RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 87 of 231«128586878889230231»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » Totally off-topic thread (Talk about anything.)
Totally off-topic thread
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 16.05.2013, 18:32 | Message # 1291
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Midtskogen

Shhhhhhhh. Listen to the panel.





 
midtskogenDate: Thursday, 16.05.2013, 18:35 | Message # 1292
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
He said that 4+ degrees of global warming could possibly hinder population growth

And added "and not in a very nice way". Consider how it can be interpreted. It doesn't work well. Like this extreme example (I'm not 100% sure if it is serious, you don't want to be associated anything vaguely similar).





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI


Edited by midtskogen - Thursday, 16.05.2013, 18:36
 
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 16.05.2013, 19:05 | Message # 1293
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Yes, you interpreted it stupidly. I was very specific with what I said and you took it as "PEOPLE WILL DIE!1111".

When will you look at / read / listen to the things I've given?

Added (16.05.2013, 22:05)
---------------------------------------------
P.S. If by chance anyone is wondering about the sudden change in demeanor, consider it an experiment to see what works. Evidently, when I patiently explain things and provide sources, it gets selectively ignored.

Please convince me that the patient and polite manner of conversation actually works. I much prefer it.






Edited by Watsisname - Thursday, 16.05.2013, 18:39
 
midtskogenDate: Thursday, 16.05.2013, 21:57 | Message # 1294
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
Quote (Watsisname)
Yes, you interpreted it stupidly. I was very specific with what I said and you took it as "PEOPLE WILL DIE!1111".

It was a fair point, but there are good ways to make it and bad ways. What you were expressing was pretty blunt even if it's true. My remark was constructively intended, but perhaps blunt too without further explanation.

Quote (Watsisname)
When will you look at / read / listen to the things I've given?

You know, I do and I appreciate the links. I even read them past the abstract as far as time allows. The only exception has been this thread because going to any u.to link has taken me to a page saying that the site is blocked because the domain has been associated with spam. I found only today that it was possible to reach the real URL by viewing the HTML for the forum and look at the title attribute of the link. Cumbersome, but I get there now. Now I have bit to catch up. I did comment on the arable land thing, because I don't think it fully supported your view. There's much I'd like to discuss but I abstain, things that look right but I would like to understand better, and things that don't seem to apply well for the discussion, or things that seem to miss important factors, but I have to pick my battles. These discussions tend to spiral a bit away. I'm sure we all have more important things to do.

Quote (Watsisname)
If by chance anyone is wondering about the sudden change in demeanor, consider it an experiment to see what works. Evidently, when I patiently explain things and provide sources, it gets selectively ignored.

Don't worry. My skin is relatively thick. I've participated in online discussions for two decades, from time to time. If I see flames approaching, I pull out. I'm here because there are many intelligent and educated people here [believe it or not, I've spent ten years in university myself, some years less productive than others due to work and military service, but I did finish a MSc and I supplemented it with half a bachelor until other duties caught up with me]. But I think the attitude at these forums could be a bit less like a contest, more like an exchange of ideas and viewpoints. But it's not for me to dictate.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
SalvoDate: Thursday, 16.05.2013, 22:44 | Message # 1295
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
Roads? Today we have rivers!



And this is just the beginning... wacko





The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)


Edited by Salvo - Thursday, 16.05.2013, 22:45
 
DisasterpieceDate: Thursday, 16.05.2013, 22:51 | Message # 1296
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 640
Status: Offline
Quote (Salvo)
Roads? Today we have rivers!

Venice!





I play teh spase engien
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Thursday, 16.05.2013, 22:52 | Message # 1297
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
I couldn't help but notice that galaxy in the road




All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
WatsisnameDate: Friday, 17.05.2013, 03:28 | Message # 1298
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote
I did comment on the arable land thing, because I don't think it fully supported your view.


Ah, yes you did, sorry that I missed it:

Quote (midtskogen)
You cherrypicked. The study also mentions beneficial effects not accounted for.


Did I? *reads paper again* Nope, I don't believe I did. Please be sure to pay careful attention to the emissions scenario / temperature range being considered.

The paper does not support my view. My view is what the paper says, and the vast majority of other research on the agricultural impact of 4+ degrees of warming, also says.

Quote
There's much I'd like to discuss but I abstain, things that look right but I would like to understand better, and things that don't seem to apply well for the discussion, or things that seem to miss important factors, but I have to pick my battles. These discussions tend to spiral a bit away. I'm sure we all have more important things to do.


Sorry if it feels like a contest. But it's kind of hard to have a good discussion when things have to be asked repeatedly and other things get severely misrepresented. Proceed or not as you wish though, I respect your choice either way.





 
midtskogenDate: Friday, 17.05.2013, 05:19 | Message # 1299
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
Quote (Watsisname)
Nope, I don't believe I did

I was referring to what the paper didn't account for. You said it was extreme weather like heat waves and droughts. But these are only some of the things that the paper says it may overlook/is beyond its scope. It goes on "increase the value of arable land through adaptive management practices", "rainfall harvesting and water storage".

Adaptation was precisely what I was advocating and what I believe has potential, if you remember. I also added that it doesn't come for free, though. It might not be very cost effective and the world today somewhat counts on some food being produced in tropical countries where labour is cheap and the land is more vulnerable. Not all arable land is today exploited (and I hope it never will be necessary).

Added:
Quote (Watsisname)
Please be sure to pay careful attention to the emissions scenario / temperature range being considered.

Yes. Did I misread when I noted that the scenario that gave a slight decrease included population growth while the one not including growth gave an increase? It didn't clearly separate the effects of different knobs, did it? Since population growth isn't a consequence of global warming, the paper doesn't precisely address what we discussed.

As for productiveness, you didn't address my notes on growth season length and CO[sub[2[/sub] uptake either. But if you're weary, that's fine.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI


Edited by midtskogen - Friday, 17.05.2013, 05:48
 
NovaSiliskoDate: Friday, 17.05.2013, 09:06 | Message # 1300
Explorer
Group: SE team
United States
Messages: 288
Status: Offline
If the world spent the energy it spent arguing about global warming on actually doing something about it, it would never have been a problem...

Edited by NovaSilisko - Friday, 17.05.2013, 09:06
 
WatsisnameDate: Friday, 17.05.2013, 10:26 | Message # 1301
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote
It goes on "increase the value of arable land through adaptive management practices", "rainfall harvesting and water storage".


Let us be even more explicit when we quote the paper, shall we?
"Other agricultural adaptation measures such as rainfall harvesting and water storage may mitigate the negative impacts of climate change on land suitability and thus maintain current levels of available arable land."

So yes. As I have been saying, there is a net loss of arable land caused by climate change once you get past a certain threshold. The only probable way for it to end up otherwise is if we are both very lucky and don't suffer extra consequences from droughts and other extreme weather (a dubious proposition at best), and that we take measures to adapt to the changes.

That's a very big difference from the statement that began this track of discussion, which was:

"The increase would be highest in high latitudes and during the winter, reducing the effects of both latitude and seasons. It will mainly be the relatively unproductive winter seasons and polar zones that will decrease. The majority of the world's population lives in the the temperate climate zone, and that zone will increase in area since it will gain more from the subarctic or arctic zone than it will lose to the tropical zone, so it can't be all bad assuming that population density somewhat follows an idea of comfortable temperatures."

You were discussing here the impacts purely as a result of climate change itself. Not how it is after adaptation. That said, I get what you're saying about favoring adaptation, and I'm not arguing against it in general. We should be doing adaptation, and in very many ways, but adaptation alone would be brutal, especially considering that it's not just agricultural changes that we'd be dealing with. (And not just we humans that are affected).

This is a good moment to refer back to the relevant images I posted early on.

Quote
Did I misread when I noted that the scenario that gave a slight decrease included population growth while the one not including growth gave an increase? It didn't clearly separate the effects of different knobs, did it? Since population growth isn't a consequence of global warming, the paper doesn't precisely address what we discussed.

Yes, you probably misread something.

The paper is looking at IPCC scenarios, specifically of the A1 and B1 family. These scenarios are the same with regard to population growth.. A1B is a higher emissions scenario that B1. A1B is also the one that predicts a more negative impact on arable land. So, the paper shows that higher emissions leads to greater impact to net arable land, but of course there are both positive and negative effects depending on region. Climate change is not simple. smile

Global population does of course matter as well, and the paper also discusses this.

Nota bene, so far we're following a path that is above that of A1B, and actually near the top of IPCC scenarios, such as A1FI. A1B is a scenario that is likely to surpass 4 degrees by the end of the century. A1F1 even more so. So, scenarios that lead to 4+ degrees of warming are also scenarios that lead to net reductions of arable land, and this paper helps to demonstrate that.

Quote
As for productiveness, you didn't address my notes on growth season length and CO2 uptake either. But if you're weary, that's fine.


Sorry, I didn't see you ask me to address them, and I didn't think it was necessary because the beneficial effect of CO2 on plants and the longer growth season in some areas due to climate change is fairly obvious. It's a topic that is also discussed in the sources I've given. E.g. the greening of the arctic regions. It also doesn't outweigh this long list of very serious impacts due to climate change, though, especially beyond 4 degrees.







Edited by Watsisname - Friday, 17.05.2013, 10:52
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Friday, 17.05.2013, 13:55 | Message # 1302
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (NovaSilisko)
If the world spent the energy it spent arguing about global warming on actually doing something about it, it would never have been a problem...

But it doesn't spend all that much energy arguing since talking requires an order of magnitude less energy than actually doing something productive.

Also, "doing something about it" requires more people. Everybody is the problem, so nearly everybody has to be the solution. If only half of the people are doing something about it then you're going to get nowhere unless you get some magic bullets like great legislation (which we don't have), or a few good rich people trying to fix things (which fortunately we do have some, but not enough).





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
SalvoDate: Friday, 17.05.2013, 17:33 | Message # 1303
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
Quote (Disasterpiece)
Venice!


LoL, I am 100 km away biggrin





The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
 
midtskogenDate: Friday, 17.05.2013, 19:41 | Message # 1304
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
Quote (Watsisname)
The only probable way for it to end up otherwise is if we are both very lucky and don't suffer extra consequences from droughts and other extreme weather (a dubious proposition at best)

The paper neither concludes that we need to be very lucky or claims that no significant droughts and the like are dubious. It's outside its scope.

Quote (Watsisname)
Yes, you probably misread something.

I'm sorry, I did misread something and relied on memory in a hasty reply. Thanks. So we have a <4 scenario in line with my statement without further detailing and a 4+ scenario with a 1% area decrease with factors pulling in different directions not accounted for. Yield increase from CO2 alone seems inevitable to push that well into positive territory with no need to discuss adaptation (or vice versa). One estimate has 33% yield increase for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. But, of course, if all kinds of bad things happen not necessarily relevant to global warming and/or technological stagnation a decrease of crop productivity for the most likely global warming scenarios is possible.

Note that I didn't say that a productivity increase outweighs negative impacts of global warming. That's an entirely different discussion, and I've mainly been saying (receiving loud protests) that it raises ethical issues if we can fix the global climate to a specific temperature distribution.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI


Edited by midtskogen - Friday, 17.05.2013, 19:48
 
WatsisnameDate: Saturday, 18.05.2013, 00:48 | Message # 1305
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote (midtskogen)
The paper neither concludes that we need to be very lucky or claims that no significant droughts and the like are dubious. It's outside its scope.


Actually, it does conclude this, implicitly. Without even having to consider the effects of extreme weather, it shows that there is a net reduction in arable land beyond a certain threshold of emissions scenarios. It also explicitly mentions the additional risk of extreme weather, and provides citations for other work on that topic. Increases in extreme weather are very significant beyond 2 degrees and especially 4 degrees. Thus why I say we'd have to be very lucky for that to not factor in.

Quote
I'm sorry, I did misread something and relied on memory in a hasty reply. Thanks.

That's quite alright, happens to all of us. smile I'm glad that you asked about it.

Quote
Yield increase from CO2 alone seems inevitable to push that well into positive territory with no need to discuss adaptation (or vice versa). One estimate has 33% yield increase for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.


The conclusions of that greenhouse study and others like it are very poor when applied to actual outdoor conditions (you have to consider other things such as increased evapotranspiration). It is also only really applicable to C3 crops. Most of the world's food production comes from crops for which the CO2 fertilization effect is not as significant (e.g. maize). Assessments of food security account for the direct CO2 fertilization effects, by the way.

I would recommend that you read this page and this abstract. Other relevant studies include Rosenzweig and Parry (1994, Nature), and Cline (2007, IMF).

This assessment report may also be beneficial to skim over if you have the time.

Quote
Note that I didn't say that a productivity increase outweighs negative impacts of global warming. That's an entirely different discussion, and I've mainly been saying (receiving loud protests) that it raises ethical issues if we can fix the global climate to a specific temperature distribution.


I understand. We may just have to agree that the way we look at the issues and the ethics are very different.

Edit: Please let me know if the links are still causing issues; I'll try to remediate them for you.







Edited by Watsisname - Saturday, 18.05.2013, 00:52
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » Totally off-topic thread (Talk about anything.)
Page 87 of 231«128586878889230231»
Search: