Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6795|132 and Bush

https://i.imgur.com/rYPj3.jpg
The rapid growth in farm output that defined the late 20th century has slowed to the point that it is failing to keep up with the demand for food, driven by population increases and rising affluence in once-poor countries.

Consumption of the four staples that supply most human calories — wheat, rice, corn and soybeans — has outstripped production for much of the past decade, drawing once-large stockpiles down to worrisome levels. The imbalance between supply and demand has resulted in two huge spikes in international grain prices since 2007, with some grains more than doubling in cost.

Those price jumps, though felt only moderately in the West, have worsened hunger for tens of millions of poor people, destabilizing politics in scores of countries, from Mexico to Uzbekistan to Yemen. The Haitian government was ousted in 2008 amid food riots, and anger over high prices has played a role in the recent Arab uprisings.

Now, the latest scientific research suggests that a previously discounted factor is helping to destabilize the food system: climate change.

Many of the failed harvests of the past decade were a consequence of weather disasters, like floods in the United States, drought in Australia and blistering heat waves in Europe and Russia. Scientists believe some, though not all, of those events were caused or worsened by human-induced global warming.



Temperatures are rising rapidly during the growing season in some of the most important agricultural countries, and a paper published several weeks ago found that this had shaved several percentage points off potential yields, adding to the price gyrations.

For nearly two decades, scientists had predicted that climate change would be relatively manageable for agriculture, suggesting that even under worst-case assumptions, it would probably take until 2080 for food prices to double.

In part, they were counting on a counterintuitive ace in the hole: that rising carbon dioxide levels, the primary contributor to global warming, would act as a powerful plant fertilizer and offset many of the ill effects of climate change.

Until a few years ago, these assumptions went largely unchallenged. But lately, the destabilization of the food system and the soaring prices have rattled many leading scientists.

“The success of agriculture has been astounding,” said Cynthia Rosenzweig, a researcher at NASA who helped pioneer the study of climate change and agriculture. “But I think there’s starting to be premonitions that it may not continue forever.”

A scramble is on to figure out whether climate science has been too sanguine about the risks. Some researchers, analyzing computer forecasts that are used to advise governments on future crop prospects, are pointing out what they consider to be gaping holes. These include a failure to consider the effects of extreme weather, like the floods and the heat waves that are increasing as the earth warms.

...For decades, scientists believed that the human dependence on fossil fuels, for all the problems it was expected to cause, would offer one enormous benefit.

Carbon dioxide, the main gas released by combustion, is also the primary fuel for the growth of plants. They draw it out of the air and, using the energy from sunlight, convert the carbon into energy-dense compounds like glucose. All human and animal life runs on these compounds.

Humans have already raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 40 percent since the Industrial Revolution, and are on course to double or triple it over the coming century. Studies have long suggested that the extra gas would supercharge the world’s food crops, and might be especially helpful in years when the weather is difficult.

But many of those studies were done in artificial conditions, like greenhouses or special growth chambers. For the past decade, scientists at the University of Illinois have been putting the “CO2 fertilization effect” to a real-world test in the two most important crops grown in the United States.


Read the entire article here (5 pages). This should be cause for concern. But I doubt it.

Other recent and relevant news.
Global Food Production May Be Hurt as Climate Shifts, UN Forecaster Says
Global Effort Needed to Solve World Food Supply Crisis
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6301|eXtreme to the maX
That and Halliburton is poisoning your groundwater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-05 00:57:53)

Fuck Israel
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6795|132 and Bush

The equatorial countries are really going to be hurt by this trend the most. Those countries are already dealing with major food supply problems.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6966|PNW

The planet's not struggling. Life is.
Kampframmer
Esq.
+313|5037|Amsterdam

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The planet's not struggling. Life is.
Human life more specifically.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6795|132 and Bush

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The planet's not struggling. Life is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/scien … rvest.html
Thanks for the contribution though.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5553|London, England
nytimes article based on UN research. No thanks.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6301|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

https://psychmatters.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sand1.gif
Fuck Israel
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6869|Canberra, AUS
I always having problems ascribing particular events - especially now in early stages - to cc simply because it's a statistical phenomenon. Yes we might not have had a worst-ever record decade long (or more in WA) drought but we probably still would have had a nasty drought after the massive '98, '02 El Nino events.

However, I'd like to see the research myself.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6717|...

Hard times will come for the USA; petroleum based agriculture compounded by subsidized corn market - falsely props up our population.

Maybe the only bright spot is our population is only kept in the positive due to Mexican immigrants.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5553|London, England
Umm... The corn subsidies create food shortages, not surpluses. They're used to encourage ethanol production.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6869|Canberra, AUS
Also mildly concerned by the havoc the Russian bushfires had on the market, prices went mad for a while IIRC.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5553|London, England

Spark wrote:

Also mildly concerned by the havoc the Russian bushfires had on the market, prices went mad for a while IIRC.
Right, they're taking a small sample size and using it to 'prove' their theories about the future. Asinine.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6717|...

Jay wrote:

Umm... The corn subsidies create food shortages, not surpluses. They're used to encourage ethanol production.
"Umm"

My point we artificially props up production, sure ethanol  is a huge part of it, but so much crap is made from it. HFCS is a preservative which allows stuff to have a far greater shelf life.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5553|London, England

jsnipy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Umm... The corn subsidies create food shortages, not surpluses. They're used to encourage ethanol production.
"Umm"

My point we artificially props up production, sure ethanol  is a huge part of it, but so much crap is made from it.
So if we're propping up production... and we use a good portion of it for fuel... that should tell you there is no shortage on the horizon... The UN's climate change research has been shredded repeatedly. I don't know why people still pay any attention to the garbage data they produce. They're using 'climate change' to make an end run around popular opinion in a push for a global social democratic government. Fuck them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6869|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Umm... The corn subsidies create food shortages, not surpluses. They're used to encourage ethanol production.
"Umm"

My point we artificially props up production, sure ethanol  is a huge part of it, but so much crap is made from it.
So if we're propping up production... and we use a good portion of it for fuel... that should tell you there is no shortage on the horizon... The UN's climate change research has been shredded repeatedly. I don't know why people still pay any attention to the garbage data they produce. They're using 'climate change' to make an end run around popular opinion in a push for a global social democratic government. Fuck them.
Haha hardly. "Oh my god they god a line wrong!" That's science, mate. People make mistakes. You think people stopped listening to Bohr after his model was clearly proven to be patent nonsense, or Newton after his model of light was shown to be completely laughable?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Blue Herring
Member
+13|4999

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

jsnipy wrote:


"Umm"

My point we artificially props up production, sure ethanol  is a huge part of it, but so much crap is made from it.
So if we're propping up production... and we use a good portion of it for fuel... that should tell you there is no shortage on the horizon... The UN's climate change research has been shredded repeatedly. I don't know why people still pay any attention to the garbage data they produce. They're using 'climate change' to make an end run around popular opinion in a push for a global social democratic government. Fuck them.
Haha hardly. "Oh my god they god a line wrong!" That's science, mate. People make mistakes. You think people stopped listening to Bohr after his model was clearly proven to be patent nonsense, or Newton after his model of light was shown to be completely laughable?
The main difference is those people had valid premises for their ideas; alarmist climate science is nothing more than an assumption. Anyone with half a brain could tell you that carbon dioxide levels are rising because of humans and will need to be reduced, it's the whole "The damage is irreversible and we're all gonna die because of it" thing that I'm skeptical of. Especially since higher carbon dioxide levels have existed in the past. It won't go down overnight, but to state that it will never go down and that our children and children's children won't have clean air to breathe is just asinine.  Oh, now it's corn to eat.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5553|London, England

Blue Herring wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:


So if we're propping up production... and we use a good portion of it for fuel... that should tell you there is no shortage on the horizon... The UN's climate change research has been shredded repeatedly. I don't know why people still pay any attention to the garbage data they produce. They're using 'climate change' to make an end run around popular opinion in a push for a global social democratic government. Fuck them.
Haha hardly. "Oh my god they god a line wrong!" That's science, mate. People make mistakes. You think people stopped listening to Bohr after his model was clearly proven to be patent nonsense, or Newton after his model of light was shown to be completely laughable?
The main difference is those people had valid premises for their ideas; alarmist climate science is nothing more than an assumption. Anyone with half a brain could tell you that carbon dioxide levels are rising because of humans and will need to be reduced, it's the whole "The damage is irreversible and we're all gonna die because of it" thing that I'm skeptical of. Especially since higher carbon dioxide levels have existed in the past. It won't go down overnight, but to state that it will never go down and that our children and children's children won't have clean air to breathe is just asinine.  Oh, now it's corn to eat.
Especially since it's UN global aid that caused the mess in places like Africa in the first place. "Hey, let's dump a bunch of free food into their economy because children are starving in Ethiopia" Ok, now you've created an artificial and non-locally sustainable population boom. Good fucking job UNICEF. Populations in Africa don't face starvation because of global warming, they face starvation if the aid they receive is ever cut off because of these UN retards. There is still a food surplus. We are not running out of fresh water. The planet is not going to die. Yes, some places on this planet are ecologically stressed due to population booms but like I said, that's the consequence reaped from soft hearted and soft brained meddlers. They should've been handing out condoms instead of rice.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Blue Herring
Member
+13|4999

Jay wrote:

Blue Herring wrote:

Spark wrote:


Haha hardly. "Oh my god they god a line wrong!" That's science, mate. People make mistakes. You think people stopped listening to Bohr after his model was clearly proven to be patent nonsense, or Newton after his model of light was shown to be completely laughable?
The main difference is those people had valid premises for their ideas; alarmist climate science is nothing more than an assumption. Anyone with half a brain could tell you that carbon dioxide levels are rising because of humans and will need to be reduced, it's the whole "The damage is irreversible and we're all gonna die because of it" thing that I'm skeptical of. Especially since higher carbon dioxide levels have existed in the past. It won't go down overnight, but to state that it will never go down and that our children and children's children won't have clean air to breathe is just asinine.  Oh, now it's corn to eat.
Especially since it's UN global aid that caused the mess in places like Africa in the first place. "Hey, let's dump a bunch of free food into their economy because children are starving in Ethiopia" Ok, now you've created an artificial and non-locally sustainable population boom. Good fucking job UNICEF. Populations in Africa don't face starvation because of global warming, they face starvation if the aid they receive is ever cut off because of these UN retards. There is still a food surplus. We are not running out of fresh water. The planet is not going to die. Yes, some places on this planet are ecologically stressed due to population booms but like I said, that's the consequence reaped from soft hearted and soft brained meddlers. They should've been handing out condoms instead of rice.
Actually even condoms aren't necessary. A species cannot out-reproduce it's food source. It's why you see mass extinctions, a food source suddenly disappears. Africa would have been fine without intervention, but now that we're there, if we ever stopped feeding them, they would all die. Competition within the population for the relatively small food source would be too much for Africa to handle.
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5432|Cleveland, Ohio

Dilbert_X wrote:

That and Halliburton is poisoning your groundwater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing
my god shut up
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6827|949

deregulating futures markets on foodstuffs isn't helping.  Actually I'd say that is a far larger problem for the near term than the evaporation of arable land.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6795|132 and Bush

Thats enough Sturgeon
Xbone Stormsurgezz
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6966|PNW

Kmar wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The planet's not struggling. Life is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/scien … rvest.html
Thanks for the contribution though.
I meant what I said. The planet will most likely be here long after we're gone.

e: In BF2 ads - http://www.offthegridnews.net/adwords_f … Qgod9Tg5tA

That's right, sit at home with plenty to eat while all the starving people around you leave you alone. Right.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6795|132 and Bush

I meant what I said.


I've had ads blocked for so long here I totally forgot we had them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Dauntless
Admin
+2,249|6937|London

do we still have them?

i thought it was just for people not logged in
https://imgur.com/kXTNQ8D.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard