Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 176

Thread: The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

  1. Top | #101
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן ǝɥʇ
    Posts
    8,665
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,571
    Rep Power
    69
    Decline in food production

    Nature:

    After two decades of impressive gains, global food production has slowed. The rocketing growth in grain production experienced during the so-called "Green Revolution" has ceased; now the gains come in tiny increments, too small to keep pace with population growth.

    Incidence:


    The world reaped its largest harvest of grain per capita in 1984; since then the amount of corn and wheat and rice per person has fallen by six percent. 1987 was the first in recent years that food production fell below consumption. World grain stocks in storage at the time of harvest dropped from 457 million tonnes to 390 million. By 1996, grain stockpiles had shrunk to less than two months' supply. A 1997 Environmental Protection Agency study found that, at a time when global food demand is likely to soar, actual international production of wheat, rice and other grains is likely to drop 7.6 percent by 2060.

    The loss of momentum in world food output is widespread. Notably, the growth of grain production has slowed in several populous countries, including China, India, Indonesia and Mexico. The world area in grain has declined steadily from a record high in 1981.

    The remarkable increases in food production during the 1960s and 70s come in part at the expense of soil and water resources. Since the 1970s soil erosion has increased sharply. For example, in the USA in 1976, farmers were estimated to be losing six tonnes of soil for every ton of grain produced. In the former Soviet Union and the USA erodible land is being converted to grasslands and woodlands. Across the southern fringe of the Sahara the agricultural frontier is retreating as a result of declining rainfall, land degradation, and dune formation. China and the USA have reduced the area of irrigated land. Water tables have fallen in both these countries and in the former Soviet Union and India, where wells are running dry and thousands of villages are relying on tank truck for drinking water. Climatic changes may further reduce land and water resources.

  2. Top | #102
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,148
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,437
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Decline in food production

    Nature:

    After two decades of impressive gains, global food production has slowed. The rocketing growth in grain production experienced during the so-called "Green Revolution" has ceased; now the gains come in tiny increments, too small to keep pace with population growth.

    Incidence:


    The world reaped its largest harvest of grain per capita in 1984; since then the amount of corn and wheat and rice per person has fallen by six percent. 1987 was the first in recent years that food production fell below consumption. World grain stocks in storage at the time of harvest dropped from 457 million tonnes to 390 million. By 1996, grain stockpiles had shrunk to less than two months' supply. A 1997 Environmental Protection Agency study found that, at a time when global food demand is likely to soar, actual international production of wheat, rice and other grains is likely to drop 7.6 percent by 2060.

    The loss of momentum in world food output is widespread. Notably, the growth of grain production has slowed in several populous countries, including China, India, Indonesia and Mexico. The world area in grain has declined steadily from a record high in 1981.

    The remarkable increases in food production during the 1960s and 70s come in part at the expense of soil and water resources. Since the 1970s soil erosion has increased sharply. For example, in the USA in 1976, farmers were estimated to be losing six tonnes of soil for every ton of grain produced. In the former Soviet Union and the USA erodible land is being converted to grasslands and woodlands. Across the southern fringe of the Sahara the agricultural frontier is retreating as a result of declining rainfall, land degradation, and dune formation. China and the USA have reduced the area of irrigated land. Water tables have fallen in both these countries and in the former Soviet Union and India, where wells are running dry and thousands of villages are relying on tank truck for drinking water. Climatic changes may further reduce land and water resources.
    Your link, while it states at the bottom "DATE OF LAST UPDATE 13.05.2019 – 21:13 CEST" doesn't contain any actual data more recent than 1997. I suspect that the content is similarly 20 years old and the "last update" refers to some minor metadata, or even the website as a whole.

    Here's a more up-to-date chart of global per capita grain production: https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/co...pita_19632013/ It ties well with your source in reflecting a decline from the mid-80s to late 90s, but that trend has been solidly reversed.

    Also, per capita grain is a rather weird metric - in a world where a growing share of the global population is at home in countries where the most important staple foods are cassava, yam and plantain, you might expect grain production per capita to decline even if the quality of food supply overall remains constant or improves slightly. A much more useful measure is food calories per capita, and that one has been rising almost continuously for the last decades (the last - small - downtick was when the Warsaw Pact collapsed in 1991, and might actually boil down to embellished data before that date): https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person

    If you unselect the individual preselected countries and select "world" in the first interactive chart, this is what you get:

    Last edited by Jokodo; 09-12-2019 at 11:30 AM.

  3. Top | #103
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן ǝɥʇ
    Posts
    8,665
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,571
    Rep Power
    69
    Even granted that current conditions enable an ample food supply, which I'm not disputing, the concern still remains climate change and increasing consumption rates as living standards are raised in developing nations, nor is this issue only about food supply.

    The projected social, political, economic and climate picture is far more complex than graphs of food stats suggest. Growing inequality, for example, being a factor for destabilization, ie, non linear projections.

    Abstract

    ''This paper analyses the global consequences to crop yields, production, and risk of hunger of linked socio-economic and climate scenarios. Potential impacts of climate change are estimated for climate change scenarios developed from the HadCM3 global climate model under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1FI, A2, B1, and B2. Projected changes in yield are calculated using transfer functions derived from crop model simulations with observed climate data and projected climate change scenarios. The basic linked system (BLS) is used to evaluate consequent changes in global cereal production, cereal prices and the number of people at risk from hunger.

    The crop yield results elucidate the complex regional patterns of projected climate variables, CO2 effects, and agricultural systems that contribute to aggregations of global crop production. The A1FI scenario, as expected with its large increase in global temperatures, exhibits the greatest decreases both regionally and globally in yields, especially by the 2080s. The contrast between the yield change in developed and developing countries is largest under the A2a–c scenarios. Under the B1 and B2 scenarios, developed and developing countries exhibit less contrast in crop yield changes, with the B2 future crop yield changes being slightly more favourable than those of the B1 scenario.


    When crop yield results are introduced to the BLS world food trade system model, the combined model and scenario experiments demonstrate that the world, for the most part, appears to be able to continue tofeed itself under the SRES scenarios during the rest of this century. However, this outcome is achieved through production in the developed countries (which mostly benefit from climate change) compensating for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations. While global production appears stable, regional differences in crop production are likely to grow stronger through time, leading to a significant polarisation of effects, with substantial increases in prices and risk of hunger amongst the poorer nations, especially under scenarios of greater inequality (A1FI and A2).

    The use of the SRES scenarios highlights several non-linearities in the world food supply system, both in the biophysical sense, where the levels of atmospheric CO2 tested reach new levels, and the socio-economic sense, where changes in population dynamics and economic and political structures complicate the translation of biophysical climate change impacts into social indices, such as the number of people at risk of hunger.''

  4. Top | #104
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,740
    Rep Power
    11
    Complexity is nonsense. It has always been and always will be about food, resources, water, and energy. In the USA people growing up in abundance have no idea that it all comes down to water and how important that is. Water comes from a faucet and food comes from a store.

    China annexed Tibet after surveys showed mineral resources. Its attempt at taking control of international waters in the South China Sea is about fish, oil, and minerals.

    Cheap fast food beef for Europe and North America has been coming from South America for a long time. Cattle ranching is a large part of what is driving destruction of the Amazon.

    An economy based on investment and profit has to grow or die. A growing population means more consumption and profit, and more consumption of resources.

  5. Top | #105
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,148
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,437
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Even granted that current conditions enable an ample food supply, which I'm not disputing,
    yeah, right.
    If you are not disputing it, why do you keep quoting, without comment or qualification, sources that do dispute it implicitly out explicitly?
    the concern still remains climate change and increasing consumption rates as living standards are raised in developing nations, nor is this issue only about food supply.
    And yet you keep quoting sources that paint a misleading picture re the current situation about food supply specifically.

    The projected social, political, economic and climate picture is far more complex than graphs of food stats suggest. Growing inequality, for example, being a factor for destabilization, ie, non linear projections.

    Abstract

    ''This paper analyses the global consequences to crop yields, production, and risk of hunger of linked socio-economic and climate scenarios. Potential impacts of climate change are estimated for climate change scenarios developed from the HadCM3 global climate model under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1FI, A2, B1, and B2. Projected changes in yield are calculated using transfer functions derived from crop model simulations with observed climate data and projected climate change scenarios. The basic linked system (BLS) is used to evaluate consequent changes in global cereal production, cereal prices and the number of people at risk from hunger.

    The crop yield results elucidate the complex regional patterns of projected climate variables, CO2 effects, and agricultural systems that contribute to aggregations of global crop production. The A1FI scenario, as expected with its large increase in global temperatures, exhibits the greatest decreases both regionally and globally in yields, especially by the 2080s. The contrast between the yield change in developed and developing countries is largest under the A2a–c scenarios. Under the B1 and B2 scenarios, developed and developing countries exhibit less contrast in crop yield changes, with the B2 future crop yield changes being slightly more favourable than those of the B1 scenario.


    When crop yield results are introduced to the BLS world food trade system model, the combined model and scenario experiments demonstrate that the world, for the most part, appears to be able to continue tofeed itself under the SRES scenarios during the rest of this century. However, this outcome is achieved through production in the developed countries (which mostly benefit from climate change) compensating for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations. While global production appears stable, regional differences in crop production are likely to grow stronger through time, leading to a significant polarisation of effects, with substantial increases in prices and risk of hunger amongst the poorer nations, especially under scenarios of greater inequality (A1FI and A2).

    The use of the SRES scenarios highlights several non-linearities in the world food supply system, both in the biophysical sense, where the levels of atmospheric CO2 tested reach new levels, and the socio-economic sense, where changes in population dynamics and economic and political structures complicate the translation of biophysical climate change impacts into social indices, such as the number of people at risk of hunger.''
    Wow, a source from 2004! We're making progress! However it too appears to use cereal production as a proxy for food supply. In a world where a growing proportion of the global population lives in countries where the main staple foods are not cereals, that's a poor proxy.

  6. Top | #106
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן ǝɥʇ
    Posts
    8,665
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,571
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    yeah, right.
    If you are not disputing it, why do you keep quoting, without comment or qualification, sources that do dispute it implicitly out explicitly?
    I have stated the issue as I see it numerous times, ie, population pressure and increasing consumption as living standards in developing nations are raised in relation to climate change....a multifaceted, non linear problem that involves a single factor like current food production.

    Yet despite have said this numerous times, you insist on making it a single issue linear projection.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    And yet you keep quoting sources that paint a misleading picture re the current situation about food supply specifically.

    The projected social, political, economic and climate picture is far more complex than graphs of food stats suggest. Growing inequality, for example, being a factor for destabilization, ie, non linear projections.
    The articles I posted describe possible outcomes in relation to projected conditions in relation to climate, consumption rate, economic systems, political and social factors.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Wow, a source from 2004! We're making progress! However it too appears to use cereal production as a proxy for food supply. In a world where a growing proportion of the global population lives in countries where the main staple foods are not cereals, that's a poor proxy.

    Still irrelevant. The projections and issues referred to being for mid century onward.

    For example, the date of the article doesn't change the situation and keep in mind that is only a small part of the overall picture of climate change in relation to increasing demand being placed on the environment due to consumption/rising living standards in developing nations;

    Quote;
    ''1 in 6 People in the Word Rely on Imports to Feed Them Today

    Continued population and/or income increase have pushed the United States, China, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom up the list of the Countries Who Import the Most Food.

    Are Countries Becoming More Food Insecure?

    By year 2050, more than half of the world’s population is expected to rely in food sourced from other countries. A comprehensive study conducted by Marianela Fader of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research shows that population pressures will push many nations to make maximizing their domestic food production capacity a top priority. This conclusion was made after the research team computed the growing capability of each and every country to do so, and differentiated their respective production capacities with their current and future food requirements. The team’s model made use of soil categories, climate information, and patterns of land utilization for each country, which were then translated into yields for numerous kinds of crops. By using the information on hand regarding the respective populations and water and food intakes of each nation, the team was able to closely evaluate what percentage of its food requirement each country could produce on their own in the future.

    Significant issues with food security will continue to trouble the world in coming years if the aforementioned study plays out to be an accurate projection. One way to combat such concern is for each country, rich or poor, to focus its resources on improving their agricultural productivity, which can play an important role in alleviating food shortages. Another possible solution is diet modifications geared towards the consumption of crops that are already produced locally, although further studies will have to be conducted to determine the viability of this option.'

  7. Top | #107
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,148
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,437
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    I have stated the issue as I see it numerous times, ie, population pressure and increasing consumption as living standards in developing nations are raised in relation to climate change....a multifaceted, non linear problem that involves a single factor like current food production.
    Who the hell is talking claiming linear trends or singling out one particular factor? Quit with your strawman already, will you? I'm reacting to your posting of quotes designed to leave a misleading impressions that current food production is on the verge of insufficiency. Your weaseling doesn't change the fact that you're a repeat offender.



    Yet despite have said this numerous times, you insist on making it a single issue linear projection.
    Show me where I'm doing that. I'm pointing out that a 20-year-old article making the (then accurate, it seems) claim that per capita grain production is declining is useless in determining whether food production is currently declining - both because grain production != food production, and because even that trend has since turned out to be a fluke.





    The articles I posted describe possible outcomes in relation to projected conditions in relation to climate, consumption rate, economic systems, political and social factors.
    They do that too. But besides, many of them contain misleading factoids about current food supply, and all I'm doing is correcting those.




    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Wow, a source from 2004! We're making progress! However it too appears to use cereal production as a proxy for food supply. In a world where a growing proportion of the global population lives in countries where the main staple foods are not cereals, that's a poor proxy.

    Still irrelevant. The projections and issues referred to being for mid century onward.
    Surely you understand that a projection based on empirical data up to 2018 is going to be more accurate than a projection based on data up to 2003?

    If not, why not make a projection based on data up to 1961?

    Shit, I may have given you ideas...

  8. Top | #108
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,148
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,437
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Decline in food production

    Nature:

    After two decades of impressive gains, global food production has slowed. The rocketing growth in grain production experienced during the so-called "Green Revolution" has ceased; now the gains come in tiny increments, too small to keep pace with population growth.
    So you are claiming that "now the gains come in tiny increments" is a projection into the future?

    Who exactly do you think you are fooling?

  9. Top | #109
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,799
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,775
    Rep Power
    62
    ^ ^ ^

    It seems that some people love predictions of doom. That is likely why the Book of Revelations was written and why the religious rant about hell. Thomas Malthus was a big hit for predicting mass worldwide famines to come in the mid 1800s. Paul Ehrlich used the same reasoning as Malthus in his book, The Population Bomb, published in the 1960s which predicted famine and food riots in the U.S. by the 1990s. Ehrlich was elevated to guru status and his current dire predictions (which are still as senseless) are still being heeded by some.

  10. Top | #110
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,740
    Rep Power
    11
    The beginning of the industrial revolution and the rise in temperature begins with the steam engine.

    Better water pumps for coal mines meant more efficient coal mining. This led to excess energy for the growth of manufacturing. Average people could afford a daily coal supply for heat. Burke's observation in the series Connections.

    Climate charge today is driven by economics. 'London Fog' refers to the at times deadly pea soup pollution of London's past. Possible effects on climate were foreseen in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    I remember a temperature inversion on the NYC metro area in the 60s. We lived about 50 miles outside of NYC. The skies were clear. As pollution got trapped each day the sky went dimmer and the temperature went up.


    Business and profit so far over the last 200 tears trumps any environmental impact. Wines Trump's rollback on the EPA.

    Change will likely take a large scale kill off of humans.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •