In his article of 4/25/19, Jeff Garberson writes of the latest computer-model results on global warming: "Superficially, the model results would seem to suggest that warming is happening faster and more dramatically than previously estimated." While the remark is tentative, it's noteworthy that each new assessment coming from our labs is worse than the earlier ones.
We should be worried. Here's Nathaniel Rich in his intro. to his recent book, Losing Earth: "The Paris climate agreement...hoped to restrict warming to 2 degrees Celsius. A recent study puts the odds of pulling this off at one in twenty....The climate scientist James Hansen has called a 2-degree warming 'a prescription for long-term disaster.' Long-term disaster is now the best-case scenario. A 3-degree warming, on the other hand, is a prescription for short-term disaster: forests sprouting in the Arctic, the abandonment of most coastal cities, mass starvation. Robert Watson, a former chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has argued that a 3-degree warming is the realistic minimum. Four degrees: Europe in permanent drought; vast areas of China, India, and Bangladesh claimed by desert; Polynesia swallowed by the sea; the Colorado River thinned to a trickle. The prospect of a 5-degree warming prompts some of the world's preeminent climate scientists, not an especially excitable type, to warn of the fall of civilization."
There you have Nathaniel Rich's assessment. Personally, I think the 5-degree comment is optimistic--optimistic in this way: that the fall of civilization, due to conflict over scarcity, would occur sooner than we ever got to 5-degrees. Closer to the bone, at the conclusion of his paragraph, Rich writes: "Beyond a certain point, the two great existential threats to our civilization, global warming and nuclear weapons, will loose their chains and join to rebel against their creators." This too is a tentative assessment; but it's one that should center our attention as no other problem does.