Extinction is unlikely, given the vast amount of energy we have at our disposal (even if that energy's consumption is making it hard to be a biological construct on this earth).
No, the likely scenario is in some ways even sadder: the 1% will survive in carefully-cultivated bunkers by the thousands or tens of thousands, and the vast majority (along with an awful lot of the other life on the planet) will die.
Extinction by this effect is a possibility, but a remote one; humans react faster than the climate, and we're very good at problem solving over time when faced with existential threats. We're just bad at predicting them and solving them when they're on the horizon and a gentle nudge could have desired cumulative effect.
Unfortunately, in the past 5 years we have begun to understand the possibility that runaway greenhouse events from methane release are a not-insignificant detail which most models do not account for.
Researchers who have been working on that area have basically said that if the conditions for oceanic methane clathrate relase is met, everything could change in the span of two decades.
> The projected net impact from global warming is on the ~$2T/year range.
Such projections obviously assume that the warming stops at some point. I don't really see any reason to believe it will, at least not as long as a significant number of humans remain. Whether enough humans will die off before the effect becomes self-sustaining is still TBD.
No, the likely scenario is in some ways even sadder: the 1% will survive in carefully-cultivated bunkers by the thousands or tens of thousands, and the vast majority (along with an awful lot of the other life on the planet) will die.
Extinction by this effect is a possibility, but a remote one; humans react faster than the climate, and we're very good at problem solving over time when faced with existential threats. We're just bad at predicting them and solving them when they're on the horizon and a gentle nudge could have desired cumulative effect.