We may not end up underwater, but ecosystem collapse leading to famine, and increased pressure on all sorts of support systems due to the need to direct aid to people from coastal areas, are both going to affect people everywhere.
In a 2C world its very unlikely, in a 4C world its highly likely. So the question is, and always has been, where will we stop? The BAU trendline is ~4.5C by 2100. At which point everything from philidelphia to oakland will be desert.
empirically speaking no, we (mankind) have never moved half or more of our agriculture hundreds of miles in a generation or two without large number of people not making the transition.
maybe we pull it off this time? seems like a flat out evil experiment to run.
imagine your company running its failover plan to its DR site on short notice. what are the odds of it being flawless?
ok now imagine moving half the farming that feeds everyone you know and love from the midwest to manitoba and ontario. if your reaction to that isn't stark terror at the risk to human life, well then you've played waaaaaaaaaay too many civilization games and your brain has broken into believing this is just a question of right-clicking on the better squares.
sure, I may not be. its still an extremely ideological and flat out psycho bet to assume it will be though. it is functionally no different from saying "jesus take the wheel"
it is really disturbing how relentlessly hacker news reactionaries will downvote anyone who dares phrase the ipcc reports in plain english.
what does it mean to our concepts of reason and engineering if one of the most "technical" self-selected audiences on the internet cannot read basic graphs and charts?
what possible hope is there to get policymakers to base their understanding and decisions in the science if self-professed engineers can't or won't?
