Temperature Rising - A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

bloodbankers.typepad.com...

PEOPLE! Don't be too lazy to read it!

That was an amazing read!!, goodness how ignorant I feel.

The report was done a few years ago now, any update? I can just imagine some of those scientists sitting back now saying
"UH Huh!, told you so...!"

I was interested to read the 1st para page 11 (whether it's a stretch or not), China and Australia have been in talks over military bases to be built in Australia recently, coincidence? Maybe... We already have several American Military bases here, so that should be interesting.
It doesn't comfort me to know that Australia (according to their estimations) would only marginally suffer a slight increase in temp. it just means we would have what others would want, more.

I'm on the fence when it comes to 'man-made' climate change, barring obscene pollution and waste in all forms, although I think that if we continue with our non-sustainable practices, there HAS to be consequences, we certainly deserve it. Perhaps the world is too heavily populated, perhaps a good 'clean out' from a major disaster or disease or mini ice age would be a good thing, of course if it comes knocking on my door I wont be too happy about it, but what can I do?
Great document, definitely going to forward that one on.

Oh and page 22 No.4
"A No-regrets strategy" (!?)
That sounds ominous even for Americans I should think...

Maybe we should just stop wasting the food that we have.

The amount of food lost or wasted every year is equivalent to more than half of the world's annual cereals crop.

About a third of the food produced every year ends up in the trash can, according to a U.N. report.

In industrialized countries, the issue is more about "retailers and consumers throwing perfectly edible foodstuffs into the trash."

OVER A BILLION TONS OF FOOD WASTED ANUALLY

The results of the study suggest that roughly one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally, which amounts to about 1.3 billion tons per year. This inevitably also means that huge amounts of the resources used in food production are used in vain, and that the greenhouse gas emissions caused by production of food that gets lost or wasted are also emissions in vain.

GLOBAL FOOD LOSSES AND FOOD WASTE

How many of you are old enough to remember when WE could trust "News" sources to bring us the truth about what was going on in the world?
Whenever you come to the point that you understand that in every "News" piece there is a profit motive, you become a very depressed individual.
So, it occurred to me, that there is a reason why we come to ATS that transcends mere boredom, or because we no longer trust the news. We come here because we want to learn...but also to teach.
Each of us has a story, and really they are all worth hearing. (Just don't try to drown out the others...you know who you are....)
The point is this.
We don't have to get our reality from some corporation. We have the ability here on ATS to create reality by honestly offering OURS.
If the temperature is rising...let us know. If it is dropping, let us know. Share your experience and your own reasons why you feel the way you do.

MY experience? Fewer Bees. Less pollination. Temperature? Not much change. Drought? Yes. Bad drought in Texas. A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself?
\What? A planet struggles to feed itself?

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

Speaking of MEXICO, how's the weather there?

Other than discussing illegal aliens, drugs, murders & hookers, you don't hear much in the media about 'weird' weather from that region. Have you noticed anything unusual lately?

Funny you should ask. Not too far from here and close to Mexico City last week was a tornado (very unusual) and Popocatepetl volcano blowing off smoke. There was also a moderate earthquake near Pátzcuaro, about 40 miles away but no one I know felt a thing here in Morelia. It has been an unusual week.

Spring is the hot time of year here and as summer comes along the monsoonal rains cool us off with about a 20 minute shower daily in the late afternoon/early evening. Just coming out of a long heat wave and summer showers not yet started. It was a mild winter this year but a year ago was freezing butt. 6300 ft. asl in the tropics.

There were some freezes in the northern part of the country earlier in the year that caused crop damages and I believe the prices of tomatoes and other products from that region were higher this year as a result. Around my state, Michoacán, very much an agricultural state, the weather was mild and experienced no adverse crop conditions.

Originally posted by TheComte
Walking Fox is in denial, and wrong on a couple of counts. Increased co2 and warmer temperatures would of course cause more lush and abundant foliage. Also, most plants evolved when the planet had higher concentrations of co2.

First off, foliage doesn't instantly equal food. Seriously, go out and yank leaves off the trees in your neighborhood; can you make a meal of them? probably not, right? So more of those leaves isn't very helpful to you, is it?

Second, we're talking about an entire system here; higher temperatures worldwide affect weather patterns locally, which of course, alters rainfall. Higher temperatures indicate earlier snow pack and more glacial melt, resulting in floods followed in some cases by dry rivers; the Indus could very well become a seasonal river if the Himalayan glaciers are reduced enough. This would be a disaster for Pakistan and any other nation that relies on the Indus valley breadbasket.

And no, the plants we have today are adapted to lower concentrations of CO2. Perhaps their ancestors in the Miocene had more CO2 to work with, but here in the Holocene, things are different.

Lastly, more plants doesn't necessarily equal good; algal blooms are rarely something nyone looks foteard to, after all.

There is more than enough food already being produced to feed the world several times over. But, as mentioned, there are laws that prevent our surpluses from being distributed to the needy in our own communities and around the world.

Well, not just laws, but also business interests. This actually happened in the great Depression, when fruit growers let their produce rot on the ground rather than sell it below the desired price, even when their neighbors are clearly hurting for food.

Originally posted by Justoneman
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Wake up walking fox!

Oh, spare me that garbage. Personal experience is that anyone who utters the phrases "Wake up!" or "Can't you SEE?!" are generally the most nonobservant dumbasses of them all.

The seed companies are breeding out hierloom seeds, perhaps on purpose for the obvious reason of profit. And they will have farmers arrested for having hybrids from their seeds when the heirloom seed farmer's feild is next to Monasanto's field.

While agricorp and this sort of thing is definitely a problem, it doesn't really work into the discussion at hand.

Plus just use plain logic, how can ANYONE not notice the weather models can't get the temperature within 2 degrees very often on a daily basis in most locations they forecast. Ask yourself how they could not do that but seem to think they can get 100 or 200 years in predictions within 5 degrees?

because local temperatures are variable. A breeze can change the thermometer on your porch by two degrees; As I just said, weather and climate are different things.

when you compile the average temperatures for a year around the world, then plot that average and see that it's been a steady increase from the year where you started compiling the data, you can draw some logical conclusions from that. Actual logic, not "WAKE UP AND SMELL THE ROSWELL, MAN!" logic. If the trend is increasing global average temperatures for twenty years, the twenty first year is not likely to suddenly rocket down to super-cold or super-hot, but is instead going to remain close to the previous year's data, with a likelihood of being higher on the scale.

I am one of those paid to be looking at pollution data for my livelyhood, and it is my opinion that we are not warming the atmosphere

Pollution and climate are different things; I hope they don't pay you very much, if you confuse the two. Your opinion runs counter to observable fact.

and if we were it simply HAS to be better than freezing to death in an ice age.Come on THINK for God's sake about going practically naked because it is so warm or looking for shelter from the wind and cold.

People who live in hot climates like to have shelter, too - including from wind, which seems to exist regardless of ambient temperature.

Thing is, the concern isn't that people will have to wear flip-flops in November. The concern is that agriculture as currently practices would be unsustainable where it is currently practiced, and that supplies of fresh water - already scanty - will be put at further risk by aridization and higher rates of evaporation.

I suggest that we are just in a small window observing a climate change that has included warming and cooling over long periods of time.

Yes. Which is what makes the warming in a short amount of time so alarming. We're looking at global averages changing in years, when it used to take centuries.

Now whatever the recent warming data that was originally presented, it appears to have been skewed by being collected in UNSCIENTIFIC locations. Places like next to air conditions heat exhangers as well as in some reasonably normal scientific locations. Air conditioner heat exchangers near my monitors would be a deal breaker, period. No way I would accept that data as valid or I could lose my job and certainly my standing within my peers.

Given that you conflate pollution with climate and think that the biggest danger of a warmer climate would be fashion faux pas, I can't imagine the mockery of your peers is something you really need to worry about.

Yes, some monitors have been located in places that are unusually warm. Others in places that are unusually cold. Still others in places that actually reflect the local climate. If we were talking about a system that uses five monitors total, yes, this would be gigantic problem. But we're not. We're talking about hundreds of data sources, in each of the world's 195 countries, spread through each of those countrie's climes, from cities to snow-covered peaks, and this is all without mentioning data from the oceans, antarctica, the high atmosphere, all over the goddamned place,. Yes, there may be some flawed data sources in the total, but the sheer number of accurate sources make any impact from those bad sources completely negligible. T

hese bad sources are also easy to correct for. if you have five stations in Buenos Aries, and three of them say it's twelve degrees celsius in September (Remember, their winter is our summer ) one of them says it's fourteen and the fifth says it's thirty, then you can guess that the fourth monitor is in full sun or something and the fifth one is next to someone's space heater; once confirmed, these results can be either afjusted for (in the case of the sunny monitor) or discartded (the space heater one)

The simple fact that the so called scientists

As opposed to the real scientists, who claim on the internet that pollution and climate are the same topic, but don't know how a plot graph works!

have had to take back comments from their theory they call a fact

...And who don't understand that theory and fact are synonyms. Oh, you'll show those rascally so-called science!

like the one the NASA head claimed about how the Antartica ice cap is shrinking,

There you go, misrepresenting reality. The western Antarctic ice sheet is melting. That's not up for dispute. What came into dispute were the approximate causes for the melt. the head in nasa proposed that it was due to warmer seas; however, this is apparently not the case, as the sea around the ice shelf show no marked difference in temperature... yet it keeps shrinking. However, it might be that hte meltwater's own temperature has skewed those test results, and there's a warmer undercurrent or something. No telling, at this point.

The claim that the ice sheets are receding and shrinking from west Antarctica is not in dispute; it's just that the exact clear reason why it's happening is still being explored.

speaks volumes to us looking at numbers for a living.

Again, you don't understand averaging or how to plot a graph. Stop trying to blow smoke up my ass, please.

Some places will have more ice and some will start having less. Just as it has always been on the planet Earth.

You can't spend an entire post arguing against climate change, then argue for it, and still expect me to take you the least bit seriously.

One more question you have to ask yourself is, do the other planets exhibit changes now? It appears to be YES, they are showing us new and amazing things we have never seen before, even x-rays is my understanding.

Our increased observational ability does not equate changes comparable to those on Earth.

And again, one cannot argue against climate change, then argue for it.

We are being used as money sources through fabrications being backed by both the media and lazy citizens. The sooner people like you realize it, the sooner we can all move on and FIX IT!

if you spent as much time learning about the subject as you do lying to people on the internet, you might be a productive human being. As far as I can tell though, your only useful contribution to the rest of us is the fact that in a time of severe food crisis, you are essentially mobile meat storage.

Why is no one bringing up Global changes, (Above the Crust) being influenced by the Earths "Internal temperature" and the Thermal Cycles the Earth experiences, regarding Energy Flow through the Earths Crust ???

How can this possibly be ignored in the Equation???

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Because that theory really throws a SPANNER in the works of those with a certain agenda...unless they can find a way to blame MAN for that as well!

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

First off, foliage doesn't instantly equal food. Seriously, go out and yank leaves off the trees in your neighborhood; can you make a meal of them? probably not, right? So more of those leaves isn't very helpful to you, is it?

Actually, yes. Leaves are edible. And a surprising number of plants that we don't think of as food are edible. Dandelions are an obvious one that comes to mind.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
And no, the plants we have today are adapted to lower concentrations of CO2. Perhaps their ancestors in the Miocene had more CO2 to work with, but here in the Holocene, things are different.

Obviously, the plants we have now are used to co2 we have now. That doesn't mean higher co2 is not good for them. Put them in a co2-enriched environment and they will grow faster, bigger, and with more foliage. When plants first evolved the co2 in the atmosphere was high. The plants acted as a carbon dioxide sink. Therefore, plants coming later had less co2, but still remember how to utilize higher concentrations of it.

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

 

Because that theory really throws a SPANNER in the works of those with a certain agenda...unless they can find a way to blame MAN for that as well!

BINGO...

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

 

Because that theory really throws a SPANNER in the works of those with a certain agenda...unless they can find a way to blame MAN for that as well!

BINGO...

A star for both of you!

We are seeing people be extremely lazy about all the facts. Playing loosely with things that matter in a scientific study or playing loosely when reading up on what mechanism ARE being observed, destroys the purpose of seeking the truth whatever that may be. Simply, you have to be willing to consider logic.

Not bells and whistles on BSNBC or CNN and Fox (FAUX) News. Facts like Yellowstone acting up, unprecedented earthquakes causing Tsunami's and these volcano's from hell firing up everywhere that are in patterns never recorded before in modern time. Tie in the the recent discoveries of volcanoes under and near the ice caps on both poles and we have reason to suspect geothermal is playing a major role. It seems on that count the military, at bare minimum, is preparing for something big. Even Isaac Isamov would readily agree that volcano's can't be related to CO2 or Infrared radiation. We have something else not officially being bandied about plain and simple. We know because we have caught them in flat out lies and distortions at best of the truth. Who here would trust any liar again when you have had the facts to support it?

We have something that is looking like the proverbial "walks like, qaucks like and has feet like a duck" from where I sit. Our duck is also the elephant in the room for the global warming, now climate change, is man made crowd and they think we can stop whatever is coming. We CAN change micro weather but to just predict global weather for more than a day is a real challenge since the inception of forecasting. This can be expected to improve with a few more hundred years and perhaps thousands of years worth of observation as the cycle we appear to be in lasts for a very long time. HAARP as of now appears to be a proven source of micro weather changes and maybe with enough effort they could stave off an ice age or start global warming but I suspect the Sun has the final say on our warmth. Cut it off and see how long we last above or below ground.

Oh, my, what's this?

Rising forest density offsets climate change: study

Rising forest density in many countries is helping to offset climate change...

Global warming, blamed by the U.N. panel of climate experts mainly on human use of fossil fuels, might itself be improving growth conditions for trees in some regions.

www.reuters.com...

Climate change "problem" solved. Just let the plants grow. How hard was that?

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1

So always keep in mind what the 'climate change' brigade's ultimate desire/goal is: a world population as low as 500 million worldwide

Why is that a thumbs down option? I am for a world population of 500 million.

Im just not for killing people to get that number, nor am I for unfairly locking out any ethnic group. The "percentage" of the worlds population a specific ethnic group consists could be held constant while still lowering the overall population.

Humans could live good, and not destroy the planet at that population level, and if we used birth control to get us there, it doesnt have to be cruel or unfair.

A lot of the "oh noes............they iz depopulating us!" crowd doesnt seem to mind that overpopulating causes conflict over resources. We call "conflict over resources" "war." We are already "depopulating" because of overpopulation. Brutally. Cruelly. And unfairly. By committing or attempting genocides and ethnic cleansings, by slaughter or starving millions of people. Its a simple FACT that there are too many of us. And we WILL be depopulated one way or another, by ourselves, or by nature, at some point in the relatively near future. Why choose war or starvation as the way that occurs when all people have to do is breed less? Its all we have to do. We HAVE been depopulating for centuries. Indigenous peoples in the Americas, to make room for excess Europeans, various indigenous peoples exterminating each other on many continents, including Europe and Asia.

And its not about the "elite" either. The "elite" do better in an overpopulated world. If populations were lower, and more cozy, people would not be so disassociated from their leaders and would have more control over them.