It looks like the Brazilian president has bowed to pressure, now we need the American President to follow suit
“The planet is incapable of providing food for the current 7.7
Many crops today have yields 6 x higher than pre industrial levels and humankind is farming on a massive scale. The issue is to do with water supplies (driven by climate change in most cases eg in parts of Africa) and as remarked upon earlier, massive waste.
Many crops today have yields 6 x higher than pre industrial levels and humankind is farming on a massive scale. The issue is to do with water supplies (driven by climate change in most cases eg in parts of Africa) and as remarked upon earlier, massive waste.
Last edited:
I would expect that scientists have a bit more moral rectitude than politicians and hedge fund managers. Funny how almost all climate denier papers and resea4 h is funded by big oil and big industry and they have lobbyists everywhere. There’s a reason for that.
Interesting article here
David Wallace-Wells: ‘There are many cases of climate hypocrisy’ | Environment | The Guardian
David Wallace-Wells: ‘There are many cases of climate hypocrisy’ | Environment | The Guardian
Not if you engage in grueling physical activities. Have you seen what the typical daily caloric intake is for Tour de France riders or professional body builders?
If it happened in Europe, it would be called Europe climate change.
If the info is confirmed by technically qualified people's peer review, then yes.
You know someone who doesn't?
That just means you are no different from anyone posting their view. It's just one's own view.
You've been cherry picking info that suits your personal view/taste. On the other hand, if your expressed view is peer reviewed by technically qualified people and results posted, then perhaps it will be separated from the rest of anyone posting their view.
Can you think of other things that affect billions of humans all over the world? I would say the media is one of those. What about you?
edbarx, would you also like to reconvene with Bonsai and me in 4 years from now to discuss this subject?
Right and it (in bold) has been debunked time and time again. I already listed some of those on post #252 back on 18th of this month.
Absolutely spot on.
Andrew, re waste, it takes only a quick Google search to get really effen depressed here. According to most recent studies between 30-40% of total production worldwide is wasted, and while the particular stats in the first link below are two years old, what’ll be upsetting to some is that this is one area where the USA is not #1. Surprise - it was our friends down under.
• Food waste per capita of selected countries worldwide 2017 | Statista
Note that in most of the other studies to which I found quick links, North America and Oceana are grouped together, which I think is unfortunate as it somewhat minimizes the contributions of the two major players.
To add further injury to the environment, the carbon footprint of this waste is estimated to behind the direct GHG emissions of only the two major industrialized culprits - no need to guess who those are. And let’s not even talk about water.
Which countries waste the most food? | World Economic Forum
• Food waste per capita of selected countries worldwide 2017 | Statista
Note that in most of the other studies to which I found quick links, North America and Oceana are grouped together, which I think is unfortunate as it somewhat minimizes the contributions of the two major players.
To add further injury to the environment, the carbon footprint of this waste is estimated to behind the direct GHG emissions of only the two major industrialized culprits - no need to guess who those are. And let’s not even talk about water.
Which countries waste the most food? | World Economic Forum
Not nearly enough: according to the fire map, Africa needs attention too (why would MSM ignore that, eh?)
Attachments
And that is called taking an analogy too far. There is no equivalent to strenuous physical activity for an overheating planet.
It didn't happen only in Europe. But it was in Europe that it was most noticeable that specific summer year, partly because 30,000 deaths in first-world countries draw more attention than 50,000 deaths in poor countries in central Africa, where many of those deaths might not even be reported.
Every research paper published in a reputable scientific journal goes through peer review.
Nonsense. If I say "The square root of 100 is 10", that's not "my own view", that's mathematical fact. It is correct whatever my personal views might be - whether I love math, hate it, or am neutral to it.
For the purposes of this discussion, of course I have; we're involved in a discussion about the extent of climate change, and you've taken the position that there is either no, or little change in climate (your position isn't very clear, because it wanders all over the map.) The information I've picked highlights the fact that your position is untenable.
If I didn't cherry-pick information relevant to THIS discussion, I'd bet posting about the last time I clipped my toe-nails, and the colour of my carpet. What sort of discussion would that be?
If you're claiming I cherry-picked information about climate change from the first day I ever heard about it (back in 1990 or 1991), that's nonsense. Like most people, I reacted with complete disbelief when I first heard about it. Then, when I heard that the extent of climate change at that point was a fraction of a degree Celsius, I thought the whole thing was ridiculous.
Daily temperatures in one place can routinely vary from, say, 20 C in the sun at noon to -5 C at night, a 25 degree variation; how could 0.2 degrees of climate change matter?
So my initial bias was negative; my initial reaction was to dismiss the whole thing out of hand. But instead of simply running with my bias, I did what anyone who wants to be informed does: I went to those with more knowledge than myself, starting with a friend who was in graduate school at a top-notch college in the USA, studying climate science, and then to some of the research papers he recommended to me.
And as I began to learn more about the subject, I found out my initial bias was wrong. The facts were on the other side.
And how about your bias, have you done anything at all to allow your own reason and logic to correct it? Or are you still running on blind instinct and initial impressions, unaffected by all the facts that are waiting to be learned?
That's exactly why I post links to FACTS - satellite data from NASA and NOAA, data from scientific papers, data from the USGS. I'm not asking anyone to believe in my views - I'm pointing out the facts.
I don't think you are able to tell the difference between these two things (opinions and facts.) In the world of law, or politics, or most human activities, we base everything on viewpoint. But science doesn't work like that. It works only with provable facts. NOT opinions.
That's why politics is just as dumb today as it was in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, but science has advanced from primitive beliefs in magnetic mountains and alchemy to where it is today.
-Gnobuddy
I cannot answer a question whose structural purpose is to belittle and obfuscate.
Classic trolling, obsfucation, deflection and denial (TODD) - as you’ve shown on the JC thread as well.
In 4 years time temperatures will still be climbing, CO2 will be up and we will have had more heatwaves as we continue our march to a 3 or 4 degree warmer planet by 2100. The planet has been there before, but not with 9 billion people on it as will be the case then, or giant megalopolises around the globe.
You brought up "thousand very large meals" without the context and I replied with the context.
Are those the only ones you've been citing?
Yeah, the ones that fit your view/taste as I've already pointed out.
You mean belittling like the ones quote below?
"What amazes me is you don’t understand high school science concepts and yet you’ll come into a subject like this and troll away, as you are doing above."
"
Laughably, you do not even understand the concept of thermal lags and thermal mass (high school science) and you then posture against climate change. If you had a PhD in maths or some science subject I might be inclined to listen to you. Clearly you don’t."
I stand by my comments re your understanding of the issue but do not intentionally wish to belittle you or anyone else. There aren’t any experts on this forum on planetary science. There are plenty of good science bodies researching this subject who have a range of opinions on the outcome of AGW and if like me you rely on expert opinion on subjects you personally are not an expert in, then you either have a very, very plausible alternative explanation, or you follow the expert lead and perhaps adopt a position somewhere along the spectrum of their opinion which insofar as CC is concerned generally now ranges from very serious outcomes within 100 years (mass migration, crop failures, 2-3 heatwaves a year at > 50C in areas with large cities, no more Arctic ice) through to large scale but manageable scenarios. Take you pick.
Arrayed against this is the prevailing anti-AGW view that says nothing is wrong and CO2 is not a problem since it was higher 650 k years ago and very much higher 35 million years ago.
Unfortunately, as is the case in many areas of life today, science is under attack by people posing as experts or promoting conspiracy theories because to acknowledge the issue would require them to go counter to their philosophy (for example Objectivism) or it would impact their ability to make money - hence much anti-AGW ‘research’ is funded by SIGs.
We had an individual over here a year or so ago who made the comment (nothing to do with CC BTW) ‘people are sick and tired of experts’ and it neatly reflects where we are in the CC debate: dogma versus science and right now dogma seems to have the upper hand.
Arrayed against this is the prevailing anti-AGW view that says nothing is wrong and CO2 is not a problem since it was higher 650 k years ago and very much higher 35 million years ago.
Unfortunately, as is the case in many areas of life today, science is under attack by people posing as experts or promoting conspiracy theories because to acknowledge the issue would require them to go counter to their philosophy (for example Objectivism) or it would impact their ability to make money - hence much anti-AGW ‘research’ is funded by SIGs.
We had an individual over here a year or so ago who made the comment (nothing to do with CC BTW) ‘people are sick and tired of experts’ and it neatly reflects where we are in the CC debate: dogma versus science and right now dogma seems to have the upper hand.
Last edited:
“Daily temperatures in one place can routinely vary from, say, 20 C in the sun at noon to -5 C at night, a 25 degree variation; how could 0.2 degrees of climate change matter?
So my initial bias was negative; my initial reaction was to dismiss the whole thing out of hand. But instead of simply running with my bias, I did what anyone who wants to be informed does: I went to those with more knowledge than myself, starting with a friend who was in graduate school at a top-notch college in the USA, studying climate science, and then to some of the research papers he recommended to me.
And as I began to learn more about the subject, I found out my initial bias was wrong. The facts were on the other side.”
This is exactly my experience as well. Initially a doubter for very similar reasons but I changed my tune once I did some research into the subject.
We’ve pumped 100 cubic kilometers of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 150 years (the ‘CO2 shock’) and its 100 times more potent than water vapor - we have a temperature anomaly as a result.
CO2 makes plants grow more rapidly, but it does not help if the result of the increase is desertification and water shortages from changing climate. Interestingly, Clive Best references a paper on how ice ages end. The theory (derived from ice core data) is that the CO2 is sequestrated back into the cold ocean (when cold it sucks up much more of the stuff) causing vegetation to die back and desertification. The ensuing dust gets carried to the poles where the ice cap albedo decreases over a few thousand years causing the planet to warm up and the ice age comes to and end. We know how they start (orbital eccentricity and obliquity), but how they’ve ended has been somewhat of a mystery until now.
With AGW we are turning this whole thing on it’s head - we are not due to start entering an ice age for at least another 5 000 years.
So my initial bias was negative; my initial reaction was to dismiss the whole thing out of hand. But instead of simply running with my bias, I did what anyone who wants to be informed does: I went to those with more knowledge than myself, starting with a friend who was in graduate school at a top-notch college in the USA, studying climate science, and then to some of the research papers he recommended to me.
And as I began to learn more about the subject, I found out my initial bias was wrong. The facts were on the other side.”
This is exactly my experience as well. Initially a doubter for very similar reasons but I changed my tune once I did some research into the subject.
We’ve pumped 100 cubic kilometers of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 150 years (the ‘CO2 shock’) and its 100 times more potent than water vapor - we have a temperature anomaly as a result.
CO2 makes plants grow more rapidly, but it does not help if the result of the increase is desertification and water shortages from changing climate. Interestingly, Clive Best references a paper on how ice ages end. The theory (derived from ice core data) is that the CO2 is sequestrated back into the cold ocean (when cold it sucks up much more of the stuff) causing vegetation to die back and desertification. The ensuing dust gets carried to the poles where the ice cap albedo decreases over a few thousand years causing the planet to warm up and the ice age comes to and end. We know how they start (orbital eccentricity and obliquity), but how they’ve ended has been somewhat of a mystery until now.
With AGW we are turning this whole thing on it’s head - we are not due to start entering an ice age for at least another 5 000 years.
Last edited:
Not particularly surprising. Certain farming industries the cost to send to market is often more expensive than the ammount the big supermarkets are willing to pay because of cheap international (often subsidided by the foreign govt) imports. It's not unommon for that production to go to waste. That will be a large part of the problem. Cheap imports and no protection with tarrifs makes a farmers life really tough.
Tony.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.