Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler
-
That's what I'm asking.
Actually, you did ask the other question with the obvious answer.
Anyway, I don't know enough about crops to answer the interesting question. I strongly suspect various crops might well respond differently to temperature changes, and I don't know whether there would be net increase or decrease from any temperature change. I'm more concerned about the effect of precipitation changes. I think most models predict decreased rainfall. IF these predictions were to prove true, the effect on crop production would almost certainly be negative. However, it is also entirely plausible that there could be exactly the opposite effect; increased ocean surface area (due to flooding of coastal regions) and increased evaporation due to warmer temperatures could well result in increased rainfall (in some areas, anyway), resulting in an increase in crop production. Or somewhere in between, or some of each in different regions. I don't know, and I'm far from convinced that the people writing the models do, either.
-
Actually, you did ask the other question with the obvious answer.
Neh neh neh neh neh pedantic dickweed neh neh nehn nehnehneh
-
I don't know whether there would be net increase or decrease from any temperature change.
I'm not a botanist, so I don't know off the top of my head either, unfortunately. I do know that we have a fair bit of land that is already considered to be pretty much perfect for farming whatever is farmed there, so whatever is farmed in such places would be less effective given any sort of temperature changes, but I don't know if we could solve that by just shifting crops around to different areas or something. In the very long run (i.e. more than a century from now), we may face a situation where most of the country is too hot for most crops, though.
@HardwareGeek said:I'm more concerned about the effect of precipitation changes. I think most models predict decreased rainfall. IF these predictions were to prove true, the effect on crop production would almost certainly be negative.
It would appear to me that these predictions have been proving themselves true for several years now, what with the record-breaking droughts sweeping the nation. Even here in Texas, despite that ridiculous bout of flooding we had at the start of summer, we're back on water restrictions.
-
I'm not a botanist, so I don't know off the top of my head either, unfortunately.
Of course you don't.
But you believe it wholeheartedly despite that.
-
Of course you don't.
But you believe it wholeheartedly despite that.
Find an instance where I said that crop failures would be one of the impending outcomes of climate change or gtfo.
-
Near Future Extinction... ?
Holocene is well under way, brah.
-
Well that graph was adapted from one published in a book by Peter Ward in 2007, back before there were any studies published that determined we are undergoing a major extinction event.
-
I am your standard white guy with a beard, no criminal history and all the requisite paperwork.
Well, why else would you have a beard other than sympathising with terrorists?
-
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.
You've lied (misread and then misquoted, at best, if you want the benefit of the doubt) before about it being 3 m instead of 30 cm.
0.12 inches a year amounts to 26 cm in 85 years.But just to indulge you in miscalculations, let's take the smallest rise rate (0.04 inches in 1900) and current rate (0.12 inches). Let's suppose it will triple again in the next 100 years (0.36 in). Even taking that unlikely rise rate and multiplying it by 85 you get 78 cm at 2100.
-
0.1, then a shorter while later it's 1.2
0.12, not 1.2. You have trouble with numbers, like not recognising 340 mm is not 3 m.
-
This graph would not exist if environmental negative feedback loops were effective at rapidly decreasing or counterbalancing CO2 increases.
Once again begging the question. So much begging! Are you sure you aren't really a dog?
-
which is why the original source doesn't really matter that much.
...if we assume that CO2 was the actual cause of all the bad stuff and not just one of many of its effects.
-
wildfire risk increase
I suspect our putting out fires all the time is a much bigger risk factor in this.
-
Hell, how many "thousand-year-storms" have already had huge death tolls just in our country in the past decade or so?
Like this year's thousand year flood that happened in South Carolina that was similar to the one in 1908?
How many people died from the heat wave in India? How many have died from the fires in Indonesia
These are reasons not to intentionally shoot ourselves in the foot by making the world poorer. You're arguing for killing more brown people. Not directly, but because your policies would have the effect of preventing them from being anything but as poor or poorer than they are now. Which makes them more vulnerable to that stuff.
-
Nevermind that Turkey is a legitimate travel destination for Europeans,
Not to mention a member of NATO. Still, Turkey is a weird place, especially since Erdogan. I don't think anyone knows WTF do to about those guys.
-
I'm more concerned about the effect of precipitation changes. I think most models predict decreased rainfall. IF these predictions were to prove true, the effect on crop production would almost certainly be negative. However, it is also entirely plausible that there could be exactly the opposite effect;
It is widely acknowledged that the models are crap as far as precipitation predictions. No one believes they do a good job of predicting that. Some will say that they do a decent job of global predictions and get the regional predictions totally wrong, but I don't think that's warranted.
The confidence in them is almost entirely derived from their mediocre hind casting.
-
that doesn't sound true.
-
something I head somewhere about deoxigenation leading to anaerobic bacteria that produce a toxic gas that leads to more deoxygenation
and the system being bistable, like a light switch, if you push enough in the other ditection it can stabilize in a way were humans cant breath
its not the more likely scenario, but it is the more deadly
-
Yeah I heard somewhere that magical Nazi UFOs leftover from WWII would be used by the Illuminati in a devastating war against the Rothschild one world government which would kill so many people that even Bigfoot would remove his ape mask and turn back into the reincarnation of the ancient Aztec king Ronald Reagan.
and the system being bistable, like a light switch, if you push enough in the other ditection it can stabilize in a way were humans cant breath
What the hell kind of weird-ass light switches do you use?
-
that sure seems like an exponential function to me.
And yes, it's obviously bounded
So... an exponential growth function can be a bounded growth function if it feels bounded. Just a nip and a tuck to flatten out that tail, and for all practical purposes it's bounded.
-
I suppose it's possible that a system could have exponential growth right up to the point that it runs out of some resource that limits further growth, but ISTM unlikely.
The other problem I have with calling this exponential growth is that, as far as it has been presented here, it seems to be based on 3 data points of 0.04, 0.10 and 0.12 (which occurred at poorly specified, at least here, points in time). Even if those data points are known with extremely high precision, it is possible to fit pretty much any sort of curve to 3 points: exponential, log, quadratic, cubic, sinusoid; about the only thing that may not fit is linear. Saying it "sure seems like an exponential function" based on 3 data points is completely unjustified.
-
I suppose it's possible that a system could have exponential growth right up to the point that it runs out of some resource that limits further growth, but ISTM unlikely.
Even if that happens, I wouldn't expect it to run out abruptly. If there's a hard limit, growth will approach it asymptotically, which precludes it from being an exponential function.
-
Exactly. There may (for the sake of argument) be a period of time during which the growth is, for all practical porpoises, exponential, but the growth does not stop suddenly (much less continue indefinitely); it slows as the limit is approached. In a simple system, such as the textbook example of exponential growth, bacteria growing in a petri dish, growth does not stop suddenly when some nutrient is exhausted; it slows as the nutrient becomes scarce. In a very complex system such as planetary climate, I would expect limiting factors to slow growth sooner rather than later (if it's even exponential to begin with).
-
If there's a hard limit, growth will approach it asymptotically
There are soft limits way lower than the hard limit. Also, you've got lots of processes not in equilibrium, which makes analysis much more difficult.
-
Can we keep the climate debate where it belongs, in the transphobia thread?
Thanks.
-
Doesn't matter, I already won it.
It's been like 12 hours since I asked someone to explain how global warming would lead to crop failures, no takers, BAM, I win. That's the time cutoff for Blakeywin.
-
I asked someone to explain how global warming would lead to crop failures, no takers
I did explain how it could, though whether that scenario will actually result from global warming is just a little speculative.
-
I need something solid enough to justify worrying about it right now this instant. Not speculation.
-
Ah, well, you'll have to get that from somebody else (if it exists); I'm a fellow skeptic. At least somewhat; I don't necessarily deny that climate change is occurring, but what I've seen has pretty much convinced me that most, if not all, of the change that has been observed would be occurring even if humans didn't exist, and I'm not at all convinced that the predicted doom-and-gloom scenarios are realistic.
-
what I've seen has pretty much convinced me that most, if not all, the change that has been observed would be occurring even if humans didn't exist, and I'm not at all convinced that the predicted doom-and-gloom scenarios are realistic.
This is pretty much my sentiment on the whole thing.
-
Well I think humans are definitely responsible for a change in CO2 levels, I just don't think there's any point to doing anything about it. First of all, because there's no way it can be this horrible disaster brafox thinks it'll be, and secondly because there's no authority that has the reach to actually stop CO2 emissions worldwide.
-
No, I'm not. If negative feedback loops were faster and more effective than any positive feedback loop, homostasis would be maintained, and CO2 levels would never drastically shift.
-
Which we can very easily do since we have plenty of evidence that strongly suggests that CO2 is a major factor of the greenhouse effect and that it further contributes to the other major factor, water vapor.
-
Because it's totally impossible that first-world countries might be able to spare a small percentage of our net worth to give them a leg up without them destroying the planet, right?
-
If negative feedback loops were faster and more effective than any positive feedback loop, homostasis would be maintained, and CO2 levels would never drastically shift.
Yes, you're making the mistake of thinking that you have all of the important information. Modern observation and study shows that we don't have that for right now, let alone a long time ago.
Which we can very easily do since we have plenty of evidence that strongly suggests that CO2 is a major factor of the greenhouse effect and that it further contributes to the other major factor, water vapor.
This reminds me of the people who say that climate modeling is just simple physics.
Because it's totally impossible that first-world countries might be able to spare a small percentage of our net worth to give them a leg up without them destroying the planet, right?
But that's not what's required to conquer your boogie man scenario.
-
Uh, no it wouldn't. Humans are the reason the CO2 levels are so high, and that is the main reason yhe climate is going wrong all over the world.
-
is going wrong all over the world
What's wrong with it right now that you're attributing to CO2?
-
Yes, you're making the mistake of thinking that you have all of the important information. Modern observation and study shows that we don't have that for right now, let alone a long time ago.
No, you're making the mistake of thinking some of the information isn't important. Modern observation and study shows that it all is.
This reminds me of the people who say that climate modeling is just simple physics.
This reminds me of people who say that God's existence is just common sense.
But that's not what's required to conquer your boogie man scenario.
No, it's what's required to give future generations as much time as possible to come up with a way to conquer climate change before it's too late.
-
What's wrong with it right now that you're attributing to CO2?
Global warming, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, melting permafrost/ice sheets, destabilized weather patterns, rising sea levels, droughts, and increased wildfire risk. And that's just the things I can think of off the top of my head.
-
spare a small percentage of our net worth to give them a leg up
Assuming that's a reasonable thing to do at all, do you think e.g. China will give a fuck actually complying with your policies after happily taking your money?
-
This reminds me of people who say that God's existence is just common sense.
AGW is just as much a belief system as any religion because it lacks falsifiability.
-
before it's too late.
Yesss.
This again.
Ooo, ooo. Can I ask the same question?
Too late for what?
-
Assuming that's a reasonable thing to do at all, do you think e.g. China will give a fuck actually complying with your policies after happily taking your money?
China doesn't need our money to stop fucking up the planet. Actual third-world countries, though, assuming they're not as short-sighted as you people are, will.
-
No, you're making the mistake of thinking some of the information isn't important.
Not at all.
No, it's what's required to give future generations as much time as possible to come up with a way to conquer climate change before it's too late.
REPENT, SINNERS!
Global warming, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, melting permafrost/ice sheets, destabilized weather patterns, rising sea levels, droughts, and increased wildfire risk. And that's just the things I can think of off the top of my head.
Yes, you think a lot of dumb things. "Destabilized weather patterns‽" Droughts? The carbon looms large in your mind. Far far far far far far far too large.
Too late for what?
Redemption.
-
Ooo, ooo. Can I ask the same question?
You can, but don't expect any better an answer from bra cox.
-
AGW is just as much a belief system as any religion because it lacks falsifiability.
Jesus fucking Christ. It lacks falsifiability because there's EVIDENCE THAT PROVES IT.
-
Not at all.
Yes you are. You are flat out ignoring everything that says anthropogenic climate change is real and saying "everything that's happening is natural and it'll all work out and sunshine and rainbows and daisies for everyone"
Yes, you think a lot of dumb things. "Destabilized weather patterns‽" Droughts? The carbon looms large in your mind. Far far far far far far far too large.
Yes, destabilized weather patterns. We are seeing huge shifts in the way weather patterns have behaved since we started observing them. And do you honestly mean to fucking tell me there aren't record-breaking droughts?
-
Jesus fucking Christ. It lacks falsifiability because there's EVIDENCE THAT PROVES IT.
Hehe...you've already proven you don't understand the science. Now you demonstrate that you don't understand science.
China doesn't need our money to stop fucking up the planet. Actual third-world countries, though, assuming they're not as short-sighted as you people are, will.
But what causes people to not want to "fuck the planet" is having enough wealth to care. And I'm not talking about hypothetical "fuck the planet" stuff like your AGW nightmares.
But changing the way we generate energy is going to take a lot of wealth, too. If only to support the research, etc, that's going to be required to find anything to compete with fossil fuels.
-
Too late for what?
To actually do anything about it before we all have to live in floating freezers or space ships.
-
Psst.
Too late for what?
You know like where you see an action movie, and they say something like "we have to stop that runaway train before it's too late!" part of the scriptwriting process is we have to know what it's too late for. Like, is the train going to hit an orphanage and kill a bunch of filthy kids? Why the fuck does it matter if we stop it in ten minutes or ten hours? Needs explained.
You keep saying "too late", but I don't know what it'd be too late for. I expect your belief based on SUPER SMART GENIUS EXPERT SCIENCE RESEARCH MAN to actually have defined what's going to happen if we do nothing, so why don't you simply share that explanation with me? Then I might think you have more than 4 brain cells in your tiny head.
Holocene extinction - Wikipedia
