Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Reality Check]

No it isn't, not unless you're claiming this new "ecosystem" is alien to this planet. There are plenty of ecosystems and climate change just means changes to those ecosystems.

Climate change means that an ecosystem changes. It changes so that it cannot support the existing crops because of multiple factors. These include

• Less water during summer.
• More water during winter.
• Higher temperatures during summer.
• Lower temperatures during winter.
• Movement of existing beneficial insects away from the area.
• Movement of new pests into the area.
• Movement of new diseases into the area.
• etc.

No Nope. Same bugs, nothing new in that department.

Nope: Different climate, different ecosystem, different bugs.

Nope, same diseases. No new diseases.

Nope: Different climate, different ecosystem, different diseases.

It's just change, we're not recreating the Earth here.

It is change, we are changing regions of the Earth here!
The wheat growing areas will move North if global warming increases. In order to keep growing crops in the existing regions, they will have to be GMed to cater for the above changes.

I think that is the point that you have not grasped yet. If you want to then you can think about a single wheat farm on the US Great Plains and ask yourself

1. What will change with global warming?
2. How will wheat have to be GMed to cater for those changes?

 

[Furcifer]

Reducing emissions will of course temporarily slow the economy but lead to a better economy in the next couple of decades:

Doubtful. This isn't a local issue, CO2 emissions depend on a world economy. From your link:
"The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%"

What is the average family income around the world? While North American or Europeans might be able to afford $100 a year I doubt if most of the World's population can afford that. Without it being applied World wide I don't see how you can expect it to be effective World wide.
The savings and loans scheme also lead to a better economy, until it tanked and took the whole World economy with it.

Existing carbon cap and trade schemes have lead to better economies already:

And "super exponential" increases in the rate of CO2 emissions.

That is right: The economy slowed and carbon emissions slowed. The economy rose and carbon emission rose. So?

It's probably a better indicator of how the economy is doing than housing, at least world wide. There's no getting around this.

What could be more empirical than people actually generating money and jobs from carbon pricing?

dot.com, do I need to say more? You can't see the problem with pricing something that doesn't have any intrinsic value? It's probably worse than overpricing something that does have value, at least when the bubble bursts, and it will, you're left with something tangible like a home.

 

[a_unique_person]

You're acting like this is something new. Human expansion has always resulted in species becoming displaced or even extinct. The Bison didn't do very well when humans arrived in the Mid West. There's quite a few species of plants and animals that suffered the same fate when humans from Europe colonized North America.
We've already accepted these losses as part of our existence on this planet. Your appeal to emotion is noted and rejected.

Who has accepted it? And we aren't talking of just a few species, we are talking about a global change, from the top to the bottom, and, due to acidification, there is an extra dimension for aquatic life. In evolutionary terms, this is extremely rapid, beyond the means of evolution to cope. We are already experiencing the start of a mass extinction, according to experts.

As for us, we are a species, too. Already there are large stresses being placed on societies by 'illlegal' immigration and refugees. Expect to see that stress multiplied.

 

[Reality Check]

Doubtful. This isn't a local issue, CO2 emissions depend on a world economy. From your link:
"The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%"
What is the average family income around the world? While North American or Europeans might be able to afford $100 a year I doubt if most of the World's population can afford that.

Try reading the link again: The economic impacts of carbon pricing).
This is the US. It is a US family. and the US GDP.
I suspect that if you wanted to apply it to other countries it would be a less than 1% increase per family.

And "super exponential" increases in the rate of CO2 emissions.

Wrong: The real-world example of carbon pricing benefits exceeding the costs is about the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) where CO2 emissions from power stations were actually reduced in the 10 states.

It's probably a better indicator of how the economy is doing than housing, at least world wide. There's no getting around this.

Correct for now but ...
Move away from a fossil fuel based economy and CO2 emissions are no longer an indicator of how active an economy is. This is inevitable as fossil fuels run out.

You can't see the problem with pricing something that doesn't have any intrinsic value?

You mean like money, stocks, etc?
People having jobs has intrinsic value. So spending money to create jobs as demonstrated in the RGGI has intrinsic value.
IMO, people living has intrinsic value. So spending money to (hopefully) save their lives has intrinsic value.

 

[Furcifer]

Climate change means that an ecosystem changes. It changes so that it cannot support the existing crops because of multiple factors. These include

• Less water during summer.
• More water during winter.
• Higher temperatures during summer.
• Lower temperatures during winter.
• Movement of existing beneficial insects away from the area.
• Movement of new pests into the area.
• Movement of new diseases into the area.
• etc.

All of this already exists to varying degrees, within the same regions. From month to month, from year to year or from region to region, all of this already exists and is being managed.

Nope: Different climate, different ecosystem, different bugs.

Nope same bugs. There simply isn't time for new bugs to evolve.

Nope: Different climate, different ecosystem, different diseases.

Nope, same diseases. There's no time for different diseases to evolve.

It is change, we are changing regions of the Earth here!
The wheat growing areas will move North if global warming increases. In order to keep growing crops in the existing regions, they will have to be GMed to cater for the above changes.

Not for about 100 years if you believe AR4.

I think that is the point that you have not grasped yet. If you want to then you can think about a single wheat farm on the US Great Plains and ask yourself

1. What will change with global warming?
2. How will wheat have to be GMed to cater for those changes?

It looks like the plains won't have to grow wheat, they will switch to corn, taking advantage of the longer growing season and increase in temperature. No GM will be needed.

Climate change is very much like the tide. You can simply get out of the way, or you can take advantage of technology, don a scuba suit and wait for it to come in. Alarmists are the ones the refuse to get out of the way or put on a scuba suit and expect to change the tide.

 

[Reality Check]

All of this already exists to varying degrees, within the same regions. From month to month, from year to year or from region to region, all of this already exists and is being managed.

Yes.

Nope same bugs. There simply isn't time for new bugs to evolve.

Nope: New bugs moving in fromn other areas. No evolution neded - just legs or wings!

Nope, same diseases. There's no time for different diseases to evolve.

Nope, different diseases from outside of the area (possibly carried by the bugs moving in).

It looks like the plains won't have to grow wheat, they will switch to corn, taking advantage of the longer growing season and increase in temperature. No GM will be needed.

That is a different issue. Your assertion is that GM will allow crops to be grown in their current positions.

Climate change is very much like the tide. You can simply get out of the way, or you can take advantage of technology, don a scuba suit and wait for it to come in. Alarmists are the ones the refuse to get out of the way or put on a scuba suit and expect to change the tide.

That is right: You have to spend money and time to develop the 'scuba suit' for the crop to protect it against

• more water in winter.
• less water in summer.
• higher temperatures in summer
• lower temperatures in winter
• new pests as they move in from other areas.
• new diseases as they move in from other areas
• loss of beneficial insects, fungi, bacterias, etc. as they move out of the area.

 

[Mikemcc]

All of this already exists to varying degrees, within the same regions. From month to month, from year to year or from region to region, all of this already exists and is being managed.

Nope, it's not being managed - unless drawing out the inevitable is 'management'

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/WORMKA/

What happens to Mexico City's 15+ million people when the aquifier dries up, do you think they are going to wait there to die while Canada (and some parts of the US) carries on as normal...? Are they hell as like. How do GM modified crops grow when there is no water?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/05/food-prices-global-warming

What happens when farmers in some parts of the world physically cannot grow enough crops to feed the local people and the number of people affected swamp the aid organisations (notably East Africa, India. We can trust the Chinese to be as ruthless as normal)). What do those people do, give up and die, just because it would be easier for us? Who do they blame?

Nope same bugs. There simply isn't time for new bugs to evolve.

You've finally realised something! If the flowers open earlier, when bugs aren't available to pollinate them then the plant's suffer, but so do the bugs. Climate is changing faster than they can cope with. Not just in terms of temperature, but also rainfall patterns, and now growing cycles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...rlier-for-every-degree-of-global-warming.html (A report from a glaringly anti-AGW paper given that they employ both Christopher Booker and James Delingpole! Thankfully they do also employ some more honest journalists)

Nope, same diseases. There's no time for different diseases to evolve.

Granted they are known diseases, but some are happening with greater frequency of late, especially fungal diseases due to changes in rainfall patterns.

Not for about 100 years if you believe AR4.

Nature's way of saying you shouldn't be living there now!

It looks like the plains won't have to grow wheat, they will switch to corn, taking advantage of the longer growing season and increase in temperature. No GM will be needed.

So what are we going to do about products that require wheat? Oh don't worry we can do with out... (yes, I know we can, we can use corn flour, etc)

Climate change is very much like the tide. You can simply get out of the way, or you can take advantage of technology, don a scuba suit and wait for it to come in. Alarmists are the ones the refuse to get out of the way or put on a scuba suit and expect to change the tide.

No, folks that recognise the problem are the ones actually doing the work to try and either fix it or mitigate the problems. It deniers that are screaming about 'damage to the economy', 'there isn't a problem', or 'we aren't sure and shouldn't act until we are', or (like you) 'there's not much we can do, we'll muddle by'.

 

[Mikemcc]

No, I said it was one of many technologies that will help mitigate the small changes caused by climate change.

Not what you said in the original post!

So? Why do they have to? It's just something you've made up in your mind to be some requirement that you think can't be met. Most improvements don't happen incrementally year to year, they happen in spurts. So does climate change for that matter.

Not in Biotech - you might have one, incredibly occasionally two, research cycles where you significantly increase the parameter you are looking at. Normally you suffer from deminishing returns, one hit, then some small improvements. In biotech product cycles are measured in terms of years, especially when you factor the various trial regimes in. Unfortunately climate change and water depletion are relentless. Dopesn't care what we are doing or how long it takes. I think I know a tad more about the subject than you.

I said it wasn't a relevant technology for reducing atmospheric CO2 over the next 200 hundred maybe 1000 years. I'm demonstrating how you the goal posts get shifted.

Your goalposts, we're well aware how far you've shifted them.

How do you know it's not? Magic crystal ball?

So you have some evidence of a Deccan Trap / Mount Toba event that is in any way imminent. Thought not, otherwise you'd be on your way to an award from the Geological Association of Canada (given that there isn't a Nobel for geology).

Climate change is in its infancy as well. There's plenty of time for things to mature. You never specified that technology had to already be mature for it to be effective? Why didn't you? Probably because it's a ridiculous notion.

A ridiculous assetion yourself! Of course a technology has to be mature enough to become sufficiently widespread so that it becomes effective to the race as a whole. Potentially effective technologies abound, but unless they can demonstrate that they are (relatively) safe, and economically effective, then thay cannot be defined as effective! As examples:

Your beloved bio-eng - might create moderate growth in yield in the 10-15year timeframe, but not much growth afterward. It's a race to see if the decline in arable land beats it or not.

Better power supplies - I'm keeping a little eye on Polywell fusion, but it's still early days. Tokamak fusion, despite ITER and plans for DEMO, it's still 20+ years away. Tidal is good, but the devices are still being developed. CSP is good in some areas. There's interesting work in the PV world with printable solar cells and other technologies that might reduce costs. CCS is still very much in it's infancy and can only be deployed to certain areas of the world, might be worth keeping an eye out in the 5-15 year time frame. Frankly, in the short-to-mid-term nuke is the only way to go, there should also be a big push into developing molten salt thorium reactors, way safer!

Reduction schemes - incentives to insulation of homes and businesses. Many big production lines are realising the cost benefits of refitting with modern drive systems, similarly for HVAC systems, drives and control methods have improved significantly.

Yes, there are a whole range of technologies (I won't try and pretend that my list is in any way exhaustive), but seem to cling to a belief that there are a couple of key technologies and other than that, there's nothing you can do because the Canadian population is so widespread (despite being shown that it isn't really). What if a significant number of communities started to deploy Hyperion reactors? These could significantly change the emission characteristics of the country, the troble is no politician has the balls to full the development and trials of the system.

 

[CapelDodger]

As for us, we are a species, too. Already there are large stresses being placed on societies by 'illlegal' immigration and refugees. Expect to see that stress multiplied.

This is nothing new in quality, it's the scale which is new. Mass migrations are never trouble-free and are very seldom welcome.

I think many North Americans and Australasians miss this point because their new countries, finding themselves with vast potential but very few people, actively invited immigrants (of the right sort). For a while at least, until they considered themselves full.

Eurasia has been full for a heck of a long time, it is most of the world, and it has had the vast majority of the world's history. Not much of which is pretty. (Then again, nor is the aboriginal experience of the newly-immigrant nations.)

Then there's the lingering frontier mentality which can lead to massive exaggeration of Siberia's potential as a bread-basket, and to the expectation that Australians can grow wheat in the Southern Ocean ...

 

[Furcifer]

Nope: New bugs moving in fromn other areas. No evolution neded - just legs or wings!

They're not new bugs.

Nope, different diseases from outside of the area (possibly carried by the bugs moving in).

They're not new diseases.

That is a different issue. Your assertion is that GM will allow crops to be grown in their current positions.

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

That is right: You have to spend money and time to develop the 'scuba suit' for the crop to protect it against

• more water in winter.
• less water in summer.
• higher temperatures in summer
• lower temperatures in winter
• new pests as they move in from other areas.
• new diseases as they move in from other areas
• loss of beneficial insects, fungi, bacterias, etc. as they move out of the area.

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. In the event yields are affected even after moving them that's when bioengineering will come in handy.
In the mean time if you read AR4 the prediction is more arable land with longer growing seasons. A net increase World Wide.

 

[Furcifer]

What happens to Mexico City's 15+ million people when the aquifier dries up,

Desalination.

What happens when farmers in some parts of the world physically cannot grow enough crops to feed the local people and the number of people affected swamp the aid organisations (notably East Africa, India.

It's already an issue.

We can trust the Chinese to be as ruthless as normal)).

Racism was, is and will always be an issue I'm afraid.

What do those people do, give up and die, just because it would be easier for us? Who do they blame?

This is just more hypocrisy. On one hand you want to believe the world can't feed people but you can believe the world can work towards reducing emissions? If you're going to be defeatist try to be consistent.

You've finally realised something! If the flowers open earlier, when bugs aren't available to pollinate them then the plant's suffer, but so do the bugs. Climate is changing faster than they can cope with. Not just in terms of temperature, but also rainfall patterns, and now growing cycles.

Thankfully bugs and plants can't read a calendar, if they're tricked into things happening a little earlier or a little later it's across the board.

Granted they are known diseases, but some are happening with greater frequency of late, especially fungal diseases due to changes in rainfall patterns.

This isn't anything new, it happens all the time.

So what are we going to do about products that require wheat? Oh don't worry we can do with out... (yes, I know we can, we can use corn flour, etc)

Correct. If climate change is that extensive it will probably lead to changes in eating habits. Most notably a more vegetarian diet. Having been a vegetarian for 7 years myself I can assure you it's not that bad.

 

[Furcifer]

Not what you said in the original post!

You're either lying or mistaken.

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

A ridiculous assetion yourself! Of course a technology has to be mature enough to become sufficiently widespread so that it becomes effective to the race as a whole.

We're not talking about right now, we're talking about in the future.

Your beloved bio-eng - might create moderate growth in yield in the 10-15year timeframe, but not much growth afterward.

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.

Better power supplies - I'm keeping a little eye on Polywell fusion, but it's still early days. Tokamak fusion, despite ITER and plans for DEMO, it's still 20+ years away. Tidal is good, but the devices are still being developed. CSP is good in some areas. There's interesting work in the PV world with printable solar cells and other technologies that might reduce costs. CCS is still very much in it's infancy and can only be deployed to certain areas of the world, might be worth keeping an eye out in the 5-15 year time frame. Frankly, in the short-to-mid-term nuke is the only way to go, there should also be a big push into developing molten salt thorium reactors, way safer!

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.

Reduction schemes - incentives to insulation of homes and businesses.

Already completed here in Canada.

Yes, there are a whole range of technologies (I won't try and pretend that my list is in any way exhaustive), but seem to cling to a belief that there are a couple of key technologies and other than that, there's nothing you can do because the Canadian population is so widespread (despite being shown that it isn't really). What if a significant number of communities started to deploy Hyperion reactors? These could significantly change the emission characteristics of the country, the troble is no politician has the balls to full the development and trials of the system.

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.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Furcifer
No, I said it was one of many technologies that will help mitigate the small changes caused by climate change.

small changes......continuously downplaying unfolding catastrophes....that are here, now and devastating....

Texas Drought Now Far, Far Worse Than When Gov. Rick Perry Issued Proclamation Calling on All Texans to Pray for Rain

By Joe Romm on Jul 15, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Minnesota temperatures next week will be “extreme out-of-the-ordinary” — just like Bachmann and Pawlenty

National Weather Service: “The stage is being set for a massive heat wave to develop into next week as a large area of high pressure is anticipated to circulate hot and humid air over much of the central and eastern U.S. Maximum heat index values of at least 100°F are likely across much of this area by the middle of next week, with heat index values in excess of 110°F possible over portions of these areas.”
​

Extremist climate science deniers like Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty are campaigning tirelessly to give their state the climate of Texas. That is what would happen if the nation and the world continues to follow in their preferred path of doing absolutely nothing to reduce emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases.
I know it is just a coincidence, but Minnesota is going to get a taste over the next several days of a Tea Party future (as will much of the rest of the country). CNN reports today:Extreme heat indices — how the air feels, with heat and humidity — are expected to reach up to 116 degrees in Minneapolis next week.
“These are extreme out-of-the-ordinary temperatures for Minnesota,” CNN meteorologist Sean Morris said.
Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington and other areas in Texas experienced afternoon heat indices of 105 degrees or more through Thursday.
The month of June was the hottest recorded for Texas since 1895, according to the National Weather Service.

continues

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...es-extreme-bachmann-and-pawlenty/#more-270485

100 year floods, 100 year droughts........what's it gonna take for the wake up call

Parts of England were officially declared drought zones yesterday after the driest spring since records began prompted farmers to warn that crop yields could be up to 50 per cent down in the worst-hit regions. Millions of householders were told they face hosepipe bans as ministers held crisis talks with growers and water-thirsty industries over how to tackle the worsening problem. Despite the prospect of sustained rainfall over the weekend reaching even the most severely affected region of East Anglia, experts warned of depleted river levels and tinderbox conditions leading to a summer...
The Independent 2011-06-11

http://article.wn.com/view/2011/06/17/Drought_continues_despite_wet_week/

Drought alert as Europe dries up

Fri 27 May 2011
Much of Europe is now gripped by severe water shortages – and it is becoming an increasingly common problem


After a long, hard winter it feels good to be basking in hot temperatures. But alarm bells are already ringing across Europe over the potential for widespread water shortages.
Rising temperatures and lack of rain mean drought is a growing problem in Europe – and an expensive one. A European Commission study found that droughts in Europe have cost the economy €100 billion over the last 30 years.

http://www.lloyds.com/News-and-Insi...ronment-2011/Drought-alert-as-Europe-dries-up

small changes eh??.....don't think so...

Hydrology is the leading edge.....both too much and too little and at the wrong times....

 

[Furcifer]

small changes......continuously downplaying unfolding catastrophes....that are here, now and devastating....continues

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...es-extreme-bachmann-and-pawlenty/#more-270485

lol, every summer without fail someone trots out a weather report as evidence of Global Warming. Weather isn't climate, sorry it just isn't.

100 year floods, 100 year droughts........what's it gonna take for the wake up call

My personal favorite, "We've had 2-100 year floods in the same decade! Oh noes!"

If they happen in the same decade they aren't 100 year floods (by definition they only happen once every 100 years)

small changes eh??.....don't think so...

Miniscule. The last 150 years has seen very little change to the climate, even with emissions accelerating the next 50 will go with very little change as well.
Of course we've been hearing about tipping points and catastrophe, always just 10 years away

Hydrology is the leading edge.....both too much and too little and at the wrong times....

That's why 5000 years ago we learned how to contain and use water at our leisure instead of doing rain dances and sacrificing virgins.

You really need to speak with some farmers. They're the first to tell you rain just never seems to cooperate. Too much, too little, too soon, too late, too early in the morning, too late in the afternoon, too heavy, too light, too warm, too cold. There's only a handful of years in the last 50 where the rain cooperated an farmers were able to get things planted without a hassle and then get the crops off and to the Co-op on time. Seriously, talk to a farmer about "climate change" and they laugh and say "When doesn't it?"

 

[a_unique_person]

Desalination.

Of what? It sits 4km up in the mountains about 300km from the sea.

 

[a_unique_person]

Thankfully bugs and plants can't read a calendar, if they're tricked into things happening a little earlier or a little later it's across the board.

You just invent this stuff out of thin air. There are different triggers for different species, some depend on length of day. They also need to move, species adapt to a temperature range. Some wind up trapped on mountains, there are seas barring movement south or north at other locations, there is urbanisation, and in times of change, it is the weeds and other pests that can take the most advantage of the disruption.

 

[lomiller]

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

I questioned you on your claim genetic engineering would solve food production problems associated with changing climate zones. Specifically I asked you how it would address northward migration of climate zones. I also asked if you meant it would allow crops to be grown in the same places as climate zones moved.

Thus far you have failed to show either of these can be done and still refuse to admit food production will be a problem as climate zones move. Now after pages and pages of trying to dodge these simple questions are you going to drop your claims or support them?

FWIW your claim has been debunked and your continued attempts to hold onto it only make you look worse than you already do. You should probably observe the rule of holes at this point.

 

[Furcifer]

Of what? It sits 4km up in the mountains about 300km from the sea.

Sea water. They have pipe in Mexico and Mexico City is only 2200 meters above sea level. Just to make is seem more complicated you doubled the elevation. Why?

 

[Furcifer]

You just invent this stuff out of thin air. There are different triggers for different species, some depend on length of day.

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

They also need to move, species adapt to a temperature range. Some wind up trapped on mountains, there are seas barring movement south or north at other locations, there is urbanisation, and in times of change, it is the weeds and other pests that can take the most advantage of the disruption.

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.

 

[Furcifer]

I questioned you on your claim genetic engineering would solve food production problems associated with changing climate zones.

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

Specifically I asked you how it would address northward migration of climate zones.

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 also asked if you meant it would allow crops to be grown in the same places as climate zones moved.

That was after the whole trying to grow corn on rocks nonsense. As I said, it would be foolish to try and grown things in the same place if the regions changed, you either change the crop or move it to the new location. Perhaps years down the road bioengineering might allow it, but I doubt it would come to that.

Thus far you have failed to show either of these can be done

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

and still refuse to admit food production will be a problem as climate zones move.

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

Now after pages and pages of trying to dodge these simple questions are you going to drop your claims or support them?

No, the questions are nonsense. Nobody wants to grow corn on rock.

FWIW your claim has been debunked and your continued attempts to hold onto it only make you look worse than you already do. You should probably observe the rule of holes at this point.

I'm afraid the questions were debunked. 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 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.