Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 Next
Comments 18351 to 18400:
-
donciriacks at 05:41 AM on 31 August 2017There is no consensus
As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to pleIt ase follow our comments policy. Thank You!
It is one thing to establish Global Warming, it is quite another to reach fairly accurate conclusions or predictions concerning the effects. Most projections I've seen mention a rise in sea level of maybe several inches over a 20 year period. With that one scenario, don't you think that human ingenuity and engineering skills can meet the challenge?
Moderator Response:[PS] This post is offtopic. Any responses to it, put in appropriate thread and post only a link to it. To find an appropriate thread, use the search tool or look under arguments (eg taxomony, "its not bad").
Also please cite your sources of information. Note for instance that Stern report for instance costed adaptation. The argument is that it is cheaper to get off fossil fuels than adapt. (I assume you are happy to pay for seawalls in areas affected by typhoons and monsoon river levels to pump, in countries that have contributed next to nothing to the problem.) Please respond on "its cheaper to adapt" thread.
-
nigelj at 05:27 AM on 31 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Tom @13
But I never drew any conclusion that its not likely to happen. I'm sick of you shoving words in my mouth. This is why we dislike you people, you twist absolutely everything.
All I said was don't assume very optimistic rates of progress with crop improvements, and that the quoted study has evaluated projected progress and said only extremely "optmistic" estimates would be enough to offset the effects of climate change.
-
Peter Kalmus at 04:48 AM on 31 August 2017Exit, Pursued by a Crab
Andy, thank you for this beautiful piece. It ties so many things together.
I've long thought that our culture's unhealthy relationship to death contributes far more to the tangled mass of our predicament than most people think.
Best wishes to you (and to us all) in your (and our) remaining time on this wonderful planet. We all won the cosmic lottery just to be here, and we all soon go back to that place we came from, the source of all things.
-
NorrisM at 04:35 AM on 31 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
nigelj
Does this not come down to Lomborg's principal thesis that per energy unit there will be a massive cost switching from fossil fuels to wind and solar that may not be the most efficient way of dealing with the impacts? It hardly seems arguing that if you have energy densities like those suggested by the German scientists' study referenced in Smil's book Power Density that the cost of producing an energy unit from wind or solar has to be much greater.
michael sweet,
I clearly acknowledge that the disposal of nuclear waste is something that has to be addressed. The US did have a plan which got derailed because of politics. But look at what Shellenberg has to say about the total waste contributed in volume between nuclear power and wind and solar power:
"Renewables also require far more land and materials than nuclear power. California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant produces 14 times as much electricity annually as the state’s massive Topaz Solar Farm and yet requires just 15 percent as much land. Since those vast fields of panels and mirrors eventually turn into waste products, solar power creates 300 times as much toxic waste per unit of energy produced as does nuclear power. For example, imagine that each year for the next 25 years (the average life span of a solar panel), solar and nuclear power both produced the same amount of electricity that nuclear power produced in 2016. If you then stacked their respective waste products on two football fields, the nuclear waste would reach some 170 feet, a little less than the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, whereas the solar waste would reach over 52,000 feet, nearly twice the height of Mount Everest."
I obviously cannot back up these statements with research but if each person on this website had to do that each time then this website would solely consist of experts. I do not think that is the purpose of it. It is to communicate to the public.
How do you ship wind turbines economically to developing countries?
But is this not just avoiding the question of what is the ultimate cost of disposing of these wind turbines and solar panels in 25 years when they have come to the end of their useful life? Do you just leave them in developing countries where they are not seen? Back to Kevin Costner's Waterworld.
As for your comment on nuclear power, another part of this article refers to a new type of nuclear power plant which is much less costly:
"But a comprehensive study of nuclear power plant construction costs published in Energy Policy last year found that water-cooled nuclear reactors (which are far less expensive than non-water-cooled designs) are already cheap enough to quickly replace fossil fuel power plants."
Trump has specifically referenced a reconsideration of nuclear power so I do not think the bankruptcy of Westinghouse means the end of a nuclear power discussion in the US.
In about 2011, after first recommending a world carbon fee here is the second recommendation of James Hansen:
" Second, the United States and China should agree to cooperate in rapid deployment to scale in China of advanced, safe nuclear power for peaceful purposes, specifically to provide clean electricity replacing aging and planned coal-fired power plants, as well as averting the need for extensive planned coal gasification in China, the most carbon-intensive source of electricity. China has an urgent need to reduce air pollution and recognizes that renewable energies cannot rapidly provide needed base-load electricity at large scale. The sheer size of China's electricity needs demands massive mobilization to construct modern, safe nuclear power plants, educate more nuclear scientists and engineers, and train operators of the power plants."
Is this not a recognition that the problem of coal plants in China is insurmountable without turning to nuclear power? I know you will say it is all different since 2011. I appreciate that China signed the Paris Agreement but I highly doubt that the cost analysis has so massively changed since 2011.
Where is the IPCC on the costs of conversion to wind and solar? Do they even consider nuclear power? One of the main criticisms of James Hansen for a solution solely based on renewables is that you have to have natural gas generating plants as a back up when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow.
-
MA Rodger at 04:12 AM on 31 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @51,
Your reference to "German scientists" is here - Weißbach et al (2013) 'Energy intensities, EROIs, and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants.'
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:55 AM on 31 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM2%1,
Thankyou for providing more proof that 'unsustainable pursuits of benefit that create no lasting benefit for future generations, or produce levels of future benefit that are less than the challenges and costs that are potentially created, clearly should not be allowed to compete for popularity and profitability (evaluated from the perspective of future generations where the potential costs they face are not discounted relative to any legacy benefit they can be quite certain to obtain)'.
Using EROEI's that ignore or discount the future costs create poor excuses to not behave better. Unless you can show me proven ways to fully neutralize nuclear waste, the waste is an infinite cost in a 'pursuit of a sustainable future for humanity' EROEI. And future costs need to be compared to future benefits to ensure a net-benefit, none of the game of claiming the future costs are less than current benefits so it is All Right (and certainly no discounting of those future costs for such a comparison). So for actions like coal burning there would need to be proof of the value of benefit into the future, and proof that the almost certain future benefit value (no big maybes allowed to be counted) more than offsets the potential costs created in the future by actions like burning coal today (not just some selected "known" costs like building sea walls only for the rich people's cities, and only building them high enough to only address a portion of future sea level rise - a serious, and easy to see as a poor excuse, flaw in Lomborg's "Cool It" evaluations - an even poorer excuse if those future costs are discounted).
That was my point in earlier posts. Things need to change so that only understood to be sustainable pursuits are allowed to compete for popularity and profitability. Allowing less acceptable activity to compete gives those activities competitive advantages over the alternatives that are sustainable. Regulation and Carbon Fees help, but attitudes are what have to be changed.
Striving to maintain incorrectly developed perceptions of prosperity is admirable, but only if they are maintained by a rapid correction of developed unsustainable activity.
The supposedly most advanced (prosperous/wealthy) people, societies, and economies really need to start proving they deserve to be perceived as the most advanced.
I look for Proof with Good Reason. I see lots of Poor Excuses - not just related to the changes of human activity required because of climate science.
-
NorrisM at 03:12 AM on 31 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
michael sweet
Although I do not have the book the citation for the study by the German scientists should be in the Smil book Power Density.
"In Power Density, Smil points to a study of EROEI published in 2013 by a team of German scientists who calculated that solar power and biomass have EROEIs of just 3.9 and 3.5, respectively, compared with 30 for coal and 75 for nuclear power. The researchers also concluded that for high-energy societies, such as Germany and the United States, energy sources with EROEIs of less than seven are not economically viable."
-
NorrisM at 02:49 AM on 31 August 2017Exit, Pursued by a Crab
Andy,
I just happened on your post while checking on another stream. It touched me greatly. We share some similarities in that many years ago I was a petroleum landman with Mobil Oil before returning to university to get my law degree. Like you, I moved to the West Coast. We live in West Vancouver.
Facing death is not something that we like to confront but everyone knows that it is only a matter of time. But we cannot help but feel robbed when something like this happens. One of my best friends, Gary Aitken (former VP Land of Canadian Hunter), who you may have known in Calgary, succumbed to lung cancer many years before his time. I still have trouble dealing with that loss. It seems so unfair. But fairness and the natural world do not have much in common.
Although I have not really come down on a lot of issues relating to climate change, we need more people like you who selflessly dedicate significant parts of their life to trying to make this world a better place. That applies to many others who contribute to this website. I have also watched your video and found it very convincing. I must admit I cannot believe people could be so naive as to think that volcanoes could be the cause of our massive increases in CO2 concentrations. Clearly there are some out there.
I wish you the best in whatever time you have. If you ever wish to have lunch here in Vancouver, I would be very pleased to meet you.
Regards
Norris Morgan
-
rocketeer at 02:37 AM on 31 August 2017New research, August 21-27, 2017
Valuable service, thanks!
-
Tom13 at 23:58 PM on 30 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Nigel -
Tom @13 no I did not say progess with crop improvements will stop. It will likely continue, but I said you cannot expect the same rate of improvements or some miracle. .
If something is likely to continue, why would you base you conclusion as if it is not likely to happen - kinda invalidates the study.
-
Pete12981 at 23:12 PM on 30 August 2017Exit, Pursued by a Crab
Look up CBD, it's a cannabinoid, legal in UK, which among other things is an anti-cancer agent. But most doctors haven't a clue, and the pharmaceutical industry wants it kept that way. Available in dropper bottles and capsules of varying doses. Lots of information online. Cure yourslef!
-
michael sweet at 21:44 PM on 30 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Norrism
The US Energy Information Agency defines effiency thus:
"The heat rate is the amount of energy used by an electrical generator or power plant to generate one kilowatthour (kWh) of electricity. ... If the heat rate is 7,500 Btu, the efficiency is 45%. EIA only publishes heat rates for fossil fuel-fired generators and nuclear power plants."
If you do not know the meaning of a technical term it is best not to correct people who do. Nuclear and coal power plants are about 50% efficient, the rest of the energy used is released as waste heat. Gas is a little more efficient. Wind and solar do not produce waste heat so their efficiency is much higher, 90% or more.
Renewables do have lower power density than fossil fuels and nuclear. The Solutions Project (linked above) has addressed these issues satisfactorily.
Your claims that "What do you do with the massive wind turbines when they stop working or all the solar cells when they need to be replaced?" have already beenn addressed. The turbines and panels can be recycled (currently they are reused in developing countries since they have not reached the end of their useful lives). What do you do with the nuclear waste, including the reactor core?
You remain a nuclear supporter! I am amazed that any are left after Westinghouse declared bankruptcy. It is generally a waste of time to discuss nuclear power and clogs up the board with incorrect information. I will only say that the bankruptcy of Westinghouse will stop any investment in nuclear for the foreseeable future. I note that Brave New Climate (the most pro nuclear web site I know of) has not posted a new article supporting nuclear for over a year.
The EROEI on nuclear you cite is not widely accepted. Most currently used fossil fuels also do not have such high EROEI's. Wind and solar have higher EROEI's than you claim. Since you have not linked a citation I dismiss your claim as unsupported.
-
Eclectic at 18:18 PM on 30 August 2017Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Postkey @363, do you have an actual link to the relevant section of joseduarte? I come up with "site under construction" — so I am unsure if it is the same article/blog that I read a couple of years ago.
If it is the same article [critique of consensus study], then I am able to assure you that it is a waste of your time to read & analyse. As I recall, Duarte started off well, but his commentary degenerated into a rant. It became more ridiculous as it progressed. Duarte seems an angry guy. Very angry, and with an anger which sabotaged his presentation and made it nonsensical.
Postkey — best if you avoid Duarte, and simply re-state any points (of his) which you think should be addressed by the participants in this thread. I suspect that most or all of them have been covered already on SkS here. Please read through the OP & comments, and come up with anything that you are certain has been missed.
-
Postkey at 17:35 PM on 30 August 2017Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Hello,
Has this criticism of the methodology been discussed?
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/ignore-climate-consensus-studies-based-on-random-people-rating-journal-article-abstracts
Thanks.
-
nigelj at 17:19 PM on 30 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @50
Schellenburger says "Moreover, all three previous energy transitions resulted in what’s known as “dematerialization”: the new fuels produced the same amount of energy using far fewer natural resources."
Complete nonsense. Oil and coal are the result of the compaction of vast quantities of plant and small organisms so many natural resources. They may be dense but they are not small users of resources.
And energy density is not the only measure of usefulness. Energy dense turns out to have difficult implications, like global warming and safety risks with nuclear energy.
" By contrast, a transition from fossil fuels to solar or wind power, biomass, or hydroelectricity would require rematerialization—the use of more natural resources—since sunlight, wind, organic matter, and water are all far less energy dense than oil and gas."
So what? This does not make sunlight etc in any way less effective at generating electricity. The fact that the market is choosing them proves they are effective and thats all that counts! Not some writers empty rhetoric.
Sunlight comes free and is abundant. Anyone who sees using it as a problem is being idiotic.
"Basic physics predicts that that rematerialization would significantly increase the environmental effects of generating energy. "
Absolute nonsense. Show me a specific law or equation that predicts this. In fact density is nothing to do with the issues, less or more energy dense can all have environmental impacts, its entirely dependent on how the source is used, and pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere turns out to be a problem. Solar power has less environmental problems and the ones it does have are easy enough to resolve.
"Although these would not be uniformly negative, many would harm the environment."
Sunlight comes free and using it does not harm a thing.
" Defunct solar panels, for example, are often shipped to poor countries without adequate environmental safeguards"
That is a procedural problem that doesn't need to happen, and is a great deal less damaging than climate change. Old solar panel materials can be disposed of safely or recycled. The problem is political where certain political parties are anti recycling and anti environmental law.
Schellenburger is not a scientist or physicist, and clearly doesnt understand what he's saying and claiming. He is a cultural anthropologist according to his wikipedia entry. I'm not dismissing all his views on everything, but the above mentioned are completely senseless.
-
NorrisM at 15:47 PM on 30 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
It seems my url suffers from the same problems which I have experienced with other urls on this website. You get part but then have to subscribe to the newspaper to get the rest of the article.
I will add two more sections and leave it at that:
Shellenberger:
"Moreover, all three previous energy transitions resulted in what’s known as “dematerialization”: the new fuels produced the same amount of energy using far fewer natural resources. By contrast, a transition from fossil fuels to solar or wind power, biomass, or hydroelectricity would require rematerialization—the use of more natural resources—since sunlight, wind, organic matter, and water are all far less energy dense than oil and gas.
"Basic physics predicts that that rematerialization would significantly increase the environmental effects of generating energy. Although these would not be uniformly negative, many would harm the environment. Defunct solar panels, for example, are often shipped to poor countries without adequate environmental safeguards, where the toxic heavy metals they contain can leach into water supplies."
And the following:
"In both Energy and Civilization and Power Density, Smil introduces the concept of “energy return on energy investment” (EROEI), the ratio of energy produced to the energy needed to generate it. But Smil again fails to explain the concept’s implications for renewable energy. In Power Density, Smil points to a study of EROEI published in 2013 by a team of German scientists who calculated that solar power and biomass have EROEIs of just 3.9 and 3.5, respectively, compared with 30 for coal and 75 for nuclear power. The researchers also concluded that for high-energy societies, such as Germany and the United States, energy sources with EROEIs of less than seven are not economically viable. Nuclear power is thus the only plausible clean option for developed economies."
This is what I meant by "energy density". If someone wants to quibble with Shellenberger I would be happy to listen as long as the comments are focussed on the statements and not on the author himself. I have no idea who Shellenberger is.
nigelj, perhaps you can comment on this statement as to my claim that wind and solar power have a low energy density and therefore are not as efficient as fossil fuels (30 to 3.9) or nuclear energy (75 to 3.9).
Admittedly these figures are for solar power and not wind power but I highly doubt that wind power is much more efficient that solar power.
-
Eclectic at 14:33 PM on 30 August 2017Exit, Pursued by a Crab
Chriskoz, the youtube link you gave [ youtube.com/watch?v=cy9rx19dujU ] is the correct address, but is somehow not linking.
Punching it in, independently, delivered me the excellent Skuce video.
Andy Skuce : thank you for your absolutely first class video lecture on volcanic CO2 in relation to man-made CO2. Informative and brief, summarising the situation. The style smooth and low-key. Impossible to be improved on !!! Memorably good !
-
nigelj at 13:58 PM on 30 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Norris M @44
You claimed that wind power is not more efficient than fossil fuels and nuclear. This is not correct. Wind power is slightly cheaper than both nuclear and fossil fuels, and cost is the measure of efficiency in capitalist society.
Thats not to say there are not challenges with wind as you noted, but various studies such as Jacobson suggest solutions to intermittency issues.
However I have nothing totally against Nuclear power. Don't love it either given things like Chernobyl.
At least its clean, and while ultimately not sustainable in the long run I would compromise on that aspect in the name of the problem of climate change, and some countries have limited wind and solar options.
But nuclear is not currently a preferred option in electricity markets anyway and they are going for wind, solar and gas. I don't see a reason to force nuclear onto people.
-
nigelj at 13:45 PM on 30 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Tom @13 no I did not say progess with crop improvements will stop. It will likely continue, but I said you cannot expect the same rate of improvements or some miracle. Sigh.
The article clearly assesses what is most plausible and thinks theres a problem. Just quoting the past record doesn't actually change that.
-
chriskoz at 11:18 AM on 30 August 2017Exit, Pursued by a Crab
When I took Denial 101 few years back, I thought Andy Skuce lectures therein, to be of unparalleled quality, standing up among other lectures and it's not a cliche assessment. Exemplary one that gave me a wealth of information, even though I was already familiar with rock waethering, Urey reaction, carbon cycle, etc. Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy9rx19dujU
a lecture that changes the mind. I suggest others add more of Andy's achievements in climate science in this thread. Let's celebrate Andy's contribution big time: long live Andy and his teachings, well beyond any earthly life!
Moderator Response:[PS] Changed the link.
-
Dcrickett at 10:33 AM on 30 August 2017Exit, Pursued by a Crab
Good for you, Andy.
I know the feelings, thoughts, moods. I have lung cancer, currently at bay. As a personal note, I totally agree with your recommendations regarding family and close friends. No climate scientist, I prepare and deliver lectures at local churches and libraries (I use my own church to try out new preentations: fellow parishioners are excellent guinea pigs). (They go over amazingly well.)
So I live until I don't. Which I have been doing all my live, anyhoo.
Thanks for the cheer you brought me!
David Collins
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:15 AM on 30 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM:
You are rapidly wearing out people's patience.
Your arguments (well, the ones you are repeating) about the failings of the Paris agreement are the equivalent of someone saying "I need to get from New York to Los Angeles by tomorrow. I think I'll catch a cab to the airport", and having you say "the cab will never get you to Los Angeles by tomorrow". Not getting to the airport will pretty much guarantee that you won't get to Los Angeles. Taking it gives you a chance.
Lomborg and his ilk have no interest in seeing a solution. They only want to maintain the status quo, and preventing people from taking that first step is part of their strategy. Their argument that you shouldn't take the cab would be more believable if they offered to give you a ride to the airport themselves, but they don't do that. It's all smoke and mirrors.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:05 AM on 30 August 2017CO2 effect is saturated
Barcino:
You are making an argument from incredulity. An equivalent counterargument would be for me to say "I can't believe you don't understand how this works". Very easy to say, but carries no weight.
The place you want to look is on the "CO2 is a trace gas" page:
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
Please read it before you comment again, and place comments on that thread, not this one.
Moderator Response:[PS] I am reasonably sure that nothing said by anyone will convince a person that doesnt want to be convinced but lets see. Barcino's statement suggests he hasnt actually read a proper explanation of how the greenhouse effect really works.
-
RedBaron at 09:37 AM on 30 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
@ Tom,
You said, "highly likely that crop yields will drop based on the highly unlikely assumption that innovation, improvements, historical trends etc will cease."
Again you have come to the incorrect solution. The innovation, improvements, etc have not ceased, but there is a huge campaign to prevent their deployment.
It's not like we don't already have plenty of innovation out there in solar wind and other renewable energy sources. And in agriculture we already know how how for example to make ethanol 5 times more efficiently with grass instead of corn.
Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does
Soil Carbon Storage by Switchgrass Grown for Bioenergy
But as stated before multiple billions and billions spent on subsidizing the over production of corn and soy. You can easily see how ag subsidies are used to manipulate farmers into growing certain crops a certain way:
In this case above the government has decided to promote soy production over corn. Most likely to increase biodiesel production. If ethanol were the goal, the floor price for corn would rise and soy floor price drop. Many many billions of dollars in crop subsidies are spent this way, but NOT spent on the types of sustainable ag that improves yields and mitigate AGW simultaneously.
So rather that grass as part of a AGW mitigation strategy that actually increases dramatically yields by 5X! We spend billions makeing sure that ag fails as scheduled in approx 50-60 years? Insanity.
Same thing is happening in the energy sectors. Massive subsidies to preventing AGW adaptation and mitigation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:19 AM on 30 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM,
Before I will accept a claim that allowing increased unsustainable activity (and nuclear power is just another unustainable activity) improves things for all of humanity now and into the distant future, I will require proof that the economic system is actually focused on improving the living conditions of all of the least fortunate.
With the exception of a very few of the Most Developed countries (like Norway), the evidence contradicts that claim.
Global measures of wealth have increased faster than the population (use whatever reliable sources you want to verify that - no alternative facts please). And yet there are still many people living brutal short existences or living at high risk of ruin (even in the USA - citizens without affordable decent health care). That needs to be sustainably changed.
-
NorrisM at 07:20 AM on 30 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Wind and power are not more efficent than higher density fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
The Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct Issue has a review by Michael Shellengberger on Vaclav Smil's new book Energy and Civilization, A History. The review is entitled "The Nuclear Option - Renewables Can't Save the Planet - but Uranium Can. I am not sure this url will work. But it supports my view that solar and wind power are low density energy sources compared to nuclear energy. What do you do with the massive wind turbines when they stop working or all the solar cells when they need to be replaced?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2017-08-15/nuclear-option?cid=int-now&pgtype=qss
If there is someway to post this article on this website, I would be happy to figure out how to do so even if I have to pay Foreign Affairs some charge. Please let me know.
As for my source of .4% I suspect most other contributors to this website do not dispute that estimate. In addition to some charts I have from an article of James Hansen sent to me by one of my "warring sisters", I have simple gone onto Wikipedia and searched "world energy consumption".
Here is a sample of what he says:
"Smil is right about the slow pace of energy transitions, but his skepticism of renewables does not go far enough. Solar and wind power are unlikely to ever provide more than a small fraction of the world’s energy; they are too diffuse and unreliable. Nor can hydroelectric power, which currently produces just 2.4 percent of global energy, replace fossil fuels, as most of the world’s rivers have already been dammed. Yet if humanity is to avoid ecological catastrophe, it must find a way to wean itself off fossil fuels.
Smil suggests that the world should achieve this by sharply cutting energy consumption per capita, something environmental groups have advocated for the last 40 years. But over that period, per capita energy consumption has risen in developed and developing countries alike. And for good reason: greater energy consumption allows vastly improved standards of living. Attempting to reverse that trend would guarantee misery for much of the world. The solution lies in nuclear power, which Smil addresses only briefly and inadequately. Nuclear power is far more efficient than renewable sources of energy and far safer and cleaner than burning fossil fuels. As a result, it offers the only way for humanity to both significantly reduce its environmental impact and lift every country out of poverty."
PS. This article says wind and solar represented 1.8% in 2015 so I my information is incorrect. More than happy to acknowledge that my sources provided a lower percentage. Go on Wikipedia and see if you find a different percentage than I did.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. Use the Link tool in the comments editor to do it yourself.
(Just a note that opinion pieces and grey literature dont hold as much weight here as peer-reviewed studies and assessments from agencies like IEA).
Also, you opening assertion implies you understand "efficiency" very differently than normal use. Back that assertion with references please.
-
Tom13 at 07:10 AM on 30 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Nigel
- "However although I obviously agree with you there has been crop innovation in the past you cannot ever assume it must automatically continue or be particularly strong."
In other words - you are saying that progress and improvements which have been the norm through human history will suddenly stop - And therefore the study becomes valid because you assume something that is not likely to happen -
Another way of stating the studies conclusion is that it is highly likely that crop yields will drop based on the highly unlikely assumption that innovation, improvements, historical trends etc will cease.
-
michael sweet at 06:29 AM on 30 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Norris M
According to this article, in March 10% of the USA electricity was generated using wind and solar. That is about 4% of all poser used. Since wind and solar are much more efficient than other power sources (coal and nuclear vent half their energy as waste heat), their use reduces overall power use.
Please provide a reference for your ridiculous assertion that only .4% of energy is provided by these sources. It is easy to make renewable energy look impossible by using fake data.
The solutions project shows how all power can be generaged by renewable energy. This power is cheaper than fossil fuels and dramatically reduces health costs through reduction of pollution.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:28 AM on 30 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Tom13,
It is important to separate the 'benefits obtained by new developments' from the 'harm done by other activity'.
The benefits from truly sustainable new farming development (including returning to old actually sustainable practices) is hampered/harmed/lessened by the harm done by increased amounts of climate change.
Curtailing the damaging magnitude of human impacts will limit the undeniable global net-negative climate changes. And unsustainable pursuits of perceptions of farming prosperity will eventually stop being perceived as benefiticial or helpful.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:59 AM on 30 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM@40,
The Paris Agreement is the agreement to collectively act to limit the total human impacts to a rise of 2.0 C above pre-industrial levels.Therefore, it includes the agreement/understanding/requirement to increase initial commitments to achieve that goal.
The actions to be taken are not stipulated. Therefore, the proposal by Lomborg to use tax money to fund research would fit as a Paris Agreement action. In keeping with achieving the objective the research funding should come from Carbon Fees. And, in keeping with the Paris Agreement objective, the amount would be increased as required to meet the 2 C impact limit.
However, increasing the cost of trouble-making activity more effectively achieves the required changes of human activity by making the marketplace a helpful rather than harmful part of the program (harmful because getting away with a less acceptable way of doing something is easy to drum up popular support for, because it almost always cheaper/more profitable with little apparent consequence for the ones benefiting). A particular problem with funding research with tax money is the 'game' of deciding what groups get funded and ensuring that no personal gain is obtained through copyright of developments made due to public funding (those results should be copyright free). So it would be better to simply have a Carbon Fee that is fully rebated equally to everyone making the lowest impacting people the Winners, with the Fee increased as required to meet the objective.
A key consideration has to be that what some people have developed is unsustainable perceptions of prosperity and wealthy through actions that harm the ability of others to live decently (especially harm done to future generations by creating/increasing the costs and challenges they have to deal with while having reduced access to potentially sustainably beneficial resources like buried ancient hydrocarbons). It is all deceptively defended by the claim that everyone freer to believe what they want and do as they please will produce a more decent result (an unsubstantiated Dogma of some Economists that has mounting evidence to show it is not actually justified because of the successful abuses of misleading marketing by deliberate trouble-makers pursuing what they want any way they can get away with).
Undeniably the required result is advancement of humanity to sustainable better futures for everyone. The UN Sustainable Development Goals would achieve that objective and can be improved by substantive presentation of new evidence that had not been part of the massive basis used for establishing those Goals through the 45 years of collective international effort that developed them). Anyone attempting to defend perceptions of prosperity resulting from unsustainable damaging activities like the burning of fossil fuels has no real Good Reason, just Poor Excuses.
There is more than enough opportunity for decent living by the current, and even increased, levels of global population. All that needs to be ended is the foolish unsubstantiated belief (only supported by Economist Dogma) that the developed economic competitions will eventually produce that result.
Regulation or Penalties or Fees are undeniably required on unacceptable activity that must be ended sooner than the fatally flawed games of competition for popularity and profitability would end them (only ending when the opportunity to more easily get away with benefiting becomes more expensive or more difficult than alternatives or massive damage is done - not that without regulation the alternatives that are Cheaper and Easier are likely to be something similarly damaging and unsustainable).
Some people who have developed unsustainable perceptions of prosperity and opportunity will perceive such measures as “Harmful to Them”. Others will understand what is required and change their minds to become helpful participants in advancing all of humanity to a lasting better future.
-
nigelj at 05:57 AM on 30 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @30
I'm not going to continue this much more, because you are not listening to what several different people are saying. Simplifying everything, Paris is only a first stage attack on warming so obviously it has limited objectives. I dont see why you think that's a bad thing.
Lombergs numbers assume 1) the most negative possible outcomes from Paris and 2) nothing more will be done after Paris, which is just totally absurd, nothing more needs to be said. Thats not science or economics, its just his pessimistic political opinion, yet it's buried away as the basic assumption in his so called economic study.
You worry about massive areas of land covered by wind turbines. Well massive areas aren't covered, and many are being put well out to sea.
Fossil fuels have been a great energy source. They are not the only energy source, you need to get your head around that.
Its not just about sea leve rise and that is more than concerning enough. We face more droughts, heatwaves and more intense hurricanes etc. Micheal Mann has already commented on how Hurricane Harvery was certainly made worse by climate change. You have to consider the big picture.
-
nigelj at 05:37 AM on 30 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Tom @13
With respect do you not read articles and what people post?
To repeat "Only the most optimistic assessment — in which farming, policy, markets and technology all combine to make new varieties in 10 years — showed crops staying matched to temperatures between now and 2050."
In other words innovation is likely to struggle to make enough difference. The researchers will have looked at the most plausible innovation pathways, given we can predict innovation to some extent in these sorts of areas.
However although I obviously agree with you there has been crop innovation in the past you cannot ever assume it must automatically continue or be particularly strong. One can only make a reasonable intelligent guess, and the study would have considered the most likely pathways.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:07 AM on 30 August 2017Exit, Pursued by a Crab
Thank you for the post Andy. Words fall short; I would like to express more than what comes to me right now. Best wishes.
-
mbryson at 04:20 AM on 30 August 2017Exit, Pursued by a Crab
Dear Andy-
What a brave and clear-thinking post. We lost our son 20 years ago to Ewing's sarcoma, and he faced his death at 16 with the same kind of courage, clarity and openness your post demonstrates— something I can only hope I will manage when my own turn comes. Our grief, and our daughter's, still feels as sharp and overwhelming as it did then, but it recurs less frequently. Our best wishes and condolences to you and those who love you.
-
NorrisM at 03:55 AM on 30 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
nigelj @ 38
Thanks for the reference to the factcheck website. I think I will make a contribution to that site because it truly seems to be independent.
Here is the quote from that website on the MIT study of the Paris Agreement:
["The MIT report looked at the effect that the majority of the first set of pledges would have on warming by 2100. In their report, the MIT researchers assumed countries wouldn’t make additional, more ambitious pledges.
“Assuming the proposed cuts [under the Paris Agreement] are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century,” the report said."]
My sense from reading this full article is that the Paris Agreement alone does only represent .2C as suggested by Lomborg and every other figure is based upon some assumptions of futher cuts after 2030. This may be a valid assumption but it does not change the actual effect of the Paris Agreement.
Does anyone want to take on MIT?
Nigel, I wonder what NZ would look like with enough wind turbines to supplant all of its other sources of energy? Tourism might take a hit. I have to admit that one of the biggest problems I have with both wind power and solar power is the defacement of our world. This is leaving aside the number of birds that will be destroyed using wind turbines. Not sure why, but the images of Kevin Costner's Waterworld come back to me. Too bad fusion has not worked. I think I would rather live with sea levels rising and have to deal with that by adaptation rather than having massive areas of our lands covered with solar panels and wind turbines.
That is why the Lomborg/Global Apollo Programme approach appeals to me. By the way, my search on Wikipedia and the internet would seem to suggest that the Global Apollo Programme has not had much success in getting nations to commit to .02% of GDP towards research.
Given the realities of coal use in developing countries, I would have thought that there should be massive reseach into carbon capture and other ways to reduce the impact of coal on the environment. Instead we just attempt to impose unrealistic restraints on the use of fossil fuels that are effectively ignored by India and China, the biggest emitters, notwithstanding what China says.
I still have not heard how the world is going to go from .4% solar and wind to whatever level is necessary to reduce global temperatures to a level of 2.7C by 2100 without coming up with a cheap source of energy to replace fossil fuels.
I think we all want a better world. Fossil fuels have massively enhanced our civilization. We simply would not be where we are today without them. There are just major disagreements on how we achieve this better world without throwing the baby out with the bath water. I have to exclude Trump (not all his administration like Tillerson) from this group (and unfortunately many of his supporters). He is just focussed on America First. Hopefully, we can get past this period safely but I worry that this anti-globalization/free trade movement is not just in America.
Eclectic. Somewhere I noted before departing on our sailing holiday that with the proposed "Red Team Blue Team" proposal of Scott Pruitt, I decided it would be better to sit back and watch the experts go at it rather than me try to understand what is a very complicated area.
I truly hope that they just hand it over to someone like Steve Koonin to appoint the climatologists on both sides of the debate because he will ensure that the most knowledgeable on both sides are represented. I am not moved by your explanation of Koonin's approach which relegates his caution to "motivated reasoning". All he is questioning is the ability of the global climate models to accurately predict what future temperatures will be based upon their track record. If this Red Team Blue Team debate shows that the track record of the models is good then you will have him and the American public behind the majority scientific view with pressure on Trump both to accept that it is not just a Chinese hoax and to propose steps to address AGW. I worry that the lack of recent news on this front reflects a reluctance on the part of Trump to take this chance.
-
RedBaron at 03:26 AM on 30 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
@Tom13,
You said, " Can you provide an explanation why man's ingenuity and invovation will stop?"
That's easy really. There is a multibillion dollar "merchant of doubt" campaign to prevent it.
FARMING A CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTION
"If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’." Dr. Christine Jones, CSIRO ag scientist
The case studies Dr Jones used to show this hypothesis are 10 year studies that were completed almost 10 years ago. And yet we still march on with agriculture that is an emissions source helping to cause AGW and continues to degrade the land.
In fact many of the CSIRO scientists had their budgets cut and/or lost their jobs! Here they were the cutting edge of ingenuity and innovation, best in the World, and all it got them was the unemployment line.
There is a huge Neo-Luddite backlash against any solutions to our unsustainable energy and food systems.
-
Tom13 at 02:30 AM on 30 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
#7 nigel - from the 6th paragraph of the article you cited.
"The researchers found that crop duration will become significantly shorter by as early as 2018 in some locations and by 2031 in the majority of maize-growing regions in Africa. Only the most optimistic assessment — in which farming, policy, markets and technology all combine to make new varieties in 10 years — showed crops staying matched to temperatures between now and 2050.
Both studies, The one you cited and the study of this article are basing the switch from positive gains in crop yield to a reduction in crop yields are based on innovation and technological improvements stopping. That is contrary to historical trends. Agriculture experts/ farmers have been adapting for centuries. Can you provide an explanation why man's ingenuity and invovation will stop?
-
gws at 01:16 AM on 30 August 2017Study: Katharine Hayhoe is successfully convincing doubtful evangelicals about climate change
An issue with these kind of studies, IMHO, is the undergraduate student audience. While chosen for convenience, it may not be representative of a wider population depending on what was asked and how the study was conducted. In this case, age may be the culprit. The young person's (political) mind is often still forming, changing, adapting, while over 30-year olds are more difficult to reach. This is a fundamental issue with much of social science research, although some results (see above link) are encouraging. I think the students would have to be followed, aka re-interviewed a regular intervals, to see if this actually made a difference. We know that an equal "treatment" with the myths can easily erase the effect, and if the fact-based "treatment" is not repeated, the effect diminishes over time.
That does not discount the known effect of the "trusted source". I think it should rather be called "in-group" vs. "out-group": A source may not be "trusted" a priori (not literally), but if the information is coming from a person considered in-group in some way (here, also evangelical), his/her message is accepted much more easily, and if that experience is repeated, replacement of accepted myths by scientific facts may eventually happen.
-
tweetster58 at 21:01 PM on 29 August 2017It's Skeptical Science's 10th Birthday!
Hi. Just registered today after lurking for a few years. incredible site-well organised and extremely informative. Keep up the good work.
-
MA Rodger at 20:46 PM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @37.
After a lot of waffle you state "I admit that I think I am out of my depth on this but it takes a lot of exaggeration to go from 33 Gta to 3,066 Gta."
The numbers do appear disparate so the first question to ask is "What are these numbers?" (and it is worrying that such a question has to be asked). As you feel 'out of your depth', it would be remiss of me to ask you. But do consider the situation. ☻ You apparently gleen these numbers from Lomborg's web-page comment where Lomborg states that the value "33GtCO2" comes from the UNFCCC saying "Figueres’ own organization estimates the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total." Yet there is no sign of such a number in the UNFCCC document from which you would expect this Lomborg reference - the UNFCCC INDC Synthesis Report. ☻ Lomborg (2015) explicitly cites the UNFCCC INDC Synthesis Report and here the referred values ("3.6 (0.0–7.5) Gt CO2eq in 2030") are correctly cited - but note Lomborg himself prefers to use the 2030 value of "6.2–6.8Gt" which is significantly different. But there is no direct sign of any 33Gt or 3,066Gt values. ☻ So Lomborg is no help at all in explaining his own numbers but it is evident from these figures that your "33 Gta to 3,066 Gta" are multi-year values, with perhaps the 'cumulative reduction in emissions over the period 2017-2100' being the most likely given the 3,066GtCO2(e) figure. Indeed 2017-2100 is the only period under discussion that would provide for a value of thousands of GtCO2(e) emissions/emissions reduction. But with such an accumulative measure and even if reductions as small as "3.6Gt CO2eq in 2030" are being considered, how can this translate into an accumulative "emissions (of) 33Gt CO₂ in total"? It doesn't seem possible. Even the most strict of the two ridiculous schemes set out in Lomborg (2015) would yield at least 77GtCO2(e) by 2100.
So the question "What are these numbers?" remains unanswered and if you don't know what the numbers are, there is little point in bring them here for discussion.
-
ubrew12 at 20:18 PM on 29 August 2017Study: Katharine Hayhoe is successfully convincing doubtful evangelicals about climate change
I think Katherine is getting help from Harvey (not the professor, the hurricane). Nuccitelli: "There’s been some debate among social scientists about how much facts matter in today’s politically polarized society." We entered the 'Age of Consequences' about a decade ago and these consequences are now becoming obvious. Among the 'trusted sources' that can help skeptical evangelical students to accept Hayhoe's message increasingly must be listed their own eyes.
-
nigelj at 19:38 PM on 29 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #34
Regarding the IPA claims. Hard to believe anyone could produce such hopeless garbage, and and not be totally embarassed.
Anyway I thought the climate sceptics had a low opinion of "models". These people are so arrogant they think nobody can see their many contradictions.
-
nigelj at 19:28 PM on 29 August 2017Study: Katharine Hayhoe is successfully convincing doubtful evangelicals about climate change
I'm sure Katharine is changing some peoples minds for good but how many is an interesting question. 30% of americans are still very sceptical about evolution, ( more for christians) so this suggests she will probably have mixed success, but every little bit helps build a critical mass of public opinion.
People become entrenched in their views over anything political or religious, and sometimes not wanting to admit they were wrong. I recall the sin of 'pride' in the bible somewhere but Im not really religious.
-
nigelj at 17:57 PM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
Norris M @30
The Paris Agreement.
Opinions differ on what cuts to emissions and temperature reductions it will achieve because of the complexities and policies of individual countries. Plenty of sources claim it will achieve considerably larger cuts than Lomberg claims both by 2030, 2050 and 2100. Given the massive criticisms of Lombers calculations by numerous experts, and the fact the Danish Government found one of his books on climate change scientifically dishonest, can you guess whos views I have more respect for?
Some expert discussion on paris accord:
www.factcheck.org/2017/06/will-paris-tiny-effect-warming/
Costs of renewable energy. An example:
My country of NZ has approx. 9,637mwh installed capacity of all sorts of generation, some actually renewable. But for the sake of an example, to convert all that to wind energy costs approx. $50 billion. This is equal to about 8 months worth of total government spending for one year. It is about one quarter of NZ total gdp per year.
Obviously not all that generating capacity would be built in one year. Lets assume it is built within a 20 year time frame. That about $2.5 billion per year, about one quarter of what the government spends each year just on the old age pension (NZ Super). Given Americas economy is not that different to ous in per capita structure I dont see costs being that different. At least it gives you some idea of scale and that it is expensive but obviously not unaffordable.
I'm not a technical expert on all this, but basic arithmetic is easy enough. And why would anyone bother with more detailed technical explanations when you have consistently shown many times that you ignore technical information / internet links / sources?
Nuclear Energy:
Hanson promotes nuclear energy. Costs are slightly cheaper than renewable energy, depends however on the country and wind is cheaper in some countries, but building these things is a nightmare because of regulatory controls around safety etc. This is why operators in America are choosing other alternatives like wind, solar and gas. I dont think Hanson is either right or wrong, but in America generators are choosing other options.
Hope that helps.
-
Ken Kibithe at 15:33 PM on 29 August 2017Global warming and energy – intertwined problems in Africa
In Kenya, long strides are now being experienced in the long journey towards global warming and energy issues. Many Universities are offering programmes and encouraging students/researchers to engage in projects on such issues. See the courses below as an example of the programmes being offerd in the University especially in Agriculture and Engineering categories. http://www.mut.ac.ke/academic/mut-undergraduate-programmes.html
-
NorrisM at 15:24 PM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
MA Rodger
Apologize for missing the "d".
This is interesting. The Ward analysis responds to the Lomborg analysis. What I find interesting is the following statement which seems to support Lomborg's postion that achieving 2.7C is based upon assumptions of future cuts after 2030: "Neither of these scenarios corresponds to expected policies beyond 2030." This statement follows the analysis, of the cuts in the Paris Agreement proposed by the US, the EU and China.
So I have to assume that the Paris Agreement only goes to 2030. My understanding is that Lomborg then assumes that no futher cuts are made other than keeping those cuts for the next 70 years. Then I understand from Ward that Lomborg uses the IPCC 'worst case scenario" temperature rises to come up with his 3,066 Gta CO2 reduction.
Lomborg on his webpage makes reference to the fact that "future cuts" in 2030 beyond those in the Paris Agreement will be required to achieve the 2.7C level by 2100.
So is Lomborg not correct that what was achieved with the Paris Agreement, by itself, is really not very much? Maybe I am missing something but 33 Gta to 3,066 Gta is a long way to go. Assuming Lomborg used the most conservative estimates of "business as usual' beyond what had been agreed with the Paris Agreement, I have to think that the required amount to keep temperature rises to 2.7C would still be not less than 1,000 Gta CO2. Now I am purely speculating but it does not seem that the "assumed" future cuts in 2030 will only be minimal.
I admit that I think I am out of my depth on this but it takes a lot of exaggeration to go from 33 Gta to 3,066 Gta.
I wish someone with a little more technical background could respond.
But onto ground with which I am more comfortable. Can someone respond to my question of how we magically get from .4% solar and wind to even 50% in 30 years? And at what cost per unit of energy?
Can someone also not respond to why James Hansen believes that the only way to achieve the goals is to turn to nuclear energy? Where is he wrong?
-
Eclectic at 15:23 PM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM @33 etc.,
MA Rodger has recommended the Global Apollo Programme [ @#34 above ]. It would be very much worth your while to read ~ a couple of dozen pages, and little more than 15 minutes of your time. The authors are British, and the report is slightly dated in that it is based on information of 3 - 5 years ago. But all that has happened since then, is that renewable energy has become even cheaper to produce . . . and the recent run of record-hot years [2014/2015/2016/2017ytd] is showing the urgency of displacing fossil-fuel usage. There is not the luxury of time to dawdle and do little or nothing (e.g. the do-nothing policy of Lomborg).
You are wasting your time if you read anything by Lomborg.
Koonin, in comparison, is [IMO] merely confused about climate matters (because his intellect is overridden by his motivated reasoning) but he is [again, IMO] basically an honest guy.
Lomborg is a propagandist and an "indirect" apologist for fossil-fuel industry interests (he tries to portray himself as independent and "Luke-Warm", yet that is belied by his statements). He is, in parliamentary terminology, very "economical with the truth". My comments here are not an Ad Hominem attack, but simply a description based on his abominable track record. Quite possibly Lomborg is kind to animals and children in his personal life : yet his "scientific statements" are designed to misinform and mislead the naive reader. He is a science-denier in Sheep's Clothing [please excuse the cliche]. Possibly he may at some future time, come out with good & useful information . . . but so far he has failed to do so.
BTW [= by the way ] NorrisM, welcome back from your "sea holiday" ! Interestingly, it appears to have caused a "sea change" in your thinking : you appear to have abandoned any "judicial approach" to climate science, and you now seem to have become more an advocate of "outliers" such as Lomborg. Would it not be simpler & more straightforward to accept the (overwhelming) weight of evidence that the mainstream scientists are correct.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:03 PM on 29 August 2017New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest
NorrisM@33,
The Paris Agreement is structured to require increased CO2 abatement actions in future years.
Without future increased actions from the initial offered actions of each nation (without the Paris Agreement commitment to increase actions to collectively keep global warming impacts to 2.0 C), the future of humanity is indeed going to be severely negatively affected (but the Undeserving Winners of a better life today won't suffer any serious personal losses so All is Right by Them).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:51 PM on 29 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
nigelj@7,
What you refer to regarding maize in Africa has been a problem that climate change is making into a bigger problem because of increased drought frequency and severity.
Africans in the drought prone areas should have always been encouraged to grow a more drought tolerant crop like sorghum. But the perception that corn means "Winning" (it is American's 'success crop at the core of so much economic activity') makes many Africans want to grow/buy corn, encouraged by a few Good crop years and marketing by developers/sellers of Supposed Super Corns (companies that create and market new varieties but never themselves gamble on the success of trying to grow the products).
Each farmer (in African and America) would probably be better off planting both maize and sorghum (more sorghum than maize in areas more prone to drought).
-
nigelj at 12:24 PM on 29 August 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34
Regarding crop yields:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160620112504.htm
"Crop yields will fall within the next decade due to climate change unless immediate action is taken to speed up the introduction of new and improved varieties, experts have warned.
journal Nature Climate Change, focusses on maize in Africa but the underlying processes affect crops across the tropics.
Study lead author Professor Andy Challinor, from the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said: "In Africa, gradually rising temperatures and more droughts and heatwaves caused by climate change will have an impact on maize.
The researchers found that crop duration will become significantly shorter by as early as 2018 in some locations and by 2031 in the majority of maize-growing regions in Africa. Only the most optimistic assessment — in which farming, policy, markets and technology all combine to make new varieties in 10 years — showed crops staying matched to temperatures between now and 2050."
In my view,even if output does increase, global warming makes this more difficult, and at the very least is likely to reduce the gains that would occur without global warming. Given population increase this is a concern.
Prev 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 Next
