IE what are the areas we should be seeking to migrate as many people as possible to before shtf.
Canada and the northern parts of the US will be good for agriculture but still very affected by climate catastrophes and probably prone to conflict due to their high populations. Places in Northern Europe like Scandinavia, the UK, Ireland and Iceland will lose a lot of ground to rising sea levels but also still recieve rainfall, and reliable clean water will be a big deal. Siberia is predicted to melt and become fertile, so it may be colonised again. I’m not sure how Patagonia could be affected, but it could be safer than most other parts of SA.
What prevents Canada and Russia from developing more farmland is not just climate but also soil.
Here’s a good intro. https://www.uidaho.edu/cals/soil-orders
the problem with north west Europe is more the collapse o the gulf stream. most people don’t really know it but London is far north of Quebec City, and yet maintains a pretty good climate for most of the year. this is because of the gulf stream, and once that collapses as it is doing, shit is gonna get hella cold hella fast
It’s not just because of the gulf stream, and the gulf stream isn’t going anywhere anyway. For one, Europe is a heavily maritime continent with few massive land areas on the scale of North America or Asia, which contributes greatly to the temperate climate, moreso than the effect of the gulf stream. If you’re surrounded by water then it takes a lot more energy to heat the area up significantly or cool it down. That’s why Siberia and Canada both have more extreme temperatures than most of Europe, hot and cold.
Furthermore we don’t actually expect the gulf stream to collapse totally - some of the larger circulation that the gulf stream is a part of will certainly destabilise and collapse (the northern stretches of it beyond the coast of Ireland particularly), but the gulf stream itself is driven by prevailing winds coming off North America which are driven by the relief of that continent (e.g. the Rockies). So we don’t expect the gulf stream to go away unless the Rockies go away too, and this means that the heat transfer from the tropics to the North Atlantic that it generates won’t go away either. The heat transfer might become a little less efficient over time but that effect should be counteracted by, well, global warming itself. We will probably see more extreme winters and summers in western Europe over the next century (I mean, we already are) but it’s not going to be the Day After Tomorrow style event that the media likes to imagine.
Do you think China might seek to annex Siberia from Russia given its vast natural resources?
They’re actually cooperating quite a bit on that front. Warming weather and Chinese investments have the potential to actually make (parts of) Siberia viable for large scale agriculture.
Uh no, not in the next 50 years at least. That would mean war with Russia and a complete reversal of Chinese foreign policy. China’s been avoiding war for 40 years, they wouldn’t kick off a world war in a hurry
Okay what about mongolia? I mean they are in a much worse position than china environmental wise, they aren’t in any way controlled by china despite being allies, and if millions had to leave mongolia, where do you think they would go, north or south?
I never understood why a water pipeline isn’t built from the great lakes to the west coast, wouldn’t it be cheaper than desalination and solve the water scarcity problem?
you would end up with thousands of miles of pipes filled with invasive zebra mussels, they spread like crazy and really fuck water infrastructure
Scandinavia also has environmental issues with the forests becoming more and more like monoculture tree plantations, which makes them less resilient in many ways.
