The Global Warming Megathread

[apelike]

---------- Post added 05-05-2017 at 14:35 ----------

Dear God! Some things are hard to explain to those who don't want to understand!

 

The grain would be on the market for people to eat. It is increasing the price by taking it away from poor people who are not the ones throwing away good food, that is us the rich people.

 

Oh I do understand. I also understand that food is not in short supply and prices have not increased and have in real terms reduced. You have already contradicted yourself as pointed out by Robin-H. Its either in short supply that makes the price rise or it is not! BTW one of the biggest uses for grain is not for Bio-Fuels or animal feed but vegetable oil for use in cooking and yet using it as a Bio-Fuel is somehow wrong. Those yellow flowering field are actually being use to grow rape seed for vegetable oil which is in demand for cooking.

 

The Austrailin thing, growing food in a desert at twice today's prices, was an illustration of the fact that there is plenty of food for increased populations if those populations are allowed to get rich.

 

But that still does not explain exactly who would foot the bill.

 

The artificially increased food prices we have today are slowing the economic development of the world's poor.

 

That is not so and as already pointed out food prise have not been artificially increased. Quite the opposite in fact as especially in Europe as food production has been subsidised along with the farmers as a means of guaranteeing low food costs and food security.

Edited May 5, 2017 by apelike

[Hairyloon]

If you want to make a point relavent to this thread you will have to do that for something that has such science showing a mechanism that will cause damage. Not just vague hand waving.

 

I take it that you didn't notice any of the extreme weather events that have been happening over recent years?

Very much as predicted some years before by climate scientists.

 

That is how science works: form a hypothesis, then do an experiment to see if the results match the predictions.

 

Now, if we want to be properly scientific about it, then we should repeat the experiment: we just need to fetch the planet back to the starting conditions...

[Tim Grindley]

Oh I do understand. I also understand that food is not in short supply and prices have not increased and have in real terms reduced. You have already contradicted yourself as pointed out by Robin-H. Its either in short supply that makes the price rise or it is not! BTW one of the biggest uses for grain is not for Bio-Fuels or animal feed but vegetable oil for use in cooking and yet using it as a Bio-Fuel is somehow wrong. Those yellow flowering field are actually being use to grow rape seed for vegetable oil which is in demand for cooking.

 

 

 

But that still does not explain exactly who would foot the bill.

 

 

 

That is not so and as already pointed out food prise have not been artificially increased. Quite the opposite in fact as especially in Europe as food production has been subsidised along with the farmers as a means of guaranteeing low food costs and food security.

 

Food prices would be lower still if this evil was not happening.

 

It is not hard to understand.

 

The use of extremes in food production as the Austrialian growing it in the most difficult of circumstances is only going to happen if the population of rich people in the world is in the order of 20 billion.

 

These things are not contradictory.

 

Food, basic stuff like rice or wheat, which is £2 shoould be £1.30.

 

Not an issue for us but for those 800 million people suffering from clinical undernourishment it s killing many of them and slowing the development of all of the poor world.

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2017 at 15:44 ----------

 

I take it that you didn't notice any of the extreme weather events that have been happening over recent years?

Very much as predicted some years before by climate scientists.

 

That is how science works: form a hypothesis, then do an experiment to see if the results match the predictions.

 

Now, if we want to be properly scientific about it, then we should repeat the experiment: we just need to fetch the planet back to the starting conditions...

 

AAAARRRGH!!!!

 

Do you think that there have not been extremes of weather during periods when it was colder?

 

1976 was an extreme year. It was snowing at easter and then we had a very sunny summer.

 

That was before the fuss of global warming happened.

 

Can you cite any evidence that extremes of weather, however you want to define that, have increased since 1979? Or any date? you will fail to cite such papers because it has not done so.

[Hairyloon]

Can you cite any evidence that extremes of weather, however you want to define that, have increased since 1979? Or any date? you will fail to cite such papers because it has not done so.

 

Consider for example Carlisle. In 2005 it flooded badly, worse than in recorded history.

Such things are of course to be expected, about once every couple of hundred years or so, and of course it is just coincidence that it was worse than has ever been seen before.

So they rebuilt and improved the flood defences over and above what would have protected them from the floods they had just had.

 

In 2015 it flooded again, overcoming the flood defence by a couple of feet.

So by what measure do you hold two bicentennial weather events inside a decade as not being an increase in frequency?

[truman]

Consider for example Carlisle. In 2005 it flooded badly, worse than in recorded history.

Such things are of course to be expected, about once every couple of hundred years or so, and of course it is just coincidence that it was worse than has ever been seen before.

So they rebuilt and improved the flood defences over and above what would have protected them from the floods they had just had.

 

In 2015 it flooded again, overcoming the flood defence by a couple of feet.

So by what measure do you hold two bicentennial weather events inside a decade as not being an increase in frequency?

 

"A new report from Carlisle Flood Action Group says a lack of river maintenance was to blame for Storm Desmond flooding the city.

 

'Storm Desmond Carlisle 12 Months On' claims poor management caused 'a build-up of accumulated gravels and thereby forcing rivers to flow higher in their channels than they used to.'"

 

From here:

 

http://www.itv.com/news/border/2016-12-12/rain-not-to-blame-for-carlisle-floods/

[Annie Bynnol]

I have A levels in maths and physics.

 

If you can actually post something that has numbers in it and works as science and then support it with a paper which also explains the mechanism you are talking about you will have scored some sort of point.

 

If you want to make a point relavent to this thread you will have to do that for something that has such science showing a mechanism that will cause damage. Not just vague hand waving.

 

When energy transfers from one system to another not all the energy stays in its original form. The rules apply equally to car engines as to the Earth. So a percentage of this heat energy transfers into kinetic energy.

To satisfy the zeroth law of thermodynamics energy must transfer towards the poles.

In a situation when the incident heat at the equator is higher and the incident heat at the poles stays the same, more energy will need to transfer towards the poles. As the percentage that transfers into kinetic energy stays roughly the same there will be more kinetic energy.

Most of this increasing amount of kinetic energy is transferred eventually into heat and so both routes move a significant amount of the heat energy towards the poles. Due to the properties of the Earth a heat equilibrium is never achieved which results in heat energy gradient. This gradient is unstable because of rotation and local effects such as oceans, topography, hydrological cycles etc.

The steeper the gradient the more instability kicks in.

This instability is weather.

More energy means more instability, more instability means more weather, more weather means...

[apelike]

Food prices would be lower still if this evil was not happening.

 

The price of food is generally dictated by the usual caveat and that is supply and demand and in any-case what evil?

 

The use of extremes in food production as the Austrialian growing it in the most difficult of circumstances is only going to happen if the population of rich people in the world is in the order of 20 billion.

 

But the population of rich people will never grow that quick and would probably never reach that magnitude by current means. In order for that to happen you will then have to change this capitalistic society and replace it. Question is, how do you go about that change and what do you replace it with?

 

Not an issue for us but for those 800 million people suffering from clinical undernourishment it s killing many of them and slowing the development of all of the poor world.

 

On of the biggest problems facing parts of this poor world which actually creates food insecurity and slows development is conflict and war. Its widespread in Africa: Ethiopia, Eritrea, Guinea, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra-Leone etc, and used by warring factions as a common form of control. Until that ceases there will be no development and people will still be left without food.

[phil752]

The price of food is generally dictated by the usual caveat and that is supply and demand and in any-case what evil?

 

 

 

But the population of rich people will never grow that quick and would probably never reach that magnitude by current means. In order for that to happen you will then have to change this capitalistic society and replace it. Question is, how do you go about that change and what do you replace it with?

 

 

 

On of the biggest problems facing parts of this poor world which actually creates food insecurity and slows development is conflict and war. Its widespread in Africa: Ethiopia, Eritrea, Guinea, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra-Leone etc, and used by warring factions as a common form of control. Until that ceases there will be no development and people will still be left without food.

 

Is this new or has it always been so?

[apelike]

Is this new or has it always been so?

 

Its been going on for decades certainly. Currently around 15 places in Africa are in conflict and lots of reports of food aid going missing etc. Boko Haram are responsible for a lot of it and the conflict in Somalia is still on going.

 

I was invited to go to Eritrea last year by a neighbour but was advised not to by others as its still a bit of a hot zone.

[Hairyloon]

On of the biggest problems facing parts of this poor world which actually creates food insecurity and slows development is conflict and war. Its widespread in Africa: Ethiopia, Eritrea, Guinea, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra-Leone etc, and used by warring factions as a common form of control. Until that ceases there will be no development and people will still be left without food.

 

Is this likely to get better or worse with rising sea levels and expanding deserts?