2 ms·

60 degrees C is almost impossible in non-desert areas (due to evaporation of moisture). The practical limit, today, in tropical areas is about 45 degrees, and a

60 degrees C is almost impossible in non-desert areas (due to evaporation of moisture). The practical limit, today, in tropical areas is about 45 degrees, and at that point, it's getting deadly. Which also answers the first question. Future temperatures of up to 45 degrees will be survivable. Exactly where that will be, is complicated, but anywhere north of the alps in Europe should be too far north, as should the northerns states in the US. That does not mean that every place further south will be unlivable, only that it the risk is higher. Spain, Italy, Texas and California could start looking like Sahara, or it could be more similar to Egypt or Thailand, depending on how rainfall patterns change. In any case, if we look 50 years into the future, who knows what kind of technologies we would be able to leverage to mitigate these problems?

bigbugbag 8y ago
> In any case, if we look 50 years into the future, who knows what kind of technologies we would be able to leverage to mitigate these problems? Scientists and technologists that have been warning us that no technological solution will be able to address the climate change consequences, and they've been telling us for several decades which makes it weird that people still do not know about this. Well there is one potential biotech solution which is engineering a fatal panpidemy that would wipe out almost all humans from the surface of earth as was presented in Texas a few years ago but IIRC the conclusion was that for now this seems to be an unreachable goal as no agents combines all required characteristics for such a pandemy to happen.
- trashtester 8y ago
  > Scientists and technologists that have been warning us that no technological solution will be able to address the climate change consequences, and they've been telling us for several decades which makes it weird that people still do not know about this. Most scientists that I know would not make absolute statements like this. What the WOULD say, is that we should not rely on this happening. When Thomas Malthus made his predictions 200 years ago, he was right about his core prediction (population increase), but underestimated technological growth. The truth is that we have almost no clue about what technological revolutions will happen over the next 50-200 years, if any, and how they will impact us.

bigbugbag 8y ago

> In any case, if we look 50 years into the future, who knows what kind of technologies we would be able to leverage to mitigate these problems? Scientists and technologists that have been warning us that no technological solution will be able to address the climate change consequences, and they've been telling us for several decades which makes it weird that people still do not know about this. Well there is one potential biotech solution which is engineering a fatal panpidemy that would wipe out almost all humans from the surface of earth as was presented in Texas a few years ago but IIRC the conclusion was that for now this seems to be an unreachable goal as no agents combines all required characteristics for such a pandemy to happen.

trashtester 8y ago
> Scientists and technologists that have been warning us that no technological solution will be able to address the climate change consequences, and they've been telling us for several decades which makes it weird that people still do not know about this. Most scientists that I know would not make absolute statements like this. What the WOULD say, is that we should not rely on this happening. When Thomas Malthus made his predictions 200 years ago, he was right about his core prediction (population increase), but underestimated technological growth. The truth is that we have almost no clue about what technological revolutions will happen over the next 50-200 years, if any, and how they will impact us.