[esarbe]

I'm not sure what you are talking about re "experts" - I'm very much basing my statements on the conclusion drawn by experts.

I don't think that there's any expert out there that will deny that 3°C warming will lead to massive population movements.[0] Experts also conclude that there's already significant damage to ecosystems that will only increase with that kind of global warming[1].

But that's a little besides the point.

In the Paris climate agreement of 2015 we agreed to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Barely 8 years later we've blown through that limit and there is no credible effort to reduce or even stop the warming.

Models parametrized so that they predict a 2-3°C increase until the end of the century have already been invalidated since all of them expected 1.5°C to be breached by 2030 earliest - we're seven years ahead of schedule.

Right now we're on a track that even our modern neutered climate models predict will lead to a +5°C before the end of the century.

[0] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-g...

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2189-9

[RandomLensman]

1.5C is gone - no point clinging to it. However, there is a lot if effort going into decarbonization. Where we are exactly is unclear, but claiming we are on track to 5C isn't really supported by that many (having past models being invalidated doesn't mean certain future overshoot, how much of invested changes are captured, etc.).

Also, the ecosystem discussion is somewhat orthogonal as we don't now what all is critical to human survival.

[esarbe]

> 1.5C is gone - no point clinging to it.

And soon 2.0C will be gone - no point clinging to it, right?

> However, there is a lot if effort going into decarbonization.

I don't see a lot of effort going into decarbonization. We still have about 7% of global GDP going into subsidies for fossil fuels. That's a lot of effort against decarbonization [0].

There is little actual progress being made[1]. Whatever reduction we had can be directly attributed to the economic upheaval created by the Covid pandemic.

> having past models being invalidated doesn't mean certain future overshoot

Given that our actions in the last 20 years pretty much track the "business as usual" scenario and given that we can eliminate all models that predict a warming of 1.5°C to arise any later than 2024, we're pretty much only left with models that give us a warming of 5°C until 2100[2]. Please note that even that is in the lower bound; the IPC 8.5 has a lower bound of 1.4°C in the 2040 - we've blown past that already. It's only getting worse.

> Also, the ecosystem discussion is somewhat orthogonal as we don't now what all is critical to human survival.

I'm not sure if you are joking or what. Our dependency on an intact ecosystem is absolute - we cannot exist without it. The "services" that the biosystems around us provide is invaluable and we utterly depend on them. Trying to quantify how much of it you can destroy for the sake of industry and profit is akin to asking how much of your liver you can sell away for cocaine.

[0] https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie...

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P...