We've been seeing events happen more and more with quotes from scientists saying "This wasn't expected to happen for another 50 years" [according to the IPCC reports].
Additionally, the IPCC notoriously makes their predictions algorithmically based purely on existing observations and doesn't take feedback loops into account. Those feedback loops are nearly guaranteed, but since they haven't been triggered yet, the extent of the feedback is hard to predict and thus is ignored.
It's because of these things that I tend to think that the IPCC reports are milquetoast. Even though they shock the public, they're actually doing a disservice by making people think they have more time than they actually have.
Plus, even if it was correct, most people will see this headline and think that we have 80 years to fix the problem and not realize that the bulk of the melting will take place before the 80 years is up.
My non-scientific rule-of-thumb with IPCC reports is to take the time and divide it by 10 as the lower boundary and by 5 as the upper boundary. This is to take into account the "1 in a 1000 year events" that seem to occur every few years now.
I personally expect the Kush-Himalaya ice sheet melt to be complete between 8 and 16 years from now because of a drastic and "unforeseen" weather event that accelerates it one year, like a stalled heat "blob" that camps over it for a season or a season of above-freezing rain that carves up the ice and carries it as melt-water downriver.
This is not even close to true. The UAH and RSS global temperature sets have shown rock solid rates of change of around ~.13C/decade for 40 years. Yet the IPCC predicts much higher rates of change in the near future (the only possible way to get to >+2C/century).
You can't just wave your hands and say the IPCC hasn't considered all the possible outcomes better than you. What you're doing is FUD, what they're doing is science.
The sea level chart on page 31 is quite interesting.
Also, 2007 had a much smaller extent than the recent average. Only 2012 was worse.
If you want to experience a New Orleans Mardi Gras, you have only a few decades left, but there are plenty of other places in the U.S. where Louisianans could find a home.
The biggest brunt of climate change will be borne by low-lying countries. Most of Bangladesh is at elevations in danger of flooding in the next century. Where will those 164 million people flee? Will the refugees be accepted or will there be walls and wars?
It's also quite possible that the rate at which such extreme weather events are getting worse is increasing.
Sea level rise is brutal, and will cause enormous impacts to many millions of people. Weather weirding stands a good chance of bringing epic damage to many millions more.
Barack Obama doesn't seem to be worried about sea level rise: https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/190822-barack-...
Neither is Al Gore: https://moodyeyeview.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/montecito-h...
Leo DiCaprio isn't too worried either: https://mansionglobal.com/articles/leonardo-dicaprio-buys-ma...
So yeah, if it's a real estate problem, these guys might have a problem. As to the rest of us, I think we'll start worrying as soon as these canaries in the coal mines, so to speak, start unloading their beachfront mansions for pennies on the dollar.
Bangladesh is very much already surrounded by a literal wall. They will not be accepted in India, as India has consistently made clear.
Honestly curious because when I look at insurance market it's clear nobody is taking threats to sea level remotely seriously so that's one group that ignores IPCC
The typical insurance contract is max a few years till payments can be adjusted to the new risk landscape.
Trust me, I'm with the IPCC
> In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."
> It added: "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. "We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said.
It's very defeatist, but maybe it would make sense to consider emigration before everyone else does so.
But its not about the weather changes per se; its about the global human conflict when food gets scarce and hungry people have guns. You have to survive that first.
I don’t want to take away from your other point but this is not so trivial for the hundreds of millions living in low lying countries like Bangladesh.
In the other extreme I guess a all out nuclear strike on population centres in China and India might have a chance to kill a slight majority of humanity, but I wouldn't bet on it. Conventional weapons offer no real effect here I think.
- Canada, Russia, and Northeast Africa (Egypt/Libya) actually see positive impacts. For Canada and Russia global warming could be a huge boon, opening up large areas of uninhabitable permafrost to settlement and bringing in trade through arctic ocean sea routes.
- The US does pretty well, but with large regional variations. The Pacific Northwest and Northeast become more desirable, with fewer rainy days. NorCal does okay but faces increased forest fires. The Southwest (LA/Vegas/Phoenix) faces water shortages. The Southeast becomes a miserable place to live.
- Europe (particularly Southern Europe) is in trouble. Crop yields and rainfall drop in the South; the North is vulnerable to changes in the gulf stream.
- Africa, India, Australia, and island nations get fucked.
So basically, the worst effects fall on the global poor, while major geopolitical powers see mostly neutral (U.S, China) or positive (Russia) effects. Within those neutral countries, the benefits fall largely on rich heavily-populated areas, while the downsides fall on marginalized rural poor. No wonder we haven't seen much movement on fixing climate change.
Canada is a big surprise winner that could catapult it to geopolitical prominence. Right now it's the U.S's friendly northern neighbor; in 2100 it could rival the U.S. in power.
In short, head for high ground far from the equator. Maybe look for places with reasonably strong militaries as well.
I fear I'll be beaten to the punch and my unborn kids will have to figure it out for themselves, though.
The North and South Poles received their first visits from humans in the early 1900's, and the hardest remaining spot to reach on Earth--the summit of Everest--was colloquially named "the third pole" since the challenges to reaching it were in some ways similar to reaching the geographic poles. See for example:
> The attempted ascent was – notwithstanding other aims – an expression of the pioneering thinking that was common in the British Empire. As the British were unsuccessful as the first to reach the North and South Poles they tried to go to the so-called "third pole" – to "conquer" Mount Everest.
The term has today been adapted for discussions of climate change because of the commonality of ice. It's a poor fit IMO since the impacts of melting ice at the North Pole, South Pole, and Himalayas are all significantly different from one another: the North Pole primarily impacts wildlife and navigation, the South Pole global sea level rise, and the Himalayas fresh water availability in South Asia.
What a horribly sad thought for 6am on a Monday morning.
But when I look at the micro, at the amazing little person who is still asleep in her bed, it’s hard not to look at a subject emotionally.
On top of that, even if the US and Europe get their acts together, the rest of the world is going to keep speeding faster and faster to catch up to our standard of living and waste at least as much energy as we do.
As it stands today, there is no solution. We're looking at ecological collapse in all areas when approaching human lifetime timescales.
I think that a solution (if there is one) will come from the current gen x generation (too poor), baby boomer generation (too greedy) and greatest generation (too much in denial) dying out and being replaced by younger, hungrier people who can change their minds and adapt when new information is presented.
In other words, the answer probably isn't technology, it's education and movements. We quit using leaded gasoline and CFC refrigerants, so maybe we can quit using coal and single-use plastic, for example. Then it will come time to quit using the heavy hitting stuff like non-recycled automobiles/housing and factory farmed food. But nobody will do that unless the cost is comparable for similar substitutes.
Which is why I think we'll all fail together and accept mundanity in a world where 90+% of species are extinct and all habitable land is under private ownership for exploitation. Basically global authoritarianism under late-stage capitalism.
Solution? Either some of the aforementioned changes, else Geoengineering, else a drastic unplanned attentuation in global population.