Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[macdoc]

Vapid unsupported statements diminishing the very real and now effects of climate change in no way changes the reality.
100 year floods every 10 years - yeah that's right they are no longer hundred year floods they are devastating floods every decade - or less..... 3 such in 12 years in the midwest.....

Spain is particularly vulnerable as the desert band moves north.....you don't seem to understand that even a few days of abnormal heat destroys the crops regardless of what happens on either side of the heatwave

India’s mango crop burned up in extreme heat wave linked to climate change

06. Apr, 2011
Highlights

Alphonso, the king of mangoes, has fallen victim to climate change. The state government’s preliminary estimate is that nearly 80% of the mango crop has been destroyed, said agriculture minister Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil.
“The trees flowered far in excess of everyone’s expectations. The devastation has taken us by surprise. I am told it is because of climate change,” said Vikhe-Patil who has called a meeting on Wednesday to assess the damage. Sanjay Pansare , director, Fruits Market of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) market at Vashi, said they have been receiving a meagre 7,000 boxes everyday as against 60-70 ,000 boxes during the same period last year.

http://climatesignals.org/2011/04/i...n-extreme-heat-wave-linked-to-climate-change/

and a small increase globally can and does mean large spikes the further you move north.

Your campaign to belittle the risk and the reality is odious and smacks of political and self centred orientation

Edited by LashL: 

<snipped for moderated thread>

rather than object scientific evaluation that is supported by the facts and science.

“The increase in temperature will be more important in Spain than it will be on a global scale,” states Sarah Pidinatto, a Greenpeace officer in the Spanish capital. “It will have several serious consequences.First of all, the change in temperature will affect lifestyles in Andalusia, Murcia and Valencia.The number of days when temperatures will exceed 40° will increase, which will cause numerous health problems.Agriculture will also be affected, and temperatures in the sea will increase.The other consequence is the 20% reduction in precipitation in the southern part of Europe and the Mediterranean region.This will affect all of Spain, and in particular Valencia, Murcia and the west of Andalusia

These are not small changes - they are shifts in the climate bands and what was once arable land with sufficient water no longer exists.

http://www.euranet.eu/eng/Dossier/U...ng-up/Climate-change-in-Spain-Desertification

as good a summary line as it gets and something you seem to miss entirely in your myopic dismissal as "minor "...

Climate Change to Exacerbate Rising Food Prices

by Anna Mazhirov | 3.22.2011 at 10:40am


Category> Agriculture-Food, Climate, Poverty / Economic Development Tags> Climate, Climate and Agriculture, climate change, climate matters, Developing Countries
Despite all human provisions to maintain a steady and even increasing food supply, post-Green-Revolution agriculture remains heavily dependent on seasonal weather. Just in the past few years, weather extremes caused significant jumps in food prices, causing social, economic, and political disturbances in both developing and developed countries. Between 2006 and 2008, world average prices rose by 217 percent for rice, 136 percent for wheat, 125 percent for corn, and 107 percent for soybeans. Droughts in grain-producing regions were a leading cause for this world food price crisis, which led to food riots and political change. In 2010, the floods in Pakistan inundated cropland and the severe heat wave and drought in Russia caused a grain embargo.


Climate change, which is observable in the long-term, does not equate to these fluctuations in weather, which take place in the short-term. However, the effects of climate change (higher temperatures, shifting seasons, more frequent and extreme weather events, flooding, and drought) will make such agriculture-disrupting events more and more likely.

and it is occurring now.....

Neither minor nor inconsequential and your denial that climate change is at the heart of the increased frequency of extreme weather events is laughable in the face of the overwhelming evidence.

 

[macdoc]

Furc snarked

ask some farmers

okay

This method of questioning elicited some surprising revelations. A group of women told the researchers that all their lives they had washed their food containers every 3 or 4 days. But recently, they found that they had to wash them every 2 days: a few degrees increase in temperature was causing food to spoil more rapidly. In addition, villagers who lived at higher altitudes spoke of unusually hot summers and early springs. At lower altitudes, they complained of mosquitoes that had never before infested the area, the team reports online today in Biology Letters.

Villagers also noted that common plants such as rhododendrons had moved upward into cooler areas and that other species had disappeared, backing up a number of studies in the scientific literature that illustrate how specific plants and animals have responded to a warming climate. Although the researchers weren't surprised to hear that farmers were aware of weather changes, they were surprised by how much people noticed biodiversity loss, something that hadn't been reported in previous studies.

Farmers have always allowed for some variation in weather from year to year, but "nowadays it's very difficult because climate and weather are becoming more unpredictable," says Chaudhary. Understanding how climate change is affecting an area, the researchers say, might help farmers and experts work together to develop farming strategies that can adapt to fluctuating weather.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/watching-climate-change-through.html

and even in benign climate regions like the North West US

Scientists, farmers to study climate change

By Staff Writer (The Seattle Times) - May 10, 2011

Farmers and scientists in the inland Northwest are launching a $20 million study on how climate change will impact agricultural practices.

Nearly 100 researchers and farmers from across the region met Monday at the University of Idaho, where the five-year research program is starting, The Spokesman-Review reported.

“Climate change is one of the challenges that faces the sustainability of agriculture in this region,” said UI professor Scott Eigenbrode, who is leading the project.

Funding for the study comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Temperatures in the area have already risen about 1.8 degrees on average in the past century, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is predicting they will increase another 3.6 degrees by 2050, Eigenbrode said.
Winter precipitation is predicted to increase by 5 percent, but summer rainfall could drop by 5 to 20 percent, he said.

Warmer summer temperatures could spell problems for grains and other crops that will face increased heat and water stress.

Pests such as the cereal leaf beetle, Hessian fly and aphids could become bigger problems in a warmer climate, he said. Pathogens carried by aphids might also be aggravated.

the timing of rain is often far more important that the annual total - Australia in particular is getting rain in the wrong season for crops and it is exacerbating salt issues in affected areas.

Salinity in the Landscape: A Growing Problem in Australia
Pichu Rengasamy

USDA - Scott Bauer
Severe salinization can ruin fields anywhere from Central California (pictured) to Australia.
Salinization is one of the most devastating forms of land degradation threatening food production worldwide, especially in arid and semi-arid climates such as the American West and Southern Australia. In Australia, thanks to a number of factors such as climate change and irrigation practices, an increasing number of landscapes are becoming saline, causing a decreased yield of food grains. And with climate change predictions indicating less rainfall and higher temperatures in the near future in most of the agricultural regions in Southern Australia, experts worry that the changes will lead to even more saline lands and less food

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/mar08/article.html?id=feature_salinity.html

Human civilization grew up in the relatively benign Holocene .....welcome to the extremes of the Anthropocene.

 

[BenBurch]

The total global average temperature difference between 1850-era temperatures and the last glacial period is only about 4 C. So small differences in global average temperature can have very large consequences to the climate.

Saying "it's only a few degrees" is a well-known tactic of reality deniers;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

 

[macdoc]

The world's insurance companies recognize this is NOT a minor change...

Why the insurance industry gets climate change
Insurance companies understand risk – which is why, unlike our myopic political class, they do not have their heads in the sand

...

Insurance companies have a vested interest in reducing the risks of climate change. Like scientists and the military, they're used to dealing with and planning for uncertainty. As scientists have made clear, climate change is cranking up the dial on extreme weather. Over the last 30 years, catastrophic economic losses have been rising (pdf) with the global temperature, which chops into insurance firms' profits.

With landscapes and livelihoods being sucked into the extreme weather vortex, insurance firm executives – especially in Europe – are getting the message.

The insurance industry is all about risk assessment and capital accumulation. Katrina-like catastrophes lurk on the discernibly warmer horizon, giving insurance companies a real deal incentive to slice against the zeitgeist of denial. As Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, told the select committee on energy independence and global warming in 2007, "The insurance industry's financial interest is inter-dependent with climate and weather."

Over the last five years, the insurance industry has become increasingly proactive on climate change, in terms of both underwriting and investment. Reinsurance companies – essentially firms that insure the insurers to manage and defray risk – have taken the lead. In September 2007, insurance firms formed ClimateWise in order to reduce economic risk associated with climate change.

That same year, Andrew Castaldi, head of the catastrophe risk unit for the Swiss Re America Corp, testified to the Senate's homeland security and governmental affairs committee, "We believe unequivocally that climate change presents an increasing risk to the world economy and social welfare."
In 2008, Ernst & Young – not known for having to peel bark from their sweater vests after intensive treehugging sessions – named climate change the number one risk to the insurance industry. In a 2009 report, Lloyd's of London warned of climate change contributing to "resource-driven conflicts; economic damage and risk to coastal cities and infrastructure; loss of territory and resultant border disputes; environmentally induced migration; government fragility; political radicalisation; tensions over energy supplies and pressures on international governance".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...n/28/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

small stuff.......don't think so...

 

[Furcifer]

Vapid unsupported statements diminishing the very real and now effects of climate change in no way changes the reality.

The reality of what hasn't happened.

100 year floods every 10 years - yeah that's right they are no longer hundred year floods they are devastating floods every decade - or less..... 3 such in 12 years in the midwest.....

Yes, it's called hyperbole.

Spain is particularly vulnerable as the desert band moves north.....you don't seem to understand that even a few days of abnormal heat destroys the crops regardless of what happens on either side of the heatwave

That's always been the case, it's nothing new to farming. Droughts and heat waves have been happening for a very long time, at the very least since biblical times.

and a small increase globally can and does mean large spikes the further you move north.

No it doesn't mean it, it just makes it possible.

Your campaign to belittle the risk and the reality is odious and smacks of political and self centred orientation

Edited by LashL: 

<snipped for moderated thread>

rather than object scientific evaluation that is supported by the facts and science.

I don't do politics, just science.

These are not small changes - they are shifts in the climate bands and what was once arable land with sufficient water no longer exists.

That's simply not true. I suggest you look at AR4.

Neither minor nor inconsequential and your denial that climate change is at the heart of the increased frequency of extreme weather events is laughable in the face of the overwhelming evidence.

Weather is not climate.

 

[BenBurch]

In fact, before you post an argument here, why don't you review this list;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

And if it is in there, you can consider it "asked and answered" and we can move on to some actually novel arguments.

 

[macdoc]

Nothing minor here.....and it's world wide....

In June the number of people taken by ambulance to hospitals for heatstroke tripled compared with June last year. The number of people taken by ambulance for heatstroke in July is predicted to be up 20 per cent on last year, says Hasegawa Manabu of Fire and Disaster Management Agency. However, Nobuyuki Miyatake at Kagawa University in Takamatsu says it's unclear whether energy-saving is responsible for the extra deaths, since summer came early this year, with temperatures temperatures soaring after 21 June rather than in early July.

Nevertheless, the government is concerned. Last week, prime minister Naoto Kan advised people "to save electricity to the extent that the efforts are reasonable and people do not suffer from heatstroke".

The Japan Meteorological Agency says temperatures this summer are unlikely to match last year's, which were the highest since records began in 1898.

The US is also sweltering in a heatwave, with temperatures predicted at over 45 °C in places. Mostly focused on the Midwest, the heat is heading east with some 40 states expected to be affected.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20716-japanese-power-cuts-linked-to-heatstroke-deaths.html

The National Weather Service reports that the record string of consecutive days at Savannah, Georgia with 90° or higher temperatures ended on Friday (July 15) at 56 days. This broke the previous record by 12 days:

http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2011/07/savannah-smashes-sweltering-streak.html

 

[Furcifer]

Human civilization grew up in the relatively benign Holocene .....welcome to the extremes of the Anthropocene.

Exactly, no more free rides. But we're better prepared to deal with these extremes, so there's no excuses. Alarmists are just fostering the the belief you can just sit there and not doing anything and gripe about how everything else should change but you.

If climate change and not natural variability is responsible for the events you've shown here, what do you think a $50 tax on a barrel of oil is going to do? If it's happening now it has to be mitigated directly. No tax or cap or credits is going to fix what's going on today. Some cockamamie scheme here in North America isn't going to desalinate landscapes in Australia. You're using their plight to further your agenda. It's wrong to the point of being criminal.

 

[macdoc]

The total global average temperature difference between 1850-era temperatures and the last glacial period is only about 4 C. So small differences in global average temperature can have very large consequences to the climate.

and that took some 10,000 years......the general thinking is the 4 degrees in the next 90 will be the swing.....could be more.

That puts in a climate range not seen for 15 million years..

BAU would put that number at 7 degrees.....almost unthinkable in it's impact within current lifetimes......

 

[lomiller]

No you didn't. You asked what would help us dodge the climate change bullet, and then you tried to apply that answer to the Canadian Shield

I asked you how genetic engineering would solve the issues of growing crops where they grow now or follow the climate zones as they move north to the Canadian Shield.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

In any case the posts are there and your inability to answer the questions of how genetic engineering are supposed to solve the problems are well noted by now. Every single person currently posting in this thread has called you on it.

No you didn't you specifically said what would allow us to dodge the "climate change bullet". Do I really need to go back and quote your own words to you?

I’m not sure what you are trying to say. My point was as clear then as it is now, and you seem to be the only person in the thread who had trouble understanding my questions.

They can't be done, the technology doesn't yet exist
.

Why did it take so many pages of posts for you to finally admit it’s not possible for crops to follow climate zones northward??

That's because by all accounts it will be easier. So no I can't show you a problem where none exists.

Using genetic engineering to keep growing crops where they are is not particularly likely either, but I still wonder why it took you so long to come up with this answer.

I'm afraid the questions were debunked.

How exactly do you “debunk” questions about you claims?

It's nonsense to expect people to continue to grow the same thing once the regions change, it's much easier to change the crop or relocate the crop to the new region. Likewise, it's nonsense to expect to grow corn on rock, if it ever came to having to use the

You just said the exact opposite

Likewise, it's nonsense to expect to grow corn on rock, if it ever came to having to use the Canadian shield for growing greenhouses would be an obvious mitigation strategy. The other would be to back fill over the rock and grow in soil.

And now switch again. The only thing I can even guess you are trying to say is that climate zones will move just not north, but again that’s just a guess at this point. It would help if you would explain to us just what you think is supposed to happen and how it’s supposed to be dealt with.

 

[a_unique_person]

Global Warming is going to change the length of day? It's worse than I expected.

If one species depends on length of day to recognise the start of spring, and another uses temperature, they are going to miss each other if they depend on each other.

Well we tend to agree here. Indigenous plants and animals will suffer and that's unfortunate. However, we were talking about crops, not the wildlife.

What happens at the south end of Australia? Where the north of Africa hits the meditteranean? The south of India hits the Indian ocean?

 

[Furcifer]

The total global average temperature difference between 1850-era temperatures and the last glacial period is only about 4 C. So small differences in global average temperature can have very large consequences to the climate.

Saying "it's only a few degrees" is a well-known tactic of reality deniers;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

It's traditional for alarmists to overlook the fact that those 4C degrees have made the planet considerably more hospitable with much more arable land and relatively easy living for all of the world inhabitants and that 4C more will most likely have the same beneficial effect. Cold is much more prohibitive than heat on this planet.

 

[Furcifer]

The world's insurance companies recognize this is NOT a minor change...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...n/28/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

small stuff.......don't think so...

And that has nothing to do with the fact that insurance companies are out to make money?

Yes, this is a great time in history to be pushing the financial prowess and responsible business practices of insurance companies.

On he other hand, having caused the biggest catastrophe in human history they should be pretty good predicting them by now. It just sucks because the next time in addition to bailing out the insurance industry we'll have to bail out the planet as well.

Earth: Too big to fail

 

[CapelDodger]

Global Warming is going to change the length of day? It's worse than I expected.

You failed to comprehend. Some species respond to day length, not temperature, in their yearly cycle. This means that, as the world warms, they will get out of sync with other species, some of which they may rely on. This is already proving to be a problem for, for instance, some songbirds in the UK.

Well we tend to agree here. Indigenous plants and animals will suffer and that's unfortunate. However, we were talking about crops, not the wildlife.

"Unfortunate". It's unfortunate if pollinators find themselves active when there's nothing to pollinate.

 

[Furcifer]

I asked you how genetic engineering would solve the issues of growing crops where they grow now or follow the climate zones as they move north to the Canadian Shield.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

And i said the obvious solution to growing on rock if it ever came to that would be green houses. It's possible they could be engineered to grow where they do now but in a new region, but highly unlikely to come to that because of other strategies.

In any case the posts are there and your inability to answer the questions of how genetic engineering are supposed to solve the problems are well noted by now. Every single person currently posting in this thread has called you on it.

Just because the question was repeated it didn't make it any less ridiculous.

Why did it take so many pages of posts for you to finally admit it’s not possible for crops to follow climate zones northward??

I never admitted that. It's ridiculously simple for crops to follow the region is and when it changes. Saying otherwise would be ludicrous.

Using genetic engineering to keep growing crops where they are is not particularly likely either, but I still wonder why it took you so long to come up with this answer.

I said from the start the crops would simply change to accommodate the new region.

How exactly do you “debunk” questions about you claims?

Asking how to grow corn on rock was easily debunked.

And now switch again. The only thing I can even guess you are trying to say is that climate zones will move just not north, but again that’s just a guess at this point. It would help if you would explain to us just what you think is supposed to happen and how it’s supposed to be dealt with.

I've already said numerous times why and how things will most likely proceed over the next 100 years. I don't think you've successfully fooled anyone but yourself in the process. Anyone reading this thread for comprehension can easily see the pattern of you making incorrect claims about what was said and then I immediately correcting your mistake. You're entire argument from the initial question has been a string of strawmen.

 

[Furcifer]

If one species depends on length of day to recognise the start of spring, and another uses temperature, they are going to miss each other if they depend on each other.

And to which crops and insects are you referring specifically? How has it affected crops to date? Why can't this be mitigated? I know in Canada they already use domesticated bees in greenhouses. There was an issue during the postal strike with live bees getting stranded in warehouses.

 

[Furcifer]

You failed to comprehend. Some species respond to day length, not temperature, in their yearly cycle. This means that, as the world warms, they will get out of sync with other species, some of which they may rely on. This is already proving to be a problem for, for instance, some songbirds in the UK.

And song birds affect the crops how? Or are you moving the goal posts again and not talking about crops at all?

"Unfortunate". It's unfortunate if pollinators find themselves active when there's nothing to pollinate.

What crops are pollinated by birds?

 

[Mikemcc]

It's traditional for alarmists to overlook the fact that those 4C degrees have made the planet considerably more hospitable with much more arable land and relatively easy living for all of the world inhabitants and that 4C more will most likely have the same beneficial effect. Cold is much more prohibitive than heat on this planet.

I think a citation is in order there (though I think one is also in order for the 4 deg C figure!). My understanding is that climate change (and bad land use and farming practices) is causing a LOSS of arable land.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/third-of-worlds-arable-land-lost-to-soil-erosion-1574549.html

http://www.newsgd.com/SPECIALS/NPC&CPPCC 2006/NPCCPPCCSessionsNews/200603080056.htm

 

[Reality Check]

They're not new bugs.

Wrong: They are new bugs (for the crops being growing in that area)

They're not new diseases.

Wrong: They are new diseases (for the crops being growing in that area)

No I didn't. lomiller first brought this up referring to the shield, which is not a current position.

It does not matter who first brought it up - we are discussing the feasability of GMing crops to be grown in their current areas.
This is unlikely to be done in time (2050's) or cheaply because of the complexity of GMing corps to cater for all of the factors that I have mentioned: droughts, floods, movement of new (for the crop) pests into the area, movement of new (for the crop) diseases into the area, movement of beneficial insects, fungi, bacterias out of the area, etc.

Nope, all of this has already been dealt with. It's just a matter of moving things (crops and insecticides) as the regions and bugs and diseases move. It's not a problem.

It is a problem when this is not what you and I are discussing.

 

[Mikemcc]

You're either lying or mistaken.

No I'm not, post #2704 (just to give the full context of quote):

... Just one? Bioengineering. There's possibly thousands but the smart money is on something that hasn't even been thought of yet.

You still don't yet understand that bio-engineering suffers from diminishing consequences. You can't endlessly improve the product. Some parallel to Moore's Law does not apply to living organisms.

That's not what the experts are saying and that's not how it's been in the past. You have no basis for your claim, it's meaningless.

Yes, it's what the experts are saying, you just can't see past your own blind prejudices.

Indeed there are many technologies. I like bioengineering because I think what we really need to do is feed the world. Not make the rich countries richer and the poor countries poorer and hungrier.

Unfortunately your belief doesn't feed the worl, it does make companies like Monsanto rather wealthy though. You do realise that many GM crops revert back to their non-GM varieties within a generation or two, don't you. That's why farmers have to keep buying seed from companies like Monsanto rather than retain a portion of the harvest to reseed. It's not the silly IP or licensing issues like some sites would have you believe, but rather more harsh realities that GM crops don't have stable genetic structures.

Already completed here in Canada.

Oh rly? 'Completed'? So there's absolutely no room for improvement? What a perfect little world you live in.

I never said it was a sure thing, I just said I like it and think it has the biggest potential to avoid problems with climate change world wide. YMMV.

And you still insist on saying it despite being shown that it has limited use and, while helpful it is certainly not a key technology to combat climate change.