Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

miniTAX wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
In the matter of global warming, even AGW, the only 'insurance' is to prevent or reverse it, if that can be done. And the argument here is whether it is reasonable to do that or whether we would better use our 'insurance' money to improve the quality of life in a changing climate.

I'm not sure that Stern has made that argument.
Whatever it is promoting, mitigation (reverse the global warming trend by GHG reduction) or adaptation (better dams, buldings, alarm system, irrigation...) the Stern report would lead to nothing since it concludes by: "all nations must be involved in the effort".
The mitigation stragegy of Kyoto is useless, costly and it is failing: even Japan is considering jumping out of the wagon*. The effective way is adaptation and I am for it (even if it is recommended by Bush).

*EUROPE'S ISOLATION DEEPENS AS JAPAN JOINS CANADA'S KYOTO SCEPTICISM

It seems to be human nature to be eager to do wonderful good things with somebody else's money/contribution/sacrifice. It is less attractive to offer your own money/contribution/sacrifice especially when you suspect or believe it will likely all be for naught.

As you and Okie and some others have repeatedly pointed out, the more prosperous nations of the world are doing marvelous things to clean up the air, water, soil, and even reduce proven or potentially harmful emissions.

Wouldn't this suggest that the best 'insurance' we can provide for the world's environment and any climate changes affected by people is to encourage other nations to become as prosperous and thus be able to afford the luxury of demanding clean water, air, and soil and be good stewards of our finite planet?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Wouldn't this suggest that the best 'insurance' we can provide for the world's environment and any climate changes promoted by people is to encourage other nations to become as prosperous and thus be able to afford the luxury of demanding clean water, air, and soil?

No, of course not, you damn rational thinker. Prosperity is the last thing the ecochondriac central planners want! Just hear Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Kohfi Ahnan personal counselor.
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?""

0 Replies

...THE NEGEV DESERT...

from the above link :
"The Negev (meaning "dry") makes up about 60% of the modern state of Israel (4600 sq. miles out of 8100 total). A narrow strip of it north of Beersheba gets, in good years, up to 14 inches (350 mm.) of annual rainfall, enough to grow barley. This northern Negev saw a fair amount of settlement in antiquity.

South of Beersheba, though, the annual rainfall drops below 8 inches. As far as the Ramon Crater (see map), wild plants still cover at least 10% of the surface, and this is grazing desert (midbar in Hebrew, which comes from davar, an ancient term for "grazing"). South of the Ramon Crater, however, plants are found only in the wadis. Here the desert can support no flocks. "

...ISRAELI AGRICULTURE...(from : israel ministry of foreign affairs website)...

from above article (this is indeed a very interesting article) :
"A combination of sophisticated, applied science, rugged determination and government support have helped Israel's farmers to modernize and adapt to changing geopolitical, market and climatic conditions, giving them a strong base from which to proceed in the coming decades.

Israel's agriculture continues to thrive, and supplies most of the country's food needs, though profitability in export sectors has declined sharply in recent years. Among the numerous problems the crop-growing sectors have contended with since the State was founded, water scarcity remains the principal - and growing - threat. Nevertheless the ongoing introduction of new and recycled water sources, coupled with altered irrigation methods and more water-efficient crops, promises long-term security."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it seems pretty clear that without irrigation israel would not be able to grow many crops , and as the article points out , the future of agriculture
faces many problems .

looking at africa , there are some areas that have a sufficient water supply where various agricultural products can be grown .
where there is no water available (lack of rainfall) , it is next to impossible to grow grains .

i think the canadian prairies and the grainbelt of the united states showed what happens to grain production during periods of draught - the "dirty '30's " are still being talked about in north-america .

more recently the draught in australia seems to have wiped out grain production in australia (which has been to some advantage to north-american grain farmers ) .

from my limited understanding "heat" seems to drive away "rain" - looking at the sahara dessert and certain parts of australia seems to confirm that .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...THE DIRTY THIRTIES...

The people of the Prairies suffered more than other Canadians. Not only did they lose the markets for their wheat, but a series of natural disasters also devastated the region.

The first was drought. Rain and snow, essential sources of moisture for the wheat crop, seemed to vanish in the early 1930s. Crops withered and died in the field. With no living plants to anchor the surface of the land, precious prairie topsoil and freshly-sown seeds were carried away by the wind.

The Prairies looked like a desert during this time, as the rich soil drifted into dunes that almost buried people along with their houses. Every farm house had drifts of dust on the window sills and floors. Dust even filtered into closets, cupboards and food. Sometimes people could not breathe without holding a wet cloth over their faces.

The drought brought a companion plague of grasshoppers that easily thrive and proliferate in a dry, warm spring season. Prairie grasshoppers eat the grain as it pokes out of the soil in early spring. They grow along with the grain, feeding on it at every stage, until they eventually kill the plant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...AUSTRALIA WHEAT FARMERS SUFFER DRAUGHT...

CANBERRA, Australia, Oct 27, 2006 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- Australian wheat farmers suffering under the worst drought in a century were preparing to reap their smallest harvest since the mid-1990s, a commodities forecaster said Friday.

Only 10.5 million tons will be harvested in the financial year that began July 1, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics said, compared with 28 million tons grown in the previous year. If the figures hold, it will be the smallest crop since 1994-95.

Similar declines were expected for barley and canola - a drop that was also expected to send the price of beef cattle down as more animals are sent to slaughter due to lack of feed.

The declining harvests are expected to slash $4.7 billion, or 35 percent, from income from the three key grains in the previous year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i have not heard any scientists talk about benefits to canada from increased temperatures .
from what i understaand , a prolonged warming of the earth would result in increased draught - and decreased grain production .
i doubt that grains can be grown profitably using artificial irrigation - assuming that it would even be available .
hbg

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Wouldn't this suggest that the best 'insurance' we can provide for the world's environment and any climate changes affected by people is to encourage other nations to become as prosperous and thus be able to afford the luxury of demanding clean water, air, and soil and be good stewards of our finite planet?

Some time ago, I've been working for a project in northern Chile. The main problem people were facing was that an international mining corporation wanted to remove Andean glaciers in the Atacama desert region - the only source of fresh water for agriculture - in order to mine the gold and ores underneath the ice. Some other problems included the mercury and arsenic that was to be used in the mining process, the appropriation of land by the mining corporation, the mining in the region generally (as it was, on the one hand, a protected zone, but, on the other hand, somehow open to mining due to bilateral agreements with Argentina...)

Anyways, the important thing about that project was that resistance to the plans came from the population of the region rather than from international environmentalist groups. It was the people in the villages that demanded clean water, air and soil. They organized demonstrations, handed in petitions, wrote articles in the newspapers and gathered even international support for their case.

What's remarkable about that particular project was that the mining corporation offered huge amounts of money to pay people off, and promised well-paid jobs for mine workers once the project had taken off. People opted for a clean environment instead.

Now, the only problem seems to be: how do we encourage the people of e.g. Bangladesh to become prosperous enough so that they will start caring about what's going on with the environment?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Now, the only problem seems to be: how do we encourage the people of e.g. Bangladesh to become prosperous enough so that they will start caring about what's going on with the environment?

This is what Lomborg is trying to think about with his question: what to do with 50 billion $.
Bangladesh is in the situation of the Asia Dragons (Taiwan, Hongkong, Singapour, S. Korea) in the 60s: economic backwaters, home of cheap labor and terrible environment & pollution. Their situation didn't improve for so long because of their socialist and autarcic adventure. Now, it is improving but you just can't ask those dirt poor countries to take care of their environment before the belly of their people. I have visited many poor countries and lived in some and I know it is totally irrealistic to impose a environment-first mentality. I don't know a single person who enjoy cutting tree or burning forests. They do it for a living because there would be no other job. For any country, it's not about environment or climate, "it's all about the economy, stupid" (dixit Bill Clinton).

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

i have not heard any scientists talk about benefits to canada from increased temperatures .

You should be able to find it in the IPCC TAR cost assessment. I remember that Finland would gain about 3% in GDP/year in 2100 (that is a far reach projection but well...)

hamburger wrote:

i doubt that grains can be grown profitably using artificial irrigation - assuming that it would even be available .
hbg

Maize is systematically irrigated here in France. And in North America too. Most paddies of rice on Earth are artificially irrigated.
And this is profitable. I would say that grain growing on artificially irrigated lands is more the norm than the exception.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

I have visited many poor countries and lived in some and I know it is totally irrealistic to impose a environment-first mentality. I don't know a single person who enjoy cutting tree or burning forests. They do it for a living because there would be no other job. For any country, it's not about environment or climate, "it's all about the economy, stupid" (dixit Bill Clinton).

Quite interesting, miniTAX. So we do have something in common... and I absolutely agree with your statement! I totally understand why people whose only worries are where to get some food tomorrow don't give two ticks about how toxic that lake has become, or about the mercury in the ground, or the pollution in the air. Most of those things are more or less invisible and therefore non-existent anyways.

Which in turn leads me to the question: if we enjoy the luxury of worrying about nothing more than where to spend this year's vacations - why are we not doing more?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
I have visited many poor countries and lived in some and I know it is totally irrealistic to impose a environment-first mentality. I don't know a single person who enjoy cutting tree or burning forests. They do it for a living because there would be no other job. For any country, it's not about environment or climate, "it's all about the economy, stupid" (dixit Bill Clinton).

Quite interesting, miniTAX. So we do have something in common... and I absolutely agree with your statement! I totally understand why people whose only worries are where to get some food tomorrow don't give two ticks about how toxic that lake has become, or about the mercury in the ground, or the pollution in the air. Most of those things are more or less invisible and therefore non-existent anyways.

Which in turn leads me to the question: if we enjoy the luxury of worrying about nothing more than where to spend this year's vacations - why are we not doing more?

I think we don't do more because we are all at cross purposes in HOW to do more. My international background consists of working with organizations like Church World Service and World Vision both committed to relieving human suffering and for many decades were sufficiently trusted to be allowed into impoverished countries to distribute food, clothing, and blankets. But the world has become so much more dangerous in the last several decades that this has been harder to do.

Too many throw money at the problem and this mostly goes into the pockets of despotic and corrupt leaders who are the primary reason the people are impoverished. But allow the people basic human rights, opportunities for capitalistic endeavors, along with free trade, and their situation will change dramatically within a generation. So how best to do that? Invade and liberate? Sanctions? Cut off all outside support?

How many enlightened countries would ever agree on the best way to do that?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
I have visited many poor countries and lived in some and I know it is totally irrealistic to impose a environment-first mentality. I don't know a single person who enjoy cutting tree or burning forests. They do it for a living because there would be no other job. For any country, it's not about environment or climate, "it's all about the economy, stupid" (dixit Bill Clinton).

Quite interesting, miniTAX. So we do have something in common... and I absolutely agree with your statement! I totally understand why people whose only worries are where to get some food tomorrow don't give two ticks about how toxic that lake has become, or about the mercury in the ground, or the pollution in the air. Most of those things are more or less invisible and therefore non-existent anyways.

Which in turn leads me to the question: if we enjoy the luxury of worrying about nothing more than where to spend this year's vacations - why are we not doing more?

I think we don't do more because we are all at cross purposes in HOW to do more. My international background consists of working with organizations like Church World Service and World Vision both committed to relieving human suffering and for many decades were sufficiently trusted to be allowed into impoverished countries to distribute food, clothing, and blankets. But the world has become so much more dangerous in the last several decades that this has been harder to do.

Too many throw money at the problem and this mostly goes into the pockets of despotic and corrupt leaders who are the primary reason the people are impoverished. But allow the people basic human rights, opportunities for capitalistic endeavors, along with free trade, and their situation will change dramatically within a generation. So how best to do that? Invade and liberate? Sanctions? Cut off all outside support?

How many enlightened countries would ever agree on the best way to do that or give up whatever benefits they receive through relationships with some of these despots?

0 Replies

OE writes

Quote:

Anyways, the important thing about that project was that resistance to the plans came from the population of the region rather than from international environmentalist groups. It was the people in the villages that demanded clean water, air and soil. They organized demonstrations, handed in petitions, wrote articles in the newspapers and gathered even international support for their case.

What's remarkable about that particular project was that the mining corporation offered huge amounts of money to pay people off, and promised well-paid jobs for mine workers once the project had taken off. People opted for a clean environment instead.

I would guess that the people of the village had all the basic necessities of life; i.e. sufficient food to not be seriously hungry, sufficient shelter and clothing to not severely suffer from the elements; sufficient security to be reasonably at peace, etc. Wealth is relative and is measured in what is enough rather than what is possessed.

When my husband and I got married we were $21 overdrawn at the bank and our financial situation didn't improve for several years while we worked our way up the figurative ladder of success. But we did have a rented home, enough food if it was no more than potatos and beans, a deck of cards and a set of dominos to enjoy evenings with friends who were in the same financial boat, and we felt neither poor nor deprived. We had enough and we demanded a livable, safe, healthy environment.

Now we have a house full of stuff, much nicer clothes, drive much better cars, and can afford to eat pretty much whatever we want as well as enjoy a few recreational luxuries, and we have enough to share with others less fortunate than ourselves. We are by no means rich measured by the more affluent in the western world, but we are extremely rich measured against the poorest of the world's poor. We have enough and we demand a livable, safe, healthy environment.

I think any people who have enough, however they might define enough, will demand a livable, safe, healthy environment.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

more recently the draught in australia seems to have wiped out grain production in australia (which has been to some advantage to north-american grain farmers ) .

from my limited understanding "heat" seems to drive away "rain" - looking at the sahara dessert and certain parts of australia seems to confirm that .

No hbg, these are not true.
The grain production has not been wiped out ( http://www.warwickhughes.com/ ) and the rain has not been "driven away" ( http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/1607.html ). What happens in a warmer world is that there is more rain !

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/1272/bxhm0335gc9.gif

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So how best to do that? Invade and liberate? Sanctions? Cut off all outside support?

Like in Iraq ?

http://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/benny%20hill.gif

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Which in turn leads me to the question: if we enjoy the luxury of worrying about nothing more than where to spend this year's vacations - why are we not doing more?

I have no problem to do more. I even think it's not enough right now even if I know that giving out money is NOT the solution. I'm personally not ashame of my charity budget. But I don't want the money to be wasted by bureaucrats or eco-fundamentalists like in the Kyoto policy.
The subject of development aid is vast and if it were easy to grab, we should have known it. The subject of climate change is much easier since most of it is junk science :wink:

0 Replies

minitax wrote :
"Maize is systematically irrigated here in France. And in North America too. Most paddies of rice on Earth are artificially irrigated.
And this is profitable. I would say that grain growing on artificially irrigated lands is more the norm than the exception."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if the farming using artificial irragation is profitable in france , i wonder why the french farmers receive large farm subsidies ?
are maize farmers using artificial irrigation excluded from receiving subsidies ?

...SUBSIDIES FOR FRENCH FARMERS...

0 Replies

How nice. The beneficial results of the election continue to spread. The incoming chair of the Senate Environment Public Works Committe is Sen. Barbara Boxer, who has announced the committee will start dealing with the problem of global climate change,
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15652004/

This is certainly a welcome change from the bury-our-heads-in-the-sand approach of the outgoing chair, Stone Age Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma, purveyor of junk science himself, who politicized the scientific debate by accusing Mann et al, the researchers who created the so-called "hockey stick" graph of global temperature change, of doing junk science. Inhofe was decisively dissed by the Research Panel of the National Academy of Sciences, who said the Mann et al research was clearly valid. Inhofe now gets his richly deserved comeuppance. Bye bye, Innie.

And even better, the GOP, which roundly and gleefully excoriated Al Gore years ago for proposing a "carbon tax", to curb production of CO2, is now talking about creating a *gasp* "carbon tax" themselves, to, ah, yes, curb the growth of anthropogenic CO2. Better late than never, Repubbies.

http://www.slate.com/id/2153390/?GT1=8805

It took six years, but it's nice to see a little bit of a sense of reality creeping back into DC.

0 Replies

username :
here is hoping that other countries and their governments - canada being a good example - will no longer find all kinds of excuses to stall a move into a (somewhat) "greener" future .
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

if the farming using artificial irragation is profitable in france , i wonder why the french farmers receive large farm subsidies ?
are maize farmers using artificial irrigation excluded from receiving subsidies ?

Simply because American farmers are heavily subsidied! That's all about productivity, protectionism, economic competition, globalization... but has nothing to do with GW. Shocked

0 Replies

username wrote:

...Stone Age Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma, purveyor of junk science himself, who politicized the scientific debate by accusing Mann et al, the researchers who created the so-called "hockey stick" graph of global temperature change, of doing junk science.

Sorry username but you misrepresent things. It's unfair to say Inhofe accused anyone since what he did was a due diligence to check Mann's studies which was abusively used as a poster child of GW (you can find his junk graph almost anywhere, like this one below on French television)

http://opelinjection.free.fr/imagesforum/jt28072006.jpg

In fact, it is statistician Wegman (a democrat voter if you'd want to know all), not Inhofe who refutes Mann's hockey stick, saying : ""Overall, our committee believes that the Mann's et al 1999 study's assessment that the decade of the 1990s was likely the hottest decade of the millennium and 1998 was likely the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by their analysis."

And the draft report of IPCC 2007 supports Wegman's conclusion (you'll see by yourself when the final report will be released next year). For Mann and his followers, the hockey season is over.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

For Mann and his followers, the hockey season is over.

The game is over in a much bigger way for Inhofe though.

0 Replies

Quote:

The name of our paper is "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" (Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759-762; 1999). In the abstract, we state: "We focus not just on the reconstructions, but on the uncertainties therein, and important caveats" and note that "expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400". We conclude by stating: "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached." It is hard to imagine how much more explicit we could have been about the uncertainties in the reconstruction; indeed, that was the point of the article!

The subsequent confusion about uncertainties was the result of poor communication by others, who used our temperature reconstruction without the reservations that we had stated clearly.

source: Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes and Michael E. Mann in Nature 442, 627 (10 August 2006)

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know