Town Square

Post a New Topic

Study: Global warming will lead to crop losses

Original post made on Feb 6, 2008

Global warming will result in "severe crop losses" in Asia and Africa over the next two decades, affecting some of the world's poorest regions, according to a new study by researchers in Stanford University's Program on Food Security and the Environment (FSE).


Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, January 29, 2008, 11:13 AM

Comments (65)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by tim
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 6, 2008 at 11:03 am

wow


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 6, 2008 at 11:43 am

Not to worry. Acording to an earlier Stanford study, everybody in Africa and Asia starved to death long ago.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 6, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Hard to believe given how wrong all the dire predictions for starvation have been for most of my life.

If the crops start failing, it will be time to adapt or move, as humans have done since before they could write.

The sadness is that there is the ability to have no starvation at all in the world today, but it happens anyway from local strife and policies (think of the millions starved in North Korea so far, the warring factions in Africa causing starvation, the corruption at the local level which prevents food from being distributed etc) ...and from Europe not allowing genetically engineered food which is drought, disease and bug resistant to be sold to African nations.

I would support changing those human behaviors with a known outcome.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 6, 2008 at 8:01 pm

The population most at risk from Global Warming is the scaremongering "researchers" who will lose their grant money when their doomsayer predictions don't pan out.

By the way, has anyone noticed that China is having their coldest winter in 100 years? That it snowed in Baghdad for the first time in decades? That the warmest year on record turns out to be 1934, not 1998? Hmmm, it's almost enough to make the Warmies think, if their "science" were based on evidence and logic instead of blind faith and misanthropism.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Muir
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 7, 2008 at 1:23 am

Jarred: "By the way, has anyone noticed that China is having their coldest winter in 100 years? That it snowed in Baghdad for the first time in decades? "

Have you noticed that climate change is decidedly non-linear? "Logic" is linear, climate is not. This is the missing piece in your criticism.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bob
a resident of another community
on Feb 7, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Yes, climate change is definitely non-linear. Cycles of warming and cooling have been natural occurrences for the entire history of our planet's existence. They predate the industrial revolution.
The current warming trend appears to be caused by changes in the sun's activity. This is supported by the fact that temperatures are also increasing on Mars as well as in the rest of our solar system. Human activity cannot possibly account for this effect.
Futhermore, it has been shown that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses increase as a response to rising temperatures. They are not the cause. Most of these gasses are produced from natural sources, like plants, animals, volcanic activity and evaporation from bodies of water. Human activities generate only incidental amounts in comparison.
Legislation curtailing CO2 emissions will have NO effect on global warming. However such legislation will destroy our economy, (this was the main reason Bill Clinton did not sign the Kyoto Treaty). It will also severly limit our choices, quality of life and freedoms.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jeff
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Feb 7, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Didn't another Stanford professor, Paul Ehrlich, say that we would be devastated before the end of the 20th Century? What happened to that one?

When a Stanford professor stands up, against the idological stream, and argues against the global warming hysteria, I will be impressed. Of course, that professor will need to be independently wealthy, in order to fund his own program, once the grants are (immediately) cut off.

Stanford needs to do better.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 7, 2008 at 7:22 pm

I heard a fascinating "visual" for CO2.. I think it came from "Fear" by Michhael Crichton ( The title and name are as close as I can remember)

Imagine a 100 YARD football field representing the atmosphere..1 INCH of the field would be the amount of CO2 in the air..and 6% of that 1 INCH, or just a few millimeters, about the width of a pencil line on a piece of paper...would be the amount caused by humans..all the rest is naturally caused by decay and exhalations etc.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 7, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Muir: I have indeed noticed that climate change is non-linear and complex--except when warmer than usual temperatures are observed, at which point climate change somehow morphs into a simple system in which temperature, hurricane strength, crop loss, and any other undesireable phenomena suddenly depend almost exclusively on one variable: CO2. This lasts precisely until colder than normal temperatures are observed, at which point climate change mysteriously reverts to a complex, non-linear unpredictable system.

The hypothesis that CO2 is the major driver of temperature change is misguided, simplistic, and not well-supported by evidence or theory. The people who claim that the hypothesis is "proven" and "the debate is over" are just spouting sanctimonious nonsense. Definitely sells a lot of newspapers and funds a lot of bogus "research" though. Nothing like a good scare story to get the public's attention.

One good thing about the global warming kerfuffle: it's a great way to tell how gullible and susceptible to nonsensical group-think a person is.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2008 at 10:11 am

Forget crop loss. This stupid ethanol binge has managed to put lots of crops out of reach of the food buyer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Not only that, but more waste is put into the air processing the corn to make the ethanol useful, then using enough ethanol for power, that per energy output, gas is better for the environment.

As we already knew, but as usual wiser heads got out shouted and worn out...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Not only that, but while we haven't built a new oil refinery in years, ethanol refineries are springing up like weeds, often with pollution waivers. We pay a dear price for Bambi biology and Lysynko/politic science. Most churches are content with 10%, Warmies want it all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kate
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 10, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Our family - cousins - have a good sized farm in the Midwest - about 700 acres. They grow corn to feed the iivestock, especially the cattle sold for beef. (That's steak, ribs, roasts, hamburger- you name it.) Cost of buying the corn seed is now escalating in price because the seed is being used to grown corn for ethano, and it is selling for a premium. The family farmers soon may not be able to afford buying the corn seed or else they will raise corn for ethanol and forget about the beef. There are ethanol processing plants springing up like mushrooms after the rains. As a result, the price of beef will either have to go up or the farmers will no longer find it profitable to raise cattle for market. Family farms are being brought up by large corporations-also known as agri-business. The demise of the small American farmer is looming on the horizon.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kate
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 10, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Our family - cousins - have a good sized farm in the Midwest - about 700 acres. They grow corn to feed the iivestock, especially the cattle sold for beef. (That's steak, ribs, roasts, hamburger- you name it.) Cost of buying the corn seed is now escalating in price because the seed is being used to grown corn for ethano, and it is selling for a premium. The family farmers soon may not be able to afford buying the corn seed or else they will raise corn for ethanol and forget about the beef. There are ethanol processing plants springing up like mushrooms after the rains. As a result, the price of beef will either have to go up or the farmers will no longer find it profitable to raise cattle for market. Family farms are being brought up by large corporations-also known as agri-business. The demise of the small American farmer is looming on the horizon.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Muir
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Jarred: "Muir: I have indeed noticed that climate change is non-linear and complex--except when warmer than usual temperatures are observed, at which point climate change somehow morphs into a simple system in which temperature, hurricane strength, crop loss, and any other undesireable phenomena suddenly depend almost exclusively on one variable: CO2. This lasts precisely until colder than normal temperatures are observed, at which point climate change mysteriously reverts to a complex, non-linear unpredictable system."

How can you separate out one variable in a complex, non-linear system, just because you *think* you see "stability"? This is nonsense. Climate is *permanently* non-linear, and *never* reverts to s "simple* system that suddenly dispenses with other non-linear variables, and the unpredictability of other-than-climate variables.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Good For A Laugh !
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 11, 2008 at 12:17 am

Muir, your depth of insight is stunning. Maybe you could explain it to your other warmie friends who can't seem to grasp the concept.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 11, 2008 at 3:58 am

Or perhaps warmies should calibrate their model against the real world, and then use their own model to demonstrate the benefit of demanded sacrifices. If a ten percent reduction in living standards yields only a 0.2% reduction in the predicted temperature rise, is it worth it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stanford-Is-Often-Wrong
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 11, 2008 at 11:30 am

A recent study published in the journal Science claims that the use of Ethanol will increase "global warming". Stanford says that "global warming" will result in crop loss. Fewer crops will result in less Ethanol and less "global warming" (a self-regulating phenomenon) -- unless we all die first from starvation:
---
Web Link

Study says ethanol use could add to greenhouse gas emissions, not reduce them
By Associated Press | Friday, February 8, 2008 | Web Link | Automotive

WASHINGTON - The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.

The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.

"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
---


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Good For A Laugh !
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 11, 2008 at 11:47 am

Since unchecked global warming is going to cause the sea levels to rise drastically, everyone may just drown before they starve to death!
I'm still waiting for one meaningful study from Stanford (if there actually are any) to be published in the Weekly.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jesse
a resident of Ventura
on Feb 11, 2008 at 4:36 pm

The sky isn't falling and failing crops aint the big tragedy the scaremongers are telling everyone. Farming is a losing proposition anyway so let those farmers can buy their food at Whole Foods like everybody else and let somebody who knows what their doing subdivide that land and make real money off it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No More Junk Science
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 11, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Yes, the sky isn't falling and the planet isn't being destroyed by CO2. The vast majority of CO2 is produced by nature not man. It is time to stop the scaremongers of man-made global warming.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Feb 11, 2008 at 5:33 pm

"It is time to stop the scaremongers of man-made global warming."

That would hurt nuclear power, so I am against it. I admit that it is overrated, but, hey, if CO2-free electricity is the order of the day, then nuclear power is your ticket. Just ask Stewart Brand ("The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power").

Web Link

Brand is interesting, becasue he is taking on the luddites of his own movement. The above link is a short review of his arguments. Good read.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ben
a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Don't be silly Greg. Now I agree that nuclear power is reasonably safe and increasingly necessary. But the hysteria over global warming and the falsehood that it is man-made is leading to many stupid and dangerous "solutions". Normally you show much more common sense. BTW, I appreciate your willingness to fight the good fight with so many puffed up rockheads on these threads.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Feb 11, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Ben,

With respect, I must say that you are locked into an absoulte denial mode about GW. CO2 forcing has some theoretical possibilities. At least it makes a plausible story. Personally, I wouldn't bet the ranch on it, but I also cannot dismiss it out of hand.

My point is that nuclear power is a very good thing, independent of GW (national security, prosperity, air pollution, radiation reduction, from coal, etc.). However, if GW is thrown into the mix then nukes cannot be denied by the GW crowd, if that crowd is rational. The problem is the irrationality of most of that crowd. These luddites or, as Stewart Brand says "Romantics", are locked into a suicidal path for society at large. There are not enough electrons going around to promote the prosperity of the earth's populations, thus preventing a bright future with LESS environmental impact. Only nukes can provide these electrons in suffienct quantities.

So, I say go ahead and believe in GW. This only makes nuclear power acceptance easier. Nothing silly about that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ben
a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2008 at 7:19 pm

The global warming hysterics are mostly the same hysterics who fear nuclear power. They are fuled by the same political agenda. And they will keep blocking nuclear energy while they promote legislation that will be very destructive to the economy and create more governmental control over our lives.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No More Junk Science
a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2008 at 8:00 pm

This so called study makes more dire predictions based on unfounded assumptions about continued gobal warming. When will we see a study that actually demonstrates the mechanism by which man-made CO2 heats the atmosphere? They seem to be in short supply. All we get is fear mongering!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by waiting for the planet to catch on fire
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 12, 2008 at 7:03 am

Crop loss can come from any number of sources other than "global warming":

--
Web Link

He said at least 50 percent of produce was lost because of inadequate rainfall and locust invasions. "We therefore look towards next year with trepidation because we will not even recoup half of the money we invested on our farms," Nanono

Plant disease outbreaks caused crop losses in 2007:
Web Link

New cowpea varieties to reduce striga parasite crop losses:
Web Link

Patterns of crop raiding by primates around the Budongo Forest Reserve,:
Web Link
---


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jesse
a resident of Ventura
on Feb 12, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Anybody ever used a CO2 fire extinguishar knows CO2 cools the atmosphere


 +   Like this comment
Posted by So?
a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 12, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Anybody ever used a refrigerator knows that it warms the room it's in.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Good For A Laugh !
a resident of another community
on Feb 13, 2008 at 12:10 am

Anybody ever notice how much hot air is generated by those claiming that humans cause global warming?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Willy
a resident of another community
on Feb 13, 2008 at 2:51 am

Ever notice how anti-warming folks get all heated up???? they need to chill


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Good For A Laugh !
a resident of another community
on Feb 13, 2008 at 9:00 am

We are perfectly cool, it has been a nice cold/wet/snowy winter. No doubt some warmie will claim that cold winters are also due to warming.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jesse
a resident of Ventura
on Feb 13, 2008 at 11:05 am

CO2 or no CO2 President Bush says global warming's for real and that's good enough for me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Ignorance
a resident of another community
on Feb 13, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Quit kidding, Jesse. Yes, slight warming IS occurring. The best research to date on global warming shows that it is caused by the sun's activity, NOT man's. Thus regulating CO2 will not stop global warming, it will only harm the economy.
The above "study" presumes that the warming trend will continue, which is an unproven assumption. Some scientists are noting that warming has actually leveled off. We may even be headed for cooling. All of this is just normal temperature variation.
The constant drumbeat of dire predictions about unchecked warming is designed to frighten the public. Those who have little understanding of how true science works, are being manipulated into supporting silly and destructive "solutions", like the regulation of CO2.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 13, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Aw, let Jesse have his hero. The world will do its own thing despite anything that anybody says in this forum.

Some reputable scientists said that the sun revolved around the earth long after Galileo narrowly escaped being warmed at the stake for pointing out the opposite. Even today there are reputable scientists who will tell you quantum theory is bunk, even though the Silicon Valley and the computer you are reading this on are founded squarely on it.

And we can all plainly see the world is flat; just look around.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by NOT Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2008 at 1:31 pm

The earth is truly flat for those who believe in Al the Goron's Convenient Lie. And who in their right mind can swallow his silly carbon credit scam? What an elitist! The rich can purchase the right to be bigger CO2 polluters than ordinary folks.
One thing the Goron does know is the crowd he's playing to. There is a sucker (or should I say,"useful idiot") born every minute!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 13, 2008 at 1:47 pm

First a Bushie then a Gore bashie. Much heat but no light.

Sure, Gore got more votes than Bush and he's still more popular than Bush. Too bad. Just try and get over it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by NOT Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Paul, you have just proven that YOU are the one who can't get over your big election disappointment from 8 years ago! Still stewing over 2000 - WOW. No wonder you are a true believer in the Convenient Lie. Try some therapy. In the meantime cooler heads will prevail and put an end to the man-made global warming scam. - And not just in this forum.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jesse
a resident of Ventura
on Feb 13, 2008 at 3:30 pm

What he says gos for me too.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by In The Name of Science?
a resident of another community
on Feb 13, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Too bad Stanford can't do a study worth a dime anymore. Not since political agendas started determining grant awards.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 13, 2008 at 4:16 pm

OK guys, OK. I'll confess. I'm an American patriot who believes in the Constitution. I won't get over that. Sorry.

But, as Jesse points out, even Mr. Bush believes in global warming for now. So cool heads, OK?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Ignorance
a resident of another community
on Feb 13, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Try to get this Paul, we understand (and so does Bush) that the Earth is experiencing a slight warming trend. So is Mars and the rest of our solar system. The warming is caused by changes in the sun's activity. It is not caused by man through the production of CO2. Newly published studies are showing this.
When the temperature rises more CO2 is released from natural sources like; plants, animals, evaporation from bodies of water, etc. It is an effect of global warming ,- not its cause. Man's contribition of CO2 is very small in comparison, (less than 5%).
If all man-made CO2 emissions were stopped today, it would make NO difference in global warming. However, the regulation of CO2 would be very costly to our economy. It is also a great ploy for politicians to expand government control. Many of them love sucking up power.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 13, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Right. Heard the vague science thing many times: "Studies by a leading midwest research institute have shown that [fill in favorite conclusion here]" Still, I'd love to believe you, pal, and hope you are right even if for the wrong reasons.

You had me on your line until the last couple of sentences. But fringie politics and physics don't mix, and you're on the wrong side of the inequality. If you ever actually get tired of ignorance, come on over.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Good Grief
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Paul, it is obvious that you have never studied science. It is also obvious that you don't understand the constitution or politics. Just keep on being a true believer - that's more your speed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 13, 2008 at 5:48 pm

I admit it. I'm a true believer - in the Constitution and the scientific method. The first stabilizes my life and the lives of my 300 million fellow citizens; the second keeps me off the streets and pays my bills. And I'll trust both instead of politics anytime.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 13, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Muir, I was poking fun at the MSM-mediated Warmie hysteria, but I see you lack the sarcasm receptor. I will try to speak more plainly if that will help you.

Agreed that climate is always a complex, non-linear system in which CO2 level is not a particularly important factor.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Ignorance
a resident of another community
on Feb 14, 2008 at 12:00 am

Paul, If you understood the Constitution you would never support the likes of Gore or his corrupt party, who are trying to swallow up our rights with a big government nanny state. It is the antithesis of what the designers of our Constitution wanted, which was a limited government.
If you understood science or the scientific method, you would not have fallen prey to the hoax of man-made global warming.
You are completely taken in by your politics which has defined your beliefs about both the Constitution and the "science" of global warming.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 14, 2008 at 9:52 am

Uh, TOI, you mistyped Gore where you intended Bush. No biggie; everyone who follows the news will catch it.

Otherwise your post is just Good Grief warmed over. Think I'll go hang out on some other thread.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ben
a resident of another community
on Feb 14, 2008 at 11:09 am

Stanford should really stop pushing political agendas disguised as "science".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of another community
on Feb 14, 2008 at 3:42 pm

They're out to get you, Ben, and they're ahead of schedule.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jesse
a resident of Ventura
on Feb 14, 2008 at 4:09 pm

The Al Quada and the socailists and the UN and the trilateral commisssion are all behind this global warming hoax. Their jealous of us they hate us and their trying to cripple us.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bob
a resident of another community
on Feb 14, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Apparently some of you haven't been following the actual discussion here. Let's do a recap.
The most credible science on climate change shows that the sun's activities are causing global warming. The warming trend is minor and is also affectng the rest of the solar system. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from natural sources. CO2 is an effect of warming NOT its cause.
Man's total contribution to CO2 in the environment is less than 5%. Since CO2 does not cause global warming, regulating CO2 emissions will not stop global warming. However such regulation will cause serious economic harm. (This was the main reason that Bill Clinton did not sign the Kyoto treaty.)
Grant money is being awarded for any research that can even remotely be connected to global warming. This has resulted in a steady stream of so called studies, such as the one above, that don't prove that CO2 causes warming. They just assume it does and go on to predict all kinds of disasters as a result.
It is also fair to say that political agendas are driving what we do and do not hear about global warming and any "solutions" to the problem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jesse
a resident of Ventura
on Feb 14, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Yes that's what the liberals don't want us to know.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tom
a resident of Professorville
on Feb 14, 2008 at 6:24 pm

You've been misinformed, Bob. The sun is not responsible for the observed recent warming, because the solar constant has not changed for a quarter century. Read the measurements in the original scientific literature. You can start with the Journal of Geophysical Research.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jesse
a resident of Ventura
on Feb 14, 2008 at 6:30 pm

I think that global warming is really caused by all the hot air being spewed by the man-made global warming nut jobs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bob
a resident of another community
on Feb 14, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Tom, the solar constant is not the only factor involved in terms of the sun's activities. There are solar insolation changes, cosmic rays and sunspot activities to also take into account. For example, a November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." There are many other recent studies along these lines as well.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Engineer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Feb 14, 2008 at 7:05 pm

The ice core data clearly show that warming precedes CO2 increase. However this does not mean that CO2 is not a driver in this age. Both can be true. Natural cycles, both long and short have been demonstrated, even so-called precipitous events (e.g Little Ice Age on the one hand, and the settlement of Greenland on the other). This does not mean that we are in such a cycle at this point...maybe we are, and maybe we are not.

Climate is extremely complex. There ARE tipping points, but there are also compensating mechanisms. For example, a warming earth will produce more clouds, which will both reflect more sunlight AND act as a greenhouse gas (water vapor). The question is, what are the equilibria? Is CO2 the small driving factor that will tip the balance of equilibirum to an extent that we are all threatened? Or is it sunspots, cosmic rays, or something else? Those are the $64T questions that so many are trying to figure out.

If one argues that the equilibria will disfavor human and other species' survival, then extreme measures are required. Just for the heck of it, I will, again, say that nuclear power is a rational approach, for whatever good that does (perhaps just to humor "Greg"). On the other hand, if one argues that we are not at risk, then let the good times roll!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tom
a resident of Professorville
on Feb 15, 2008 at 10:15 am

Engineer is totally correct about nuclear power, at least for the next half century or so. The major issues are plant safety and waste disposal, both of which are solvable if we commit to solving them.

Bob: your first post and subsequent response indicate you have fallen into the trap of cursory reading. While averyone knows "long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes," the global warming of current concern is, so far, a short term event.

You have work to do. To begin, find the actual sunspot and cosmic ray and CME and insolation data for the past 50 years and compare them with the global temperature series. If you can, do a multivariate regression with ANOVA. Excel has the tools.

Good luck.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Don
a resident of Los Altos
on Feb 15, 2008 at 2:34 pm

If this small warming trend is a short term event then we needn't worry, Tom. It is still not caused by CO2/human activity and it will shortly end. Why the hysteria?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tom
a resident of Professorville
on Feb 15, 2008 at 3:00 pm

We can all hope it ends soon.

Why all the hysteria? I'll answer with a question of my own: Have you stopped beating your wife/spouse/partner/child/dog?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Don
a resident of Los Altos
on Feb 15, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Tom, have you? Is this why you are hysterical about global warming - your guilt?
Meanwhile, "studies" like this one manipulate the scientifically ignorant public. Hundreds of prominent climate change scientists have debunked the false claims made by the proponents of man-made global warming. New studies are showing that this warming trend is natural and not caused by CO2 or human activities.
It would be nice to see the press cover some of these studies for a change.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 16, 2008 at 7:58 am

Don, won't happen until there is something else they can grab onto to promote bigger government and loss of sovereignty.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by FYI
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 17, 2008 at 1:06 pm

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) is the largest society of earth scientists in the world with 50,000 members, 15,000 of whom gathered from all over the world in December in San Francisco for the annual meeting. AGU has just issued a revised climate change position statement. The statement begins, "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." For the rest of the statement, see Web Link. For more about AGU, simply type AGU into Google.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bob
a resident of another community
on Feb 17, 2008 at 6:51 pm

The AGU is basically quoting the IPCC's climate change statement.
Hundreds of prominent climate change scientists wrote to protest the IPCC's conclusions in Nov. 2007. They pointed out the numerous problems with the "science" the IPCC used to support the man-made global warming theory. The dissenting scientists outnumbered those scientists who supported man-made global warming by 8 to 1.
It would be nice if this fact received more media attention.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by simple
a resident of The Greenhouse
on May 29, 2008 at 4:29 am

There is no point debating global warming for it has become a political issue and changing to not using fossil fuels actually means changing.

The way it seems from here however is that you beleive longingly that this is all natural variation which means you have to also have an accelerator of warming from the sun to explain present events, this means buying into cosmic rays, which means that the ice age drifts are due to our drift through the arm of the milky way.

Or there are GHG, which do and are proven to warm the atmosphere, from carbon 13 data the recent sudden increase is from old carbon sources (fossil fuels and only 0.4 of the total says in the atmosphere due to the oceanic and land based sinks), CO2 in the atmosphere is rising rapidly in good keeping with rising CO2 emissions, CO2 fluctations have driven previous climate change and also extenuated it when the primary driver has been the sun with a delay of 800 years, but note that no rise in temperature great enough to accont for glacial retreat occurs until the CO2 comes up...hmmm funny that!! The sun's intensity has also been falling since 1990, Mt Pinotubo erupted in 1991 with a strong cooling effect, 2007 was the mimima of the 11 year sunspot cycle and there is only an effective delay of heating due to the earth's inertia of ~2-5 years, when 50% of all the warming is effectuated, 60% by 10 years and then 100% by 1000 years and there was a strong La Nina in late 2007-2008 therefore putting all that little lot together we should have been cooling due to he naturals yet we are still warming.

2005 was the hottest year recorded globally, the 1934 red herring was only American weather sorry!!!, the hottest twelve months ever where from September 2006-September 2007, then th eLa Nina had effect.

JAN 07 was ~1.1C higher than average, March 08 was 0.71C higher despite all these cooling influneces.

The ice melting is beyond record, the arcitc sea ice has gone past tipping point, that is strong world warming influence about the add in to the general trends.

The problem with crops is not going to be increased temperature per se but changes in the water availability, with local climates suddenly changing as the tropics and jet streams head polewards, dry areas suddenly wet, wet areas suddenly dry, desserts increasing, weather becoming more extremist leading to draught and deluge patterns leading to greater flooding and more crop losses and then there will be moving of monsoons and loss of summer irrigation and the Himlayan glaciers melt for India and China. All that is likely to put at least some stress on food producton ability.

Also supply is outstripping demand for Fossil fuels as well, western economies are collapsing for want of a word and fossil fuels also produce mountains of toxic waste etc,etc.

Anyway from here it seems most reasonable take on things is that going zero carbon emissions makes sense and adapting our land to the changes coming so they soak up CO2 and provide materials and food well at least sensible.

cheers


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 6 comments | 3,343 views

Ode to Brussels Sprout
By Laura Stec | 20 comments | 2,566 views

Go Giants! Next Stop: World Series!
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,910 views

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 9 comments | 1,218 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 212 views