Sunday, November 27, 2011

Arctic to be the Center of a New World by 2300 and Home to 300 ''Polar Cities'' for Desperate Survivors of Climate Chaos in Lower 48 and Europe

Arctic to be the Center of a New World by 2300?Danny Bloom poses this question:

If climate change continues along the business-as-usual path, the 24th Century’s ''brave new world'' will be in some ways more like the world of Ancient Greece – with what’s left of the world’s inhabitants living in desperate and isolated polar cities in the northern regions and
scattered along the coast of a single sea.

For the ancient Greeks, it was the Mediterranean Sea. For those of our descendants that survive in polar cities, it will be what is now the Arctic circle.

LINK:
http://pcillu101.blogspot.com/



The countries that will remain habitable for polar cities for survivors of climate chaos after 300 years of climate change are centered on the now nearly empty lands around the Arctic Circle: clockwise this shows Siberia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Alaska.

That is the conclusion of a paper that studied how global warming will affect the northern areas of Europe as two-thirds of the world becomes uninhabitable by 2300, that finds that the effects of climate change will redraw the map of the main influence centers of civilization. Eaarth – as Bill McKibben denotes our climate altered future will center on an open sea over what is now the Arctic. It is also the conclusion that I have reached with my work at the Polar Cities Research Institute (GOOGLE).



In The North: The New European Frontier with Global Warming, Trausti Valsson of the University of Iceland Faculty of Engineering argues for the inclusion of ”Iceland, Norway and Russia (because of Siberia) in the European Union, because the importance of these areas in the future, economically, militarily and as a future living space for the European community.” None of the three nations are currently members of the EU.

Valsson’s argument is that, combined with the uninhabitability of the rest of the planet as the world warms, that the shorter and more secure transportation routes across the Arctic Ocean between Europe and north-western Canada and the USA will make a completely different center to the world.

(Related: Humans Won’t Survive on Half the Earth by 2300)

Temperatures here are expected to range beyond what humans and most animals can comfortably make a living in by as soon as just 300 years away – about as long as US settlement by Europeans. While a thin strip at the coasts will still support life, the interiors in the shaded regions will become gradually devoid of human beings (and presumably the animals and plants suited to current temperatures).



Last year McMichael and Dear published Heat, Health and Longer Horizons at the National Academy of Sciences, sounding the alarm on long term climate change scenarios, referencing, among others, Sherwood and Huber’s Adaptability Limit to Climate Change Due to Heat Stress and determining that more than half the world we occupy today will be almost uninhabitable by 2300 due to temperature increase beyond what we can tolerate.

Danny Bloom  writes to publicize the many great solutions for climate change that we can find if we just put our minds to it.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Uh, I got the feeling your article was biased against science, being written in a way that suggests the blame should be put on science and scientific advancement for our current global environmental problems.



The fact that we had 200,000 years before The European Age of Enlightenment means nothing. Technological progress has been the quintessential reason for the rise of human civilisation from the time of the first Homo Sapien Sapiens (true humans). However technological progress was incredibly slow at the beginning end of human history but now is on a geometric rise at this furthest end of human development. Which is consistent with the graph of technological advancement if taken from the year 1900 through to the present day.



Science in and of itself is not the problem, as science is neither "good" or "bad", it is merely a tool that is used. The real problem lies in the extreme apathy exhibited by people in first world countries towards environmental conservation. And the extreme inequality of global wealth that sees 2/3rds of the planet classified as 2nd world or 3rd world status.



The global problem is political, not technological. Our technologies are sufficiently advanced that we could actually start to repair damage to the earth tomorrow, but that would mean taking the first world out of its comfort zone. How many want to do that when there is no immediate need? I would say, very very few. As is illustrated by the fact that oil drilling shall continue, and move into even more sensitive ecological zones.



Andy.

Anonymous said...

Susan Kraemer says

''Oh, no. I just meant that that we have had so little time to be a civilized and rational species since the Enlightenment, when our civilization accelerated because we relied on science. Now - in just a few short centuries, we are turning around and throwing away science because of the "inconvenient truths" in its findings about the climate changes we are causing, and which will end our civilization.



It is really sad that we had such a brief flowering. Especially as we have solutions already. Only politics makes us dither.



Our technologies are sufficiently advanced that governments could requisition every available roof to put solar on it and every available windy plain to put up wind turbines and string them to transmission, etc, etc. If we implemented all the clean technology we HAVE, we could mitigate the worst catastrophic civilization-ending climate changes... But we dither, instead.
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12tEK)

Susan Kraemer 1 year ago in reply to Andy

Oh, no. I just meant that that we have had so little time to be a civilized and rational species since the Enlightenment, when our civilization accelerated because we relied on science. Now - in just a few short centuries, we are turning around and throwing away science because of the "inconvenient truths" in its findings about the climate changes we are causing, and which will end our civilization.



It is really sad that we had such a brief flowering. Especially as we have solutions already. Only politics makes us dither.



Our technologies are sufficiently advanced that governments could requisition every available roof to put solar on it and every available windy plain to put up wind turbines and string them to transmission, etc, etc. If we implemented all the clean technology we HAVE, we could mitigate the worst catastrophic civilization-ending climate changes... But we dither, instead.
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12tEK)
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12tEK)


Susan Kraemer 1 year ago in reply to Andy

Oh, no. I just meant that that we have had so little time to be a civilized and rational species since the Enlightenment, when our civilization accelerated because we relied on science. Now - in just a few short centuries, we are turning around and throwing away science because of the "inconvenient truths" in its findings about the climate changes we are causing, and which will end our civilization.



It is really sad that we had such a brief flowering. Especially as we have solutions already. Only politics makes us dither.