|
Lotka Volterra posted:This is the thing that bothers me greatly about climate change. Population growth dictates that we need to increase productivity on existing cropland, but some models of future yields under current climate scenarios suggest that US yields could decrease by anywhere from 31-79% by the end of the century. Right now scientists are working toward a consensus, but no one really knows for certain which is troubling. What is likely to happen under a shifting climate is either we're going to need to develop new, hardier crops or change the types of crops we produce (and hope for the best). It's hard not to resign yourself to the "well, we're doomed" point of view. Something to consider when looking at models of future impacts of climate change on agriculture is that these models often have restrictions on how they consider land-use change. We may for example have new crop of that is opened up because climate change kills a forest that we can't save. Not exactly a heartening outcome but different than if we don't include potential land use change.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This is the thing that bothers me greatly about climate change. Population growth dictates that we need to increase productivity on existing cropland, but some models of future yields under current climate scenarios suggest that US yields could decrease by anywhere from 31-79% by the end of the century. Right now scientists are working toward a consensus, but no one really knows for certain which is troubling. What is likely to happen under a shifting climate is either we're going to need to develop new, hardier crops or change the types of crops we produce (and hope for the best). It's hard not to resign yourself to the "well, we're doomed" point of view. US isn't the world, and world population is expected to peak by mid century, if not decline by the end of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Something to consider when looking at models of future impacts of climate change on agriculture is that these models often have restrictions on how they consider land-use change. We may for example have new crop of that is opened up because climate change kills a forest that we can't save. Not exactly a heartening outcome but different than if we don't include potential land use change. This is certainly possible, but something I try to hope will not happen given the field I'm in. The current mass extinction is bad enough, my wish is that we don't exacerbate it by destroying habitat on a grand(er) scale. computer parts posted:US isn't the world, and world population is expected to peak by mid century, if not decline by the end of it. This is true, but we do produce a large amount of the world's food and for that reason any declines with an increasing population are troublesome. Even then, it's not clear where the yield gains would come. If it's in areas with sensitive habitat, we've traded one problem for another. 9.6 to 12.3 billion is still a major concern even if it has leveled out by the end of the century. Aves Maria! fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:US isn't the world, and world population is expected to peak by mid century, if not decline by the end of it. The problem is not solely population growth, but also income growth. As people become richer, they want to eat more, and they especially want to eat more animal protein. This means that even as population growth plateaus policy makers must anticipate continued growth in demand. For the most part this is good, we want the global poor to eat better. However we want the growth in meat consumption to be more chicken and tilapia and less beef. Decreasing consumption of animal protein in the United States and parts of Europe would probably be good for health and the environment, and agricultural policy should reflect that. Palm oil is horrible for the environment. But people need to eat. Best to meet that demand by producing more with the land we already use, rather clearing more forests and wasting what we do produce in feed lots. Squalid fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
If we were serious about this stuff beef production would stop almost entirely. It's wasteful in general compared to pork or chicken and produces extra methane on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This is true, but we do produce a large amount of the world's food and for that reason any declines with an increasing population are troublesome. Even then, it's not clear where the yield gains would come. If it's in areas with sensitive habitat, we've traded one problem for another. 9.6 to 12.3 billion is still a major concern even if it has leveled out by the end of the century. Most population growth will happen in Africa (+3 billion or so) and Asia (+1 billion-ish). Africa especially is being farmed by subsistence farmers with badly domesticated perennial crops in many regions. Some proper irrigation, fertiliser use and targeted breeding/GM on the crops to bring their resource allocation in line with annual and therefore better domesticated crops and to have less famines etc. due to bad weather would go a long way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 00:22
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Most population growth will happen in Africa (+3 billion or so) and Asia (+1 billion-ish). Africa especially is being farmed by subsistence farmers with badly domesticated perennial crops in many regions. Some proper irrigation, fertiliser use and targeted breeding/GM on the crops to bring their resource allocation in line with annual and therefore better domesticated crops and to have less famines etc. due to bad weather would go a long way. We'd first have to stop local governments from expropriating farms from experienced owners, deporting them, and handing the land to government lackies with zero farming experience. Compare domestic food security in Africa pre and post the 1980's (I'm looking at you, Zimbabwe). 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Rime posted:We'd first have to stop local governments from expropriating farms from experienced owners, deporting them, and handing the land to government lackies with zero farming experience. Compare domestic food security in Africa pre and post the 1980's (I'm looking at you, Zimbabwe). Agreed, they should have enslaved the white farmers and forced them to work for their new black landlords.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Land reform can have big payoffs - Redistributing the property of the old aristocratic classes was a really effective development tool in post-war Japan for example. African states haven't uh... managed the process very well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Watching the documentary "Pump" on Netflix now. I recommend it. Feels like "Who killed the Electric Car?" but from a more modern perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:E: I thought about writing this post after reading this. quote:If we accept Theobald's assertion It's possible that agw is unsolvable but it doesn't look that way. Things will get lovely but people are already moving away from the causes of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
The Internet Makes You Stupid
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
New GISS data. As you can see, global warming stopped in 1998
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
lapse posted:New GISS data. As you can see, global warming stopped in 1998 Now that 2015 seems to have broken all the records, they're going to ditch the "no warming since 1998" and will instead use "no warming since 2015" as their go-to phrase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Now that 2015 seems to have broken all the records, they're going to ditch the "no warming since 1998" and will instead use "no warming since 2015" as their go-to phrase. Best case, we'll go back to +1°C and then climb back to the 2015 value in 10-15 years. Hiatus Hiatus Hiatus 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Woah woah guys let's not jump to conclusions here. I'm sure we'd all love for Arkane to come in here and tell us what this means for the well established Warming Pause, that definitely wasn't just an artifact of a short interval, and definitely hasn't been revised out of existence.
Squalid fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
lapse posted:New GISS data. As you can see, global warming stopped in 1998 As you can see, new technology will easily keep us under 2 degrees C.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
lapse posted:New GISS data. As you can see, global warming stopped in 1998 That +1.5°C target out of Paris sure ain't looking good. Also, December GLOBAL 2015 anomaly: Land +3.40°F 1st Warmest Ocean +1.49°F 1st Warmest Land+Ocean +2.00°F 1st Warmest Whee... p.s. in light of this result, rename thread to "tl;dr we're all hosed" like the (accurate) old thread title. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Gizmodo posted:Now, an independent team of researchers at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has come to the same conclusion, by looking at a much longer historic record. Their analysis, which appears this week in Nature Climate Change, puts the current ocean warming situation in dramatic relief: over the last 18 years, the oceans absorbed roughly the same amount of heat from global warming as they did over the entire 20th century. What’s more, the rate of deep ocean warming is fast accelerating. That could impact everything from marine ecosystems to global sea level. Post is here: http://gizmodo.com/we-know-exactly-where-all-the-heat-from-the-global-warm-1753818194 Paywalled research article here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2915.html Basically the "climate hiatus" was just the ocean absorbing a massive amount of heat energy and we can only guess how bad the effects are going to be. Given how long it took us to reach the tiniest level of political consensus via the Paris Accords, I'm looking forward to seeing this addressed in...50 years or so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Yo Arkane, I know you're not going to show up but I know you're reading this thread sooooo... any response? Yeah, didn't think so. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Though seriously I kind of feel bad for Arkane. The absolute destruction of an ideology based mostly upon politics but also partially upon bullshit science he made up in his own mind is definitely causing some hosed up thoughts in his head at this very moment. I don't think I'm alone in hoping that these hosed up thoughts result in him realizing "holy gently caress I'm an idiot and should seek treatment for my retarded denial of the objective truths which were placed before me, this was surely a mental disorder"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
You're underestimating him. If I had to guess, I'd say that Arkane will be back with the argument that since the oceans are acting as a heat sink with a capacity that matches whatever heat energy we throw at it as a byproduct of global warming then it should be full steam ahead to burn all the gas we want. Also maybe a misconstrued study or two to make it seem like the oceanic acidity and food chain collapse is naturally cyclical and therefore we shouldn't be concerned about it because the system will balance itself out. I went into the wrong line of work, coming up with vaguely scientific anti-climate myths is so simple.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Doesn't work that way. The stages usually are: 1 there's definitely no warming at all 2 science can't determine whether there is any warming, as climate is unpredictable. 3 there is a warming, but we don't know what's causing it 4 there is a warming, and we might be causing it, but is it necessity bad? 5 there is a warming, and we caused it, but it's too late to do anything about it so rock on. Lets hope some sci-fi solution works. Funnily enough, both sides of the debate could end up converging on that fifth one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Arkane's been moving those goalposts since he started posting in the thread(s) so it's not like he actually has something he can double down on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/mystery-beneath-ice.html A good episode of NOVA aired today about Krill. It's about research of Krill in the Southern Oceans, which have declined by at least 50% over the last several decades. Turns out the declining sea ice produced by global warming is likely responsible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
West coast starfish are dying. Biggest wildlife die-off ever recorded. It was only 2-3 years ago that they were commonplace in the puget sound, but they've been so thoroughly devastated by sea star wasting disease, it's likely these starfish will become endangered species.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:West coast starfish are dying. Biggest wildlife die-off ever recorded. It was only 2-3 years ago that they were commonplace in the puget sound, but they've been so thoroughly devastated by sea star wasting disease, it's likely these starfish will become endangered species. It enrages me that every time this gets brought up, a stagnant tidal pool of ignorant fucktards appears and tries to blame it on Fukushima. The timing for that meltdown could not possibly have been worse. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
quote:If we were serious about this stuff beef production would stop almost entirely. It's wasteful in general compared to pork or chicken and produces extra methane on top of that. You may as well ask people to stop throwing away cell phones and tablets every two years (thanks Apple) or to stop buying giant, gas-guzzling luxury trucks for highway office commutes (thanks Ford, GMC and Chevy). quote:5 there is a warming, and we caused it, but it's too late to do anything about it so rock on. Lets hope some sci-fi solution works. I'm pretty much there already. I mean, the things in our culture that need to change are so ingrained (along with the NEVER COMPROMISE rhetoric that advertisers cater to and shove down our throats) that no change will be possible until climate change is very obviously affecting the quality of life for the majority of people . At that point, any efforts will be palliative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:
It's like the end of that terrible movie independence day -we need an unprecedented worldwide response and massive cooperation (and a lot of the changes required would hurt a lot of the countries involved). Except instead of aliens blowing up cites we have computer models telling us unspecified bad things will probably happen at some time in the future. No poo poo it's hard to get things done. Like just look at hurricanes, we have a hard enough time getting people to evacuate for hurricanes barreling down on them because 'maybe the scientist are wrong and it won't be so bad'. The story of humanity is one of using tools, science, and ingenuity to solve problems that have occurred, we are collectively terrible at preemption but great at reaction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
December 2015:quote:The December 2015 globally-averaged temperature across land and ocean surfaces was 1.11°C (2.00°F) above the 20th century average of 12.2°C (54.0°F), the highest for any month since records began in 1880, surpassing the previous all-time record set two months ago in October by 0.12°C (0.21°F). This is the first time the global monthly departure from average has surpassed 1°C and is the largest margin by which an all-time monthly temperature record has been broken. Incredibly, the December 2015 temperature also surpasses the December record temperature set last year by 0.29°C (0.52°F), the largest margin by which a monthly temperature record has been broken for its respective month. quote:Separately, the global land surface temperature was 1.89°C (3.40°F) above average, the highest on record for December, surpassing the previous record set in 2006 by 0.48°C (0.86°F). quote:Australia ended 2015 on a warm note, with its sixth highest December temperature in the country's 106-year period of record, at 1.04°C (1.87°F) higher than the 1961–1990 national average. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Annual Report 2015:quote:The State of the Climate November 2015 report noted that in order for 2015 to not become the warmest year in the 136-year period of record, the December global temperature would have to be at least 0.81°C (1.46°F) below the 20th century average—or 0.24°C (0.43°F) colder than the current record low December temperature of 1916. In fact, December 2015 was the warmest month of any month in the period of record, at 1.11°C (2.00°F) higher than the monthly average, breaking the previous all-time record set just two months ago in October 2015 by 0.12°C (0.21°F).  quote:With the contribution of such record warmth at year's end and with 10 months of the year record warm for their respective months, including the last 8 (January was second warmest for January and April was third warmest), the average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2015 was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), beating the previous record warmth of 2014 by 0.16°C (0.29°F).  Just to remind everyone how hosed we are: quote:The warmth was due to the near-record strong El Niño that developed during the Northern Hemisphere spring in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean and to large regions of record warm and much warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in parts of every major ocean basin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Annual Report 2015: I don't think its logical to draw your conclusion from the evidenced presented. If anything, saving is more important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Sure... if U.S. dollars have a value in the future hellscape. I'm not convinced that they will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Sure... if U.S. dollars have a value in the future hellscape. Why would global climate change end currency in such a way that you can't transfer your wealth later?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:That +1.5°C target out of Paris sure ain't looking good. I'd be the last to deny the old thread title was accurate, but the reason for the new title (and OP) was to try and move the thread's discussion away from how hosed we are (which pretty much everyone at this point knows) and towards what we can do about it. Because, unfortunately, no matter how hosed we already are, we can always be hosed worse. Even if the solutions we implement are too slow and too late to prevent lots of bad things, we still need to implement them because it will prevent even worse things. To put a spotlight on the political and a way to make real gains, for example, I think people should be looking at the presidential election. Looking for groups that are promoting or supporting Bernie Sanders I think has the potential to create a movement or third party that can depart from the absurd inaction of the current political and economic arena. If he wins the primary (unlikely) and election, you might have someone who can use governmental bodies like the EPA to make some pretty big changes and shake up the environmental regulatory agencies so that they're actually enforcing the laws we do have. If he loses the primary (likely), you're going to have a huge number of people who were looking to shake things up who are pissed at both parties and still see the need to address issues like inequality and climate. Linking those people together and running grassroots campaigns and movements could start an avalanche of changes that could actually affect something. The problem isn't that there isn't enough support for a lot of programs that could make a difference, the problem is that they're not organized and running against establishment candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why would global climate change end currency in such a way that you can't transfer your wealth later? If the Republicans get too upset about something before the next time Obama has to request a debt ceiling hike, then investments in dollars could become close to worthless on very the same day. Think about the proportion of US retirement funds that is invested overseas and what would happen to their value if the dollar plunges. And any time in the next 40-50 years (assuming that people reading this are aged 20-40) that a major depression and/or high inflation occurs, investments like pensions are liable to evaporate and leave you/us/him/her high and dry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
It's still probably a good idea to keep a savings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Anecdote: I purchased a home last Fall and within the past month I've completed almost all of the improvements I had planned for it. I replaced single pane windows with triple pane and added 30R worth of blown in insulation to what was previously 8-10R insulation laid down near 50 years ago. The heating bill for a cold month like December (North Pennsylvania) went from over 300 (it was 400 with a room I stopped heating) to 160. It cost 9000 for the upgrades and it looks like the savings should result around 1000 per year and I intend to stay here for 10 years. The quality of life improvements were immense and protecting myself from utility rate increases and overall usage makes it a tremendous investment, especially considering that if I were to sell the house I'd still recoup some of the investment cost. Future proofing your home is a great way to appeal to a wide variety of buyers and I'm sure I'll get at least half my initial 9000 back with a higher asking price. With that out of the way next year I'll be installing a drip irrigation system alongside my house and find out how much food I can grow. Whatever that results in I'll also be buying a large freezer and expanding my cabinet storage so I can store as much food as possible, ideally about 3 months worth of staples such as meat/grains, as well as store any excess from the garden. If I wind up staying here forever I'd even dump money into repairing the roof and installing solar panels attached to a battery system. I get good enough sunlight to make it worthwhile and I bet if I went fully LED and smart electronic set up inside my house I'd be feeding net power into the grid. Whatever comes this century it's guaranteed that there will be volatility with price and access to foodstuffs and power generation as well as economic crises that threaten my livelihood. I feel I must do everything possible to protect myself and my family against that instability. When I drive to work I see houses built anywhere from 20 to a 100 years ago, with most being right around the middle, and I've been in enough of them to know few of them have been upgraded to meet the coming century. It wouldn't take more than a few hundred million dollars to convert my community to match with what I have in addition to installing solar panels and batteries in every house and turning every home into a power plant. We'd be warmer in winter, cooler in the summer and breath healthier air while contributing less to fossil fuels. How does a local government fund something like that? Municipal bonds? If you took out XX million in bonds in Year 1 to fund renovations, focusing on the big items like insulation/draft repair/windows, could you attach an increase in property taxes for each person who participates in the program (say 50 per year per project) as well as another funding mechanism such as an increase in the tax when the property is sold? This program would also provide work for local contractors, not a bad thing, and add to the areas expertise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:How does a local government fund something like that? Municipal bonds? If you took out XX million in bonds in Year 1 to fund renovations, focusing on the big items like insulation/draft repair/windows, could you attach an increase in property taxes for each person who participates in the program (say 50 per year per project) as well as another funding mechanism such as an increase in the tax when the property is sold? This program would also provide work for local contractors, not a bad thing, and add to the areas expertise. It seems like most local governments get most things through property taxes and bonds. I would say that passing a blanket property tax would be a better way to go about it, because non-mandatory participation and a "penalty" tax for those who do participate (that's how it would be viewed) is a great way to get no one to join the program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:It wouldn't take more than a few hundred million dollars to convert my community to match with what I have in addition to installing solar panels and batteries in every house and turning every home into a power plant. We'd be warmer in winter, cooler in the summer and breath healthier air while contributing less to fossil fuels. The ARRA was a good example of a program to do just this. Where the feds ponied up the money. Other times utilities can get regulatory kick-backs where the government pays for efficiency programs they run. The idea being that unless someone subsidizes it, efficiency hurts their bottom line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 06:18
|
|