Climate change Threatens the Future of World Crop Production

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Woody1, Jun 14, 2017.

  1. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Meterological opinion on climate/temperature trend says:

    "they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”


    I just quoted from a 40 year-old report about global cooling. (link)

    The point is that a global temperature change in EITHER DIRECTION is catastrophic -- according to the experts then and the experts now. Or will somebody say that global cooling is ok?

    Now if they could get the weather forecast right, then my garden would greatly appreciate it. They keep predicting rain this week.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,920
    From your article: Several atmospheric scientists did indeed believe in global cooling. Several is not a consensus, which is what we have now on global warming.

    Changing the climate is risky. How exactly will global warming effect agriculture? No one really knows. We do know that if you have beach front property it is not going to be worth much in 50 years

    Climate is different than weather.
    Weather - 50% chance of rain tomorrow.
    Climate - in New York state January will be colder than July.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,464
    I wonder if you have actually read the article you are linking to. I summarise for other readers (and for you in case you have had trouble understanding it):-
    This is a 2014 article in Slate magazine, by a science writer called Peter Gwynne, about another article he had written in Newsweek in 1975, some 40 odd years ago. This old article had spoken of a cooling of the climate, which was one theory in the mid 70s, apparently. The 2014 article notes that Gwynne's 1975 article seems to have become - 40 years on - a cause celebre, among those looking for reasons to pooh-pooh the modern theory of climate change. The piece is devoted to pointing out - at some length - why it is stupid and/or disingenuous to use it in that way.

    Returning to the main subject, the hazard we face is called "climate change". Change. A rapid change in either direction, or indeed a change to a climate with greater extremes in conditions, regardless of the mean temperature, would be likely to have adverse impacts on the human population of this planet. This is because a lot of people live in areas that are sensitive to climate change, for a number of reasons: sea level, rainfall pattern, resistance of crops and livestock to extreme heat or frost, etc.

    This is also the reason why references to past climatic conditions on Earth (e.g. ice ages or warm interglacials, millions of years ago), which took place before the rise of humanity and were very slow changes over thousands of years, are irrelevant to the issue. The issue we now face is rapid change, over a mere century or two, which can be expected to disrupt human populations.

    This disruption to people is likely to take the form of mass movements of population that overload neighbouring areas, and wars over resources (water, crops) that become regionally scarce as a result of climate changes. This is likely to happen happen irrespective of whether or not the total food production or amount of habitable space alters. Such developments will affect everyone on the planet.

    That is the minimum risk. The maximum risk is that a runaway process sets in.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Yes, I read about it in Newsweek magazine over 40 years ago ago when I was at the library -- back when aerosol-reduction was the environmental-meme. Aerosols have a cooling effect on the atmosphere (link) so I've heard.

    So if you had a CO2 thermostat, where would you set it and why? Most people would prefer to retire in Florida over Northern Canada. Likewise, it's a better place to grow crops.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2017
  8. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Science by vote has never been my idea of true science anyway.

    I wish people would just leave the beaches alone.

    The original OP article was based on meteorological opinion. Are you saying that was the wrong approach for Newsweek magazine to take?
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2017
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Yep. Reading Newsweek rather than (for example) Nature to get your science is a problem. No wonder you're confused.
    280ppm.
    OK. Which means you have flipped back to a type III denier. "Yeah, we might be causing climate change - but it will all be good!"

    Does all that flipping make you dizzy?
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    If it's too fast, yes. Of course - we're set up for what we have, hard to make major changes in a hurry.

    What's your objection - you think they are wrong?
    Unless they are wrong: When Florida has salt in its groundwater and storm surges over a third of its current land area, Canada will still have no topsoil and five hours of daylight in the winter. That will last for a couple of hundred years at least. That will be bad - where are the millions of Bangladeshis you were planning on settling in Canada going to live, meantime?

    Or are you just going to bet the ranch they are wrong?
     
  11. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,196
    So... rather than verifying their own answers, then going to their peers to have them reviewed several more times to ensure they are correct...

    You would rather a scientist just publishes whatever they find as absolute fact at the first try?
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,464
    Never mind silly questions about thermostats, read the rest of my reply and then try to come back with a response showing you have taken it in.
     
  13. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,920
    Too bad, you could be misled. I can find you a real PhD scientist that thinks that crop circles are the work of aliens or time travelers. Really, how about a vote of scientist on this....?
     
  14. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,920
    Uh, no I made no comment on that.
     
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    Newsweek does not determine science. It's pop-science, often sensationalized to sell magazines. There was no consensus 40 years ago that global cooling was a thing. That you would continue to cite this as a reason to ignore global warming is intellectually dishonest.
     
  16. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Science by vote has never been my idea of true science anyway. Do you think a peer review works like that?
     
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    Then you don't know what science is. So why should anyone take you seriously?
     
  18. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    The right global temperature for our planet is not a good question.... okeee.

    I read it. A warmer planet has more farm land. A cooler planet has less. Do you disagree?
     
  19. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    I didn't ask anyone to take me seriously. I asked them to comment on the OP. If you don't have a brain to do that, then maybe you should just be quiet instead of looking the fool.
     
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    I disagree, and furthermore the prevalence of farmland is an environmental disaster.
     
  21. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,799
    I've got enough of a brain to see through you. You want your opinion (that anthropocentric global warming is a liberal conspiracy) to be taken seriously, and you don't even know basic facts about science.
     
  22. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    When Newsweek writes about global warming I should just ignore them. okeee

    I didn't cite a Newsweek article as a reason to ignore global warming. I cite your lack of reading comprehension. Read the OP again.
     
  23. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    The prevalence of farmland is a disaster for who? Can you show me a country that wants less of it?
     

Share This Page