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

[SailOar]

Crop breeding is not keeping pace with climate change | Science Daily

Crop yields will fall within the next decade due to climate change unless immediate action is taken to speed up the introduction of new and improved varieties, experts have warned.

The research, led by the University of Leeds and published in the journal Nature Climate Change, focusses on maize in Africa but the underlying processes affect crops across the tropics.

Study lead author Professor Andy Challinor, from the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said: "In Africa, gradually rising temperatures and more droughts and heatwaves caused by climate change will have an impact on maize.[...]

It takes anywhere between 10 and 30 years to breed a new crop variety and have it adopted by farmers. The rate at which temperatures are increasing across the tropics means that by the time the crop is in the field it is being grown in warmer temperatures that it was developed in.[...]

The researchers found that crop duration will become significantly shorter by as early as 2018 in some locations and by 2031 in the majority of maize-growing regions in Africa. Only the most optimistic assessment -- in which farming, policy, markets and technology all combine to make new varieties in 10 years -- showed crops staying matched to temperatures between now and 2050.[...]

The researchers have also proposed an alternative plan: use global climate models to determine future temperatures, then heat greenhouses to those temperatures and develop new crop varieties there.[...]

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

... please give me an example of a truly new technological breakthrough in the last 75 years.

Of course we could quibble all day about what "truly new" means, but how about...

...plastics
...microcircuitry
...AI
...superconductors
...microsurgery and laser surgery
...transplant medicine
...led lighting
...gps navigation
...robotic warehousing
...digital computers
...CAT and MRI scans

Rather than argue about what is new and what is not, a more apt use of time would be taking a broad look at the differences in the lives of average people over your seventy five year interval...1940 to 1975.

In 1940, the average person in my area of the US had...
...no refrigeration
...no indoor plumbing
...water from shallow wells using hand pumps
...no home electricity
...no automobile
...homeopathic medicine
...few foods other than homegrown

Changes from that time to now could not have been made without fossil fuels.

Greenists would have us go back to that time.

Let them go back alone.

I'll put my money on human ingenuity.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Fixed it for you.
(A long time ago, I was a high school math teacher for a while.)

Yep, clearly uncomfortable with the Socratic Method - can't get beyond a didactic/pedagogical approach.

The last time I raised the issue of the various forms of dialog employed by the greek philosophers in debate, his only response was a one line insult.

Stu - How can you pass judgement on someone you never saw in a classroom?

From the start of my career I used various forms of project-based discovery learning. While I did lecture on rare occasions, I let my student come to their own informed conclusions. At no point in my career did I use my classroom as a pulpit.

In case you have not noticed, this forum is not a classroom and I am not a teacher in this forum. And I am expressing an informed opinion in a public forum. I have critically examined that the other 1% , I feel no need to present their positions.

I have not seen any thing resembling a "fair and balanced" approach by the deniers / skeptics / contrarians.

Perhaps, based on your first sentence, I could conclude that you were a failure as a teacher. But I won't.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/20...ecord-in-1809/

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Law Dome Ice Core Data

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

You first blogger does have the graph. My craap detector went off bog time. More later.

There is no graph in your second reference.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You first blogger does have the graph. My craap detector went off big time. More later.

There is no graph in your second reference.

Fixed it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Of course we could quibble all day about what "truly new" means, but how about...

...plastics
...microcircuitry
...AI
...superconductors
...microsurgery and laser surgery
...transplant medicine
...led lighting
...gps navigation
...robotic warehousing
...digital computers
...CAT and MRI scans

Rather than argue about what is new and what is not, a more apt use of time would be taking a broad look at the differences in the lives of average people over your seventy five year interval...1940 to 1975.

In 1940, the average person in my area of the US had...
...no refrigeration
...no indoor plumbing
...water from shallow wells using hand pumps
...no home electricity
...no automobile
...homeopathic medicine
...few foods other than homegrown

Changes from that time to now could not have been made without fossil fuels.

Agreed. To all of it.

Greenists would have us go back to that time.

A pointless and incorrect mischaracterization.

I'll put my money on human ingenuity.

Will you, though? Really?

This is what it's all about.

Certain branches of human ingenuity have, to the best of their current ability, observed that the rate at which we have been using fossil fuels is adding amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere that seem likely to materially alter the planet's climate. Other branches have observed that fossil fuel is a finite resource that we could run through in a century or two, and that the mess we are leaving generally is definitely causing harm.

Clearly, we should be applying our ingenuity to these problems. But no, you're applying yours to deny the problems and attack the messengers.

In all this talk of technology and ingenuity, the passive voice is used. "Technology will surely be developed". "I'll put my money on human ingenuity." This masks the reality that SOMEONE has to be ingenious, SOMEONE has to develop the technology.

The SOMEONE is WE, directly or through government funding and incentives, unless you're content in the knowledge that your wealth, race, or nationality will protect you from suffering any harm or loss. Or some BS about how 'the free market' will solve this, yet opposing any legitimate market tools like carbon pricing.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

(I'm sure I've just amused the 'deniers' here who are actually just trolling. Which, it seems, is all of you?)

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Crop breeding is not keeping pace with climate change | Science Daily
...
The researchers found that crop duration will become significantly shorter by as early as 2018
....

As I said when this was previously posted a few days ago on this thread. My prediction is that 2018 will be cooler than 2015 and 2016 - which rather puts a dampener on their dire prognostications.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

As I said when this was previously posted a few days ago on this thread. My prediction is that 2018 will be cooler than 2015 and 2016 - which rather puts a dampener on their dire prognostications.

Will you also predict that 2026 will be cooler than 2016, and that, in turn, 2036 will be cooler than 2026? If not, than your prediction is irrelevant; and if so, it will be wrong.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/20...ecord-in-1809/

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Law Dome Ice Core Data

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

So here is what set off my craap detector:

igure 1. The Original CO2 “Hockey Stick.” CO2 emissions data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC). The emissions (GtC) were divided by 2.13 to obtain ppmv CO2.

1) He makes no reference to which of the data sets at CDIAC he uses.

2) THE BIG ONE "The emissions (GtC) were divided by 2.13 to obtain ppmv CO2." Huh? How does Gigatonnes of carbon / 2.13 result in parts per million by volume?

Stu - you are mathematician. Can you help us with this one?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

As I said when this was previously posted a few days ago on this thread. My prediction is that 2018 will be cooler than 2015 and 2016 - which rather puts a dampener on their dire prognostications.

Are you further predicting a continuing downward trend in temperatures following 2018?

We know that 2015 and 2016 were El Nino years and that the following years will most likely be La Nina. The ENSO discussion is currently

ENSO-neutral conditions are present and La Niña is favored to develop during the Northern Hemisphere summer 2016, with about a 75% chance of La Niña during the fall and winter 2016-17.

So your prediction has a very strong likelihood. Just as the years following the 1998 El Nino were cooler. Of course in 2016 we equaled or surpassed the 1998 record.



But El Nino and La Nina years have tended to the anomalous.

So what is your prediction of the trend? And on what basis do you make that prediction.?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Agreed. To all of it.

Will you, though? Really?

I will, and I have. Have you?

Clearly, we should be applying our ingenuity to these problems. But no, you're applying yours to deny the problems and attack the messengers.

I don't "attack" the messenger. I attack the message. Here's a mirror so you can figure out who attacks the messengers. I do deny the problem, because despite the insistence that there is a problem by 97/99 percent scientific academies (to use popular numbers), there is, so far, no manifestation of significant problems...only declarations that there will be in the future. And those declarations have been going on for a long time...and the projections have been wrong. Yet rather than temper the declarations and projections, the declarers simply double down.

In all this talk of technology and ingenuity, the passive voice is used...."I'll put my money on human ingenuity."

Sorry, but if you're going to make an argument, you need to spend a bit of time developing it. Here, let me help...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_passive_voice

The SOMEONE is WE, directly or through government funding and incentives, unless you're content in the knowledge that your wealth, race, or nationality will protect you from suffering any harm or loss. Or some BS about how 'the free market' will solve this, yet opposing any legitimate market tools like carbon pricing.

Heh. Sometimes the color can't help but bleed through.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Amusing how this little quip always seem to pop up. Other options are ignored by it, of course. Such as turning the column back from the suicide mission it's on.

(I'm sure I've just amused the 'deniers' here who are actually just trolling. Which, it seems, is all of you?)

Sorry. You're right. None of us are serious. No one who has a difference of opinion, or approach, or degree of need could be. Just trolls. All of us. Every post. And you wonder why none of us take you seriously? I'm sure you amuse yourself, but if you think you amuse me, your comedic sense is not very well developed. What I feel is more like...well, pity.

Open your mind. It's okay to say you're wrong on occasion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/20...ecord-in-1809/

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Law Dome Ice Core Data

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Then I read:

"From 1750 to 1875, atmospheric CO2 rose at ten times the rate of the cumulative anthropogenic emissions…"

So I checked the CDIAC database and found that anthropogenic CO2 emissions had risen from 11 million tonnes per annum in 1751 to 689 million tonnes per annum in 1875, or 62 times higher or a 6200% increase. That is total of about 15 billions of CO2 that has accumulated from 1750 to 1875.

Then I checked the Law Dome Data at CDIAC

1747 276.9 ppm CO2

1877 288.8 ppm CO2

A 16.6% increase.

Since when is a 16.6% increase 10 times higher than 6200% increase.

Some numbers are rounded.

OK Stu - check my math.

The rest who like to jig numbers are welcome to check as as well.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2013.ems

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2...e.combined.dat

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Open your mind. It's okay to say you're wrong on occasion.

What I feel is more like...well, pity.

I'll probably get there but at this point I'm sorta embarrassed for him, cringing in anticipation of the next, inevitable post. But this is after being bewildered, incredulous, amused, and even annoyed at times with the nasty stereotyping.

He's probably just suffering youthful frustration over his inability to figure out how to make any sort of actual difference, so I would suggest his following this recent example:

Al Gore's Daughter, Karenna Gore, Among 23 Arrested in Pipeline Protest - NBC News

But then natural gas is an undisputed improvement over fossil fuel based energy alternatives, and I would imagine -- without being an engineer -- that modern pipelines are far safer than transporting such hazardous materials by truck or rail. But L-E is all too quick to correct when I'm wrong so no worries about accuracy there. Like most others I imagine, I would prefer an inexpensive, abundant non-carbon based energy source like nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, but there are my personal preferences and then there's reality. Go figure.

So maybe the better alternative is to hook up with James Hansen and head for the Canadian tar sands. With any luck they might get the plant shut down for an hour or two before achieving their goal of getting arrested, and then consumers like Jack who prefer buying "domestic" gas for their cars might have to pay a little more at the pump for the brief interruption in production. But that's all upside too, since based on their interpretation of the law of supply & demand, this will necessarily result in less consumption.

I think this thread may have pushed me out of the skeptic category but denier still doesn't quite fit. Just call me a cynic (and a sarcastic one to boot).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

I will, and I have. Have you?

After Jackdale's teaching credentials became a happy plaything here, you can bet that I would be super-double-enthused about sharing anything about my personal life and situation with you.

But... given my country and what they're currently doing in that area, you are free to draw an inference.

I do deny the problem, because despite the insistence that there is a problem by 97/99 percent scientific academies (to use popular numbers), there is, so far, no manifestation of significant problems...only declarations that there will be in the future. And those declarations have been going on for a long time...and the projections have been wrong. Yet rather than temper the declarations and projections, the declarers simply double down.

So, you're an AGW denier, and everything you've seen, including in this forum, hasn't made a dent in that. Is this correct?

Sorry, but if you're going to make an argument, you need to spend a bit of time developing it. Here, let me help...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_passive_voice

You are correct. Ok... in both the given usages, the words "technology" and "ingenuity" are given no reference as to who will implement them, who will "do" the technology, the ingenuity. That was my point - who does the doing?

Heh. Sometimes the color can't help but bleed through.

Exile gets all shirty when I mention the background colour of most AGW denial, so...

Such as turning the column back from the suicide mission it's on.

-sigh - what suicide mission? You reading from the Book of Delfin again?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I think this thread may have pushed me out of the skeptic category but denier still doesn't quite fit. Just call me a cynic (and a sarcastic one to boot).

Attaboy. It was this all along, wasn't it? The truth will set you free.