• 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!

Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

PoS said:
So in the end, youre really not certain about anything, its just speculation on your part. I can accept that.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of room between being certain of something and speculating about that something. If someone offers me to bet 50 cents to win two dollars on the toss of a fair coin, that's always a bet I should take, even though I'm not certain I will win over any finite number of trials. But it's not therefore speculation that I should take the bet either, since the expected value of that bet is always positive [(-50x.5)+(200x.5)=75]--it's a good bet that I'll profit over some finite number of trials.

I have a lot of experience trying to track down papers and doing academic research. I've probably pulled down well over a million papers from academic databases in my life by now (which is not to say I've read that many). I've tracked down, or asked librarians to track down, somewhere in the neighborhood of a few thousand papers that weren't where they were supposed to be in that time, and the overwhelming majority of cases in which a link to the paper redirects to the front page of a journal warehouse were papers that were pulled from publication. That can happen for entirely innocent reasons sometimes--sometimes an author's publisher will negotiate the rights to a paper that contains a crucial argument, and if enough money changes hands, the journal that originally published the paper will pull it from electronic circulation. Other times, of course, that's not what happens--a paper will be discovered to have some fatal flaw or (worst of all) will turn out to have been based on fabricated data.

So no, I am not certain about what happened with the papers that aren't where you list says they are supposed to be. But I'm also not merely speculating about what could have happened to them. I'm basing my remarks on long experience with such situations.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Really????

Do you have any evidence at all that any of that is happening or is likely to happen?

Any science to support it?

Given that it was significantly warmer during the Holocene Optimal, when Budda was alive, I don't think you are thinking clearly.
Click to expand...

Well, the early stages of the scenario I sketched out are already starting. There are about 2 million internally displaced people in India, and about half of those are displaced due to climate issues. People are dying in place or moving due to the sheer heat, and it's just going to keep getting hotter. Similarly, while surveys are just now getting underway on migrants (illegal and otherwise) from Central America to the U.S., so we don't have exact numbers yet, it's now recognized that a lot of those people are trying to come north because they cannot get crops to grow where they are--it's just too damned hot (the surveys that have been completed indicate about 24% of all such migrants cite the heat as the major reason they're trying to come north--but clearly better methodology needs to be used to find the true number).

The overall global average temperature during the Holocene Optimum was indeed higher than it is now, but the higher average is due mainly to much warmer conditions at the poles, while near the equator temperatures were actually cooler than they are now. So no, I'm not confused about anything. The aforementioned populations aren't moving North for the Protestant (or Tibetan, as the case may be) work ethic. They've started moving because they cannot live where they were any more.
 
Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
I cannot do that, because I don't know that it will happen. I am confident it will if we do nothing. Fortunately, we are doing something (well, we as in the entire United States isn't, but lots of countries are taking action).

If we do nothing, eventually large areas of the world will just become too hot for human habitation. That's already happened in parts of India, for example, but so far the people living in those parts have either just died quietly or moved to another part of the country. But (again, if we do nothing) that'll get worse, and the entire subcontinent's population will migrate north, presumably through Pakistan, through the FSU 'stans, and into Russia. What do you think will happen if a billion people move up into a land that can barely feed its 144 million? Especially if the people from Southern China move to the North, as do the peoples of Equatorial Africa?

What will we do if the entire population of Central America and Mexico come into the U.S. all at once?

Sounds like a recipe for widespread famine, or more likely, war.
Click to expand...

ashurbanipal said:
Well, the early stages of the scenario I sketched out are already starting. There are about 2 million internally displaced people in India, and about half of those are displaced due to climate issues. People are dying in place or moving due to the sheer heat, and it's just going to keep getting hotter. Similarly, while surveys are just now getting underway on migrants (illegal and otherwise) from Central America to the U.S., so we don't have exact numbers yet, it's now recognized that a lot of those people are trying to come north because they cannot get crops to grow where they are--it's just too damned hot (the surveys that have been completed indicate about 24% of all such migrants cite the heat as the major reason they're trying to come north--but clearly better methodology needs to be used to find the true number).

The overall global average temperature during the Holocene Optimum was indeed higher than it is now, but the higher average is due mainly to much warmer conditions at the poles, while near the equator temperatures were actually cooler than they are now. So no, I'm not confused about anything. The aforementioned populations aren't moving North for the Protestant (or Tibetan, as the case may be) work ethic. They've started moving because they cannot live where they were any more.
Click to expand...

Can you link to some of these people displaced by climate change in India?

Can you link to anything that says that you can't grow crops in the tropics? Like they do in Saudia Arabia.

The projected warming is supposed to happen in the temperate and polar regions this time as well. That would be a good thing.

You have been lied to.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Can you link to some of these people displaced by climate change in India?

Can you link to anything that says that you can't grow crops in the tropics? Like they do in Saudia Arabia.

The projected warming is supposed to happen in the temperate and polar regions this time as well. That would be a good thing.

You have been lied to.
Click to expand...

While not India, it would appear that the so-called "migration" occurring in the tropics of Central America is not the result of crop failure. All the major crops in every Central American country is increasing.

Crop Data Suggests Climate Change Is Not Driving the Migration Surge - Center for Immigration Studies, April 2019

Crops are also booming in all the northern countries, like Canada and Russia. In one 5-year period the number of farms in Alaska increased by 30%.

Agriculture: Job growth to boom over next five years
Russia’s boom (farming) economy – POLITICO
Russia’s agriculture sector booming despite or thanks to intl sanctions — RT Business News
Farming in Alaska is increasingly possible (Farming the Last Frontier) — High Country News – Know the West
The Coming Boom in Agriculture

Only through a warming climate can we feed 7.8 billion people.
 
Glitch said:
While not India, it would appear that the so-called "migration" occurring in the tropics of Central America is not the result of crop failure. All the major crops in every Central American country is increasing.

Crop Data Suggests Climate Change Is Not Driving the Migration Surge - Center for Immigration Studies, April 2019

Crops are also booming in all the northern countries, like Canada and Russia. In one 5-year period the number of farms in Alaska increased by 30%.

Agriculture: Job growth to boom over next five years
Russia’s boom (farming) economy – POLITICO
Russia’s agriculture sector booming despite or thanks to intl sanctions — RT Business News
Farming in Alaska is increasingly possible (Farming the Last Frontier) — High Country News – Know the West
The Coming Boom in Agriculture

Only through a warming climate can we feed 7.8 billion people.
Click to expand...

I just got back from Mexico (brother getting married) and took a quick look at the FAO data your first link cites, and it appears the guy analyzed the number of acres cultivated, not yield per acre. That's just based on my quick glance, so I'm not sure. I've downloaded the relevant data, and will have more to say in a few days.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Can you link to some of these people displaced by climate change in India?
Click to expand...

Do you mean, can I link to their facebook pages or something? If that's what you mean, then no, I can't do that. These people have typically lost their homes and all their possessions--they aren't likely to have facebook pages.

If you mean, can I link to articles and studies that support my claims, then of course, I can do that. These should get you started:

Climate change displaced 2.7 million Indians in 2019

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...70f1ee54c760a0e93f82f64973a020b57888c1e6d8744

http://climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Climate-Migration.pdf

You have been blocked

If you want more, I can provide some that are behind academic paywalls.

Tim the plumber said:
Can you link to anything that says that you can't grow crops in the tropics? Like they do in Saudia Arabia.
Click to expand...

No, and I'm not sure why I should have to, since I never said "you can't grow crops in the tropics." Also, I've no idea what your remark about Saudi Arabia means.

Tim the plumber said:
The projected warming is supposed to happen in the temperate and polar regions this time as well. That would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it would be a good thing, but I am sure your claim here is a red herring. The subtopic currently under discussion is the possibility of large-scale migrations from heavily populated areas near the equator toward the poles and the likely consequences of such a migration. Warming near the poles will only make those areas more attractive for climate migrants.

Tim the plumber said:
You have been lied to.
Click to expand...

Sure. Many times, no doubt. I've no idea how this could be relevant.

Edit: I see that when I post this, the fourth link fetches some hypertext that reads "You have been blocked." Nevertheless, when I click the link, it seems to work just fine. If you cannot see it, let me know and I'll try to PM it to you or something.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
Do you mean, can I link to their facebook pages or something? If that's what you mean, then no, I can't do that. These people have typically lost their homes and all their possessions--they aren't likely to have facebook pages.

If you mean, can I link to articles and studies that support my claims, then of course, I can do that. These should get you started:

Climate change displaced 2.7 million Indians in 2019

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...70f1ee54c760a0e93f82f64973a020b57888c1e6d8744

http://climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Climate-Migration.pdf

You have been blocked

If you want more, I can provide some that are behind academic paywalls.



No, and I'm not sure why I should have to, since I never said "you can't grow crops in the tropics." Also, I've no idea what your remark about Saudi Arabia means.



I'm not so sure it would be a good thing, but I am sure your claim here is a red herring. The subtopic currently under discussion is the possibility of large-scale migrations from heavily populated areas near the equator toward the poles and the likely consequences of such a migration. Warming near the poles will only make those areas more attractive for climate migrants.



Sure. Many times, no doubt. I've no idea how this could be relevant.

Edit: I see that when I post this, the fourth link fetches some hypertext that reads "You have been blocked." Nevertheless, when I click the link, it seems to work just fine. If you cannot see it, let me know and I'll try to PM it to you or something.
Click to expand...

1, First link;

In 2018, of the total new 28 million internally displaced people in 148 countries, 61 per cent were due to disasters. In comparison, 39 per cent were due to conflict and violence. According to IDMC, storms displaced 9.3 million people and floods 5.4 million. Similarly, more countries reported displacement due to disaster than conflict and violence: 144 for disaster and 55 for conflict and violence. According to UN, disasters and geophysical hazards have an average of 3.1 million displacements per year since 2008.

The evidence for such climate change-based migration is slowly surfacing. For instance, during 2011-2015, climatic changes like severe drought-induced conditions led to armed conflict, which in turn, led to asylum seeking and migration, according to a research paper published in the journal Global Environmental Change in January 2019. “The effect of climate on conflict occurrence is particularly relevant for countries in Western Asia in the period 2010–2012, when many countries were undergoing political transformation,” says the study.
Click to expand...

This is a lie because, obviously, there have always been natural disasters in the world. They have decreased in severity. Humanity is far more resilient to these events as we get more wealthy. Ascribing all ills of the world to climate change is a lie. I wont bother with the rest untill you have found one that does not fall appart in 30 seconds of looking at it.

2, You claimed that the warming would cause places to be unable to grow food due to the increase in temperature. You seem to now not be saying that. Do you think that increased temperatures will cause places that currently grow food to be unable to grow food? I understand that different crops may well be used but hotter places grow food far more productively than cold places.

3, Given that there has not been a migration due to warming climate at all, that humanity's best climate was during the Holocene Optimal when it was considerably warmer than the +3c maximum the IPCC talks about, why do you think there is any chance of any significant need for people to run away from the equator in the age of air conditioning?

OK, got bored, so I look ed the other ones.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
While not India, it would appear that the so-called "migration" occurring in the tropics of Central America is not the result of crop failure. All the major crops in every Central American country is increasing.

Crop Data Suggests Climate Change Is Not Driving the Migration Surge - Center for Immigration Studies, April 2019

Crops are also booming in all the northern countries, like Canada and Russia. In one 5-year period the number of farms in Alaska increased by 30%.

Agriculture: Job growth to boom over next five years
Russia’s boom (farming) economy – POLITICO
Russia’s agriculture sector booming despite or thanks to intl sanctions — RT Business News
Farming in Alaska is increasingly possible (Farming the Last Frontier) — High Country News – Know the West
The Coming Boom in Agriculture

Only through a warming climate can we feed 7.8 billion people.
Click to expand...

Yes. Warm temperatures are better for crops.

Really hard to understand how stupid you have to make yourself to not get that.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I just got back from Mexico (brother getting married) and took a quick look at the FAO data your first link cites, and it appears the guy analyzed the number of acres cultivated, not yield per acre. That's just based on my quick glance, so I'm not sure. I've downloaded the relevant data, and will have more to say in a few days.
Click to expand...

My expectation is that if you use a 100 year time line you will see a very great increase in yeilds.

New crops, use of fertilizer, increased CO2 in the air, slightly increased rainfall due to slightly increased air temperatures.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Do you mean, can I link to their facebook pages or something? If that's what you mean, then no, I can't do that. These people have typically lost their homes and all their possessions--they aren't likely to have facebook pages.

If you mean, can I link to articles and studies that support my claims, then of course, I can do that. These should get you started:

Climate change displaced 2.7 million Indians in 2019

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...70f1ee54c760a0e93f82f64973a020b57888c1e6d8744

http://climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Climate-Migration.pdf

You have been blocked

If you want more, I can provide some that are behind academic paywalls.



No, and I'm not sure why I should have to, since I never said "you can't grow crops in the tropics." Also, I've no idea what your remark about Saudi Arabia means.



I'm not so sure it would be a good thing, but I am sure your claim here is a red herring. The subtopic currently under discussion is the possibility of large-scale migrations from heavily populated areas near the equator toward the poles and the likely consequences of such a migration. Warming near the poles will only make those areas more attractive for climate migrants.



Sure. Many times, no doubt. I've no idea how this could be relevant.

Edit: I see that when I post this, the fourth link fetches some hypertext that reads "You have been blocked." Nevertheless, when I click the link, it seems to work just fine. If you cannot see it, let me know and I'll try to PM it to you or something.
Click to expand...

10 seconds into the 2nd link; (Actually the 3rd as the second does not work.)

Bangladesh: A Drowning Nation
Click to expand...

Each year, each monsoon, the rivers, the Gangees and Brahmaputra, pass 1.1 million billion tonnes of muddy water over Bangladesh. This deposits 2cm of sediment each year if you are 10 km away from the river. You will have to work to find a place that is 10km away from the rivers. The rivers are all over the place.

Bangladesh is grwoing as it always has. It will continue to grow. In 2100 it will be bigger than it is now.

Hey I might look at the third now, I wonder how many seconds it will survive.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Do you mean, can I link to their facebook pages or something? If that's what you mean, then no, I can't do that. These people have typically lost their homes and all their possessions--they aren't likely to have facebook pages.

If you mean, can I link to articles and studies that support my claims, then of course, I can do that. These should get you started:

Climate change displaced 2.7 million Indians in 2019

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...70f1ee54c760a0e93f82f64973a020b57888c1e6d8744

http://climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Climate-Migration.pdf

You have been blocked

If you want more, I can provide some that are behind academic paywalls.



No, and I'm not sure why I should have to, since I never said "you can't grow crops in the tropics." Also, I've no idea what your remark about Saudi Arabia means.



I'm not so sure it would be a good thing, but I am sure your claim here is a red herring. The subtopic currently under discussion is the possibility of large-scale migrations from heavily populated areas near the equator toward the poles and the likely consequences of such a migration. Warming near the poles will only make those areas more attractive for climate migrants.



Sure. Many times, no doubt. I've no idea how this could be relevant.

Edit: I see that when I post this, the fourth link fetches some hypertext that reads "You have been blocked." Nevertheless, when I click the link, it seems to work just fine. If you cannot see it, let me know and I'll try to PM it to you or something.
Click to expand...

The "You have been Blocked" one;

They talk about not being able to identify climate caused migration at all. Have you read it yourself at all???? Why post it when it appears to be on my side???
 
ashurbanipal said:
Do you mean, can I link to their facebook pages or something? If that's what you mean, then no, I can't do that. These people have typically lost their homes and all their possessions--they aren't likely to have facebook pages.

If you mean, can I link to articles and studies that support my claims, then of course, I can do that. These should get you started:

Climate change displaced 2.7 million Indians in 2019

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...70f1ee54c760a0e93f82f64973a020b57888c1e6d8744

http://climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Climate-Migration.pdf

You have been blocked

If you want more, I can provide some that are behind academic paywalls.



No, and I'm not sure why I should have to, since I never said "you can't grow crops in the tropics." Also, I've no idea what your remark about Saudi Arabia means.



I'm not so sure it would be a good thing, but I am sure your claim here is a red herring. The subtopic currently under discussion is the possibility of large-scale migrations from heavily populated areas near the equator toward the poles and the likely consequences of such a migration. Warming near the poles will only make those areas more attractive for climate migrants.



Sure. Many times, no doubt. I've no idea how this could be relevant.

Edit: I see that when I post this, the fourth link fetches some hypertext that reads "You have been blocked." Nevertheless, when I click the link, it seems to work just fine. If you cannot see it, let me know and I'll try to PM it to you or something.
Click to expand...

So in your first link, are you saying our emissions went back in time, and caused this climate change:

The first study released in November 2019—done by researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (IITKGP)—found convincing evidence for the popular hypothesis that climate change caused human migration during and after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation. The researchers concluded this from the study of two previously unknown post-Harappan Iron Age sites in the western part of the Great Rann of Kutch and the lower fringes of the Thar Desert. The Iron Age (3,100-2,300 years ago) is often referred to as the “Dark Age” because of scant historical and archaeological evidence from that period. These are the first Iron Age sites found in this particular region.
​
 
Lord of Planar said:
So in your first link, are you saying our emissions went back in time, and caused this climate change:

The first study released in November 2019—done by researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (IITKGP)—found convincing evidence for the popular hypothesis that climate change caused human migration during and after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation. The researchers concluded this from the study of two previously unknown post-Harappan Iron Age sites in the western part of the Great Rann of Kutch and the lower fringes of the Thar Desert. The Iron Age (3,100-2,300 years ago) is often referred to as the “Dark Age” because of scant historical and archaeological evidence from that period. These are the first Iron Age sites found in this particular region.
​
Click to expand...

Wow! Look at that knee-jerk denial!

You even have to blatantly mischaracterize his position (who has ever claimed all climate change is anthropogenic?)to get there.

But... you gotta deny, so whatever comes to mind first, you’ll go with.

It’s like you’re just mailing it in these days.
 
Threegoofs said:
Wow! Look at that knee-jerk denial!

You even have to blatantly mischaracterize his position (who has ever claimed all climate change is anthropogenic?)to get there.

But... you gotta deny, so whatever comes to mind first, you’ll go with.

It’s like you’re just mailing it in these days.
Click to expand...

Am I to assume then, that you agree modern day problems are not necessarily cause by man? And may be natural?
 
Tim the plumber said:
10 seconds into the 2nd link; (Actually the 3rd as the second does not work.)



Each year, each monsoon, the rivers, the Gangees and Brahmaputra, pass 1.1 million billion tonnes of muddy water over Bangladesh. This deposits 2cm of sediment each year if you are 10 km away from the river. You will have to work to find a place that is 10km away from the rivers. The rivers are all over the place.

Bangladesh is grwoing as it always has. It will continue to grow. In 2100 it will be bigger than it is now.

Hey I might look at the third now, I wonder how many seconds it will survive.
Click to expand...

Most of Bangladesh happens to sit on a flood plain- floods have always been a part of that country's history.
 
Lord of Planar said:
So in your first link, are you saying our emissions went back in time, and caused this climate change:

The first study released in November 2019—done by researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (IITKGP)—found convincing evidence for the popular hypothesis that climate change caused human migration during and after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation. The researchers concluded this from the study of two previously unknown post-Harappan Iron Age sites in the western part of the Great Rann of Kutch and the lower fringes of the Thar Desert. The Iron Age (3,100-2,300 years ago) is often referred to as the “Dark Age” because of scant historical and archaeological evidence from that period. These are the first Iron Age sites found in this particular region.
​
Click to expand...

I think I actually spent an extra 10 seconds reading the link. The link is not that bad, well...., but it talks about the idea of past climate change causing mass migration.
 
Threegoofs said:
Wow! Look at that knee-jerk denial!

You even have to blatantly mischaracterize his position (who has ever claimed all climate change is anthropogenic?)to get there.

But... you gotta deny, so whatever comes to mind first, you’ll go with.

It’s like you’re just mailing it in these days.
Click to expand...

Eh???

His position is that human induced climate change will cause, indeed already has caused, people to be forced to migrate. Mass migration. ALthough I think the already bit has already gone away.
 
Threegoofs said:
WTF?

IPCC estimates, with great certainty, that all of modern warming is anthropogenic.
Click to expand...

You know that the IPCC is political body, not a scientific one, right? Your first clue is in their name: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The purpose of the IPCC is to push political propaganda that other governments may use. Facts and reality play no part with the IPCC.
 
MrWonka said:
Nope. This garbage is still debunked no matter how many times you post it...

The 97% consensus on global warming
Click to expand...

That "study" has long been debunked. What he did was do a wide net poll of scientists and then continually narrow down the group of accepted responses until he got to the percentage he desired.

The poll he was trying to match was the two question poll that asked "Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?" and "Do you believe that anthropogenic CO2 has a significant effect on the climate?" ... in that poll I would be in the 97% based on the meaning of those questions in a scientific speak.

The reason the head count method of "science" is so broken is because there is no actual root science in global climate, it is a collection of various disciplines from biology and physics to statistics. You don't have to be a "climate scientist" to reject the methodology of "climate science", and in fact, a physicist is better suited to critique the use physics in AGW theory than the average climate "scientist", and a statistician is better suited to critique the statistics than is a "climate scientist"... but the idiots at "Skeptical Science" decided that they would only allow the opinions of "climate scientists" and throw out the physicists critiquing the physics and the statisticians critiquing the statistics.

It wasn't long after that "study" was released that someone leaked a batch of emails from the team running that "study" wherein the head of the study was emailing his staff about how best to market the results to help the AGW movement before the study was even conducted. You can't do a statistical analysis of anything when you want a specific answer... that is how you get statistical malpractice like was used in that study.
 
Threegoofs said:
WTF?

IPCC estimates, with great certainty, that all of modern warming is anthropogenic.
Click to expand...

Or, is that political body twisting the papers to show as they wish?

Considering we had no hand in past climate changes, how can you be so certain?
 
Lord of Planar said:
So in your first link, are you saying our emissions went back in time, and caused this climate change:

The first study released in November 2019—done by researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (IITKGP)—found convincing evidence for the popular hypothesis that climate change caused human migration during and after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation. The researchers concluded this from the study of two previously unknown post-Harappan Iron Age sites in the western part of the Great Rann of Kutch and the lower fringes of the Thar Desert. The Iron Age (3,100-2,300 years ago) is often referred to as the “Dark Age” because of scant historical and archaeological evidence from that period. These are the first Iron Age sites found in this particular region.
​
Click to expand...

No, of course not. That paper is an attempt to understand what led to the collapse of the Indus Valley civilization, but the author of the article presents it as an historical episode that could help us understand how human beings will react to climate forced migrations in the present day.

I can't tell whether you guys intentionally misrepresent claims made by climate change authors, or if you just don't grasp them. No one is saying, for instance, that hurricanes began to appear only after the start of the industrial age, or that some of those hurricanes weren't as bad as the ones that wreak such havoc in the world today. We are saying that hurricanes have become more frequent, and are more frequently the huge damaging kind, than previously.

No one is saying that people didn't have to migrate due to climate before the 20th century. We are saying that those migrations and the events that bring them about are becoming more frequent and worse. We (as in, those of us lucky enough to live in the Anglophone West) are, as TtP points out, more able currently to...er...weather those events successfully, but it costs money and resources to do so. Eventually that'll become problematic--and for the people in India currently displaced due to climate, it already has.

No one is saying that crops didn't fail due to hot dry weather in the past. We are saying that the same conditions are going to come about more often in more parts of the world due to climate change.

Whether or not you agree with those claims, surely they're intelligible enough that you and others here understand what they say.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No, of course not. That paper is an attempt to understand what led to the collapse of the Indus Valley civilization, but the author of the article presents it as an historical episode that could help us understand how human beings will react to climate forced migrations in the present day.

I can't tell whether you guys intentionally misrepresent claims made by climate change authors, or if you just don't grasp them. No one is saying, for instance, that hurricanes began to appear only after the start of the industrial age, or that some of those hurricanes weren't as bad as the ones that wreak such havoc in the world today. We are saying that hurricanes have become more frequent, and are more frequently the huge damaging kind, than previously.

No one is saying that people didn't have to migrate due to climate before the 20th century. We are saying that those migrations and the events that bring them about are becoming more frequent and worse. We (as in, those of us lucky enough to live in the Anglophone West) are, as TtP points out, more able currently to...er...weather those events successfully, but it costs money and resources to do so. Eventually that'll become problematic--and for the people in India currently displaced due to climate, it already has.

No one is saying that crops didn't fail due to hot dry weather in the past. We are saying that the same conditions are going to come about more often in more parts of the world due to climate change.

Whether or not you agree with those claims, surely they're intelligible enough that you and others here understand what they say.
Click to expand...

And you don't think population density has anything to do with increasing events and numbers?
 
Glitch said:
While not India, it would appear that the so-called "migration" occurring in the tropics of Central America is not the result of crop failure. All the major crops in every Central American country is increasing.

Crop Data Suggests Climate Change Is Not Driving the Migration Surge - Center for Immigration Studies, April 2019
Click to expand...

So, I am still analyzing the data from the FAO, which is what the author of the article at the first link cites. I was nonplussed when I actually downloaded the data and started perusing it, because from what I was seeing, it looked nothing like what that author was alleging. Looking a little deeper, however, it appears that he did just what he said he did, which was graph total output per crop per country. However, if the question is whether climate is affecting the ability of people in Central America to grow food, that's not what we need to know. What the author fails to mention is that the reason total output is rising is that more and more land is being cultivated. The same source provides yield per hectare, which is what should matter, since that determines farm profitability, and more importantly for this discussion, climate impacts on farming.

Look: if in year one, I'm able to produce 1000 bushels of rice from one hectare of land, and that's practicable and profitable for me, then great. But if, the next year, I have to farm two hectares and produce 1100 bushels of rice, that may be neither profitable nor practicable. That's literally twice the work for only a smidgen more food--and the same hectare of land I farmed the year before is now producing only a little more than half as much as it did previously. If the climate is becoming inhospitable to growing food, that's what we'd expect to see--and in fact, that's what the data actually shows. Yields per hectare are mostly dropping. There are a few that have increased, and a few more that are staying roughly static. They do not offset the many that are declining.

Here are four graphs of yield per hectare (again, I stress, taken from the same source the author of the article you linked is using), looking at four crops by country that your author used:

Guatemala Bananas YIeld.jpg

Guatemala Palm Oil.jpg

Honduras Rice Yield.jpg

Honduras Palm Oil Yield.jpg

Note that the author of that article shows all of these taking off like a rocket. With the exception of rice in Honduras, all of these show some decrease in yield per acre. Again, I'll have more to post in a few days--working on how to present in a thesis-neutral way all the data (which may not be possible, since there's just a lot of data).
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
And you don't think population density has anything to do with increasing events and numbers?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it does on both counts. However, that it does on the frequency of events supports the AGW hypothesis. More people means more carbon emissions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom