To be fair, there is an endless list of "things" that could make the climate predictions not come through (e.g., big impact or super volcano). So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate.

We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure).

> So in a broader sense, we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate.

I'm not really sure if this is tongue-in-cheek, if you're just trolling or if that's a serious argument. I'll try to treat it as a serious argument, just to be sure.

Sure, there are tons and tons of failure modes that are not included in the models. Galactic gamma ray bursts! Rogue black holes throwing the Earth out of orbit! Alien invasion (probably not)!

The question is if they are relevant in the topic of modeling the consequences of continued greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere - and the answer is: no.

So, while philosophically your statement is true that "we don't know what will happen, even if the models are sufficiently accurate" - you still get out of bed in the morning and go to work, not wasting any (much?) time thinking about that gamma ray burst coming our way.

> We also don't know what eventually people will do to mitigate or change the climate actively. So again, what will happen is not set in stone, independent of current decarbonization efforts (and their success or failure).

The IPCC has several modes of mitigation that model possible scenarios. That's covered.

Yes, they are totally irrelevant with respect to modelling, but my point was that we shouldn't take the future as given as per our models, because it is not.

The IPCC does speak towards SRM etc. but I think large scale geoengineering isn't really part of the proper menu there. So no, the IPCC isn't all covering and all conclusive. EDIT: in the sense that it treats certain things as high risk and rather theoretical - which is true, but doesn't mean they should be off the menu.

If it really comes to the point where geoengineering becomes a serious consideration we are - in my opinion - already royally fucked sideways.

If we cannot even agree on simply cutting fossil fuels, how on earth can we ever agree on large scale geoengineering projects that will have massive negative consequences for many countries involved?

Because there is no agreement needed - those who can do might just do.

So, it's war, then?

I don't see why it would be. Just as it is not war now with respect to pollution and might also not be in the future. Before it is being cited: of course, the defense establishment sees risks of war everywhere, including climate - but that is their business.

There are already existing tensions and conflicts about resources like water. Some of these do not need much more pushing to escalate into war[0].

Further climatic disruptions will make the already dire situations in many countries untenable. That situations like that do not tend to improve by unilateral actions of their neighbors if the threaten to make a barely acceptable situation even worse.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-first-water-war-is-un...

What do you suppose will happen when hundreds of millions of people find that their local geography no longer supports human habitation? They will be welcomed into neighboring regions with open arms?

Unfortunately, killing hundreds of millions of starving people can be done very easily -- much more easily than solving the underlying problem. The areas that become uninhabitable will then not be able to produce more starving people, so such an atrocity need only be carried out once.

The worst part is, once the killing starts, people will rationalise it to themselves, saying "We didn't have a choice".

Of course they will be. That's just what happened during the Syrian civil war; the refugees were welcomed with open arms in Europe, Germany didn't experience any political turmoil that reverberates to this day at all.

I guess I'm in a sarcastic mood today. Yes, of course that will cause mayhem. It's one of the reasons I see climate change as such a threat to our all civilization. We're fearsome tribal creatures and the coming waves of desperate peoples will almost certainly play into the hands of nationalist fearmongers and firebrands.

I wonder if we will see some kind of -literally - ecofashism rise from that.