hereās a quick thought experiment: exactly how fucked is earth by the time the taumoeba arrive?
short answer: (leclerc voice) who the fuck even knows
long answer: looking at the various climate simulations run by worldbuilding pasta (which is a fantastic site for worldbuilders btw), we have a few good case studies to compare. first, the modern earth looks like this:
nice and cozy. gotta love home sweet home (no offence, erid!)
then, hereās what earth will look like at several degrees celsius cooler than it is now (cooled by removing co2 from the atmosphere):
now, exoplasim tends to underestimate glaciation, so the amount of ice cover here is probably less than would occur in reality. however, even at a chilly average temperature of -10 C, life as we know it would continue to exist with the caveat that there would certainly be a major mass extinction event. for reference, during the last glacial maximum (the ice age), earth got to about 10 C on avg. -18 C might be enough for snowball earth and exoplasim is running too warm, but it also might still be habitable.
however: it probably wouldnāt be this bad.
according to wbp, reducing earth to an avg of 15 C to 0 C meant reducing co2 levels from 300 ppm to 80 ppm. this is roughly equivalent to reducing insolation by about 220 W/m2 (going off of wbpās old climate scripts), which, if I havenāt fucked my math, is around the reduction level predicted in phm.
now, seeing that iāve said that this amount of reduction in the sunās strength would be enough to cause a mass extinction event, you might be thinking something along the lines of āwait, how the hell can you be saying that itās not going to be that bad?ā and there are two answers:
1. it takes ages for the climate to change because thermal inertia gets in the way. even if thereās a sudden, massive change in greenhouse gas or insolation levels, it takes upwards of several centuries to start seeing changes on a global scale. i donāt know if 30 years would be long enough for the climate to reach equilibrium ā if exoplasim is accurate, it would take something closer to a century before earth settles into a colder global temp ā probably longer, because ecoplasim doesnāt model ocean currents.
2. earth is a tricky, inconsistent bitch when it comes to climate.
the sunās level of insolation has increased as sheās aged ā current insolation is about ~1367 W/m2, but 1 Gyr, it was closer to ~1100 W/m2, which is about the reduction that an unmitigated Astrophage infection inflicts on the host star (i think?? I may very well be fucking up my percentages here). however, this is where we run into the āfaint young sunā paradox ā despite the fact that the sun used to be dramatically cooler than it is today, earthās global temperature has been shockingly consistent. during the boring billion (1.8 - 0.8 Gyr), despite insolation being ~1100 W/m2, the planet was actually warmer than today (about 20 C on avg) ā which is where the paradox gets its name. the climate was so stable, in fact, that there probably werenāt even any major ice ages despite the milankovich cycle presumably functioning as normal during the boring billion. so. wtf, earth?
the reason for the āfaint young sun paradoxā is poorly understood ā the planet had something to the effect of 7-11 times more co2 than it does today, which sounds significant but is still an order of magnitude less than we would anticipate to be needed to keep the planet that warm despite the reduced insolation. all i can really do is shrug and copy leclerc ā climate science is very young, and thereās still plenty we donāt know. however, considering that methane is something like 2-4 times as effective a greenhouse gas, things should play out much like weir described, if not even better: adding that much methane might prevent global temps from dropping by any more than 5 C by the end of the 30 years of cooling at worst, and itās actually entirely possible that the planet will end up heating up for a bit before the methane is destroyed during the hail maryās apology tour.
the primary problem isnāt actually going to be global temperatures ā itāll be the combination of insane storms and fear-mongering leading to wars. a sudden drop in global insolation wonāt be enough to turn earth into a snowball with the addition of the methane, but it is going to majorly fuck up things like the enso cycle, and the ictz is probably going to wander like crazy.
by the end of the thirty years of waiting for the hail mary, the planet probably wonāt have cooled by any more than 5 C, potentially not even 2 C, just because the amount of greenhouse heating added by the methane should lead to temperatures proportional to what we saw during the boring billion when the sun was as luminous as it is current day after astrophage infection. if anything, itās possible that adding so much methane could cause the post-hail mary earth to be warmer than when it left, because methane is way better at warming up planets than co2 and off the top of my head I donāt know if itāll be depleted enough after 30 years for it to be safe to immediately release the taumoeba without causing global warming.
however, thereās no way the combination of reduced sunlight and blackpanel heating wonāt have serious effects on global climate. there will be wild, unpredictable storms globally, and surface temperatures will drop low enough that people probably will die as a result. itās easy enough to say that in the long run things will even out, but, in the short term, thereās going to be a lot of casualties when people have to deal with infrastructural inadequacies. look at texas, for example, where many people die as a result of the infrastructure not being able to protect them in the cold. thatās going to be happening globally ānot cold enough to make any one particular country uninhabitable outright, but enough that i would predict probably upwards of a few hundred million casualties over three decades (although thatās just a very, very loose guess).
itās just that, as always, most of the people who will die will be the poor who wonāt be able to afford the cost of improving their own infrastructure or the cost of moving somewhere easier to live. which is nice and depressingā¦
the one caveat to all of this is actually pretty interesting: in the phmverse, itād probably be really easy to make hyper efficient power plants? the problem with astrophage was, ironically, that it stored way too much energy. however, assuming the blackpanel farms continue running, they should continue to produce fuck-off high amounts of astrophage that can now go towards creating power for infrastructure instead of the hail mary.
itās basically nuclear ii electric boogaloo, except somehow both better and worse, because on one hand astrophage can just straight power stuff, no steam and turbines required, but on the other hand, if 1 mg is enough to blow up a warehouse⦠what would 1 kg do if you dropped it somewhere? there would probably be an insane arms race immediately following as everyone tries to get as much astrophage as possible both for power and for weapons. which⦠ironically would probably cause a second cold war and, like the cold war, another space race, since now colonizing the solar system is a cake walk and thereās shit loads of resources to be gained to whoever figures out how to monopolize the first asteroid mining colonies.
in sum: science is crazy, man. never do science.