SURPRISE!! Republican Congress Seated, Clock Moves Closer
23 Jan 2015, 2:16 pm
This blog entry was just published the other day, http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/my-life-as-a-climate-lukewarmer.aspx. From the blog:
Quote:
I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.
...
I was not always a lukewarmer. When I first started writing about the threat of global warming more than 26 years ago, as science editor ofThe Economist, I thought it was a genuinely dangerous threat. Like, for instance, Margaret Thatcher, I accepted the predictions being made at the time that we would see warming of a third or a half a degree (Centigrade) a decade, perhaps more, and that this would have devastating consequences.
Gradually, however, I changed my mind. The failure of the atmosphere to warm anywhere near as rapidly as predicted was a big reason: there has been less than half a degree of global warming in four decades — and it has slowed down, not speeded up. Increases in malaria, refugees, heatwaves, storms, droughts and floods have not materialised to anything like the predicted extent, if at all. Sea level has risen but at a very slow rate — about a foot per century.
Also, I soon realised that all the mathematical models predicting rapid warming assume big amplifying feedbacks in the atmosphere, mainly from water vapour; carbon dioxide is merely the primer, responsible for about a third of the predicted warming. When this penny dropped, so did my confidence in predictions of future alarm: the amplifiers are highly uncertain.
Another thing that gave me pause was that I went back and looked at the history of past predictions of ecological apocalypse from my youth – population explosion, oil exhaustion, elephant extinction, rainforest loss, acid rain, the ozone layer, desertification, nuclear winter, the running out of resources, pandemics, falling sperm counts, cancerous pesticide pollution and so forth. There was a consistent pattern of exaggeration, followed by damp squibs: in not a single case was the problem as bad as had been widely predicted by leading scientists. That does not make every new prediction of apocalypse necessarily wrong, of course, but it should encourage scepticism.
What sealed my apostasy from climate alarm was the extraordinary history of the famous “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show that today’s temperatures were higher and changing faster than at any time in the past thousand years. That graph genuinely shocked me when I first saw it and, briefly in the early 2000s, it persuaded me to abandon my growing doubts about dangerous climate change and return to the “alarmed” camp.
...
I am especially unimpressed by the claim that a prediction of rapid and dangerous warming is “settled science”, as firm as evolution or gravity. How could it be? It is a prediction! No prediction, let alone in a multi-causal, chaotic and poorly understood system like the global climate, should ever be treated as gospel. With the exception of eclipses, there is virtually nothing scientists can say with certainty about the future. It is absurd to argue that one cannot disagree with a forecast. Is the Bank of England’s inflation forecast infallible?
Incidentally, my current view is still consistent with the “consensus” among scientists, as represented by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The consensus is that climate change is happening, not that it is going to be dangerous. The latest IPCC report gives a range of estimates of future warming, from harmless to terrifying. My best guess would be about one degree of warming during this century, which is well within the IPCC’s range of possible outcomes.
Yet most politicians go straight to the top of the IPCC’s range and call climate change things like “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction” (John Kerry), requiring the expenditure of trillions of dollars. I think that is verging on grotesque in a world full of war, hunger, disease and poverty. It also means that environmental efforts get diverted from more urgent priorities, like habitat loss and invasive species.
...
I was not always a lukewarmer. When I first started writing about the threat of global warming more than 26 years ago, as science editor ofThe Economist, I thought it was a genuinely dangerous threat. Like, for instance, Margaret Thatcher, I accepted the predictions being made at the time that we would see warming of a third or a half a degree (Centigrade) a decade, perhaps more, and that this would have devastating consequences.
Gradually, however, I changed my mind. The failure of the atmosphere to warm anywhere near as rapidly as predicted was a big reason: there has been less than half a degree of global warming in four decades — and it has slowed down, not speeded up. Increases in malaria, refugees, heatwaves, storms, droughts and floods have not materialised to anything like the predicted extent, if at all. Sea level has risen but at a very slow rate — about a foot per century.
Also, I soon realised that all the mathematical models predicting rapid warming assume big amplifying feedbacks in the atmosphere, mainly from water vapour; carbon dioxide is merely the primer, responsible for about a third of the predicted warming. When this penny dropped, so did my confidence in predictions of future alarm: the amplifiers are highly uncertain.
Another thing that gave me pause was that I went back and looked at the history of past predictions of ecological apocalypse from my youth – population explosion, oil exhaustion, elephant extinction, rainforest loss, acid rain, the ozone layer, desertification, nuclear winter, the running out of resources, pandemics, falling sperm counts, cancerous pesticide pollution and so forth. There was a consistent pattern of exaggeration, followed by damp squibs: in not a single case was the problem as bad as had been widely predicted by leading scientists. That does not make every new prediction of apocalypse necessarily wrong, of course, but it should encourage scepticism.
What sealed my apostasy from climate alarm was the extraordinary history of the famous “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show that today’s temperatures were higher and changing faster than at any time in the past thousand years. That graph genuinely shocked me when I first saw it and, briefly in the early 2000s, it persuaded me to abandon my growing doubts about dangerous climate change and return to the “alarmed” camp.
...
I am especially unimpressed by the claim that a prediction of rapid and dangerous warming is “settled science”, as firm as evolution or gravity. How could it be? It is a prediction! No prediction, let alone in a multi-causal, chaotic and poorly understood system like the global climate, should ever be treated as gospel. With the exception of eclipses, there is virtually nothing scientists can say with certainty about the future. It is absurd to argue that one cannot disagree with a forecast. Is the Bank of England’s inflation forecast infallible?
Incidentally, my current view is still consistent with the “consensus” among scientists, as represented by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The consensus is that climate change is happening, not that it is going to be dangerous. The latest IPCC report gives a range of estimates of future warming, from harmless to terrifying. My best guess would be about one degree of warming during this century, which is well within the IPCC’s range of possible outcomes.
Yet most politicians go straight to the top of the IPCC’s range and call climate change things like “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction” (John Kerry), requiring the expenditure of trillions of dollars. I think that is verging on grotesque in a world full of war, hunger, disease and poverty. It also means that environmental efforts get diverted from more urgent priorities, like habitat loss and invasive species.
23 Jan 2015, 2:23 pm
Many Global Warming scaremongers claim that the 97% consensus is on their side. In fact, it is not on their side at all.
Look at how the 97% consensus was derived. A handful of people looked at the abstracts of several thousand papers on the climate. Any paper that indicated that mankind is at least partially responsible for Global Warming was counted as in favor.
That what the scientific consensus is -- that mankind is responsible for at least some portion of Global Warming. It is not that we are responsible for most of it, much less for all of it. Furthermore, there is no 97% consensus among climate researchers that it will be a disaster. The predicted disaster is not scientific at all -- it is spread by scaremongers who want to co-opt the climate to push for their own political agenda.
In other words, climate disaster from warning is political in nature, not scientific.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
23 Jan 2015, 3:08 pm
eric76 wrote:
...there is no 97% consensus among climate researchers that it will be a disaster....
Nor among the other sciences http://www.petitionproject.org/ .
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
23 Jan 2015, 3:16 pm
eric76 wrote:
Just how do you get 4 degrees C? The models may make such projections, but look at how much difficulty they have just trying to predict what we have today.
That's not mine, rather just a quick browse of Wiki to see if it is as catastrophic as the Watchmen clock specified.
And it doesn't appear to be (granted, people can have varying opinions on what they think catastrophic is. I think a 1 mile. wide space rock hitting earth is close to such; earth has survived far worst than that too, but it's pretty catastrophic for current life).
23 Jan 2015, 4:51 pm
I admire your optimism, Eric, but unfortunately it is misplaced.
eric76 wrote:
A warmer planet harder to farm? Why would that be? Not only do plants grow better in the warmth and more CO2 (many greenhouse operators inject CO2 into the greenhouses to promote faster growth), but warmer air can take up more moisture and deliver it back as rain. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum when temperatures were 2 to 3 C higher than today, the Sahara Desert was green, the Gobi Desert was forested, and northern Mexico was wet. Some areas would get drier due to weather patterns, in general we should get more moisture, not less.
I look forward to a warmer, more productive planet with fewer people dying of starvation.
This is an extremely naive view.
For future reference, "injecting CO2" is not usual. More often, they'll simply burn a fossil fuel, usually gas. This both releases CO2 and heats the greenhouse. Increasing atmospheric CO2 might have a positive impact on the rate of photosynthesis of some plants, but other factors (principally light and of course RuBisCo's "efficiency") are more likely to be limiting. In a simplistic theory that examined no other factors, a slight increase in temperature would lead to a net increase in primary productivity.
However, the real world is a complex system. Firstly, the planet is warming faster than ecosystems can adapt to. Sure, species are migrating to make up for it, but they're migrating at different rates and populations are suffering for it. We're in trouble if that happens to our pollinators.
Secondly, plants have optimum temperatures and suffer from heat stress. Generally, where they live now is at about the right temperature for them. If the temperature increases, they're in trouble.
Thirdly, humans only really eat about 10 species of plant. Sure, the average Westerner probably eats 20-30 species in a year, but in terms of biomass and over the whole planet, 10 species make up the vast majority of our consumption. Most of the rest is thanks to half a dozen livestock species. Those species have lost much of their wild genetic diversity. The genes that survive are those that maximise yield in current conditions. Those that allow for tolerance of extreme conditions are generally dying out. Primary productivity is of little concern - what matters is crop yield.
Combining points two and three together, human crop plants are in big trouble if the temperature increases. Growing sustenance cereal crops like wheat and corn and rice in glasshouses is not as common as relative luxury fruits and vegetables. That's because they are susceptible to heat stress at lower temperatures. Wheat photosynthesises best at 25 degrees and starts to really suffer at 30 degrees. If we have more days outside optimum ranges then we can expect yields to fall. A recent study suggested that wheat and soy yields would increase at higher latitudes, but corn yields would fall everywhere except Eastern Europe, Russia, parts of China, and the US-Canada border. Rice yields drop 10% with every 1 degree rise in temperature.
The places likely to benefit from increased temperatures, one would imagine, are Canada, Alaska, Fennoscandia, and Russia. Unfortunately, Fennoscandia has so far been left out of the global temperature increase, and is at risk of prolonged stagnation or even cooling if ice melt disrupts the Atlantic's thermohaline circulation and the associated processes. Furthermore, those places aren't really where we need increased crop yields. People struggling with starvation or malnutrition generally live at the tropics, and their crop yields are likely to be hit hardest by the temperature increase. I'm reasonably optimistic that we'll be able to engineer (or reintroduce) crops that are resistant to high temperatures and droughts, but obviously it would be better to just not have the warming.
Furthermore, climate change is likely to have a variety of impacts. The most pressing of these for the paddy fields is sea-level rises, but also increased flooding, stronger tropic storms, stronger droughts, and changes to grand planetary systems like thermohaline circulation. I don't know too much about this area, but needless to say, I don't think increased soy yields in Canada will mean very much with all the other stuff that will be going down.
I'm reasonably optimistic we'll sort most of it. Certainly, it's an opportunity for scientific innovation, not to mention entrepreneurial development - some people are going to become very rich!
Apologies if that post is a bit long, I didn't want to be glib and dismiss you as a head-in-the-sand type.
23 Jan 2015, 6:49 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
I admire your optimism, Eric, but unfortunately it is misplaced.
A warmer planet harder to farm? Why would that be? Not only do plants grow better in the warmth and more CO2 (many greenhouse operators inject CO2 into the greenhouses to promote faster growth), but warmer air can take up more moisture and deliver it back as rain. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum when temperatures were 2 to 3 C higher than today, the Sahara Desert was green, the Gobi Desert was forested, and northern Mexico was wet. Some areas would get drier due to weather patterns, in general we should get more moisture, not less.
I look forward to a warmer, more productive planet with fewer people dying of starvation.
This is an extremely naive view.
eric76 wrote:
A warmer planet harder to farm? Why would that be? Not only do plants grow better in the warmth and more CO2 (many greenhouse operators inject CO2 into the greenhouses to promote faster growth), but warmer air can take up more moisture and deliver it back as rain. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum when temperatures were 2 to 3 C higher than today, the Sahara Desert was green, the Gobi Desert was forested, and northern Mexico was wet. Some areas would get drier due to weather patterns, in general we should get more moisture, not less.
I look forward to a warmer, more productive planet with fewer people dying of starvation.
This is an extremely naive view.
Actually, the naive view is to worry about every little change as if it is a disaster. There is often nothing wrong with change.
Furthermore, if you want to see what actually happens when it is warmer, look at the past when it was warmer. If you do, you will see more productivity and a far easier life.
Quote:
For future reference, "injecting CO2" is not usual. More often, they'll simply burn a fossil fuel, usually gas.
Whether or not injecting CO2 is more common than not doing it, I don't know. But it is not at all uncommon to inject CO2 in greenhouses.Quote:
This both releases CO2 and heats the greenhouse.
This might work when it is cold outside, but I doubt that it is at all common. Think about it. People use greenhouses year round, not just when it is cold. And injecting CO2 is at least relatively common and the reason is to promote faster growth of the plants.Quote:
Increasing atmospheric CO2 might have a positive impact on the rate of photosynthesis of some plants, but other factors (principally light and of course RuBisCo's "efficiency") are more likely to be limiting. In a simplistic theory that examined no other factors, a slight increase in temperature would lead to a net increase in primary productivity.
In central Mexico farmers can grow two wheat crops a year instead of just one like most of the rest of the world. I don't think that is possible in northern Mexico, much less any further north than that.
Quote:
However, the real world is a complex system. Firstly, the planet is warming faster than ecosystems can adapt to.
Actually, predictions of warming are increasing faster than what the ecosystem can adapt to. Actual warming has not presented a problem.Quote:
Sure, species are migrating to make up for it, but they're migrating at different rates and populations are suffering for it. We're in trouble if that happens to our pollinators.
Are you suggesting that the male and female plants migrate at different rates? Of course, the migration is based on what we plant. Quote:
Secondly, plants have optimum temperatures and suffer from heat stress. Generally, where they live now is at about the right temperature for them. If the temperature increases, they're in trouble.
From what I understand, many of our crops originated in very temperate areas but were able to spread from there. Are you saying that they somehow lost their ability to live in more temperate climates?Quote:
Thirdly, humans only really eat about 10 species of plant. Sure, the average Westerner probably eats 20-30 species in a year, but in terms of biomass and over the whole planet, 10 species make up the vast majority of our consumption. Most of the rest is thanks to half a dozen livestock species. Those species have lost much of their wild genetic diversity. The genes that survive are those that maximise yield in current conditions. Those that allow for tolerance of extreme conditions are generally dying out. Primary productivity is of little concern - what matters is crop yield.
If we need, we can cross different species to create new hybrids that can handle the conditions better. It's no problem.Quote:
Combining points two and three together, human crop plants are in big trouble if the temperature increases. Growing sustenance cereal crops like wheat and corn and rice in glasshouses is not as common as relative luxury fruits and vegetables.
Not a farmer, are you? A warmer planet would extend the growing area of all three of those crops. And the only reason why anyone would ever grow wheat, field corn, or rice in a greenhouse is for research purposes. I can see someone growing sweet corn in their greenhouse for their own consumption.
Quote:
That's because they are susceptible to heat stress at lower temperatures. Wheat photosynthesises best at 25 degrees and starts to really suffer at 30 degrees. If we have more days outside optimum ranges then we can expect yields to fall. A recent study suggested that wheat and soy yields would increase at higher latitudes, but corn yields would fall everywhere except Eastern Europe, Russia, parts of China, and the US-Canada border. Rice yields drop 10% with every 1 degree rise in temperature.
So what? Plant corn later so that it matures later in the fall under about the same conditions as now. And plant rice further north.
Quote:
The places likely to benefit from increased temperatures, one would imagine, are Canada, Alaska, Fennoscandia, and Russia.
And Texas. Don't forget Texas. Two wheat crops a year would be nice.Quote:
Unfortunately, Fennoscandia has so far been left out of the global temperature increase, and is at risk of prolonged stagnation or even cooling if ice melt disrupts the Atlantic's thermohaline circulation and the associated processes.
Not that nonsense again. When someone came up with that idea a few years ago, there was some panic by the non-scientific community. It didn't take long for the more scientific to realize that the amount of fresh water from melting ice would have to be at least an order of magnitude greater than the worst prediction for that to happen at all. Of course, it shouldn't be surprising to hear this pop up again and again from the less scientific.
Quote:
Furthermore, those places aren't really where we need increased crop yields. People struggling with starvation or malnutrition generally live at the tropics, and their crop yields are likely to be hit hardest by the temperature increase. I'm reasonably optimistic that we'll be able to engineer (or reintroduce) crops that are resistant to high temperatures and droughts, but obviously it would be better to just not have the warming.
One report I read years ago was that the expected increase in temperature would be at its least in the tropics and at its most in the more northern areas.Quote:
Furthermore, climate change is likely to have a variety of impacts. The most pressing of these for the paddy fields is sea-level rises, but also increased flooding, stronger tropic storms, stronger droughts, and changes to grand planetary systems like thermohaline circulation. I don't know too much about this area, but needless to say, I don't think increased soy yields in Canada will mean very much with all the other stuff that will be going down.
You should really look at what actually happens with warmer temperatures instead of listening to all the chicken littles.
Sea level rise, sure. Maybe about a foot per century. We can deal with that.
Changes to the thermohaline circulation is nothing but panic. It isn't going to happen unless the amount of ice melting is at least an order of magnitude, maybe two orders of magnitude, greater than the worst that is projected. And the worst that is being projected is hardly likely.
Stronger tropical storms? I assume that you are thinking of hurricanes. It is quite possible that the hurricanes will be weaker, not stronger because of wind shear interfering with their development.
There really is no reason to panic. Embrace change. Welcome change.
And don't forget that there is NO scientific consensus that we are facing a disaster. The only consensus that we have is the 97% consensus that mankind plays at least a small part in the warming. Nothing more. And that consensus hardly amounts to much of anything.
23 Jan 2015, 6:56 pm
It's better to be scared now than to wake up one day and find crops around the world won't grow and have the President appear on television telling us we are all screwed because there's not enough food for everyone and we have to be in rations.
We should address this now and the governments of the world are SUPPOSED to protect us from this JUST LIKE THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS SAY. It's their responsibility, otherwise WHY HAVE GOVERNMENT??? There's no point if they aren't looking out for us.
Government is supposed to be for US but lately everything is so twisted and people are more paranoid and determined to be as destructive as they possibly can. When are we going to wake up and realize if we don't take personal responsibility for ourselves and our species's well being, nothing else will. Right now we are our own worst enemy.
23 Jan 2015, 7:00 pm
What we all should do instead of arguing with each other is monitor this crop situation every year and see if there is a gradual decline in crop success that spreads, even if it's only a tiny bit, every year because this is the type of thing that will harm us the most in climate change. Not enough to eat. Just think of all the people requiring food. We are in serious trouble if we have massive crop failure. How much of a danger is it? And, if you think it can't happen quickly...it can. Water is drying up all over the western part of the country. Lakes are disappearing. How worse will it get?
23 Jan 2015, 7:06 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It's better to be scared now than to wake up one day and find crops around the world won't grow and have the President appear on television telling us we are all screwed because there's not enough food for everyone and we have to be in rations.
If that happens, it will be because of cooling, not warming.
23 Jan 2015, 7:16 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
What we all should do instead of arguing with each other is monitor this crop situation every year and see if there is a gradual decline in crop success that spreads, even if it's only a tiny bit, every year because this is the type of thing that will harm us the most in climate change. Not enough to eat. Just think of all the people requiring food. We are in serious trouble if we have massive crop failure. How much of a danger is it? And, if you think it can't happen quickly...it can. Water is drying up all over the western part of the country. Lakes are disappearing. How worse will it get?
Are you going to try to blame the drought on Global Warming?
We had a comparable drought a few hundred years ago in the time leading up to the beginning of the cold weather period known as the "Little Ice Age".
The reality is that nobody has any idea whether or not the drought has anything to do with Global Warming. Global Warming is certainly not necessary to cause such a drought. To the contrary, droughts like this are thought to be entirely natural events.
23 Jan 2015, 7:25 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Republicans are the last ones on earth prepared to confront the threats from climate change. We are as good as passengers on the Titanic, now. Been nice knowing you, Earth. Sorry my species ruined ya. 
Maybe one of the reasons they got elected is because people are tired of being governed by the "findings" of junk science. ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Funny thing is, people are willing to accept science without question in every category except Climate Change. Why is that?
Suddenly, lo and behold, science is flawed and it's a big fat hoax.
Suddenly, lo and behold, science is flawed and it's a big fat hoax.
There's science then there is the other science with an obvious agenda behind it.
Last week you feared we were all going to die from being shot by two year olds.
This week it's global warming. What are we going to die from next week?
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
24 Jan 2015, 9:20 am
Jacoby wrote:
If "catastrophic climate change" is real then one congress won't make a difference. There are much bigger problems in the world right now than the polar bear population(which I believe has actually increased), economic ruin/war/inequality.
Don't worry. They're hard a work f*****g all that stuff up too.
I know a lot of people here are on SSI/SSDI and the TeaParty congress has vowed to block needed funding for the trustfund next year because some people on disability "don't deserve it." Hence, EVERYONE will get a 20-25% reduction in benefits!
Right-wingers get wood from hurting people on a global AND individual scale...
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/r ... 14382.html
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
24 Jan 2015, 7:27 pm
eric76 wrote:
Quote:
However, the real world is a complex system. Firstly, the planet is warming faster than ecosystems can adapt to.
Actually, predictions of warming are increasing faster than what the ecosystem can adapt to. Actual warming has not presented a problem.Quote:
Sure, species are migrating to make up for it, but they're migrating at different rates and populations are suffering for it. We're in trouble if that happens to our pollinators.
Are you suggesting that the male and female plants migrate at different rates? Of course, the migration is based on what we plant. Inappropriate frisking, and obviously nonsense.
Firstly, ecosystems are not aware of human predictions of warming. They are only aware of what is actually happening. Therefore, the ongoing disruption to ecosystems must be because of actual warming rather than human predictions of warming.
No, I am not suggesting male and female plants migrate at different rates. For one, most plants are hermaphrodite. The issue is trophic mismatch in phenology.
The migration of plant crops might be based on what we plant, but most species of both plant and animal are not beholden to human notions of where they should breed. Furthermore, if we do not either migrate our crops in line with what wild species are doing or else adjust our farming processes, somehow finding ways of preventing heat stress.
Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, plants have optimum temperatures and suffer from heat stress. Generally, where they live now is at about the right temperature for them. If the temperature increases, they're in trouble.
From what I understand, many of our crops originated in very temperate areas but were able to spread from there. Are you saying that they somehow lost their ability to live in more temperate climates?Yes, many of them have become less able to reside in their "natural" habitats. This is due to human selective breeding.
Quote:
Quote:
Thirdly, humans only really eat about 10 species of plant. Sure, the average Westerner probably eats 20-30 species in a year, but in terms of biomass and over the whole planet, 10 species make up the vast majority of our consumption. Most of the rest is thanks to half a dozen livestock species. Those species have lost much of their wild genetic diversity. The genes that survive are those that maximise yield in current conditions. Those that allow for tolerance of extreme conditions are generally dying out. Primary productivity is of little concern - what matters is crop yield.
If we need, we can cross different species to create new hybrids that can handle the conditions better. It's no problem.It's easier said than done! We can certainly try it, but we have no idea what the effect on yield will be (except, of course, that it will be lower than we currently experience - drought resistance requires energy that can't then be dedicated to useful yield), or even if we'll successful transfer the right genes. The chances are that many attempts would be made and some of them would work. More likely is deliberate, precise engineering of drought- and heat- resistant crops. Getting the new breeds widely distributed would take at least a few years, during which time people would starve.
Quote:
Quote:
Combining points two and three together, human crop plants are in big trouble if the temperature increases. Growing sustenance cereal crops like wheat and corn and rice in glasshouses is not as common as relative luxury fruits and vegetables.
Not a farmer, are you? A warmer planet would extend the growing area of all three of those crops. And the only reason why anyone would ever grow wheat, field corn, or rice in a greenhouse is for research purposes. I can see someone growing sweet corn in their greenhouse for their own consumption.
Quote:
That's because they are susceptible to heat stress at lower temperatures. Wheat photosynthesises best at 25 degrees and starts to really suffer at 30 degrees. If we have more days outside optimum ranges then we can expect yields to fall. A recent study suggested that wheat and soy yields would increase at higher latitudes, but corn yields would fall everywhere except Eastern Europe, Russia, parts of China, and the US-Canada border. Rice yields drop 10% with every 1 degree rise in temperature.
So what? Plant corn later so that it matures later in the fall under about the same conditions as now. And plant rice further north.
Quote:
The places likely to benefit from increased temperatures, one would imagine, are Canada, Alaska, Fennoscandia, and Russia.
And Texas. Don't forget Texas. Two wheat crops a year would be nice.More inappropriate fisking.
I'm not a farmer, I'm a Biology student at a university with a world-class agriculture department and a world-class climate science department. I have taken advantage of those things. Although I am by no means an expert, I have access to experts and I have learned a lot from them.
Texas' main food crop is corn, and in the USA corn yields are associated with cooler summers.
Whilst higher temperatures might, prima facie, lead to higher wheat yields, high humidity is also necessary. Texas does not currently have that. I do not know how that is projected to change.
Regardless, the decrease in yields in India and China is of greater concern.
Late corn planting is associated with lower yields (and seems unlikely to solve the problem - the plants will still be subject to heat stress before maturity and yields will still be impacted). Moving rice north is easier said than done - you need the right conditions for it, particularly suitable land - and you'd also need to move millions of subsistence farmers.
Quote:
Quote:
Unfortunately, Fennoscandia has so far been left out of the global temperature increase, and is at risk of prolonged stagnation or even cooling if ice melt disrupts the Atlantic's thermohaline circulation and the associated processes.
Not that nonsense again. When someone came up with that idea a few years ago, there was some panic by the non-scientific community. It didn't take long for the more scientific to realize that the amount of fresh water from melting ice would have to be at least an order of magnitude greater than the worst prediction for that to happen at all. Of course, it shouldn't be surprising to hear this pop up again and again from the less scientific.
It is still given serious consideration in scientific circles. You are misrepresenting the consensus. However, it is generally thought that global raises will, in the long run, "make up for" the localised cooling. That doesn't change that Fennoscandia is not currently experiencing warming at the same rate as Africa and most of Europe, for whatever reason, nor that there could be a period of cooling if ice melt sufficiently disrupts the Atlantic.
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, climate change is likely to have a variety of impacts. The most pressing of these for the paddy fields is sea-level rises, but also increased flooding, stronger tropic storms, stronger droughts, and changes to grand planetary systems like thermohaline circulation. I don't know too much about this area, but needless to say, I don't think increased soy yields in Canada will mean very much with all the other stuff that will be going down.
You should really look at what actually happens with warmer temperatures instead of listening to all the chicken littles.
Sea level rise, sure. Maybe about a foot per century. We can deal with that.
Changes to the thermohaline circulation is nothing but panic. It isn't going to happen unless the amount of ice melting is at least an order of magnitude, maybe two orders of magnitude, greater than the worst that is projected. And the worst that is being projected is hardly likely.
Stronger tropical storms? I assume that you are thinking of hurricanes. It is quite possible that the hurricanes will be weaker, not stronger because of wind shear interfering with their development.
There really is no reason to panic. Embrace change. Welcome change.
0.3 metres ("a foot") is the projected global average for the 21st century. It is likely to be particularly low at the poles. Y'know, those places where nobody lives. The most populated areas of China are likely to experience twice that change in the 21st century. Throw in year-on-year variation and things look suspect for the people living in those areas.
Quote:
And don't forget that there is NO scientific consensus that we are facing a disaster. The only consensus that we have is the 97% consensus that mankind plays at least a small part in the warming. Nothing more. And that consensus hardly amounts to much of anything.
That's simply not true. The IPCC, by far the most respected body of climate scientists and a good gauge of scientific consensus, say that the positive impacts are outweighed by the negative. If you are interested, their reports are here.
Again, I admire your optimism, but it is misplaced. I know it is hard for you to accept that the world isn't going to keep getting better, but you have to face facts. It is understandable that you are ignoring anything that doesn't suit your cosy worldview (if you are not, then provide some evidence - for example, "I think there is some genuine concern about..."). Burying your head in the sand won't achieve anything. Stop ignoring the masses of science and accept the reality of the situation! Challenging one's worldview is tough, but when the facts contradict us we have to do it or we look ridiculous, pig headed, and stupid.
I don't think we're likely to witness the end of humanity, but we are going to see the extinction rate rise further above the background rate and there is going to be a great deal of suffering for many, unless we press ahead with innovative technologies like nuclear power and genetic engineering (and even then, there will still be more suffering).
