I'm not convinced about resource limits, because we are already using non-terrestrial energy in the form of solar, and the beginnings of a n extra terrestrial mining industry are starting. So I think looked at as a whole race, the Earth isn't our only resource base. On the other hand resource scarcity is a problem for many and Earth does have limits in many ways - oil being a good example of something already scarce enough to be the focus of resource wars. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the Earth isn't the only resource base for some people, but many people are going to find the Earth resources they depend on are going to be limited.
I don't know about survival of future raised temperatures. Obviously people live in super hot and arid climates now, so it's not like people can't make a life on a warmer planet even if it is after huge upheaval or catastrophe. The loss of a thousand rainforest species wouldn't make much difference to those living around the Sahara area, or those who in the future may live in a baking hot Spain or Italy. Unless I am mistaken.
The fact that the Romans grew grapes in Scotland is often cited as an example of how we can benefit from increased warming, and this seems true, but that's a Eurocentric view that doesn't take into account what would happen in more southerly lattitudes. Warming might open up tundra to farming, and such, but it must also mean a loss of agricultural land to the south.
I can see some of the more radical effects being a bigger problem, like loss of the Northern Ice cap which looks highly likely, and alteration in the Gulf stream or greater thermohaline circulations. If that happened you would see an incredible squeeze on the European population, and radical changes in heat distribution and currents in the Atlantic affecting populations all over the world. I think that would be much worse than a gradual global warming of a fraction of a degree every decade.Statistics: Posted by Glumbo — Thu Feb 19, 2015 12:58 am
]]>