• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the Little Ice Age anthropogenic?

Tim the plumber said:
I think it is more likely that the vast growth of the Amazon rain forrest after the arrival of the European diease set would be the thing that would have reduced the CO2 in the air.

Although it is below hypothesis for me, just idea level.
Click to expand...

Yep.

No way to really know, without a time machine.
 
Visbek said:
Wheat doesn't do well in droughts, heat waves or excessive precipitation -- all consequences of warming.

By the way, all three of those hit Europe this year, and has reduced crop yields, resulting in the lowest yields in 6 years. While not all of the impacts are due to warming, there should be no doubt that the record-breaking temperatures and heat waves this year, which are exacerbated by climate change, are a factor in crop losses.
Click to expand...

Cyclical weather changes are natural.

Only a fool takes a solid stance it was from AGW.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Cyclical weather changes are natural.

Only a fool takes a solid stance it was from AGW.
Click to expand...
The changes we're seeing in climate over the past ~150 years are not natural.

Only a fool takes a solid stance that AGW has no role in the frequency and intensity of heat waves in 2018.
 
Visbek said:
Only a fool takes a solid stance that AGW has no role in the frequency and intensity of heat waves in 2018.
Click to expand...

Only a fool things I said such things.
 
Visbek said:
The changes we're seeing in climate over the past ~150 years are not natural.

Only a fool takes a solid stance that AGW has no role in the frequency and intensity of heat waves in 2018.
Click to expand...

Not no role. CO2 has a minor role.
 
Visbek said:
The changes we're seeing in climate over the past ~150 years are not natural.

Only a fool takes a solid stance that AGW has no role in the frequency and intensity of heat waves in 2018.
Click to expand...

Yea...we've never had heat waves...it's ALL natural. Man cannot change the climate if we tried.
 
Visbek said:
Wheat doesn't do well in droughts, heat waves or excessive precipitation -- all consequences of warming.

By the way, all three of those hit Europe this year, and has reduced crop yields, resulting in the lowest yields in 6 years. While not all of the impacts are due to warming, there should be no doubt that the record-breaking temperatures and heat waves this year, which are exacerbated by climate change, are a factor in crop losses.
Click to expand...

We grow a LOT of wheat in desert conditions, right here in Washington (and Oregon), as correctly pointed out by Lord of Planar. It gets pretty hot out there too, easily into the 100's on some days. Wheat is also grown on the 'wet' side of the mountains, although we tend to grow more corn there. Wheat likes water. They irrigate it in eastern Oregon and Washington, they don't really have to on the 'wet' side. We irrigate the corn though. It likes more moisture.

All of our crops are doing just fine.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not no role. CO2 has a minor role.
Click to expand...

None. Zero. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

A 'heat wave' is a subjective thing. What is a 'heat wave', quantitatively? I think Visbek's claim of more 'heat waves' is yet more made up crap.
 
Into the Night said:
None. Zero. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

A 'heat wave' is a subjective thing. What is a 'heat wave', quantitatively? I think Visbek's claim of more 'heat waves' is yet more made up crap.
Click to expand...

Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming ...

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/


by H Harde - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
Nov 1, 2016 - International Journal of Atmospheric Sciences is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles as well as ...

Abstract


We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of Cs = 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of Ss = 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.
 
Visbek said:
Wheat doesn't do well in droughts, heat waves or excessive precipitation -- all consequences of warming.

By the way, all three of those hit Europe this year, and has reduced crop yields, resulting in the lowest yields in 6 years. While not all of the impacts are due to warming, there should be no doubt that the record-breaking temperatures and heat waves this year, which are exacerbated by climate change, are a factor in crop losses.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that a slight warming will cause droughts in wide spread agricultural areas. The only place where warmer climate is associated with drought is maybe the American South west. Although the times when that happened seen also to be the times of the growth of proto-civilizations.

Heat waves with lots of water are very good for wheat.

The european wheat harvest is at an historic extreme high level. Lowest in 6 years? So what?
 
Jack Hays said:
Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming ...
Click to expand...
This paper is filled with a lot of random numbers that they are using for 'data'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth. This paper just assumes numbers. This is actually pretty common. Lots of idiots write papers. They even get 'peer reviewed' by some magazine and published.

Consensus is not used in science. Peer reviews are not a required part of science. They are done by magazines editors. There is no elite voting bloc that determines whether a theory is a scientific one or not. There is no requirement to publish in a particular magazine. Science isn't a magazine. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states the radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4. This law can be constructed from Planck's law by integrating it over all frequencies of light. It therefore is not sensitive to any frequency of light. It has no such term in the equation. Since emissivity is a measured constant, and the SBconstant is a constant used to convert the equation to our units of measurement, the only independent variable is temperature. If temperature increases, radiance MUST increase.

The argument the Church of Global Warming uses for CO2 is that it inhibits infrared light from leaving Earth, either like a Magick Blanket, or as a Magick One Way Mirror (the two common forms of the 'greenhouse' effect argument). Either one means you are reducing radiance while temperature is increasing. This is in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The so-called 'greenhouse effect' argument also attempts to heat the surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere. Absorption of infrared light by any gas does not warm the surface. The surface is COOLED by that action. It is just another way for the surface to transfer some of it's energy to the atmosphere. Since it is not possible for heat to flow from cold to hot, this part of the 'greenhouse effect' argument is attempting to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The Sun is a remarkably stable star. The output of its energy has been pretty constant. Since it is the only significant source of energy for Earth, and it takes energy to raise the temperature of anything, this means the 'greenhouse effect' argument is essentially claiming that CO2 (or some other magick gas) is adding energy to the Earth. These are not energy sources. Therefore, the 'greenhouse effect' argument is creating energy out of nothing. It is in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

The daylit side of the outer skin of the ISS, which orbits Earth, can reach temperatures of 250 deg F. There is no significant atmosphere, no water vapor, no CO2, no methane, no 'greenhouse' gas. Meanwhile, here on Earth, nowhere does the surface get anywhere near that hot. If CO2 (or any other magick gas) warms the Earth, why is the daytime temperature at the surface so much COLDER? The Church of Global Warming can't explain this paradox. The closest they come is that the magick gas warms the Earth at night, when THERE IS NO SUN!

The 'greenhouse gas' argument isn't even a theory, since a theory is an explanatory argument. It is internally inconsistent. You see, no one in the Church of Global Warming has been able to define what 'global warming' or 'climate change' actually mean without using circular definitions (sometimes involving 'greenhouse gas' as an intermediary). Any argument (including any theory) built from these terms are therefore a void argument, which is a fallacy. The argument is invalid. Not theory can be constructed from an invalid argument (the test of internal consistency). This includes nonscientific theories as well as scientific ones.

There are a ton of papers that just assume 'global warming' or 'climate change' is taking place. The problem with depending on the arguments of others too much is that you never gain the skills to critically analyze an argument (including this one!). The problem with depending on scientists to make your argument for you is that scientists are people. They have religions, political leanings, etc. just like any people. Many worship the religion of the Church of Global Warming. This affects the papers they write. It is one of the reasons that consensus is not used in science, and credentials mean nothing in science.

Science does not use supporting evidence, does not use consensus, does not depend on peer reviews or magazines or journals, does not depend on credentials, is not owned by any government, university, society, academy, or any other bit of politics. Science isn't even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. If a theory is falsifiable, and withstands attempts to destroy it, it is automatically part of the body of science. No peer review needed.
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
There is no evidence that a slight warming will cause droughts in wide spread agricultural areas.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Global temperatures will only cause droughts in "wide spread agricultural areas?" Do we really need to go down that rabbit hole? Do you have any research to support that claim?


Heat waves with lots of water are very good for wheat.
Click to expand...
No, it's that heat waves are bad for wheat, but some of the damage can be mitigated by lots of water. Guess what? The same conditions which make it too hot and dry for wheat also causes... wait for it... droughts, meaning that "lots of water" is not available. That's what is happening right now in Europe.


The european wheat harvest is at an historic extreme high level. Lowest in 6 years? So what?[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
Agricultural yields have gone up over time not because of environmental conditions, but because of a variety of advancements in agricultural technology. The demand for food is also at record highs.

The "so what" is that this is just a taste of the future. More heat waves and more droughts will impact yields, drive up prices, and possibly even cause shortages. As temperatures continue to rise, and the need for food increases, it's going to have a larger impact over time. (I will say that rising prices is likely to reduce food waste, a common practice in the US; but it will also increase the cost of living for the poorest in the world.)

By the way, aren't you the one who screams bloody murder over diverting agricultural production to ethanol? But when warming harms yields and causes prices to spike, it's no big deal? Nice. Real nice.
 
longview said:
How would a book written in 1493, have any data on the practices of native Americans.
I do not think the Spanish had much contact with the mainland by 1493.
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo
 
Visbek said:
Seriously? Global temperatures will only cause droughts in "wide spread agricultural areas?" Do we really need to go down that rabbit hole? Do you have any research to support that claim?
Click to expand...

If you can show some scientific paper which shows that a +2-3c warming will cause widespread drought in agricultural areas you should show it. It is you wjho is making the positive claim. You need to provide the evidence.

No, it's that heat waves are bad for wheat, but some of the damage can be mitigated by lots of water. Guess what? The same conditions which make it too hot and dry for wheat also causes... wait for it... droughts, meaning that "lots of water" is not available. That's what is happening right now in Europe.
Click to expand...

For those who havew no clue about basic weather science I will explain this slowly; The jet stream has wandered to an unusual position this year. It does this randomly every now and again. This has resulted in the usual position of the decending air which causes high pressure zones to be in a different position. See Hadly cells. This has made the skies clear of clouds and thus in summer we get long hot sunny days.

That is not at all the same as a general warming. Different thing.

Agricultural yields have gone up over time not because of environmental conditions, but because of a variety of advancements in agricultural technology. The demand for food is also at record highs.
Click to expand...

Increased CO2 and increased warmth will generally make plants grow more. Yealds have also increased due to other factors. The other factors, of improved crops and fertilisers, are of greater importance than the very very slight warming and increased CO2.

The "so what" is that this is just a taste of the future. More heat waves and more droughts will impact yields, drive up prices, and possibly even cause shortages. As temperatures continue to rise, and the need for food increases, it's going to have a larger impact over time. (I will say that rising prices is likely to reduce food waste, a common practice in the US; but it will also increase the cost of living for the poorest in the world.)
Click to expand...

Evidence?

By the way, aren't you the one who screams bloody murder over diverting agricultural production to ethanol? But when warming harms yields and causes prices to spike, it's no big deal? Nice. Real nice.
Click to expand...

The cosy of basic food stuff is about double the price it should be. This consistent artifically, unnecessarily, created hunger is indeed killing many millions of people per year. It is also massively reducing the rate of wealt gain by the poor of the world. You are paying about $700 a year more for food than you should be. Or more.

Whilst I do not like the fat that this year's crop yeald has been slightly down it is a tiny change of the order of a few percent over the world. That 40% of US grain and a similar amount of EU food is used as fuel, to no significant CO2 reduction, as well as cerial being bought from international markets to make fuel, on a consistent basis for the last 20 years is obviously the greatest crime against humanity since the Mongol invaisions.

The further effect of impoverishment and slow starving of the poor means that they are forced to migrate to the lands where nobody dies of hunger. The risks of crossing the Sahara, iimprisonment and torture in Lybia, crossing the Mediteranian whilst unable to swim and hoping that some Western boat will rescue you is worth it due to our economic manipulation which has created this horror of manufactured poverty and hunger.

EU food production down by 1 due to weather. World food prices up by 10 always due to deliberate evil.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you can show some scientific paper which shows that a +2-3c warming will cause widespread drought in agricultural areas you should show it....
Click to expand...
You also made a positive claim, which is why I asked you to back it up.

But since you asked....

Climate Change, Water and Food Security. 200 page United Nations report
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2096e/i2096e.pdf

Impacted areas by 2100. I'm guessing some of those are "agricultural areas."

Climate Effects on Water.jpg

A sampling of recent articles
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2317
Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030 | Science
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1585


And of course, one should look at IPCC AR5 Impacts, Part 1, pp 485-534, "Food Security and Food Production." Just a few key points:

• Climate change is already impacting agriculture, with more negatives than positives.
• Rising CO2 stimulates yields -- but rising O3 damages yields. CO2 also promotes the growth of invasive weeds.
• Climate change is affecting land and marine food sources.
• "Studies have documented a large negative sensitivity of crop yields to extreme daytime temperatures around 30°C." Raise your hand if that surprises you.
• These impacts are likely to cause food prices to rise significantly by 2050.


For those who havew no clue about basic weather science I will explain this slowly...
Click to expand...
Yes... And because the globe is warmer than it was in 1850, this means that those types of changes to the jet stream are more likely to cause heat waves and droughts than in the pre-industrial era.

For those who have no clue about "weather science" (more commonly known as "meteorology," though we're really discussing climate science), I will type the following metaphor slowly:

If you have a 100ml cylinder that contains 50ml of water, and you add 25ml of water, then it's not going to overflow. However, if you have 80ml of water in your cylinder, and you add the same 25ml, what happens? It overflows. The higher initial level of water did not cause anyone to pour the additional 25ml into the cylinder, but it did result in the overflow.​

See how that works?


Increased CO2 and increased warmth will generally make plants grow more. Yealds have also increased due to other factors. The other factors, of improved crops and fertilisers, are of greater importance than the very very slight warming and increased CO2.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean that you can grow grains at any temperature, or that all grains are completely immune to drought. (We haven't even discussed livestock.) You didn't miss the part about how higher global temperatures cause more droughts, right...?


The cosy of basic food stuff is about double the price it should be.
Click to expand...
That's quite the claim. Have fun proving that.


This consistent artifically, unnecessarily, created hunger is indeed killing many millions of people per year.
Click to expand...
Ooooh, so close.

Hunger is, for the most part, unnecessary. But not for the reasons you're citing.

Agricultural yields are more than sufficient to feed everyone on the planet, and that's been the case for years and years. We could easily afford to feed the entire world. Prices are not the main impediment.

Government policies have a variety of effects -- some drive prices up, but many drive prices down. For every ethanol mandate and tariff, there are a dozen subsidy programs which reduce prices. E.g. corn in the US is incredibly cheap and ubiquitous (HFCS anyone?) due to subsidies.

Many famines today don't happen because of a simple shortage of food. What often happens now is that an environmental condition (like a drought) hits an area in a conflict zone, which prevents food aid from reaching those in need. That's why we don't see massive famines in areas like India any more -- they are peaceful, so if a drought hits, governments and international aid organizations can supply food. Or, in a handful of cases (like Venezuela or Zimbabwe) the problems are purely political.

As climate change gets worse, we'll have more heat waves and droughts, which will threaten yields, drive up prices and threaten food security. It may well outstrip technical improvements which increase yields, especially as we're already facing water shortages. Thus, it seems odd to scream bloody murder about ethanol mandates (which has not actually impacted food prices enough to starve anyone, and environmentalists don't support anyway), while you act like climate change will be no big.
 
Visbek said:
You also made a positive claim, which is why I asked you to back it up.

But since you asked....

Climate Change, Water and Food Security. 200 page United Nations report
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2096e/i2096e.pdf

Impacted areas by 2100. I'm guessing some of those are "agricultural areas."

View attachment 67239071

A sampling of recent articles
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2317
Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030 | Science
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1585


And of course, one should look at IPCC AR5 Impacts, Part 1, pp 485-534, "Food Security and Food Production." Just a few key points:

• Climate change is already impacting agriculture, with more negatives than positives.
• Rising CO2 stimulates yields -- but rising O3 damages yields. CO2 also promotes the growth of invasive weeds.
• Climate change is affecting land and marine food sources.
• "Studies have documented a large negative sensitivity of crop yields to extreme daytime temperatures around 30°C." Raise your hand if that surprises you.
• These impacts are likely to cause food prices to rise significantly by 2050.



Yes... And because the globe is warmer than it was in 1850, this means that those types of changes to the jet stream are more likely to cause heat waves and droughts than in the pre-industrial era.

For those who have no clue about "weather science" (more commonly known as "meteorology," though we're really discussing climate science), I will type the following metaphor slowly:

If you have a 100ml cylinder that contains 50ml of water, and you add 25ml of water, then it's not going to overflow. However, if you have 80ml of water in your cylinder, and you add the same 25ml, what happens? It overflows. The higher initial level of water did not cause anyone to pour the additional 25ml into the cylinder, but it did result in the overflow.​

See how that works?



That doesn't mean that you can grow grains at any temperature, or that all grains are completely immune to drought. (We haven't even discussed livestock.) You didn't miss the part about how higher global temperatures cause more droughts, right...?



That's quite the claim. Have fun proving that.



Ooooh, so close.

Hunger is, for the most part, unnecessary. But not for the reasons you're citing.

Agricultural yields are more than sufficient to feed everyone on the planet, and that's been the case for years and years. We could easily afford to feed the entire world. Prices are not the main impediment.

Government policies have a variety of effects -- some drive prices up, but many drive prices down. For every ethanol mandate and tariff, there are a dozen subsidy programs which reduce prices. E.g. corn in the US is incredibly cheap and ubiquitous (HFCS anyone?) due to subsidies.

Many famines today don't happen because of a simple shortage of food. What often happens now is that an environmental condition (like a drought) hits an area in a conflict zone, which prevents food aid from reaching those in need. That's why we don't see massive famines in areas like India any more -- they are peaceful, so if a drought hits, governments and international aid organizations can supply food. Or, in a handful of cases (like Venezuela or Zimbabwe) the problems are purely political.

As climate change gets worse, we'll have more heat waves and droughts, which will threaten yields, drive up prices and threaten food security. It may well outstrip technical improvements which increase yields, especially as we're already facing water shortages. Thus, it seems odd to scream bloody murder about ethanol mandates (which has not actually impacted food prices enough to starve anyone, and environmentalists don't support anyway), while you act like climate change will be no big.
Click to expand...

A very large load of propaganda BS.:bs
 
Visbek said:
You also made a positive claim, which is why I asked you to back it up.

But since you asked....

Climate Change, Water and Food Security. 200 page United Nations report
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2096e/i2096e.pdf

Impacted areas by 2100. I'm guessing some of those are "agricultural areas."

View attachment 67239071

A sampling of recent articles
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2317
Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030 | Science
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1585


And of course, one should look at IPCC AR5 Impacts, Part 1, pp 485-534, "Food Security and Food Production." Just a few key points:

• Climate change is already impacting agriculture, with more negatives than positives.
• Rising CO2 stimulates yields -- but rising O3 damages yields. CO2 also promotes the growth of invasive weeds.
• Climate change is affecting land and marine food sources.
• "Studies have documented a large negative sensitivity of crop yields to extreme daytime temperatures around 30°C." Raise your hand if that surprises you.
• These impacts are likely to cause food prices to rise significantly by 2050.



Yes... And because the globe is warmer than it was in 1850, this means that those types of changes to the jet stream are more likely to cause heat waves and droughts than in the pre-industrial era.

For those who have no clue about "weather science" (more commonly known as "meteorology," though we're really discussing climate science), I will type the following metaphor slowly:

If you have a 100ml cylinder that contains 50ml of water, and you add 25ml of water, then it's not going to overflow. However, if you have 80ml of water in your cylinder, and you add the same 25ml, what happens? It overflows. The higher initial level of water did not cause anyone to pour the additional 25ml into the cylinder, but it did result in the overflow.​

See how that works?



That doesn't mean that you can grow grains at any temperature, or that all grains are completely immune to drought. (We haven't even discussed livestock.) You didn't miss the part about how higher global temperatures cause more droughts, right...?



That's quite the claim. Have fun proving that.



Ooooh, so close.

Hunger is, for the most part, unnecessary. But not for the reasons you're citing.

Agricultural yields are more than sufficient to feed everyone on the planet, and that's been the case for years and years. We could easily afford to feed the entire world. Prices are not the main impediment.

Government policies have a variety of effects -- some drive prices up, but many drive prices down. For every ethanol mandate and tariff, there are a dozen subsidy programs which reduce prices. E.g. corn in the US is incredibly cheap and ubiquitous (HFCS anyone?) due to subsidies.

Many famines today don't happen because of a simple shortage of food. What often happens now is that an environmental condition (like a drought) hits an area in a conflict zone, which prevents food aid from reaching those in need. That's why we don't see massive famines in areas like India any more -- they are peaceful, so if a drought hits, governments and international aid organizations can supply food. Or, in a handful of cases (like Venezuela or Zimbabwe) the problems are purely political.

As climate change gets worse, we'll have more heat waves and droughts, which will threaten yields, drive up prices and threaten food security. It may well outstrip technical improvements which increase yields, especially as we're already facing water shortages. Thus, it seems odd to scream bloody murder about ethanol mandates (which has not actually impacted food prices enough to starve anyone, and environmentalists don't support anyway), while you act like climate change will be no big.
Click to expand...

Your articles linked to, the few I could get to which were not behind paywalls or about ozone rather than climate change which say that soya and maize which grow very well in Brazil are not going to grow as well in the US due to a +2c temperature rise I call out as lies.

The sudden fmines which draw the news crews are not caused solely by the use of food as fuel. They are, as you say, caused by droughts and wars.

The on-going hunger of the poorest 3 billion people is caused by the fact of food prices being twice what they should be. I know you don't like to think about poor people and do not choose to even consider the 3 billion people living on less than $2.50 a day as people at all but I am different. I do think they should not be shafted in this way.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Your articles linked to, the few I could get to which were not behind paywalls or about ozone rather than climate change which say that soya and maize which grow very well in Brazil are not going to grow as well in the US due to a +2c temperature rise I call out as lies.
Click to expand...
Ooooookay

• The 200 page UN report is public.
• IPCC is public. Do you really need me to provide a link? It's not like this is the first time anyone here has discussed IPCC documents.
• The idea that you can refute research simply by calling it a lie, with no evidence and no apparent knowledge of agriculture science, is hilarious.
• You asked for studies, I gave you studies. In other words: I didn't pull this out of thin air.


The sudden fmines which draw the news crews are not caused solely by the use of food as fuel. They are, as you say, caused by droughts and wars.
Click to expand...
Yes, and again.... Droughts and heat waves are becoming more frequent, and more intense, and thus more damaging, as the climate warms. And again, water is already a precious resource, meaning we cannot simply offset temperatures with more irrigation. E.g. California was hit by multiple years of drought (2011-2017), the driest period on record, and a condition compounded by extensive agriculture in the Central Valley, as well as growing water-hungry crops like almonds.

At any rate, the causality here is not that complicated, and there is lots of research to back up these claims.


The on-going hunger of the poorest 3 billion people is caused by the fact of food prices being twice what they should be. I know you don't like to think about poor people and do not choose to even consider the 3 billion people living on less than $2.50 a day as people at all but I am different. I do think they should not be shafted in this way.
Click to expand...
• The measure for extreme global poverty is actually around $2.10 per day.

• The current number is nowhere near 3 billion. It's closer to 800 million, and falling fast (in part due to expansion of international trade btw; most of the gains are in China and India.) Your numbers are way out of date. (Charts below are indexed for inflation, by the way.)

World-Poverty-Since-1820.png


world_pop_extreme_poverty.png



• Since you missed it, pretty much all of the research on this issue indicates that it's the poor people who will get hit the hardest by the impact of climate change on agriculture. E.g. They will have the most trouble buying more expensive food, or competing for increasingly precious water supplies. And of course, these hundreds of millions already have issues with food security.

• I asked you to prove that "food prices are twice what they should be." You failed to do so. I can back up my claims, can you?
 
Visbek said:
Ooooookay

• The 200 page UN report is public.
• IPCC is public. Do you really need me to provide a link? It's not like this is the first time anyone here has discussed IPCC documents.
• The idea that you can refute research simply by calling it a lie, with no evidence and no apparent knowledge of agriculture science, is hilarious.
• You asked for studies, I gave you studies. In other words: I didn't pull this out of thin air.



Yes, and again.... Droughts and heat waves are becoming more frequent, and more intense, and thus more damaging, as the climate warms. And again, water is already a precious resource, meaning we cannot simply offset temperatures with more irrigation. E.g. California was hit by multiple years of drought (2011-2017), the driest period on record, and a condition compounded by extensive agriculture in the Central Valley, as well as growing water-hungry crops like almonds.

At any rate, the causality here is not that complicated, and there is lots of research to back up these claims.



• The measure for extreme global poverty is actually around $2.10 per day.

• The current number is nowhere near 3 billion. It's closer to 800 million, and falling fast (in part due to expansion of international trade btw; most of the gains are in China and India.) Your numbers are way out of date. (Charts below are indexed for inflation, by the way.)

World-Poverty-Since-1820.png


world_pop_extreme_poverty.png



• Since you missed it, pretty much all of the research on this issue indicates that it's the poor people who will get hit the hardest by the impact of climate change on agriculture. E.g. They will have the most trouble buying more expensive food, or competing for increasingly precious water supplies. And of course, these hundreds of millions already have issues with food security.

• I asked you to prove that "food prices are twice what they should be." You failed to do so. I can back up my claims, can you?
Click to expand...

A thorough takedown.

I expect he will wait three months and bring this up again, pretending no one ever ripped him apart in the past.
 
Visbek said:
Ooooookay

• The 200 page UN report is public.
• IPCC is public. Do you really need me to provide a link? It's not like this is the first time anyone here has discussed IPCC documents.
• The idea that you can refute research simply by calling it a lie, with no evidence and no apparent knowledge of agriculture science, is hilarious.
• You asked for studies, I gave you studies. In other words: I didn't pull this out of thin air.



Yes, and again.... Droughts and heat waves are becoming more frequent, and more intense, and thus more damaging, as the climate warms. And again, water is already a precious resource, meaning we cannot simply offset temperatures with more irrigation. E.g. California was hit by multiple years of drought (2011-2017), the driest period on record, and a condition compounded by extensive agriculture in the Central Valley, as well as growing water-hungry crops like almonds.

At any rate, the causality here is not that complicated, and there is lots of research to back up these claims.



• The measure for extreme global poverty is actually around $2.10 per day.

• The current number is nowhere near 3 billion. It's closer to 800 million, and falling fast (in part due to expansion of international trade btw; most of the gains are in China and India.) Your numbers are way out of date. (Charts below are indexed for inflation, by the way.)

World-Poverty-Since-1820.png


world_pop_extreme_poverty.png



• Since you missed it, pretty much all of the research on this issue indicates that it's the poor people who will get hit the hardest by the impact of climate change on agriculture. E.g. They will have the most trouble buying more expensive food, or competing for increasingly precious water supplies. And of course, these hundreds of millions already have issues with food security.

• I asked you to prove that "food prices are twice what they should be." You failed to do so. I can back up my claims, can you?
Click to expand...

1, How much do you think removing 40% of US grain and a similar amount of EU food as well as buying some of the rest of the world has on food prices? I think it would halve if we stopped doing that.

2, Do you think that $2.50 a day is not poverty? I do think that is a very poor level of wealth and that is 3 billion people.

4, Yep, my saying that wheat will grow much worse in the US with a +2c temperature rise because the evidence of wheat growing in Saudia Arabia in a much hotter climate trumps any number of studies by anybody at all.
 
Threegoofs said:
A thorough takedown.

I expect he will wait three months and bring this up again, pretending no one ever ripped him apart in the past.
Click to expand...

You consider the word of an eminent body to be more strong than actual real world evidence.

Thus I will never be able to convince you that wheat grows in very hot places just fine. Some eminent body with gravitas has told you otherwise.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You consider the word of an eminent body to be more strong than actual real world evidence.

Thus I will never be able to convince you that wheat grows in very hot places just fine. Some eminent body with gravitas has told you otherwise.
Click to expand...
There is quite a bit of Historical evidence that grains like wheat can and have been grown in hot places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cura_Annonae
During the Principate, the surrounding Italian countryside only provided ten percent of the total grain imports into Rome. The majority of the grain came from North Africa and Egypt. Several assessments have been made toward the total amount of grain that Rome imported from these two regions. Peter Garnsey combines the accounts of the author of the fourth-century Epitome that 20 million modii of wheat came from Egypt and Josephus' statement in the mid-first century AD that North Africa provided twice the export of Egypt and that it supplied Rome eight months of the year and Egypt supplied the other four,
Click to expand...
People also need to understand that wheat was very likely domesticated in what is now Iraq, and it is very hot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom