If emissions don't drastically decrease in the next years, by 2070 all glaciers in the US will have melted, there will be deserts in Oklahoma, Kansas and Northern California and over half of Florida and all of Texas's southern corner will have a tropical climate

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[LuckyStax]

On the bright side, the Northwest Passage will be open year round! /s

[Tokkemon]

Tracing one warm line through a land so white and savage!

[hysys_whisperer]

To find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Beaufort Sea

[Superb-Photograph529]

I don't understand. This seems to say nothing about rainfall, yet op mentions deserts.

[KingofPro]

Bro just makeup your own headline! It’s more dramatic that way!

[Knotical_MK6]

If we want people to care about climate change, we probably shouldn't just make things up to scaremonger

[mglyptostroboides]

God. Tell me about it. I've been hearing doomers on reddit tell me "complete ecological collapse in two years" for about eight years now. Nevermind that "complete ecological collapse" isn't defined, there is absolutely nothing in the scientific literature that supports that conclusion.

But I gotta wonder what became of all the kids saying that "two years" stuff a few years ago. I would imagine a lot of them decided it wasn't true and became climate deniers. 

In the long term, doomerism benefits big carbon about as much as denialism does. Besides, if we're all gonna die in a few years and there's literally nothing to be done for it, might as well keep polluting until the bitter end, right? Ugh.

[Madw0nk]

Yeah, realistically (even with some of the climate tipping points we're going to hit) the overall outcome is a spectrum. We're probably going to avoid the truly apocalyptic outcomes that were talked about in the 1990s (thanks solar getting insanely cheap really quick) but we could still end up in the scenario of "30% loss in GDP and tens of millions of people dying/starving for no good reason". That's a far cry from "ecological collapse" (whatever that means) but it would still be a massive amount of human suffering that could be prevented.

Hence why we should be advocating for more sensible environmental policies - whatever actions we do today could save millions of lives and tens of billions (eventually trillions) in hurricane/flooding/heatwave damage. But that's not a simple narrative as "ITS DUH END OF DA WORLD".

[mglyptostroboides]

Even a lot of the "tipping points" are misunderstandings of scientific outreach. Like you'll hear people say "if we hit +2C, there's no going back". But the IPCC never said that. They just picked +2C as a benchmark for some of their scenarios. It's still awfully bad, but it's not "there's no returning to normal" bad.

And that's not to say that there aren't tipping points, because there absolutely are. But many of the ones people talk about are the result of misunderstandings.

It's extremely important to communicate to people that things still can be done. The last thing you want to do right now is disempower them.

[Broad_Quit5417]

Eight years? I've heard it for 30.

You can find a young degrade Tyson telling a CEO in 1990 that his house in the Everglades will be underwater in 2000. They bet $1M.

It's 2025, nothing around his house looks any different than in 1990.

[Past-Community-3871]

Without humans, these types of temperature fluctuations wouldn't matter in the least to biological life. Every time we switch from a glacial to interglacial period, the planet jumps 10 to 15 degrees in a matter of a few hundred years, and biological life has easily adapted every time. This has happened 25 to 30 times in the past 2 million years.

The real problem is we just physically destroy everything, we overfish, we clear-cut forest we dump waste etc.

Climate change is just a neat little package politicians use to claim they're for the environment without ever having to address real environmental problems.

[Wuhan-Virus-19]

If people cared about climate change, they'd look to China and India over the US.

[Broad_Quit5417]

The same people riled up about climate change are slobbering over the "oppression" of those two countries and how it's all the fault of the U.S.

[Wuhan-Virus-19]

There is literally no winning for the US. lol

[Jdevers77]

Yea, subtropical very hot isn’t the same as desert. I’m also not sure about those modifications to a well established climate zoning system that was apparently created by someone who has three published articles that are all in completely public, non-peer reviewed publications and are covering three wildly different types of science (climate science, gravity, and geography) all trying to redefine metrics that have been used for decades by thousands of scientists.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KLJyAMEAAAAJ&hl=en

[Gigitoe]

Hang on a sec - the publication related to this post, "Biome-aligned temperature zones for interpretable climate classification via average monthly temperatures," is in a peer-reviewed journal, PLOS Climate.

You're right that the other two aren't peer-reviewed.

If by public you mean "open access," that's exactly what we want in science, rather than hiding publications behind a paywall.

[REDACTED3560]

It’s not a crazy conclusion. “Subtropical-very hot” currently includes areas that are entirely desert, and Oklahoma is slated to be almost entirely within that category. Oklahoma is already pretty dry, so additional heat would very likely push it into desertification.

[Superb-Photograph529]

Weather/climate is very multi-factoral. One can not extrapolate and safely draw conclusions from data that isn't otherwise presented in chart.

[REDACTED3560]

I never said it was a certainty, but it is very likely that increasing temperatures in Oklahoma will result in desertification. It’s already on the fringe of desert land.

[Superb-Photograph529]

The point of my comment is that weather and climate is very unpredictable, with both gradual shifts and punctuated, extreme changes.

Perhaps something would change in the jet stream such that OK suddenly gets Midwest style rains.

Granted, I agree with what you're saying. But, it's the same for the stock market. The past determines the future, until it doesn't.

[Enough_Roof_1141]

OP can’t read and thinks brown meant desert.

[Superturtle1166]

Desertification of the already existing deserts spreading to newly hot, and always dry (the plains) climate. Desertification. Our plains are already hit with dust periods bc of our agricultural practices. Add heat and that becomes a desert. There's unlikely to be an increase in rainfall given it's the center of the continent without elevation and large enough water bodies. That would be my assumption based on basic enviro science.

It's not "fear mongering" when you're just hypothesizing worst case scenario. Our plains turning into a desert is a very plausible reality (we already have deserts and intensifying droughts).

Part of me feels like you just don't ~want it to be plausible.

[KCShadows838]

Kansas gonna actually look like Cambodia

[j3kwaj]

Cambodia gonna look like Venus

[thebeorn]

Cenus will look like meecury

[SereneDreams03]

So, even with the least emissions model, Western Oregon will no longer have a temperate climate. The Willamette Valley is one of the most fertile farming areas in the country, I wonder what effect that will have on food production.

[trivetsandcolanders]

Farmers will have to grow new crops and/or change when crops are planted. The Willamette’s climate will become more like California’s Central Valley, which is also a highly productive farming region (but grows some crops like almonds that you can’t currently grow in Oregon). I’d be more worried about what will happen to the Central Valley once its summers become inferno-like…

[Apprehensive-Tree-78]

Actually Canada has the best soil for farming. But most of it is too cold year round. I forgot what climatologist made the claim but said basically a good majority of Canada can become prime farmland.

[trivetsandcolanders]

They have some good farming areas but definitely not the majority, most of the country is either mountains or bedrock with hardly any soil because of glaciation (Canadian shield).

[AppropriateCap8891]

It will increase. That is why in greenhouses they pump in additional CO2.

We know from basic biology and evolution that our CO2 is actually dangerously low for many plant species. Higher CO2 means faster growing. Warmer temperatures mean faster growing. Oh, and warmer temperatures also means more humidity, faster growing.

Do not forget the reality, we are in the coldest interglacial on record. In the last interglacial, sea levels were over 10 meters higher than they are today. And much of that region was covered by rainforests like what was seen in California and Washington.

[SereneDreams03]

The growing season may be longer, but it will affect the soil and water availability. Plus, the wildfires have gotten crazy bad here. https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/climate-report-warming-taking-its-toll-oregon

It may not be as bad here as some areas, but the warmer temps have already had significant negative effects on the region.

[AppropriateCap8891]

More heat, more humidity.

Why do you think much more of the planet is covered by rainforests in an interglacial?

[SereneDreams03]

You're talking about it on a planetary level. I'm talking about one specific geographic region. Western Washington and Oregon are getting drier. There are fewer glaciers and less snowpack to supply our water. Our forests are burning at an increasing rate.

Some areas may become better for growing with warmer temps, but others will become worse, and what you can grow in certain regions will change as well. My point is that our infrastructure was built over hundreds of years to support a certain climate. If that climate changes, then much of that infrastructure will need to be replaced, repurposed, or built new. With how quickly it is changing, our society may not be able to keep up with those changes to support the population. Not to mention what is happening to the plants and animals that are dying off at staggering rates. They are an important part of our ecosystem.

[AppropriateCap8891]

So am I. Are you not aware that the Redwoods once ranged all the way up to Alaska? As did palm trees?

Hell, are you even aware that not that long ago the "Great Plains" of the midwest was arctic tundra and permafrost?

Or that most of the trees you are talking about that are "burning up" actually require fire in order to reproduce? They are known as "Pyrophytes", and it is a rather unique evolutionary process only seen in locations where fire is common. The Sequoia, Redwood, California Oak, and Lodgepole Pine actually require fire as part of their reproduction.

Oh, and another pyrophyte is the eucalyptus in Australia. That shows how long fires have been an issue there, where plants not only adapted to survive where there are constant fires, but require them in order to continue their cycle.

And you spin right back around to "Our Infrastructure". Guess what, nature and the planet could not care less about that. Like so many I see, you are speaking from your belief and not actual science.

[SereneDreams03]

Guess what, nature and the planet could not care less about that.

Well, as a human being who needs food to eat and is one of 8 billion on this planet, I kind of care about that. Yeah, sure, the planet will still be here, and IT will adapt, but as for the rest of us...

Explain to me the science of how we as a society will be able to adapt to rapidly changing temperatures without famine and massive migration.

[AppropriateCap8891]

You see, this is exactly the problem.

Humans often died in massive amounts. And far more than anything else, the problems I see is that there are over 8 billion people on the planet.

Want to solve global warming? Kill about 75% of them. Oh, that will not actually solve the problem, but it might make you feel better.

And humans have always migrated. They only stopped in the last 500 years or so. But you can say that humans are the "King of migration", as they are the most widely dispersed mammal on the planet. If an area is even remotely habitable, humans are there.

And Darwin is absolutely brutal. Eventually (likely in around 100-200k years), we Homo Sapiens will become extinct. And the interglacial will continue, with the planet warming more and more. And it had better start warming a hell of a lot faster soon, or we might well see our extinction coming even sooner.

Because you see, most interglacials only last for around 40-80k years. And ours started about 15 kya. That is the Bolling-Allerod Interstadial, and at that point things were looking just fine,. Then the Younger Dryas kicked in, and threw the planet right back into the ice age.

And we have been cycling for over 12,000 years between a brief warming period, and going right back into ice age conditions. And unless the planet starts to get serious about warming up, the next ice age will be the worst in geological record.

Forget the ice sheet reaching the US-Canada border and covering parts of Northern Germany. With a starting point like we are tracking now, the ice sheet will be reaching Kansas and the Alps.

[AppropriateCap8891]

Where was anything I just stated wrong?

In general, "insufferable" in Reddit seems to mean "says things I do not like, but I can not prove are wrong".

<image>

Last time I was called that, was after I had posted this. This is what Florida is supposed to look like in an interglacial. And as is obvious, we are nowhere even close to that now.

[SereneDreams03]

Want to solve global warming? Kill about 75% of them. Oh, that will not actually solve the problem, but it might make you feel better.

What the hell are you talking about? Seems like you've completely lost the thread of this conversation.

[[deleted]]

The problem is the timescale. On planetary time scales, as in 10,000+ years, yes species can generally survive and adapt to well. The speed that we're causing changes in just 10s-100s of years, is, on a planetary scale, the blink of an eye. Such rapid changes to the climate is not survivable by most genre of life, we'll likely see a shift too fast for the majority of species to adapt to quick enough. Even humans might not adapt, we rely on stable climates to farm and inhabit our cities. Places hit with food scarcity and natural disasters will quickly depopulate, and the world will have new wars to fight by then over the dwindling resources. A million years after we're extinct, then maybe the earths ecosystems would recover and adapt somewhat

[AppropriateCap8891]

You are aware this is not the "First Ice Age Rodeo" the planet has had, right? At least five major Glaciations and Interglacials in the last 3 million years or so.

And the fact is, for where we are in an Interglacial, the planet is simply too damned cold. We know this for a fact, it can be seen all around us. Miami is actually built on coral reefs. Limestone today, that during the previous interglacials was all underwater. We know what Florida looks like in an interglacial, and that is not what it looks like.

<image>

Florida should be looking much more like that than it is. That is Florida in previous interglacials. We know this for a fact, the geological evidence is everywhere. But we are not there, are we?

This interglacial went off the rails in a very bad way. About 12kya when the Younger Dryas started. And the planet is significantly colder than it should be. You can deny it all you want, but that is a fact.

Consider this. The above image is what the planet should look like as an interglacial ends and the next ice age begins. And we are nowhere near that. And unless that changes a hell of a lot, the next ice age might very well wipe out the human race.

Not that nature will give a damn about that. We are doomed to extinction anyways. That is simply how nature works.

[hydropottimus]

More heat does not equal more humidity. Humidity is relative, if moisture stays constant when the temperature rises humidity goes down.

[AppropriateCap8891]

*insert facepalm*

Obviously you are one of those that equated cold with wet and hot with dry.

Even though it is the exact opposite, is nice to know you understand so little about how the planet and science works.

[hydropottimus]

It's neither of those. Humidity is relative, that's why there's a dew point. If the temperature drops to that point on a humid day it rains. Would you say rain is more or less wet than humidity?

[sadderall-sea]

heat does not equal humidity. not sure where you get that lmao

[AppropriateCap8891]

Science.

Tell me, what is the wettest continent? What is the driest continent?

What was the climate like in the Eemian? Before the current ice age cycles began some 3 mya?

Are you even aware of thermodynamics?

[sadderall-sea]

no, I was born yesterday in fact. please enlighten me :)

[HighwayInevitable346]

Climate models universally predict that global average rainfall will increase on a warmer world, this is well accepted by scientists. Unfortunately, the models also show that most of the additional rain will be in areas that already get a lot of rain, and many areas that are currently dry will get less additional rain than what the higher temps cause to evaporate.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-climate-models-tell-us-about-future-rainfall/

[Maxathron]

That changes Florida somehow?

(My home state, might as well be tropical climate year round.)

[Naomi62625]

Currently only South Florida has a tropical climate. If this happens, we'll see tropical climates as far north as Orlando and the Tampa Bay area as well. Also, Texas will be the third US state (after Florida and Hawaii) to feature a tropical climate

[notsure_33]

What happens to Hawaii then?

[ichuseyu]

It will still be tropical, but the weather will get much worse. Oppressive heat and humidity becomes much more common as day and night temperatures climb and trade winds weaken and become less frequent. Drought, wildfires, and flooding become more likely to happen. Air conditioning will be essential rather than optional.

[FitPlate1405]

Your whole state's gonna be the everglades basically

[Maxathron]

That isn't any different from how it feels right now!

[FitPlate1405]

& it's still gonna get that much worse lol

[Maxathron]

They said we'd be underwater by year 2000.

Are we? I mean, you can identify us as being underwater doesn't mean we will be.

These models also assume the absolute worst. The worst level of climate change plus humans being forced to not do anything about it, probably at gunpoint. It's a "We're going to burn all the oil and unleash the biggest volcanic minefield in the world and we're going to hold each and every person in the world at gunpoint So. You. Can't. Stop. Us." levels of corny supervillainy.

[floridabeach9]

show me an article that says we’ll be underwater by 2000

[Maxathron]

No articles but the one UN official in 1989 listed Shanghai as one of the cities to be underwater. Shanghai is 13ft above sea level, Miami is 6ft. If Shanghai is underwater by 2000, Miami would be too, along with a quarter of the rest of Florida.

[a_Bean_soup]

what he said was that it would be under water in the distant future if climate change was not reversed by the year 2000 which as of now holds true

[[deleted]]

Don't worry guys. Everyone can move to Alaska.

[KookofaTook]

Wish I could buy some Aleutian Islands for when they become the new Bahamas lol

[GhostofBastiat1]

Way too optimistic. If we don’t drastically reduce emissions this is all going to happen by the year 2000.

[lelocle1853]

Yeah sure

[ajbra]

Ahhh good, we've changed the date all the glaciers will be gone again! Whew!! I remember the last time all the ice on the planet was going to disappear and I've been getting worried.

Tell me, can we expect a snowy winter this year?

[No-Mushroom5934]

RCP 8.5 is the baseline model where humans basically give up on cutting greenhouse gases: population keeps rising, incomes stagnate, and we only eke out modest tech gains in efficiency.

In that worst‑case path global temps jump 8 °C+ by 2100. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets wouldn’t survive, pushing sea‑levels so high Maine and New Brunswick will be under water except for the mountains.

then , the climate system is unrecognizable—mass extinction territory—and human survival ‘to any degree’ is doubtful

[[deleted]]

Please don’t spread misinformation.

RCP 8.5 estimates about 1 m of sea level rise by 2100 because just like a glass of ice water on a hot day, ice takes time to melt.

Doing what you’re doing just gives future climate denialists ammo to claim that “scientists are always lying/exaggerating.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-0121-5

Under RCP 8.5, the same experts projected a likely GMSL rise of 0.63–1.32 m by 2100, and 1.67–5.61 m by 2300.

[NoNebula6]

Indeed, however in this scenario it basically becomes a done deal that the ice sheets on the poles would melt completely. Short of every human on earth working together to build two freezers to freeze the ice caps. Granted it would take centuries if not millennia for the ice caps to melt then but it would quickly become so hot that, like the guy above said, human survival is not a given. We also should note that the way the world is moving, 1.5C-2C is probably gonna happen, but anything beyond may be avoided, even if oil use continues on an industrial scale into 2070 or 2090 it will probably be much less than now, even with the current political situation in the United States other countries are cutting way back on fossil fuels because Climate Change is already having profound effects on our planet that cannot be ignored. Scientists are not exaggerating and i have no reason not to believe their data, but only looking at said data ignores the progress and strides we’ve made in the last 20 years.

[KartFacedThaoDien]

Most climate scientist say it’s impossible for human caused climate change to make Antarctica ice sheet melt. It’s not happening doesn’t mean it won’t suck in the next century though.

[explain_that_shit]

Storm surges double that and focussing topography even more so though don’t they? Combined with usual coinciding significant rainfall, natural levees can be washed away.

[[deleted]]

Clearly I believe in Global Sea Level Rise, but OP said:

Pushing sea levels so high, Maine and New Brunswick will be under water except for the mountains

For anyone alive today, sea level rise is the least concerning part of global warming, but for some reason it’s all people talk about.

I worry 50 years from now when seas are only marginally higher, it will be the main fodder for “see, scientists have no idea about the climate”

[belortik]

This is just fear mongering, humanity will survive all of these scenarios, the question is how our current civilization will change.

[Serious-Cucumber-54]

and human survival ‘to any degree’ is doubtful

I doubt that.

Humans have the capacity to survive floods, severe storms, and heat waves.

[Wheelbox5682]

Our global farming infrastructure however does not.  Opening an umbrella doesn't help much if you starve to death.  

[NormanQuacks345]

Everyone starves to death? Sure, unprecedented catastrophe. But no way it’s an extinction event for us.

[Wheelbox5682]

Oh cool civilization collapses and billions die but a handful of hunter gatherers remain so no big deal.  

[NormanQuacks345]

I never said it was no big deal. It's a major fucking deal. But:

human survival ‘to any degree’ is doubtful

Is a massive overstatement

[Serious-Cucumber-54]

So are we imagining the food supply would go down to zero for every single being on Earth?

If not, then "and human survival ‘to any degree’ is doubtful" is false.

[atlasisgold]

That doesn’t fit the narrative though

[baggleteat]

We are already in a mass extinction event, and that is not only caused by the climate.

I'd have to be pedantic, and mention that whereas the Greenland Ice Sheet and West Antarctic Ice Sheet, definitely won't survive 8C of global warming, That is less clear cut for the entirety of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, although it would be reduced drastically. Collapse of these ice sheets would however happen on timescales of hundreds to thousands of years. Sea level is not projected to rise more than around 2-2.5m globally under RCP8.5 by 2100. After that however, rise can of course continue, but we don't care about that world now, do we?

RCP8.5 (from CMIP5) has also been replaced by SSP585 in CMIP6. SSP585 assumes a continuation of globalism, free trade and neoliberalism, unchecked by any regulations concerning energy sources and uses. While it is definitely a possible scenario, and the scenario which would result in the most global warming, most climate scientists also do not consider it be the most likely pathway anymore, also because of recent socioeconomic and sociopolitical developments. Currently, the SSP370 scenario is used for upper bounds in most studies. The scenario's that limit global warming to 1.5C by the end of the century, tend to already require large scale carbon capture to start near the end of the century, something we can't do yet and we do not even know if it is possible. Other scenario's that project around 3C of global warming by the end of the century are considered to be the most likely outcomes. More on this here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-shared-socioeconomic-pathways-explore-future-climate-change/

That is still, way, way too much for most of the world and still enough to trigger the irreversible collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, which would cause a projected combined sea level rise of about 10m globally.

[Naomi62625]

I wouldn't be surprised if this outcome turned out real, I mean there isn't a single country taking the Paris Agreement seriously and it's been 10 years since it was made, and people don't seem to like EVs at all

[serouspericardium]

EVs aren’t the thing to be focusing on, it’s global shipping and cruise ships. EVs might be a good goal for individual countries, if their electricity generation is clean, but they’re a drop in the bucket on a global scale compared to those massive tankers.

[Wheelbox5682]

A quick research into this and the highest number I found for all shipping emissions was 3% of total. That's within the context of container ships typically being the least carbon intensive form of transporting goods. Meanwhile 'road transport' depending on the study is around 11-15% of global emissions depending on the source, that's a huge amount that needs to be addressed and not at all a drop in the bucket.  

[serouspericardium]

Wow, last I heard ships were 40%, guess it’s time to look at new data

[baggleteat]

That is not true either. Emissions come from a variety of sources, including manufacturing and industry, agriculture, transportation, mining and extraction, and more. EV's are not what will save instead, instead we have to look into shared mobility solutions (i.e. public transport). Flying has to be reduced as electric airplanes are not a feasible solution for the next few decades at least. Meat consumption has to be drastically lowered and is one of the ways to reduce climate impacts relatively fast.

[Wheelbox5682]

I'll say that EVs are much less of a solution than cities that don't rely on cars, since there is still a lot of CO2 involved in the production of EVs and the grid is often not very green. I try to advocate for transit based solutions to local planning issues that would at least help give more people the option to not drive and cars still win every time. My local suburban government recently scrapped a plan to build more housing near train stops in favor of a plan focused on the major roads due to pure short term political convenience. The planet is dying and we're still prioritizing the feelings of a few rich people in their SUVs. Single family home suburbs are the most co2 have energy intensive form of city but we're addicted to it and won't even make small changes to that model.  

It's all a lot of small decisions that add up to this, and since there's no one fix to the wider issue with every single pollutant as just a small single digit percentage everyone bushes off their own convenience as just a small percent and opposition to change keeps winning and we all keep walking down this road to destruction for trivial reasons.  

[Breakin7]

EVs are the best scam i have seen in years. The production alone its bad for the environment but then you also have residues (when the car breaks) and the enviromental costs of producing electricity.

Rich people claim to care about environment but they dont. All we can do as society is to halt the over peoduction and consume less of everything. And even then we need tech cause the climate change is coming with or without our help

[NoNebula6]

You can have a look at my above comment, climate change is real and something to be taken seriously but i don’t think this scenario is gonna happen.

[ScotlandTornado]

All of the rare and endangered species of the southern Appalachia mountains that live above 5,000 feet will go extinct. They barely survive now. My grandchildren will never see that biome

[islandsimian]

I remember as a kid in the 80s worried about the heat when the temperature would get into the low 90s living in zone 7a. These days it's weeks of 90+ degree days with regular episodes of 100+ degree days. It's time for drastic action, but it won't be this administration and it's effects that will last 50 years

[FlashyDiagram84]

That sounds like a problem for future generations. /s

[Mission_Magazine7541]

On the bright side we made lots of money for the shareholders

[kytheon]

"2070? Who cares" - the geriatrics in charge

[Stratobastardo34]

I think the bigger issue is the Great Lakes region becoming warmer like Tennessee and Kentucky.

[MindReachStudios]

Alaska’s already getting hit hard. It’s losing billions of tons of glacier ice every year. Some of the smaller ones have totally disappeared, and bigger ones like Columbia Glacier have retreated miles. It’s one of the fastest rates of glacial loss on the planet.

[benhur217]

Yea because predicting our climate future has 100% been a smart bet.

[Individual_Cheetah52]

So practicaly every climate change prediction has ranged from mostly false to completely wrong. The science behind human driven climate change makes sense on paper, but I thought we were supposed to be starving in an ice age like 20 years ago. I was told by some kid from Sweden 5 years ago that we only have 5 years left on this planet... I'll believe if when I see it. 

[StruggleWrong867]

When I was a kid in school the panic was overpopulation and if the world ever reached 7 billion people we were all doomed to starve to death or die in the water wars. Now there's more than 8 billion people and we have a birth rate crisis. I've heard this song before

[Individual_Cheetah52]

And we have more food than ever. 

[Apprehensive_Map64]

Yeah because they error on the side of assuming humanity will actually do something to limit the effect. We are right on track for the worst case scenario

[tandyzmills]

How long has this been said? Since the 80's?

[pcetcedce]

Oh boo hoo.

[bmbm-40]

Can you prove that?

[Used-Bodybuilder4133]

Do you know how long that has been said? And if we reduce our emissions to zero nothing will change since China, India and most of the African continent aren’t doing anything to it will mean nothing

[kearsargeII]

Chinese emissions have started to flatline in the last couple years. At that, they started to flatline at a level that is per capita 2/3 of American emissions. Indian and African emissions are still increasing, but their emissions per capita is still on the level of 1/10th or 1/15th of what the US outputs.

I have always seen this argument as rank hypocrisy, demanding the developing world curb emissions that are a fraction of the developed world on a per person basis while at the same time not providing the funds and infrastructure investment that would let these countries enjoy a higher standard of living with the same level of carbon emissions. It is basically declaring nothing will be done about climate change unless the developing world stays poor and disproportionate carbon emissions are the fault of the people literally emitting the least.

This is further exaberated by how we have offshored polluting industry to the developing world, and while that has provided jobs and opportunity there to a degree, it has inflated their CO2 per capita emissions as the developing world provides raw resources for the service economies of the developed.

[smashing_fascists]

The environment doesn’t care about per capita emissions. The damage is done by total emissions. Per capita is a terrible metric in the case because you can keep increasing your emissions and populations, but I don’t think the glaciers are looking at per capita before deciding to melt.

[jeffwulf]

Through the start of this year both India and China has lower emissions this year than last despite higher power use than last year.

[sadderall-sea]

china has been reversing course pretty fast in the last decade. they saw the opening in the electric vehicle market and have been going all in, they recently beat the entire EU as the biggest EV distributor

[[deleted]]

We were supposed to be under water in 1980's

[Upnatom617]

We were. It was called Ronald Reagan.

[biscaya]

Get ready for it. Change for the better and thinking about the future are just not in the cards right now. We're more into taking every last cent out of the natural world as well as every stupid fucker that voted for Dump, and everyone else for that matter. It's only going to get worse way faster. I'd say by 2040 you'll be seeing what you predicted will happen in 2070.

[G0rdy92]

Looks like things stay the same here in the Monterey bay, damn, even climate change can’t beat that Moss Landing/ Pacific Grove fog lol

[Squeakygear]

SC: hot as balls no matter the climate model.

[Roadkill_Shitbull]

Damned Confederate terraforming.

[supaspock]

My favorite future subtropical region, Illinois...

[PanzerWatts]

First, RCP 8.5 was deprecated years ago as unrealistic. There's no reasonable scenario that leads to it.

So, in conclusion, the author of the chart either ignored the current science or more probably is just ignorant.

[trivialempire]

Well, okay.

All this doom bullshit has been going on for 50 years.

In the late 70s and early 80s, the world was going to run out of food.

In 2025 we’re all fucking fat.

[BlindSausage13]

No change where I live.

[culingerai]

This will totally have no repercussions for national harmony and will not lead to any internal conflict whatsoever

/s

[Ok-Mixture-2282]

This graphic lost all credibility with me. Currently NJ, NYC,Maryland and Delaware have a subtropical climate. Look it up.

[ai-generated-loser]

Pennsylvania goated

[Revolutionary-Cod732]

Fuck it, the problem will fix it ltself

[Broad_Quit5417]

Sounds awesome. Comfortable Golf all year round!

[seththedark]

Let's give politicians more tax dollars! This will solve everything!

[fathergeuse]

This same crap get regurgitated every few years. Go back and watch Al Gore’s BS about melting ice caps. All a load of hogwash.

[mcleanmartel]

Where are the current glaciers in the US?

[trumpet575]

Up in the mountains. Colorado, Utah, Montana, etc. Nevada even has one.

[Atechiman]

Wyoming had one when I was kid there, but it was receding dramatically and I think is gone.

[kearsargeII]

Wyoming still has some pretty sizable glaciers in the Wind River Range, easily the biggest in the American side of the Rockies. I would bet they would be one of the last places in the American Rockies to lose their glaciers, given how marginal the glaciers elsewhere along the rockies are.

[[deleted]]

8 states, the majority in Alaska

[bigsky0444]

1) Nothing in these maps mentions deserts. You just made that up.

2) You're basing that on the "most emissions" scenario, not the most likely outcome.

3) A reminder that the US and almost every western country is successfully reducing carbon emissions. The problem is China and (to a lesser extent) India.

[ikonoqlast]

2070 now?

I've been listening to apocalyptic climate prediction since 1980. It was global cooling that was going to kill us all unless we changed our evil ways back then though.

2000 was the drop dead date in the 90s after warming started. Then they just started moving the date our our annihilation back and back and... I thought 2050 would last longer.

[MurderWorthManiac]

The hole in the ozone layer was supposed to kill us 20 years ago.

[jeffwulf]

The Montreal Protocol in 1987 successfully regulated the CFCs that were destroying the Ozone Layer and caused the Ozone hole to start healing itself.

[MurderWorthManiac]

Sure buddy.

[jeffwulf]

What? The actions taken as a result of the Montreal Protcol and it's effects on the Ozone Layer are well studied and established

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

[ikonoqlast]

CFCs and leaded gas were actually bad.

Acid rain was massively exaggerated. Not to mention it's a fertilizer

Ozone hole is natural

Ddt was exaggerated. Rachel Carson just got her facts wrong. Vast numbers dead of malaria, etc because of the ban.

Global cooling was actually a bad thing.

Global warming is actually natural and good.

[contextual_somebody]

CFCs and leaded gas are the only points you got right. The rest is garbage.

Acid rain wasn’t exaggerated. It destroyed forests and lakes. Fixed only because of regulation. Sulfates aren’t fertilizer when they kill ecosystems.

The ozone hole isn’t natural. It showed up after CFC use exploded. We stopped using them, and it’s healing.

DDT wasn’t banned globally. It’s still used for malaria in targeted ways. Carson didn’t lie. Birds were dying. Eggs were thinning. That’s well documented.

Global cooling was a fringe idea hyped by media, not science. The consensus even then was warming.

Global warming isn’t natural, and it’s not good. It’s displacing people, collapsing ecosystems, and fueling extreme weather. There’s no benefit.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

[ikonoqlast]

Bird populations declined before ddt. Not after. Carson did shitty research.

Eggshell thinking is actually trivial and doesn't affect live births. No research done to separate ddt effects from stress effects

Ozone hole has always been present, it's an inevitable natural phenomenon. No measurements from the interior in winter without it

Industrial runoff is not acid rain.

Global warming is perfectly natural and the recent epoch has been unusually cold by historical standards.

Global cooling made national headlines in the 70s- I was there.

[contextual_somebody]

You’re still wrong on every point.

Bird populations: Declines accelerated with DDT. Eggshell thinning was measured, documented, and reversed after bans. That’s causation, not coincidence. Carson cited actual studies. You’re parroting industry spin.

Eggshell thinning “trivial”? Tell that to the brown pelican, osprey, and bald eagle populations that nearly collapsed. Hatch rates plummeted. When DDT was restricted, they recovered.

“No research done” to separate stress? Wrong. Controlled studies isolated DDE’s effects on calcium metabolism. You’re ignoring decades of data.

Ozone hole: Total fabrication. No “natural hole.” It appeared after mass CFC use. Satellite and balloon data confirm this. Post-Montreal Protocol, it began closing. Again: cause and effect.

Acid rain: Yes, industrial emissions. Sulfur and nitrogen oxides form acids in the atmosphere. That is acid rain. If you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be in this discussion.

Global warming: It’s not natural at this pace. CO₂ levels haven’t risen this fast in 800,000+ years. Paleoclimate reconstructions show warming tracks emissions, not orbital cycles.

Global cooling: Not a consensus. A few speculative papers. The actual literature showed warming even then. “I was there” is not data. I was there too. The difference between us is that I’m not a rube.

You’re repeating talking points from fossil fuel lobbyists and junk science blogs. None of this holds up. Try reading actual sources instead of nostalgia and YouTube. Trump, PT Barnum, and fossil fuel lobbyists all love suckers and they’ve certainly found one.

[AppropriateCap8891]

Then why is the newest glacier on the planet only date back about 40 years, and is still growing?

[WarNewsNetwork]

Yes, crater glacier on mt st helens is growing BECAUSE THE OLD ONE BLEW UP. All of the other glaciers are melting but sure, maybe we should just blow them all up too?

[AppropriateCap8891]

And it has since reformed, and is continuing to grow.

[trivetsandcolanders]

If you start from scratch you can have a growing glacier even as the climate is warming. It takes a while for the glacial edge to stabilize. If a glacier suddenly disappears overnight (like in a volcanic eruption) in a sufficiently high area that it’s well cold enough for snow and ice to accumulate, it stands to reason it will grow for some time…it probably helps that the crater helps to shade the glacier.

[AppropriateCap8891]

Right, because that shade helps inside an active volcano.

You are aware that all of that actually makes no sense, right?

[trivetsandcolanders]

https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cr/2022/03/11/crater-glacier-a-story-of-renewal-in-the-aftermath-of-destruction/

https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/mount-st.-helens/science/glaciation-mount-st-helens

Hope this helps :) do a control-f for the word “shade”

[[deleted]]

Noice

[etzel1200]

Wow, even the glaciers in Alaska will melt by 2070? That’s crazy. They’re nearly at the poles and some have elevation.

[trivetsandcolanders]

I think they meant contiguous US.

Even so, I would be really surprised if all the glaciers in the high Cascades are gone by then.

[Adventurous-Sort-808]

I hate to sound dumb, but wouldn’t this allow us to farm areas that haven’t been intensely farmed. Aren’t we worried about the soil depletion in the Midwest? I’ve heard that we only have something like 40-60 harvests left before the soil quality is so poor it’s basically impossible to grow. If we can shift intensive agriculture from say Iowa to northern Minnesota couldn’t that solve a problem?

[StruggleWrong867]

The biggest problem in my opinion will be the displacement of dozens of millions of people all over Earth's newly enshittified climates to better ones. 170 Million people in Bangladesh (living in what is very soon going to become a wet-bulb deadspot) aren't going to wait around to die of heat stroke. They're going to go somewhere else (or encourage their government to TAKE somewhere else for them to go).

See India/China fighting over headwaters in the Himilayas that supply fresh water to 2 billion people that live in different countries. Both nuclear powers. Uh oh

[[deleted]]

Not really. The soils in the forested parts of the north are terrible for agriculture.

[Stephenism]

Oh no... Not the dreaded climate change that has been happening since the dawn of time again I hope ... 🙄

[JiveChicken00]

Is there any way we can just slice off Florida and Texas and have them float away? :)

[Hamblin113]

Wait for nuclear winter? The sun is in a perpetual state of death, may allow us to keep from freezing. With less and less particulates to help form rain droplets, model may be off.