modeling precise estimations assembling calibrated wisdom generating contingent forecasts aggregating predictive understanding composing definitive predictions mapping the future mapping precise contingencies crowdsourcing predictive futures mapping calibrated contingencies formulating definitive contingencies delivering intelligent futures composing predictive contingencies forecasting calibrated contingencies predicting probable estimations

Question

Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Ragnarök Question Series: If a global catastrophe occurs, will it be due to either human-made climate change or geoengineering?

According to current IPCC estimates, unmitigated greenhouse emissions are likely to lead to global temperature increases of 2.6ºC-4.8ºC by 2100. If this happened, there’d likely be significant humanitarian harms, including more severe weather, food crises, and the spread of infectious diseases which would disproportionately affect the world’s worst off.

Moreover, the estimated humanitarian impacts of climate changes are likely to be highly nonlinear: marginal temperature increases are expected to cause more damage at already-increased temperatures (i.e. going from 3ºC to 4ºC is expected to be significantly worse than going from 1ºC to 2ºC).

According to some, there is also a non-negligible chance — perhaps around 10% — that unmitigated emissions will lead to global temperature increases even higher than 4.8ºC. More generally, estimates of temperature increases resulting from greenhouse emissions have a “fat” right tail, meaning that there is a low, but non-negligible chance of very high temperature increases. Hence, there is a non-negligible chance that unmitigated emissions may produce consequences which could be catastrophic for life on Earth.

For example, it has been argued that a 12ºC increase in mean global temperature—which is substantially outside the range considered plausible this century—would cause at least one day each year in the territories where half of all people live today to be hot enough to exceed human metabolic limits and cause tissue damage from hyperthermia after a few hours of exposure.

One way to reduce global temperatures quickly and cheaply is a form of climate engineering called Solar Radiation Management (SRM), which involves cooling the Earth by reflecting sunlight back into space. The most researched form of SRM involves injecting aerosols into the stratosphere. Most of the evidence so far suggests that ideal SRM deployment programmes would reduce overall damages relative to an un-engineered greenhouse world.

However, SRM brings its own risks. Of the currently known potential negative direct effects of SRM, only abrupt termination could plausibly bring about an existential catastrophe. If a very thick stratospheric veil were deployed and SRM was suddenly terminated and not resumed within a buffer period of a few months, then there would be very rapid and damaging warming. There might also be some reasons to expect the chance of at least one country to undertake climate engineering to be surprisingly high, especially when the relevant technologies are widespread, and the lack of global coordination permits each country to individually decide for or against the intervention.

In the headline question to this series, we defined a global catastrophe as a 10% decrease in the world population in any period of 5 years or less. This question resolves ambiguously if no such global catastrophe occurs. On the other hand...

If a global catastrophe happens before 2100, will it be principally due to human-made climate change, or the use of geoengineering as a deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system?

The question results positively if a human-made climate change or geoengineering catastrophe occurs that claims at least 10% in any period of 5 years or less before 2100. This catastrophe must be due to the direct effects of climate change that are generally believed very unlikely in a counterfactual world with little or no global warming but otherwise similar to ours. These include (but are not limited to) floods, extreme weather, the spreading of infectious disease, and the health effects of extreme heat. Finally, the effects due to the effects of the use of geoengineering that has been principally motivated to mitigate climate change risks, also count towards the population decline.

{{qctrl.predictionString()}}

Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.