World of 2030

[Tom_Mazanec]

All AGW projections seem to go to 2100, but this is too far in the future for emotional, as opposed to academic, interest for a lot of people (like me...I am 61 and have no children).
So what do you expect the world to be like in just eleven years? I  am not He Who Must Not Be Named, I do not anticipate human extinction by 2016 (but if you do, let me know), but I imagine it might be different from now.
Let me know what you expect , not what you want.

[5to10]

Collapse of global civilization by then

[Klondike Kat]

Not significantly different from today.  Things are not that different from eleven years ago.

[Archimid]

Assuming BAU:

     Best case scenario: The world enters another temperature hiatus. In that hiatus the cost of disasters stay at about the same rate as the 2010's. By 2030 civilization is eroded, wars will emerge, population will stop increasing, global GDP will plummet.

     Worst case scenario: the world resumes warming, the Arctic keep shrinking disaster cost keeps increasing. The world as we know it ends. The world population is reduced significantly. Guessing any political state would be foolishness as the world will be so different that no prediction can be made.

Assuming Not BAU:

Disaster rate remains about the same, but humanity fights and increases its adaptation rate, minimizing the loses and turning vulnerabilities into strengths. CO2 is leveled off, the Arctic is protected through geoengineering. A great future awaits as we learn to keep the climate from changing too fast and Fermi's paradox is postponed.

Attachment from :
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/time-series

[Klondike Kat]

Odd how Munich Re has a much different graphic.

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-us-catastrophes

2005 was the highest with $250 billion in losses, followed by 2017 ($165B), 1994 ($150), and 1992 ($125B). 

[Archimid]

They represent similar data. One is about billion dollar disasters and the other about disasters in general. One ends in 2019 the other one in 2017 and is incomplete. They both make my case.

If disaster stays at the rate of the 2010's the world might just be highly eroded by 2030. That would require a hiatus in warming and a hiatus in ASI loss. 

If warming and/or ASI losses continue then disasters will further increase leading the world to chaos by 2030.

If we fight for survival head on, we can beat it and have a pretty good 2030. If we just hide our heads in the sand we lose our world. Simple.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Not significantly different from today.  Things are not that different from eleven years ago.

Warning, bloody. (Like the world of 2030.)

[GoSouthYoungins]

Assuming BAU:

blah blah blah

Assuming Not BAU:

la la blah

I really don't understand how people think that anything we do today is going to change the outcome of things in the next decade!  In terms of preparedness, that may be true (so fair point), BUT emissions in the next decade will have no significant effect on the climate in the next decade.

[Klondike Kat]

They represent similar data. One is about billion dollar disasters and the other about disasters in general. One ends in 2019 the other one in 2017 and is incomplete. They both make my case.

If disaster stays at the rate of the 2010's the world might just be highly eroded by 2030. That would require a hiatus in warming and a hiatus in ASI loss. 

If warming and/or ASI losses continue then disasters will further increase leading the world to chaos by 2030.

If we fight for survival head on, we can beat it and have a pretty good 2030. If we just hide our heads in the sand we lose our world. Simple.

Not exactly.  Compare 2017 and 1994.  They are way off. 

Also, losses are falling long term.  While the actual dollar amounts may be rising, the losses compared to gdp are not.  Over the past 30 years, the nomimal losses (relative to gdp) have been flat.  If this rate continues, I foresee no chaos.

[Archimid]

Not exactly.

Not exactly what? Don't be scared. Drop some knowledge.

Compare 2017 and 1994.

I gave you 1 graph, there are about 7 or 8 in the link you gave.

What are you comparing to? The one withe the BIG YELLOW WARNING saying "Longer-term trend is for More - Not Fewer - events"?

They are way off.

The link I gave you is about billion dollar events. The one you gave is about INSURED loss, 2017 is incomplete and it misses 2018 entirely.

Also, losses are falling long term

Your link says otherwise in big bold letters just in case the 6 graph above it are beyond your comprehension.

While the actual dollar amounts may be rising, the losses compared to gdp are not.

Relating GDP to disasters cost is very misleading and wrong. Disasters that are paid for actually make the GDP go up, even while there are very real material and valuable losses.

What the information presented in your link says is that insurance is losing the capacity of covering all the disasters. Government is already paying for increased disasters and decreased insurance with debt.

This is not sustainable, specially with cowardly leaders ignoring the danger, leaving everyone exposed, even the military.

If this rate continues, I foresee no chaos.

How could you foresee anything if you can't even comprehend the information you post. Not that you are not smart. You might be. It is simply that this information scares you so much that you metaphorically crap your pants and your brain literally can't comprehend the danger we are in.

[Klondike Kat]

How could you foresee anything if you can't even comprehend the information you post. Not that you are not smart. You might be. It is simply that this information scares you so much that you metaphorically crap your pants and your brain literally can't comprehend the danger we are in.

... and I thought with a sophisticated, scientific site.

[Archimid]

... and I thought with a sophisticated, scientific site.

It is. What I told you is the scientific reason why you can't read simple graphs, said in a sophisticated manner.

But go ahead, cry instead of defending your position.

[Klondike Kat]

What are you comparing to? The one withe the BIG YELLOW WARNING saying "Longer-term trend is for More - Not Fewer - events"?

Check out the graph showing loss events in the U.S.  The red lines show normalized losses. The 30-year trend is flat.   

[Klondike Kat]

... and I thought with a sophisticated, scientific site.

It is. What I told you is the scientific reason why you can't read simple graphs, said in a sophisticated manner.

But go ahead, cry instead of defending your position.

Funny that you respond in such an uncivilized manner, when presented with data that contradicts your position.  There was nothing "scientific" in your attack.

Perhaps this paper can help you understand, particularly Figure 3.

"Since 1990 the world has seen a decrease in overall and weather-related disaster losses as a proportion of global GDP. This trend has occurred even as disaster losses have increased in absolute terms. The primary factor driving the overall increase in disaster losses is societal, mainly growth in populations and settlements at risk to the consequences of extreme events (IPCC, 2012 IPCC. (2012)."

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/mGHCKVAtnhbZJc4DYBiS/full

[5to10]

... and I thought with a sophisticated, scientific site.

It is. What I told you is the scientific reason why you can't read simple graphs, said in a sophisticated manner.

But go ahead, cry instead of defending your position.

Honestly no point in even bothering with people who can't see the forest through the trees anymore.

Let em be blindsided at this point. Enough of us have spent enough time pleading that we are in for serious shit this decade. Anyone who has genuinely been paying attention, absorbed enough of the available information and not lying to themselves recognizes the imminent danger we are ALL in, regardless of geography. If one important cog goes, so does the rest of the machine, and we're incredibly close to that - plus we're full speed ahead, not slowing down on emissions, nothing. We're absolutely fucked. Further still, if you've been paying attention you KNOW at this point that we're not getting out of this mess - because the vast majority of humanity is on the same page as this other person - "Nothing will be much different in 2030". Okay, enjoy starving, everyone.

If your response to this thread is "Everything will be fine in 2030 with little difference" you're either just plain ignorant and need to learn that you're just utterly fucking wrong at this point so please STFU now and listen to more intelligent/aware individuals than yourself, or you have an agenda here in suppressing the reality - that global collapse is literally on the doorstep with almost literally no actions being taken to prevent it, only actions that will further exacerbate.

[Archimid]

Even normalized against GDP (huge error because disaster relief increases GDP) the trend is up. This data was gathered in January 2018, meaning that 2017 data was not complete and it completely misses 2018, both things brings the trend even higher.

And again, you are showing insured losses, not net losses. ANd they warn right there that the trend is going UP!

You contradict exactly what you link says. I'm telling you. Your cowardliness blinds you.

[Juan C. García]

Worst case scenario:
It will happen a blue ocean event (see "Concluding Comments" on 2007 Mark Serreze' presentation).
https://www.agu.org/webcast/fm07/Serreze/index.html

Best case scenario:
We see an increase on the speed of sea level rise, even if we don't have a blue ocean event on 2030. That means that sea level rise will continue to accelerate on the following decades (as of today, I am more concern on sea level rise, than on a blue ocean event).

If we had 4.5 centimeters of sea level rise on the last ten years, in my opinion it is probable to have 8 to 10 centimeters on the following eleven years. And that will mean that we can have 30 centimeters on 2030-50 and 2 or 3 meters for 2000-2100.
https://climate.nasa.gov/

[Klondike Kat]

Even normalized against GDP (huge error because disaster relief increases GDP) the trend is up. This data was gathered in January 2018, meaning that 2017 data was not complete and it completely misses 2018, both things brings the trend even higher.

And again, you are showing insured losses, not net losses. ANd they warn right there that the trend is going UP!

You contradict exactly what you link says. I'm telling you. Your cowardliness blinds you.

Read more closely, they are overall losses, not just insured.  Even if you add these losses to gdp ( a questionable practice), the metric has not changed over the time period stated.  Once again, you cannot have a civilized discussion, without slinging insults.  What gives?

[Klondike Kat]

... and I thought with a sophisticated, scientific site.

It is. What I told you is the scientific reason why you can't read simple graphs, said in a sophisticated manner.

But go ahead, cry instead of defending your position.

Honestly no point in even bothering with people who can't see the forest through the trees anymore.

Let em be blindsided at this point. Enough of us have spent enough time pleading that we are in for serious shit this decade. Anyone who has genuinely been paying attention, absorbed enough of the available information and not lying to themselves recognizes the imminent danger we are ALL in, regardless of geography. If one important cog goes, so does the rest of the machine, and we're incredibly close to that - plus we're full speed ahead, not slowing down on emissions, nothing. We're absolutely fucked. Further still, if you've been paying attention you KNOW at this point that we're not getting out of this mess - because the vast majority of humanity is on the same page as this other person - "Nothing will be much different in 2030". Okay, enjoy starving, everyone.

If your response to this thread is "Everything will be fine in 2030 with little difference" you're either just plain ignorant and need to learn that you're just utterly fucking wrong at this point so please STFU now and listen to more intelligent/aware individuals than yourself, or you have an agenda here in suppressing the reality - that global collapse is literally on the doorstep with almost literally no actions being taken to prevent it, only actions that will further exacerbate.

I see.  Another poster who responds with insults to anyone presenting research and data that contradicts their closely held beliefs. 

[Archimid]

Funny that you respond in such an uncivilized manner, when presented with data that contradicts your position. 

I'm being exactly as civilized as lying/blinded people like you deserve. To give you anymore respect when you are lying your ass off is disrespectful to the truth.

There was nothing "scientific" in your attack.

But there is. Why else would you be so willingly blind about the links you post?

Perhaps this paper can help you understand, particularly Figure 3.

"Since 1990 the world has seen a decrease in overall and weather-related disaster losses as a proportion of global GDP. This trend has occurred even as disaster losses have increased in absolute terms. The primary factor driving the overall increase in disaster losses is societal, mainly growth in populations and settlements at risk to the consequences of extreme events (IPCC, 2012 IPCC. (2012)."

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/mGHCKVAtnhbZJc4DYBiS/full

Interesting edit. Another cherry pick.  Do you not have other tricks? Let me help you with the full abstract:

The Sustainable Development Goals indicator framework identifies as an indicator of progress the objective of reducing disaster losses as a proportion of global gross domestic product. This short analysis presents data on this indicator from 1990. In constant 2017 US dollars, both weather-related and non-weather related catastrophe losses have increased, with a 74% increase in the former and 182% increase in the latter since 1990. However, since 1990 both overall and weather/climate losses have decreased as proportion of global GDP, indicating progress with respect to the SDG indicator. Extending this trend into the future will require vigilance to exposure, vulnerability and resilience in the face of uncertainty about the future frequency and magnitude of extreme events.

The bolded statement is what you are trying to say is not happening when it is.

The italics is complete BS. Disasters that are paid for with insurance or government funds result in an increase in the GDP. But that increase in GDP is not the same as the well being of the people. It is is just a monetary abstraction.

For example the GDP of Puerto Rico grew very fast after the storm hit and disaster aid poured in. However, life was very shitty without electricity or running water. To this day the GDP of Puerto Rico is stimulated by disaster relief, but the roads are fucked up, power is tenuous and nature hasn't fully recovered. Many buildings still lie in ruins. It is unlikely it gets better, specially if another hurricane hits, but the GDP doesn't say that.

Now, the GDP growth only happens if disaster is paid for by either insurance or government. Insurance is already pulling back and government is paying with debt increasingly large disasters. 

[Archimid]

Read more closely, they are overall losses, not just insured.

In that particular graph, yes it shows overall losses. But even when adjusted by GDP (VERY WRONG) it has an upwards trend not down as you claim. And when you ignore the BS of adjusting for GDP, the data adjusted for inflation shows a very substantial upward trend. And when you add the missing data of 2017 and the whole year of 2018 the trend goes up again. Judging by how 2019 started the trend is going to rise again.

Even if you add these losses to gdp ( a questionable practice), the metric has not changed over the time period stated. 

huh?

Once again, you cannot have a civilized discussion, without slinging insults.  What gives?

I have tried giving you respect and you repay with more lies and misdirection. Believe it or not I'm not insulting you. I'm describing your behavior scientifically. You can't correctly read a graph because you are too scared to do so.

[5to10]

I see.  Another poster who responds with insults to anyone presenting research and data that contradicts their closely held beliefs.

There comes a point where those of us with inherently more common sense/intuition than others like yourself begin to reflect on the vast number of systems breaking down at once, all "faster than expected", realize the IPCC is overly conservative, realize scientists specialize and are not putting "the big picture" together for us (The IPCC does that but they aren't realistic - we know this for a fact) and thus realize there is a very great possibility this all comes crashing down within years.

Go ahead, cry at me for data and peer review to "prove it" all you want. Whether or not you are satisfied with mine and many others extrapolations has no bearing on what is actually happening out there, in the same way that a total climate change denier has no bearing on it.

You and many others will be blindsided because of your unfortunate, instinctual, and thus inevitable lean towards hubris. Many of us with more keen instincts are trying to warn you, but you just won't have it because of that good ol' hubris cultivated cog dis. Oh well, I tried, it's all I could do after all.

Get used to the phrase "Faster than expected" mi amigo. That shall be the mantra of the coming years.

[Klondike Kat]

Your claim the the losses increase gdp is just a straw man argument.  The losses amount to less than one half of one percent.  It barely changed gdp.

[Alexander555]

I think we are going to see a lot more of this ( african swine fever, mad cow disease, avian influenza...) . If you take this together with the loses we will suffer by the loss of biodivercity. And they can not continue forever to clear more forest the produce more food. https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/6053000/chinese-porkies-over-impact-of-african-swine-fever-exposed/

[Archimid]

Your claim the the losses increase gdp is just a straw man argument.

Losses increase the GDP If and only if insurance or government pay to replace the losses. That is a simple inevitable fact.

The losses amount to less than one half of one percent.

Sigh. Losses, payout and GDP do not have a one to one to one relationship.

[5to10]

Your claim the the losses increase gdp is just a straw man argument.

Losses increase the GDP If and only if insurance or government pay to replace the losses. That is a simple inevitable fact.

The losses amount to less than one half of one percent.

Sigh. Losses, payout and GDP do not have a one to one to one relationship.

The person you're responding to has a vested interest in obscuring reality. That is feigned ignorance w/ the intention of misleading at its finest they are portraying.

[Tom_Mazanec]

As something still of a newbie, was I unwise in starting this thread?

[Alexander555]

Or stuff like this (candida auris). With a world that is more connected than ever before. Plenty of people living in poor conditions, polluted air and water...... These are the kind of places and conditions where they will thrive.    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/candida-auris-the-deadly-superbug-fungus-posing-a-serious-global-health-threat/

[Juan C. García]

As something still of a newbie, was I unwise in starting this thread?

IMO, it is a good thread. 

[Klondike Kat]

Your claim the the losses increase gdp is just a straw man argument.

Losses increase the GDP If and only if insurance or government pay to replace the losses. That is a simple inevitable fact.

The losses amount to less than one half of one percent.

Sigh. Losses, payout and GDP do not have a one to one to one relationship.

The person you're responding to has a vested interest in obscuring reality. That is feigned ignorance w/ the intention of misleading at its finest they are portraying.

In that case, I will stop responding.  There would be no point trying to change those deliberately posting misinformation.

[Niall Dollard]

Alas, as of tonight, it seems Parisians will have to live with a radically changed Notre Dame Cathedral.

It's looking doubtful now that it can ever be restored to its former glory.

[5to10]

In that case, I will stop responding.  There would be no point trying to change those deliberately posting misinformation.

But you are the only one here doing that, as Archimid pointed out multiple times.

[Tom_Mazanec]

The flames of this flame war could account for a percentage of observed global warming. 

[gerontocrat]

As something still of a newbie, was I unwise in starting this thread?

Yes.

There are loads of other threads about the when and how of planetary eco-system collapse.
They often seem to end up bad-tempered.

But what the hell, here is my prediction for 2030.

- We know CO2 ppm will have increased considerably. (That 12 years we had is now 10, as the 2019 increase in CO2 emissions and CO2 ppm that is happening and will happen has stolen two years),
- We know that deforestation will continue apace certainly in the tropical forests of West Africa, South East Asia and South America,
-desertification and decline in soil mass and fertility will continue,
- At best surface air temperatureswill have increased to close to +1.5 degrees, at worst at or above +1.5,
- The 365 day trailing average of Arctic sea ice extent and area will be less than it is now,
- Life in the oceans will continue to decline through over fishing, hypoxia and all the other oxias,
 - there will be geo-engineering field experiments of various forms in operation at considerable scale,
- Water will continue to be often in excess where it is not wanted and often in shortage where it is needed.
etc etc etc....
- For most, but not all, forms of life, the planet will be a place a little / a lot less livable. (delete as applicable).

Billion dollar disasters may well be a minor part of that less livable scenario, even if that is what does and will get the headlines. It is having to walk a long way for a bucketful of dirty water every day for year after year when suffering from endemic malnutrition that makes a place a lot less livable. When even that is gone less livable becomes unlivable. So to my last prediction. A lot more climate refugees within countries and between countries.

And to finish, there is no point in disputing that which I have written . I am right. If you disagree you are merely deluded and demonstrate your total woeful ignorance of the reality of the environmental change that is well underway. Your comments even though as yet unposted are not worthy of reply. For this reason "this is all I am going to say about that".


(This is called getting one's bad-tempered retaliation in first).

[Archimid]

There would be no point trying to change those deliberately posting misinformation.

I disagree, that's why I keep wasting my time replying to you.

As something still of a newbie, was I unwise in starting this thread?

I don't think so. My apologies for the charged language but it is necessary. This person is lying in very nefarious ways. Feel free to examine both links. Please notice that all he does is divert and confuse.

[Wherestheice]

If humanity continues down the path it’s on rn. In 2030 things will be much worse than now. Collapse of civilization IMO, is most likely by mid century, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was by 2030 either

[El Cid]

Attachment from :
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/time-series

I don't know what the world in 2030 will look like (and no I'm not a denier, before we start to going down that road), but if I look at your chart I see the following:

Losses
1980: 60 B usd
mid90s: cca 120 B USD
mid00s: cca 140 B USD
nowadays: cca 330 B USD

whereas US GDP:
1980: 2,8 T USD
1995: 7,7 T USD
2005: 13,1 T USD
2018: 19,4 T USD

which gives us losses as percentage of GDP:
1980: 2,1%
90s: 1,6%
00s  1,1%
now: 1,7%

We should also mention that as a billion dollar now buys less than it used to, the number of events rises automatically, so now more events are included in the "big-ticket" (above billion usd) chart, than previously, for example in the 80s a 500 M USD event wouldn't have been included but with inflation it is now an above billion USD item, so it is now included.  Meaning, that as time progresses, the relative to gdp percentages are distorted to the upside relative to the past.

All in all, we can see that losses are quite stable, and even - considering the distortions might be coming down. This doesn't mean they will always be like that, but they have been like that for a good while.

[Archimid]

 When people try to compare the value of things from the past to the value of things in the present an inflation adjustment has to be made. This is  a common practice used in all fields that compare events of the past with the present or future using monetary value.  The graphs I posted included that adjustment and give you the best representation of the value of the loses from the past relative to the future.

But you imply that we should ignore the inflation adjusted value and concentrate in the GDP. Why?

[Gray-Wolf]

It appears to me that a combination of China's rapid industrialization and the negative Naturals across the Pacific ( esp. the interdecadal Pacific Oscillation?) brought us near 30 years of 'pull down' of the rate of change.

In 2014 the I.p.o. flipped positive ( augmenting the AGW signal instead of mitigating it) and China had decided to stop killing its own citizens with poor air quality so the sulphate/particulate loads down wind began reducing.

Had it not been for the 'Super Nino' muddying the waters we would have seen the impact of these changes in driver/pollution but here we are.

I'm sure we are still 'bedding in' the new regime but this past couple of years NW Europe has seen a move toward the climate that we saw in the holocene optimum with H.P. blocking out most of the atlantic lows and giving NW Europe/Scandiwegian climate a tweak to drier, warmer over summer and drier over winter.

If i'm somewhere near the reality then by 2030 this Pattern will be fully bedded in and NW Europe will be dealing with drought conditions punctuated by atmospheric river events flooding prone areas as trailing fronts become slow moving over a narrow band of countries?

Summers will be nice for those near the coasts but increasingly hostile inland and in major cities over the summer.

[El Cid]

When people try to compare the value of things from the past to the value of things in the present an inflation adjustment has to be made. This is  a common practice used in all fields that compare events of the past with the present or future using monetary value.  The graphs I posted included that adjustment and give you the best representation of the value of the loses from the past relative to the future.

But you imply that we should ignore the inflation adjusted value and concentrate in the GDP. Why?

You are partially right. I thought the figures were nominal USD, but they were real USD (already CPI adjusted). Nonetheless, you should always look at costs relative to gdp, since GDP grows faster than inflation, therefore the value of buildings, infrastructure, etc grows faster than inflation meaning that if the same % of them gets lost to flood/fire, etc, its real (CPI-adjusted) value always goes up.

Example:

There is a town with 100 homes. Every year one home gets destroyed by flood. In 1980 one home is worth 100 (CPI adjusted) dollars, and in 2018 it is worth 300 dollars (CPI-adjusted) dollars. You could look at simply the data and see that losses tripled (went from 100 CPI adjusted dollars to 300 CPI adjusted dollars) while in fact nothing changes: one home gets destroyed every year, but that home (+roads, schools, etc) is worth much more in REAL terms. (BTW US GDP almost trpled in REAl terms from 1980 to 2018)

So the correct method is either nominal losses relative to nominal GDP, or real losses relative to real GDP.

Based on your data, the correct relation (real losses to real GDP):

1980 0,9%  mid90s: 1,1% mid00s: 0,9%, 16-17-18:  1,8%

[dnem]

I expect a huge discontinuity in the human experience on the planet, and I think it is likely before 2030, highly likely before 2040 and all but guaranteed before 2050.  At some point in the relatively near future, it will become utterly undeniable that BAU is untenable, that perpetual growth is unsustainable and that the fossil fuels truly need to stay in the ground.  Global financial markets will be unable to adapt to this reality as the entire global monetary system is dependent on structural debt/interest/growth.  This will cause a worldwide financial crisis that will likely dwarf 2008/9.  I am hardly unique in this view (Peak Prosperity, Jeremy Grantham, others).  I have no idea how it will play out, but it has the potential to profoundly destabilize many core functions of society, such as industrial ag, just-in-time delivery, electrical grids, etc.  I would not be surprised if the global hegemony pursues geo-engineering approaches to try and forestall this eventuality. But it's coming.

[Bernard]

In 2030, I will be 77 or dead. That's about the only thing I can bet with some confidence.
For the rest, all the bets are off, but if I had to bet, I would bet on anything but what's expected.

[El Cid]

Ok, let's be optimistic:

I expect significant investments in renewable energy by 2030 and the phasing out of ALL fossil fuels by 2050. Humanity will also say goodbye to most plastics, and there will be a serious turn towards all things sustainable and the circular economy. Agriculture will move towards regenerative practices and there will be very serious carbon (and other pollutant) taxes everywhere. Politics will move left towards more redistribution and more role of the government in green investments.
The planet will keep warming even after 2050 but it will be managable. By 2100 we will be 3-4 C above baseline; definitely no summer and possibly no/very little winter ice in the Arctic. The UK will be called the Sunny Isles due to persistent high pressure systems during summer, Greenland will be a popular destination as well, and Canada and Russia will become the real breadbaskets of the globe. Africa will unite in a real African Union and by using modern and regenerative practices will be able to feed its population of 3 billion.

Fairy tale? I don't think so. A possible future

[Tom_Mazanec]

dnem, I think you underestimate how long people can convince themselves of what they want to believe. Even when a million Americans a year die of heat stroke, I suspect the deniers will still be going strong.

[dnem]

dnem, I think you underestimate how long people can convince themselves of what they want to believe. Even when a million Americans a year die of heat stroke, I suspect the deniers will still be going strong.

Quite possibly. But markets are smarter than deniers, and when the bottom falls out, it's going to fall fast and hard.

[jai mitchell]

I expect

effective ice free arctic during a September within the next 5 years
rapid increase in permafrost disassociation
a year by 2030 where the GMST as measured by GISS is 1.7C above pre--industrial (2017 was 1.17C)

to be clear, I am also expecting a rapid decline of anthropogenic aerosols over the next decade as climate mitigation takes hold.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Well, I am a short-term pessimist and long-term optimist. I think technology will catch up with the problem eventually.
I created two "Furry" backgrounds for my stories and role-playing. In the Mammaloids (currently being retconned) global warming is a second order issue...maybe a meter or two of sea level rise over the Third Millennium (the first order issue is Humanity fighting, and losing, a series of wars with genetically engineered anthropomorphic animals). In GURPS Aesop the year is 1994 but technology is at World War One levels, so global warming is hardly on the horizon (the anthropomorphic animals are magical in origin).

[magnamentis]

really curious how long it takes for certain hyper-activities to end as mentioned on day 2 of the invasion, seeing that i'm not longer alone.

theoretically i couldn't care less but too much pointless talk under to be found under unread posts is a bit of an annoyance and not hitting the "New" button makes that list only growing and it would lose its usefulness.

[Wherestheice]

Ok, let's be optimistic:

I expect significant investments in renewable energy by 2030 and the phasing out of ALL fossil fuels by 2050. Humanity will also say goodbye to most plastics, and there will be a serious turn towards all things sustainable and the circular economy. Agriculture will move towards regenerative practices and there will be very serious carbon (and other pollutant) taxes everywhere. Politics will move left towards more redistribution and more role of the government in green investments.
The planet will keep warming even after 2050 but it will be managable. By 2100 we will be 3-4 C above baseline; definitely no summer and possibly no/very little winter ice in the Arctic. The UK will be called the Sunny Isles due to persistent high pressure systems during summer, Greenland will be a popular destination as well, and Canada and Russia will become the real breadbaskets of the globe. Africa will unite in a real African Union and by using modern and regenerative practices will be able to feed its population of 3 billion.

Fairy tale? I don't think so. A possible future

I don’t share the optimistic view here if we’re talking 3-4 C warmer. When the planet gets to those kind of temperatures, it’s gonna be really hard to grow crops and people will have to retreat to the high northern latitudes. Our population is gonna probably be 2 billion<. One major reason is simply that the planets biosphere will not be able to adapt to that kind of change. And I think using the year 2100 is also very optimistic.

But on the other hand I hope your right

[kassy]

Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things.  Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.

It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them.  It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.

Not a fan of GDP.

Will we still have the barrier reefs by 2030?

Will we still have an Amazon?

With the current rates and ways of logging will we still have forests? (protect old growth, it´s not just timber there is lots of live around there and it needs trees in all parts of their lifecycle to flourish).

In 11 years we might possibly see a storm hit some coastal cities so hard that people change there minds about living in some of those areas.

I am pretty sure we will see crop failures due to droughts, floods etc.

The ice will melt but will it do spectacular enough things to wake people up?

We miss a sense of urgency and i fear the worst for what we have left to safe in 2030...

(No kids myself but my best friends kids will be teenagers by then i sort of dread the story i will have to tell them).