Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

In the Furcifer view, farming is just outdoor hydroponics. Soil is the matrix, water and nutrients are supplied, weeds, parasites and diseases are eliminated, and the crop grows just the way it was designed to.

No, this is what AR4 actually discusses, the change in hardiness zones.

 

[macdoc]

in the "minor consequences"

Climate change threatens to spoil Ontario’s signature wines

Ontario’s wine makers are fighting to protect their grapes against Mother Nature’s wrath.
The destructive forces of climate change are already being felt in the world’s biggest wine-producing regions – California, Europe and Australia – as the steady rise in global temperatures scorches vineyards and depletes water supplies.

more
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...poil-ontarios-signature-wines/article2105661/

It's still 33 at 10 pm on perhaps the hottest day ever recorded in Toronto. But of course it's of little significance.....

according to a few with their heads firmly buried in denier sands.

 

[Furcifer]

Um, this is a debate had in the past of this individual, they have some strange ideas of what global warming means. They are sort of familiar with farming, but have no real conception of farming. I know farmers, I know people who work in agriculture, I don’t think that Furcifer even knows about they way people get upset during heat spells while the corm is pollinating. Like right now, lows in the 70s are not ideal when you have high heat during the day, and a lack of rain could just reduce yields by 30%.

I know crops are doing all right but won't meet last years levels, 2010 was a record year after all.

Even winter wheat would not have that much more of a growing area over where it is now and depending on rainfall the maize crops in Iowa could be devastated, that is a huge amount of grain right there.

Where it is now? It's in the silo, winter wheat is in harvest.

Furcifer has no real conception of what is really involved in modern agriculture, his ideas of water transport alone are going to be more than any carbon cost reduction programs, by a huge factor.

How much more? Just a "huge factor"? Sounds made up to me. As is the rest of your post.

Now you're claiming that carbon reduction will improve irrigation to crops better than irrigation itself? Earlier in this thread you claimed there was little chance of curbing emissions sufficiently to avoid the catastrophic results of global warming. It can't be both.

 

[Furcifer]

Irrigation is not easy, you have to get the water first, and someone might want that same water. There are plenty of examples of 'irrigation' water being wanted by different states, cities and industries out there already. It's not an unlimited resource that can be had for free.

That's true. We've got to managed things better there's little argument there.

 

[Furcifer]

It isn't distributed towards the equator, even though there's so much room there. Very few people live near the equator.

Even fewer live near the poles. I suggest you look at a map again if you think the population is distributed towards the poles.

The majority of people live in great river valleys because that's where the water and alluvial soils are. China, India, SE Asia. The valleys of the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irrawady, Mekong, Yangtze and Yellow Rivers. Biilions upon billions of people.

There's no river valleys up north and down south, they're frozen.

When the energy used in farming is still largely human labour (as it is where most people live) it can easily get too hot.

You can't move them any closer towards the poles, it's too cold

I don't think you understand just how much energy it takes to survive in colder climates or the fact that nothing grows in colder ones.

 

[Furcifer]

in the "minor consequences"



more
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...poil-ontarios-signature-wines/article2105661/

It's still 33 at 10 pm on perhaps the hottest day ever recorded in Toronto. But of course it's of little significance.....

according to a few with their heads firmly buried in denier sands.

Anyone seriously involved in discussing climate change knows weather is not climate.

Likewise, the plight of a single crop that represents 1% of the farming in the province is irrelevant. Last year one of the biggest cash crops, corn was at a 30 year high of 172 bushels an acre. But I bet that didn't get mentioned.

 

[a_unique_person]

So you use a bigger pipe and use a bigger pump.

Money

So you use a bigger pipe. This is basic logic.

Money

You made me think they were running out of water, remember that was your premise?

If rainfall is not replenishing aquifers, then they are.

Nonsense. You lay a pipe (a big one) and desalinate the water. Mexico City isn't going anywhere because of global warming.

It's very simple to cope with global warming, but devestating to prevent it?

 

[a_unique_person]

From Furcifer

It's actually less energy intensive to operate in a warmer climate.

Have you ever been in a tropical climate? There is also the limit of energy that the body can produce. If the temperature is above body heat, then your body has great difficulty cooling itself and maintaining homeostasis. You cope by stopping doing anything which expends energy. If it is humid, the temperature at which you have to stop expending energy is lowered significantly.

My brother, who is into fitness, moved to semi-tropical area, Brisbane, then to London. He said he was glad to be able to go jogging regularly again. Brisbane was too hot for most of the time to exercise too energetically, in London it was far easier to exercise as it was always cool enough.

 

[lomiller]

Nonsense. They chose not too because it wasn't feasible. If they didn't have the frost free days then they "couldn't" grow. That's why it's considered a limiting factor.

Um no. As I already told you, I grew up on farms in the places we are discussing. Frost free days has nothing whatsoever to do with why you couldn't grow things 50 miles farther south, or east or west.

 

[Furcifer]

Money
Money

That's why I specifically said "When it becomes feasible". Until then there's no point.

It's very simple to cope with global warming, but devestating to prevent it?

You can't prevent it, 97% of publishing climate scientists agree global warming is happening.

 

[lomiller]

If rainfall is not replenishing aquifers, then they are.

case in point
http://geology.com/usgs/high-plains-aquifer.shtml

 

[a_unique_person]

Monckton goes nuts again.

During the program, Lord Monckton was recorded telling an audience: “So to the bogus scientists who have produced the bogus science that invented this bogus scare I say, we are coming after you. We are going to prosecute you, and we are going to lock you up.”

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/22/monckton-threatens-to-sue-abc-calls-chairman-a-shrimp/

 

[a_unique_person]

That's why I specifically said "When it becomes feasible". Until then there's no point.



You can't prevent it, 97% of publishing climate scientists agree global warming is happening.

And they agree it is CO2 that is causing it. We can drastically cut our CO2 production, and limit that rise. That doesn't mean it's the end of the world.

 

[macdoc]

You can't prevent it, 97% of publishing climate scientists agree global warming is happening.

We CAN reduce the impact by not burning all the fossil fuel and at the time slow the process to allow industrial society to adapt to a low emission base which in ALL cases will be needed as fossil fuel supplies diminish - the question is how cooked a planet we leave for the grand kids.

You are being disingenuous in the extreme to to suggest we cannot prevent the worst case scenario of rapid depletion of coal for instance.

 

[Furcifer]

Frost free days has nothing whatsoever to do with why you couldn't grow things 50 miles farther south, or east or west.

Yes, it does. I grow all kinds of things on my porch, there's no soil and the drainage is terrible. Despite this I can grow just about anything, as long as there's no frost.

You continue to incorrectly use the word "can't" where you mean "infeasible". I'm not sure if you are aware of what frost does to a plant. As the water turns to ice it expands rupturing the cells and killing the plant. This is why you "can't" grow without the requisite number of frost free days. If the plant isn't mature by the first deep frost they will die.

Water and soil are extremely easy to manipulate although the cost might make growing "infeasible". Assuming the price of food rises as it should, areas you've been mentioning will probably become more feasible. I doubt if it will be any time soon however, there's really no need at this time.

 

[Furcifer]

Have you ever been in a tropical climate? There is also the limit of energy that the body can produce. If the temperature is above body heat, then your body has great difficulty cooling itself and maintaining homeostasis. You cope by stopping doing anything which expends energy. If it is humid, the temperature at which you have to stop expending energy is lowered significantly.

My brother, who is into fitness, moved to semi-tropical area, Brisbane, then to London. He said he was glad to be able to go jogging regularly again. Brisbane was too hot for most of the time to exercise too energetically, in London it was far easier to exercise as it was always cool enough.

All true, but none of this changes the fact that it's considerably more energy intensive to operate in a colder climate.

I had the misfortune of renting an apartment with electric heat. My biggest bill was $250 for a month. The same apartment in the summer, keeping it cool with a window shaker never topped $100. What's scary is I never kept the apartment above 67F in the winter and shut off the heat when I was out.

Despite the cooler denser winter air fuel economy suffers in the winter as well. The slight increase in combustion efficiency is offset by the spinning tires and prolonged warm up periods (not for the car, for the person)

As I mentioned before food can't be grown once the temperature drops below 0 and food needs to be trucked in from further distances. This adds to the bottom line. And the bottom line is cold makes things a lot harder to deal with than heat.

 

[Dancing David]

I see that Furcifer really just doesn't understand water resources, cost of infrastructure and soil types.

I wonder why famland sells for $6000+/acre where I live?

 

[a_unique_person]

All true, but none of this changes the fact that it's considerably more energy intensive to operate in a colder climate.

And as I explained, that really doesn't matter if it's so hot you can't expend any energy. You end up doing nothing either way.

I had the misfortune of renting an apartment with electric heat. My biggest bill was $250 for a month. The same apartment in the summer, keeping it cool with a window shaker never topped $100. What's scary is I never kept the apartment above 67F in the winter and shut off the heat when I was out.

Despite the cooler denser winter air fuel economy suffers in the winter as well. The slight increase in combustion efficiency is offset by the spinning tires and prolonged warm up periods (not for the car, for the person)

As I mentioned before food can't be grown once the temperature drops below 0 and food needs to be trucked in from further distances. This adds to the bottom line. And the bottom line is cold makes things a lot harder to deal with than heat.

Using electricity for heating is a waste of the most potent form of energy we have.

 

[Furcifer]

I see that Furcifer really just doesn't understand water resources, cost of infrastructure and soil types.

I wonder why famland sells for $6000+/acre where I live?

The price of farmland here in south western Ontario is the same.

 

[Furcifer]

And they agree it is CO2 that is causing it. We can drastically cut our CO2 production, and limit that rise. That doesn't mean it's the end of the world.

You can't drastically cut emissions.