Talk:The Little Ice Age Was Not So Little

Colonial America
I see where the British Isles will eventually have to be evacuated to the southern colonies, but how is it that the vast land masses of that same south could not provide far more food than the mother country which already in the mid 1700's was becoming a winterized island? I know this was a bare bones time line that has long past notice by most (I saw it on your user page and thought it worthy a look), but the short line that there was no revolution due to crop failures in the colonies doesn't make sense.

Better for the time line if there was no revolution because the UK had changed its attitude towards the colonies, seeing that the homeland was becoming less hospitable. Colonization of the American continent would become a priority and good graces would be needed with the inhabitants there. The southern colonies, being fertile, would be the salvation of the empire. The move to Charleston would be more natural if it was expected over the course of the century. Cotton would give way to food products, with slavery being abolished much sooner (as it was in OTL).

Just some thoughts. This time line, though a little of a stretch (forces to extend the "little ice age" being hard to find), shows quite some promise. The dynamics of a world limited by shifting weather patterns to half its present arable land and mass immigration is intriguing. I doubt if the population plummet you describe would be quite as drastic (the African landmass, if nothing else, would provide a new world for cultivation and exploitation), the rest of the assumptions would be worth exploring. There are a lot of variables, but I might be able to work on something to make this time line viable. A name change, perhaps, would give it some appeal to a larger viewership. --SouthWriter 19:29, February 20, 2011 (UTC)