Climate change and Nationalism Surge
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
09 Apr 2018, 6:59 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
We have to be brave. And fight this kind of nationalism. Many centuries have a defining struggle. In the 14th century, humanity struggled to save itself from the black death whilst in the 20th we struggled and succeeded in defeating the evil that is fascism. I think this is going to be our one.
Nationalism? Fascism? The government is forcing millions of people from incompatible cultures upon us without us asking for it, without us even having a vote on it. We have to compete with these people for jobs, housing and public services. Being against this does not make you some kind of extremist or radical.
The trouble is the West in a lot of ways has perpetuated some of the problems in these regions people are migrating from. You can't play a role in causing the problems that are causing people to migrate and then deny them movement. If the west wants less immigrants....well countries like the U.S and the U.K are going to have quit playing a role in creating the conditions these people flee from.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
09 Apr 2018, 7:16 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Or maybe the environment should be top priority, so that such a grim future does not occur. I mean no one wakes up one morning and decides 'hey I want to be a refugee' usually they are in a situation where they have little choice. Why should we continue down the path of environmental destruction? There are lots of ways in which it can be addressed...its not only people who will be effected, animals habitats also are being effected so could be more animal migrations as well.
That said I think more exposure to people of different cultures can reduce fear of different cultures. Also I think its still largely people on the fringe who have that kind of nationalistic fervor not the majority so I don't think it really would.
That said I think more exposure to people of different cultures can reduce fear of different cultures. Also I think its still largely people on the fringe who have that kind of nationalistic fervor not the majority so I don't think it really would.
I don't understand the panic over having a more productive environment.
I don't think destruction of eco-systems and man made air pollution make the environment more productive.
He's under the mistaken impression a 5c increase in temperature will make plant growth more productive. It's not the first time I've heard this one, and it relies on data from 2.5 million years ago with plants that no longer exist because they've adapted to a cooler environment and evolved into different plants. If we take a look at wheat, the #1 crop of a western diet, it slows growth over 85 degrees and completely stops growth at 95, hence the reason it's popular in northern climates, global warming will eradicate it as a reliable food source if the temperature reaches 5c above the 20th century mean temperature. The only place that will benefit from increased farming is Alberta, Canada, the temperature increase will allow them to grow a lot more crops than they currently can. Places like Siberia will be warmer, but it will be desert because they have poor nutrients in their soil. Meanwhile, the three best farming locations in the world (France, Ukraine, American Midwest) will be too hot to grow anything but tropical plants (which generally are high in sugar and low in protein).
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
09 Apr 2018, 9:55 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Or maybe the environment should be top priority, so that such a grim future does not occur. I mean no one wakes up one morning and decides 'hey I want to be a refugee' usually they are in a situation where they have little choice. Why should we continue down the path of environmental destruction? There are lots of ways in which it can be addressed...its not only people who will be effected, animals habitats also are being effected so could be more animal migrations as well.
That said I think more exposure to people of different cultures can reduce fear of different cultures. Also I think its still largely people on the fringe who have that kind of nationalistic fervor not the majority so I don't think it really would.
That said I think more exposure to people of different cultures can reduce fear of different cultures. Also I think its still largely people on the fringe who have that kind of nationalistic fervor not the majority so I don't think it really would.
I don't understand the panic over having a more productive environment.
I don't think destruction of eco-systems and man made air pollution make the environment more productive.
Eco-systems are always changing. What you call "destruction of eco-systems" is merely an anthropomorphic observation based on the invalid notion that things should never change from what they are now.
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
09 Apr 2018, 10:13 pm
Aristophanes wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Or maybe the environment should be top priority, so that such a grim future does not occur. I mean no one wakes up one morning and decides 'hey I want to be a refugee' usually they are in a situation where they have little choice. Why should we continue down the path of environmental destruction? There are lots of ways in which it can be addressed...its not only people who will be effected, animals habitats also are being effected so could be more animal migrations as well.
That said I think more exposure to people of different cultures can reduce fear of different cultures. Also I think its still largely people on the fringe who have that kind of nationalistic fervor not the majority so I don't think it really would.
That said I think more exposure to people of different cultures can reduce fear of different cultures. Also I think its still largely people on the fringe who have that kind of nationalistic fervor not the majority so I don't think it really would.
I don't understand the panic over having a more productive environment.
I don't think destruction of eco-systems and man made air pollution make the environment more productive.
He's under the mistaken impression a 5c increase in temperature will make plant growth more productive. It's not the first time I've heard this one, and it relies on data from 2.5 million years ago with plants that no longer exist because they've adapted to a cooler environment and evolved into different plants. If we take a look at wheat, the #1 crop of a western diet, it slows growth over 85 degrees and completely stops growth at 95, hence the reason it's popular in northern climates, global warming will eradicate it as a reliable food source if the temperature reaches 5c above the 20th century mean temperature. The only place that will benefit from increased farming is Alberta, Canada, the temperature increase will allow them to grow a lot more crops than they currently can. Places like Siberia will be warmer, but it will be desert because they have poor nutrients in their soil. Meanwhile, the three best farming locations in the world (France, Ukraine, American Midwest) will be too hot to grow anything but tropical plants (which generally are high in sugar and low in protein).
Ever hear of greenhouses? People grow things in greenhouses all the time. It is warmer and often has extra CO2 pumped in.
As for wheat, I don't know where you get those numbers. It sounds like the temperature for germination of wheat seed.
Have you ever heard of Norman Borlaug? He is credited as saving more lives than anyone else in history by developing better wheat varieties. He did his research in central Mexico for the simple reason that he could get two growing seasons a year instead of one. The warmer weather in central Mexico didn't seem to hurt his research any.
Also, it is quite common to plant a winter wheat that grows through the winter and is harvested in late spring or early to mid summer depending on your location. In actuality, it is dormant from the time it is planted until early spring when it finally gets warm enough to grow. A shorter winter brought about by Global Warming would mean a faster growing wheat that is ready to harvest earlier.
And never assume that we can't make things even better with genetic engineering.
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
09 Apr 2018, 10:30 pm
kokopelli wrote:
NoClearMind53 wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
One other thing -- the warming is not equal around the world. Areas at the equator will see the least warming. In general, the further you are from the equator, the more the warming. The poles will likely see the most warming.
And another thing -- if heat causes deserts, then why isn't the equatorial regions, such as Ecuador and much of Brasil covered by deserts?
And another thing -- if heat causes deserts, then why isn't the equatorial regions, such as Ecuador and much of Brasil covered by deserts?
Again, I never said heat cases deserts, but you're obviously just parroting opinions bandied about by the right. It's also funny how the goal posts keep shifting. Before it was "climate change isn't happening", then it was "the climate is warming, but there's no reason to think humans are to blame", now it's "humans might be the cause, but so what. Warming is a good thing".
I'm not on the right and I'm not parroting any opinions by the right. People on the right often think I'm way to the left.
For what it's worth, I was worried twenty five years ago about Global Warming. But instead of sitting there repeating what I read in the press, I started looking at history. I was most interested in the climate in the past because the best way to understand what is happening now and what the consequences are is to look at when we've had issues before.
It turns out that we were warmer around 9,000 years ago. Instead of catastrophe, what that really did was enable mankind to take its first steps toward civilization. Instead of keeping on the move in order to survive by hunting, our ancestors were finally able to settle down and start farming. Without the thousands of years of selective breeding of crops, the yields then were pretty meager -- if the climate had been as cool as today, they might not have been able to survive by depending on agriculture. The world today would be far different without those warmer temperatures back then.
Use your own brain for once and look at it objectively and you will find that you don't have to panic.
What we see as the beginning of civilization may well have been the result of crisis obliging peoples to change their way of life for more stable food sources.
Not that agriculture was a good thing for most the population during most of our history; nomads populations were in better health that sedentary populations for a long time. Agriculture is hard and didn't produced enough.
Beside, the current changes are much faster, and back then there wasn't hundred of millions of peoples living in coastal cities, neither interdependence making so that a catastrophic storm in Taiwan could destroy the production of little pieces essential for the working of our civilization around the world. Displacement of populations was also less dramatic back then, as peoples were far less numerous and they were nomads anyway.
_________________
Down with speculators!! !
09 Apr 2018, 11:05 pm
Tollorin wrote:
What we see as the beginning of civilization may well have been the result of crisis obliging peoples to change their way of life for more stable food sources.
Not that agriculture was a good thing for most the population during most of our history; nomads populations were in better health that sedentary populations for a long time. Agriculture is hard and didn't produced enough.
Not that agriculture was a good thing for most the population during most of our history; nomads populations were in better health that sedentary populations for a long time. Agriculture is hard and didn't produced enough.
That's actually a very good point.
Given that agriculture creates more food than hunting does, it is entirely possible that it was originally invented to cope with the food shortage which followed the end of the Last Glacial Maximum.
_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre
READ THIS -> https://represent.us/
10 Apr 2018, 5:10 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
The trouble is the West in a lot of ways has perpetuated some of the problems in these regions people are migrating from. You can't play a role in causing the problems that are causing people to migrate and then deny them movement. If the west wants less immigrants....well countries like the U.S and the U.K are going to have quit playing a role in creating the conditions these people flee from.
How exactly? If you are talking about the wars in the middle east 1 million people marched against Iraq and they still went ahead.
10 Apr 2018, 5:29 am
Tollorin wrote:
Beside, the current changes are much faster, and back then there wasn't hundred of millions of peoples living in coastal cities, neither interdependence making so that a catastrophic storm in Taiwan could destroy the production of little pieces essential for the working of our civilization around the world. Displacement of populations was also less dramatic back then, as peoples were far less numerous and they were nomads anyway.
This is the problem. Also, people living in poorer areas like Bangladesh and other low-lying areas of Southeast Asia won't be too stupid to understand that the wealthier countries that consumed far more fossil fuels are mostly responsible for their plight. They'll have a huge grievance with the larger more developed economies like the US and China who will try to keep them out. Regressives have the perfect recipe to make everyone on earth hate each other. They'll just fuel a new clash of civilizations. Nobody will be able to stop migrations by hiding behind walls. Borders will be militarized and they will have to mow down mobs of women and children with machine guns. Regressives and reactionaries have no solutions. They'll simply usher in a new age of brutal savagery.
10 Apr 2018, 8:35 am
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Or maybe the environment should be top priority, so that such a grim future does not occur. I mean no one wakes up one morning and decides 'hey I want to be a refugee' usually they are in a situation where they have little choice. Why should we continue down the path of environmental destruction? There are lots of ways in which it can be addressed...its not only people who will be effected, animals habitats also are being effected so could be more animal migrations as well.
That said I think more exposure to people of different cultures can reduce fear of different cultures. Also I think its still largely people on the fringe who have that kind of nationalistic fervor not the majority so I don't think it really would.
That said I think more exposure to people of different cultures can reduce fear of different cultures. Also I think its still largely people on the fringe who have that kind of nationalistic fervor not the majority so I don't think it really would.
I don't understand the panic over having a more productive environment.
I don't think destruction of eco-systems and man made air pollution make the environment more productive.
He's under the mistaken impression a 5c increase in temperature will make plant growth more productive. It's not the first time I've heard this one, and it relies on data from 2.5 million years ago with plants that no longer exist because they've adapted to a cooler environment and evolved into different plants. If we take a look at wheat, the #1 crop of a western diet, it slows growth over 85 degrees and completely stops growth at 95, hence the reason it's popular in northern climates, global warming will eradicate it as a reliable food source if the temperature reaches 5c above the 20th century mean temperature. The only place that will benefit from increased farming is Alberta, Canada, the temperature increase will allow them to grow a lot more crops than they currently can. Places like Siberia will be warmer, but it will be desert because they have poor nutrients in their soil. Meanwhile, the three best farming locations in the world (France, Ukraine, American Midwest) will be too hot to grow anything but tropical plants (which generally are high in sugar and low in protein).
Ever hear of greenhouses? People grow things in greenhouses all the time. It is warmer and often has extra CO2 pumped in.
As for wheat, I don't know where you get those numbers. It sounds like the temperature for germination of wheat seed.
Have you ever heard of Norman Borlaug? He is credited as saving more lives than anyone else in history by developing better wheat varieties. He did his research in central Mexico for the simple reason that he could get two growing seasons a year instead of one. The warmer weather in central Mexico didn't seem to hurt his research any.
Also, it is quite common to plant a winter wheat that grows through the winter and is harvested in late spring or early to mid summer depending on your location. In actuality, it is dormant from the time it is planted until early spring when it finally gets warm enough to grow. A shorter winter brought about by Global Warming would mean a faster growing wheat that is ready to harvest earlier.
And never assume that we can't make things even better with genetic engineering.
First, as a farmer, I find genetic engineering disgusting. Selective breeding, that's a different ballgame, that's been nature tested over 540 million years, genetic engineering on the other hand is a bunch of children playing with matches because they think they know more than their parents (nature).
Second, growth rates, climatic requirements, and nutrient requirements for virtually any crop can easily be found with a Google search of the crop name and the requirement you're looking for. I do this every year when I introduce a new plant to my plot. Wheat is among the easiest to find information on because it's ubiquitous in the western world. I'm generally of the opinion people should research on their own if they have questions, it helps them remember that information and get satisfaction for the work they invested researching, that said, since your question amounts to an attack on credibility here's a few sources that show the heat requirements for wheat:
USDA: Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production
Agropedia: climatic requirements for wheat
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: info page on temperature effects on crops.
2008 is when I attempted wheat myself, and the growth information I used was from the CSU Crop Guidelines Manual for wheat. It's not available online, but you can request the pamphlet from here.
10 Apr 2018, 8:44 am
Aristophanes wrote:
First, as a farmer, I find genetic engineering disgusting. Selective breeding, that's a different ballgame, that's been nature tested over 540 million years, genetic engineering on the other hand is a bunch of children playing with matches because they think they know more than their parents (nature).
Second, growth rates, climatic requirements, and nutrient requirements for virtually any crop can easily be found with a Google search of the crop name and the requirement you're looking for. I do this every year when I introduce a new plant to my plot. Wheat is among the easiest to find information on because it's ubiquitous in the western world. I'm generally of the opinion people should research on their own if they have questions, it helps them remember that information and get satisfaction for the work they invested researching, that said, since your question amounts to an attack on credibility here's a few sources that show the heat requirements for wheat:
USDA: Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production
Agropedia: climatic requirements for wheat
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: info page on temperature effects on crops.
2008 is when I attempted wheat myself, and the growth information I used was from the CSU Crop Guidelines Manual for wheat. It's not available online, but you can request the pamphlet from here.
Second, growth rates, climatic requirements, and nutrient requirements for virtually any crop can easily be found with a Google search of the crop name and the requirement you're looking for. I do this every year when I introduce a new plant to my plot. Wheat is among the easiest to find information on because it's ubiquitous in the western world. I'm generally of the opinion people should research on their own if they have questions, it helps them remember that information and get satisfaction for the work they invested researching, that said, since your question amounts to an attack on credibility here's a few sources that show the heat requirements for wheat:
USDA: Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production
Agropedia: climatic requirements for wheat
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: info page on temperature effects on crops.
2008 is when I attempted wheat myself, and the growth information I used was from the CSU Crop Guidelines Manual for wheat. It's not available online, but you can request the pamphlet from here.
Selective breeding is genetic engineering. The scientific consensus that GMO is safe. Indeed consensus is that GMO's are safe is higher than than the consensus that climate change is man made.
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
10 Apr 2018, 8:51 am
Aristophanes wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Or maybe the environment should be top priority, so that such a grim future does not occur. I mean no one wakes up one morning and decides 'hey I want to be a refugee' usually they are in a situation where they have little choice. Why should we continue down the path of environmental destruction? There are lots of ways in which it can be addressed...its not only people who will be effected, animals habitats also are being effected so could be more animal migrations as well.
That said I think more exposure to people of different cultures can reduce fear of different cultures. Also I think its still largely people on the fringe who have that kind of nationalistic fervor not the majority so I don't think it really would.
That said I think more exposure to people of different cultures can reduce fear of different cultures. Also I think its still largely people on the fringe who have that kind of nationalistic fervor not the majority so I don't think it really would.
I don't understand the panic over having a more productive environment.
I don't think destruction of eco-systems and man made air pollution make the environment more productive.
He's under the mistaken impression a 5c increase in temperature will make plant growth more productive. It's not the first time I've heard this one, and it relies on data from 2.5 million years ago with plants that no longer exist because they've adapted to a cooler environment and evolved into different plants. If we take a look at wheat, the #1 crop of a western diet, it slows growth over 85 degrees and completely stops growth at 95, hence the reason it's popular in northern climates, global warming will eradicate it as a reliable food source if the temperature reaches 5c above the 20th century mean temperature. The only place that will benefit from increased farming is Alberta, Canada, the temperature increase will allow them to grow a lot more crops than they currently can. Places like Siberia will be warmer, but it will be desert because they have poor nutrients in their soil. Meanwhile, the three best farming locations in the world (France, Ukraine, American Midwest) will be too hot to grow anything but tropical plants (which generally are high in sugar and low in protein).
Ever hear of greenhouses? People grow things in greenhouses all the time. It is warmer and often has extra CO2 pumped in.
As for wheat, I don't know where you get those numbers. It sounds like the temperature for germination of wheat seed.
Have you ever heard of Norman Borlaug? He is credited as saving more lives than anyone else in history by developing better wheat varieties. He did his research in central Mexico for the simple reason that he could get two growing seasons a year instead of one. The warmer weather in central Mexico didn't seem to hurt his research any.
Also, it is quite common to plant a winter wheat that grows through the winter and is harvested in late spring or early to mid summer depending on your location. In actuality, it is dormant from the time it is planted until early spring when it finally gets warm enough to grow. A shorter winter brought about by Global Warming would mean a faster growing wheat that is ready to harvest earlier.
And never assume that we can't make things even better with genetic engineering.
First, as a farmer, I find genetic engineering disgusting. Selective breeding, that's a different ballgame, that's been nature tested over 540 million years, genetic engineering on the other hand is a bunch of children playing with matches because they think they know more than their parents (nature).
Second, growth rates, climatic requirements, and nutrient requirements for virtually any crop can easily be found with a Google search of the crop name and the requirement you're looking for. I do this every year when I introduce a new plant to my plot. Wheat is among the easiest to find information on because it's ubiquitous in the western world. I'm generally of the opinion people should research on their own if they have questions, it helps them remember that information and get satisfaction for the work they invested researching, that said, since your question amounts to an attack on credibility here's a few sources that show the heat requirements for wheat:
USDA: Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production
Agropedia: climatic requirements for wheat
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: info page on temperature effects on crops.
2008 is when I attempted wheat myself, and the growth information I used was from the CSU Crop Guidelines Manual for wheat. It's not available online, but you can request the pamphlet from here.
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
10 Apr 2018, 9:00 am
Daniel89 wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
First, as a farmer, I find genetic engineering disgusting. Selective breeding, that's a different ballgame, that's been nature tested over 540 million years, genetic engineering on the other hand is a bunch of children playing with matches because they think they know more than their parents (nature).
Second, growth rates, climatic requirements, and nutrient requirements for virtually any crop can easily be found with a Google search of the crop name and the requirement you're looking for. I do this every year when I introduce a new plant to my plot. Wheat is among the easiest to find information on because it's ubiquitous in the western world. I'm generally of the opinion people should research on their own if they have questions, it helps them remember that information and get satisfaction for the work they invested researching, that said, since your question amounts to an attack on credibility here's a few sources that show the heat requirements for wheat:
USDA: Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production
Agropedia: climatic requirements for wheat
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: info page on temperature effects on crops.
2008 is when I attempted wheat myself, and the growth information I used was from the CSU Crop Guidelines Manual for wheat. It's not available online, but you can request the pamphlet from here.
Second, growth rates, climatic requirements, and nutrient requirements for virtually any crop can easily be found with a Google search of the crop name and the requirement you're looking for. I do this every year when I introduce a new plant to my plot. Wheat is among the easiest to find information on because it's ubiquitous in the western world. I'm generally of the opinion people should research on their own if they have questions, it helps them remember that information and get satisfaction for the work they invested researching, that said, since your question amounts to an attack on credibility here's a few sources that show the heat requirements for wheat:
USDA: Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production
Agropedia: climatic requirements for wheat
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: info page on temperature effects on crops.
2008 is when I attempted wheat myself, and the growth information I used was from the CSU Crop Guidelines Manual for wheat. It's not available online, but you can request the pamphlet from here.
Selective breeding is genetic engineering. The scientific consensus that GMO is safe. Indeed consensus is that GMO's are safe is higher than than the consensus that climate change is man made.
You are right in that GMOs are safe, but completely wrong about genetic engineering.
Without the use of modern techniques to directly introduce specific genes into a plant's genome, it isn't genetic engineering. These techniques are not used in selective breeding.
For selective breeding, you are breeding plants or animals in the hope that the offspring will receive the best genes of each. You are not selecting specific genes and inserting them into the genome. And you can never introduce genes from completely separate sources by selective breeding.
Genetic engineering is similar to the naturally occurring horizontal gene transfer, but far more particular.
For example, consider the lab mice that have been genetically engineered to have neurons that fluoresce. You could perform selective breeding of mice for millions of years and you would likely never develop such a mouse. But with genetic engineering, it has been done.
10 Apr 2018, 9:09 am
kokopelli wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
First, as a farmer, I find genetic engineering disgusting. Selective breeding, that's a different ballgame, that's been nature tested over 540 million years, genetic engineering on the other hand is a bunch of children playing with matches because they think they know more than their parents (nature).
Second, growth rates, climatic requirements, and nutrient requirements for virtually any crop can easily be found with a Google search of the crop name and the requirement you're looking for. I do this every year when I introduce a new plant to my plot. Wheat is among the easiest to find information on because it's ubiquitous in the western world. I'm generally of the opinion people should research on their own if they have questions, it helps them remember that information and get satisfaction for the work they invested researching, that said, since your question amounts to an attack on credibility here's a few sources that show the heat requirements for wheat:
USDA: Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production
Agropedia: climatic requirements for wheat
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: info page on temperature effects on crops.
2008 is when I attempted wheat myself, and the growth information I used was from the CSU Crop Guidelines Manual for wheat. It's not available online, but you can request the pamphlet from here.
Second, growth rates, climatic requirements, and nutrient requirements for virtually any crop can easily be found with a Google search of the crop name and the requirement you're looking for. I do this every year when I introduce a new plant to my plot. Wheat is among the easiest to find information on because it's ubiquitous in the western world. I'm generally of the opinion people should research on their own if they have questions, it helps them remember that information and get satisfaction for the work they invested researching, that said, since your question amounts to an attack on credibility here's a few sources that show the heat requirements for wheat:
USDA: Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production
Agropedia: climatic requirements for wheat
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: info page on temperature effects on crops.
2008 is when I attempted wheat myself, and the growth information I used was from the CSU Crop Guidelines Manual for wheat. It's not available online, but you can request the pamphlet from here.
Selective breeding is genetic engineering. The scientific consensus that GMO is safe. Indeed consensus is that GMO's are safe is higher than than the consensus that climate change is man made.
You are right in that GMOs are safe, but completely wrong about genetic engineering.
Without the use of modern techniques to directly introduce specific genes into a plant's genome, it isn't genetic engineering. These techniques are not used in selective breeding.
For selective breeding, you are breeding plants or animals in the hope that the offspring will receive the best genes of each. You are not selecting specific genes and inserting them into the genome. And you can never introduce genes from completely separate sources by selective breeding.
Genetic engineering is similar to the naturally occurring horizontal gene transfer, but far more particular.
For example, consider the lab mice that have been genetically engineered to have neurons that fluoresce. You could perform selective breeding of mice for millions of years and you would likely never develop such a mouse. But with genetic engineering, it has been done.
People in the industry may not call selective breeding genetic engineering. However humans via selective breeding do engineer other life forms, it may not be as advanced as doing it in the lab. A dog engineered to herd sheep in a lab would be probably be better than a border collie but a border collie is better than a wolf.
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
10 Apr 2018, 9:10 am
Aristophanes wrote:
First, as a farmer, I find genetic engineering disgusting. Selective breeding, that's a different ballgame, that's been nature tested over 540 million years, genetic engineering on the other hand is a bunch of children playing with matches because they think they know more than their parents (nature).
Very funny. 540 million years? Who was doing selective breeding back then? It certainly wasn't humans because humans did not exist until well into the current ice age. Our first steps at farming was about nine or ten thousand years ago but it took a while for them to develop selective breeding.
As for GMOs, I know a lot of farmers, only one of which is opposed to GMOs and he is generally regarded as being extremely quirky (and that's putting it nicely). I do know a few private gardeners who are very anti-GMO, though.
Last edited by kokopelli on 10 Apr 2018, 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
10 Apr 2018, 9:14 am
Daniel89 wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
First, as a farmer, I find genetic engineering disgusting. Selective breeding, that's a different ballgame, that's been nature tested over 540 million years, genetic engineering on the other hand is a bunch of children playing with matches because they think they know more than their parents (nature).
Second, growth rates, climatic requirements, and nutrient requirements for virtually any crop can easily be found with a Google search of the crop name and the requirement you're looking for. I do this every year when I introduce a new plant to my plot. Wheat is among the easiest to find information on because it's ubiquitous in the western world. I'm generally of the opinion people should research on their own if they have questions, it helps them remember that information and get satisfaction for the work they invested researching, that said, since your question amounts to an attack on credibility here's a few sources that show the heat requirements for wheat:
USDA: Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production
Agropedia: climatic requirements for wheat
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: info page on temperature effects on crops.
2008 is when I attempted wheat myself, and the growth information I used was from the CSU Crop Guidelines Manual for wheat. It's not available online, but you can request the pamphlet from here.
Second, growth rates, climatic requirements, and nutrient requirements for virtually any crop can easily be found with a Google search of the crop name and the requirement you're looking for. I do this every year when I introduce a new plant to my plot. Wheat is among the easiest to find information on because it's ubiquitous in the western world. I'm generally of the opinion people should research on their own if they have questions, it helps them remember that information and get satisfaction for the work they invested researching, that said, since your question amounts to an attack on credibility here's a few sources that show the heat requirements for wheat:
USDA: Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production
Agropedia: climatic requirements for wheat
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: info page on temperature effects on crops.
2008 is when I attempted wheat myself, and the growth information I used was from the CSU Crop Guidelines Manual for wheat. It's not available online, but you can request the pamphlet from here.
Selective breeding is genetic engineering. The scientific consensus that GMO is safe. Indeed consensus is that GMO's are safe is higher than than the consensus that climate change is man made.
You are right in that GMOs are safe, but completely wrong about genetic engineering.
Without the use of modern techniques to directly introduce specific genes into a plant's genome, it isn't genetic engineering. These techniques are not used in selective breeding.
For selective breeding, you are breeding plants or animals in the hope that the offspring will receive the best genes of each. You are not selecting specific genes and inserting them into the genome. And you can never introduce genes from completely separate sources by selective breeding.
Genetic engineering is similar to the naturally occurring horizontal gene transfer, but far more particular.
For example, consider the lab mice that have been genetically engineered to have neurons that fluoresce. You could perform selective breeding of mice for millions of years and you would likely never develop such a mouse. But with genetic engineering, it has been done.
People in the industry may not call selective breeding genetic engineering. However humans via selective breeding do engineer other life forms, it may not be as advanced as doing it in the lab. A dog engineered to herd sheep in a lab would be probably be better than a border collie but a border collie is better than a wolf.
Some people do call it that, but it just shows that they don't understand the terms. If you can't select a specific gene from any genetic source to introduce into the genome of the animal or plant or select a specific gene to be removed from the genome, then it isn't genetic engineering.
10 Apr 2018, 9:18 am
Sorry, I can't really reply because every link I post I get blocked by WP.
kokopelli wrote:
Note that the first paper you list is talking about mean temperatures during the growing season. Are you claiming that with Global Warming we are going to see mean temperatures of more than 30 C (86 F) through the winter?
Look up the Devonian period, it's not unfeasible. And I'm claiming production will go down due to slow growth, and the spring growing season for wheat will disappear because the plants can't reach maturity before growth is halted due to summer heat.
