Page 14 of 43 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 424

Thread: The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

  1. Top | #131
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,243
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,532
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post

    Seems humans, probably other species as well, have some little genetic surprises in store for us that might indicate we've played this tune before and have found a way out. One can only hope. Dropping birthrates may save us from over consumption but will it save us from losing technology as well. What's happening in Europe and Japan don't bode well for the latter
    You gotta help me there, I've been living in Europe for over a third of a century and I don't know what it is that "don't bode well" for a future in which we maintain and expand our technology in the face of dropping birthrates. As far as I can tell, Japan and most of Europe have better trains and faster internet connections than you guys. More solidly built houses and cars too, though often smaller ones...
    If there are critical population sizes required to sustain given levels of tribal knowledge then once those levels have been violated less knowledge will become apparent shortly.
    That's almost a tautology. In what way does it relate to reality? You said "What's happening in Europe and Japan don't bode well for the latter (referring back to 'will it save us from losing technology' in the previous sentence)". If you know of any actual indication that Japan and Europe are edging towards a critical population size below which sustaining knowledge becomes unfeasible, let us know!

    y<snipped because it doesn't address the question>

    My model depends on the results in Tasmania being scalable to larger group settings.
    You don't have a model.

  2. Top | #132
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,762
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,668
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    For fuck's sake, you posted an article that literally claimed, in it's very first paragraph which you quoted in full, that "now [apparently written in the late 1990s] the gains [are] too small to keep pace with population growth". Remember post#101? How is that a prediction about the future?
    Which in no way translates as food shortages right now. This is a medium to long term issue, as explained numerous times. Stop seizing on the wording and trying to impose your own meaning.

    Here's what it said:

    ''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. ''


    Now how you go from ''the loss of momentum in world food output'' in terms of production gains to 'we are not producing enough food right now'' is beyond me.

    It's like you are wearing strange virtual blinkers that only allow you to see what you want to see and disregard the rest. You keep banging on the same drum even after I explained that this issue is related to mid century and beyond, even posting more quotes and links to that effect.....yet you seize onto some wording and make it your own, imposing your own conditions without regard to whatever else is said.

    One more time, food production is not yet an issue. The problem being described involves multiple elements such as a slowdown in production gains, rising consumption, water, arable land, climate change, etc, in relation to conditions from mid century onward, a perfect storm of elements that is likely to destabilize economies, etc.

    The issue yet again:

    ''Unlike previous geological epochs, where various geological and climate processes defined the time periods, the proposed Anthropecene period is named for the dominant influence humans and their activities are having on the environment. In essence, humans are a new global geophysical force.

    ''However, while population size is part of the problem, the issue is bigger and more complex than just counting bodies.

    There are many factors at play. Essentially, it is what is happening within those populations—their distribution (density, migration patterns and urbanisation), their composition (age, sex and income levels) and, most importantly, their consumption patterns—that are of equal, if not more importance, than just numbers.''


    This article is from the world business council:

    From the WBCSD’s Business Role Focus Area workstream on Sustainable Consumption & ConsumersCurrent global consumption patterns are unsustainable. Based on the facts and trends outlined in this document, it is becoming apparent that efficiency gains and technological advances alone will not be sufficient to bring global consumption to a sustainable level; changes will also be required to consumer lifestyles, including the ways in which consumers choose and use products and services.

    1. Global drivers of consumption

    Global consumption levels and patterns are driven at the most fundamental level by:Rapid global population growth – Population of 9 billion expected by 2050• The rise in global affluence and associated consumption – Global middle class expected to triple by 2030; • low-income consumers represent a market of US$ 5 trillionA culture of “consumerism” among higher income groups, who account for the greatest per capita share of global • consumption


    2. Global consumption patterns & impacts

    Global consumption is putting unsustainable and increasing stress on:The Earth’s ecosystems – 60% of the Earth’s ecosystem services have been degraded in the past 50 years • The supply of energy and material resources needed for industrial growth – Natural resource consumption is • expected to rise to 170% of the Earth’s bio-capacity by 2040Human social systems and well-being – Human well-being does not necessarily rely on high levels of consumption''


    ''World population is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050, driven largely by growth in developing countries and countries with lower per-capita incomes.4 Recent studies show that we are already exceeding the Earth’s ability to support our lifestyles, and have been doing so for approximately twenty years.''

  3. Top | #133
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,243
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,532
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    For fuck's sake, you posted an article that literally claimed, in it's very first paragraph which you quoted in full, that "now [apparently written in the late 1990s] the gains [are] too small to keep pace with population growth". Remember post#101? How is that a prediction about the future?
    Which in no way translates as food shortages right now. This is a medium to long term issue, as explained numerous times. Stop seizing on the wording and trying to impose your own meaning.

    Here's what it said:

    ''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. ''


    Now how you go from ''the loss of momentum in world food output'' in terms of production gains to 'we are not producing enough food right now'' is beyond me. <snip>
    Whatever happened to, like, reading?

    "too small to keep pace with population growth"

    "too small to keep pace with population growth"

    "too small to keep pace with population growth"

    too small to keep pace with population growth"

    "too small to keep pace with population growth"

    Or maybe some color helps:

    "too small to keep pace with population growth"

    "too small to keep pace with population growth"

    And, yes, this sentence is clearly talking about the present.

    It is a false claim that may have seemed marginally plausible 20 years ago (though only if you restrict yourself to per capita grain production), but much less so 20 years later, when per capita food calorie supply has globally increased by another 10-15%, and more in places that used to be most vulnerable to food insecurity, thus partially closing the gap.

  4. Top | #134
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    10,849
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    16,555
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    (AOC)
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    ^^^^^^^^ And does this genius provide any answers on how to protect Miami from complete destruction by GW/CC/CD?
    Sure. Cut down on CO2 emissions and remove CO2 from the air.
    And how does this genius propose to do that?

  5. Top | #135
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    8,762
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,668
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    It is a false claim that may have seemed marginally plausible 20 years ago (though only if you restrict yourself to per capita grain production), but much less so 20 years later, when per capita food calorie supply has globally increased by another 10-15%, and more in places that used to be most vulnerable to food insecurity, thus partially closing the gap.

    So there we have it, you are incapable of understanding what the sentence means in context with the issues being described.

    "too small to keep pace with population growth" does not mean food shortages today, tomorrow or in twenty years time. The article was talking about conditions decades ahead.

    This issue always is projected to become an issue in the period from mid century and decades beyond. How may times do I have to state that?

    Maybe colour will help?


    This issue is about the period from mid century and beyond.



    This issue is about the period from mid century and beyond.



    This issue is about the period from mid century and beyond.



    I've said that, what seven or eight times now, but you cannot accept what I say....like a true anal retentive you seize upon what you see is a key word or sentence and clutch to it like your life depended on it, adamantly refusing to consider anything and everything that is subsequently said.

    I have not claimed that there is food production shortfall right now, neither has anyone else.

    The issue was always about the possible conditions relating to climate change, food production, water, land and resources from mid century and beyond.

    Taking a sentence on stalling gains in food production and pretending that you are making some sort of a point is just plain silly.


    The point once again;




    Food shortages could be most critical world issue by mid-century

    Summary:

    ''The world is less than 40 years away from a food shortage that will have serious implications for people and governments, according to a scientist. "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said a senior science advisor on food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

    "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said Dr. Fred Davies, senior science advisor for the agency's bureau of food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

    "The U.S. agricultural productivity has averaged less than 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2007," he said. "More efficient technologies and crops will need to be developed -- and equally important, better ways for applying these technologies locally for farmers -- to address this challenge." Davies said when new technologies are developed, they often do not reach the small-scale farmer worldwide''


    Cereal yields

    ''To confront global imbalances in the long term, the World Bank says the world needs to produce 50 per cent more food to feed 9bn people by 2050, but climate change could cut crop yields by over 25 per cent. It says land, biodiversity, oceans, forests and other forms of natural capital are being depleted at unprecedented rates.''

  6. Top | #136
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,243
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,532
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    It is a false claim that may have seemed marginally plausible 20 years ago (though only if you restrict yourself to per capita grain production), but much less so 20 years later, when per capita food calorie supply has globally increased by another 10-15%, and more in places that used to be most vulnerable to food insecurity, thus partially closing the gap.

    So there we have it, you are incapable of understanding what the sentence means in context with the issues being described.

    "too small to keep pace with population growth" does not mean food shortages today, tomorrow or in twenty years time. The article was talking about conditions decades ahead.

    This issue always is projected to become an issue in the period from mid century and decades beyond. How may times do I have to state that?

    Maybe colour will help?


    This issue is about the period from mid century and beyond.



    This issue is about the period from mid century and beyond.



    This issue is about the period from mid century and beyond.



    I've said that, what seven or eight times now, but you cannot accept what I say....like a true anal retentive you seize upon what you see is a key word or sentence and clutch to it like your life depended on it, adamantly refusing to consider anything and everything that is subsequently said.

    I have not claimed that there is food production shortfall right now, neither has anyone else.

    The issue was always about the possible conditions relating to climate change, food production, water, land and resources from mid century and beyond.

    Taking a sentence on stalling gains in food production and pretending that you are making some sort of a point is just plain silly.


    The point once again;




    Food shortages could be most critical world issue by mid-century

    Summary:

    ''The world is less than 40 years away from a food shortage that will have serious implications for people and governments, according to a scientist. "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said a senior science advisor on food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

    "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said Dr. Fred Davies, senior science advisor for the agency's bureau of food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

    "The U.S. agricultural productivity has averaged less than 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2007," he said. "More efficient technologies and crops will need to be developed -- and equally important, better ways for applying these technologies locally for farmers -- to address this challenge." Davies said when new technologies are developed, they often do not reach the small-scale farmer worldwide''


    Cereal yields

    ''To confront global imbalances in the long term, the World Bank says the world needs to produce 50 per cent more food to feed 9bn people by 2050, but climate change could cut crop yields by over 25 per cent. It says land, biodiversity, oceans, forests and other forms of natural capital are being depleted at unprecedented rates.''
    From your link, first paragraph. The one you quoted in full:

    "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."

    That's two past perfect verb forms and one temporal adverb referring to the present, in three sentences. I'm not a native speaker, so I wouldn't know, but I guess it's idiomatic English to use such language to refer to events from mid-century onward.

    You learn something new every day, I guess...
    Last edited by Jokodo; 09-16-2019 at 03:14 PM.

  7. Top | #137
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,243
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,532
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    "The U.S. agricultural productivity has averaged less than 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2007,"
    US population growth is at 0.7%. Even global population growth is below 1.2%. This doesn't sound like "failing to keep pace" to me, but then this stuff is hard advanced math, maybe 0.7 is greater than 1.2?

    You really should become a teacher - you taught me two totally new aspects about English and math today!

  8. Top | #138
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,243
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,532
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post

    If there are critical population sizes required to sustain given levels of tribal knowledge then once those levels have been violated less knowledge will become apparent shortly.
    That's almost a tautology. In what way does it relate to reality? You said "What's happening in Europe and Japan don't bode well for the latter (referring back to 'will it save us from losing technology' in the previous sentence)". If you know of any actual indication that Japan and Europe are edging towards a critical population size below which sustaining knowledge becomes unfeasible, let us know!

    y<snipped because it doesn't address the question>

    My model depends on the results in Tasmania being scalable to larger group settings.
    You don't have a model.
    To add to this, several east Asian and EU countries, including Germany and Japan both if which have negative natural population growth, have higher percentages of GDP devoted to R&D and/or higher percentages of the workforce employed in R&D than the US.

    http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/researc...tisticsrds.htm

  9. Top | #139
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,920
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,896
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    ... snip ...

    The point once again;




    Food shortages could be most critical world issue by mid-century

    Summary:

    ''The world is less than 40 years away from a food shortage that will have serious implications for people and governments, according to a scientist. "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said a senior science advisor on food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

    "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said Dr. Fred Davies, senior science advisor for the agency's bureau of food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

    "The U.S. agricultural productivity has averaged less than 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2007," he said. "More efficient technologies and crops will need to be developed -- and equally important, better ways for applying these technologies locally for farmers -- to address this challenge." Davies said when new technologies are developed, they often do not reach the small-scale farmer worldwide''


    Cereal yields

    ''To confront global imbalances in the long term, the World Bank says the world needs to produce 50 per cent more food to feed 9bn people by 2050, but climate change could cut crop yields by over 25 per cent. It says land, biodiversity, oceans, forests and other forms of natural capital are being depleted at unprecedented rates.''

    Pure fear mongering (a la Paul Ehrlich). But then the writer did throw in a "could be" to fall back on while Ehrlich stated with certainty that there would be mass famine and food riots in the U.S. by the 1990s. Why the fuck are people so attracted to fear mongers? I understand why the fear mongers do it - they get rich selling books and giving talks. But why people eat up their dire predictions is beyond me.

    The main problem humanity will face if there is rising global temperatures and sea level rise is disruption, relocation of populations, and political as coastal cities flooded. Higher global temperatures would increase global rain fall opening the Sahara to agriculture (as it was six or so thousand years ago) and the higher temperatures would make the Canadian muskegs and Siberia arable lands. More rains in Americas corn belt would be a major boon to food production. Now a real disaster for humanity would be the end of the Holocene with a return of glaciation and droughts. Given a choice of either the Holocene ending with the current ice age ending or the current ice age continuing and a return of glaciation, I would go with the end of the current ice age.
    Last edited by skepticalbip; 09-16-2019 at 07:35 PM.

  10. Top | #140
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,243
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,532
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    ... snip ...

    The point once again;




    Food shortages could be most critical world issue by mid-century

    Summary:

    ''The world is less than 40 years away from a food shortage that will have serious implications for people and governments, according to a scientist. "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said a senior science advisor on food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

    "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said Dr. Fred Davies, senior science advisor for the agency's bureau of food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

    "The U.S. agricultural productivity has averaged less than 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2007," he said. "More efficient technologies and crops will need to be developed -- and equally important, better ways for applying these technologies locally for farmers -- to address this challenge." Davies said when new technologies are developed, they often do not reach the small-scale farmer worldwide''


    Cereal yields

    ''To confront global imbalances in the long term, the World Bank says the world needs to produce 50 per cent more food to feed 9bn people by 2050, but climate change could cut crop yields by over 25 per cent. It says land, biodiversity, oceans, forests and other forms of natural capital are being depleted at unprecedented rates.''

    Pure fear mongering (a la Paul Ehrlich). But then the writer did throw in a "could be" to fall back on while Ehrlich stated with certainty that there would be mass famine and food riots in the U.S. by the 1990s. Why the fuck are people so attracted to fear mongers? I understand why the fear mongers do it - they get rich selling books and giving talks. But why people eat up their dire predictions is beyond me.

    The main problem humanity will face if there is rising global temperatures and sea level rise is disruption, relocation of populations, and political as coastal cities flooded. Higher global temperatures would increase global rain fall opening the Sahara to agriculture (as it was six or so thousand years ago) and the higher temperatures would make the Canadian muskegs and Siberia arable lands. More rains in Americas corn belt would be a major boon to food production. Now a real disaster for humanity would be the end of the Holocene with a return of glaciation and droughts. Given a choice of either the Holocene ending with the current ice age ending or the current ice age continuing and a return of glaciation, I would go with the end of the current ice age.
    I call bullshit.

    The only thing that really matters it's the disruption, the transition to another temperature regime. And that one us much faster and thus disruptive with man made climate change than with geological cycles.

Posting Permissions

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