Climate

And Where it was dry and now wet, you lose the native species and find your remaining plants with higher incidences of disease and bugs, as well as the new ones.

Sure, the bands of where plants can grow may be moving. But, you forget: we are on a size limited planet. those bands can only go so far (how much land is there in the artic circle compared to lower latitudes?) before they reach inhospitable soil types, weather problems, geographical problems ( hard to grow something when the growing area is now in a mountainous zone.....), water supply problems, water oversupply problems, etc. Oh, and dont forget changing food supply problems tend to incite societal unrest and rising prices, and aridification can lead to desertification, so congratualtions, your warmth hardy plants now have nowhere to grow, along with the cold loving plants, leaving you with a food supply trending towards monocultures.....

thinkstoomuch wrote:So if it gets warmer one place grows wheat, where perhaps they grew oats. Guess what they now grow wheat other places that couldn't grow it before. Oat growing belt is now moved. up.

Likewise where it may have been dry it is now wet. Where it was wet is now dry. Various modifications of the above.

Um, that is what happens when it the world wide weather which reflects climate, changes.

Something farmers figured out a few years ago. Who figured out how to grow corn to support the tribe in the America Plains? I'll give you a hint It wasn't the European immigrants(current scientists don't credit to the menfolk either). If a stone age culture can figure it out I think that we should be able to as well.

Good Grief. Read IPCC's own CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers. Stop listening to the alarmist reporters and do your own reading.

T2M

Tenshinai wrote:...snip not even worth repeating...

So we are talking about climate change which gets measured in decades to centuries. You point out that soils require decades to change. You point out Aridification. Leaving IPCC's own report on changing participation patterns. Or technological advances for that matter. Sort of like how the "Great American Desert" became the "Great Bread Basket".

Careful there your conservative fanaticism is showing. No, you read things that reinforce your own pet philosophies and your own biases. Ignoring things that don't fit. Sort of like the Medieval Warming Period that people couldn't believe was a global deal not a European one. (Yet another reason I have difficulty with believing the IPCC. Though it is interesting reading the Climate Deniers as The E calls them they are worse or at least as bad.)

Though I do take Daryl's and Spacekiwi point as significant. Also in a PM exchange, spacekiwi's point about island nations and small changes in sea level. There will be various forms of pain and suffering associated with change. There always is.

Wonder how all those analog computer tech’s are making out? Oh wait, "I r one."

T2M

Spacekiwi wrote:And Where it was dry and now wet, you lose the native species and find your remaining plants with higher incidences of disease and bugs, as well as the new ones.

Sure, the bands of where plants can grow may be moving. But, you forget: we are on a size limited planet. those bands can only go so far (how much land is there in the artic circle compared to lower latitudes?) before they reach inhospitable soil types, weather problems, geographical problems ( hard to grow something when the growing area is now in a mountainous zone.....), water supply problems, water oversupply problems, etc. Oh, and dont forget changing food supply problems tend to incite societal unrest and rising prices, and aridification can lead to desertification, so congratualtions, your warmth hardy plants now have nowhere to grow, along with the cold loving plants, leaving you with a food supply trending towards monocultures.....

Nice distopian picture there. You may be correct. Except, again, where are the technological advances in this. Or for that matter is this going to happen? The climate scientist as a group, IMO, have no credibility. Hockey stick, Medieval Warming Period, historical temps must be adjusted lower, historical temps must be homogenized, original data sets destroyed. The whole Pre-Puebloean(sp) rising and falling in 150 years due to (... climate change archaeologists now think). Its a pretty long list.

As I pointed out to Tenshinai the Europeans showed to North America and called everything west of the Mississippi as a desert. Yet it now grows a vast amount of food. Or California's Central Valley that was even worse.

I am going to leave out the whole Florida thing as bugs are rampant. Well not really as they did a good job draining the swamp, a little aridification was considered a good thing. Which resulted in the capability to grow orange and grapefruit trees (and just about anything else, largest cattle state ) that helped how many kids grow up better. It also leads to its share of problems.

This all reminds me of all those science fiction books and other literature about how we could only get 7 billion people on Earth. We had to kill ALL of the animals to do that. Asimov actually wrote a really good story on this. Yet today how many people are there on earth? Green revolution anyone.

Have fun,
T2M

Well, unless we can create a system or improving technology at an geometric rate, at some point, no matter how fast we innovate, we will fall behind, and technology will only delay the inevitable. As more change occurs, not only will we have to cope with the new change, but also control all the old change, and still hope to manage a given level of normality. That wont end well.

For your hockey stick problems, if 2 dozen or so independent reports using multiple methods cant disporve it, despite the fact that doing so could well make them the richest and most famous scientist on the planet, then what will persuade you its real? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years.

For the medieval warming period, Evidence shows that it was still .1 to .2c below the average temp for 1960 to 91, so we still passed it 2 decades ago, and theres the possibility that it was europe /Nth america centred, with even colder occurences elsewhere to balance it out, so in terms of the mwp, whats the problem? even if it existed, and even taking changes from then as opposed to the colder times which were following the global trned better in the later centuries, we still find a large deviation from the trend which is growing, and that occurs post industrilisation, at an increasing speed, to levels not seen for tens of thousands of years, with several ice ages and other global weather changes between us and that point.

The historical temp adjustment is because as technology and our understanding improves, we can sometimes use a new method, or multiple methods to get a more accurate number. Theres no problem here.

Yes the green revolution helped forestall the problems of overpopulation problems from lack of food supply, however, now we face an even greater problem: this food supply is even more fragile, as it depends on high growth in an area, so any area loss has a greater impact on food production, so if your aridification to open up new farmland isnt happening as fast as your loss of farmland, you have issues. Also, we only delayed the pinch point. While crop yields increased massively thanks to multiple agricultural innovations between 1950 and 2000 or so, since then the improvements in yields has been dropping, and if it stops, you are back to the problems we had pre green revolution, only at a much larger scale.


As much as humanity doesnt like to admit it, we are facing a crux point in the future, and whether or not its is of our doing, unless steps are taken to combat it, we may well be having civilisation sized problems by the end of the century.

thinkstoomuch wrote:
Nice distopian picture there. You may be correct. Except, again, where are the technological advances in this. Or for that matter is this going to happen? The climate scientist as a group, IMO, have no credibility. Hockey stick, Medieval Warming Period, historical temps must be adjusted lower, historical temps must be homogenized, original data sets destroyed. The whole Pre-Puebloean(sp) rising and falling in 150 years due to (... climate change archaeologists now think). Its a pretty long list.

As I pointed out to Tenshinai the Europeans showed to North America and called everything west of the Mississippi as a desert. Yet it now grows a vast amount of food. Or California's Central Valley that was even worse.

I am going to leave out the whole Florida thing as bugs are rampant. Well not really as they did a good job draining the swamp, a little aridification was considered a good thing. Which resulted in the capability to grow orange and grapefruit trees (and just about anything else, largest cattle state ) that helped how many kids grow up better. It also leads to its share of problems.

This all reminds me of all those science fiction books and other literature about how we could only get 7 billion people on Earth. We had to kill ALL of the animals to do that. Asimov actually wrote a really good story on this. Yet today how many people are there on earth? Green revolution anyone.

Have fun,
T2M

Spacekiwi wrote:...snip not really going to argue...

As much as humanity doesn't like to admit it, we are facing a crux point in the future, and whether or not its is of our doing, unless steps are taken to combat it, we may well be having civilisation sized problems by the end of the century.

I will say that quoting climate scientist to support climate scientists is rather circular. But not going to argue it. Just stating my personal belief's and problems with it.

For the quoted part.

Which is the same thing that was said in the 50's and 60's about the population problem. Well they said it was an exponential problem,

Or President Carter's people who said we are going to run out of oil in the 90's.

<shrug>

Guess I am more optimistic about humans.

Enjoy,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:...snip not really going to argue...

As much as humanity doesn't like to admit it, we are facing a crux point in the future, and whether or not its is of our doing, unless steps are taken to combat it, we may well be having civilisation sized problems by the end of the century.

I will say that quoting climate scientist to support climate scientists is rather circular. But not going to argue it.

Probably a good decision not to do so since you would have looked ridiculous. Quoting *experts in the field you are speaking about* is not in any way circular logic.

You know sometimes those little factoids just leap out and grab ya.

For instance which state had a greater reduction in CO2. Florida or California? Next which state had a greater population growth?

Next which country is emitting less C02 than 2000. By 9.6%.

Though Germany does it better or worse depending on which news articles you go by.

For the US (not even sure how to measure all this stuff in other countries):
http://www.eia.gov/environment/emission ... table1.pdf

Actually stumbled across this factoid looking for the FPL emissions per Mwh for the water heater topic. Scatter brained are me.

Have fun,
T2M

PS Definition of factoid-a brief or trivial item of news or information.

It was a potential exponential problem, but we managed to through various means create an exponential growth in our food supply for those decades through better technology and industrialisation of many countries. but now its leveling off while the population continues to grow, so while the population growth may be less now as compared to then, the food growth is even less, so we are back at square one.

As for the carter speech, well, back then, had we continued as normal, we may well have been staring at problems this last decade, although probably not as bad as he envisioned. If you read his speech, he notes that at the time, the US demand for oil gre at around 5+% p.a, and was hitting levels much higher than that ( pull the excel sheet from http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html, and flick to the consumption pages, basing calculations off these). World Oil use in 1960 was 1.5billion tons, 2.25b tons in 70, 2.97b tons in 80, 3.16 in 90, 3.58b tons in 2000, 4.04b tons in 2010, and as of the end of bps data in 2014, 4.21b tons. Now if you graph all the years, you may note that there seems to be one trend pre 1979 or so with one growth rate, and post 83, a much slower growth in worldwide energy use. So lets look at the first trend that carter was attempting to stem.

Between 165 and 1977, on average, including 73 and 74 where oil use dropped, the average growth in oil concumption was 5.7% growth per year. Had this growth rate continued, between 77 and 2014 we would have seen a 1.057^27 growth in oil use, or about 4.46 times 1977 world oil use. This would put our world oil requirement at 4.46*2.966 = 14.9b tons or so, but to account for rounding, call it 13.2b tons. Current oil use as of 2014 was 4.2b tons. See a problem here? Under the old growth rates, we are looking at having needed 3.15 times the amount of oil every year as we do now. So, when Carter gave that speech, yes there was a problem, as by this point in time, had we carried on as normal, we would be needing an addition 9 Billion Tons of oil every year to meet demand.


Now, looking at post 83, the average over all these years comes out to 1.38% average, So reducing our oil use growth rate has probably stopped Carter prediction from happening when it did, but doing so required changing the way we do things.




[quote="thinkstoomuch

For the quoted part.

Which is the same thing that was said in the 50's and 60's about the population problem. Well they said it was an exponential problem,

Or President Carter's people who said we are going to run out of oil in the 90's.

<shrug>

Guess I am more optimistic about humans.

Enjoy,
T2M[/quote]

Spacekiwi wrote:It was a potential exponential problem, but we managed to through various means create an exponential growth in our food supply for those decades through better technology and industrialisation of many countries. but now its leveling off while the population continues to grow, so while the population growth may be less now as compared to then, the food growth is even less, so we are back at square one.

As for the carter speech, well, back then, had we continued as normal, we may well have been staring at problems this last decade, although probably not as bad as he envisioned. If you read his speech, he notes that at the time, the US demand for oil gre at around 5+% p.a, and was hitting levels much higher than that ( pull the excel sheet from http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html, and flick to the consumption pages, basing calculations off these). World Oil use in 1960 was 1.5billion tons, 2.25b tons in 70, 2.97b tons in 80, 3.16 in 90, 3.58b tons in 2000, 4.04b tons in 2010, and as of the end of bps data in 2014, 4.21b tons. Now if you graph all the years, you may note that there seems to be one trend pre 1979 or so with one growth rate, and post 83, a much slower growth in worldwide energy use. So lets look at the first trend that carter was attempting to stem.

Between 165 and 1977, on average, including 73 and 74 where oil use dropped, the average growth in oil concumption was 5.7% growth per year. Had this growth rate continued, between 77 and 2014 we would have seen a 1.057^27 growth in oil use, or about 4.46 times 1977 world oil use. This would put our world oil requirement at 4.46*2.966 = 14.9b tons or so, but to account for rounding, call it 13.2b tons. Current oil use as of 2014 was 4.2b tons. See a problem here? Under the old growth rates, we are looking at having needed 3.15 times the amount of oil every year as we do now. So, when Carter gave that speech, yes there was a problem, as by this point in time, had we carried on as normal, we would be needing an addition 9 Billion Tons of oil every year to meet demand.


Now, looking at post 83, the average over all these years comes out to 1.38% average, So reducing our oil use growth rate has probably stopped Carter prediction from happening when it did, but doing so required changing the way we do things.

I really do think we are not communicating well. Forest and tress problem maybe. I meant to be pointing out that scientists have been predicting the end is neigh, might as well be preachers, for the most part for quite a while. Might talk about nuclear winter as well. Yet we are still here. But if you want collection plate filled ...


Post rambles my apologies.

How many farmers did the west put out of business in Africa by offering free food. Kind of hard to compete with free. Same problem I have with the various US farm aid bills. Pay people not to grow stuff and such. Though there does need to be regulation about down stream affects. The US is mandated 10% food into my gas to save the environment making a worse mess of the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.



But we still have 53 years of oil left. Something like 20 years after we were supposed to run out. Guess that will solve the oil part of the CO2 emissions.

Why are we using less today than we did then? Technology had nothing to do with it? Did you happen to look at that last post of mine. Florida whose population grew by ~22% is emitting 9.1% less CO2 than it did in 2000. Why is that? Technology wouldn't have a thing to do with it.

California, with tree hugging culture and government intervention, did alright they reduced CO2 output by 7.5% yet their population only grew by 14%.

Florida has its share of climate deniers and greenies managed much better results.

How is New Zealand doing compared to 2000?


For that matter how many people actually measure their carbon footprint? My house around 1.5 tons a year. My ~50 mpg vehicle (using 80's tech if you are generous) 322 gallons of gas to go 16+k miles. Not so good ~3.15 tons. According to the EIA. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11 Of course if we count that food we put in the tank it goes down by 2 pounds a gallon. Or the fact of a new car costs as much to produce as for one year of operation. My vehicle is 8 years old. Average greenie I don't know but seems a lot less and gets less fuel mileage from what I have observed.

Of course it could be as was pointed on Energy Matters a good economic depression is a great way to save CO2 as well. <shrug>

Have fun,
T2M

PS Random stray thought how many people have been killed installing solar panels. Wonder how that compares to people killed in Nuclear plant accidents. Might have to look that up.

An addendum.

My computer uses max of 40 watts. My 23' monitor 28. Of course I bought the computer 8 years ago because it was cheap and would travel. It was an old design when I bought it new.

I know I can run the computer alone for 6 hours on its 48 wh battery and a 78 wh lithium battery pack from camping out. which I am hoping 20 watts of solar panels will make good. I'll see.

So how much energy does your computer use? Do you even know? What is its Carbon footprint?

Daryl no fair you have to count it as you could be powering your Neighbor's.

Enjoy the day,
T2M