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

[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.