100 year from now, or whenever the polar caps melt for the summer or even all year long, won't people just migrate north? And those who live in this clime will be used to the fact that you can live as opposed to just subsist on the northern coasts of Asia, Europe, and North America. Let's say we don't reverse the climate change course we're on. We swing out of the sweet spot we're in and into a hotter one. Polar ice caps melt. Humans won't go extinct, they'll adapt. We'll be all dead, so regret smegret... No one will care what the climate was in the year 2000. If you ask the people who live in this hotter global temperature average if they'd prefer to have the polar ice caps return all year long, I'd bet they'd think that would be a disaster. And if you ask them, don't you regret that the humans erased polars bears from the earth, they'd probably care as much as we care about the Dodos or the Wooly Mammoths.
It's not about local climate adaptation, it's about growing enough food to feed everyone. Big enough climate changes will most definitely lead to very severe food shortages. Remember the last oil price spike causing rioting in some poor countries over food prices going up.
To the extent that climate does change, food-production areas will migrate. If water availability and local soil conditions allow, thar be food. But not necessarily food handy for people who (for economic or other reasons) cannot migrate or pay transport costs. Food sufficiency is largely a matter of total supply vs. total population. Only the second is sure to increase in the next few decades. Fossil fuel indeed suppors much of the current global supply (machinery, fertilizer, pesticides) and transport. Future cost and availability of that is certainly under study. In many areas, future water availability is the elephant in the room. Then you have post-harvest loss to spoilage and vermin. Also being studied in the context of climate projections. Probably missing a few important matters, but that's enough buzzkill for one post. Adaptation, as I read the thread title, is a matter of technology and human physiology. But do not underestimate the latter. I recall it was Darwin who described the people of Tierra del Fuego living in freezing rain buck naked. On the hot/dry end, watch "Lawrence of Arabia" again (worth the time in any case). If you move from, say Seattle to the desert, your skin initially cracks and falls off. Uncomfortable but in a month or two the body substantially adapts. Move the other way and you feel all covered by fungus. Again, adaptation over a similar time scale. Bodies are amazing things, within about a 40 oC range and assuming that the food and water supply continues. Here's hopin'...
To answer the original question, yes. There are a few episodes of The Twilight Zone in which characters travel through time - forward or backward. I can think of two of those episodes in which someone from the past travels into modern time (1960s) and is shocked by the air pollution and ambient noise. The others around them are like, "what?" Or to put it another way, we're all boiling frogs.
Every change brings opportunity for some and disaster for others. Early plant life oxygenating our atmosphere was good for the development of animal life, but not so good for oxygen sensitive organisms. I happen to think it was a good change, seeing that I am an animal. As always, it all comes down to who's ox gets gored. Tom
First, look up the likely areas of permanent drought: Climate change: Drought may threaten much of globe within decades | UCAR As an aside, that assumes business-as-usual, with no feedback of carbon releases from the Arctic. Then look up the Canadian Shield. Not a lot of high-yield farming there. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield]Canadian Shield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Maybe get a handle on how much less solar energy falls at high latitudes compared to lower ones (the bottom chart here is close enough): Solar Heating , Alaska Science Forum (Although, in fact, in the land of the midnight sun, basically, you get all your sun in the summer, which offsets this some, but only some.) Then take a guess on how much the population may have to shrink to accommodate that. You ask this as if you were asking whether residents of a tropical island would want to live in Chicago. I think the more relevant question is whether kids born in a refugee camp end up preferring that to having a home. My guess is, no.
This is already a fate for billions of people in today's world. We're just sensitive because we're worried that people close to us might be reduced to living like a slumdog millionaire. I believe that climatic change will reduce the lifestyle of the average human being over time, and the population will be reduced due the subsequent reduction of food/resources(or we can just all eat seaweed). But if we're not already crying about how people are suffering today(some do cry, but most don't), then don't find it surprising that most people won't cry about future people living like Somalians 200 years from now.
I guess I'm not understanding your point. And you didn't bother to look at the drought map, did you? Your original message was something about people, living in the future, in a warmer climate, wouldn't want the ice caps back and wouldn't mourn the loss of the polar bear. That doesn't seem unreasonable, I guess. This round, it's that we, living now, in the first world don't much care if a few billion or so 3rd worlders starve to death, now, so a fortiori we don't care if a few more billion more starve to death some time in the future, in a less hospitable world. That also seems like an accurate (though unfortunate) statement. But I don't think that's an accurate description of the most likely future. Take a look at that drought projection. That's the third piece of research I've seen suggesting pretty much the same thing. If that's even in the ballpark, there's not going to be a country called Mexico in 2100, and there may not be one called the USA. So, if your standpoint is people living now, I'd say the accurate description is, do I care if my grandchildren stave to death when they get old? Answer, yes. Even if I'm not the type to care about starving billions elsewhere. And if the standpoint is residents of this country in the year 2100, would they rather live in a country with abundant water and food, I'm pretty sure the answer would be, yes. I'm not saying there's no uncertainty here, far from it. I am saying that drought map, or something like it, appears, at present, to be the most likely outcome. If that's the best guess for what the future holds under business as usual, then, basically, we're not condemning some future generation of foreigners. We're condemning our own. It's a societal Darwin test, and we're flunking.
So as long as we're mostly not compassionate towards others or future generations it's okay to use up the fossil fuels now for our own gain? And you do realize we're not talking about the poor people in foreign countries, but the poor and middle class in North America as well, right?
Sorry. I didn't look at the map at first. Looking at it now seems like it's the same map proffered by that climate change author Lovelock who believes that we need to go nuclear yesterday and probably it's too late anyways. So basically the drought stricken map of the world will be basically like Australia. Mostly desert, a few pockets of water here and there. I'm investing heavily in Canada and RE in the puget sound area. So I'm putting my money where my mouth is. If we were to suddenly have this drought type of world climate, yet, we'd be in a whole crap load of trouble, but it'll take many human generations(still an instant on the geological time scale) to get to this less desireable state. Every state is temporary in the long run anyways. Populations will shrink to the size of the carrying state the surrounding resources can support. More of the earth will go back to nature even though it'll be mostly desert. My point isn't to deny climate change. I do believe it's happening because of our burning of ff. Reversing it I think is a nice thought(that's why I have a prius, solar panels, recycle my bathwater, recycle everything else, compost), but personally I think we have the political resolve to do it, an people aren't willing to change enough to get it done. Reversing it will help preserve this "just right" climate we have now for future generations, which we "know" to be the optimal climate for humans. However, I don't believe that if we don't do anything, all our grandchildren will be in refugee camps. I could be wrong. I could also be wrong about a meteor striking us and a supervolcano erupting in my zip code, all scientific possibilites.
There have always been droughts and famines. Lately these have been the fault of agricultural policy. We have only to look at the dust bowl and the great leap forward to see massive problems. In the early 1900s russia had a great famine, in the 1930s china. Millions died. This is one problem with doom and gloom. If you believe the numbers it is already too late. Instead I think we can look at the changes and change crops and irrigation methods. Hey what about drought resistant gmo seeds? No those advocating drought want nuclear or less power not solutions. As another commented we are headed for solient green. Funny thing is mankind has found solutions and populations will not shrink greatly except in the face of epidemic or war. +1 Let's reduce, reuse, recycle. But also lets speak out against governments like Sudan that are causing famine. We also need to get a sensible world wide agriculture policy that can deal with shifting rain fall patterns. I tried moving to California. It is your choice as an American to live where the weather sucks
... or affluence. Look at the birth rates in Europe, the US, and Japan. Poverty breeds people. If we raise the standards of living the population situation will like go away. There was a british bloke on the Daily Show about a year ago who studies population dynamics and was actually optimistic about population projections. More and more women are choosing careers over large families.
