[FargaColora]

"the difference between human extinction and the mere collapse of our civilization"

Literally nobody is predicting any of those things, except propagandists and doomers. I would urge you to broaden your media intake to more mainstream sources, because it is not mentally healthy to be living a life under such falsehoods.

[ClumsyPilot]

The comment section is full of clueless numpties that do not understand what 4 degrees REALLY means, and think it won't lead to collapse.

When the world was 4 degrees COLDER Chicago was under 900 meters of ice. Toronto was under two Kilometers of ice.

Do you think that would cause collapse of civilisation? How are you going to adapt to a glacier covering all the farmland? No technolgy, not even nuclear bombs, can remove the billions of tons of ice that would be covering all the farmland. We could not even protect cities, the moving wall of ice would buldoze every structure we've build and then whoever didn't freese to death would die of famine.

We are headed for a 4 degree change in the OTHER direction. That's what we are headed for by the end of the century

The biggest mistake climate scientists have done is communicated their change in terms of degrees, so people think about their everyday experience with weather, which obviouslty changes much more than that, and think they will just sweat a bit more in the summer.

[XorNot]

To be very specific: people who think increase isn't dangerous need to look up web-bulb temperature [1].

There are regions of this planet where an average 4 degrees increase will mean that for periods longer then 24 hours, multiple times a year, the wet-bulb temperature will exceed 35 degrees C. That is unsurvivable by human life. Your only options in that environment are to not be in that environment by either escape or technological means.

There are cities built in areas where this is a risk, and if it happens they will just be depopulated: it is not possible for millions of people to escape an urban area under a heat wave. If they're somewhat built up, then they might survive it provided the electrical grid holds out - which, as recent experience globally should show - is questionable. Remember: under these conditions, no repairs to external infrastructure are going to be possible - you would need active refrigeration to move around outside and survive. We are not remotely adapted to that sort of hostile environment.

Most likely we are a decade or two out from a climate-forced mass casualty event, probably in the Indian subcontinent, with more minor (slightly less mass death) occurring in parts of Asia earlier.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature

[astrange]

We are not headed for 4C, the median prediction is between 1.5 and 2C.

[ClumsyPilot]

We have missed every single target that we'd need to hit to limit the warming to 2C.

We have 28 years left and emissins are still increasing. We have to reduce emissions by like 40% per decade, which is not happenning at present.

We have to replace every car on the road, which takes 20 years. That means in 8 years every new car has to be electric, and that's not happening either.

[krastanov]

You misread their statement. They said "8 degrees". With 8 C increase in temperature, what they described could very much happen. We expect 4 C worst case, which is why we do not need to worry about extinction. I think they are saying that we do not need to worry about more than 4 C increase exactly because people in the past fought for the cause, and if they stopped fighting the same way today some people feel resignation and want to stop fighting, even 4 C would have been too optimistic. The fact that people in the past did not resign themselves to the status quo is why we do not need to worry about an 8 C increase.

[ivm]

This is not true, for example, "Humans Are Doomed to Go Extinct" was published in Scientific American last year: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-doomed...

[FargaColora]

That's... one man's opinion and at the absolute extreme end of accepted science. You will find a person willing to have a view on anything if you look hard enough.

If you read mainstream publications, then you will gradually form an opinion, which is that there is a climate emergency, but not that humanity will be destroyed.

Climate doomerism has been a catasrophe, because it means many people have "given up", when things can actually be done. The doomer propaganda jumped off the deep end, and the mainstream media should have called them our on their absurd nonsense years ago.

I notice the BBC is starting to fight back:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-61495035

[ivm]

Humanity probably will not be wiped out, but the current global civilization will collapse like it happened to many other civilizations before because they reached the ecological overshoot. I also thought that something "could be done" on a large scale, but after studying the problem in depth (starting with the IPCC report), I began to prepare on the community level for the impact in the next 10-20 years. That's the only area where something can be done.

By the way, BBC is not a reliable source, like other neoliberal propaganda they bet on continuing "business as usual" while coming up with some innovative solutions (so-called "techno-hopium").

[FargaColora]

"I began to prepare on the community level for the impact in the next 10-20 years"

Sorry, I don't think rational debate is possible here. Your beliefs are not based on science or rationality.

[krastanov]

Your reaction surprises me. What is so strange about "preparing on the community level", which would mean things like making sure your township is not expanding into areas that would be destroyed by newly severe forest fires or hurricanes or floods. Or that your city forbids certain types of lawns or agriculture because droughts are getting more severe. Or just having a more independent electricity/water/sewage in your house because the municipal systems do not have the backups they will start needing.

[FargaColora]

All the things you describe are good and beneficial for society. The problem was that you are preparing for an "impact" in 10 years that is not being predicted by anyone, except doomers and propagandists. You believe that the BBC is "neoliberal propaganda". That is your right, but you will alienate the vast majority of people with such extremist rhetoric.

[ivm]

…said the person who conveniently ignored the mainstream scientific forecasts. Well, with time you'll see.