Worth remembering that even IPCC itself has models which predict way higher temperatures by 2100 than goes into IPCC reports. We have just decided to collectively ignore them.
We are collectively in full on denial about the consequences of climate change. Only directly accountable organizations like militaries and insurers are actually acting on the data. People are still buying cheap stuff from overseas, traveling and generally spending energy like there's no tomorrow. We will only see real changes in behavior and policy once coastal flooding in major metropolises becomes a reality a few decades down the line.
Why do people keep bringing up coastal flooding? Its one of the smallest and least concerning climate change effects.
The 10cm sea level rise over the next few decades isnt very relevant and the speculation about increased storms is highly location dependent and low confidence.
Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise.
Its also very degrowth to conflate energy use with CO2 emissions. Many types of energy use are time flexible (or, like AC, focused on sunny days) and thus can use solar power.
Building dams and dykes is not new engineering. Maybe the scale of covering enough of the shore lines with them will be challenging, but it will probably be less disruptive than having to displace the 190M people the abstract cites.
I find quite interesting the consequence this failing coffee crops reality brought to us: the rise in aromated coffees. Caramel coffee, tiramisu coffee, dark chocolate with cherries coffee, anything works if it can salvage an otherwise bad crop.
PS coffee like many other plants can't be farmed "just 100km higher up" or something. There may be easier solutions for some crops, but the reality is, the climate is not simply shifting a few kilometers up, but just changes completely so finding another suitable spot - geographically politically and all, is a real challenge.
Sure there will be localized events, but on average, rising temperature and co2 will improve farming world-wide. Hence:
For the 2024-25 financial year, India has exported 2.2 lakh tonnes of coffee, up from 1.91 lakh tonnes in the same period last year, showcasing a 15 percent increase.
Most plants have a range of acceptable temperatures. Drought is also an issue, which is downstream both literally and metaphorically of rainfall and its interaction with climate.
I find it hard to reconcile that the entire world is going to be going through cycles of drought and flooding over and over due to a moderate increase in temperature and co2. Where in earth's history is the basis for this? We have had far higher temperature and co2 levels during periods of great animal and plant growth.
Well with more CO2 you have more convection, the higher atmosphere is actually cooling because of the nice CO2 blanket that keeps heat trapped lower. (Which by the way prooves that it's not the sun's natural variability that's the cause, otherwise the higher atmosphere would also get warmer)
This temperature differential between low and high atmosphere then means more convection, more evaporation, more movement of air and water. Look just read up on this ok, it's not that hard.
...that is not how any of that works, to the point that it's literally a coal-mining company talking point I remember from like, the 2000s (from a video made in the 90s).
Which should be trivially resolved by examining whether a temperate region undergoing a drought is "benefiting from increased temperatures".
Not collectively ignore them but there was an assumption that "hot models" were more wrong a priori, evidence is emerging that perhaps hot models weren't so wrong after all but we collectively don't know yet.
Climate scientists also try to paddle a bit the doomerism because the worst predictions make normal laypeople tune off (as is evident on a lot of comments on HN about it), ignoring those hot models was also a PR move to not make the general public become disinterested or detached since the outcomes might be much worse than they heard before.
I have quite a few friends doing their PhD in different areas of climate science here in Stockholm, all of them are much more pessimistic than the general public, they also think that bringing this sentiment out will make things worse, in their opinion it's good to give people hope.