Climate Change

[csgators]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/Temp_0-400k_yrs.gif

 

What way is it going to go next?

 

http://bioanthropology.org/images/5/5b/400000yearslarge.gif

 

What follows what?

Edited June 17, 2011 by csgators

[Skevitj]

Based on current agricultural techs, it won't take a huge change in temperature either way for the majority of food production to no longer be viable (4-5deg for the areas which support most of the world's population). We'll all starve to death long before the cold/heat or rising sea levels gets us. Hell, at our current overfishing rates, changes in climate won't even be quick enough to take a shot at us. Edited June 17, 2011 by Skevitj

[Ghogiel]

. Hell, at our current overfishing rates

this is one of those things everyone who has eyeballs knows is happening. Several fish stocks are quite depleted in the wild. You can even see the effects in the market place.

 

In the English channel, you can't really fish cod because of regulations, only haddock and other fish, funny thing is, all there is cod. :tongue:

 

well no, there is a lot of other fish. but there is a lot of Cod too

 

So they have to dump loads of their catches off shore because it is illegal to land it, but the fish die anyway because the are dragged up from a little depth in nets and they basically get the bends and die. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7172049.stm

 

Brits might have noticed Pollock in the shops? yep they switched to that fish because of dwindling stocks of cod etc.

 

Oh and there are a LOT of other good fish that don't actually get fished though, for one reason or another. Mostly because of things like the flesh is like grey and doesn't look very appealing, but otherwise would more or less resemble a lot of white fish in taste.

 

So.. about that climate change. Everyone up for sushi? :teehee:

Edited June 17, 2011 by Ghogiel

[HeyYou]

Based on current agricultural techs, it won't take a huge change in temperature either way for the majority of food production to no longer be viable (4-5deg for the areas which support most of the world's population). We'll all starve to death long before the cold/heat or rising sea levels gets us. Hell, at our current overfishing rates, changes in climate won't even be quick enough to take a shot at us.

 

This isn't precisely accurate. For some crops, a minor temp change of that nature wouldn't matter. For those that do, plant something else. All the change would mean, would be farmers would have to raise different crops, and some food crops would grow better in other areas, that they wouldn't have done so well in previously. Not really that big of a deal, but, some folks would like to paint it as the end of the world.

[Skevitj]

The majority of non-GM crops destined for human consumption are very sensitive to weather conditions (including mechanical aspects, such as sowing), the actual temperature change has very little bearing on the crops' productivity, but the weather changes corresponding to those magnitude changes in temperature is capable of decimating entire agricultural regions. It's already happened here: half our older farms are barren now due to the majority of our rainfall moving north into the tropical/monsoonal regions which are pretty much the opposite of what you need for mass farming. -> End result is a massive reduction in food producing farm land. Sure we can plant other crops there, but they supply cattle feed at best. That land is only starting to be reclaimed now with specific low-water crop species. The rainfall isn't moving from one viable farming area to another, a negative change in one area doesn't imply a positive change in another.

 

GM is going to be a necessity in the reasonable future, cross species breeding is barely managing to keep up as it is.

 

Going back to fishing though, there is more than enough studies around on the influence of ocean temperature in the breeding cycle for a large number of fish varieties. A change in atmospheric temperature of 3-4 degrees isn't massive, but if that same change was to be found in the oceans, there would be very few species capable of surviving it.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Skevitj

[HeyYou]

The majority of non-GM crops destined for human consumption are very sensitive to weather conditions (including mechanical aspects, such as sowing), the actual temperature change has very little bearing on the crops' productivity, but the weather changes corresponding to those magnitude changes in temperature is capable of decimating entire agricultural regions. It's already happened here: half our older farms are barren now due to the majority of our rainfall moving north into the tropical/monsoonal regions which are pretty much the opposite of what you need for mass farming. -> End result is a massive reduction in food producing farm land. Sure we can plant other crops there, but they supply cattle feed at best. That land is only starting to be reclaimed now with specific low-water crop species. The rainfall isn't moving from one viable farming area to another, a negative change in one area doesn't imply a positive change in another.

 

GM is going to be a necessity in the reasonable future, cross species breeding is barely managing to keep up as it is.

 

Going back to fishing though, there is more than enough studies around on the influence of ocean temperature in the breeding cycle for a large number of fish varieties. A change in atmospheric temperature of 3-4 degrees isn't massive, but if that same change was to be found in the oceans, there would be very few species capable of surviving it.

 

Now that, I would agree with. For areas that temp changes can drastically affect weather patterns, this is indeed an issue. I am just used to seeing dramatically varying weather patterns from year to year regardless of temp changes here in the states.....

[Skevitj]

That's just one of those things which makes it so hard to create an unarguable view on the topic. If you look from day to day and see the variation between maximum and minimum temperature, when a scientist starts saying that there's been a 1deg shift in mean ocean temperatures, it's really hard to comprehend just how hugely significant that is.

 

On top of that you have the seasonal variations and it becomes almost impossible to pick and up/down trends in the time periods humans are capable of comprehending (without aid, ie computer logging). Only when you start looking at 100 year averages or so, do any real trends start to become obvious, but even then, the associated errors with those values have grown so large that it becomes an incredibly simple job for pretty much anyone to produce an argument that the data is missleading. It may very well be, but then it just all comes back to the quote I made in my first post, while the topic is in the media, greener energy sources, greener industrial practices and more modern, efficient town planning methods are all being evaluated, why should we stop these or forget about them just because we're not under the threat of imminent doom? Why should technologies which could improve the quality of life for 1st world countries, or even just give a non-zero quality of life to many areas in 3rd world countries be abandoned just because "Business As Usual" is easier.

 

EDIT: Changed "cheaper" to "easier". Easier is probably the more accurate word, it's just that its the initial capital investment hurdle which manages to impede the short sighted.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Skevitj

[HeyYou]

That's just one of those things which makes it so hard to create an unarguable view on the topic. If you look from day to day and see the variation between maximum and minimum temperature, when a scientist starts saying that there's been a 1deg shift in mean ocean temperatures, it's really hard to comprehend just how hugely significant that is.

 

On top of that you have the seasonal variations and it becomes almost impossible to pick and up/down trends in the time periods humans are capable of comprehending (without aid, ie computer logging). Only when you start looking at 100 year averages or so, do any real trends start to become obvious, but even then, the associated errors with those values have grown so large that it becomes an incredibly simple job for pretty much anyone to produce an argument that the data is missleading. It may very well be, but then it just all comes back to the quote I made in my first post, while the topic is in the media, greener energy sources, greener industrial practices and more modern, efficient town planning methods are all being evaluated, why should we stop these or forget about them just because we're not under the threat of imminent doom? Why should technologies which could improve the quality of life for 1st world countries, or even just give a non-zero quality of life to many areas in 3rd world countries be abandoned just because "Business As Usual" is cheaper.

 

Because like any new, or newly emerging technology, (windmills have been around for quite some time....) comes expense. There is not existing support infrastructure for it, which also has to be built. All of which, leads to yet more expense. Considering that, from my view, corporate america (at least), doesn't look to the future, beyond the next stock market opening. It doesn't matter that while decisions made today, will make them some money, but, later down the road, will prove to actually COST them more..... The all important, end-all, be-all goal is: What will make the the most money, RIGHT NOW, and to hell with the future.