Predicting how the gravity interacts on just 3 bodies is a very hard problem. Now we are dealing with a very complex system (not just the climate one) with a lot of pieces, interactions, feedback loops, and not yet known important components. From now to 2050 there is a lot of space for white and black swans.
The question here is not if it will surely happen, but if we keep doing what we are doing worth the risk, and that risk should not be measured just by raw amount of anonymous deaths.
Personally, I don't feel comfortable pushing a system with so many positive feedback loops on warming, some even recently discovered. Then that has been a major factor in the process of disruption or change on some used-to-be-stable features of our climate system, like the polar vortex, gulf stream, and maybe El Niño, And then there are not properly evaluated fragility in the food production system, global distribution, economy, politics and society/culture. The pieces are there, will they ensemble in the worst way. I suppose that in hindsight it will become evident, but then there will be nothing to do.
Of course all people die in the end no matter what happens but that is not what this site is trying to push. A longer answer would be Malthus called and wants his prophecies back since both he as well as the current prophets of doom miss(ed) (or ignore) the technological developments which will lead to the avoidance of their dire predictions.
Aren't we looking at more like ~2036 for 2C? El Nino ratches by .2 degrees and then current warming rate is .3C per decade so roughly a decade away. This doesn't even take into account feedback loops.
At 3C ? Probably and maybe more, but it is hard to know. But I think we are headed to 4C with the way things are playing out.
But there is one variable, Nuclear War. I expect that will happen as the climate gets worse and worse. That war could drop us into a cold streak. After that ? Everyone gone ?
This book could give us a kind of a preview into what we are headed for. But in your mind replace nitrogen with CO2
A strategic countervalue exchange does have a chance of reducing solar input for a while, but the effect would be comparable to taking a man dying of a fever and dumping him in a bathtub full of ice. The winter kills off a ton of photosynthesis, and then the hotter temperatures have less fighting them, there's even more carbon in the system. It's much worse.
End game would be the same, but accelerated: the collapse of human systems across the board, which is where big lethality numbers come from. The faster that collapse, the deadlier it is, the more human systems go down for the count. Humans survive in a changed world, but they've largely deindustrialized, and very possibly revert all the way to hunter-gather-scavenge.
Hydrocarbon reduction, it's needed of course, but we're way past that. We've known for a literal century, after all. Today the only way out without systemic collapse is to adopt big industrial cooling methods. Basically doing nuclear winter, but in a controlled fashion to smooth out the warming to its new optimum, combined with hydrocarbon throttling. The "Space Parasol" is my favorite of these methods, as it's easy to turn off, unlike the "Let's Add Lots of Exotic Dust to the Upper Atmosphere That Might Or Might Not Come Down". Or any of the many bio-engineering solutions that, uh, have ample room for "nightmare", like the idea of covering the planet in Super Bamboo[1] - causing possibly the worst ecosystem crash since the Cambrian. There's such a thing as too much oxygen, you know . .
Rich guys should be clocking each over the head for the chance to build the Space Parasol, because if you make the place liveable, you can charge the entire planet rent. "Oh, you don't think it's worth it? Weeellllll . . . ."
Long term, it's not like the planet's especially hot right now, geologically speaking - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) Antarctica didn't get colder than 16{deg}C - it's just all the liberated volatiles from the frickin' Carboniferous making it hotter faster than Holocene natural systems can compensate. Whether our technological systems do any better than natural systems, heh heh heh, that'll be the question, won't it?
[1] If I am being honest, if we do pull through all this crap, the bioengineered future seems the most likely one. I have a very diminished faith in humanity pulling off megaprojects like a Space Parasol.
I like how the paper basically says it's all BS based on people saying what they want to say regardless of what their science says.
I do not like how they have to use circumspect language say the emperor has no clothes...
"The four billion figure is an educated worst-case estimate, not a robust scientific projection."
The only reason "educated" is plausible here is because the people making the silly wild ass guesses have been edumacated; too bad it's not pertinent to the guess.
Predicting how the gravity interacts on just 3 bodies is a very hard problem. Now we are dealing with a very complex system (not just the climate one) with a lot of pieces, interactions, feedback loops, and not yet known important components. From now to 2050 there is a lot of space for white and black swans.
The question here is not if it will surely happen, but if we keep doing what we are doing worth the risk, and that risk should not be measured just by raw amount of anonymous deaths.
Personally, I don't feel comfortable pushing a system with so many positive feedback loops on warming, some even recently discovered. Then that has been a major factor in the process of disruption or change on some used-to-be-stable features of our climate system, like the polar vortex, gulf stream, and maybe El Niño, And then there are not properly evaluated fragility in the food production system, global distribution, economy, politics and society/culture. The pieces are there, will they ensemble in the worst way. I suppose that in hindsight it will become evident, but then there will be nothing to do.
Here's a quick and concise answer:
No
Of course all people die in the end no matter what happens but that is not what this site is trying to push. A longer answer would be Malthus called and wants his prophecies back since both he as well as the current prophets of doom miss(ed) (or ignore) the technological developments which will lead to the avoidance of their dire predictions.
> the technological developments which will lead to the avoidance of their dire predictions.
... and what exactly would those be?
[dead]
We need better models.
The reality is we are on track to break 2C by 2050, and there is nothing that can be done about it. 3C is a real risk later in the century.
Tens to hundreds of millions will be impacted so a realistic range needs to be calculated such that risk mitigation can begin.
Aren't we looking at more like ~2036 for 2C? El Nino ratches by .2 degrees and then current warming rate is .3C per decade so roughly a decade away. This doesn't even take into account feedback loops.
> Aren't we looking at more like ~2036 for 2C
Probably. I'm seeing 2C being baked into capex planning for infra projects that are expected to finish by 2036-2040.
I cannot get to the site, but:
At 3C ? Probably and maybe more, but it is hard to know. But I think we are headed to 4C with the way things are playing out.
But there is one variable, Nuclear War. I expect that will happen as the climate gets worse and worse. That war could drop us into a cold streak. After that ? Everyone gone ?
This book could give us a kind of a preview into what we are headed for. But in your mind replace nitrogen with CO2
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1189676.The_Nitrogen_Fix
A strategic countervalue exchange does have a chance of reducing solar input for a while, but the effect would be comparable to taking a man dying of a fever and dumping him in a bathtub full of ice. The winter kills off a ton of photosynthesis, and then the hotter temperatures have less fighting them, there's even more carbon in the system. It's much worse.
End game would be the same, but accelerated: the collapse of human systems across the board, which is where big lethality numbers come from. The faster that collapse, the deadlier it is, the more human systems go down for the count. Humans survive in a changed world, but they've largely deindustrialized, and very possibly revert all the way to hunter-gather-scavenge.
Hydrocarbon reduction, it's needed of course, but we're way past that. We've known for a literal century, after all. Today the only way out without systemic collapse is to adopt big industrial cooling methods. Basically doing nuclear winter, but in a controlled fashion to smooth out the warming to its new optimum, combined with hydrocarbon throttling. The "Space Parasol" is my favorite of these methods, as it's easy to turn off, unlike the "Let's Add Lots of Exotic Dust to the Upper Atmosphere That Might Or Might Not Come Down". Or any of the many bio-engineering solutions that, uh, have ample room for "nightmare", like the idea of covering the planet in Super Bamboo[1] - causing possibly the worst ecosystem crash since the Cambrian. There's such a thing as too much oxygen, you know . .
Rich guys should be clocking each over the head for the chance to build the Space Parasol, because if you make the place liveable, you can charge the entire planet rent. "Oh, you don't think it's worth it? Weeellllll . . . ."
Long term, it's not like the planet's especially hot right now, geologically speaking - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) Antarctica didn't get colder than 16{deg}C - it's just all the liberated volatiles from the frickin' Carboniferous making it hotter faster than Holocene natural systems can compensate. Whether our technological systems do any better than natural systems, heh heh heh, that'll be the question, won't it?
[1] If I am being honest, if we do pull through all this crap, the bioengineered future seems the most likely one. I have a very diminished faith in humanity pulling off megaprojects like a Space Parasol.
It's cold, but not that cold.
Oh, you.
I like how the paper basically says it's all BS based on people saying what they want to say regardless of what their science says.
I do not like how they have to use circumspect language say the emperor has no clothes...
"The four billion figure is an educated worst-case estimate, not a robust scientific projection."
The only reason "educated" is plausible here is because the people making the silly wild ass guesses have been edumacated; too bad it's not pertinent to the guess.