My mind went to that paper, too.

It made me rethink exactly what collapse would look like on a societal level:

The “little” klaxons are constantly blaring, but now I think we will get less “proper” warning signs than I had expected before we’re in over our heads. The places we expect to starve will starve, and then rather suddenly the richer countries will joining them too. Not much of an in-between phase.

Everything is generally (and “properly”) fucked up right now, but even so I’m not sure that most of us really appreciate what we’ve got. I know I can still find it a challenge sometimes.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Is what I’m always telling myself. (And thankfully, I got 'em.)

Our results show that achieving the Paris Agreement goal of a 2 ∘C temperature increase is only feasible for low emission scenarios and if ECS is lower than 3.5 ∘C. With an ECS of 5 ∘C, peak warming in all considered scenarios more than doubles compared to an ECS of 3 ∘C. Approximately 50% of this additional warming is attributed to positive climate–carbon cycle feedbacks with comparable contributions from CO2 and CH4.

Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change yields Charney (fast-feedback) equilibrium climate sensitivity 1.2 ± 0.3°C (2σ) per W/m2, which is 4.8°C ± 1.2°C for doubled CO2.