So two things spring to mind with this and any doom scenario or predictions:
1. People tend to exaggerate such doom. The reasons for this vary. A lot of the time it's unknowing. It could be as simple as assuming a constant function will remain constant beyond normal boundaries. Or that a dynamic function will continue forever. Or it's sometimes disingenuous (eg to promote a particular agenda or simply to gain more attention through alarmism). Whatever the case, I've found it to be a good policy to ignore doom scenarios; and
2. There's a concept I like that I've heard described as "betting with the Mayans". The Mayan calendar "predicted" the end of the world in 2012. There are two approaches you can take with this: you can bet they're right or bet they're wrong. But simple game theory tells you that you should bet that they're wrong. Why? Because if they're right. It doesn't matter. The only thing you "win" is a brief sense of smug superiority as you suffer the same fate as everyone else. So why bother betting on that outcome?
So let's take this lens to a polarizing issue like climate change. I personally hold all of the following to be true:
1. Man has clearly had an impact on climate, as in a relatively rapid rise in global temperatures, due to CO2 emissions;
2. It's not clear to me that this is entirely man-made (eg higher Solar output). Of course, this may not even matter one way or the other as we still have to deal with the results;
3. Abrupt climate change isn't as rare as people make out. It's happened a ton of times in the last 100,000 years. They're called Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles [1]. This isn't some crackpot fringe publication. This is Nature.
4. At different points in the Earth's history it has been both substantially hotter and colder than it is now;
5. It's likely that climate change is a major contributing factor to what is essentially a mass extinction event that we're undergoing now (most of the rest being human activity and ecosystem destruction).
6. Altruism won't solve carbon emissions. Economics will. Humans are unwilling and incapable of making long term sacrifices for the planet that inconveniences them in any way.
7. I know some reading the above will have an immediate reaction to label me a "denier". That attitude really has no place in scientific discourse.
So I just don't believe we'll have runaway heating as some argue. Why? Because the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years and despite higher temperatures that hasn't happened. I don't think we can definitively describe all the self-correcting processes that have kept Earth within a habitable band for literally billions of years.
But even if I'm wrong, we're screwed anyway because global population won't change and deviate from the current course.
So yeah, worrying about a global collapse in 20 years? That's a hard pass.
> 2. It's not clear to me that this is entirely man-made (eg higher Solar output). Of course, this may not even matter one way or the other as we still have to deal with the results;
Then you should read more widely, because we have been in a sustained period of decreasing solar activity for the last decade[1]. This trend will actually end and become a contributor again some time around 2030. This will be bad, because warming has continued unabated in the mean time and the increased contribution will last for decades.
1. This is true
2. Solar output is at one of its minimums
3. "abrupt" in that case means over the course of decades or centuries, not a few years. Re-read that Nature article, it doesn't say what you think it says.
4. Definitely, Earth will be fine, humans not so much. There are plenty of times in the past few hundred million years where humans would have a rough, or impossible, time surviving.
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Denier or not, you need to read more, starting with the article you linked.
> 4. At different points in the Earth's history it has been both substantially hotter and colder than it is now;
The atoms in your house were much hotter when they were being formed by fusion inside a star, but that doesn't mean you'd be happy about someone committing arson.
I'm saying it's not really relevant whether Earth has experienced higher temperatures before, what matters is how long it will be able to support 8 billion humans for.
My takeaway was that Earth as a system has operated outside of these temperatures and did not result in a runaway effect.
This means that there are self correcting systems that allow Earth to be relatively stable and life bearing for billions of years.
My first thought is that with increase in temperature, you get an increase in plant life which reduces CO2 levels resulting in lower temperatures and less plant life.
1. People tend to exaggerate such doom. The reasons for this vary. A lot of the time it's unknowing. It could be as simple as assuming a constant function will remain constant beyond normal boundaries. Or that a dynamic function will continue forever. Or it's sometimes disingenuous (eg to promote a particular agenda or simply to gain more attention through alarmism). Whatever the case, I've found it to be a good policy to ignore doom scenarios; and
2. There's a concept I like that I've heard described as "betting with the Mayans". The Mayan calendar "predicted" the end of the world in 2012. There are two approaches you can take with this: you can bet they're right or bet they're wrong. But simple game theory tells you that you should bet that they're wrong. Why? Because if they're right. It doesn't matter. The only thing you "win" is a brief sense of smug superiority as you suffer the same fate as everyone else. So why bother betting on that outcome?
So let's take this lens to a polarizing issue like climate change. I personally hold all of the following to be true:
1. Man has clearly had an impact on climate, as in a relatively rapid rise in global temperatures, due to CO2 emissions;
2. It's not clear to me that this is entirely man-made (eg higher Solar output). Of course, this may not even matter one way or the other as we still have to deal with the results;
3. Abrupt climate change isn't as rare as people make out. It's happened a ton of times in the last 100,000 years. They're called Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles [1]. This isn't some crackpot fringe publication. This is Nature.
4. At different points in the Earth's history it has been both substantially hotter and colder than it is now;
5. It's likely that climate change is a major contributing factor to what is essentially a mass extinction event that we're undergoing now (most of the rest being human activity and ecosystem destruction).
6. Altruism won't solve carbon emissions. Economics will. Humans are unwilling and incapable of making long term sacrifices for the planet that inconveniences them in any way.
7. I know some reading the above will have an immediate reaction to label me a "denier". That attitude really has no place in scientific discourse.
So I just don't believe we'll have runaway heating as some argue. Why? Because the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years and despite higher temperatures that hasn't happened. I don't think we can definitively describe all the self-correcting processes that have kept Earth within a habitable band for literally billions of years.
But even if I'm wrong, we're screwed anyway because global population won't change and deviate from the current course.
So yeah, worrying about a global collapse in 20 years? That's a hard pass.
[1]: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-cli...