Hacker News Reader

Comment by natmaster | Hacker News Reader

For instance Canada may want the earth warmer, whereas Indian would want it cooler. (Since it benefits their respective latitudes.)

View on HN

You'd think but as a Canadian who hates the cold but lives on a flat (400ft is the highest spot) island I won't be living here if the sea rises even a bit more.

Well, I think this would be the simplest: the temperature at any given latitude will be the average of the last n years. Period. But maybe I'm too naive.

Simplest, but not optimal. Ideally you'd want to settle on a mean that:

a) Maximizes arable land, b) Minimizes climate-based natural disasters such as hurricanes, and c) Is as near to self-sustaining as possible. That is, the global mean should not lead to significant growing or shrinking of ice caps and glaciers, nor significantly alter carbon uptake by the oceans. While some degree of human control could make up for heterostatic forces, a swing too far in either direction would quickly exceed our ability to compensate.

> While some degree of human control could make up for heterostatic forces, a swing too far in either direction would quickly exceed our ability to compensate.

Exactly. That's why I'm suggesting that the "not worse" solution could be to artificially heat up the earth to the actual temperature for every latitude. Politics aside, a different temperature would probably disturb the current equilibrium and potentially cause some side-effects worse than the suspected mini ice-age.

do people really believe that rapid climate change will reveal some new mass of desirable farm land? maybe in 5000 years as the soils adapt to new climates, but not fast enough to feed a hungry planet.

there are some lands on the periphery of existing arable zones that might become desirable in the short term, but certainly there will be a net loss worldwide...local economies have grown around existing arable zones, you have to transplant all that too

That's what I was getting at. Too big a swing could, for example, hasten the expansion of the Gobi Desert, destroying millions of acres of arable land and endangering the food supply for a billion people.

Who gets to define n?

I don't know actual statistics, but I think that in every place there is something like a "normal temperature" each season.

Whoever has the most firepower.

no one. we do not have the technology to rapidly alter the climate. our current climate change is the result of thousands of years of population growth and industrialization. concepts for extracting CO2 from the atmosphere in short course are just that, concepts

mother nature is still in charge, and needs only shrug slightly with a temperature change of 10 degrees on average in either direction to eliminate humans and our society

Somehow I doubt a 10 degree shift (F) would eliminate humans altogether, since humans have likely gone through a population bottleneck of 1,000-10,000 breeding pairs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

why do people throw these arguments around? i don't know of any nation whose scientists find any rapid climate change desirable. who are they? the notion of a polar thaw is tossed around as being desirable for canada as a shipping route....BUT this would decimate the living biosphere of 90% of canadians who live within 100 miles of the US border. i've never heard a serious canadian climate science talk about rapid climate change as desirable...nor any other

I've seen studies pointing out more land access for Canadians [0] but hardly anything about affecting the 'living biosphere of 90% of Canadians within 100 miles of US border'. What's the source?

[0] https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=farm+climate...

you don't need a study. most of the population of canada is situated far further south than most americans understand. the lowest point of ontario, for example, is south of the most northern point of california.

most of the inhabited areas of canada already have very hot summers. in southern ontario you can expect weather like washington DC in july

if most of the united states is set to be victimized by climate change (which everyone accepts) then it is a trivial deduction that most of the population of canada will also be

Southern Ontario dips down to just north of PA/Ohio and next to Detroit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Canada#Extreme_poi...

I'm nitpicking, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, what you're saying about Southern Ontario having weather like DC in July is a little off. Average high July DC is 88F. Average high July Detroit (close to S Ont) is 83F. It's similar, but 5F is definitely a difference. Sharing the facts because I find this stuff interesting!

Opinion: DC often feels hotter than it actually is due to the high humidity, which gets worse the farther down the east coast you go. I've never been to Southern Ontario in July though.

DC: http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/U...

Detroit: http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/U...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com