The timeline

All predictions for climate change are on the low side. This is why.

So when are things likely to get very bad. All these issues will happen together but some will be more pronounced at different times. As I see it, first will be the effects of peak oil causing inflation, followed by the baby boomers resulting in asset deflation, followed by the climate affecting both. 

The following is from this post, it seems to correlate closely with most commentators;

■ Based on Figure 21 from the Copenhagen Diagnosis (pdf; click for high-res version), I put 1½°C arriving shortly after 2020. Call it 2022 for a clean decade from now.

Note: All science in this field is done in °C

■ We’re at .8°C now [2012] with an equal amount, totaling 1½°C, in the pipeline and guaranteed. When we get to 1½°C, will 3°C (the start of “mass extinction“) also be in the pipeline? If that 1:2 ratio (0.8°C now : 1.5°C coming) holds, I’d say Yes. [Update: As of mid-2014, the total including the pipeline is now 2°C.]

■ If true, we’ll know in a decade if the “mass extinction” scenario is inevitable. Would I love to be wrong? Of course; I plan to be alive in a decade. But should we plan on having more time than a decade to dither and coddle the rich? You pick — choices are Yes and No.

■ Using Figure 21 again, when does 3°C actually arrive? The most aggressive scenario gives us actual 3°C between 2050–2060.

■ If so, that’s all she wrote. In 2055, say, when 3°C shows up, I’ll bet all I own that 6°C is in the pipeline. 2055 will mark the start of a new geological era.

This estimate of 2050 also correlates to this post. Society will experience an extreme collapse prior to that period though due to all the factors (and many more) outlined here and at other climate change blogs. But it is not only climate change, there is also the aging population, peak oil, oceanic death ... the list is long. 

However, I don't agree with the foregone conclusions from that point on. The conclusion is that the warming will continue and accelerate from there onward. However, that does not seem possible. 
For a number of points;

• From Greenland alone you would have 2,850,000 cubic kilometres (684,000 cu mi) of cold water being dumped into the sea. That would have at least 2 effects;

1. Initially heating from the albedo affect of the loss of arctic ice would be countered by the cold water.
2. It is likely the cold fresh water would shut down or at least slow down the Thermohaline circulation. That would decrease the warm water flowing to the arctic;
• That would decrease the rate at which the methane hydrates melt. That means;
• The rate of change for the methane emissions would decrease, but not stop.
• If it stopped completely parts of the whole would be thrown back into an ice age, but that is assuming a lot of very complex interactions. It does however have a precedent that the Younger Dryas may have been caused by a shutdown of the The Gulf Stream from a sudden inflow of fresh water.
3. The isostatic rebound from the loss of that huge amount of weight in such a small time-frame would result in volcanoes. Those volcanoes would pump sulfides into the atmosphere which would reflect some of the sun's heat, cooling the atmosphere.
4. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, by itself, would raise the sea level 7m that in turn would be a huge thermal mass to initially absorb increased temperatures. That is not factoring glaciers in Antarctica, Canada, South America and the Tibetan plateau.

• Economic modeling puts an economic collapse at 2015 - 2020. For many reasons, society would collapse,  not all, but a significant portion. For example, China will have its own Thorium reactors with a local source for fuel. Iran also would have the means to power significant underground cities, though they will need supplies. So certainly parts will continue. However, the collapse of civilization as we know it would have profound impacts on CO2 emissions. So;
• There would be no further significant CO2 pollution. That would leave the existing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere for roughly 40 years. During that time;
• The newly growing Northern forests would be a carbon sink
• The oceans would continue to be a carbon sink (albeit at a much slower rate than today)

There is a way to economically mitigate the pending collapse. The issue is it is unlikely to be implemented in time. Again there is a way to reverse the warming over a long period of time, but again I fear it will not be implemented in time. Both those solutions require foresight to implement before the real problems manifest themselves, and both would require a long time to resolve the issues. However, our political structure is based on short periods.

So my conclusion is that a collapse is certain, but what happens from that point on is less sure. There may be actually unforeseen positive feedbacks like methane emissions from under the Greenland ice sheet or Antarctica. As well as a host of others. There are a lot of unknowns.

Certainly there will be a fragmentation of the world's civilization. Countries that have made preparations will barely survive in any form, however countries that haven't prepared will experience catastrophic collapse. In this context I find it hard to imagine that the US will make it in its current form. The disintegration will be uneven. Places affected by migration, heat and drought will become less productive and have larger social issues.
Its refusal to even accept that the climate is changing will mean it will respond to the threats too late. Its huge cache of personal weapons, its massive debt, its changing climate and a flood of people coming from the south to escape drought and heat would destabilize parts of it.

Perhaps the gun issue will be the deciding factor for the US. The Tao Te Ching states "Weapons of war are instruments of disaster. They are rejected by all beings. Thus a person of Tao will not dwell upon them."

The violence that will result from migration will overshadow the attempts of decent people to survive and provide for others, and the government will not have the funds to protect them. Under an evolutionary perspective, the hunter and the prey are balanced by the preys ability to create defenses. The local government debts will affect (and already has) the police. However, it needs to be recognized that this will not be an even gradual descent. In the US between local government debt and unfunded liabilities, some areas are going to be much better off than others. 

Certain centres are already militarizing their police forces.
With a lack of defense, the prey will join gangs or be wiped out in poorer urban centres. What will remain will be hunter (police) against hunter (gangs), in an environment with less and less food.

So given the above as a guide we have a decade to prepare. Seems like it is a lot, but it is not. It would be easier if there was a recognition of the problem among the people who are going to be most affected. But unfortunately, they are lost in the day to day details of their lives. In addition, they are being fed misinformation, or no information at all. The issue is that it is a preparation, for an extremely hostile environment.