Re:Emissions are no longer following the worst case scenario
by HNDen21 on Friday May 26, 2023 @09:20AM
(#36083723)
Antarica is problematic since it is completely dark 4 months out of the year... and completely sunny the opposite 4 months.. and even then isn't it just rocks underneath that ice.. you would need to bring in soil etc.. but if all the ice melts will that even be above water at that point?
Re:Emissions are no longer following the worst case scenario
by mikestew on Friday May 26, 2023 @12:18PM
(#36086138)
Farming just Antarctica would probably produce enough food to feed the world several times over.
I'd bet a paycheck that there's no top soil worthy of the name under all that ice. Same with when people yuk it up with, "we'll just farm Canada!" Have you seen the dirt in British Columbia? I don't think that soil could grow anything other than more dirt. (Though Manitoba and Saskatchewan would probably do better, dunno.)
Re:Emissions are no longer following the worst case scenario
by freedude on Friday May 26, 2023 @01:38PM
(#36087322)
You don't know what you are talking about. Some of the richest soil exists in the Canadian North. I have lived on a farm and planted and raised vegetables on a Canadian farm for multiple years.
Just looking casually at topo maps and assuming the worst case I've seen (all land and sea ice melts, resulting in sea water rising 250'), the land we'll lose in coastal regions and major river basins is smaller than what we'll gain near the poles. Farming just Antarctica would probably produce enough food to feed the world several times over.