RE: Global dimming and warming.
August 8, 2012 at 5:39 pm
(This post was last modified: August 8, 2012 at 7:07 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
"We won’t need flood basalt eruptions if our current activities set off a chain of events that raise the surface temperature 8 C and releases the methane hydrate currently sequestered at the bottom of the oceans."- Nope, that's bad enough by itself, we still won't have to deal with the formation of Pangea, the staggering volcanic activity, possible impacts, or the lack of adaptations to variable climates. Every dust storm is not the Dust Bowl, every hurricane is not Katrina, and AGW is not P-Tr.
I don't understand. If we suddenly find ourselves waterless that will have an effect on the economic viability of de-sal, would it not (transport can't be the issue, because we already transport massive amounts of water to our big ag producing areas to begin with, that's business as usual)? If you're using our current water consumption as a benchmark for whether or not large scale ag is feasible in an area than you are ignoring how ridiculously fucked up our current water management practices are in the first place. If you're proposing a 50% reduction in available water in any given area then black plastic and drip tape -alone- can cover that...while increasing yields. We can do even better (or cover for even more severe shortfalls) with more. I'm going to say this again though, because it must have slipped by. Grain production is predicted to benefit from climate change, not be gutted by it. On the subject of availability of water. Climate change is predicted to increase the amount of available water worldwide. Will the distribution of that water be fair? No, it won't, but it isn't fair now either, and it never has been. This problem would be even worse without the predicted effects of climate change. We'd be chiseling glaciers on a massive scale (and to be honest, we probably still will, with whatever glaciers are left).
Who said we don't need to avoid this problem? Let me repeat myself, again. It is not P-Tr, it is not the apocalypse, we already have solutions for some of the issues we may face.
"US corn production is expected to be down 15% this year despite a record planting in 2012. This due to a draught measured in weeks [combined with poor irrigation, bad soil management, garbage IPM, and unfriendly markets]." - Fixed that for you. Climate change today, similar to the situation at the P-Tr event is not some magic bullet, responsible for all conceivable woes.
-
"Moderate climate change in the early decades of the century is projected to increase aggregate yields of rain-fed agriculture by 5-20%, but with important variability among regions. Crops that are near the warm end of their suitable range or that depend on highly utilized water resources will likely face major challenges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_ef...al_warming Cited from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts...ional.html
"With increased carbon dioxide and higher temperatures, the life cycle of grain and oilseed crops will likely progress more rapidly."
"Projected increases in temperature and a lengthening of the growing season will likely extend forage production into late fall and early spring."
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sa...efault.htm
It sure as hell looks like we're headed for trouble, but not the trouble you seem to think we're headed for (at least not on this count). I think it's important to have an accurate assessment of the problems we face and their relative level of adversity (and whatever options we currently have available to alleviate or circumvent them) if we want to make a run at handling this issue intelligently. Or - we could just keep reminding each other that the end is nigh. The conversations I see time and time again go a bit like this:
-Take the worst possible projection
-Cite the worst possible examples of industry practice
-Ignore any solutions we already have available
-Assume vast and uniform human complacency and indifference to the issue
*In some special cases, just get the whole damned thing flat out wrong, for whatever reason
Climate change isn't going to starve us, we'd have to lend our hand on that count. Not that we aren't demonstrably willing to do so, granted. Climate change is predicted to put the nail in a whole variety of agricultural practices which we have known were a bad idea for quite some time (this isn't limited to ag, but ag is my baby, obviously). It's also predicted to make some really bad ideas even more productive. Some areas will no longer be suitable for mixed vegetables, for example, but will become suitable for forage and grain, with other areas the reverse is predicted to occur. Some areas are predicted to be unsuitable for ag overall, but at the same time areas currently unsuitable for ag are predicted to become very conducive. It's a mixed bag from all sides. Now, why don't we hear about the increased grain production, extended forage, longer growing seasons, and establishment of new, productive farmland where once there was none (except from those asshats which you seem to be assuming I am part and parcel of)...? Because it doesn't make good ad copy, and it doesn't make people watch the news. For that we require doom and gloom and mayhem. The only slack those asshats (you know, the ones who don't think this is occurring/a problem at all) have to sow discord with is the slack our camp gave them by painting such a decidedly apocalyptic and one-sided picture in the first place.
Just so we aren't suffering from any misconceptions here, I'm embarrassed with the way that we have handled this issue. I'm embarrassed for the way we handled it globally, but more importantly, I'm embarrassed with the way the US has handled it, because down to brass tacks -fuck the rest of these people- (I still love you world....let me be patriotic for a minute) we should be at the forefront of a sustainable future. Every time one of our diplomats or scientists stands up to address this issue it should be immediately followed by "and this is the pioneering work we've been doing stateside to address this". Every time we tell china, for example, that they need to curb their fossil fuel consumption - we should show them how we managed to curb ours. When people think "green" they should be thinking about the good ole U.S. of A. Not only am I disappointed in our lack of activity, I'm disappointed in our lack of activism relative to alarmism. A huge part of getting anything done here will be to overcome or court public opinion. The chicken little approach doesn't seem to have worked quite as brilliantly as some must have thought it would.
I don't understand. If we suddenly find ourselves waterless that will have an effect on the economic viability of de-sal, would it not (transport can't be the issue, because we already transport massive amounts of water to our big ag producing areas to begin with, that's business as usual)? If you're using our current water consumption as a benchmark for whether or not large scale ag is feasible in an area than you are ignoring how ridiculously fucked up our current water management practices are in the first place. If you're proposing a 50% reduction in available water in any given area then black plastic and drip tape -alone- can cover that...while increasing yields. We can do even better (or cover for even more severe shortfalls) with more. I'm going to say this again though, because it must have slipped by. Grain production is predicted to benefit from climate change, not be gutted by it. On the subject of availability of water. Climate change is predicted to increase the amount of available water worldwide. Will the distribution of that water be fair? No, it won't, but it isn't fair now either, and it never has been. This problem would be even worse without the predicted effects of climate change. We'd be chiseling glaciers on a massive scale (and to be honest, we probably still will, with whatever glaciers are left).
Who said we don't need to avoid this problem? Let me repeat myself, again. It is not P-Tr, it is not the apocalypse, we already have solutions for some of the issues we may face.
"US corn production is expected to be down 15% this year despite a record planting in 2012. This due to a draught measured in weeks [combined with poor irrigation, bad soil management, garbage IPM, and unfriendly markets]." - Fixed that for you. Climate change today, similar to the situation at the P-Tr event is not some magic bullet, responsible for all conceivable woes.
-
"Moderate climate change in the early decades of the century is projected to increase aggregate yields of rain-fed agriculture by 5-20%, but with important variability among regions. Crops that are near the warm end of their suitable range or that depend on highly utilized water resources will likely face major challenges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_ef...al_warming Cited from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts...ional.html
"With increased carbon dioxide and higher temperatures, the life cycle of grain and oilseed crops will likely progress more rapidly."
"Projected increases in temperature and a lengthening of the growing season will likely extend forage production into late fall and early spring."
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sa...efault.htm
It sure as hell looks like we're headed for trouble, but not the trouble you seem to think we're headed for (at least not on this count). I think it's important to have an accurate assessment of the problems we face and their relative level of adversity (and whatever options we currently have available to alleviate or circumvent them) if we want to make a run at handling this issue intelligently. Or - we could just keep reminding each other that the end is nigh. The conversations I see time and time again go a bit like this:
-Take the worst possible projection
-Cite the worst possible examples of industry practice
-Ignore any solutions we already have available
-Assume vast and uniform human complacency and indifference to the issue
*In some special cases, just get the whole damned thing flat out wrong, for whatever reason
Climate change isn't going to starve us, we'd have to lend our hand on that count. Not that we aren't demonstrably willing to do so, granted. Climate change is predicted to put the nail in a whole variety of agricultural practices which we have known were a bad idea for quite some time (this isn't limited to ag, but ag is my baby, obviously). It's also predicted to make some really bad ideas even more productive. Some areas will no longer be suitable for mixed vegetables, for example, but will become suitable for forage and grain, with other areas the reverse is predicted to occur. Some areas are predicted to be unsuitable for ag overall, but at the same time areas currently unsuitable for ag are predicted to become very conducive. It's a mixed bag from all sides. Now, why don't we hear about the increased grain production, extended forage, longer growing seasons, and establishment of new, productive farmland where once there was none (except from those asshats which you seem to be assuming I am part and parcel of)...? Because it doesn't make good ad copy, and it doesn't make people watch the news. For that we require doom and gloom and mayhem. The only slack those asshats (you know, the ones who don't think this is occurring/a problem at all) have to sow discord with is the slack our camp gave them by painting such a decidedly apocalyptic and one-sided picture in the first place.
Just so we aren't suffering from any misconceptions here, I'm embarrassed with the way that we have handled this issue. I'm embarrassed for the way we handled it globally, but more importantly, I'm embarrassed with the way the US has handled it, because down to brass tacks -fuck the rest of these people- (I still love you world....let me be patriotic for a minute) we should be at the forefront of a sustainable future. Every time one of our diplomats or scientists stands up to address this issue it should be immediately followed by "and this is the pioneering work we've been doing stateside to address this". Every time we tell china, for example, that they need to curb their fossil fuel consumption - we should show them how we managed to curb ours. When people think "green" they should be thinking about the good ole U.S. of A. Not only am I disappointed in our lack of activity, I'm disappointed in our lack of activism relative to alarmism. A huge part of getting anything done here will be to overcome or court public opinion. The chicken little approach doesn't seem to have worked quite as brilliantly as some must have thought it would.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
