Why Global Warming does not bother me.

[macdoc]

You really do not seem to grasp the problem.

There is no soil - have you actually been on the Canadian shield? Do you know what muskeg is?

There are loads of places that could still be farmed if there was soil - hell Ontario could easily double it's arable land if there was soil on the shield - it's been scraped clean by glaciers - there is no soil and what thin covering there is in some places is highly acidic from conifers. People farm further north in Quebec and the prairies as there is arable land further north. You must have soil to farm on an industrial scale as is done in the prairies.

What don't you get about this? You were given the information. At most 3 million more hectars out of the 52 million we already have.
And that's out of 1 billion hectares of land mass in Canada.
There is NO newly available arable land in the north aside from a few patched.

The Sarah is another case entirely tho and indeed the Sahel is greening up to the south as the tropic band moves north ( so far 200 km in the past few decades ) but that is offset by losses to the north in Southern Europe.
More water in the atmosphere has some serious downsides as we saw in Pakistan with the unreal monsoon that killed thousands and the level of flooding in the mid-western US.

The smarter solution is urban and vertical farming. Cuba has done wonders with the former and the latter is being developed. Multi-story farms are viable.
http://www.verticalfarm.com/

But this arable land to the north idea is codswallop for any sizeable amount.
This is the only area with potential and is 11 million hectares but is already counted in Canada's arable land. It will benefit from AGW but it that will not change the issue of growing season in terms of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Belt

[Blind groper]

macdoc

A lot of the development required will depend on pressures at the time. Certainly I accept that there are difficulties. If there is insufficient pressure to farm the north, it will not happen. If the pressure is high enough, it will happen. There are many, many places on this planet where people farm zones with terrible, or no soil. Have you never seen photos of the rice terraces in China? They are cut out of areas where there is no soil, and soil carried in. In many cases, carried up steep hills in baskets on the head of the farmer or his wife. Midway island in the Pacific, which is an American military base, needed fresh vegetables, and has no soil. Bare coral. They now grow almost all their vegetables on site.

Given the basic need, it can and will be done. By the time global warming has released much land for farming, the technology will be available also.

[macdoc]

You are dreaming - no one farms with no soil - I give up - you are hopeless in your lack of understanding of reality. THERE WILL BE NO NEW ARABLE LAND OF ANY CONSEQUENCE - read the fucking paper.
•••

Meanwhile the greater threat continues - extreme weather.

Farenheit 104 (40 degrees C). This is a number everyone should know.


This graphic needs to be engrained in public awareness. Why? As I said in 2009, global warming could stop photosynthesis in plants we need to survive.

That is not some academic projection of potential interest to people living in the second half of the 21st century. It is relevant now. I repeated that warning earlier this year because we were already starting to see the impact of this biological reality in other countries with increasing frequency.

Well now comes the inevitable news ....

According to the UK's Financial Times, Heatwave threatens US grain harvest.

Since the US is the world’s top exporter of corn (about half the world's export), soya beans (about one third of the world's export) and wheat, damaging the harvest will have a global impact. This follows mere months since similar problems hit crops in Argentina, Paraguay, Uraguay and Brazil. As a result, the price of corn has risen 30% since mid-June and soy prices are the highest they have been in years.

A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters a few years ago, titled, When can we expect extremely high surface temperatures? (warning PDF) offered some sobering projections. Here is one of their graphs. Given the projections shown above (pay attention to the US Midwest) this recent news should come as no surprise. Yet, the current turn of events apparently caught traders and the USDA off guard. The warmer than usual spring meant more planting was done. However, what was a benefit has now become a liability as the heat, coupled with drought, threatens these crops before harvesting.

“The combination of low subsoil moisture, which is a reflection of the lack of precipitation that we had during the winter, together with the very hot weather that we’re seeing right now could spell a pretty disastrous scenario for corn and soyabeans,” said Hussein Allidina, head of commodities research at Morgan Stanley.
The seriousness of the problem can be demonstrated by the fact the USDA recently declared less than half of US corn was in good or excellent condition while 22 per cent was in poor condition. Even more concerning is the speed with which this problem developed. Only a few months ago, the USDA was projecting US farmers would produce a record corn crop this year.
The bottom line: The current heatwave threatens to undermine forecasts of record output after the most widespread US corn plantings in 75 years. This is only two years after Russia suspended grain exports because of droughts that were worse than any they had experienced in half a century.

I doubt you will be hearing anyone say that again any time soon because this sort of failure is likely to become increasingly commonplace.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/0 ... hould-know

Do keep the rose coloured glasses on - won't help but looks nice.

[Blind groper]

macdoc

One thing I have pointed out before, and no doubt will have to point out again, is that every single case of predicting global disaster has proved to be wrong. And there are many, many such predictions. The reason they always prove to be wrong, and the reason your prediction will prove to be wrong, is that human ingenuity trumps all those serious problems.

Your reference predicts that temperatures above 40 C will stop the photosynthesis in crops. Total and utter nonsense. Why? There are literally thousands of species of tropical plant that thrive in those high temperatures, meaning there are genes to be harvested to enable crops to also thrive in those high temperatures. The prediction of disaster over 40 C is another short sighted bit of garbage due to lack of ability to foresee what our scientists will be doing in 20, 30, 50 years.

New Scientist journal predicts a doubling of human knowledge in the next 40 years. Knowledge is power, and one of the sciences due to literally explode with new knowledge is genetics. The new knowledge, and the technologies arising from that knowledge will make such disaster predictions look very silly indeed.

[MiM]

MiM, most of the "new" farm land would be in Russia and Canada, right?

I guess so, why?

The latitudes would be similar to where we are already farming, I suppose. We grow wheat up to 64 degree. No problem with lack of sun, only the growth period gets too short, due to cold springs and autumns.

If you're already farming there, obviously that latitude does not require global warming to make arable land.

.
Not in northern Europe, where we have a lot of help from the Golf stream. But try the same in Northern Canada or Siberia.

[mistermack]

macdoc

One thing I have pointed out before, and no doubt will have to point out again, is that every single case of predicting global disaster has proved to be wrong. And there are many, many such predictions. The reason they always prove to be wrong, and the reason your prediction will prove to be wrong, is that human ingenuity trumps all those serious problems.

Your reference predicts that temperatures above 40 C will stop the photosynthesis in crops. Total and utter nonsense. Why? There are literally thousands of species of tropical plant that thrive in those high temperatures, meaning there are genes to be harvested to enable crops to also thrive in those high temperatures. The prediction of disaster over 40 C is another short sighted bit of garbage due to lack of ability to foresee what our scientists will be doing in 20, 30, 50 years.

New Scientist journal predicts a doubling of human knowledge in the next 40 years. Knowledge is power, and one of the sciences due to literally explode with new knowledge is genetics. The new knowledge, and the technologies arising from that knowledge will make such disaster predictions look very silly indeed.

Macdoc is constantly confusing weather with climate, except when he is accusing others of the same thing.
The US is having a spell of hot weather. That doesn't mean the climate has changed.
I disagree whith you a bit though, about ingenuity being what's made the difference to previous disaster predictions. I think it's market forces, as much as anything else.
Food prices go up, and the incentive is there to spend money to make money in the farming industry.
People can AFFORD to use more fertiliser, and more efficient technology, if the price is high.
And it pays to bring more land into more intensive cultivation.

It's exactly the same with fuel. Put the price up, and things like shale-oil and fracking become viable.

You need ingenuity AND the right price. But the price will always reflect the demand. That's what puts a REAL brake on looming disasters.

If and when global warming is so serious that countries are prepared to spend REAL money, then the solutions will start flooding in.

[macdoc]

You are completely delusional MM-

•••••

Here is why relatively small amount of AGW ( to date ) ups the risk of extreme events dramatically

Its a good read

IPCC (2001) graph illustrating how a shift and/or widening of a probability distribution of temperatures affects the probability of extremes.

For illustration, let’s take the most simple case of a normal distribution that is shifted towards the warm end by a given amount – say one standard deviation. Then, a moderately extreme temperature that is 2 standard deviations above the mean becomes 4.5 times more likely (see graph below). But a seriously extreme temperature, that is 5 standard deviations above the mean, becomes 90 times more likely! Thus: the same amount of global warming boosts the probability of really extreme events, like the recent US heat wave, far more than it boosts more moderate events. This is exactly the opposite of the claim that “the greater the extreme, the less global warming has to do with it.” The same is also true if the probability distribution is not shifted but widened by a constant factor. This is easy to show analytically for our math-minded readers.

Graph illustrating how the ratio of the probability of extremes (warmed climate divided by unchanged climate – this increased likelihood factor is shown as a dashed line, scale on right) depends on the value of the extreme.

So in summary: even in the most simple, linear case of a shift in the normal distribution, the probability for “outlandish” heat records increases greatly due to global warming. But the more outlandish a record is, the more would we suspect that non-linear feedbacks are at play – which could increase their likelihood even more.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... emely-hot/

Taking this the next step further - it only takes a single extreme event in an otherwise "normal" growing season to devastate a harvest.....no amount of "normal" will repair a damaged crop.

Crops might tolerate 6 days of extreme weather for instance and not 10. So you get events like hit Bombay in 2005 where a single rain event was 50% above the highest ever recorded --- just short of a meter of rain fell and hundreds of people died.
It's this kind of extreme event that is and will increase in frequency as the atmosphere loads up with water and energy due to our release of fossil carbon.

The physics is quite simple despite the crap from the deniers.
The fossil fuel companies themselves have known it cannot be refuted since the mid 90s.
The mechanism has been understood for over 100 years.
The cautions were voiced as far back as the 50s.
The warnings and concern got louder and more urgent in the 80s.
Now we are up against it - not some far future but now and getting worse over the next few decades.
The worst can be avoided by putting serious effort to reduce fossil carbon usage and the rest working out how to cope.

but we won't as there quite enough fuckheads about as amply demonstrated in this thread alone.
At least Australia has a carbone tax now, British Columbia as well and Europe has made an effort. Sweden and Norway have had carbon taxes since the 90s $50 a barrel.

The heads of fossil fuel companies recognise the need for it..

Canada's Oil Insiders Want a Carbon Tax
Surprising as that sounds, interviews reveal a business community consensus based on economics.

snip

Senior figures from Suncor and Cenovus, two of the largest and most profitable oil sands companies in the country, told the Tyee Solutions Society directly that they support a national carbon tax. Chief executives from more than 150 of Canada's largest corporations have likewise publicly urged the government to establish a price on carbon.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/06/20/Carbo ... upporters/

They get it.....what the fuck else does it take to sink in to those with the rose coloured glasses..........

Even Exxon has acknowledged reality

Exxon Mobil, once one of the staunchest critics of climate change research, has acknowledged under Tillerson's leadership that human-made emissions have contributed to altering the planet's climate. The company now supports taxing carbon emissions.

[Blind groper]

macdoc

You do not need to give us kindergarten lessons on global warming. We are aware of it.

The difference is one of attitude.
For example ; you point out that a higher average temperature means a greater likelihood of an extreme temperature. Sure, I agree. However, bear in mind that we are talking of an increase of perhaps 2 C. If your region now has extremes of (say) 43 C, then you may in the future get an extreme of 45 C. Ask the Australians who deal with those extremes all the time. It is just a case of adaptation. I have operated in Australia at those temperatures and more. Not nice. Not comfortable. But bearable if you are sensible.

So your attitude is that of the catastrophist. Mine is one of coping. It is about attitude.

[amused]

I am moving to DC in part to escape the Texas heat.

It was recently hotter in DC than it was in Texas.

That is not right.

I blame............. dumbasses, or your god..... same thing

[macdoc]

he he...frying pan or fire in either case.

[Tyrannical]

The IPCC is about as qualified to make climate statements as my astrologer is to read my horoscope. None of these so called climate scientists have the math or physics backgrounds necessary to make their predictions. You'd think if it were important we'd put our best and brightest on it, something we clearly have not.

[Tyrannical]

Why does no one talk about my Great Wall?

It's not technically unfeasible, and should be no more challenging than the Great Pyramids were to Egypt or the Great Wall to China. Vast amounts of power could be generated through tidal power or some other force against the wall. It would also allow vast amounts of ocean space to be aqua cultured for food.

Sure a 7,000 mile sea wall would take immense resources to construct.

But the US has the resources: rock, steel, idle manpower, manufacturing, and enough coal (through coal qualification ) to power the energy needs to create a great wall. The payback besides continued dry land is hydro-power and food producing aquaculture. You could even filter sea water for rare elements.

[Pensioner]

Why does no one talk about my Great Wall?

It's not technically unfeasible, and should be no more challenging than the Great Pyramids were to Egypt or the Great Wall to China. Vast amounts of power could be generated through tidal power or some other force against the wall. It would also allow vast amounts of ocean space to be aqua cultured for food.

Sure a 7,000 mile sea wall would take immense resources to construct.

But the US has the resources: rock, steel, idle manpower, manufacturing, and enough coal (through coal qualification ) to power the energy needs to create a great wall. The payback besides continued dry land is hydro-power and food producing aquaculture. You could even filter sea water for rare elements.

Change your user name to King Canute already. Stupid post.

[macdoc]

hehe

It's more than a little unnerving to see just how many high temperature records have been broken recently. I thought I'd use this thread to share a link to Wundermap
http://www.wunderground.com/severe.asp
, which has one of the most robust interactive maps I've seen to date.

Click on the link and turn on the Extremes option; it's quite the wake up call (ETA: Set date range from 06-30-2012 to 07-03-2012 and take note of the number of broken all time/daily records).

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1374886

[Blind groper]

Tyrannical

As I pointed out before, your "Great Wall" would also need to extend up every river and every tributary. Both sides.

I do not think you need 50 feet (15 metres). A few metres high would be enough, but the sheer length of it would seem staggering. A lot, lot more than 7,000 miles. Even then, there would have to be utterly and amazingly powerful pumps to clear all the rainwater that would be trapped behind that wall. Pumps the size of whole towns.

Mind you, I think the idea has merit for coastal cities. Individual walls round New York, Boston, etc., etc. It may be possible also to have 'small walls' dotted here and there up and down the coast to stimulate sediment deposition. Current flows and sediment deposition can be modelled on computer, and small walls built in exactly the right places to cause build up of sand and so on to compensate to a degree for sea level rise.