Clarification because the headline is written to mislead:
"Their model suggests that the current could begin collapsing anywhere from 2025 to 2095."
"Their model suggests that the current could begin collapsing anywhere from 2025 to 2095."
The 2025 date while possible, is much less likely than a middle of the range date.
That said, with the rate that dates relating to climate issues keep getting moved forwards, I would be surprised if in 5 years we dates like between 2030-2060 being proposed.
(Not asserting that it is an apocalypse cult of course)
Yes, we have big issues facing us, some we can solve, some we can merely respond too. But we have to be mindful about some of the alarmist language that can be used. While many want to alarm people into action, it can also become fear that paralyze folks from doing any action.
He's IMHO a bit too complacent about some of the now possible worst case scenarios : yes, the end of the current Ice Age (that Homo has evolved in) likely won't be the end of mankind, but when thinking about the Earth returning into a more normal state, you have to remember that it also involved periods where most of it was too hot for mammals to inhabit, that the Sun is slightly hotter now, and that a potential future Arctic & Antarctic jungles civilization will still kind of suck because it still involves months-long nights and days.
Exactly! It probably won't drive us to extinction - a mere few billions will starve/suffer from extreme weather events/die in miserable conditions. A fair price to pay for better returns for shareholders!
These include "billions" (ie > 2 billion) facing hunger, food insecurity and starvation to varying levels .. which is not hard to imagine given that the 2015 number for that was already 0.8 billion and the world population will be increasing until 2050 at least.
I'll assume that those interested can find and read the report for themselves.
But even what you said doesn't mean billions will starve or die from miserable conditions. Maybe billions will have to put on a raincoat as they're "suffering" from more rain than usual. This is the problem with alarmism - exaggerated claims that aren't coming from science.
The meta data car landing page is there:
https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/metadata/publications...
with a WARNING
Website experience degraded The European Climate and Health Observatory is undergoing reconstruction until June 2024 to improve its performance. We apologise for any possible disturbance to the content and functionality of the platform.
Give them a day or so to migrate doc storage I guess.
> But even what you said doesn't mean billions will starve or die from miserable conditions.
You asked another user for a link, I found the premise interesting and found a well researched paper that includes billions experiencing starvation within the entire possible scenarios (action needs to be taken to avoid type paths into the future).
> This is the problem with alarmism - exaggerated claims that aren't coming from science.
Well, that's your position - I work in geophysical exploration for minerals and energy etc. and none of the IPCC statements within the climate reports seem wildly exagerated, they strictly layout scenarios based on current trends in resource usage and responses and parallel those that are a standard deviation or so above and below.
Funny how when the exact same thing happened measuring the charge of the electron (ie not deviating around the ultimate value, but systematically moving in one direction), it became the quintessential example—literally taught in schools—for detecting confirmation bias in scientific data.
https://scipython.com/blog/measurements-of-the-electron-char...
If the climate numbers are always being revised upward, it strongly indicates that the original predictions were being systematically fudged downwards. It's not hard to see why: governments and institutions don't want to be accused of "alarmism."
Also, isn't it quite different when there's a canonical measurement (Millikan) versus where there isn't one (climate change) ?
Not really. For an unbiased estimator the "revisions" should be random (half upward and half downward), so if you're always making improvements in one direction you can infer some sort of systematic bias.
Sure, the headline is written in a way that draws attention, but it is not dishonest clickbait or written to mislead, IMO.
Others here have hinted at the so-called "hot-model" fallacy, which is relevant to the timeline. [^1]
Apart from that, the article does make clear that "collapse" can be a gradual process.
Even climate change effects that hit very suddenly in a climatological sense can easily spread out over hundreds of years.
This does not in any way rule out tipping points with extreme changes that wreck ecosystems, e.g. average temperatures dropping or rising by 10 degrees Celsius over 20 years in some regions.
[1] Sabine Hossenfelder has a great video on this topic, should be findable by querying "climate sensitivity".
The search results I find are mostly (affirmative) statements of that "hot model Problem", such as this article: https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-...
I am not a climate scientist, but I have heard the claim that the models that best model 2020-2024 (especially 2023-24) disprortionately often fall into the category of having been dismissed for being "too extreme" before.