This is a visualization tool of an IPCC study where you can compare various climate scenarios. All the data and publications are available there too:
https://hotspots-explorer.org/
By the way, it's quite hard to nail down what exactly a certain region will look like in 30 years. That depends a whole lot on the assumptions that you take.
The models used for such work (IPCC etc) are rather suitable to compare actions, e.g. "If we don't take measure X and Y now, then the average temperature in this region will be 0.7° higher 30 years from now, compared to taking that measure."
I particularly find skipping to the graphics page and looking for maps useful for answering peoples geography related questions.
One thing to keep in mind is that report was overall meant to illustrate the difference between a 1.5 and a 2C outcome, but at this point 1.5C is toast and 2C would be an optimistic outcome so you can just skip to the 2C graphs for your estimating purposes.
This is just for the CO2 already in the atmosphere. Add to that at least 10 more years of emissions that continue to grow at an exponential rate. Then another 20 years of decreasing CO2 emissions, and it might be better to look at: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l....
The relentless doom saying gives the impression that there are some studies or research or science out there that can accurately make predictions of the sort you are interested in, but as far as I know that’s not the case. I’m not aware of any system with a track record of predicting climates that far out.
A volcano could erupt tomorrow and create much cooler climates around the world.
Al Gore’s movie from the early 2000s said Florida would be underwater by now. What’s the actual sea level rise in the intervening period been? A cm or 2, if that?
I doubt the movie expressed absolute certainty, but it was indisputably meant to be alarming.
> the sea also could rise
It wouldn't be surprising, since they've been rising for 20,000 years. The strange thing about sea rise is that the tens of meters of rise from before the industrial revolution were good and natural, whereas the centimeters since are evil, and definitely due to CO2 emissions.
> as well as knowledge of the issue among oil companies
Oil companies don't have any special ability to predict the future state of a complex system.
> So, you'd expect a 2000-dated discourse to be slightly more alarming, yes.
Actually, the UN said in 1989 that whole nations might be wiped off the map if we didn't reverse global warming by 2000, so I might expect a 2000-dated discourse to have some humility, considering that the doom prophecy totally failed to materialize.
Scaremongering is a double-edged sword. I'm not a fan either. It can cause some people to pay attention and care about the problem. But it also causes other people to dismiss the worry as exaggerated (because by definition putting too much emphasis on the extreme range of the probability range is by definition exaggerating).
But it's a mistake to confound the scaremongers with the underlying science that provided the inputs for the worry.
The uncertainty bracket is large. You can't really know if we're going to experience problems at the scales that most people would recognize as "doom" by 2020, 2040 or 2140. But that doesn't mean the underlying model is wrong, it just means that the uncertainty bracket is large.
If the practical every day problem starts at 2040 or 2080, is this any better? Because you'd be dead and it will be somebody else's problem?
Or because when the problem will become manifest we'll just fix the problem then?
The inertia of the system goes both ways. The observable parameters have long changed and the system has been slow to move towards the predicted target. This also suggests that corrections to the parameters will take a very long time to fix.
> Oil companies don't have any special ability to predict the future state of a complex system.
No, but they definitely have the scientific knowledge to understand the scale at which they pump CO2 into the atmosphere and the first-order consequences this has.
> But anyway, how did Gore's predictions fare?
It's like when you fly a plane, never trust the instruments: "yeah, sure, the altimeter is going down, but you know, we're still in the air. Besides, the altimeter has a margin of error, so... we're good."
We have a song for that in France: "Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise, tout va très bien, tout va très bien...".
> I’m not aware of any system with a track record of predicting climates that far out.
This is right. Nor is there going to be any such system. The climate is a complex system, meaning it's fundamentally not amenable to simulation. All the models are toys compared to the reality. None of them even attempt to actually simulate what's going on. Not only is it impossible because we don't even know what the phenomena are, it's extra impossible because there's not enough computational power. I doubt humanity is capable of accurately simulating the sugar in a stirred cup of coffee, much less figuring out what's going to be happening with the atmosphere tomorrow, much less 30 years from now.
The models are (unavoidably, necessarily) just toys. They don't predict the future. Anyone who tells you that they are predicting the future with them is malicious or extremely naive. The models just masquerade as science to support political goals.
> The models are (unavoidably, necessarily) just toys. They don't predict the future. Anyone who tells you that they are predicting the future with them is malicious or extremely naive. The models just masquerade as science to support political goals.
What political goals? Source would be appreciated as well.
By the way, it's quite hard to nail down what exactly a certain region will look like in 30 years. That depends a whole lot on the assumptions that you take. The models used for such work (IPCC etc) are rather suitable to compare actions, e.g. "If we don't take measure X and Y now, then the average temperature in this region will be 0.7° higher 30 years from now, compared to taking that measure."