Comment by criley | Hacker News Reader

Comment by criley | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>"It has supported life for millions of years. Clearly it is not as brittle as the typical climate scientist would have us believe.

This is a bit shortsighted, I think. It has supported life, yes, but it has not supported CIVILIZATION for millions of years.

Many hypothesize that human civilization, specifically our population size, would be completely and totally unsustainable with even a minor climate change.

Sure -- Earth would be fine! Life would be fine! Heck, we'd likely trigger what we would call an extinction event, but life would recover.

Humanity and civilization however are absolutely dependent on a narrow range of climate for our agriculture. Them's the facts.

If temperatures rise even 10° average, then about the majority of human population centers will be underwater and agriculture as we know it (the plants we're used to eating in bulk) are no longer feasible in the quantity or quality we expect. Those temperatures were seen in the Jurassic, and Earth and life were fine! But I do not think human civilization would be a fraction of what it is under those totally natural circumstances.

So sure. Life will be fine. Humanity could be on the brink, though.

> agriculture as we know it (the plants we're used to eating in bulk) are no longer feasible in the quantity or quality we expect.

of course everyone will have to move, but isn't there a huge amount of land that will become good for agriculture, e.g. siberia, northern america, maybe even some of antarctica?

No, those regions will not become good for agriculture just by being heated. There is no soil there.

In places where the ground is frozen permanently (permafrost), i.e. most places above the Arctic Circle, there is essentially no decomposition, and hence no soil production. You can often estimate the soil depth by looking at the tree height; the tundra supports no trees, and most of the rest of Alaska has pine and spruce that grow to maybe 5 meters.

The other thing to consider is the effect of heating permafrost, which is well-known. Well. To Alaskans anyway. Houses in permafrost zones are built on stilts, because anything that generates heat will turn the ground beneath it into a bog. If you heat Alaska and Siberia, they will turn into an unimaginable morass (and remain so for the indefinite future) and release gigatonnes of CO2 and CH4. That will wipe out any existing human habitation as well.

In short, I cannot imagine the confusion of ideas that would lead you to suggest such a thing.

most of the siberia is below arctic circle. where i'm from we've got a lot of soil, but not enough heat to have good agriculture.

what kind of the confusion would lead you to suggesting permafrost occupies most of the siberia and north america? however, your point is correct for antarctica i suppose.

Here's the crux of the argument - all the resources (time, money, energy, social costs, possible wars etc) that would be spent adjusting to climate change could instead be spent on productive uses.

The costs of being energy efficient today outweight the possible risks from having to pay for the consequences.

well, i guess we'll have to move, be it sooner or later. a lot of migrations have happened in the last 500 years. why insist on status quo for 200-400 more years?

> The costs of being energy efficient today outweight the possible risks from having to pay for the consequences.

i'm curious, is there any research to back up these claims?

Because just about every habitable location on the planet is already claimed by some group. People do not just up and move en mass without huge social and political implications. Wars would be inevitable in this supposed future.

Also: those that have the resources to adjust to climate change ARE NOT the same as those who feel the heaviest weight of the stresses of drought, violent storms, water access, etc. Those with the most resources are also the least likely to be politically instabilized by the effects of climate change.

So you have a mismatch of effort: those who can don't have an incentive to fix the problem for those who can't.

(Or have a counter-incentive: I'm reminded of the anti-monsanto anti-gmo fad in the USA -- despite the fact that GMO foods are our best weapon in producing drought resistant crops for regions most heavily affected by those problems!)

The only transgenes in use for plant crops are for pest resistance. I don't know if they have anything for growth habits or metabolic engineering. All of that is done with classical breeding, and I might add that recently breeders have been breeding towards less resistance to drought; high response to irrigation and fertilizer means less energy "wasted" as roots leaving more for seeds.

They have transgene drought resistant crops that basically are no better than non-transgene versions.

However, if we stop the research now (by attacking the researchers through monsanto or by passing oppressive gmo regulation that forces them out of the industry), we will never develop superior drought resistant crops.

I believe that the precise modification of crops will be critical to responding to the stresses of climate. Classical breeding can only help us so much and the true impact of climate stress is still in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com