There is a pretty major flaw in this write up, which is the assumption that the changes we may see will be linear, be it sea level rise, temps, etc.
There are at least 4 tipping points that could upend this. If the Gulf Stream fails, Europe will be much colder than it is now, for example. Rapid breakdown of ice shelfs could quickly raise sea levels.
“It won’t be bad because it has not yet” is thin.
The middle latitudes are set to be in large part unlivable. Just imagine the geopolitical and humanitarian impacts of hundreds of millions of refugees. Just imagine when a country that is the source of a water source decides they need it and more than others downstream and reroute it.
These are massively destabilizing types of things. And not far fetched.
Can you point me in the direction of some stuff that supports the likelihood of these scenarios? The middle latitudes being unlivable does seem extreme and unlikely to me, especially given the explanation in the article about how 85F was used as a threshold for unlivable by some studies.
The threshold is typically 106F "wet bulb", above which much exposure will kill people, literally begin to cook them. Many parts of the world are hitting this.
There are at least 4 tipping points that could upend this. If the Gulf Stream fails, Europe will be much colder than it is now, for example. Rapid breakdown of ice shelfs could quickly raise sea levels.
“It won’t be bad because it has not yet” is thin.
The middle latitudes are set to be in large part unlivable. Just imagine the geopolitical and humanitarian impacts of hundreds of millions of refugees. Just imagine when a country that is the source of a water source decides they need it and more than others downstream and reroute it.
These are massively destabilizing types of things. And not far fetched.
Sea level rise is the least of it tbh.