I don't think runaway climate change or even something like a reversal of the Gulf Stream were ever any of the mainstream scenarios from IPCC. The worst scenarios, IIRC, were a global warming of +6 to 10C.
And that is over several centuries, provided we do nothing to stop it.
This century, the worst scenarios are about 4C hotter than today.
Also, it's not like the temperature is going up that much everywhere. For instance, heating an area near water from 34 to 38C means a lot more water evaporation, and thus more cooling. Also, stronger winds mean the humidity may be blown away more quickly.
Now even 4C of heating, provided we don't develop any technologies to either counter it or cope with it could cause a disaster that could cause similar disruptions, forced displacements etc as WW2, but the world didn't end because of WW2. It was only a minor speed bump in the grand scope of things.
Anyway, the probability that it should take 100s of years to reach AGI seems quite slim. And once we have AGI/ASI, the world is going to be so fundamentally different that I'm not sure how much some warming really means, at least for humans.
At +5C, there is no growing food in any substantial amount outside of high tech, low yield approaches; approaches that depend on complex planetary supply chains (both for initial deployment and maintenance), which will have disappeared by then.
It seems you have some specific geographic region in mind. Earth has a lot of regions that are more than 5C colder than the most fertile regions.
People adapt. People move. Sometimes they fight wars about it. This has happened many times before.
We're currently living it the most peaceful, prosperous and safest period that humanity has ever experienced. (Despite what social media is tricking our brains into believing). In the future we will surely live through periods that are closer to the average. But I'm not seeing any extinction-level events due to climate change within the next few hundred years.
AGI or nukes, on the other hand, they both DO have the potential to end us as a species.
I don't believe that at all. I even studied the IPCC for how their various scenarios lead to different levels of increased heat in different places.
When it comes to fluctuations, there are several types. An obvious one is wind, which will probably become noticeably more chaotic with more energy. Another is temperature.
Temperature variations generally depend on humidity and wind. As winds get stronger, that in isolation leads to some increase in temperature variations.
For humidity (both at ground level and in the atmosphere), increased humidity leads to lower temperature variations.
There are also precipitation. Higher temperatures lead to heavier rain (when it rains), and can increase the likelihood of hailstorms.
There are also extreme weather patterns that become more common when it gets colder. While tropical storms and hurricanes increase in frequency in hot weather, more laminar storms ("winter gales") get more common when the weather is colder. I believe this is because the LACK of turbulence/chaos means there are fewer factors that can break up such storms.
This last type is common in places like Canada, Scandinavia or Siberia now, and come almost exclusively during winter.
Btw, the impact of increased temperature on weather is something that we can already observe on Earth today, simply by travelling between different weather zones. While SOME of the extra energy can affect areas far away from where the heating occurs, a lot of the effects are local or regional.
That means that it's likely that Temperate Zone type weather is going to shift a bit to the North, and include a greater proportion of Canada, Scandinavia and Russia. These areas will then get weather more similar to places like the US/German/China today.
The southern parts of the temperate zone is likely to see weather patterns that resemble tropical (or desert) weather zones. Much of the US can be more like Mexico, France can be more like Morocco or Greece, Sothern China more like Thailand, and so on.
This means that areas that get warmer AND dryer (like Spain, Italy and France, probably) will get some of the variations currently seen in Sahara.
But it doesn't mean that the temperature fluctuations get greater everywhere. Some areas become more humid, and that means lower fluctuations.
Btw, for humans, dryer weather can be an advantage, since it allows us to dissipate heat much more easily. For farming it's less ideal. Places like Saudi Arabia could go in the opposite direction, with higher humidity and more rain, farming could become easier, but the risk of wet bulbs could also go up.
Anyway, while it is true that more energy in the atmosphere ON average increases the frequency of most types of extreme weather, it is not true that it will increase all types of extreme weather everywhere.
EDIT: Here's a map: https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1...
People want to drive their car, heat or aircon their house, go an vacation and use or consume all sorts of products that require energy to produce.
And even just scrolling facebook means a lot of energy is used in some data center.
This has side effects. Most cars will spew poisonous gas out the back, into the city where people live. Some of them die from those fumes, most don't. People still drive cars, because they think the benefits outweigh the costs.
Global warming is similar.
But keep in mind that the areas that tend to get the greatest warming tend to be the dry ones. In such places, sweating will still allow human bodies to regulate body heat, if air conditioning breaks down.
Sigh, I don’t mean to sound like a dick, but if that’s gibberish then you might want to strengthen some of the foundational understandings around systems.
> It means "5 * the thermal mass of the earth's biosphere" worth of extra energy
Here it seems that the units were missing, at best. The extra energy would be "5K * the heat capacity of the biosphere (in J/K)"
> in an extremely chaotic system that is currently in a local stable point, but doesn't have to stay there.
First of all, I don't think the current state is THAT stable. And when it comes to any disturbance to the stability caused by the extra energy, that's what we have climate scientists for. Specifically, those are the ones that need to assign specific probabilities to the varous scenarios available.
For instance, while it is POSSIBLE that a result of the chaotic dynamics of the system would be that the Gulf Stream got reversed, it seems that the curren consensus is that this is highly unlikely.
However, there are a lot of other effects that would be highly likely, such as an increased rate of hurricanes for instance. But hurricanes is not a state of the whole system, it's basically just a type of weather that gets more common.
So, maybe "gibberish" was not the perfect word to describe it, as I was able to parse it. It's just that it didn't say anything specific. It was more at the level "It's getting chaotic, and chaos is scary", without making any specific predictions or producing references.
>It doesn't mean it's locally always +5C warmer than it used to be; it means you're seeing insane temperature swings in a matter of days, constantly - in both directions, it just so happens that the average is +5C.
More humid areas, especially if they're near coasts tend to be a lot more stable.
I think these tendencies will remain true.
While introducing more energy to the atmosphere is likely to generate more winds (including hurricanes), it doesn't seem plausible to me that (given constant humidity) this will be enough to cause enough variation in temperature to make farming impossible in most places.
If you have some reference (preferably something like IPCC, as opposed to something that could be fringe), I would be willing to reconsider.
> you are all over this thread with the same fallacy
Maybe you could state exactly what fallacy you think I'm advocating for? I'm not saying global warming is something good and that we don't need to worry about.
I just don't think it's a likely extinction level threat, like an asteroid, rogue AI, nuclear war, an alien invation etc. Unlike those others, it's almost certain that we will experience some degree of global warming, but if that's the worst we will face, humanity will survive as a species.
Also, there is a couple of other factors:
First of all, I think many that worry about climate change (beyond those who honestly think it will lead to extinction) really care mostly about all the pain and suffering that global warming could bring at some point, at least to some large minority of humanity. Maybe also that it will cause a non-trivial fraction of the population to die from famine, wet bulbs etc.
I don't think that's impossible (though maybe a bit pessimistic, see below), but I think the fallacy that the these people make, is to assume that we will have a future world without such events. Historically, we have seen that bad things have happend from time to time.
The collapse of the Roman Empire caused half the population to die off (partly due to colder weather). The Black Death caused a similar percentage to perish in many place. The Mongol conquests resulted in large parts of the Eurasian steppes to be so depopulated that they still haven't recovered. Then the were the world wars, Bronze Age collapse, and the list goes on.
The future is likely to bring similar events, too. Climate change could possibly be such an event. But usually, these events are not those we expect, but rather some kind of Black Swan that surprises everyone.
The second fallacy that some climate change fanatics seem to ignore, and this one by choice, it seems: We're still very much in a kind of exponential technological development. 200 years is a very long time, and unless the technological development suddenly grinds to a complete halt, we will have a lot of new options both when it comes to minimizing global warming and also to survive any warming we're not able to prevent.
People seem to choose to ignore this based on a better-safe-than-sorry philosophy. That's ok when dealing with risk that we aim to reduce to zero, as long as the cost is low. Kind of putting on a seatbelt when driving.
What many don't seem to realize, is that this is a luxery belief / first world concern. For someone less privileged, like most countries in South Asia or Africa (and also working class people in the west), access to cheap energy now is seen as really important. That means for such people, some risk is acceptable.
Kind of like if the seatbelt on your car is broken, and the nearest grocery store is 20 km away. Do you walk there, or do you drive the car regardless. To do that risk evaluation, you want to know the real risk of driving without the seatbelt.
Similarly, for those most affected short term by for instance ending most fossil fuel use, the REAL risk associated with global warming is relevant.
And to evaluate that, it's actually really relevant to factor in that humanity is likely to grow a lot in technological capability to face new challenges over the next 100-300 years. How much is a matter of opinion, but zero is unreasonable.
As far as I can tell, the most likely scenario is that Climate Change is going to be a challenge for humanity. My best guess is that in most places on Earth, people will find ways to deal with this challenge. But I'm open for the possibility that 100s of millions might die because of it.
I also realize that global warming could be a factor leading up to a nuclear war. I really don't think it would be the main factor, though. I consider nuclear war as a separate risk category.
Most wars are caused by nationalism or religious conflicts, especially betwen the kinds of countries that are likely to have large arsenals. The obvious current example is Ukraine. It's not a famine that drives Putin, it's a desire to Make Russia Great Again.
Compared to reasons such as nationalism, religion or even ideological conflicts, I think global warming would be a significantly smaller risk factor in terms of how it increases the risk of global war.
Another huge uncertainty is the what population Earth will have in the future. Already, it's pretty clear that the population in most developed parts of the world is going to decline rapidly over at least the next 50 years. Population growth is mostly restricted to South Asia and Africa now, and even in South Asia there are indications that it's going down.
It's certainly possible that this can be reversed completely, but if the current trend continues (and assuming Africa also has this trend eventually), the population could be halved every century. That means we will be only 1 billion by 2300.
On the other hand, if the trend reverses back to exponential population growth, we may be up to 30 billion or so by 2300 (unless prevented by starvation).
This is a huge gap! With only 1 billion, it would be far easier both to minimize global warming and to survive it. With 30 billion, it would be very difficult to prevent global warming and also much harder to deal with it when it comes.
And all of this hinges on us being unable to develop AGI/ASI this century. Which is starting to seem unlikely. Most of the researches in the field seem to expect AGI some time in the range from "within 5 years" to "several decades".
If we DO develop AGI before 2100, the exact circumstances around it is going to matter way more than global warming. At the optimistic end, AGI may find ways to completely end global warming.
Or it could cause human extinction before it matters.
So it's not that I don't "believe" in global warming. I generally accept the scientific consensus in most fields, as long as the field actually uses something like the scienific method, and is not just a cover for some ideology.
It's just that it seems to me that many "True Believers" in climate change turn it into something more similar to a religion than the actual science it's based on. And that this causes them to only see this single issue, while generally ignoring almost all other risk factors we're likely to face in the future.
> "5C warmer" doesn't mean a uniform increase in temperature of 5 degrees at all times.
Is because I thought it was completely obvious that this is correct. I've seen that several responses thought I ignored and argued that 5C warming would be the same everywhere, while what I meant by "5C warming" was "the effect of a global 5C warming".
What I DID think was the main message was this one:
> It means "5 * the thermal mass of the earth's biosphere" worth of extra energy in an extremely chaotic system that is currently in a local stable point, but doesn't have to stay there.
While I agree that a "5C global warming scenario" may mean that the average temperature in Lyon, and even that the VARIANCE of the temperature IN LYON may go up quite a lot, I did have objections with the hypothesis that the chaos would be the main factor leading to variations in temperature.
While, for the global average, increased energy in the atmosphere may lead to SOME increase in the variation in temperature, I don't think that variations in temperature depends nearly as much on the energy in the atmosphere as other types of extreme weather, such as hurricanes, heavy rain, hail storms etc. (And effects of those, such as destroyed crops, damage to property or flooding).
Changes in humidity seems to be a much greater factor in the variability of temperature than this extra energy has.
If you check the IPCC projections for changes in precipitation patters, maximum and minimum yearly temperatures, you will find that in areas where precipitation is expected to increase, the minimum yearly temperature goes up a LOT more than the maximum yearly temperature goes up, especially so in the sub-arctic part of Eurasia (like Siberia).
Meanwhile, in areas that are expected to get dryer (including Spain, France and Italy), the minimum yearly temperature hardly increases at all, while the maximum temperature goes up a lot more than the global average.
Basically this means that some vineyards in France, Italy and Spain may have to move to more robust crops, like maybe olives. But it also means that new areas open up that may become more favorable to vineyards, for instance in Germany, Poland or even southern Sweden.
Putin starting the nuclear ww3 just because.
Vladimir Putin is exactly that kind of person. When backed into a corner and knowing he will die, he would rather nuke the whole world than accept his fate. And those orders will be carried out by people in heavily restricted information silos, who only have the explanation of their commanding officers as reasoning. For all they know, this is a test, or the US already has launched their nukes, or if they don’t launch the nukes their mom will be dropped out of a window.
"Idealism", which unfortunately underpins all mainstream political discourse, is simply that certain actors (people, states, etc) are good because they're good or they're bad because they're bad. It's really the Marvel view of the world. There are good guys and bad guys. Idealism is a completely inadequate way to view the world because it simply reflects the propaganda that's effectively sold the idea of who the good guys and bad guys are.
"Materialism" is a broadd term that originates in the philosophy that people affect the material world and the material world affects people. More specifically to this point, it's the idea that people do things for a reason. That doesn't mean the reason is justified or sound or good. But there is a world view that underpins any actions by any actor.
So when it comes to wars, the idealist will say one side are the good guys and the other side are the bad guys and never go any deeper than that. The materialist will derive that all wars come down to the desire for resources and land. Not religion. Not ethnicity. Those are simply pretexts to motivate the citizenry and foot soldiers.
So Putin dons the Duganist [1] hat, just like European kings in the Crusades wrapped themselves in Christianity. Putin may even be a true believer but that's not why he's doing what he's doing. He's securing a land bridge to Crimea, a warm water port on the Black Sea and control of territorial waters in the Black Sea and the resources contained therein.
He probably figures the West will eventually lose interest (which is already happening) and in the mean time he can keep selling oil and gas to China and India so the sanctions are inconvenient but can be weathered.
There's nothing crazy about it.
But even if he was crazy, to launch a nuclear attack, someone would have to carry out those orders. Bomb loaders, generals, submarine commanders, pilots, missile silo operators, etc. Look up the history of Vasily Aleksandrovich Arkhipov.
And yes, he absolutely is the type of person who would destroy something if he can't have it. He did it with Grozny, he did it with Mariupol, he did it with Bucha, he did it with Bakhmut, he did it with Avdiyivka, and he will continue doing it with the rest of the world. So far, he has sent hundreds of thousands of Russians to their death, and they continue to do it. There are literally thousands of Russians that know they're gonna die, and they do it anyway. Your belief in the humanity of people running nuclear bunkers is already betrayed by their own actions in every conflict under Putin's watch, and somehow you think 100% (because it only takes one person!) out of the 3000+ nuclear silo operators will suddenly grow a conscience when Putin tells them to send the missile. It's fucking absurd.
It's really the "slow death" scenarios that are a much bigger risk.
While I'm firmly in the AGI camp, I'm both fatalistic about our willingness to do anything about it but I'm also highly skeptical of the "runaway climate change" doomsaying. The Earth has been around for ~4.5 billion years. While it's only been similar to what it is now for th elast 300 million or so, that's still a really long time. We've had periods where ice extended to the equator (~500 million years ago). We've had much warmrer periods.
The Earth will be fine. We however might fall by the wayside. There's really been such a long period of time that if runaway climate change were going to happen, why hasn't it happened already?