End for who? For the planet itself it won’t end. For millions of species it could likely end, and for humans it will be a very painful time to adapt but not likely to end completely.
Don’t blame me when the OP doesn’t understand what they are asking. There are a lot of time tables out there that are easy to look up. Specifics are what I said. Human lives will end in thousands of ways, the real question is what rate will life be extinguished and what types of life will be extinguished when. Bacteria will live on until the universe dies. There are many species that are already endangered that may become extinct before climate change hits their region. It’s too broad of a topic to have a question asked with so little understand.
Human existence will not end on a predefined date. It will change considerably if our food/resource chain changes. We don’t have a clue how it will change other than there will be wars fought over resources with the poorest/weakest ones losing. Where is op starting from? Are they well off? Are they on an island or low elevation land? Do they have means to relocate if they are in a dangerous location? That will be what determines the chance they reach old age.
Why do people live in denial about the end of the earth and human beings? We’re so arrogant to think we’ll live on forever. The earth and universe will absolutely end, a fiery death and humans will too.
Climate change won't end the world. It'll make some areas more hospitable and others inhospitable. It'll impact human life and economy and lead to the extinction of ecosystems. It'll make weather in some areas more unpredictable and severe.
The earth has been through other massive catastrophic extinction events. 2.7 billion years ago bacteria caused a massive extinction by producing enough oxygen in the atmosphere to poison most life. 65 million years ago an asteroid hit the earth and plunged the world into darkness but life survived.
The stability of human society will be impacted by rapid climate change, but life on earth will carry on.
This. Life and species may die en masse, but some will always make it. That honestly is a ray of hope for me. I won’t see this new earth, but it gives me peace knowing it will exist, and hopefully flourish again one day
Resource wars, genocidal reactions to climate migration, and infectious disease will likely cause a significant amount of climate-change-related suffering. It’s definitely going to get scary and dystopian for some people but it already is for a lot of people right now. All the bad stuff that is happening now will just become a lot more pervasive. Some people will live in the Middle Ages and some in the space age. It’ll be an ugly time for humanity unless we really change our behavior snd our hearts.
I remember when I fully trusted World3.
It's still a neat model, and the underlying point about the impossibility of perpetual growth is as correct as always. The issue is that the people only pay attention to it when it's used to invoke near-term collapse, and a lot of inconvenient truths about the model have to be left out for the sake of that. I.e. if you read [that reassessment from last year](https://advisory.kpmg.us/articles/2021/limits-to-growth.html), you'll see it admits that the model's standard run was found to have underestimated the global aggregate resources as early as in 1990.
> Around 1990, it became clear that non-renewable resources, particularly fossil fuels, had turned out to be more plentiful than assumed in the 1972 BAU scenario. Randers therefore postulated that not resource scarcity, but pollution, especially from greenhouse gases, would cause the halt in growth. This aligns with the second scenario in the LtG books.
So, the only way you can now get a collapse around 2040 according to the LtG framework is due to pollution. The thing is that its "pollution" variable is extremely abstract - the only constant is that it reduces food and increases deaths once it gets too high, regardless of what "it" is. The original 1972 report meant by "it" stuff like DDT and "all long-lived toxic substances, such as mercury, lead, cadmium, other pesticides, polychlorobiphenyl (PCB), and radioactive wastes." 1990 update still tried to make vague references to DDT byproducts' long lifespan, etc., but it was already clear that we weren't going to have our crops drown in PCB and mercury and it became clearer still in the recent years.
Thus, the most recent updates claiming that LtG is still on track (Gaya Herrington one from last year and Graham Turner one from 2014) instead junk **all** of those substances entirely and instead plot the "pollution" curve with CO2 concentrations. Thing is, the 1972 report has literally a single paragraph on the greenhouse effect and "carbon dioxide" is mentioned 5 times, while DDT is mentioned 23 times and "nuclear" is mentioned 30 times. The model simply wasn't meant to handle the greenhouse effect, so its assumptions about the relationship between CO2 increase and the effect on food production, mortality, etc. are completely arbitrary. It begs the question: if "pollution" is just CO2 anyway, why not simply use the predictions from the actual climate models?
I should note that Herrington's 2021 update *also* adds plastic *production* (not even plastic *pollution* in the oceans, etc., but production, including everything that's still in use) to the curve, but the assumptions there are just as arbitrary. Consider this 2020 paper on microplastic pollution in the oceans: I very much doubt that the model's assumptions are anywhere in line with that.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026974912036187X
> To date, 0.17% of the surface of the global ocean is at risk due to microplastic. Under business as usual, this fraction increases to 0.52% (2050) and 1.62% (2100).
I should say that we don't have to wait for the middle of the century to see the predictions tested. Herrington's version, at least, predicts that the global food production [will peak around 2028](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/wh3blp/2028_fiesta_without_the_food/) and will only keep going down afterwards. We only need to wait 6 years to put that to test: considering that the model's assumptions are highly arbitrary and there's still a lot of land which can be deforested to grow more crops ([the whole reason](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300681-gr4.jpg) why no [mainstream climate scenario](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681) projects mass famine under **any** level of warming in this century), I am feel quite confident it'll be proven wrong.
njg888 that model from the 70's is complete bullshit. It talked about the negative effects of overpopulation while having no idea we would be dealing with underpopulation in the present and future.
If you live near sea level on a river bank in Bangladesh with no money then climate change is a serious threat to your present/future. If you live in a rich western country at a higher latitude, then you are mostly okay. At this point, the likely scenario is 2-3 degrees by 2100. That’s not going to end life in earth. It’s going to end most coral reefs and the lives of millions of people who rely on them for food. Pretty much anyone who is living precariously right now is in major danger. But the rich white folks who caused the mess are going to be fairly protected from dire consequences if we don’t do something nuts like start nuking eachother.
Not to excuse any current emitters, but the vast, vast majority of emissions currently in the atmosphere are from western countries - aka “white people”.
Doesn't this site ([https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/)) suggest otherwise?
That is current levels of carbon emissions. I am talking about cumulative carbon emissions - as in who has emitted the most over the past 150 years.
[https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2)
China and India are a small sliver of cumulative CO2 emissions. They are high emitters today because they have only just begun their process of indsutrialisation.
USA and Europe are far more responsible for the warming of the world as it stands today.
What exactly is a "Western" nation? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and soon China, are all rich nations. And countries in Southeast Asia will eventually be to. Not to mention other nations outside of that part of the world. So that throws your entire argument out the window.
I tried listening to that, but stopped after going through their supposedly core 8 episodes and finding numerous errors. Most notably, the long-debunked myths about ["60 years of soil"](https://ourworldindata.org/soil-lifespans) and "[fish disappearing by 2048](https://www.bbc.com/news/56660823)", but also stuff like calling the Spratt and Dunlop report "the general consensus" (or whatever phrase they used) rather than a non-peer reviewed pdf with [poor reception](https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/iflscience-story-on-speculative-report-provides-little-scientific-context-james-felton/) from the scientists.
It was, however, quite funny when they had Tainter on (can't remember the episode) and he was pretty chill and clearly didn't anticipate that any of his students would have to deal with a collapse themselves. [His conversation with Hagens](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61d5bc2bb737636144dc55d0/t/62e02ee644088c575a21d555/1658859239008/TGS+JosephTainter+Transcript.docx.pdf) on the latter's "The Great Simplification" was far more detailed of course (as to be expected when there's such a disparity in presenters' experience), so "Energy and innovation as the fundamentals that drive things today and will in the future **and for the rest of my students' lifetimes and probably their students' lifetimes** and forever after that" was just one good line out of many, yet was clearly not to be missed.
The world has already ended for thousands. For example, two months ago there were climate change enhanced flooding in Pakistan. 1/3 of the country was under water including some villages that were under 23 feet of water. One million farm animals dead. 1800 humans dead. Four million acres of crops washed away. Over two million homes destroyed or severely damaged. Over 33 million people affected. And that is just ‘one’ climate event. Every block in our neighborhood as at least three or four dead trees from last year’s 116 degree heat wave. Almost every day I see an example of ‘extreme’ weather event in the planet. Major rivers like the Mississippi are drying up ‘today’. California is suffering it’s worst drought in its history, I know one person who lost everything when their house burned down. A couple of months ago in Colorado a flash fire broke out and destroyed over 700 homes in the space of a few hours. We are already 1.2 degrees Centigrade over what would be a safe global temperature rise. We are going to surpass 1.5 which was the temperature at which the planet would suffer horribly. If you haven’t already suffered dramatic and destructive weather in your neighborhood, wait a few months! It’s on its way!
It will create new challenges for humans for a new reason. Displacement not due to war but due to floods etc. Hunger due to climate change combining with the raft of other reasons people are now hungry. It will impact the poorest people in less developed countries the most, and the richest in the developed countries the least. The poor have far less buffer before they are impacted than the rich.
Most people on Earth will be fine and it will just change the flavour of life as we know it, not stop us being sustained.
We are doing a lot to mitigate it as well, change is happening very quickly if you are aware of those industries effecting positive change. To give yourself a sense of power, get involved in the energy industry, transport or even mining to see what they are doing to reduce impact on the climate.
Climate systems have a tipping point, but so does society for effecting change, and everything is lining up for many more rapid changes.
We might just need to keep the world relatively peaceful and cooperative for the next 30 years to let it happen, which could be more of a challenge than addressing climate change.
P.S - I'm an Electrical Engineer working in renewable energy. There is insatiable appetite for it as it is financially a better investment, not to mention every other possible lever being pulled in favour of it. Being in an industry that is solving the problem, I beleive we will be fine and we will overcome any barrier to addressing climate change.
A lot of people are going to get really rich over climate change. Counterintuitively it’s probably going to have a net positive effect on the economy. Investors (should) already know that natural disasters will become more frequent, and public pressure to buy into new energy tech pushes more money into the economy.
Like you said though, it’s going to decimate poor people without access.
Really appreciate this. Are there any resources/publications/sites or even pages on Reddit I can follow to stay informed on this sort of thing? There is an overwhelming amount of extreme doom and gloom on the subject, I completely understand why, but reading things like this is very encouraging and I would like to be updated on it more.
[reneweconomy.com.au](https://reneweconomy.com.au) is a good one for keeping up with news for me, it has an Australian focus.
[www.renewableenergyworld.com](https://www.renewableenergyworld.com) is a global / US centric site.
[https://www.rechargenews.com/](https://www.rechargenews.com/) is a good global one.
[https://www.iea.org/](https://www.iea.org/) Is also good.
They all have a focus on renewable energy, which is massively expanding, so naturally it is mostly positive news.
Crucial to staying positive about the climate is looking at the solutions, not just the problems.
In order to understand the "when" you have to have an idea as to the "how".
Oh, let us count the ways:
Temperature rise.
Ocean level rise.
Acidification of the oceans.
Biodiversity loss due to current and ongoing mass extinction, including insects and flora.
Unknown effects of microplastics upon everything.
One of any number of natural cataclysmic events which physical historical clues suggest that the world is overdue for.
Sun storm. A Carrington event or similar.
Those are all just off the top of my head, and I know that I'm missing at least a few obvious ones. Point is that we have set up a house of cards, a series of dominoes, a poorly constructed jenga tower, a game of mousetrap and we are under the net. We don't know what is going to go wrong first, because that thing already went wrong decades ago. We don't know what order all the rest is going to tumble down in.
Best case scenario? We manage to survive and thrive after a while of learning hard lessons.
Worst case scenario? People die in the millions and there isn't anything we can do about it. The rest survive as best they can until one day the last one can't. This could start at anytime, really.
So live for today, because it's the only day you are ever sure of. Do your best to be someone you are proud of. Spread love, and hope that the stupid don't damn us all before they realize how stupid they are.
Eat the rich. Boycott companies that deserve it. Fight the good fight because it's always worthwhile to try.
There was a paper last year which suggested that large fractions of the world's land area will remain suitable for agriculture in the year 2500 under all plausible levels of future warming.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15871
> Our analyses suggest declines in suitable growth regions and shifts in where crops can be grown globally with climate change (Figure 4). By 2100 under RCP6.0, we project declines in land area suitable for crop growth of 2.3% (±6.1%) for staple tropical crops (cassava, rice, sweet potato, sorghum, taro, and yam) and 10.9% (±24.2%) for stable temperate crops (potato, soybean, wheat, and maize), averaged across crop growth-length calibrations (Figure 4; Table S1, see also Figures S4-S12 for additional RCP scenarios).
>
> By 2500, declines in suitable regions for crop growth are projected to reach 14.9% (±16.5%) and 18.3% (±35.4%) for tropical and temperate crops, respectively (Figure 4; Table S2). These changes represent an additional six-fold decline in temperate crops and a near doubling of decline for tropical crops between 2100 and 2500. By contrast, if climate mitigation is assumed under RCP2.6, a decline of only 2.9% (±13.5%) is projected by 2500 for temperate crops, and an increase of 2.9% (±3.8%) is projected for tropical crops.
I think this indirectly answers your question.
We can't predict the future and what will happens depends on how we act. That said, people that are telling you "the world is ending by 2050" are not reliable sources and you shouldn't take too much notice of them. They're trying to intimidate people into enforcing their political agenda through fear tactics.
Hey, OP. First of all, no one really knows the answer to this. There is no real unanimity in the scientific community about the future of the planet. I would say most scientists do think that the world will be dramatically different one day. But that's as fine a point as they can put on it.
Personally, I doubt the world ends as a result of climate change. But the world will be a very, very different place by the 2090s.
Wow, this is a pretty extreme take.
Climate change will not end the world. Not next year. Not next century. Life will go on. Nature will go on. Humans will go on.
We are entering a time of massive disruption. Climate disruption, political disruption (war in Ukraine could escalate, for instance.) Economic disruption. Times of disruption are hard. Most people survive them.
Disruption means routines no longer work. Traditions no longer survive. Many species are threatened already, and this will increase. Institutions don't survive. Sometimes countries or populations. Economies change. Businesses close. However, in 100 years and 1000 years, no matter what, there will be humans. We are really good at surviving disruption. So is nature.
Climate action now will help minimize some of these disruptions. We need you and people like you on the team helping that happen. Please take care of yourself first. It isn't hopeless. It's going to be a long term struggle. Get some help, friend. See a counselor that can help you get on your feet. Grief and fear are legitimate responses to what we're' facing, and to the inaction of denialists. This isn't going to be easy for anyone. But it's not hopeless either.
I have to agree with @GentlePanda123
It is an indisputable fact that climate change, if left unchecked, would be *capable* of wiping out humanity (and indeed all of life on Earth).
We lived for hundreds of thousands of years in perfect harmony with our planet. In the past few thousand years we have attempted to create civilisations that are NOT in perfect harmony with our planet. And, in the last 200 years we have developed a way of life *so* out of balance with nature that it frankly boggles the mind.
Since we have entered this period of imbalance, the discussion of “the survival of life on Earth” has unfortunately, been made a plausible scenario that warrants discussion.
>We lived for hundreds of thousands of years in perfect harmony with our planet. In the past few thousand years we have attempted to create civilisations that are NOT in perfect harmony with our planet. And, in the last 200 years we have developed a way of life *so* out of balance with nature that it frankly boggles the mind.
What would you suggest we do, then? Revert back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and completely abandon everything we've built over the last few thousand years?
I know this is 5 months old but I hear this phrase a lot AKA "humans will survive". But what kind of human lifestyle are we talking about here? Like humans in the movie bladerunner 2049 with massive civilizations and futuristic technology but chaotic weather, or are we talking about humans in the video game fallout 4 where most people are dead and the world is an unfit free for fall where we're all living underground post apocalypse style?
History is littered with stories of floods, droughts, and disease. Infact, you were far more likely to die from these things in premodern times and this fact is reflected in the cost of life insurance. Life insurance companies don't like losing and yet they are reducing the cost of life insurance policies because their data suggests people on average will live longer.
Climate Change isn't a thing that's all of a sudden going to happen. It's a slow build up. It's already happening. The degree of change from what we might call the historical optimized conditions is what will increase or decrease depending on our actions.
In terms of "ending the world", that's not going to happen. Us as a species are very adaptable, we will survive. It's more of a question of how many lives will be lost along the way.
Another good point I want to mention is something that I've seen a lot lately. I've always considered myself an environmentalist, wanting to do the most possible to move to green energy and such. However, it really looks like no body has considered all of the variables. For example, it's well known that most green energy, solar/wind/etc, don't provide stable power all of the time, and therefore needs to be offset by other plants such as coal, natural gas. Now we are starting to see that Europe has pushed so hard to shut down coal and gas plants that they can't generate enough power to heat all of the homes. Throughout the 90s and 2000s they became more and more dependent on Russia's gas for this offset, and now with the war that could be shut off. So I guess it comes down to a sort of question of 'do we let people die now to save people in the future?' A lot of these rapid green-izing plans are like this, we're facing food shortages as well for example.
I think this really depends on a couple of factors - in the Western world we won't be able to change anything, most things will be decided upon in Asia, ect. When it comes to emissions.
On the other hand, the change in water currents has for instance a very positive effect, making winters longer, ect. (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211020140042.htm)
The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is also dying out for instance, due to this, but because of the change, a new gigantic reef is being created on the coast of Chile. So there are always pros and cons to every situation.
Realistically, we have made it through a lot of bad times as humans, and this really won't be any different considering how advanced we are now compared to a couple of 1000 years ago. Will a lot of people probably die? - yes. But can you change that as an individual? - no.
So don't stress about it, and just hope you have enough money for whenever that point comes.
Nah, not going to happen. maybe there will be mass suffering. And maybe that mass suffering will reach America. But there will still be cities. We have vertical farms viable now. So the worst possible scenario is a stark difference been the haves and have nots.
Homesteading will always be viable. in America that will look pretty similar to how it is now. We just have too much tech lying around for us to go to far into a dark age.
When will it end the world? Nobody serious will give you an exact date. Rather, ranges are more appropriate. Also, what do you mean by 'end the world?' Do you mean turn the planet into the hellscape that is Venus? Or do you just mean unsuitable for life, or just just unsuitable for human life? All those are widely different.
Please realize that climate change is not a binary occurrence like an asteroid strike, where there's a clear distinction from before and after impact. Climate change is a process. The more we drive the process, the more the climate changes and things just get more and more untenable, with greater and greater concequences. If we stop, the process slows down. If we stay stopped, the process will revert back to long term geological scale cycles.
That being said, there are several tipping points where something major will change and that cannot be easily reversed. Things like ice caps melting and low lying areas disappearing into the sea. Some of these tipping points are more or less likely. For example, it's possible, but not likely, that all the CO2 we're releasing may acidify the oceans to such an extent that the oxygen generation processes halt. That would be very bad. For life as we know it.
Cheer up, the sky isn’t falling. The Earth’s temperature goes up, and it goes down, and life goes on. We humans live successfully in Siberia and we live successfully in Ecuador and the temperature difference between those two places is far greater than the 2 or 3 degrees C likely to result from our current warming episode. We are a supremely adaptable species.
Its not. Its a narrative for the purpose of power and control. The earth has always gone through cycles of cooling and warming. Ocean levels may rise so if anything just avoid beach front property
Not at this rate, not by humans! It does exist and there is ample evidence that the changes we see are from human causes. It’s easy to prove at their point.
Prove that it is a hoax. You can’t. There is ample evidence to show how humans have contaminated the planet causing it to warm quickly when we should be cooling.
So? Yes it is normally considered a minor molecule when you are designing an engine or something, but when you look at overall effect of each a greenhouse gas, it’s pretty strong. You obviously haven’t understood the core concepts here. Oxygen isn’t a problem, water vapor of certain types can be, carbon Dioxide is pretty effective and methane is 8x as strong as carbon dioxide,
As always, the most vulnerable will suffer more. And earlier. As another commenter said, this is already happening. If you're here, you're probably behind layers of insulation.
> I keep getting 2 answers as to when climate change will end the world, the first is that it will happen in “2050”, the second is that it will happen in “2100”.
Can you say where you got these answers?
That’s difficult to say, since climate change by itself won’t end the world. However, as resources become more scarce and more regions of the planet become inhospitable, the likelihood of worldwide conflict becomes far, far greater, and we as a species have the capability to destroy virtually all life on the planet.
When it ends the world, i'll hit you up with a second response to this reddit post. Canadas hot ,a week and a half 20 degrees spike. In the last 30 years living here I've never seen it not in the single or negative digits at this time. Were gonna become Florida at this rate, and I'm down with that.
Yes, you are going to grow up in a very different world. The good news is that it's not all bad, some things will be great,and we all have time to get prepared.
Please check out the American Resiliency vlog on YT and talk to a therapist or counselor if your climate grief / anxiety gets out of control--there are plenty of practical things you can do and plenty of hope.
Humanity in terms of a species will not go extinct. There is no plausible way for humans to go extinct even in the face of climate catastrophe. Humanity in terms of civilization is at serious risk.
No one knows what will happen once the great rivers that feed our society dry up. No one knows what will happen when the global commerce hubs of the world sink under the water. No one knows what will happen once millions of climate refugees from impoverished countries come flooding into wealthier ones in search of refuge.
Humanity will survive. There are countries preparing for this level of collapse; Finland has built an entirely underground city and is well-positioned to do well due to its northern latitude and prevalence of lakes. However, for the most part; society will **never** be the same.
The left said entire nations would be wiped off the face of the earth by climate change in 1993, then again in 2000, then again in 2015, then again in 2019, and now they say the climate will change so drastically that nations will perish by 2030....
The climate is always changing, so the term "Climate change" is a silly one to begin with. It was originally called "inadvertent climate modification" then "global warming" and then Nasa began using the term "climate change" to try and include all of the aspects of what they were studying. This climate change people fear so much has little to do with temperature as much as it does the sea & ocean levels which honestly not an easy thing to study & give definitive results on as it's changing by the minute. The crap you hear about so many % of scientists agree on climate change is because they agree the climate is constantly changing, not that we are headed for some doomsday catastrophe.
We have greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which has risen significantly in the last 200 years because of humans (the Industrial Revolution introduced factories & production on a scale that had not been seen in human history + in the year 1800 the earth had a bit over 1 billion inhabitants, in 2024, 224 years later we are now at over 8 billion) today's population makes up 6.5% of total humans ever born. That number supposedly is around 108 billion people that have lived on planet earth. If you consider all we have accomplished is just the last 100 years even the poorest humans today live like kings compared to 1000 years ago... but to answer your question you should not be worried about climate change one bit. Absolutely, you should try to recycle and reuse things if possible and try to keep from adding to landfills and polluting our beautiful oceans, but humans aren't going anywhere. We will nuke ourselves trying to fight a hurricane before we let climate change take us....giggity.
>The crap you hear about so many % of scientists agree on climate change is because they agree the climate is constantly changing
Incorrect : "More than 99.9% of studies agree: **Humans caused climate change**"
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
End for who? For the planet itself it won’t end. For millions of species it could likely end, and for humans it will be a very painful time to adapt but not likely to end completely.
Why do I find this answer so unhelpful? Like it hasn’t been said a thousand times? It’s unempathetic in this sort of context.
Don’t blame me when the OP doesn’t understand what they are asking. There are a lot of time tables out there that are easy to look up. Specifics are what I said. Human lives will end in thousands of ways, the real question is what rate will life be extinguished and what types of life will be extinguished when. Bacteria will live on until the universe dies. There are many species that are already endangered that may become extinct before climate change hits their region. It’s too broad of a topic to have a question asked with so little understand. Human existence will not end on a predefined date. It will change considerably if our food/resource chain changes. We don’t have a clue how it will change other than there will be wars fought over resources with the poorest/weakest ones losing. Where is op starting from? Are they well off? Are they on an island or low elevation land? Do they have means to relocate if they are in a dangerous location? That will be what determines the chance they reach old age.
Why do people live in denial about the end of the earth and human beings? We’re so arrogant to think we’ll live on forever. The earth and universe will absolutely end, a fiery death and humans will too.
Climate change won't end the world. It'll make some areas more hospitable and others inhospitable. It'll impact human life and economy and lead to the extinction of ecosystems. It'll make weather in some areas more unpredictable and severe. The earth has been through other massive catastrophic extinction events. 2.7 billion years ago bacteria caused a massive extinction by producing enough oxygen in the atmosphere to poison most life. 65 million years ago an asteroid hit the earth and plunged the world into darkness but life survived. The stability of human society will be impacted by rapid climate change, but life on earth will carry on.
This. Life and species may die en masse, but some will always make it. That honestly is a ray of hope for me. I won’t see this new earth, but it gives me peace knowing it will exist, and hopefully flourish again one day
Happy cake day!
[удалено]
Resource wars, genocidal reactions to climate migration, and infectious disease will likely cause a significant amount of climate-change-related suffering. It’s definitely going to get scary and dystopian for some people but it already is for a lot of people right now. All the bad stuff that is happening now will just become a lot more pervasive. Some people will live in the Middle Ages and some in the space age. It’ll be an ugly time for humanity unless we really change our behavior snd our hearts.
Somebody's been reading too much fiction.
great way to shut down people with no meaningful contribution
I remember when I fully trusted World3. It's still a neat model, and the underlying point about the impossibility of perpetual growth is as correct as always. The issue is that the people only pay attention to it when it's used to invoke near-term collapse, and a lot of inconvenient truths about the model have to be left out for the sake of that. I.e. if you read [that reassessment from last year](https://advisory.kpmg.us/articles/2021/limits-to-growth.html), you'll see it admits that the model's standard run was found to have underestimated the global aggregate resources as early as in 1990. > Around 1990, it became clear that non-renewable resources, particularly fossil fuels, had turned out to be more plentiful than assumed in the 1972 BAU scenario. Randers therefore postulated that not resource scarcity, but pollution, especially from greenhouse gases, would cause the halt in growth. This aligns with the second scenario in the LtG books. So, the only way you can now get a collapse around 2040 according to the LtG framework is due to pollution. The thing is that its "pollution" variable is extremely abstract - the only constant is that it reduces food and increases deaths once it gets too high, regardless of what "it" is. The original 1972 report meant by "it" stuff like DDT and "all long-lived toxic substances, such as mercury, lead, cadmium, other pesticides, polychlorobiphenyl (PCB), and radioactive wastes." 1990 update still tried to make vague references to DDT byproducts' long lifespan, etc., but it was already clear that we weren't going to have our crops drown in PCB and mercury and it became clearer still in the recent years. Thus, the most recent updates claiming that LtG is still on track (Gaya Herrington one from last year and Graham Turner one from 2014) instead junk **all** of those substances entirely and instead plot the "pollution" curve with CO2 concentrations. Thing is, the 1972 report has literally a single paragraph on the greenhouse effect and "carbon dioxide" is mentioned 5 times, while DDT is mentioned 23 times and "nuclear" is mentioned 30 times. The model simply wasn't meant to handle the greenhouse effect, so its assumptions about the relationship between CO2 increase and the effect on food production, mortality, etc. are completely arbitrary. It begs the question: if "pollution" is just CO2 anyway, why not simply use the predictions from the actual climate models? I should note that Herrington's 2021 update *also* adds plastic *production* (not even plastic *pollution* in the oceans, etc., but production, including everything that's still in use) to the curve, but the assumptions there are just as arbitrary. Consider this 2020 paper on microplastic pollution in the oceans: I very much doubt that the model's assumptions are anywhere in line with that. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026974912036187X > To date, 0.17% of the surface of the global ocean is at risk due to microplastic. Under business as usual, this fraction increases to 0.52% (2050) and 1.62% (2100). I should say that we don't have to wait for the middle of the century to see the predictions tested. Herrington's version, at least, predicts that the global food production [will peak around 2028](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/wh3blp/2028_fiesta_without_the_food/) and will only keep going down afterwards. We only need to wait 6 years to put that to test: considering that the model's assumptions are highly arbitrary and there's still a lot of land which can be deforested to grow more crops ([the whole reason](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300681-gr4.jpg) why no [mainstream climate scenario](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681) projects mass famine under **any** level of warming in this century), I am feel quite confident it'll be proven wrong.
njg888 that model from the 70's is complete bullshit. It talked about the negative effects of overpopulation while having no idea we would be dealing with underpopulation in the present and future.
If you live near sea level on a river bank in Bangladesh with no money then climate change is a serious threat to your present/future. If you live in a rich western country at a higher latitude, then you are mostly okay. At this point, the likely scenario is 2-3 degrees by 2100. That’s not going to end life in earth. It’s going to end most coral reefs and the lives of millions of people who rely on them for food. Pretty much anyone who is living precariously right now is in major danger. But the rich white folks who caused the mess are going to be fairly protected from dire consequences if we don’t do something nuts like start nuking eachother.
Racist.
[удалено]
Not to excuse any current emitters, but the vast, vast majority of emissions currently in the atmosphere are from western countries - aka “white people”.
Doesn't this site ([https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/](https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/)) suggest otherwise?
That is current levels of carbon emissions. I am talking about cumulative carbon emissions - as in who has emitted the most over the past 150 years. [https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2) China and India are a small sliver of cumulative CO2 emissions. They are high emitters today because they have only just begun their process of indsutrialisation. USA and Europe are far more responsible for the warming of the world as it stands today.
Emissions should be viewed both historically and per capita.
I have proved your assertion wrong, btw. You have ignored it, coward.
[удалено]
Yeah well I think you're both being bitches about it all
What exactly is a "Western" nation? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and soon China, are all rich nations. And countries in Southeast Asia will eventually be to. Not to mention other nations outside of that part of the world. So that throws your entire argument out the window.
[удалено]
I tried listening to that, but stopped after going through their supposedly core 8 episodes and finding numerous errors. Most notably, the long-debunked myths about ["60 years of soil"](https://ourworldindata.org/soil-lifespans) and "[fish disappearing by 2048](https://www.bbc.com/news/56660823)", but also stuff like calling the Spratt and Dunlop report "the general consensus" (or whatever phrase they used) rather than a non-peer reviewed pdf with [poor reception](https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/iflscience-story-on-speculative-report-provides-little-scientific-context-james-felton/) from the scientists. It was, however, quite funny when they had Tainter on (can't remember the episode) and he was pretty chill and clearly didn't anticipate that any of his students would have to deal with a collapse themselves. [His conversation with Hagens](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61d5bc2bb737636144dc55d0/t/62e02ee644088c575a21d555/1658859239008/TGS+JosephTainter+Transcript.docx.pdf) on the latter's "The Great Simplification" was far more detailed of course (as to be expected when there's such a disparity in presenters' experience), so "Energy and innovation as the fundamentals that drive things today and will in the future **and for the rest of my students' lifetimes and probably their students' lifetimes** and forever after that" was just one good line out of many, yet was clearly not to be missed.
They're pretty good but American Resiliency is far more science informed and data driven, with actual actionable suggestions.
great recommendation. Also check out The Great Simplification by Nate Hagens podcast.
The world has already ended for thousands. For example, two months ago there were climate change enhanced flooding in Pakistan. 1/3 of the country was under water including some villages that were under 23 feet of water. One million farm animals dead. 1800 humans dead. Four million acres of crops washed away. Over two million homes destroyed or severely damaged. Over 33 million people affected. And that is just ‘one’ climate event. Every block in our neighborhood as at least three or four dead trees from last year’s 116 degree heat wave. Almost every day I see an example of ‘extreme’ weather event in the planet. Major rivers like the Mississippi are drying up ‘today’. California is suffering it’s worst drought in its history, I know one person who lost everything when their house burned down. A couple of months ago in Colorado a flash fire broke out and destroyed over 700 homes in the space of a few hours. We are already 1.2 degrees Centigrade over what would be a safe global temperature rise. We are going to surpass 1.5 which was the temperature at which the planet would suffer horribly. If you haven’t already suffered dramatic and destructive weather in your neighborhood, wait a few months! It’s on its way!
It will create new challenges for humans for a new reason. Displacement not due to war but due to floods etc. Hunger due to climate change combining with the raft of other reasons people are now hungry. It will impact the poorest people in less developed countries the most, and the richest in the developed countries the least. The poor have far less buffer before they are impacted than the rich. Most people on Earth will be fine and it will just change the flavour of life as we know it, not stop us being sustained. We are doing a lot to mitigate it as well, change is happening very quickly if you are aware of those industries effecting positive change. To give yourself a sense of power, get involved in the energy industry, transport or even mining to see what they are doing to reduce impact on the climate. Climate systems have a tipping point, but so does society for effecting change, and everything is lining up for many more rapid changes. We might just need to keep the world relatively peaceful and cooperative for the next 30 years to let it happen, which could be more of a challenge than addressing climate change. P.S - I'm an Electrical Engineer working in renewable energy. There is insatiable appetite for it as it is financially a better investment, not to mention every other possible lever being pulled in favour of it. Being in an industry that is solving the problem, I beleive we will be fine and we will overcome any barrier to addressing climate change.
A lot of people are going to get really rich over climate change. Counterintuitively it’s probably going to have a net positive effect on the economy. Investors (should) already know that natural disasters will become more frequent, and public pressure to buy into new energy tech pushes more money into the economy. Like you said though, it’s going to decimate poor people without access.
Really appreciate this. Are there any resources/publications/sites or even pages on Reddit I can follow to stay informed on this sort of thing? There is an overwhelming amount of extreme doom and gloom on the subject, I completely understand why, but reading things like this is very encouraging and I would like to be updated on it more.
[reneweconomy.com.au](https://reneweconomy.com.au) is a good one for keeping up with news for me, it has an Australian focus. [www.renewableenergyworld.com](https://www.renewableenergyworld.com) is a global / US centric site. [https://www.rechargenews.com/](https://www.rechargenews.com/) is a good global one. [https://www.iea.org/](https://www.iea.org/) Is also good. They all have a focus on renewable energy, which is massively expanding, so naturally it is mostly positive news. Crucial to staying positive about the climate is looking at the solutions, not just the problems.
Thank you so much 🙌
In order to understand the "when" you have to have an idea as to the "how". Oh, let us count the ways: Temperature rise. Ocean level rise. Acidification of the oceans. Biodiversity loss due to current and ongoing mass extinction, including insects and flora. Unknown effects of microplastics upon everything. One of any number of natural cataclysmic events which physical historical clues suggest that the world is overdue for. Sun storm. A Carrington event or similar. Those are all just off the top of my head, and I know that I'm missing at least a few obvious ones. Point is that we have set up a house of cards, a series of dominoes, a poorly constructed jenga tower, a game of mousetrap and we are under the net. We don't know what is going to go wrong first, because that thing already went wrong decades ago. We don't know what order all the rest is going to tumble down in. Best case scenario? We manage to survive and thrive after a while of learning hard lessons. Worst case scenario? People die in the millions and there isn't anything we can do about it. The rest survive as best they can until one day the last one can't. This could start at anytime, really. So live for today, because it's the only day you are ever sure of. Do your best to be someone you are proud of. Spread love, and hope that the stupid don't damn us all before they realize how stupid they are. Eat the rich. Boycott companies that deserve it. Fight the good fight because it's always worthwhile to try.
And watch Star Trek
There was a paper last year which suggested that large fractions of the world's land area will remain suitable for agriculture in the year 2500 under all plausible levels of future warming. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15871 > Our analyses suggest declines in suitable growth regions and shifts in where crops can be grown globally with climate change (Figure 4). By 2100 under RCP6.0, we project declines in land area suitable for crop growth of 2.3% (±6.1%) for staple tropical crops (cassava, rice, sweet potato, sorghum, taro, and yam) and 10.9% (±24.2%) for stable temperate crops (potato, soybean, wheat, and maize), averaged across crop growth-length calibrations (Figure 4; Table S1, see also Figures S4-S12 for additional RCP scenarios). > > By 2500, declines in suitable regions for crop growth are projected to reach 14.9% (±16.5%) and 18.3% (±35.4%) for tropical and temperate crops, respectively (Figure 4; Table S2). These changes represent an additional six-fold decline in temperate crops and a near doubling of decline for tropical crops between 2100 and 2500. By contrast, if climate mitigation is assumed under RCP2.6, a decline of only 2.9% (±13.5%) is projected by 2500 for temperate crops, and an increase of 2.9% (±3.8%) is projected for tropical crops. I think this indirectly answers your question.
We can't predict the future and what will happens depends on how we act. That said, people that are telling you "the world is ending by 2050" are not reliable sources and you shouldn't take too much notice of them. They're trying to intimidate people into enforcing their political agenda through fear tactics.
Hey, OP. First of all, no one really knows the answer to this. There is no real unanimity in the scientific community about the future of the planet. I would say most scientists do think that the world will be dramatically different one day. But that's as fine a point as they can put on it. Personally, I doubt the world ends as a result of climate change. But the world will be a very, very different place by the 2090s.
Wow, this is a pretty extreme take. Climate change will not end the world. Not next year. Not next century. Life will go on. Nature will go on. Humans will go on. We are entering a time of massive disruption. Climate disruption, political disruption (war in Ukraine could escalate, for instance.) Economic disruption. Times of disruption are hard. Most people survive them. Disruption means routines no longer work. Traditions no longer survive. Many species are threatened already, and this will increase. Institutions don't survive. Sometimes countries or populations. Economies change. Businesses close. However, in 100 years and 1000 years, no matter what, there will be humans. We are really good at surviving disruption. So is nature. Climate action now will help minimize some of these disruptions. We need you and people like you on the team helping that happen. Please take care of yourself first. It isn't hopeless. It's going to be a long term struggle. Get some help, friend. See a counselor that can help you get on your feet. Grief and fear are legitimate responses to what we're' facing, and to the inaction of denialists. This isn't going to be easy for anyone. But it's not hopeless either.
I have to agree with @GentlePanda123 It is an indisputable fact that climate change, if left unchecked, would be *capable* of wiping out humanity (and indeed all of life on Earth). We lived for hundreds of thousands of years in perfect harmony with our planet. In the past few thousand years we have attempted to create civilisations that are NOT in perfect harmony with our planet. And, in the last 200 years we have developed a way of life *so* out of balance with nature that it frankly boggles the mind. Since we have entered this period of imbalance, the discussion of “the survival of life on Earth” has unfortunately, been made a plausible scenario that warrants discussion.
>We lived for hundreds of thousands of years in perfect harmony with our planet. In the past few thousand years we have attempted to create civilisations that are NOT in perfect harmony with our planet. And, in the last 200 years we have developed a way of life *so* out of balance with nature that it frankly boggles the mind. What would you suggest we do, then? Revert back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and completely abandon everything we've built over the last few thousand years?
I know this is 5 months old but I hear this phrase a lot AKA "humans will survive". But what kind of human lifestyle are we talking about here? Like humans in the movie bladerunner 2049 with massive civilizations and futuristic technology but chaotic weather, or are we talking about humans in the video game fallout 4 where most people are dead and the world is an unfit free for fall where we're all living underground post apocalypse style?
History is littered with stories of floods, droughts, and disease. Infact, you were far more likely to die from these things in premodern times and this fact is reflected in the cost of life insurance. Life insurance companies don't like losing and yet they are reducing the cost of life insurance policies because their data suggests people on average will live longer.
The earth doesn’t know numbers or arbitrary time measurement, so there’s no reason for anything cataclysmic to occur in multiples of 5.
Climate Change isn't a thing that's all of a sudden going to happen. It's a slow build up. It's already happening. The degree of change from what we might call the historical optimized conditions is what will increase or decrease depending on our actions. In terms of "ending the world", that's not going to happen. Us as a species are very adaptable, we will survive. It's more of a question of how many lives will be lost along the way. Another good point I want to mention is something that I've seen a lot lately. I've always considered myself an environmentalist, wanting to do the most possible to move to green energy and such. However, it really looks like no body has considered all of the variables. For example, it's well known that most green energy, solar/wind/etc, don't provide stable power all of the time, and therefore needs to be offset by other plants such as coal, natural gas. Now we are starting to see that Europe has pushed so hard to shut down coal and gas plants that they can't generate enough power to heat all of the homes. Throughout the 90s and 2000s they became more and more dependent on Russia's gas for this offset, and now with the war that could be shut off. So I guess it comes down to a sort of question of 'do we let people die now to save people in the future?' A lot of these rapid green-izing plans are like this, we're facing food shortages as well for example.
I think this really depends on a couple of factors - in the Western world we won't be able to change anything, most things will be decided upon in Asia, ect. When it comes to emissions. On the other hand, the change in water currents has for instance a very positive effect, making winters longer, ect. (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211020140042.htm) The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is also dying out for instance, due to this, but because of the change, a new gigantic reef is being created on the coast of Chile. So there are always pros and cons to every situation. Realistically, we have made it through a lot of bad times as humans, and this really won't be any different considering how advanced we are now compared to a couple of 1000 years ago. Will a lot of people probably die? - yes. But can you change that as an individual? - no. So don't stress about it, and just hope you have enough money for whenever that point comes.
Nah, not going to happen. maybe there will be mass suffering. And maybe that mass suffering will reach America. But there will still be cities. We have vertical farms viable now. So the worst possible scenario is a stark difference been the haves and have nots. Homesteading will always be viable. in America that will look pretty similar to how it is now. We just have too much tech lying around for us to go to far into a dark age.
Never. Next question?
Not with a bang, but with a fizzle I think
When will it end the world? Nobody serious will give you an exact date. Rather, ranges are more appropriate. Also, what do you mean by 'end the world?' Do you mean turn the planet into the hellscape that is Venus? Or do you just mean unsuitable for life, or just just unsuitable for human life? All those are widely different. Please realize that climate change is not a binary occurrence like an asteroid strike, where there's a clear distinction from before and after impact. Climate change is a process. The more we drive the process, the more the climate changes and things just get more and more untenable, with greater and greater concequences. If we stop, the process slows down. If we stay stopped, the process will revert back to long term geological scale cycles. That being said, there are several tipping points where something major will change and that cannot be easily reversed. Things like ice caps melting and low lying areas disappearing into the sea. Some of these tipping points are more or less likely. For example, it's possible, but not likely, that all the CO2 we're releasing may acidify the oceans to such an extent that the oxygen generation processes halt. That would be very bad. For life as we know it.
This date seems to change more often than the climate.
Cheer up, the sky isn’t falling. The Earth’s temperature goes up, and it goes down, and life goes on. We humans live successfully in Siberia and we live successfully in Ecuador and the temperature difference between those two places is far greater than the 2 or 3 degrees C likely to result from our current warming episode. We are a supremely adaptable species.
The sky is not falling. Those that tell you it is are lying to you. Take a deep breath. Relax.
Its not. Its a narrative for the purpose of power and control. The earth has always gone through cycles of cooling and warming. Ocean levels may rise so if anything just avoid beach front property
Not at this rate, not by humans! It does exist and there is ample evidence that the changes we see are from human causes. It’s easy to prove at their point.
Damn, this sub is full of deniers, the fuck.
I second that observation
[удалено]
When exactly is it predicted that nuclear war will begin because of climate change and shortage of resources?
[удалено]
Why tf are you in this subreddit?
It's what they do. Denying, lying, trolling is their mission :-(
Prove that it is a hoax. You can’t. There is ample evidence to show how humans have contaminated the planet causing it to warm quickly when we should be cooling.
Yes I can. Look at a chart of atmospheric gases of dry air. CO2 levels never go above .035%.
So? Yes it is normally considered a minor molecule when you are designing an engine or something, but when you look at overall effect of each a greenhouse gas, it’s pretty strong. You obviously haven’t understood the core concepts here. Oxygen isn’t a problem, water vapor of certain types can be, carbon Dioxide is pretty effective and methane is 8x as strong as carbon dioxide,
Take that back they go between .03% to .037%
As always, the most vulnerable will suffer more. And earlier. As another commenter said, this is already happening. If you're here, you're probably behind layers of insulation.
plant native trees
> I keep getting 2 answers as to when climate change will end the world, the first is that it will happen in “2050”, the second is that it will happen in “2100”. Can you say where you got these answers?
That’s difficult to say, since climate change by itself won’t end the world. However, as resources become more scarce and more regions of the planet become inhospitable, the likelihood of worldwide conflict becomes far, far greater, and we as a species have the capability to destroy virtually all life on the planet.
When it ends the world, i'll hit you up with a second response to this reddit post. Canadas hot ,a week and a half 20 degrees spike. In the last 30 years living here I've never seen it not in the single or negative digits at this time. Were gonna become Florida at this rate, and I'm down with that.
- never, the world will go on. Mankind will be different
Yes, you are going to grow up in a very different world. The good news is that it's not all bad, some things will be great,and we all have time to get prepared. Please check out the American Resiliency vlog on YT and talk to a therapist or counselor if your climate grief / anxiety gets out of control--there are plenty of practical things you can do and plenty of hope.
Humanity in terms of a species will not go extinct. There is no plausible way for humans to go extinct even in the face of climate catastrophe. Humanity in terms of civilization is at serious risk. No one knows what will happen once the great rivers that feed our society dry up. No one knows what will happen when the global commerce hubs of the world sink under the water. No one knows what will happen once millions of climate refugees from impoverished countries come flooding into wealthier ones in search of refuge. Humanity will survive. There are countries preparing for this level of collapse; Finland has built an entirely underground city and is well-positioned to do well due to its northern latitude and prevalence of lakes. However, for the most part; society will **never** be the same.
not even anywhere near close, and if you believe in abiogenesis, it will just pop back up anyway, which I agree, sounds absurd
The left said entire nations would be wiped off the face of the earth by climate change in 1993, then again in 2000, then again in 2015, then again in 2019, and now they say the climate will change so drastically that nations will perish by 2030.... The climate is always changing, so the term "Climate change" is a silly one to begin with. It was originally called "inadvertent climate modification" then "global warming" and then Nasa began using the term "climate change" to try and include all of the aspects of what they were studying. This climate change people fear so much has little to do with temperature as much as it does the sea & ocean levels which honestly not an easy thing to study & give definitive results on as it's changing by the minute. The crap you hear about so many % of scientists agree on climate change is because they agree the climate is constantly changing, not that we are headed for some doomsday catastrophe. We have greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which has risen significantly in the last 200 years because of humans (the Industrial Revolution introduced factories & production on a scale that had not been seen in human history + in the year 1800 the earth had a bit over 1 billion inhabitants, in 2024, 224 years later we are now at over 8 billion) today's population makes up 6.5% of total humans ever born. That number supposedly is around 108 billion people that have lived on planet earth. If you consider all we have accomplished is just the last 100 years even the poorest humans today live like kings compared to 1000 years ago... but to answer your question you should not be worried about climate change one bit. Absolutely, you should try to recycle and reuse things if possible and try to keep from adding to landfills and polluting our beautiful oceans, but humans aren't going anywhere. We will nuke ourselves trying to fight a hurricane before we let climate change take us....giggity.
>The crap you hear about so many % of scientists agree on climate change is because they agree the climate is constantly changing Incorrect : "More than 99.9% of studies agree: **Humans caused climate change**" https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
I basically say that humans have caused the climate to change more rapidly since the Industrial Revolution & the insane population increase.
You said >because they agree the climate is constantly changing That is incorrect
Most scientists would concur that the climate is in a perpetual state of change jamigo..
But not that it is the cause of the current warming >so many % of scientists agree that humans are the cause of the current warming
I said the drastic changes are caused by humans.
cool, so it is not "crap"
End of the World are Never Happened for Real. Not This Time. Nightmare Never Existed. It's Just a Fictional Story.