4 ms·

This is ridiculous. People will just move towards the poles. Earth has been much warmer in the past and it was rainforests from pole to pole.

aitchnyu 4y ago
Antartica has average elevation of 2500 meters. AFAICT Antartica can offer very little habitable land after the ice melts.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Towards, not to. Lots of land in Canada and Siberia is going to become a lot more habitable. "average elevation" is a bit of a strange metric for a continent. Several large American cities are above 1600m and just looking at a map of the land below the ice of Antartica, there is plenty of low-lying land. And we need not exaggerate the actual expected warming. The beyond-worst-case doomers don't need that much attention. People are going to move away from coasts because the sea will make a new coastline. Agricultural zones will move north and around because of changes to weather patterns. Pretty cold places will become less cold and new cities will pop up further north. Canada will do pretty well and grow a lot.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    > Canada will do pretty well and grow a lot. Perhaps- but it's also warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, which makes adaptation even more challenging.
wizofaus 4y ago
I expect that will happen too, I don't see it's any more ridiculous than suggesting underground and more nocturnal living arrangements will become common too. Sea level rises will massively reduce the amount of arable land we'll have to occupy, and there'll be another 2 billion of us in 30-40 years, so we'll need every available option. Both are a huge disruption from our current mode of existence. If you have kids under 20 now they'll very likely witness it in their lifetimes.
- ripper1138 4y ago
  Source for “sea level rises will massively reduce the amount of arable land”? Seems like an exaggeration. My naive estimate would be that maybe 1% of arable land would be destroyed by sea level. I’m far more concerned about drought.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    1% is massive if that 1% is where most people currently live (like in Australia). And 1% is likely to be an underestimate - there are studies suggesting up to 600 million people being forced to relocate within the next century (based purely on rising sea levels - not sure what studies there are around forced relocation due to drought and extreme heat). https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-percentage-impacts-of-sea-level-rise-on-agricultural-land_fig1_225424006 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-percentage-impacts-o... suggests it could be lot more than 1% too.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      (Technically "arable" isn't the term I was looking for, I guess I mean "land suitable for large-scale human habitation")
      - ripper1138 4y ago
        Gotcha. “Arable” has a pretty specific meaning.
ripper1138 4y ago
Agreed. And I think these changes will still develop slowly enough to adapt to. It would really surprise me if the Midwest and eastern US farmland doesn’t stay productive for a long, long time. But it would not surprise me if there are occasional bad harvests due to heat waves. Hopefully we can plan appropriately for that uncertainty.

aitchnyu 4y ago

Antartica has average elevation of 2500 meters. AFAICT Antartica can offer very little habitable land after the ice melts.

colechristensen 4y ago
Towards, not to. Lots of land in Canada and Siberia is going to become a lot more habitable. "average elevation" is a bit of a strange metric for a continent. Several large American cities are above 1600m and just looking at a map of the land below the ice of Antartica, there is plenty of low-lying land. And we need not exaggerate the actual expected warming. The beyond-worst-case doomers don't need that much attention. People are going to move away from coasts because the sea will make a new coastline. Agricultural zones will move north and around because of changes to weather patterns. Pretty cold places will become less cold and new cities will pop up further north. Canada will do pretty well and grow a lot.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  > Canada will do pretty well and grow a lot. Perhaps- but it's also warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, which makes adaptation even more challenging.

wizofaus 4y ago

I expect that will happen too, I don't see it's any more ridiculous than suggesting underground and more nocturnal living arrangements will become common too. Sea level rises will massively reduce the amount of arable land we'll have to occupy, and there'll be another 2 billion of us in 30-40 years, so we'll need every available option. Both are a huge disruption from our current mode of existence. If you have kids under 20 now they'll very likely witness it in their lifetimes.

ripper1138 4y ago
Source for “sea level rises will massively reduce the amount of arable land”? Seems like an exaggeration. My naive estimate would be that maybe 1% of arable land would be destroyed by sea level. I’m far more concerned about drought.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  1% is massive if that 1% is where most people currently live (like in Australia). And 1% is likely to be an underestimate - there are studies suggesting up to 600 million people being forced to relocate within the next century (based purely on rising sea levels - not sure what studies there are around forced relocation due to drought and extreme heat). https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-percentage-impacts-of-sea-level-rise-on-agricultural-land_fig1_225424006 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-percentage-impacts-o... suggests it could be lot more than 1% too.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    (Technically "arable" isn't the term I was looking for, I guess I mean "land suitable for large-scale human habitation")
    - ripper1138 4y ago
      Gotcha. “Arable” has a pretty specific meaning.

ripper1138 4y ago

Agreed. And I think these changes will still develop slowly enough to adapt to. It would really surprise me if the Midwest and eastern US farmland doesn’t stay productive for a long, long time. But it would not surprise me if there are occasional bad harvests due to heat waves. Hopefully we can plan appropriately for that uncertainty.