I believe you shifted the decimal place. You should have 6%, not 0.006%

6% per degree of warming, and it could be 3 or 4 degrees or whatever…I believe they used 3.5° and a total damage of ~20% as one of the projections for the end of the century.

They also call for significant losses to production by 2050.

Nature paper is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09085-w

We estimate that global production declines 5.5 × 1014 kcal annually per 1 °C global mean surface temperature (GMST) rise (120 kcal per person per day or 4.4% of recommended consumption per 1 °C; P < 0.001).

It’s a pretty weird and interesting paper. The big idea is that we will have to majorly revamp the agriculture practices to adapt to climate and weather. The climate and the weather would have extreme amounts of damage taken against how we produce food right now. What this paper argues is that we can mitigate some of these losses in many places, and that by shifting what we grow and where we grow it, we can still make farming work to a lesser extent than today…the paper attempts to model what the net future potential would be for a more resilient state.

Anyhow, there will be less food produced even after we adapt.

https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false

It’s not reliable.

This is STRAIGHT quoted from your source:

“This data is based on territorial emissions, which do not account for emissions embedded in traded goods. Emissions from international aviation and shipping are not included in any country or region’s emissions.”

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494#d1e1978

Global temperature leaped more than 0.4°C (0.7°F) during the past two years,

many Earth scientists were baffled by the magnitude of the global warming, which was twice as large as expected for the weak 2023-2024 El Niño. We find that most of the other half of the warming was caused by a restriction on aerosol emissions by ships**

You are arguing just relying on this nonsense but I don’t think you have the depth or the context to understand how you’re being willfully misled.

That paper shows how 0.2° of current day GLOBAL warming is JUST from the emissions from ocean going ships!

Like…they are pretty clever in how they can trick people but leave them feeling confident that they haven’t been tricked. It’s “reliable”. But you don’t know what you don’t even know. They are leaving out all these major elements to paint a rosy picture.

Incidentally, there is a really great piece of science about our current conversation about primary versus secondary sources:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022AV000676

an excessive emphasis on data-intensive activities and the disproportionate investment of time and resources in these activities is leading to a displacement of more foundational scientific activities of our discipline. This not only impedes the scientific progress of our field

The money, time and effort going into (climate) data visualization and other communications is a huge distraction away from deep understanding. They are regurgitating old and obsolete information that has been discredited…instead of pushing knowledge.

Now, consider this:

“The IPCC aerosol scenario has zero aerosol forcing change between 1970 and 2005, which requires low climate sensitivity (near 3 °C for 2 × CO2) to match observed warming.”

Zero! These were highly credited people. Very credible. Highly reliable even.

We are now in a position to completely understand how to view this, we can confidently look at these models and see them as majorly wrong and an extreme downplay of what was happening.

So there are two sets of accounting books going around.

One set has cooked books with major, major accounting errors. Their predictions are not working out to be correct whenever something they didn’t consider changes they get caught out for fudging their math.

One set has been audited and reconciled. They are calling their shots ahead of time and predicting future outcomes and getting their predictions right on the money. Their model is probably not perfectly but it’s not egregiously vapid either.

Do you know what version of the science you’re looking at? Your reliable sources?

That isn’t a science source. Incorrect domain.

Do you read the funny pages for economy information?

The paper I linked in critical in understanding why these models are wrong.

Many of these models were tuned and calibrated by looking at the first twitches of climate change during the past 50 or 100 years (only). Mainly they were missing very large and important variables. When people have gone back to the paleorecord, they were able to see what was being omitted from the models.

This is exactly why all the headlines are screaming “faster than expected” “sooner than expected” “worse than expected”.

In short, industrial society was producing enough dust (+ water vapor + clouds) to almost totally cancel the warming effect in the short term. Which made it seem like the climate changes very slowly or not very sensitively. Models that didn’t know about dust and water and clouds were having all their numbers tweaked to “agree with reality”…making it seem like climate change isn’t that strong.

Only if you just keep at it, eventually that warming does kick into drive. So this is a very transitory stage. You cannot base a longer range prediction on these 15 year range narrow effects.

You don’t have better things to do. This is one of the most fundamental things to understand to put your whole life into perspective. Most people are either wasting their lives or they are building on a foundation of shifting sands.

Re-read the part with the asterisk in my previous comment. Like, they don’t come out and attack these 1.5 people directly, they just kind of point out the ridiculousness of the claim. Like…“when they say that stuff, they haven’t even thought it out”. It’s not even that they are wrong, they are just completely wrong. They don’t even have an actual argument, it’s really REAL nonsense. It’s a lot of work to try to dispel crap like that because it’s not even based on anything.

But of course, “reliable sources” is like a good example. If you delve into most of the logical fallacies / classical logic mistakes, what’s really interesting is that most of the fallacies are not actually logically tricky. What they are is social. In nearly all cases, someone lets their mind be confused by the perception of the social status or the value or the position of authority of the speaker of the false statement.

We humans survived by prizing group harmony and downplaying logic and reasoning. Like, we could not survive alone in the wilds, we HAD to protect our membership in the group.

My dude, you ARE in a suicidally stupid group. They are killing themselves and everyone around them. Trust no one.

Correct. The system only goes up 60% of the full temperature forcing in 100 years. So 75 years down the road from today you don’t see most of the temperature change, YET

Point 2: “Reliable sources”. They are likely wrong. Read the paper.

There is major politics and a lot of mistakes. They all downplay the severity for non scientific reasons.

The main human motivator was that if climate change was as dire and as bleak as the science suggested, there would be no hope at all. So nobody ever truly considered these scenarios because it was too scary and too politically impossible. Like…why bother thinking about problems for which there is no solution space? Instead focus on a narrow possibility that we are in a different problem that we have some agency within.

People have been looking at the science to see what they want to hear.

Here is a very clear example…

In this paper, they are talking about a comparison between the PETM and the climate forcing of today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

This had PROFOUND effects on the planet. Anoxic oceans, mass animal mortality, acidification of the oceans, decline of plankton and corals etc etc. Palm trees grew in the Arctic.

I mean…this is human extinction level stuff. They don’t come right out and say it anywhere. But you have to understand the context.

If you want to share where you’re getting the “1.5 by 2100” I can try to dispel the idea more fully. It’s probably a junk source. [*]

[*] In this paper I just linked, they talk about how the pollution that comes with CO2 emissions (soot, dust, smoke and other small particles) acts like a sunscreen, and water vapor also interacts with this dust layer and amplifies the effect, rapidly cooling the planet. They discuss how many of the scenarios where we eg. stop CO2 to limit warming by 2100… DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER that dust will stop, and when dust stops temperature actually ramps up even more quickly than we have ever seen before. The dust contribution is a more rapid effect than the CO2 part. Basically the idea is not even scientific at all.

Then they go into the details:

We would need rapid phaseout of carbon within a couple decades. Then we need a global program of solar radiation management (geoengineering) with the example of the Pinatubo eruption given to save inundation of the coastal cities. THEN we need to rapidly find a way to do negative emissions and restore the atmosphere to preindustrial.

(Also, equlibrium warming isn’t the only warming at play. You read the whole thing. Right? The other one is ESS, which involves feedbacks.)

If you just read to the end of that paragraph, it concludes with this:

Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and (3) intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance to phase down today’s massive human-made ‘geo-transformation’ of Earth’s climate. Current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.

And what is ‘committed warming’?

They say:

If human emissions ceased, atmospheric CO2 would initially decline a few ppm per year, but uptake would soon slow—it would take millennia for CO2 to reach preindustrial levels

So the earth would eventually remove the CO2 via natural processes it’s not “committed”. It just takes thousands and thousands of years to go away again.

According to the paleoclimate data, the CO2 levels of today get you an equilibrium of 10° of global temperature rise. It takes about 100 years before the climate response happens.

https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false