 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Geology Forum » Study: Climate change could devastate US crop yields... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bolaleman... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Climate change could devastate US crop yields: Study from September 1,
2009
Climate change could result in severe shortages of two of America’s
most important grains, according to the authors of a new study
published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS).
The research was conducted by two economists, Dr Michael Roberts of
North Carolina State University and Dr Wolfram Schlenker at Columbia
University, who used a well-known climate change prediction model to
assess how much yields could decline by the end of the century. They
found that corn, soy and cotton yields could fall by 30 to 46 percent
in this time under the slowest warming scenarios – if greenhouse gas
emissions are cut to 50 percent of 1991 levels by 2050 – and by 63 to
82 percent if emissions continue at current levels.
They wrote that although yields increase with temperature up to 29C
for corn and 30C for soybeans, there is a sharp decline in yield above
these thresholds.
Roberts said: "While crop yields depend on a variety of factors,
extreme heat is the best predictor of yields. There hasn't been much
research on what happens to crop yields over certain temperature
thresholds, but this study shows that temperature extremes are not
good."
Soaring food prices
And decreasing yields mean that prices of staple grains are likely to
skyrocket, bringing serious consequences for consumers as well as food
manufacturers, many of which are still reeling from last year’s record-
high input prices.
The study comes on the heels of a report released last week by the
Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture, warning
Americans that food prices are once more on the rise. Overall it said
that grocery prices are likely to rise by two to three percent this
year, although that compares to a huge 6.4 percent jump in 2008, the
largest increase for nearly two decades.
This latest study adds to a bleak picture, considering that experts
estimate that global food supplies need to increase by at least 70
percent by 2050 in order to feed the world’s booming – and
increasingly urbanized – population.
Dramatic change
On his blog, Roberts wrote: “To my mind, what this study makes very
clear is that the worldwide face of agriculture is going to change
dramatically. Even in the best-case scenario, in which losses in areas
like the US are made up with gains elsewhere, we will see different
crops cultivated all around the world.”
He sees three ‘caveats’ which could ease the problem: The so-called
‘greening theory’ in which more CO2 could offset some negative
effects, which he mentions is still a topic of intense debate; the
development of heat tolerant crops by companies like Monsanto,
although he says that there is “little evidence of adaptation in the
past”, and by farmers shifting where they grow different kinds of
crops.
“But with projected damages this large for the world's biggest bread
basket, no clear evidence of adaptation to warmer temperatures in the
historical data, and with projections already rather dismal for much
of tropics and subtropics, at present I don't know why we should be
particularly optimistic,” he wrote.
Although the study focused on US crop yields alone, the authors said
that their findings have global implications due to the quantity of
grains exported from the US, which produces 41 percent of the world’s
corn and 38 percent of its soybeans.
Roberts said: "Effects of climate change on US crop production will
surely be felt around the globe, especially in developing countries.”
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
http://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/On-your-radar/Wheat-and-grain-supply/Climate-change-could-devastate-US-crop-yields-Study
“Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop
yields under climate change”
Authors: M. Roberts and W. Schlenker
-------------------------
Bolaleman
Renewable Energy Jobs: http://2ajobguide.com/wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bolaleman wrote:
[quote:bfc53ef354]Climate change could devastate US crop yields: Study from September 1,
2009
Climate change could result in severe shortages of two of America’s
most important grains, according to the authors of a new study
published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS).
[/quote:bfc53ef354]
Soylent Green. Thats the answer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 17, 9:44 pm, Bolaleman <oswald_epp... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:c98b43879e]Climate change could devastate US crop yields: Study from September 1,
2009
Climate change could result in severe shortages of two of America’s
most important grains, according to the authors of a new study
published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS).
The research was conducted by two economists, Dr Michael Roberts of
North Carolina State University and Dr Wolfram Schlenker at Columbia
University, who used a well-known climate change prediction model to
assess how much yields could decline by the end of the century. They
found that corn, soy and cotton yields could fall by 30 to 46 percent
in this time under the slowest warming scenarios – if greenhouse gas
emissions are cut to 50 percent of 1991 levels by 2050 – and by 63 to
82 percent if emissions continue at current levels.
They wrote that although yields increase with temperature up to 29C
for corn and 30C for soybeans, there is a sharp decline in yield above
these thresholds.
Roberts said: "While crop yields depend on a variety of factors,
extreme heat is the best predictor of yields. There hasn't been much
research on what happens to crop yields over certain temperature
thresholds, but this study shows that temperature extremes are not
good."
Soaring food prices
And decreasing yields mean that prices of staple grains are likely to
skyrocket, bringing serious consequences for consumers as well as food
manufacturers, many of which are still reeling from last year’s record-
high input prices.
The study comes on the heels of a report released last week by the
Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture, warning
Americans that food prices are once more on the rise. Overall it said
that grocery prices are likely to rise by two to three percent this
year, although that compares to a huge 6.4 percent jump in 2008, the
largest increase for nearly two decades.
This latest study adds to a bleak picture, considering that experts
estimate that global food supplies need to increase by at least 70
percent by 2050 in order to feed the world’s booming – and
increasingly urbanized – population.
Dramatic change
On his blog, Roberts wrote: “To my mind, what this study makes very
clear is that the worldwide face of agriculture is going to change
dramatically. Even in the best-case scenario, in which losses in areas
like the US are made up with gains elsewhere, we will see different
crops cultivated all around the world.”
He sees three ‘caveats’ which could ease the problem: The so-called
‘greening theory’ in which more CO2 could offset some negative
effects, which he mentions is still a topic of intense debate; the
development of heat tolerant crops by companies like Monsanto,
although he says that there is “little evidence of adaptation in the
past”, and by farmers shifting where they grow different kinds of
crops.
“But with projected damages this large for the world's biggest bread
basket, no clear evidence of adaptation to warmer temperatures in the
historical data, and with projections already rather dismal for much
of tropics and subtropics, at present I don't know why we should be
particularly optimistic,” he wrote.
Although the study focused on US crop yields alone, the authors said
that their findings have global implications due to the quantity of
grains exported from the US, which produces 41 percent of the world’s
corn and 38 percent of its soybeans.
Roberts said: "Effects of climate change on US crop production will
surely be felt around the globe, especially in developing countries.”
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,http://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/On-your-radar/Wheat-and-grain-supply/C...
“Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop
yields under climate change”
Authors: M. Roberts and W. Schlenker
-------------------------
Bolaleman
Renewable Energy Jobs:http://2ajobguide.com/wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx
[/quote:c98b43879e]
The difference between weather and climate relies on a comprehensive
understanding of the relationship between daily rotational and annual
orbital dynamics and I have expressed dismay often enough that nobody
but nobody wants to deal with this matter,briefly,the distinction
between global climate and hemispherical weather patterns can be
expressed astronomically by the difference between total global
variations in the natural noon cycle (global climate) and
hemispherical variations in daylight/darkness (weather).
Now,the inputs into global temperature spikes or long term shifts in
temperature may come from changes in the relationship between orbital
and daily rotational dynamics or may be due to planetary dynamics
associated with crustal evolution as ocean temperatures may respond to
oceanic crustal activity such as the MAR,the point is that looking at
global climate through the perspective of a chimney or a tailpipe is a
pretty dismal way to approach climate ,geology, astronomy ,biology or
any other terrestrial discipline.
Looking at the great geological wonders and knowing that these are
signatures of the Earth's dynamics and the great changes that sweep
our planet from whatever sources hardly compensates for the painful
situation where people are so focused on pollution that they can't
raise their heads away from human influences or now simply ignore
everything else for a reckless and irresponsible 'climate change'
conclusion which links carbon dioxide directly with global temperature
variations and human influences.
It is,of course,easier to light a candle than complain about the
darkness but this relies on the goodness,courage and honesty of people
to actively halt the direction these things take,given that I find it
very difficult to introduce planetary dynamics into evolutionary
geology discussions where planetary shape and crustal evolution/motion
are linked by a common mechanism through the geological signatures
found on the crust,how much more difficcult is it to get a discussion
going from the geological signatures which indicate climate change is
just a facet of the planet that has always existed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bolaleman... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 18, 4:10 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 17, 9:44 pm, Bolaleman <oswald_epp... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Climate change could devastate US crop yields: Study from September 1,
2009
Climate change could result in severe shortages of two of America’s
most important grains, according to the authors of a new study
published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS).
The research was conducted by two economists, Dr Michael Roberts of
North Carolina State University and Dr Wolfram Schlenker at Columbia
University, who used a well-known climate change prediction model to
assess how much yields could decline by the end of the century. They
found that corn, soy and cotton yields could fall by 30 to 46 percent
in this time under the slowest warming scenarios – if greenhouse gas
emissions are cut to 50 percent of 1991 levels by 2050 – and by 63 to
82 percent if emissions continue at current levels.
They wrote that although yields increase with temperature up to 29C
for corn and 30C for soybeans, there is a sharp decline in yield above
these thresholds.
Roberts said: "While crop yields depend on a variety of factors,
extreme heat is the best predictor of yields. There hasn't been much
research on what happens to crop yields over certain temperature
thresholds, but this study shows that temperature extremes are not
good."
Soaring food prices
And decreasing yields mean that prices of staple grains are likely to
skyrocket, bringing serious consequences for consumers as well as food
manufacturers, many of which are still reeling from last year’s record-
high input prices.
The study comes on the heels of a report released last week by the
Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture, warning
Americans that food prices are once more on the rise. Overall it said
that grocery prices are likely to rise by two to three percent this
year, although that compares to a huge 6.4 percent jump in 2008, the
largest increase for nearly two decades.
This latest study adds to a bleak picture, considering that experts
estimate that global food supplies need to increase by at least 70
percent by 2050 in order to feed the world’s booming – and
increasingly urbanized – population.
Dramatic change
On his blog, Roberts wrote: “To my mind, what this study makes very
clear is that the worldwide face of agriculture is going to change
dramatically. Even in the best-case scenario, in which losses in areas
like the US are made up with gains elsewhere, we will see different
crops cultivated all around the world.”
He sees three ‘caveats’ which could ease the problem: The so-called
‘greening theory’ in which more CO2 could offset some negative
effects, which he mentions is still a topic of intense debate; the
development of heat tolerant crops by companies like Monsanto,
although he says that there is “little evidence of adaptation in the
past”, and by farmers shifting where they grow different kinds of
crops.
“But with projected damages this large for the world's biggest bread
basket, no clear evidence of adaptation to warmer temperatures in the
historical data, and with projections already rather dismal for much
of tropics and subtropics, at present I don't know why we should be
particularly optimistic,” he wrote.
Although the study focused on US crop yields alone, the authors said
that their findings have global implications due to the quantity of
grains exported from the US, which produces 41 percent of the world’s
corn and 38 percent of its soybeans.
Roberts said: "Effects of climate change on US crop production will
surely be felt around the globe, especially in developing countries.”
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,http://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/On-your-radar/Wheat-and-grain-supply/C...
“Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop
yields under climate change”
Authors: M. Roberts and W. Schlenker
-------------------------
Bolaleman
Renewable Energy Jobs:http://2ajobguide.com/wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx
The difference between weather and climate relies on a comprehensive
understanding of the relationship between daily rotational and annual
orbital dynamics and I have expressed dismay often enough that nobody
but nobody wants to deal with this matter,briefly,the distinction
between global climate and hemispherical weather patterns can be
expressed astronomically by the difference between total global
variations in the natural noon cycle (global climate) and
hemispherical variations in daylight/darkness (weather).
Now,the inputs into global temperature spikes or long term shifts in
temperature may come from changes in the relationship between orbital
and daily rotational dynamics or may be due to planetary dynamics
associated with crustal evolution as ocean temperatures may respond to
oceanic crustal activity such as the MAR,the point is that looking at
global climate through the perspective of a chimney or a tailpipe is a
pretty dismal way to approach climate ,geology, astronomy ,biology or
any other terrestrial discipline.
Looking at the great geological wonders and knowing that these are
signatures of the Earth's dynamics and the great changes that sweep
our planet from whatever sources hardly compensates for the painful
situation where people are so focused on pollution that they can't
raise their heads away from human influences or now simply ignore
everything else for a reckless and irresponsible 'climate change'
conclusion which links carbon dioxide directly with global temperature
variations and human influences.
It is,of course,easier to light a candle than complain about the
darkness but this relies on the goodness,courage and honesty of people
to actively halt the direction these things take,given that I find it
very difficult to introduce planetary dynamics into evolutionary
geology discussions where planetary shape and crustal evolution/motion
are linked by a common mechanism through the geological signatures
found on the crust,how much more difficcult is it to get a discussion
going from the geological signatures which indicate climate change is
just a facet of the planet that has always existed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
well, fact is that there is a correlation between CO2 concentration
and global temperature. If this is a direct or indirect correlation,
man made or natural, the problem is there and something needs to be
done in order to avoid problems like those described in this article.
The first time in history, mankind is able to (or at least trying to)
control the climate change which most likely will have a great impact
on our existence. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bolaleman... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 17, 8:04 pm, Paul <P... at (no spam) main.com> wrote:
[quote]Bolaleman wrote:
Climate change could devastate US crop yields: Study from September 1,
2009
Climate change could result in severe shortages of two of America’s
most important grains, according to the authors of a new study
published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS).
Soylent Green. Thats the answer.
[/quote]
I heard about this film but unfortunately never saw it. Question: is
there already a soylent green stuff around? Wouldn't be too surprised. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 19, 4:06 pm, Bolaleman <oswald_epp... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 18, 4:10 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:44 pm, Bolaleman <oswald_epp... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Climate change could devastate US crop yields: Study from September 1,
2009
Climate change could result in severe shortages of two of America’s
most important grains, according to the authors of a new study
published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS).
The research was conducted by two economists, Dr Michael Roberts of
North Carolina State University and Dr Wolfram Schlenker at Columbia
University, who used a well-known climate change prediction model to
assess how much yields could decline by the end of the century. They
found that corn, soy and cotton yields could fall by 30 to 46 percent
in this time under the slowest warming scenarios – if greenhouse gas
emissions are cut to 50 percent of 1991 levels by 2050 – and by 63 to
82 percent if emissions continue at current levels.
They wrote that although yields increase with temperature up to 29C
for corn and 30C for soybeans, there is a sharp decline in yield above
these thresholds.
Roberts said: "While crop yields depend on a variety of factors,
extreme heat is the best predictor of yields. There hasn't been much
research on what happens to crop yields over certain temperature
thresholds, but this study shows that temperature extremes are not
good."
Soaring food prices
And decreasing yields mean that prices of staple grains are likely to
skyrocket, bringing serious consequences for consumers as well as food
manufacturers, many of which are still reeling from last year’s record-
high input prices.
The study comes on the heels of a report released last week by the
Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture, warning
Americans that food prices are once more on the rise. Overall it said
that grocery prices are likely to rise by two to three percent this
year, although that compares to a huge 6.4 percent jump in 2008, the
largest increase for nearly two decades.
This latest study adds to a bleak picture, considering that experts
estimate that global food supplies need to increase by at least 70
percent by 2050 in order to feed the world’s booming – and
increasingly urbanized – population.
Dramatic change
On his blog, Roberts wrote: “To my mind, what this study makes very
clear is that the worldwide face of agriculture is going to change
dramatically. Even in the best-case scenario, in which losses in areas
like the US are made up with gains elsewhere, we will see different
crops cultivated all around the world.”
He sees three ‘caveats’ which could ease the problem: The so-called
‘greening theory’ in which more CO2 could offset some negative
effects, which he mentions is still a topic of intense debate; the
development of heat tolerant crops by companies like Monsanto,
although he says that there is “little evidence of adaptation in the
past”, and by farmers shifting where they grow different kinds of
crops.
“But with projected damages this large for the world's biggest bread
basket, no clear evidence of adaptation to warmer temperatures in the
historical data, and with projections already rather dismal for much
of tropics and subtropics, at present I don't know why we should be
particularly optimistic,” he wrote.
Although the study focused on US crop yields alone, the authors said
that their findings have global implications due to the quantity of
grains exported from the US, which produces 41 percent of the world’s
corn and 38 percent of its soybeans.
Roberts said: "Effects of climate change on US crop production will
surely be felt around the globe, especially in developing countries.”
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,http://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/On-your-radar/Wheat-and-grain-supply/C...
“Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop
yields under climate change”
Authors: M. Roberts and W. Schlenker
-------------------------
Bolaleman
Renewable Energy Jobs:http://2ajobguide.com/wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx
The difference between weather and climate relies on a comprehensive
understanding of the relationship between daily rotational and annual
orbital dynamics and I have expressed dismay often enough that nobody
but nobody wants to deal with this matter,briefly,the distinction
between global climate and hemispherical weather patterns can be
expressed astronomically by the difference between total global
variations in the natural noon cycle (global climate) and
hemispherical variations in daylight/darkness (weather).
Now,the inputs into global temperature spikes or long term shifts in
temperature may come from changes in the relationship between orbital
and daily rotational dynamics or may be due to planetary dynamics
associated with crustal evolution as ocean temperatures may respond to
oceanic crustal activity such as the MAR,the point is that looking at
global climate through the perspective of a chimney or a tailpipe is a
pretty dismal way to approach climate ,geology, astronomy ,biology or
any other terrestrial discipline.
Looking at the great geological wonders and knowing that these are
signatures of the Earth's dynamics and the great changes that sweep
our planet from whatever sources hardly compensates for the painful
situation where people are so focused on pollution that they can't
raise their heads away from human influences or now simply ignore
everything else for a reckless and irresponsible 'climate change'
conclusion which links carbon dioxide directly with global temperature
variations and human influences.
It is,of course,easier to light a candle than complain about the
darkness but this relies on the goodness,courage and honesty of people
to actively halt the direction these things take,given that I find it
very difficult to introduce planetary dynamics into evolutionary
geology discussions where planetary shape and crustal evolution/motion
are linked by a common mechanism through the geological signatures
found on the crust,how much more difficcult is it to get a discussion
going from the geological signatures which indicate climate change is
just a facet of the planet that has always existed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
well, fact is that there is a correlation between CO2 concentration
and global temperature.
[/quote]
I apologise for the brevity of this response,I assumed wrongly that
this forum would receive a break for a while but now it does not look
like that is going to happen.
More of an observation than a criticism,I encounter one major problem
when posting on topics in sci.astro.amateur and sci.geology in respect
to terrestrial and celestial scales and more often than
not,participants simply skip over this factor in a rush to discuss
topics which have a bandwagon appearance to them such as the hyperfuss
over carbon dioxide and global temperature,something which tries to
dress up pollution studies as 'climate change','global warming',things
which have always existed on the planet.
The course of events will eventually downplay carbon dioxide and do
what scientists usually do,dump everything into the celestial arena
where it turns into a speculative exercise such as the new tendency to
pin the global temperature spike on a solar cause.Before anyone takes
that route,they should consider the physical considerations of scale -
http://images.funadvice.com/photo/image/old/39032/Sun__Earth_size_comparison_labeled.jpg
I have often approached geologists when looking at planetary scale in
trying to compare the thin fractured crust with the rotating viscous
mass beneath it in order to consider differential rotation as a
mechanism for crustal evolution and geological events such as Volcanic
activity and Earthquakes but to no avail.In short,planetary dynamics
has a lot to do with geology,climate and just about everything
else ,at least where large scale terrestrial features and effects are
concerned and unfortunately many have an aversion for planetary
dynamics,pay it lip service or are just downright lazy about it.
I could ask you what causes the seasons but I know you will give the
incorrect answer even though it is crucial to know the dynamic behind
it for comprehending global climate and distinguishing between weather
and climate but you are not alone in this respect.Until scientists
understand the proper explanation for the seasons they will do much
harm with jumping to conclusions based on carbon dioxide and global
temperature.
If this is a direct or indirect correlation,
[quote]man made or natural, the problem is there and something needs to be
done in order to avoid problems like those described in this article.
The first time in history, mankind is able to (or at least trying to)
control the climate change which most likely will have a great impact
on our existence.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bolaleman... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 20 oct, 13:50, oriel36 <kelleher.ger... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 19, 4:06 pm, Bolaleman <oswald_epp... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 18, 4:10 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:44 pm, Bolaleman <oswald_epp... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Climate change could devastate US crop yields: Study from September 1,
2009
Climate change could result in severe shortages of two of America’s
most important grains, according to the authors of a new study
published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS).
The research was conducted by two economists, Dr Michael Roberts of
North Carolina State University and Dr Wolfram Schlenker at Columbia
University, who used a well-known climate change prediction model to
assess how much yields could decline by the end of the century. They
found that corn, soy and cotton yields could fall by 30 to 46 percent
in this time under the slowest warming scenarios – if greenhouse gas
emissions are cut to 50 percent of 1991 levels by 2050 – and by 63 to
82 percent if emissions continue at current levels.
They wrote that although yields increase with temperature up to 29C
for corn and 30C for soybeans, there is a sharp decline in yield above
these thresholds.
Roberts said: "While crop yields depend on a variety of factors,
extreme heat is the best predictor of yields. There hasn't been much
research on what happens to crop yields over certain temperature
thresholds, but this study shows that temperature extremes are not
good."
Soaring food prices
And decreasing yields mean that prices of staple grains are likely to
skyrocket, bringing serious consequences for consumers as well as food
manufacturers, many of which are still reeling from last year’s record-
high input prices.
The study comes on the heels of a report released last week by the
Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture, warning
Americans that food prices are once more on the rise. Overall it said
that grocery prices are likely to rise by two to three percent this
year, although that compares to a huge 6.4 percent jump in 2008, the
largest increase for nearly two decades.
This latest study adds to a bleak picture, considering that experts
estimate that global food supplies need to increase by at least 70
percent by 2050 in order to feed the world’s booming – and
increasingly urbanized – population.
Dramatic change
On his blog, Roberts wrote: “To my mind, what this study makes very
clear is that the worldwide face of agriculture is going to change
dramatically. Even in the best-case scenario, in which losses in areas
like the US are made up with gains elsewhere, we will see different
crops cultivated all around the world.”
He sees three ‘caveats’ which could ease the problem: The so-called
‘greening theory’ in which more CO2 could offset some negative
effects, which he mentions is still a topic of intense debate; the
development of heat tolerant crops by companies like Monsanto,
although he says that there is “little evidence of adaptation in the
past”, and by farmers shifting where they grow different kinds of
crops.
“But with projected damages this large for the world's biggest bread
basket, no clear evidence of adaptation to warmer temperatures in the
historical data, and with projections already rather dismal for much
of tropics and subtropics, at present I don't know why we should be
particularly optimistic,” he wrote.
Although the study focused on US crop yields alone, the authors said
that their findings have global implications due to the quantity of
grains exported from the US, which produces 41 percent of the world’s
corn and 38 percent of its soybeans.
Roberts said: "Effects of climate change on US crop production will
surely be felt around the globe, especially in developing countries..”
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,http://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/On-your-radar/Wheat-and-grain-supply/C...
“Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop
yields under climate change”
Authors: M. Roberts and W. Schlenker
-------------------------
Bolaleman
Renewable Energy Jobs:http://2ajobguide.com/wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx
The difference between weather and climate relies on a comprehensive
understanding of the relationship between daily rotational and annual
orbital dynamics and I have expressed dismay often enough that nobody
but nobody wants to deal with this matter,briefly,the distinction
between global climate and hemispherical weather patterns can be
expressed astronomically by the difference between total global
variations in the natural noon cycle (global climate) and
hemispherical variations in daylight/darkness (weather).
Now,the inputs into global temperature spikes or long term shifts in
temperature may come from changes in the relationship between orbital
and daily rotational dynamics or may be due to planetary dynamics
associated with crustal evolution as ocean temperatures may respond to
oceanic crustal activity such as the MAR,the point is that looking at
global climate through the perspective of a chimney or a tailpipe is a
pretty dismal way to approach climate ,geology, astronomy ,biology or
any other terrestrial discipline.
Looking at the great geological wonders and knowing that these are
signatures of the Earth's dynamics and the great changes that sweep
our planet from whatever sources hardly compensates for the painful
situation where people are so focused on pollution that they can't
raise their heads away from human influences or now simply ignore
everything else for a reckless and irresponsible 'climate change'
conclusion which links carbon dioxide directly with global temperature
variations and human influences.
It is,of course,easier to light a candle than complain about the
darkness but this relies on the goodness,courage and honesty of people
to actively halt the direction these things take,given that I find it
very difficult to introduce planetary dynamics into evolutionary
geology discussions where planetary shape and crustal evolution/motion
are linked by a common mechanism through the geological signatures
found on the crust,how much more difficcult is it to get a discussion
going from the geological signatures which indicate climate change is
just a facet of the planet that has always existed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
well, fact is that there is a correlation between CO2 concentration
and global temperature.
I apologise for the brevity of this response,I assumed wrongly that
this forum would receive a break for a while but now it does not look
like that is going to happen.
More of an observation than a criticism,I encounter one major problem
when posting on topics in sci.astro.amateur and sci.geology in respect
to terrestrial and celestial scales and more often than
not,participants simply skip over this factor in a rush to discuss
topics which have a bandwagon appearance to them such as the hyperfuss
over carbon dioxide and global temperature,something which tries to
dress up pollution studies as 'climate change','global warming',things
which have always existed on the planet.
The course of events will eventually downplay carbon dioxide and do
what scientists usually do,dump everything into the celestial arena
where it turns into a speculative exercise such as the new tendency to
pin the global temperature spike on a solar cause.Before anyone takes
that route,they should consider the physical considerations of scale -
http://images.funadvice.com/photo/image/old/39032/Sun__Earth_size_com...
I have often approached geologists when looking at planetary scale in
trying to compare the thin fractured crust with the rotating viscous
mass beneath it in order to consider differential rotation as a
mechanism for crustal evolution and geological events such as Volcanic
activity and Earthquakes but to no avail.In short,planetary dynamics
has a lot to do with geology,climate and just about everything
else ,at least where large scale terrestrial features and effects are
concerned and unfortunately many have an aversion for planetary
dynamics,pay it lip service or are just downright lazy about it.
I could ask you what causes the seasons but I know you will give the
incorrect answer even though it is crucial to know the dynamic behind
it for comprehending global climate and distinguishing between weather
and climate but you are not alone in this respect.Until scientists
understand the proper explanation for the seasons they will do much
harm with jumping to conclusions based on carbon dioxide and global
temperature.
If this is a direct or indirect correlation,
man made or natural, the problem is there and something needs to be
done in order to avoid problems like those described in this article.
The first time in history, mankind is able to (or at least trying to)
control the climate change which most likely will have a great impact
on our existence.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
[/quote]
There are probably 10thousands of scientists worldwide researching the
climate change and we will not see a consensus within the next 10 to
20 years. The problem for our politics - who have the responsibility
to protect us as their population from negative effects climate
effects in the framework of their possibilities - do not have the time
to wait that long. Hence, it is their responsibility to do their
homework and take conclusions according to the "minimum scientific
consensus". This consensus anyhow seems to consider a direct
relationship between CO2 and temperature increase. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 23, 1:50 am, Bolaleman <oswald_epp... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]There are probably 10thousands of scientists worldwide researching the
climate change and we will not see a consensus within the next 10 to
20 years. The problem for our politics - who have the responsibility
to protect us as their population from negative effects climate
effects in the framework of their possibilities - do not have the time
to wait that long.
[/quote]
One of the traits of ancient societies,and this trait has always
existed sporadically in one form or another, which are most
abhorred,at least by those who can reason clearly and independently of
bandwagons,fads ect, are those which play on the fearful tendencies of
the wider population and force them into taking actions which follow
reckless and irresponsible dictates,in our case, the belief that
global climate can be squeezed into an agenda based on carbon dioxide
levels and human pollutants,in short,for all our technological
advancement,we reach a point in Western society where we assume the
mantle of those ancient cults which foster fear rather than stability
and responsibility,not just climate but warnings about everything from
flu to meteorites, solar geomagnetic warnings to goodness knows what.
For me,as a regular participant of sci.geo.geology,it is like seeing
the fight go out of a civilisation and that is a hard to bear and
harder still insofar as most of it can be corrected with a little
intelligence and a lot of courage.
Hence, it is their responsibility to do their
[quote]homework and take conclusions according to the "minimum scientific
consensus". This consensus anyhow seems to consider a direct
relationship between CO2 and temperature increase.
[/quote]
'Homework' indeed !.Those familiar with the emergence of geology in
its modern form know it was based on curiosity,the innate tendency of
humans to interpret observations as best they can and the results are
sometimes lovely such as Steno at a local level and Wegener at a
global level even allowing for the limited data these men had compared
to our era.You are following conclusions for climate based on
speculation rather than interpretation and while speculation is
normally a healthy tool when allied with interpretative skills,the
idea of jettisoning everything to speculate on what happens when
global carbon dioxide levels through human pollution is increased is
truly shocking .This is not the first time this has happened in
history yet it is a concern that no authority exists to put the breaks
on , alter direction or look for alternative approaches as what
happened when they reached an impasse in astronomy in the 16th century
-
". . . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions,
with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like
someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the
hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which
follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus,
1543
You and almost all scientists can be excused for jumping on the
'climate change' bandwagon as it rolls on for its purpose as a vehicle
for social policy but at the bottom of this is a treason that goes
beyond the technical ins and outs of the subject,something which goes
back to the late 17th century when all the damage was really done. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:43 pm
|
|