The New Climate Reality

Not a problem either place.

 

Sure, Russia loves the idea of opening up Russia. But there are winners and losers,
and amongst the losers are Africans, Europeans, Chinese and Americans - oh, and
Poynesians too of course. And let's not forget the ocean food chain with the increasing
acidification due to dissolved carbon.

 

Not when oceans rise is measured in millimeters, or one eight of an inch
(don't you just hate imperial measurements) That's about 2.6 inches over
the past 20 or so years. That's significant. Do the maths on that lovely beach
front property you just bought for your kids one day.

 

Life will find a way, didn't you see Jurassic Park?

 

That's not good enough. You can't have whole continents die of heat and drought and just say
"Life will find a way - let's move to Antarctica." You won't live long enough to see the effects.

ps can't see - is that a battleship?

 

Yes and I also am aware that this is being called the last great extinction

 

Record high is 123 in palm springs so we have a lot more weather before you can make you climate claim by your very own standard.

 

And due to prevailing wind etc the rise will be different in different places

 

I try to emphasize I’m a farmer. I clearly prefaced my claims about climate change and food production with that declaration. I have no interest in anyone taking my word because they think I have some “lab coat” authority. Doesn’t mean I can’t take apart a peer reviewed study that has errors.

I’m probably more of a practicing environmentalist than the most fanatical tree hugger or climate change activist. But I don’t subscribe to a lot of the BS used to sell climate change to the masses.

 

Sure, that's why you have to average.

 

Yes, this is correct. In the study cited by the other member nitrogen fertilizer was not matched to projected yield as is correct agronomic practice. It’s no surprise that affects nitrogenous based components of the crop. When higher yield is projected (the study designers had to be aware of the growth and yield increase that would result from CO2 enrichment) you must increase fertility or some part of plant physiology will suffer.

Now, this is where studies like the one you responded to get really crazy. The study analyzed brown rice—the husked kernel that exists prior to germ and bran removal and polishing that results in the white rice consumed by all these masses of people around the world. Most people do not realize that the overwhelming majority of impoverished people eat white rice because they like it and in many cases it’s looked down upon to eat brown rice. The believe white rice is a status symbol and don’t want to be seen eating brown rice.

Here are some of the nutrient differences between white and brown rice. There are other compounds including choline that are lacking in white rice as well.




So, the study analyzed brown rice, but people actually eat white rice. So in the real world we are removing a great deal of the nutrients of concern to the study authors and some PF members by turning brown rice into white rice. In essence, they are worried a plant will produce less of components they are going to remove before being eaten anyway. Some countries enrich white rice, but even enriched white rice is inferior to brown rice. Plus, nobody adds back the lost fat and protein. And if you are going to enrich the rice, why worry about the plant not making something you are going to remove and add back anyway?

The whole thing is bizarre if you think about it. Starving people removing total calories, fat, protein, vitamins, choline, micro minerals, etc. from their food based on perceived status of people eating white vs. brown rice. People would literally rather starve than eat a food a little different than what they prefer. And then you get “experts” on climate peddling a sob story that isn’t even relevant in the real world.

Want to make sure people don’t starve? We don’t have to cut CO2 to make sure rice plants don’t produce less nitrogenous based components. We just have to convince people not to destroy their own food! Oh, white rice stores better than brown rice, but I think if we can go carbon free energy based on technology we could probably figure out how to store people’s brown healthy rice.

And what’s sad is most climate activists eat this stuff up (pun intended) because they have no foundational knowledge of agronomists, nutrition, or food processing. Hell, most people before reading this probably thought white and brown rice were different crops.

 

Yes, it amazes me that people eat white bread and white rice. These were meant to be
'luxuries' and not staples. But it's peripheral to the whole earth getting hotter.
Generally I have an issue with woke/greenies/liberals over all sorts of issues but on this
I agree. I didn't come around to 'agreement' on global warming, I believed it was inevitable
back in the 1970's when greenies talked about how coal could replace nuclear and hydro.
They were wrong, super wrong, and eventually had to change their tune. It's just that now
I myself seem like I am one of them - and I am not.

 

No, but looking now it just says the same thing.
The researchers studied mortality and weather data for 2000-2019 from 43 countries on five continents. These countries account for 46.3 per cent of the world’s population. The scientists analysed 130 million deaths to understand how extreme temperatures affected people in these countries.

The study found that extreme heat and cold killed 5.08 million people on an average every year from 2000-2019. Of this, 4.6 million deaths on an average occurred annually due to extreme cold while 0.48 million deaths occurred due to extreme heat. This means close to nine out of every 100 deaths in the world in this period were due to cold temperatures, according to the study.

Nowhere does it state how many of these countries are more likely to suffer extreme cold than extreme heat. The reason civilisation developed in colder climates is because its easier to mitigate cold than heat. Easier to wear extra clothing than peal your skin off, easier to build a fire than build an air conditioner.
So can you tell me from the study above how many hot and cold events there were?

 

Correct though.

 

I don’t know how relevant hot and cold events themselves are specifically. Cold kills more globally and on each continent and in each region of those continents than heat. Does this help?

https://www.thelancet.com/action/sh...l=true&tableId=tbl2&pii=S2542-5196(21)00081-4

I have never heard anyone claim civilization developed in cold climates. Can you explain that? I did not consider Iraq and Egypt to be “colder” climates.

From an evolutionary perspective, the ability to sweat and our loss of hair to facilitate heat dissipation predate genetic mutations like ACTN3 that confer cold tolerance.

 

It could happen in a few milllenia. Who knows? Certainly not the climatologists or the fear mongers.

 

Of course. Nature is good at that.

 

Well we have to follow where the evidence leads. My problem is mainly with things like this issue. Using dishonesty and manipulation/misrepresentation of data to influence public opinion. Climate change and it’s marketing to the public should stand on solid defensible science, not stuff like this. I don’t see the point of misleading people. It’s counterproductive in the long run.

 

Not a problem anywhere.

Analysis Finds Oceans Have Become LESS ‘Acidic’ With Rising CO2, Challenging The ‘Acidification’ Narrative

By Kenneth Richard on 14. February 2019

A modest long-term (1800s-present) declining trend in ocean pH values predominantly occurred prior to 1930, or before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began rising precipitously. Since 1930, seawater pH trends have risen slightly, meaning sharply rising CO2 has been coincident with less, not more, ocean “acidification”. Image Source (lower graph): Wei et al., 2015 Is “acidification” occurring too […]

 

Nope. Please see the link in #503.

 

And again an unreferenced blog is NOT science

 

Another unreferenced blog?

 

Once again every major scientific organization in the world disagrees with your random internet blog. Your false information and poison propaganda is not to be accepted by any thinking person. You disagree with every legitimate scientific source and post page after page of nonsense disguised as science. You are spreading lies.

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap30_FINAL.pdf

Page 1673

 

Actually, the findings are from peer-reviewed research: Wei et al., 2015.