Toby Ord estimated in the Precipice a one in a thousand probability of existential risk this century due to climate change, largely due to locking in a moist greenhouse effect. We would estimate the feasibility of maintaining industrial civilization (with eventual colonization of space) in this scenario. The physical space on Antarctica is adequate for industrial civilization, but alternative foods produced on other continents would likely be required, such as foods grown in air-conditioned greenhouses, single-cell protein powered by renewable hydrogen, electrosynthesized vinegar, and foods created by chemical synthesis. Though there would be significant time to develop these solutions, the primary value of this research would be the value of information on how much to prioritize climate change as an existential risk.
It looks like for me that survival of the moisture greenhouse is possible in altitudes above 5000- 6000 meters. But the main question is if the temperature rise will be uniform. The town Rinconada is 5100 meters high and it has the median temperature of 2C. Meanwhile the hottest city on Earth, Basra, reaches 50C every summer everyday. So people in Rinconada could survive.
Also, the median elevation of Himalaya is around 6000 meters, they have 595 000 sq km and 52 millions people.
Meanwhile, the ice of Antarctica will probably take hundreds of years to melt after the start of the moisture greenhouse, and until it happens, the land there can’t be used. Strong rains and rivers also prevent living on the ice surface (though there are regions of ice in Antarctica with −60 C stable temperature and they could survive).
More realistic moist greenhouse will result in stronger polar warming and weaker equatorial warming because of the polar amplification of the greenhouse effect. This means that the equatorial region will get additional 20-30 C warming and poles will get more than that (like +60). This again favours Himalaya as the survival place.
What worries me is that there will be no stop from moist greenhouse to runaway global warming, as some regions of Earth could get close +100C in this scenario (like Persian Gulf) and the water may start boil there, creating never ending positive feedback loop.
It looks like for me that survival of the moisture greenhouse is possible in altitudes above 5000- 6000 meters. But the main question is if the temperature rise will be uniform. The town Rinconada is 5100 meters high and it has the median temperature of 2C. Meanwhile the hottest city on Earth, Basra, reaches 50C every summer everyday. So people in Rinconada could survive.
Also, the median elevation of Himalaya is around 6000 meters, they have 595 000 sq km and 52 millions people.
Meanwhile, the ice of Antarctica will probably take hundreds of years to melt after the start of the moisture greenhouse, and until it happens, the land there can’t be used. Strong rains and rivers also prevent living on the ice surface (though there are regions of ice in Antarctica with −60 C stable temperature and they could survive).
More realistic moist greenhouse will result in stronger polar warming and weaker equatorial warming because of the polar amplification of the greenhouse effect. This means that the equatorial region will get additional 20-30 C warming and poles will get more than that (like +60). This again favours Himalaya as the survival place.
What worries me is that there will be no stop from moist greenhouse to runaway global warming, as some regions of Earth could get close +100C in this scenario (like Persian Gulf) and the water may start boil there, creating never ending positive feedback loop.