RE: Global dimming and warming.
August 7, 2012 at 2:01 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2012 at 2:50 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
You keep focusing in on the methane release as though the increased volcanic activity (and all the other nasty shit happening at that time) itself wasn't annihilating shit left and right (which we have every reason to believe it was). To describe the vast gulf of differences between the P-Tr event and our current situation, and suggest that we aren't looking at an event of that scale is not shit reasoning, you just don't agree with me.
I have not claimed that "because there were forest fires before people people can't cause forest fires" or anything even remotely to that effect. What I have repeatedly stated is that this particular forest fire is small fucking potatoes compared to the P-Tr "forest fire", regardless of who or what started either. I have not claimed that it "isn't going to be that bad". What I have repeatedly stated is that we don't have any reason to assume that it will be as bad as the events which are so often compared to it. Not only do we have no reason to assume that it will be as bad, it doesn't even have to be as bad as we have reason to assume it could be.
Now that we're hopefully done with that, lets move on to ag and irrigation. Grain production is predominantly rain fed. Ag extensions spend inordinate amounts of money pleading with producers to irrigate, but they are reluctant to try anything new, "That's not the way my daddy did it". When they do irrigate, they do so with the most inexpensive, poorly thought out and wasteful designs available, almost as a rule. It fucking infuriates me. You know what infuriates me even more though? That you thought that our current methods had anything to do with our ability, or that they were in any way a limiting factor to food production in the event that water became more scarce. They aren't. Aquifer depletion is a major concern, take S Fl a couple years back for example. Record low temperatures during the strawberry season led growers to shower their fields nonstop for weeks (to prevent the cell walls of the berries from bursting- making them unmarketable). The ground began to collapse underfoot, not under the growers fields, but miles away in residential housing developments. Here's the real kicker, they survived the freeze. Not only did they survive the freeze those same record lows produced an abundance of strawberries. No one could sell them. They were left to rot in the field because it was too expensive to even disk them under. Now, did any of this have to go down the why it did? To put it simply, no. There are methods, equipment, and practices which would have avoided the whole sad story. It isn't because we don't know how, it;s because we're unwilling to pay (and the real sad part here is that the amount we're unwilling to pay usually adds up to fractions of a penny per pound, fan-fucking-tastic). Tell me more about ag and aquifer depletion, because I just wasn't aware....
When you hear somebody say "not economically feasible" with regards to ag, it's usually not the camp you think it is making that argument. "Not economically feasible" has been our go-to excuse for shitty production methods, and the suppliers of those methods and materials. In effect, they would very much like for you to think that we would all starve if we didn't purchase their products. "Much easier and less expensive" to shift our current practices -a contributor to this whole sad state of affairs- northward, yeah, sure........just so long as we ignore the cost of things like climate change. Here's what really boggles my mind, you think that moving water is a major stumbling block to food production? So lets assume food production moves northward uniformly, and that we just continue to massively fuck up in ag -because it's easier and more cost effective-. What is it you think that we're moving when we ship food back to the south? Water, only this time it's highly perishable water, double bonus.
More fun facts to blow your mind, continuing on with my example of Florida. You know what Florida growers could seriously use? A little aridity. The humid conditions of Florida are the perfect breeding grounds for pest and disease pressure in commercial ag that costs us millions (and again, greatly contributes to the amount of pollutants that ag offers up in the overall shit pie). Steps are actually taken in commercial fields to increase aridity above the root zone while simultaneously increasing moisture below it to promote growth and prevent pressure. Speaking of production and climate change, and specifically since you mentioned grain production, we currently expect to see increased rates of maturation in grain crops as a result of climate change. We'll actually be able to grow grain faster. Combined with longer growing seasons (again a projected effect of climate change) that means we might be able to squeeze in another crop every season. Go figure huh? Of course, mixed vegetable production looks like it will probably suffer for the same reasons that grain production is likely to flourish. These things aren't as black and white as you seem to be suggesting they are. They certainly aren't all black, which is all I see whenever these threads crop up.
Here's a fun link for you. http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/id/id36/id36.pdf (and you won't even have to read too far into it). Just so happens that with a modicum of investment (sheets of plastic and drip tape) roughly 50% as much water as we currently use here in Kentucky is capable of producing a greater yield across all known commercial crops (this same method is promoted uniformly across the US btw, not that most farmers actually want to install it). That's not exactly high tech, or anywhere near the limits of our methods. So, half as much water, and we get more food. Don't you think that it would be prudent to see whether or not we already have suitable solutions for the problems you think are so insurmountable as to invoke a mass exodus - before you insisted that it would likely take place?
I have not claimed that "because there were forest fires before people people can't cause forest fires" or anything even remotely to that effect. What I have repeatedly stated is that this particular forest fire is small fucking potatoes compared to the P-Tr "forest fire", regardless of who or what started either. I have not claimed that it "isn't going to be that bad". What I have repeatedly stated is that we don't have any reason to assume that it will be as bad as the events which are so often compared to it. Not only do we have no reason to assume that it will be as bad, it doesn't even have to be as bad as we have reason to assume it could be.
Now that we're hopefully done with that, lets move on to ag and irrigation. Grain production is predominantly rain fed. Ag extensions spend inordinate amounts of money pleading with producers to irrigate, but they are reluctant to try anything new, "That's not the way my daddy did it". When they do irrigate, they do so with the most inexpensive, poorly thought out and wasteful designs available, almost as a rule. It fucking infuriates me. You know what infuriates me even more though? That you thought that our current methods had anything to do with our ability, or that they were in any way a limiting factor to food production in the event that water became more scarce. They aren't. Aquifer depletion is a major concern, take S Fl a couple years back for example. Record low temperatures during the strawberry season led growers to shower their fields nonstop for weeks (to prevent the cell walls of the berries from bursting- making them unmarketable). The ground began to collapse underfoot, not under the growers fields, but miles away in residential housing developments. Here's the real kicker, they survived the freeze. Not only did they survive the freeze those same record lows produced an abundance of strawberries. No one could sell them. They were left to rot in the field because it was too expensive to even disk them under. Now, did any of this have to go down the why it did? To put it simply, no. There are methods, equipment, and practices which would have avoided the whole sad story. It isn't because we don't know how, it;s because we're unwilling to pay (and the real sad part here is that the amount we're unwilling to pay usually adds up to fractions of a penny per pound, fan-fucking-tastic). Tell me more about ag and aquifer depletion, because I just wasn't aware....
When you hear somebody say "not economically feasible" with regards to ag, it's usually not the camp you think it is making that argument. "Not economically feasible" has been our go-to excuse for shitty production methods, and the suppliers of those methods and materials. In effect, they would very much like for you to think that we would all starve if we didn't purchase their products. "Much easier and less expensive" to shift our current practices -a contributor to this whole sad state of affairs- northward, yeah, sure........just so long as we ignore the cost of things like climate change. Here's what really boggles my mind, you think that moving water is a major stumbling block to food production? So lets assume food production moves northward uniformly, and that we just continue to massively fuck up in ag -because it's easier and more cost effective-. What is it you think that we're moving when we ship food back to the south? Water, only this time it's highly perishable water, double bonus.
More fun facts to blow your mind, continuing on with my example of Florida. You know what Florida growers could seriously use? A little aridity. The humid conditions of Florida are the perfect breeding grounds for pest and disease pressure in commercial ag that costs us millions (and again, greatly contributes to the amount of pollutants that ag offers up in the overall shit pie). Steps are actually taken in commercial fields to increase aridity above the root zone while simultaneously increasing moisture below it to promote growth and prevent pressure. Speaking of production and climate change, and specifically since you mentioned grain production, we currently expect to see increased rates of maturation in grain crops as a result of climate change. We'll actually be able to grow grain faster. Combined with longer growing seasons (again a projected effect of climate change) that means we might be able to squeeze in another crop every season. Go figure huh? Of course, mixed vegetable production looks like it will probably suffer for the same reasons that grain production is likely to flourish. These things aren't as black and white as you seem to be suggesting they are. They certainly aren't all black, which is all I see whenever these threads crop up.
Here's a fun link for you. http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/id/id36/id36.pdf (and you won't even have to read too far into it). Just so happens that with a modicum of investment (sheets of plastic and drip tape) roughly 50% as much water as we currently use here in Kentucky is capable of producing a greater yield across all known commercial crops (this same method is promoted uniformly across the US btw, not that most farmers actually want to install it). That's not exactly high tech, or anywhere near the limits of our methods. So, half as much water, and we get more food. Don't you think that it would be prudent to see whether or not we already have suitable solutions for the problems you think are so insurmountable as to invoke a mass exodus - before you insisted that it would likely take place?
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!
