Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 Next
Comments 42151 to 42200:
-
Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
SkS needs a pop-out mechanism that tattoos the comments policy on the forehead of the about-to-poster and then pops out a mirror.
Yes, I know: snip.
Moderator Response:[JH] Agreed. SkS moderators have neither the time nor inclination to babysit newcomers -- especially those that are accustomed to posting trash talk on WUWT and similar venues of denialism.
-
John Hartz at 04:16 AM on 28 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
nthinker: Your most recent comment was deleted in its entirity because it violated the SkS Comments Policy re Moderation Complaints.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
John Mason at 03:42 AM on 28 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
Christpher, #14 - today's Guardian thread is a case in point. >1000 comments and it's like being in a small boat far out at sea in the middle of a typhoon! By pure chance I read the thing just as it was posted and got the first comment in - someone later accused the Guardian of letting me know in advance so I could get a 'warmist' comment in first! Really. It's chaos out there in opinionsville!
-
Mal Adapted at 03:37 AM on 28 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Lei:
On both sides of my family, people migrated huge distances - from Europe to the Western US (lack of farm land in Ireland)...Of course, people can adapt
Or die: Total deaths 1 million
In parts of the Western US (Willamette Valley of Oregon) they have the most productive farmland in the US. It is due to planting methods, apparently.
The climate and soils are what makes the Willamette valley so productive.
You're going to have to try harder if you want to be taken seriously here, Lei.
-
ptbrown31 at 03:24 AM on 28 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
"Put simply, she is speaking outside her area of expertise, like a podiatrist giving advice on open heart surgery."
Dana, 2 things:
1) Would you dismiss Curry's opinion this way if she was emphasizing the certainties of the science rather than the uncertainties?
2) You yourself are not a climate scientist yet you write articles as if you are an expert on every subfeild of climate science. It seems odd to me that you think Curry shouldnt blog outside of her subfeild but you think you are allowed to blog about every subfeild.
-
Christopher Gyles at 03:24 AM on 28 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
I used to comment on Yahoo science articles but that forum is currently so inundated with denialist negativity that whatever I might post is very soon "hidden due to low ratings."
I also read a recent Daily Kos article regarding Popular Science's shutting down of their comment section in which a paper, Anderson et al 2013, was cited as illustrative of the reason for that decision. The study's conclusion was quite an eye-opener:
"Online communication and discussion of new topics such as emerging technologies has the potential to enrich public deliberation. Nevertheless, this study's findings show that online incivility may impede this democratic goal. Much in the same way that watching uncivil politicians argue on television causes polarization among individuals, impolite and incensed blog comments can polarize online users based on value predispositions utilized as heuristics when processing the blog's information. The effects of online, user-to-user incivility on perceptions towards emerging technologies may prove especially troublesome for science experts and communicators that rely on public acceptance of their information. The effects of online incivility may be even stronger for more well-known and contentious science issues such as the evolution vs. intelligent design debate or climate change. Future research may explore these issues to gain a better understanding of the formation of risk perceptions for controversial political or science topics in the context of user-generated online comments."
Thus it appears that any kind incivility in a comments can, to some extent at least negate in the readers' minds the validity of the science being reported. Food for thought.
-
dana1981 at 02:20 AM on 28 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
As noted, Curry is a climate scientist, but has no attribution expertise. Hence the analogy is accurate.
-
Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
Rob Nicholls:
I too have been depressed by the false balance in BBC broadcasts, interestingly predicted by Will Hutton in the Observer last weekend:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/climate-change-scientific-truth-collective
But what i've found most unsettling is UK scientists being interviewed and seemingly keen to highlight uncertainties in whether the oceans are even absorbing heat at deeper levels, followed by Andrew Monford confidently expressing the assertion that the planet clearly isn't warming and the scientists have got all the models wrong.
I was, however, cheered up earlier today by when Sir Brain Hoskins was interviewed on Radio 5 live, and gave a superb summary of the situation.
-
Pete Wirfs at 01:59 AM on 28 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
I felt that your negative portrayal of Judith, even if justified, was unnecessary. I would think it would be sufficient to point out that her opinions were just that, opinions, and not science.
-
miffedmax at 01:39 AM on 28 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
I'm not a scientist by any means, so (gently) correct me if I'm wrong, but it's always seemed to me that the deniers are shooting themselves in the foot when they bring up that we should be headed for an Ice Age, because as far as I can tell, if you look at all the natural forcing the climate experts who predicted that weren't far off. If something wonky isn't messing up the system (i.e. vast amounts of carbon spewed out of tailpipes and smokestacks) we would be cooling off quite a bit.
-
John Mason at 01:19 AM on 28 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
Thanks for the proof-read :)
Have now looked it up - quite right too! Little 'n' is acceptable, though.
-
murraystone at 01:12 AM on 28 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
Just in the interests of enhancing the already impressive credibility of this post, keep in mind that if you're going to use Latin expressions, use them correctly. Nauseam, not nauseum.
-
chriskoz at 01:07 AM on 28 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
Thanks Dana for the very useful distinction between "GHG-induced warming" in AR4 and "total human influence on climate" in AR5.
I would disagree about portraying Judith Curry as incompetent, ala " podiatrist on heart surgery". Given her areas of reaserch: hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, etc., she looks perfectly competent to me as climate change spokeperson. But the fact that she does not understand the basic statistics (i.e. the calculation of uncertainty that I've learned as undergrad) while performing all of that research at Georgia Tech, is beyond my comprehension. She is a "heart surgeon" you're talking about (at least holds the required qualifications) but a bad one who should not have received the qualifications or has forgotten all skills since then. She's not a "naysayer" but an outlier among climate experts.
Note that other disciplines also have such outliers, perhaps more than 3% of experts; the outliers are just not as loud because no one listen to them, as there is no need to rationalise public mind against those other disciplines if a discipline are not as "inconvenient" as climate science. 97% consensus is very high number and it's very hard to beat.
In statistics, 95% confidence interval (so lower than climate science consensus and coincidentaly the same as AR5 confidence on AGW) is assumed as typical confidence interval for a good reason: otherwise the inherent uncertainty of your observations would preclude the confirmation of your hypothesis (i.e. the null hypothesis would always be true). Too much talking about null hypothesis starts hindering the advancement of your theory. So you'd be stuck in denial of many laws of physics just like climate science denialists are stuck today.
-
numerobis at 01:02 AM on 28 September 2013Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
One category of claims I've seen that I can't wrap my head around is that the IPCC statement is weakening the former statements, e.g. from "most" to "more than half" here, or from "warmest in 500 years" to "warmest in 800 years" in another case. Posts predicated on such misreadings predictably generate 50+ credulous comments at WUWT. It's rather remarkable.
-
nhthinker at 00:27 AM on 28 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
"Like gravity and plate tectonics, the basic tenets of the relationship between greenhouse gases and climate change have been well-understood for decades, a product of the scientific investigations that began some two centuries ago."
(-snip-).
The heat content of the Earth and its movements are very complex - (-snip-). (-snip-).
(-snip-). (-snip-).
(-snip-).
Moderator Response:[JH] Unless you provide links to peer-reviewed, published scientific papers to support your assertions, they are merely your opinion.
[DB] Ideology, inflammatory and multiple instances of sloganeering snipped.
-
John Hartz at 23:56 PM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Another dimension to issues under discussion is the undernourishment of a significant segment of the human population. This dimension is addressed head-on in:
OP-ED: Sustainable Development Goals After 2015 by Olivier De Schutter, Jochen Flasbarth, and Dr. Hans R. Herren, International Press Service (IPS), Sep 25, 2013
-
How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
Michael:
Just what I need - thanks.
-
Rob Nicholls at 22:47 PM on 27 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
The update really cheered me up this morning. Almost as hilarious as http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.uk/ . I really sympathise with the purveyors of parody - it's not easy for them to beat this kind of stuff...I think it's always worth taking a moment to stare in awe at the wonderfully twisted nature of it all.
I really like Lou Grinzo's comment (#3).
Gish gallops are very difficult to deal with, given their ever-changing focus, but if ever there was a tool for dealing with them then it is the pages of skeptical science.
More depressingly, I've seen quite a lot of nonsense, full of fake balance, from the BBC this week, both online and on the TV (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24233643 , http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24213816 ), talking about a "pause or hiatus" in global temperatures while either completely ignoring, or downplaying the evidence for, the rapid ocean warming that's continued or even accelerated in recent years (clearly the ocean is no longer part of the globe according to the first link); ignoring the fact that there's no evidence for a pause even in surface temperature records (the trend is undeniably upward even if not statistically significant in the last 15 years - therefore the repetitive use of the word "pause" is just sloppy); ignoring studies which suggest that the recent slowdown in increase in surface temperature increase is consistent with short-term variability caused by fluctuations in solar irradiance, ENSO and volcanic activity; happily quoting "climate skeptics" who mention recent papers suggesting low climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 2 degrees C, while failing to mention the large amount of published evidence (some of which has itself been published very recently) which estimates climate sensitivity to be much higher than 2 degrees C. I think it is ignorance rather than deliberate cherry-picking (and perhaps science journalists are unduly influenced by the hundreds of irate and baseless complaints from very discerning "climate skeptics" that I'm sure they receive) but it's poor journalism either way.
-
BillEverett at 21:29 PM on 27 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
hank_@2, your "this picture" link is blocked in Russia: "Access to the site is restricted in accordance with the Federal Law № 114-FZ of 25.07.2002 (On Countering Extremist Activity), № 436-FZ of 29.12.2010 (The protection of children from information harmful to their health and development), № 149 - FZ of 27.07.2006 (on Information, Information technologies and Protection of information) and the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 26.10.2012 № 1101. If you have any questions relating to the work of the resource, contact your authorized representative of Roskomnadzora."
Can you briefly describe the picture? Thanks!
-
Phil at 20:12 PM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
The science behind graphs such the one posted by Glenn Tamblyn is well established and easy to understand. Indeed simple experiments were (and hopefully still are) carried out by schoolchildren measuring the effect of temperature on the digestive efficency of saliva.
Biochemically - chemical reactions such as photosynthesis and digestion are achieved by the use of enzymes which are large protein molecules. These enzymes have a specific shape which bring the reactants into close proximity to each other, thus facilitating the reaction.
The specific shape of these enzymes is controlled by weak forces - much weaker than ordinary chemical bonds - predominantly these are "hydrogen bonds". As the temperature rises, the enzymes have more energy and can more easily twist out of shape, thus rendering them useless. This explains the distorted bell shaped curve.
Enzymes are synthesised from DNA, indeed the GCAT sequence in DNA code for specific enzymes, and DNA is the subject to natural selection. It is therefore not surprising that the enzymes that plants and animals have evolved are optimised for the current conditions. If current coditions change sufficiently, especially if that change is rapid (on a geological timescale) then extinction ensues.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:15 PM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie
You might want to read this paper Rice yields in tropical/subtropical Asia exhibit large but opposing sensitivities to minimum and maximum temperature and also look at the papers it references.Try Googling RICE YIELD TEMPERATURE. Also look up Wikipedia for a discussion of Photosynthesis including the temperature dependent aspect of it.
Graphs like this highlight the temperature dependence of photosynthesis:
Moderator Response:[DB] Imageshack sometimes has issues with its images showing up on SkS. This is one of those times.
-
Bert from Eltham at 11:35 AM on 27 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
What never ceases to amaze me is the ability of the deniers to continually get it all totally wrong! They seem to have a sixth sense on where to look for cherry picked evidence to 'prove' whatever they think is correct. Methinks if you can continually get the wrong answer 100% of the time you DO know the correct answer! QED!
What is even worse any time in Australia with 'Our ABC' when the key words global warming are in any article and comments are open, the comments are flooded with the same old debunked drivel. These people are so stupid they use the word dribble instead of drivel to describe the utterances of 'warmists' that have 'the faith'. The projection is so palpable it is not even worth commenting on.
The closest analogy I can think of is the NBN debate in Australia. Where whenever the NBN comes up the flood of misinformed people who claim that wireless will beat optical fibre in bandwidth with development in the future proves they have no understanding of any Physics.
Bert
-
John Hartz at 11:26 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
I highly recommend that everyone reading this comment thread check out the following article:
Phosphorus: Essential to Life—Are We Running Out? by by Renee Cho, State of the Planet, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, Apr 1, 2013
-
r.pauli at 11:03 AM on 27 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
Lou Grinzo -#3 that is a great metaphor.
I might extend it by suggesting that we are now in a slow car crash .. with 7 billion people in the back seat - we are careeening and crashing down a mountainside with the road crumbling under us, bouncing through bramble and rock. We have no idea where we will land or crash,,, all we can do is tighten up the seat belts and check the airbags. Many don't have any safety margins. And we are still moving down hill.
I don't forgive the mass media for duplicitious reporting, but I think I understand how they might think it's just business, they are giving people what they want - everyone WANTs a nice future without pain, so they serve up that fantasy.
Anyway, the ramifications of progressively worsening climate calamities are horrific. And scenarios extend way past species extinciton - including our own. Nobody wants to imagine their own deadly car crash - afterall, news media have never covered a story this colossal. Electronic media is entertainment based. Few newspapers can manage a message that huge... - although the Guardian seems to be out in front so far http://www.theguardian.com/us
Skeptical Science is wonderful Thank goodness deniers keep criticizing you, I expect many readers arrive here because you benefit from unintentional promotion from deners.
Interesting times.
-
scaddenp at 09:27 AM on 27 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
The issue on perception versus reality was shown very clearly in this UK survey on things like welfare fraud, crime rate, composition of welfare etc. It would be very interesting to see a similar survey for the USA. Thanks for that correction Glenn - got my 79B confused with start year.
The value of these personal stories is highlighting how data can change a reasonable person's mind. I think the core of science training is learning to change your mind - something non-scientists are not so good at. We are all guilty of defending an entrenched attitude, but science teaches you to ask the question "what data would cause me to abandon my position?".
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:02 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie's argument is a little difficult to tease out of the all the rethoric. It seems to imply that, since agricultural production has increased so dramatically between the 60s and 90s, it will continue to do so. Freshie also appears to further argue that the correlation between that fact and the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 indicates that, as CO2 continues to increase, so will agricultural production.
The Green Revolution, with its massive injection of pesticides, fertilizers and machinery, is obviously the cause of the late 20th century increased yields. It also has a substantial contribution in the atmospheric CO2 increase, since the amount of fossil fuel used to produce a pound of food is now vastly more than before 1960, so atmospheric CO2 release is truly more of a consequence of the increased agricultural production ( along with all other energy uses), than a cause.
There is much debate as to how long the current practices can be sustained without decreasing yields, even in the absence of climate disturbances. Some places have seen rather drastic adverse effects. Water availability, contamination, soil depletion, higher incidence of cancer and hormonal disturbances, vulnerability to pests and other environmental disturbances, all these and more play against continued higher yields. The varieties of plants bred for intensive monoculture are often pesticide dependent and have high fertilizer requirements. They often have lower resilience and lower nutritional value, especially in vitamins and oligo-elements contents.
From a thermodynamics point of view, one could argue that we're already stretched very far with current practices. Regardless of all other factors, the extreme reliance on oil and gas in these farming practices dooms them on the long run, unless equivalent machinery can be developped that will use different energy sources, sources which will have to be as cheap and abundant as they have been during the Green Revolution.
Of course, this does not even begin to consider what will happen when rain patterns and temperatures patterns depart significantly from what they were when intensive practices were implemented, which is in fact the subject of the article above, a subject that Freshie seems to have essentially side-stepped so far by talking about something else (the Green Revolution).
The 2012 drought in Russia happened in an environment of well established intensive practices; it is a good example of the kind of yield changes that can be expected with the same intensive practices and much different conditions. Nothing in Freshie's posts so far disputes that in any way.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:48 AM on 27 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Lei
Just putting scaddenp's numbers into context that is an average of 4 billion a year (the start date was 1989 not 79 Phil). $13 per person. Contrast that with US military spending - 682 billion in 2012 - over $2000 per person. And that is still only 4.4% of US GDP.
Recently the news in Australia reported on a series of arrests related to an international ring that was fixing sports matches around the world 100's of them. Included in the radioi report I heard was the level of spending on the Indian sub-continent on sprts gambling - 100's of billions, perhaps as high as a trillion dollars per year. Just on sports cambling in India!
$4 billlion is chump change, and money well spent.
The issue for me with people who get upset about tax and how it is spent is that they seldom build their argumenta around the relative quantities involved and often get hot under the collar about the insignificant parts.
-
TonyW at 08:48 AM on 27 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
It's not just cherry picking the time periods but also the data. The Arctic sea ice extent (which is a bit of a misnomer, in itself) may have "recovered" to the 6th lowest value ever recorded but the ice volume, as given by PIOMAS, only "recovered" to it's 4th lowest value. -
MA Rodger at 08:19 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
freshie2005 @20.
I am at a loss. What do you mean by "Deflect much MA?"?
You do not appear to want to develop an understanding in this matter. Rather, I get the impression that you will not be satisfied until your questioning is answered in your way with the answers you desire.
Do you have evidence that the "explosion" of agricultural output since 1961 (popularly the "green revolution") results from increased atmospheric CO2 or from increased global temperatures? Do you have evidence that these factors (CO2, temperature) helped rather than hindered this "explosion"? Do you have evidence that these factors will not in the near future overpower the causes that did increase agricultural output or that smoking does prevent cholora?
I do not insist on yes/no answers to these questions. I would never be so bigoted.
-
scaddenp at 07:34 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
"Sloganeering" by the way is making statements, usually little more than a political opinon, without providing any supporting evidence. Avoid political statements and be prepared to back assertions with pointers to evidence.
-
scaddenp at 07:29 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
"What about future inventions to desalinate salt water and to live in floating communities?" One thing you can bet about future inventions will that they do not change the laws of thermodynamics. Desalination needs a certain minimum energy - if you can solve that energy question, then you could also use it to get off fossil fuel. Your position appears to be that since you dont want people from area affected by climate migrating into your place, (eg 100 million Bangladeshi), you instead prefer that they magically fund artificial communities instead. With what funds pray?
"Also, we all need to work at being more peaceful and seeing what unites us."
Good luck with that, if you are also advocating that a small number of people can screw the planet with their emissions while much poorer people take the consequences." I am presenting other sides so that you can hear the stories as the title stated."
The side that would appear to be monumentally uninformed and morally bankrupt it would appear. You seriously expect us to respect this viewpoint?
-
scaddenp at 07:15 AM on 27 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Sorry, I am not even a US citizen! Are you claiming that all climate scientists are pro-immigration or something? The absolute worst thing going on is people linking a stance on climate change to their political tribe. "The other tribe supports action on climate change; ergo climate change must be fake". Can we have some rational, evidence-based thinking please?
-
scaddenp at 07:09 AM on 27 September 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
So which seems more likely? A magical cycle with no known cause, no supporting evidence: Or something that is in accordance with known physics. If you have a TOA energy imbalance, (thats measured), what do think is happening to that energy?
-
michael sweet at 07:06 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie,
In the many reports linked above that you have not read they document that technical improvements and fertilizer have dramaticly increased food production since 1960. In the last two decades, the increase in food production has slowed due to global warming. In many agricultural areas of the globe, the temperature is currently near or above the optimum for food production. Further temperature increases will result in dramatic drops in food production. This includes most of the tropics. You are making a strong argument from ignorance of the data, which you have refused to read in spite of the links you have been shown.
Please provide references to support your claim that further increases in temperature will not affect food production. Your unsupported claims are not worth much. You have been provided copius data in support of the claim that temperature will decrease food production.
-
John Hartz at 06:23 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie, you say "I have not once stated my opinion on what will happen." What I am pointing out is that there's no reason for you to point out a food production-GW/CO2 correlation unless you're making a claim about the future. Unless I'm wrong, and I am willing to be wrong if you can provide a reason why you'd do such a thing and not intend to make a claim about future food production.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Umm, no, Freshie. The mod is deleting your psots because you're ignoring the comments policy. My comments get deleted when I do it; why wouldn't yours get deleted (you special or something?)?
-
John Hartz at 06:15 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie:
DSL has already provided you with six peer reviewed papers in response to your request. Have you taken the time to read them?
Have you taken the time to read any of the Oxfam reports listed in the OP?
Your hand-waving is very tiresome and its continuation will not be tolerated.
-
freshie2005 at 06:01 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
DSL,
I have not once stated my opinion on what will happen. I am simply saying that the only empirical evidence we have on increasing CO2 and temperature are corresponding increases in food production. It's pretty funny you use this line of reasoning since this is the EXACT same way the temperature models have been created. You do realize this, don't you?
I am fully prepared to be proven wrong. Whenever proven wrong, one becomes smarter because of it. Until ANYONE presents some empirical evidence to support this research, it's opinion, not science.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of repetitive sloganeering cloaked in snark. Future posts of this nature will be summarily deleted.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie, I don't get your intense focus on what has happened since 1960. The only claim I can see coming from it is "food production has increased since 1960; therefore, food production will continue to increase." If you establish that food production has EXPLODED since 1960, what's the point?
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Oh, and Freshie, could you cut out the all-caps. I can read without you slapping me in the face with words.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Wait . . . freshie2005, are you claiming that the increase in food production since 1961 is due to increased GMST and increased CO2? Or is this all an exercise in "gotcha-ism"? Is someone trying to say something meaningful? Freshie, I don't see it in your comments. You don't account for improvements in agricultural method, increased planting, improved genetics, more efficient and effective distribution and storage, better crop management, etc. etc. Do you need citations for all those?
As for food production declining:
Lobell et al. 2011: "Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. We found that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends from 1980 to 2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8 and 5.5%, respectively, relative to a counterfactual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors."
Johanson & Fu 2008: "Observations show that the Hadley cell has widened by about 2°–5° since 1979. This widening and the concomitant poleward displacement of the subtropical dry zones may be accompanied by large-scale drying near 30°N and 30°S. Such drying poses a risk to inhabitants of these regions who are accustomed to established rainfall patterns."
Thornton 2012: "An analysis of the effects of climate change on 22 critical agricultural commodities and three important natural resources in the developing world reveals a number of cross-cutting themes: The world’s agricultural systems face an uphill struggle in feeding a projected nine to ten billion people by 2050."
Ahsan et al. 2011: "However, with increasing population, degraded land quality, and potential global warming, agriculture is seen as one of the major vulnerabilities facing Bangladesh in near future. More specifically, a progressive decline in sunshine duration (25%) over a period of 30 years has become a growing concern for agriculture in terms of reduced photosynthesis and food security."
Roos et al. 2012: "In Scandinavia, a milder and more humid climate implies extended growing seasons and possibilities to introduce new crops, but also opportunities for crop pests and pathogens to thrive in the absence of long cold periods. Increased temperatures, changed precipitation patterns and new cultivation practices may lead to a dramatic change in crop health. Examples of diseases and insect pest problems predicted to increase in incidence and severity due to global warming are discussed."
Giannakopolous et al. 2009: "Regarding agriculture, crops whose growing cycle occurs mostly in autumn and winter show no changes or even an increase in yield. In contrast, summer crops show a remarkable decrease of yield. This different pattern is attributed to a lengthier drought period during summer and to an increased rainfall in winter and autumn."
Funk & Brown 2009: "If yields continue to grow more slowly than per capita harvested area, parts of Africa, Asia and Central and Southern America will experience substantial declines in per capita cereal production. Global per capita cereal production will potentially decline by 14% between 2008 and 2030. Climate change is likely to further affect food production, particularly in regions that have very low yields due to lack of technology. Drought, caused by anthropogenic warming in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, may also reduce 21st century food availability in some countries by disrupting moisture transports and bringing down dry air over crop growing areas. The impacts of these circulation changes over Asia remain uncertain. For Africa, however, Indian Ocean warming appears to have already reduced rainfall during the main growing season along the eastern edge of tropical Africa, from southern Somalia to northern parts of the Republic of South Africa. Through a combination of quantitative modeling of food balances and an examination of climate change, this study presents an analysis of emerging threats to global food security."
Want more? There's plenty out there.
-
freshie2005 at 05:49 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Rob,
If you noticed, I haven't given my opinion to what WILL happen. I'm only trying to determine how researchers can come up with a conclusion that is COMPLETELY DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to empirical data. What are they basing this on? If you base it on the empirical data we have, food production should increase in the manner it has for the last 40 years. I have yet to see anyone on this thread point to ANY empirical data that suggests that worldwide food production will decrease as temperatures and CO2 increase. I have presented what empirical data we have, which shows an EXPLOSION in food production from 1961 through the present.
Is there ANYONE on this thread that can point to empirical evidence that this research is valid?
Moderator Response:[JH] The use of all-caps is expressly prohibitied by the SkS Comments Policy. Future posts containing all caps will be summarily deleted.
-
Rob Painting at 05:45 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie - I don't think anyone here disputes that food production has increased since the 1960's. The facts are very well established. But it smacks of child-like reasoning to expect the road ahead to be like the road already travelled. Numerous studies have demonstrated that heat tolerance thresholds for crops such as maize and corn will eventually be passed as the world continues to warm. Yields will decline dramatically once this occurs.
-
freshie2005 at 05:21 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Deflect much MA?
You are still trying to dance around the question, so let me make it something you can't degrade into semantics and keep it in the scientific realm. And yes, I have a scientific background which means there is very little that I consider absolute!
Let's break it down to something you can't dance around.
1. During 1961 to the present there is a large body of evidence that verifies CO2 increased.
2. During 1961 to the present, there is a large body of evidence that verifies temperatures increased.
3. During 1961 to the present, worldwide food production exploded. This is a fact!
It's really simple MA. How can you possibly support this theory when the empirical data completely refutes it? No dancing, no siting studies that have zero impact on climate change. Yes or no to question 1 through 3. You can't dance through science, no matter how hard you try. If you can't answer yes or no for questions 1 through 3, it's pretty obvious no amount of empirical data will change your mind.
Moderator Response:[JH] Either lose the snark, or lose your posting privileges.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
I am not trying to intentionally antagonize you. I am presenting other sides so that you can hear the stories as the title stated. Also, we all need to work at being more peaceful and seeing what unites us.
-
John Mason at 05:08 AM on 27 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
Lou - that is spot-on!
Hank - the irony of caricaturing Mike Mann in an attack on ad-hom arguments is a good illustration of Josh's intellect - all by himself!
-
Lou Grinzo at 04:59 AM on 27 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
I like to use the analogy of car crashes. Imagine safety experts, automotive engineers, trauma doctors, etc. discussing exactly what will happen to the passengers of a given model of car traveling at a very high rate of speed when it hits a bridge support. There would no doubt be some minor disagreements -- will the driver die because his head hits the windshield and explodes, or because he's crushed by the collapsing passenger compartment? Will the passengers in the back seats necessarily die, or will some of them "merely" be very seriously injured?
Then along comes a denier-type who says, "See? They can't even agree on what will happen, so let's go driving at 100MPH with the lights off!" Of course, they never mention that not a single one of the experts ever suggested that it would be a good idea to do something like that...
-
MA Rodger at 04:45 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
freshie2005 @9.
I think your question was answered @8 but you need that answer explaining to you.
Do you agree with Rus Ackoff (as linked @8) that the assertion that smoking prevents cholera is entirely facetious? Do remember the data supported that assertion more strongly than that same data demonstrated smoking caused cancer, itself a result the Surgeon General considered worthy of publishing.
Now I could make a WAG about how you will respond, but I will do you the courtesy of awaiting your reply.
-
Tom Curtis at 04:17 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Lei @6 writes:
"I didn't say that people will "just" migrate."
With apologies to the moderator, that is exactly what you wrote, ie:
"People will just migrate to northern areas."
And Hank_ @4, when somebody suggests a problem will be solved because "People will just migrate", then their response is facile. And because it is facile, it is worthwhile pointing out that it is.
Prev 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 Next
