It's a gradient. The more CO2, the warmer earth gets.
Of course there are positive feedback components, but there are negative ones too. And stuff like clathrate gun, etc., can't be found in the IPCC reports.
The 2 degree goal is more or less arbitrary. edit: by that I mean 1.9 isn't much better than 2.1--not that 2.1 is no big deal
Take the indian subcontinent as a great example. That is a region of a billion people dependent entirely on the monsoon for water. The region is surrounded by deserts to the west and north. If the monsoon is disrupted due to climate change, what will happen to those billion people? It's worse still if you consider that glacial meltwater from the himalayas also feeds China's largest rivers.
On the flip side, too much rain and there is also a disaster.
This is the point - we don't know what will happen but can be certain it will be bad.
We can go from "Livable with adaptation" to "millions displaced from unlivable catastrophes and conditions" by hitting some of those milestones.
- Positive feedback loops of melting ice -> lower albedo -> more energy absorbed from the sun -> more ice melts
- Unstoppable acidification of oceans and death of vasts amounts of sea life
- Disruption of thermohaline ocean currents, disrupting weather everywhere with little time for nature to adapt, leading to mass extinctions
- Areas where we currently grow most food will quickly become impossible to farm
Basically the point is that the "budget" is how much we can pump and still go back and fix.
It is not possible to just push the brakes and expect an immediate result, the extra carbon that is in the atmosphere will continue warming the planet and the actual warming will fuel positive feedback loops that will make things even worse (and they are not limited to just melting ice).
And, of course, things will keep getting far worse as much as we delay doing something significant in this area.
Sure, no one wants to loft sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, but it won’t cost much [2] and we have plenty of natural experiments demonstrating safety (volcanoes). The critical thing is that it would buy time to transition. It’s not like there isn’t a massive interest in transitioning from fossil fuels. But, will we transition fast enough to prevent irreversible runaway positive feedback loops?
[1] interestingly, the rationale for banning solar geoengineering is not the potential danger of the technology, but the (claimed) inability to govern the process. https://www.solargeoeng.org/
Alternatively, here is a view from the Editor of Science, calling for “Symmetric Precaution.” https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm8462
[2] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/...
- It'll reduce the motivation to transition. You can imagine the current politicians and lobbies against climate change trotting out an argument along the lines of we don't need to transition because we have geoengineering. - The second argument which holds more weight I think is that it creates a time bomb. You need to continue increasing the amount of geoengineering that's happening. I believe the name for this is "termination shock": all the pent up warming happens in a much smaller time scale which could have massive unintended consequences.
"The Risk of Termination Shock From Solar Geoengineering" https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201...