
A 1876 Map of the World’s Ecozones That Still Holds Up - orcul
https://daily.jstor.org/the-1876-map-of-the-worlds-ecozones-that-still-holds-up/
======
PaulDavisThe1st
I prefer this one, from 1975 Coevolution Quarterly, by Miklos Udvardy and
Theodore Oberlander:

[https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~2...](https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~231745~5509023:World
----Biogeographical-Provinces)

~~~
sct202
It's interesting that a lot of the largest industrial regions (Europe, East
Asia, Eastern USA) are in the same temperate woodland land type.

------
seltzered_
Still a dilettante at bioregional thinking, but FWIW another eco region map
I’ve been staring at lately has been WWF’s:
[https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/terrestrial-
ecore...](https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/terrestrial-ecoregions-
of-the-world) .

It’s intended for ESRI but can also be imported into Google Earth.

~~~
AlbertoGP
Some time ago I converted it to GeoJSON to use with the Nigerian Oil Spill
Monitor: [https://oilspillmonitor.ng](https://oilspillmonitor.ng)
[https://sentido-labs.com/en/portfolio/#Nigerian-Oil-Spill-
Mo...](https://sentido-labs.com/en/portfolio/#Nigerian-Oil-Spill-Monitor)

To activate it, go to the layer control at the right side (“Oil company”,
“Third party”, ...), unfold the extra layers with the down-arrow button, then
click on “Ecoregions”. The information on each region appears when clicking
somewhere on the map.

------
SlowRobotAhead
I would have thought climate change would have greatly impacted this map. Why
hasn't it?

~~~
shadowprofile77
Not to deny climate change caused by humans (it's unarguably happening) but
some of the headlines really ratchet up the doom and gloom to the point where
people think we really are rushing to total climatic shift at a breakneck
pace, and well, no we're not, at least not yet and likely not in the
foreseeble future. The models themselves don't even forecast such extremes and
since the beginning of the 20th century to now, most climate indicators have
only very modestly shifted. Sea level for example: since 1900 it has risen by
no more than an estimated...... 8 inches, unevenly, and the IPCC forecast for
the next century is only modestly higher than that. This is something to
monitor carefully and try to mitigate but it shows just how removed the hard
facts are from what some of the media loves to headline for the sake of clicks
and social media shares.

Some things have even improved. Both the USA and western Europe have more
forest cover today than they did over a century ago and certain other
countries have managed to pull off their own good reverses too.

~~~
deanCommie
This is actively harmful misinformation.

"Breakneck speed" doesn't mean turkeys are going extinct before next
Thanksgiving, Paris will be uninhabitable before the next Olympics, and the
ice caps are going to melt and recreate Waterworld in our lifetimes.

What it does mean is that the lives of your children and more likely GRAND-
children (assuming you're somewhere in the adult range) will be significantly
different from yours, and not in a better way.

It means 1/ significant animal species will be effectively extinct in the
wild, including ones you take for granted (e.g. polar bears), 2/ western
countries will be spending more and more funds and tax dollars on disaster
relief, emergency preparedness, air conditioning (ironically exacerbating the
problem), 3/ cuisines like sushi and hobbies like skiing/snowboarding will be
effectively out of reach from the middle class, 4/ continued destabilization
rather than increasing peace in parts of the world with fresh water shortages,
5/ millions to hundreds of millions of climate refugees dealing with
aforementioned destabilization and other disasters such as the kind of
flooding that barely makes a blip in the west but takes out half of
Bangladesh.

And all of this could happen on a 100 year timeline if we do nothing.

This isn't extinction, but if you don't think this is "doom and gloom" then
brother you have no empathy.

~~~
shadowprofile77
I repeat: what I said above is based on the actual IPCC models (among others)
and the evidence they're derived from. All of these are worrying but also
surprisingly modest compared to your typical headline about climate change,
which is almost by default designed for fearful clicks and social shares.
Polar bear populations are of concern and there are credible (but
hypothetical) predictions from the U.S Geological Survey that their
populations could decrease heavily by 2050. However, at the present time, all
known evidence shows that A. they have steadily been increasing over the last
few decades and B. are currently quite stable despite warming in the northern
Ice Cap. The same goes for the possibility of social upheaval due to
temperature increases: it's predicted and sometimes by credible sources, but
so far it hasn't been shown to have concretely occurred and no firm prediction
can accurately say when or if it will start to happen. Your claim about the
consequences of a century from now is even more speculative than this. In
reality we have no idea what our world will be like then. This doesn't mean
ignoring climate change but like I said, evidence and perspective are crucial.

I want my children's world to be a place they can be healthy and relatively
safe in, but having empathy for the future doesn't mean ignoring actual
evidence, scientific reports or reasoned consideration.

on polar bears: [https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-
bear/population/](https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/)

