DCSaints_fan Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 It might be interesting to note that the Great Depression was compounded and extended by one of the worst droughts in history ... Perhaps, but trade was alot less open then than now. If American wheat/corn gets too expensive, we can buy other countries who aren't experiencing drought. Or substitute something else like rice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Perhaps, but trade was alot less open then than now. If American wheat/corn gets too expensive, we can buy other countries who aren't experiencing drought. Or substitute something else like rice. Assuming the rain falls on other countries with good soil, rather than on the Ocean, or the Sahara desert, or Western Australia, or Greenland, or whatever. The problem scientists fear is that mankind has adapted and filled all of the best growing place with crops already. If rain patterns shift as a result of global climate change, the areas currently feeding us will be less effective at growing food, but it will be many centuries before the areas suddenly getting rain will be suitable for growing crops. Or so those tricksy scientists claim to fear - but I know they are faking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 It might be interesting to note that the Great Depression was compounded and extended by one of the worst droughts in history ... They had global warming back then too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Complete Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 This could have short and long term affects on crop and food prices. I thought the drought in 2004 was the worst in like forever, but they are saying this is the worst in a half century. Looks pretty bad. 1988 was really bad. The term “worst” is subjective. The article seems to say that this is the most widespread, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the worst in my book. If you look at the amount of deaths for example, there have been many “worse” droughts in the last 50 years. It’s still early, and it’s certainly going to affect crops, but I just don’t know if I’d say it’s the worst in the last 50 years just yet. I know that doesn’t sell as many papers though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Same yearly precipitation coming in a few huge dumps will cause floods when it comes and droughts in between :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 1988 was really bad. The term “worst” is subjective. The article seems to say that this is the most widespread, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the worst in my book. If you look at the amount of deaths for example, there have been many “worse” droughts in the last 50 years. It’s still early, and it’s certainly going to affect crops, but I just don’t know if I’d say it’s the worst in the last 50 years just yet. I know that doesn’t sell as many papers though. Who buys papers? My main concern is the food prices. They're already high, this could be a real killer. I am glad that I have a nice large garden providing the family with plenty of vegetables. Bought a freezer this year as well, and plan on buying a steer in the fall (well, splitting it with a few friends. ) the price of the meat buying it local and whole from a farmer who butchers it himself is significant. Fills that freezer for months. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Very generally, climate scientists expect dry areas to become drier and wetter areas to become wetter. However regional climate models still aren't very good. ---------- Post added July-17th-2012 at 08:54 PM ---------- 1988 was really bad. The term “worst” is subjective. The article seems to say that this is the most widespread, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the worst in my book. If you look at the amount of deaths for example, there have been many “worse” droughts in the last 50 years. It’s still early, and it’s certainly going to affect crops, but I just don’t know if I’d say it’s the worst in the last 50 years just yet. I know that doesn’t sell as many papers though. Is there really any data out there on deaths by drought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Assuming the rain falls on other countries with good soil, rather than on the Ocean, or the Sahara desert, or Western Australia, or Greenland, or whatever. The problem scientists fear is that mankind has adapted and filled all of the best growing place with crops already. If rain patterns shift as a result of global climate change, the areas currently feeding us will be less effective at growing food, but it will be many centuries before the areas suddenly getting rain will be suitable for growing crops. Or so those tricksy scientists claim to fear - but I know they are faking. Soils can be improved. Even in productive regions you can't just expect a bountiful harvest every year assuming adequate rainfall. You have to till and fertilize the land, and/or let some fields go fallow for a year to replenish nutrients. If the soil is too sandy, just ship clay/gravel there. Water is usually the limiting factor, but even that can be engineered around in certain cases. Think of the Nile river delta, surrounded by desert, yet extremely productive because of the irrigation system. Or San Joaquin Valley, where you don't get a drop of rainfall for pretty much the whole growing season, but one of the most productive agricultural areas in the US Sadly I think this is something we'll just have to deal with . Some places like Eastern Washington, are just not going to be economical to farm in 50 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh good, we're arguing about global warming again. Because everyone knows, if we all here in America agreed tomorrow to institute super-harsh cap-and-trade policies, the developing world would just voluntarily give up the economic growth that could, I don't know, perhaps prevent large numbers of people from starving, in the name of science that's been wrapped in controversy from the get-go. Especially China, where "statistics" come from the Ministry of Truth. (Note: There's a large difference between saying that you'll adapt certain policies, or even signing treaties claiming that you'll adapt certain policies, and actually enforcing said policies.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 They had global warming back then too? Don't know. I do know they had irresponsible, unregulated farming practices which turned an entire continent to dust for a decade ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh good, we're arguing about global warming again. Because everyone knows, if we all here in America agreed tomorrow to institute super-harsh cap-and-trade policies, the developing world would just voluntarily give up the economic growth that could, I don't know, perhaps prevent large numbers of people from starving, in the name of science that's been wrapped in controversy from the get-go. Especially China, where "statistics" come from the Ministry of Truth. (Note: There's a large difference between saying that you'll adapt certain policies, or even signing treaties claiming that you'll adapt certain policies, and actually enforcing said policies.) Who said anything about super harsh? http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/06/23/cbo-cap-and-trade-to-cost-175-per-household/ "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the U.S. cap-and-trade program will cost $22 billion annually, or about $175 per household, by 2020." And the government has pretty extensive history of OVERESTIMATING the real costs of environomental regulations. Oh and if you didn't know our consumption (and therefore waste) is pretty much out of whack with every other country in the world so us doing something could be a substantial step, and that doesn't even include the possiblity of positive technology being developed and employeed elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Positive technology like Fracking? making NG plentiful and affordable will cut pollution drastically while making money....and providing fertilizer give me affordable energy and water won't be a problem we seem to be well off topic..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Complete Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Who buys papers? Just luddites like myself. My main concern is the food prices. They're already high, this could be a real killer. I am glad that I have a nice large garden providing the family with plenty of vegetables. Bought a freezer this year as well, and plan on buying a steer in the fall (well, splitting it with a few friends. ) the price of the meat buying it local and whole from a farmer who butchers it himself is significant. Fills that freezer for months. Agree. Food prices are a huge concern. It’s wise to be prepared. Is there really any data out there on deaths by drought? Sure. A good starting point can be compiled from newspapers of the time. (Speaking of papers, remember those!). I’m sure even preliminary research could produce some statistics for a frame of reference. However, I’ve already satisfied my curiosity on the matter and don’t care to do it again. Here is one link with some stats. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0886145.html “Worst drought in a half century” may be a great headline, but take it with a grain of salt. That said, this summer isn’t over yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Who said anything about super harsh?http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/06/23/cbo-cap-and-trade-to-cost-175-per-household/ "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the U.S. cap-and-trade program will cost $22 billion annually, or about $175 per household, by 2020." And the government has pretty extensive history of OVERESTIMATING the real costs of environomental regulations. I meant even if the cap-and-trade policies were super-harsh. Oh and if you didn't know our consumption (and therefore waste) is pretty much out of whack with every other country in the world so us doing something could be a substantial step, and that doesn't even include the possiblity of positive technology being developed and employeed elsewhere. See, I don't agree that it would be a substantial step when talking about the entire planet. We use fewer fossil fuels, the prices of those fuels go down compared to what they would be if we didn't use fewer fossil fuels. Lower prices means developing nations will able to consume them more easily, and also means that countless nations and businesses that would have found green energy to be financially beneficial will instead opt for fossil fuels because they're still cheaper than the latest green technology. Plus, isn't methane something like 20 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide? I've never heard of methane credits being traded, which I'm guessing is because that would involve limiting the number of livestock allowed to live, which, again, would consequently involve limiting the number of people the world can feed. Anyway, I'll grant that, when it comes to carbon dioxide, Cap-and-Trade Alternate Reality might not quite burn quite as much fossil fuel as quickly as No Cap-and-Trade Alternate Reality, but would the former burn as much by 2035 or 2040 as the latter did by 2030? My guess would be yes. Look, just based on EROI (Energy Return On Investment, but I'm guessing you knew that), any fossil fuels that are brought to market anytime soon are going to be burned, regardless of exactly who does the burning. So, given all of these factors, I ultimately have to question how much of an impact such policies would really have on long-term climate expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 See, I don't agree that it would be a substantial step when talking about the entire planet. We use fewer fossil fuels, the prices of those fuels go down compared to what they would be if we didn't use fewer fossil fuels. Lower prices means developing nations will able to consume them more easily, and also means that countless nations and businesses that would have found green energy to be financially beneficial will instead opt for fossil fuels because they're still cheaper than the latest green technology. Plus, isn't methane something like 20 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide? I've never heard of methane credits being traded, which I'm guessing is because that would involve limiting the number of livestock allowed to live, which, again, would consequently involve limiting the number of people the world can feed. Anyway, I'll grant that, when it comes to carbon dioxide, Cap-and-Trade Alternate Reality might not quite burn quite as much fossil fuel as quickly as No Cap-and-Trade Alternate Reality, but would the former burn as much by 2035 or 2040 as the latter did by 2030? My guess would be yes. Look, just based on EROI (Energy Return On Investment, but I'm guessing you knew that), any fossil fuels that are brought to market anytime soon are going to be burned, regardless of exactly who does the burning. So, given all of these factors, I ultimately have to question how much of an impact such policies would really have on long-term climate expectations. You're either thinking in the very short term or that it is quick and easy to produce oil. Oil production depends on investment. Investors want a certain return on their investment. If the future demand for oil is predicted to go down (not in real terms but in relative terms of cap and trade vs. no cap and trade), then the future predicted profits on investment will go down, which will drive down current investment. Longish term, this will drive down real production, and therefore drive down real consumption. Even shorter term oil companies and producers have been known to stop production at sites based on more near term expected prices. How much? It depends on how easy it is to stay under the cap. How quick and at what costs can new technologies come on line? 2. Yes, methane is a more potent green house gas, but independent of fossil fuel usage, waste, and increasing temperatures, there is no reason to believe that methane levels are going up long term. And while they've gone up some, they have been much flatter than CO2 levels. Methane escapes from landfills (which we can actual capture and use for energy and the use of which would likely go up under a cap and trade program because I'd guess you'd get some sort of credits for that). Escapes from fossil fuel production and well sites (how much is debated. Some people in academia have tried to put some numbers on it, but industry has claimed they are wrong, while simultaneously refusing people near their wells to measure the levels). And escapes from things like permafrost as it warms (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/science/earth/warming-arctic-permafrost-fuels-climate-change-worries.html?pagewanted=all). So if you do things with respect to waste, green house gasses via fossil fuel productoin, and warming, then your methane issues from things like cows aren't as much of an issue, unless for some reason you plan on drastically increasing the global cow population. (I'll also point out, there are organisms that "eat" methane and convert it to CO2, which then is used by plants, which cows use so in terms of what is "here", you have a nice cycle. Your problem is when you start "introducing" methane (and realistically any green house gas) that was "removed" from the system (e.g. buried deep beneath the ground or "frozen" away somewhere)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.