EarthSky
Update: Welp, I've already made changes to the spreadsheet I've been working with (and also edited the spacing in the posting). Take my numbers, and think of them as worse than I initially expected. I forgot to account for inertia. Of course, I was only doing this as an exercise for the brain. The numbers grow more and more dismaying, though. And these are just estimates, based on nothing more than news articles. I can't imagine the actual numbers, and what scientists and statisticians are finding. It's just awful.
Well, this was to be expected, right? If global warming is rising exponentially, then all that follows should match. Such should include climate change. We should be expecting stranger weather at an increased rate until normalization occurs, which should be decades after maximum warming.
The Earth has enough carbon to produce six degrees of warming in total, but we wish to keep it to two and a half degrees. However, we've already hit two degrees. There should be a formula for divining what population reduction of worldwide population will be for every degree passed four degrees.
Four degrees would probably see 30% reduction. Five degrees 45%. Six degrees 60%. These would be per decade estimates. For every decade at which global warming above four degrees occurs, then the worldwide population will decline, and continue to decline at that rate.
The likelihood is we'll hit four degrees by 2050, which means the decade following, the Earth's human population will decline by 2.1 billion. The decade following it would be 1.47. So on and so forth.
Climate will normalize four decades after hitting four degrees, unless six degrees is 'baked in', in which case the formula changes exponentially (again). Four decades at four degrees becomes six decades at five degrees, and nine decades at six degrees.
Of course, these are excessively rough numbers, but four degrees would still leave human population in the billions: 1,680,700,000. Five degrees: 193,764,484. Six degrees: 1,835,008. Four degrees, and we humans can manage. Five degrees would see a massive decline in living standards. Six degrees is iffy.
This doesn't take into account externalities. Stuff that isn't predicted or accounted for. This doesn't take into account actual numbers. These numbers are generated at the top of my head based on recollection.
I honestly expect my numbers are off, but on the conservative side rather than the liberal side. The actual numbers are probably far worse.
Four degrees at 45% population decline is manageable. However, five degrees at 60% loss is iffy. Six degrees at 75% loss is catastrophic.
On the high end, 90% loss at six degrees would probably see the human race near extinct, as soon as six decades at six degrees.
Update: Welp, I've already made changes to the spreadsheet I've been working with (and also edited the spacing in the posting). Take my numbers, and think of them as worse than I initially expected. I forgot to account for inertia. Of course, I was only doing this as an exercise for the brain. The numbers grow more and more dismaying, though. And these are just estimates, based on nothing more than news articles. I can't imagine the actual numbers, and what scientists and statisticians are finding. It's just awful.
Well, this was to be expected, right? If global warming is rising exponentially, then all that follows should match. Such should include climate change. We should be expecting stranger weather at an increased rate until normalization occurs, which should be decades after maximum warming.
The Earth has enough carbon to produce six degrees of warming in total, but we wish to keep it to two and a half degrees. However, we've already hit two degrees. There should be a formula for divining what population reduction of worldwide population will be for every degree passed four degrees.
Four degrees would probably see 30% reduction. Five degrees 45%. Six degrees 60%. These would be per decade estimates. For every decade at which global warming above four degrees occurs, then the worldwide population will decline, and continue to decline at that rate.
The likelihood is we'll hit four degrees by 2050, which means the decade following, the Earth's human population will decline by 2.1 billion. The decade following it would be 1.47. So on and so forth.
Climate will normalize four decades after hitting four degrees, unless six degrees is 'baked in', in which case the formula changes exponentially (again). Four decades at four degrees becomes six decades at five degrees, and nine decades at six degrees.
Of course, these are excessively rough numbers, but four degrees would still leave human population in the billions: 1,680,700,000. Five degrees: 193,764,484. Six degrees: 1,835,008. Four degrees, and we humans can manage. Five degrees would see a massive decline in living standards. Six degrees is iffy.
This doesn't take into account externalities. Stuff that isn't predicted or accounted for. This doesn't take into account actual numbers. These numbers are generated at the top of my head based on recollection.
I honestly expect my numbers are off, but on the conservative side rather than the liberal side. The actual numbers are probably far worse.
Four degrees at 45% population decline is manageable. However, five degrees at 60% loss is iffy. Six degrees at 75% loss is catastrophic.
On the high end, 90% loss at six degrees would probably see the human race near extinct, as soon as six decades at six degrees.
Comments
Post a Comment