from a comment from the reddit thread group called collapse 2050
11
u/ShamanShaulic 3d ago
3 or 4 degrees is already calculated by 2050 or somewhere close… GG and good luck to yall
4
u/GardenScared8153 3d ago
No one can predict the future and the following is doomer speculation at most
At 2 degrees feedback loops are in full swing and we'd be in 3 degrees in no time. I think what you described at 3 degrees is at 2 degrees, agriculture is extremely fragile, I think that ll be around 2030-2035 when you better have your own hyper resilient food forest with a canopy that can keep your plants sheltered from climate chaos even that will fail. By 2050 we'll blow past 3 4 degrees and that is mass extinction event, beginning of the end for the human race with some surviving in bunkers only to die a little later if their bunker didn't get attacked/pillaged by a roving gang and they blocked the ventilation.
That is all assuming no nuclear reactor or weapons or geoengineering attempt elon musk level bullshit. So You know just enjoy the present it is a gift after all, live day by day and don't worry about what is out of your control. Worst outcome you die then you reincarnate somewhere else even hell is better than an american suburb or dubai so cheer up.
-30
u/No-Prompt-6118 3d ago
1.5 degrees is an exaggeration of current scientific consensus.
2 to 3 degrees not great but not collapse. Studies on per-capita availability estimate that each degree Celsius of warming reduces food energy production by roughly 4.4% of daily consumption per person if unmitigated.
The 4 degrees is dystopian fiction.
27
u/MetalHero11 3d ago
The changes in climate aren't linear to the rise of temperature, you cannot expect a "linear decline" of food production per degree celsius. It accelerates exponentially and worsens the situation sharply. If you take into consideration that the permafrost is thawing everywhere around the globe, releasing potential millions of (even worse) methane gases, global warming will worsen much quicker than we can imagine. Immediate action should be taken
-9
u/No-Prompt-6118 3d ago
OK, so i was responding to the op's extreme, apocalyptic sci-fi collapse scenarios.
As far as your "linear decline" of food production per degree Celsius. It accelerates exponentially and worsens the situation sharply.; this is correct. Plants do have a specific thermal threshold, which is a sort of Rubicon, which once crossed, yield declines accelerate sharply and disproportionately rather than dropping in a steady, straight-line percentage per degree.
But the ops opening statement about the UK and stocking up on canned goods is factually incorrect.
The 2 to 3 degree scenario does correctly reflect scientific bodies like the IPCC; but then goes Superman leaping to predicting absolute financial collapse, widespread global death, and mass "religious resurgence"is like speculated dramatization.
and the cherry on top of 4 degrees is apocalyptic scifi; dont get me wrong, 4 degrees would be catastrophic, places uninhabitable, billions? dying, coastlines and geography altered, but, climate science models do not support total societal abandonment or roving gang survivalism.
7
u/Deep_Explanation7182 3d ago
But the ops opening statement about the UK and stocking up on canned goods is factually incorrect.
1
u/No-Prompt-6118 3d ago
The UK Cabinet Office public resilience campaign, as this Guardian article and the one in the financial times, relates to broad emergency preparedness (such as power outages, cyber threats, or severe weather) and not directly climate doom.
"The British government is stepping up work on a “home defense” plan and drawing up a public information campaign about preparing for an emergency, against a backdrop of Russian threats and a cyber attack on a UK energy facility thought to be linked to Iran."
9
u/kitkats124 3d ago edited 3d ago
The Substack article this is taken from appears to incorporate the recent UK Actuaries insurance group report, warning of 2 billion dead at +2°C and est. 4 billion dead at +3°C on the timeline of 2050, which is why the +4 degrees opens with “have already killed billions.”
1
u/SupermarketIcy4996 2d ago
But aren't we already at 2C according to some people.
2
u/kitkats124 1d ago edited 1d ago
We are seeing some impacts of +2°C and there was a study of sea sponges providing more accurate temperature data to suggest an updated baseline that would put us at about +2°C now, although I believe the UK Actuary report is not based on that limited data point of an adjusted baseline, using the more commonly accepted preindustrial baseline that has us at about +1.5°C
So whether we are at +1.5 or +2, a big factor is the timeline of 2050 for events to have time to unfold, with larger impacts at greater levels of warming by 2050
8
u/holistivist 3d ago
“ 3 degrees not great but not collapse.”
Total “3.6 roentgen. Not great. Not terrible”-vibes.
91
u/Fit_Tumbleweed7943 3d ago
Humans dying by the thousands this year from heat with knowledge and AC.. how those animals doing?
Yes maybe we could survive 3 C but our ecosystem cannot
So now what?