Not the end of the species, but the end of organized human societies yes. It's an important distinction.

People won't be able to live in Florida or Saudi Arabia, water scarcity is and will become massive issues, lots of migration, etc.

We won't all die, but it won't resemble much what we have now, relatively safe cities, food readily available, being able to go outside for too long in certain areas, etc.

So it is pretty bad, though not literally the end.

We'll have to hope for a tech miracle. People just aren't willing to make the sacrifices needed to solve the problem, or even stop it from getting worse.

So it is pretty bad, though not literally the end. — Manuel

I agree with that. I think it will be like the end of the Bronze Age. Lots of wars, displaced people, breakdown of the global community.

There’s very good reason to believe this could cause human extinction, not just social breakdown. Tipping points could be breached, leading to hothouse earth scenarios. But beyond that, in combination with other threats we face, including nuclear war, it’s no wonder the Doomsday Clock is only a few seconds from midnight.

It’s simply time to tune out anyone who says things won’t be so bad— aka the Bjorn Lomburg school of denial. It’s the same crowd that feels, by some kind of compulsion, to point out that a few human beings may survive a global nuclear war — hence making it technically not “existential.”

Like I said, just tune them out.

There’s very good reason to believe this could cause human extinction, — Mikie

No.

It could, but it alone would be insufficient for all human beings on Earth to die.

Another issue would be nuclear war, that would end everything.

It's not good, nor am I minimizing it, but just stating what I believe would be most likely. The collapse of cities and states is pretty bad...

True, societal collapse is bad enough. Whether climate change “alone” could cause extinction, I’m not sure what that means. Nuclear war “alone” may not wipe out human beings either.

There’s still the hothouse earth scenario, which is underreported and commonly downplayed so as not to appear “alarmist,” but it’s certainly possible. But apart from that, consider the related biodiversity collapse or threats to agriculture or consistent superstorms.

Anyway, the point stands: when you encounter people whose first reaction to the evidence of climate change is to compulsively say “It won’t wipe us out,” just ignore them. They’re irrelevant.

Listen to experts who study extinctions:

If I'm to say, what do I think is the biggest contributor to the potential for human extinction going towards the future? Then climate change, no doubt. — Luke Kemp

Or we can say “Not to worry — some guy on the internet says everything will be fine!” But I prefer not to do that.

Not to worry — some guy on the internet says everything will be fine!” — Mikie

I didn't say everything will be fine. I compared the coming event to the end of the Bronze Age. The only social collapse that compares to that is the fall of Rome.

There’s still the hothouse earth scenario, — Mikie

That's not a thing.

Listen to experts who study extinctions:

If I'm to say, what do I think is the biggest contributor to the potential for human extinction going towards the future? Then climate change, no doubt.
— Luke Kemp — Mikie

Context?

What it means is that, out of 8 billion or so people in the world, several could survive, maybe millions, or more, or less, who knows.

Nuclear War would be worse, given the radiation and the sheer force, so it's unlikely more of them would live than given extremely dire climate change scenarios, but we are splitting hairs, in terms of the amount of people who may survive or not.

It's not about being alarmist or not alarmist, it's pretty darn bad, which is why the links I provided, contribute to such damning conclusions, that we are in very deep shit.

You react to people as you think you should, I'll do likewise.

it's pretty darn bad, which is why the links I provided, contribute to such damning conclusions, that we are in very deep shit. — Manuel

:up:

On the other hand . . . . .
Climate Alarmists

"Breaching 1.5C threshold" in a single year is meaningless, because there is no such threshold. — SophistiCat

Not meaningless, it signals that we are going above predicted deviations. — Manuel

What predictions are you talking about? Climatologists don't make predictions for individual years.

Eight of the past ten years were the warmest on record, and a similar trend held in preceding decades. That is meaningful. But a single-year record does not mean much on its own, and comparing it with a long-term average prediction is just ignorant.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2021/apr/13/sea-level-rise-climate-emergency-harold-wanless

This article is an old one, but predictions have not changed all that much for the more optimistic since.
Rather than argue back and forth about whether humans will go extinct or merely become an endangered species, let's have a bit of a think about the loss of major cities, and arable land that result from a sea level rise of 20ft (6m.)

Two to three feet of sea level rise may not sound like much, but it will transform human societies the world over. In south Florida, where I live, residents will lose access to fresh water. Sewage treatment plants will fail, large areas will persistently flood, and Miami Beach and other barrier islands will be largely abandoned. In China, India, Egypt and other countries with major river deltas, two to three feet of sea level rise will force the evacuation of tens of millions of people and the loss of vast agricultural lands.

This by 2050. If I was a mortgage company, I would be stopping lending in low lying coastal towns.

And of course it's not going to stop at 3ft, nor at 6m.

Argue if you like about whether to call it sea level change, or sea level emergency, extinction or population reduction. Call me an alarmist, though; I aim to cause alarm, rather than playing 'abide with me' while the ship sinks.

I aim to cause alarm, rather than playing 'abide with me' while the ship sinks. — unenlightened

I appreciate and honor that. I'm not alarmed. I'm just kind of heartbroken. I think the most actionable path would be fusion r+d. As the article @jgill posted said, a fair amount of the presently adopted "to do" list is pointless gesturing.

a fair amount of the presently adopted "to do" list is pointless gesturing. — frank

Indeed, and everyone is rowing back even on the pointless gestures. Had to laugh at the UK leading the way on carbon reduction by tanking the economy. Half the country is dependent on food hand outs and cannot afford to cook or heat their homes. Quite the achievement! Of course when Bangladesh is 90% under water, they may overtake us.

Of course when Bangladesh is 90% under water, they may overtake us. — unenlightened

I think Bangladesh will be gone soon. Similarly, the east coast of North America is going under. We wait till the hurricanes destroy the coast before we finally give up, though.

One thing that's hard for the leftist in me to swallow is that one of the parties contributing to a real solution is a megastar of capitalism: Bill Gates.
See here.

He has the same autonomy to act that the Chinese government does. Both of them are actually addressing the problem while western governments do nothing but posture (or close to nothing.)

The next day they'll all be in camps learning how not to complain. — Varnaj42

Ahem...

this business of climate change — Varnaj42

aha

If this was an attempt a adolescent humor, it failed.

No, it IS CO2, methane, CFCs, and other gases. Greed has been a feature of human beings from the get go, but global warming has been a problem for a little over a century. It's industrialization and population growth. The world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927; it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. In the last 60 years, we've added 5 billion+, all using various pieces of the first and second industrial revolutions (which have depended heavily on fossil fuels, for which there are no great substitute).

It isn't human greed that's preventing us from dramatically and radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are no great substitutes for fossil fuels (no easily portable energy dense substances without serious manufacturing or toxicity problems). It's difficult to get 8 people to agree on what to order for lunch, never mind getting 8 billion people to act on climate change in a coordinated fashion.

We are making some, limited progress. I very much doubt whether we will succeed in avoiding disaster, but we are, sort of, trying. What are you doing to help?

Cows fart too much. — Varnaj42

I hear it's the belching that's the bigger methane problem.

Methane is produced in the gut, not in the stomach.

No. It's cow belching due to enteric fermentation - which is the digestive process of converting sugars into simple molecules for absorption into the bloodstream, which produces methane as a by-product. My source is NASA global climate change :wink:

OK. I believe you.

No. Let's just say that it's a jab at those who believe that we humans are to blame for climate change. We are not. We are recent arrivals on this planet. Climate change predates us by a very long time. I am aware of the vast numbers of college boys and girls (there are but two genders) who think otherwise. What are they to think when, after all, they get the idea thrown at them all the time by people who thrive on sensationalism.

If you can't take a little heat then stay out of the kitchen.

Yeah, you just have no clue what you’re talking about. Take your denialism elsewhere.

I, and most others who argue about climate change are mis-understood. Sure... it's real. It's happening. We just don't happen to think it is the fault of human beings. The climate is always in a state of change and has been since it first appeared on this planet.

There is a lot of emotional satisfaction in the idea of having something to blame. This is where we humans are so foolish.

Here's a little factoid for the Greta fans who might be reading. When a large composite volcano pops it's cork such as the one at Krakatoa. More greenhouse gasses are released in that event than all produced inthe entirety ot human activities on this planet.

Here's another interesting tidbit. Someone please tell me why the climate change advocates set their sights on western countries where white people are with their complaints while steadfastly ignoring the oriental offenders? North Korea might well have the foulest air on the planet but the greenies never mention them. China is reported to be building new coal fired power plants all the time but no complaint is ever aimed at China. Why not?

You see? It's political.

When I read about American college kids complaining about the pollution generated by China and North Korea I'll change my tune. Until them I am convinced it's all no more than anti-white posturing.

But... thanks for moving my thread. I didn't even know about the other location.

1. Largest consumers are western countries and therefore cause the most pollution and that includes the pollution in other countries that produce to meet western demand. 2. i can't influence Chinese policy but I can influence national policy.

So yes, it's political because it makes sense. I'll ignore the racist canard of this being anti-white as being off topic and a rabbit hole I don't want to continue in.

As to "climate change has always happened", well, duh. Nobody ever claimed otherwise but it is clearly man made now as the speed at which it's changing globally is unprecedented. https://xkcd.com/1732/

The climate is always in a state of change and has been since it first appeared on this planet. — Varnaj42

Yes, you are right -- climate is always in a state of change. We have all sorts of evidence to support that idea. Nobody (in their right mind) denies this. However, nobody in their right mind thinks the current, very rapid climate change is normal.

China is reported to be building new coal fired power plants all the time but no complaint is ever aimed at China. Why not? — Varnaj42

Au contraire! China is very much recognized as the largest current contributor of CO2 from coal fired power plants and auto emissions. China has an all-round atrocious record of air and water pollution. On the other hand, they are also building out very large wind and solar systems. No industrial country--not the US, not the EU, not China, not anybody else--can convert from coal to solar, wind, nuclear, or hydro energy without expending huge amounts of energy constructing the new systems. Coal, oil, and gas have to be used in the interim for steel, cement, aluminum, glass, mining, and other heavy industrial processes.

The big CATCH 22 for us is that a lot of CO2 will be produced solving the CO2 problem. That's one reason why our situation is bleak.

Take electric cars for example. There are about 1 billion internal combustion automobiles on the roads around the world. They produce lot of CO2. "Oh, but once we are all driving electric cars, that won't be a problem any more. Electricity will be green." Hang on. How will we produce 1 billion electric cars without generating a lot of Co2? How will we mine, refine, and transport millions of tons of raw material for all these new cars without generating CO2? Who thinks we can have millions (billions) of solar panels and a few million windmills without heavy manufacturing in the near future?

The answer is that we will keep producing more CO2 for the foreseeable future as we attempt to change our economies from the bottom up.

Is there no way we can cut CO2 emissions quickly? Sure there is: We can all adopt a lifestyle based on 1890s technology. That would result in a very fast drop in the emissions of all green house gasses. Such a move would also involve the world's economies hitting a very thick brick wall at 80 mph. The only thing that would be as disruptive is probably a nuclear war or a world wide epidemic of the Black Plague without antibiotics.

In summation, then, we are totally screwed.

We just don't happen to think it is the fault of human beings. — Varnaj42

'Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan.