Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

...Sure doesn't look like our food crops are suffering too much as a result of climate change to this neophyte.

(Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Global Food Challenge Explained in 18 Graphics | World Resources Institute
(selected graphics)

[Reefmagnet]

Hmm, lemme see.

The reality is yields increase in sync to warming and the alarmist fantasy is that yields could, maybe, might, possibly - insert other flaky words of choice - diminish.

BTW comparing yields to population growth and other non related meaningless within the context data is not in any way related an argument for healthier, more productive crops linked to a warming climate.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[transmitterdan]

Crop yields per acre are not much related to global temperatures. Correlation does not equal causation at least in this case. Crop yields are greater due to mechanization, irrigation, fertilizers, genetic manipulation, improved weather forecasting, herbicides and a host of other modern scientific advances. It has almost nothing to do with global temperature anomalies.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Crop yields per acre are not much related to global temperatures. Correlation does not equal causation at least in this case. Crop yields are greater due to mechanization, irrigation, fertilizers, genetic manipulation, improved weather forecasting, herbicides and a host of other modern scientific advances. It has almost nothing to do with global temperature anomalies.

Welcome to rational thinking.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Must've missed that in dispatches.

What do you make of this chart...?


Missouri Wheat Facts - Missouri Crop Resource Guide

Or this, for that matter...?

https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn...eldtrends.html

How does it compare to this one...?

Climate Change

Sure doesn't look like our food crops are suffering too much as a result of climate change to this neophyte.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Hmm, lemme see.

The reality is yields increase in sync to warming and the alarmist fantasy is that yields could, maybe, might, possibly - insert other flaky words of choice - diminish.

BTW comparing yields to population growth and other non related meaningless within the context data is not in any way related an argument for healthier, more productive crops linked to a warming climate.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Had you made an argument that healthy, more productive crops were linked to a warming climate, you might have a point.

The first graph showing local (the discussion is about global warming not local warming) annual wheat production growing at a fairly linear rate. Oddly enough, the last graph shows that wheat production in the cooling period from 1940 to 1980 continued to increase at the same fairly linear rate (rather than declining, as would seem to be the case if warmer temperatures were directly correlated with increased yield [and if I'm following your line of reasoning correctly]).

In the second graph, the corn yield is basically stable until 1935, at which point it began to rise quickly, and then almost precipitously from 1960. Again, there are no corresponding rises in the production for the warming period peaking in 1900, or declines in production corresponding with the cooling period from 1940 to 1980. Indeed the precipitous increase in corn production begins at the coolest part of the warming trend.

Basically, the graphs posted only show an increase in production based for the most part on demographics (population increases and a rising standard of living), market forces (demand for and consumption of high fructose corn syrup, livestock feed and the export market), and the advances made in the so-called 'Green Revolution'. I would assume that the effects of the Dust Bowl in the 30's have a minor role in some of the production numbers also.

Comparing yields to population growth is essential if only for the basic capitalistic law that one has to have a buyer for their product...

[Reefmagnet]

I wasn't arguing crops are more productive in a warming climate. I was showing that yield has increased in sync with warming despite Jackdale's claims that food cops somehow should suffer.

We are 166 years along the path of this 'calamity', after all.

Ps, you're aware that the charts are bushels per acre yields, not gross yields? Your response indicates this might have escaped your attention.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

..based on <1% of the available data.

Besides, what proof do you have that humans and "their food crops" won't sustain, or even prosper, in a warmer world?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Increased CO2 in open environments leads to:

1) Increased predation by pests
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105

2) Compromised nutritional value in food crops
doi:10.1038/nature13179

Our food crops evolved in much lower CO2 levels.

++++++++++++++

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Crop yields per acre are not much related to global temperatures. Correlation does not equal causation at least in this case. Crop yields are greater due to mechanization, irrigation, fertilizers, genetic manipulation, improved weather forecasting, herbicides and a host of other modern scientific advances. It has almost nothing to do with global temperature anomalies.

Increased food production is associated with increased use of irrigation, pesticides and fertilizer; none of which is sustainable.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Fighting MMGW is an issue of self control...do you have the self control to change your own lifestyle to one that uses less CO2 on a daily basis?

If you don't...then this is just a selfcongratulatory meaningless thread, not intended to help the problem, but to aggrandize. Sadly based on the lack of self control exhibited here, it's pretty obvious that many can't self regulate themselves nor reduce their own Carbon footprint.

Isn't this why the automobile industry is mandated to build cars that produce less CO2? Is it not why the Paris climate conference was held in 12/15 with 195 countries participating to come up with guidelines to reduce emissions?
Yes, we should do what we can on a one to one bases. But if it was only left up to individuals, you would have the deniers doing nothing and the alarmist squawking non-stop.
As negative as everything seems to look to you, headway is being made. Things could be a lot worst. There is still work to do.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

California just announced a closing of a Nuke plant that accounted for 9% of the State's power use...CO2 emissions...here we come

California uses 5% solar for the states needs which leads the nation. Why not just increase it to 14%?...duh!

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

But they have a big problem. In order to build out enough solar panels to replace 9% of the States power needs and they will have to cover at least 50 square miles with solar panels.

First, I don't know how they will get the building permits through. Do you know how many rare frogs, snakes, insects etc. will take precedence over the building project.

Think about it...That's only a 7 mile by 7 mile area. It's a big State.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

We are paying a price for gas that is dictated by a large oversupply due mostly to N. American fracking technology and Saudi Arabia's unwillingness or inability to curtail production. This is happening as worldwide demand continues to increase, mostly due to growth in China and India, albeit at a slower pace because their economies have slowed. The bottom line is that demand has little to do with the low price of gas that you find so "absurd." Ergo, artificially raising the price through taxation will accomplish little, and hurt poorer people who don't have the option of buying an expensive hybrid or electric car to get to work, or installing solar panels on their roofs.

Nice tap-dance, but doesn't counter my point that given how low fossil-fuel pricing currently is, there's ample room to start pricing in carbon, and still be below a price that everyone found affordable just a few years ago.

It's disgusting as usual to try to take shelter behind the poor. If you cared about the poor, you'd support them properly and make it possible for those who want to work to actually make a living. Those who would actually be hurt by carbon pricing are the companies in and around fossil fuel; removal of subsidies and a carbon tax are impediments to increased consumption and fatter profits.

Here's a little insight into how the rest of the world works

False Security: Why Climate 'Insurance' Arguments Fall Flat | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

You consider that the stock market is "the rest of the world"? There's your blinders, then. Those guys can't see more than 5 quarters ahead.

The "consensus" is bogus, but a more objective and thus credible one conducted by climatologists themselves through a non-partisan body could be quite useful. Extensive govt. or private funding of scientific research always runs the risk of creating bias. It's human nature and nothing unique nor personal towards the scientists themselves. No govt. plots or conspiracies imho, only pressures to conform, advance careers, and get re-elected.

Once again, you demonstrate that you won't recognize what's been done to date, and you confirm that if a body is not saying exactly what you want them to say, you will work overtime to find reasons to ignore their findings.

Just about every credible scientific institution or oganization has endorsed the finding of AGW and the need to react to it; the total of the above who oppose this is still zero. Admit it, there is no earthly assembly of experts whose opinion you would accept. You can stop pretending that such a body could ever exist for you.

"Congress-critter?" I know the US Congress has not been held in high esteem for quite awhile now, but I never heard individual members called "critters."

It's in common use. Hardly more pejorative than your gov't climate conspiracy theories, Obama's a socialist, etc.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Think about it...That's only a 7 mile by 7 mile area. It's a big State.

That 50 square miles of solar was a little out.

2015 figures from Electricity Forecasts (rounded)

Annual electricity requirement 300,000 GWh
9% = 27,000 GWh.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpa...Power_Facility

Ivanpah( the worlds largest) produced 650 GWH in 2015.
from 40,000 acres.

So that 27,000 GWh will take over 40 Ivanpahs, 160,000 acres, 250 square miles.

A couple of other figures of note.

Ivanpah cost $2.2 billion so about $90 billion for those new solar plants?

" In 2014, the plant burned 867,740 million BTU of natural gas emitting 46,084 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is nearly twice the pollution threshold at which power plants and factories in California are required to participate in the state’s cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions.[35] If that gas had been used in a conventional fossil fuel plant, it would have generated nearly 124,000 MW·h of electrical energy."

So that's about 1.8 million metric tons of CO2 as well from those new solar plants - compared to how much from the current 1 x nuclear plant?

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by StuM

That 50 square miles of solar was a little out.

2015 figures from Electricity Forecasts (rounded)

Annual electricity requirement 300,000 GWh
9% = 27,000 GWh.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpa...Power_Facility

Ivanpah( the worlds largest) produced 650 GWH in 2015.
from 40,000 acres.

So that 27,000 GWh will take over 40 Ivanpahs, 160,000 acres, 250 square miles.

A couple of other figures of note.

Ivanpah cost $2.2 billion so about $90 billion for those new solar plants?

" In 2014, the plant burned 867,740 million BTU of natural gas emitting 46,084 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is nearly twice the pollution threshold at which power plants and factories in California are required to participate in the state’s cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions.[35] If that gas had been used in a conventional fossil fuel plant, it would have generated nearly 124,000 MW·h of electrical energy."

So that's about 1.8 million metric tons of CO2 as well from those new solar plants - compared to how much from the current 1 x nuclear plant?

Ok...16 miles by 16 miles. We built the Hoover Dam and sent a crew to the moon. This should not be a big deal.
Well on 2nd thought...there is the bickering between the left and the right...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Ok...16 miles by 16 miles. We built the Hoover Dam and sent a crew to the moon. This should not be a big deal.
Well on 2nd thought...there is the bickering between the left and the right...

More like bickering btwn. the left and reality. Kinda doubt there's anyone here who would not prefer renewable energy over potentially harmful wasteful byproducts from nuclear or fossil fuels. Or for that matter, wouldn't want govt. taxation to be the magic wand which could dampen the world's demand for fossil fuels. But what we all may wish for has little to do with economic and technological limitations that have to be accounted for at this point in time.

Not sure why pointing out such realities creates such consternation . . . .