backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by tharik.. on Jun 14 at 2:58 PM


Wheat crops in India  (Source: NY Times)
Populations around the Himalayas at risk

recent study in the journal Science shows that the shrinkage of glaciers will cause a lack in water sources for crops, ultimately leading to food shortages for approximately 60 million people living near the Himalayas. This study is one of the first to observe the effect melting glaciers have on the Himalayan river basins, and could possibly further provoke the existing debate that climate change will destroy river basins located mostly in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, China and Bhutan.

Dutch scientists Marc Bierkens, Walter Immerzee and Ludovicus Van Beek – who conducted the study and wrote in the journal -- concluded that basins around the Himalayas such as the Indus, Ganges and Brahamaputra depend on the melting glaciers to water their crops, and could see a 19.6 percent decline in their water supply by 2050. 

"We estimate that the food security of 4.5 percent of the total population will be threatened as a result of reduced water availability," the researchers wrote. "The strong need for prioritizing adaptation options and further increasing water productivity is therefore eminent."

This new study largely contrasts the U.N. report in 2007, where the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that hundreds of millions of people were in danger from the receding glaciers. According to the scientists, the reason for the "discrepancy" is that only some basins in this area depend on the glaciers. Others, such as China's Yellow River basin, obtain their water from rainfall and are expected to see a 9.5 percent increase in water supply due to the changing climate altering the pattern of monsoons. 

"We show that it's only certain areas that will be affected," said Bierkens. "The amount of people affected is still large. Every person is one too many but it's much less than was first anticipated."

In addition, the U.N. report included other errors such as the Himalayas disappearing by 2035, when actual data indicates that this will happen by 2350. Client change skeptics attacked this inaccuracy, which in fact, was just a mistake in transposing the numbers. 

Most scientists agree that "glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate as temperatures increase," and that the reason is related to the higher "atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide." Evidence for this appears in the considerable losses seen in glaciers across the Andes, Alaska, the Alps and several other ranges. According to researchers in the United States and Europe, "more than 90 percent of glaciers worldwide are in retreat."

Researchers who did not take part in the study, such as Zhongqin Li, director of the Tianshan Glaciological Station in China, noted that the scientists performing the study disregarded many other basins in central Asia and northwest China which will be affected by the glacial losses. Other glacial experts and scientists warned that "uncertainties and lack of data for the region makes it difficult to say what will happen in the next few decades to the water supply." While many researchers are skeptical of exact numbers in the study, they do agree that there should be a concern for those living in the glacial-dependent basins due to climate change. In addition, problems like pollution, overpopulation and poverty are added stress to the situation.

"The paper teaches us that there's a lot of uncertainty in the future water supply of Asia and within the realm of plausibility are scenarios that may give us concern," said Casey Brown, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Massachusetts. 

"At present, we know that water concerns are already a certainty - the large and growing populations and high dependence on irrigated agriculture which makes the region vulnerable to present climate variability. 

"This paper is additional motivation to address these present concerns through wise investments in better management of water resources in the region, which for me means forecasts, incentives, efficiency."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By Schadenfroh on 6/11/2010 1:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
So, does this mean that the critics of modern agricultural techniques will finally STFU and use the discoveries that science has provided us?

I am tired of hearing so many of the same people that are concerned about man's impact on the climate and the poor not being able to afford food complain about synthetic pesticides, genetically modified organisms, modern (ie non-organic) farming techniques and a bizarre fascination with "locally grown produce" in climates less efficient at growing certain types of crops on-mass.




RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By clovell on 6/11/2010 2:36:26 PM , Rating: 5
This is something I've really done a lot of thinking, reading, and soul-searching on, so I wanted to offer my views from a moderate standpoint.

Locally grown produce is about a lot more than touchy-feely stuff. It's about economics and urban planning more than anthing else.

It's a simple concept - You can't have people living in a place where there is no food. If all the food in an area has to be trucked in, that's not especially a good thing. It affects urban planning, makes the area reliant on shipping routes, and probably most important of all, it creates a barrier between the residents and one of their most important daily activities - what they stuff into their face.

Local produce is something we should all try our best to support - without being crazy about it. Example - I live in Chicago. In a couple weeks, farmer's markets will open up through the end of September. I'll go there. I will not buy 30 lbs of tomatoes in September, though, and can them at home - I can buy canned tomatoes just fine in the store when it's snowing outside.

Genetically modified food is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it makes crops easier, faster, bigger, and more efficient. On the other hand, it totally screws with biodiversity. The instant a pest develops just the right mutation, the entire soybean crop of the United States of America could be wiped out. Does that mean we nix genetically modified crops? No, it means we keep conventional crops in the lifecycle, and continue to cross-breed them.

We also continue to question - why is it so important that all the wheat / sugarcane / corn grow to be the same length? Is the mechanical efficency gained at harvest really worth the amount of pesticides, genetically enhanced seeds, and synthetic fertilizers that are used to accomplish that?

No, at the end of the day, it's about being closer to your food than just a label, a trademark, a nutrition fact sheet. It's about being involved - not politically, but conciously.

It's summer - grow something. I think if everyone played some part, however small, in growing their own food - even a jalepeno plant in a small pot (I've 2 of these on the balcony of my 650 sq. ft. apt.), that we would appreciate what we eat that much more. It would go a long way to fighting obesity, inhumane treatment of animals, and promoting local agriculture.


By HalJordan on 6/11/2010 3:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
So, what you are saying is: "Embrace the new, but not at the expense of the old." Right? I can get behind that, and I am definitely not the "touchy-feely" type. Odd that you would mention Jalopeno plants, as I just started to grow two of my own, keep your fingers crossed for me, I don't have much of a green thumb. If all goes well, I'm planning on tomatoes next.

I believe we can inspire more people to shift their patterns based on their pocketbook, rather than ethics alone.


By clovell on 6/14/2010 10:18:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'll keep em crossed for you. I started some seeds back at the end of March, and now I've got 2 Jalepenos, 1 Banana Pepper, 1 California Wonder Bell Pepper, 1 Mariachi Hybrid Pepper, 2 Roma Tomatoes, 1 Tomatillo, and 1 Viva Italia plant - plus a handful of Herbs out on my balcony.

I've really enjoyed it. Starting inside from seeds was a lot of trial & error, but it gave me something to do in those last winter months.

You should give tomatoes a try. Not sure where you live, or if you plan on planting them in the ground (mine are all in pots), but you might start with a determinate species (only grows to a certain length, rather than a continuously long vine). My Romas grew pretty fast (germinated quicker than the Viva Italias), but the Viva Italias can make do with less water (which is helpful if you sometimes forget to water).


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By Ammohunt on 6/11/2010 3:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
You lost me at "inhumane treatment of animals" top of the food chain, top of the food chain.


By ClownPuncher on 6/11/2010 3:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
Viruses and the machines from the Matrix feed off of people.


By SPOOFE on 6/13/2010 12:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You lost me at "inhumane treatment of animals"

Well, clearly you read almost the entirety of his post to get to that part, so he didn't really lose you, did he? :D


By clovell on 6/14/2010 10:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, a lot of that stuff is really hard to believe until you read up on it or watch a documentary. It's disgusting, though - especially the cattle lots in West Texas & New Mexico.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By JediJeb on 6/11/2010 3:55:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We also continue to question - why is it so important that all the wheat / sugarcane / corn grow to be the same length? Is the mechanical efficency gained at harvest really worth the amount of pesticides, genetically enhanced seeds, and synthetic fertilizers that are used to accomplish that?


Not so much mechanical efficiency but overall yield. We use things like Glyphosate resistant corn and soybeans so that we can spray over the crops to kill the weeds and grasses that will take nutrients away from the crop of interest. Otherwise we would have to hire thousands or even millions of more workers to use a hoe to remove those weeds which would greatly increase the cost of these crops.

I am in agreement though that people should learn to grow some of their own food when and if they can. Should the economy take a much more severe downturn than it has already it could be a very useful skill to have. Also it is useful during certain natural disasters that may hinder shipping of food. Just a good skill to know overall and lets people more appreciate the work that goes into providing food for the planet that our farmers do every day.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By Spuke on 6/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By JediJeb on 6/11/2010 6:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
I guess we will disagree on some topics though I have agreed with you on others. I just happen to think it is good to learn other things, even if you may not use them extensively in life. I already know farming since I grew up on a farm, but I became a chemist for my career. I have along the way learned to operate heavy equipment, blacksmithing, carpentry, cooking, computer programming, basic first aid, basic tailoring, leather working, automotive repair, and other things. If my vision will allow and I have the time and money I would also like to learn to fly and sail among other things.

Some people like me would like to be able to provide for ourselves in an emergency, at least until we can obtain the services of someone more skilled in the area of need. Growing up the people around me could not hire a professional every time something needed to be done, mostly because there were no professionals anywhere near by. I'm sure people who grew up in a large city were more able to depend on others with the skills needed to do specialized tasks, which is good. I do though tend to plan for the best, but prepare for the worst.

I respect your beliefs in reliance on a diverse society, I hope you can respect my beliefs in self reliance also.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By Spuke on 6/11/10, Rating: -1
By JediJeb on 6/14/2010 10:56:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I happen to think that everyone should do a mandatory two years in the military.


Though I was never able to serve because of health problems, my father did and I know from his experience that it can be something a person can benefit from. There are the dangers of course but the discipline one gains is very helpful in life. I can not say I have the discipline that my father and grandfather had, but their examples made a strong impression on my live for sure.


By ShaolinSoccer on 6/11/2010 11:51:16 PM , Rating: 1
JediJeb, what you've just wrote is probably one of the best things I have ever read. I wish more people were like you. Crime is getting worse where I live. People are losing morals more and more. I don't know what could solve the problem but if everyone was like you, the world would be a utopia!


By JediJeb on 6/14/2010 10:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
Utopia I think would be too much to ask for. Self reliance only makes the ups and downs easier, it doesn't necessarily fix the dark side of peoples mentality.


By aegisofrime on 6/11/2010 9:17:01 PM , Rating: 1
I would like some clarification on this part

"it creates a barrier between the residents and one of their most important daily activities"

Why is this important? I ask because I live in Singapore, and without question, all of our food is trucked, shipped or flown in. I think we get along fine without seeing some of our food grown in local farmland.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By clovell on 6/14/2010 10:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know much about Singapore, but here in America, food is processed, fast, and cheap. Most people around here eat with a casual abandon, without ever understanding what's on their plate.

Don't get me wrong - I'd stop at McDonald's before I skipped a meal, but given the choice, I'd choose something different. Call me crazy, but I just think that eating is an intimate activity - that there's a right way and a wrong way to raise and slaughter animals - that there's a certain level of respect that everyone should have for their food that gets lost in the shuffle of modern agriculture.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By Suntan on 6/14/2010 12:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Call me crazy, but I just think that eating is an intimate activity - that there's a right way and a wrong way to raise and slaughter animals - that there's a certain level of respect that everyone should have for their food that gets lost in the shuffle of modern agriculture.


If you think eating is an “intimate” activity, then you’re either doing nasty things with that ear of corn, or else you don’t have your head on straight.

And if it is always the humans that are so barbaric and lacking such respect for the world around them, so out of touch with mother nature and the overall ecosystem, please point out a single species on the planet that has any respect for the food they eat...

Most hunter species elect to crush their prey’s windpipe and slowly suffocate them to death over the span of a few minutes while standing on top of their dying corpses... Does that sound very respectful? Not to mention, have you never seen a documentary where the hunter animal has any qualms about killing and proceeding to eat the offspring of a prey animal while it the meal’s mother stands helplessly out of range watching? Very respectful...

Anyone ever heard about specialization? It is what allowed our ancestors to progress on from crouching in caves and covering themselves in the stinky hides of the animals they just ate. For a refresher, it is basically the notion that the people who know how to do a certain activity the most effectively concentrate on that activity and provide the output for the rest of the society.

Trying to grow all your own food in your back yard or close to your house if you live in an area that does not support it (whether you live in a location where the soil does not support it, or a heavily urbanized area that makes it impractical) is silly and counter to the notion that even early humans knew as folly. The fact that people are able to do it and still survive just points out how comfortable we are as a race, that you can grow your food in a way that makes you happy even though it is inefficient and a waste of land that could be used for more efficiently for other things.

It’s one thing to decide to treat animals humanly before they get slaughtered, it is another thing altogether to think that our food sources should be given “respect” by dialing back the progress we have made by thousands of years.

-Suntan


By clovell on 6/14/2010 2:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
> If you think eating is an “intimate” activity, then you’re either doing nasty things with that ear of corn, or else you don’t have your head on straight.

Suntan, I generally agree with you on a lot of things. Eating involves putting something in your mouth and having it pass through and be absorbed into your body as part of yourself. Idk if it would help you to read my other posts in the thread, but it seems like what I mean when I say "respect" and what you think I mean when I say "respect" are two different things.

There's a lot of people that no longer understand that a chicken has to die for you to have KFC; that a pig is butchered to make bacon for your chesseburger. As a hunter & a fisher, I don't get emotional with every kill or catch. But, I do realize that an animal died for my sustenance, and I give it "respect" - in the midst of gutting, cleaning, breaking it down, and finally cooking and eating it.

It's not something I'm good at explaining, I guess, but at the end of the day, growing something yourself (certainly not everything), or fishing, or hunting (for food, rather than just sport), brings you to a place where that "respect" is more easily understood.

I can't promise that clears it up, but past that I think we're just going to disagree.


By shin0bi272 on 6/12/2010 3:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
I would like to point out that the maize you eat (either on or off the cob) this summer is a genetically engineered product that started out as a grass about ankle high or so and was bred to be the food we eat today through hundreds of years of cultivation. There is also another newer version that students at the university of nebraska are working on to make a more disease resistant version of the stuff because once one stalk goes bad to fungus or rust or beetles there's a good possibility that that entire acre will get infected in a matter of days. So please dont ignore the fact that science has always played a role in food production and pass it off as a "mixed blessing".

One other thing, Organic is BS. A study out of England back in 08 said that they studied the "organic" vs regular food for 50 years and they concluded that organic is nothing more than a label when it comes to the health benefits. In other words its hogwash! Youre paying more money for something that essentially is no better or worse for you than the standard stuff we all bought for years. Taste might be different depending on the type of organic and the type of food youre talking about but for the nutritional value there is no difference. Sorry to burst your bubble bub.


By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/2010 6:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe it's the nutritional value that makes organic

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/nu00...


By chemist1 on 6/14/2010 4:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
That British article wasn't a study, it was a review article -- a summary of other published work. It focused principally on vitamin and mineral content, and came to conclusions consistent with that of another large review [Zhao X, et al. (2006), HortTechnology, Vol. 16, No. 3 pp. 449-456, http://horttech.ashspublications.org/cgi/content/a...] -- that the vitamin and mineral content of organic and conventionally grown produce is similar. HOWEVER, Zhao also reviewed, in detail, numerous studies assessing phytochemical content (the British study did as well but not, it seemed, as thoroughly). Zhao found that, while more work needs to be done, "the evidence overall seems in favor of enhancement of phytochemical content in organically grown produce." And it's the phytochemicals (e.g., flavinoids) that are thought to provide much of the health-enhancing benefits of fruits and vegetables. Here's more on this from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming):

"The FiBL Institute has been investigating the differences at over 200 farms. It states that "organic products stand out as having higher levels of secondary plant compounds and vitamin C. In the case of milk and meat, the fatty acid profile is often better from a nutritional point of view. As far as carbohydrates and minerals, organic products are no different from conventional products. However, in regard to undesirables such as nitrate and pesticide residues, organic products have a clear advantage. A £12m EU-funded investigation into the difference between organic and ordinary farming published in 2007 found that organic foods have more nutritional value.[43] A recent study found that organically grown produce has double the flavonoids, an important antioxidant.[44]. A 2007 study found that organically grown kiwifruit had more antioxidants than conventional kiwifruit.[45]"

In addition, organic produce may be chemically safer. Some chemical fertilizers are made from industrial waste, and thus contain high levels of cadmium. And, of course, there's the issue of pesticides.


By clovell on 6/14/2010 10:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
The corn you're talking about was cross-bred over a couple centuries? That doesn't sound like anything I'd have a problem with. I'm not ignoring that science is doing a lot of good in agriculture - but it kinda seems like you just ignored my point about biodiversity.

I can buy a Conventional Bell Pepper, and after 10 days in my fridge, I have to toss it. If I buy an Organic one, it can go three weeks. Organic Zucchini cooks up better on the grill. I like having the option - Onions? I go conventional. Garlic? I'm not made of money. But, there is a difference, in terms of taste and water content. Sometimes its negligible, sometimes it's not - but it's always a matter of taste. So, you have a point, but I never really said that Organic was healthier for you. It does rely less on petrochemicals. It does generally promote biodiversity more than conventional crops, which, usually helps in conventional cross-breeding.

So, I'm not really arguing with you here, but just leaning on the other side of the same fence. No bubble burst; no apologies necessary.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By raf11 on 6/11/2010 7:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that a very small fraction of people that are making the argument that climate change is a myth today, wouldn't be doing so if the idea wasn't fueled by a political party/ideology. Much in the same way that I believe a fraction of a percent of people would be making the argument that evolution is a myth, if it wasn't fueled by an underlying religious belief.

It seems people will often dismiss factual information to fit their personal beliefs, instead of modifying their personal beliefs to align with factual information.


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By raf11 on 6/11/2010 10:44:40 PM , Rating: 3
I was referring to man-made climate change.

My girlfriend's grandfather is a die-hard republican (Disclaimer: I have nothing against those who are conservative, just pointing out how this opinion exists mostly within a specific party) - he commonly opposes the idea of man-made climate change, and uses different references concerning Al Gore this and that as if it eliminates the entire consensus of the scientific community for the last 20 years. A common political tactic is to demonize a single entity that holds the same view, and then paint the entire body that holds that view as being the same. It doesn't logically make sense.

quote:
Only a blockhead would actually claim that proponents of this theory aren't the ones with the political ideological agenda.


Even if a political party was using climate change as a giant wealth redistribution scheme (Which is a point I don't necessarily agree with) - how can you ignore the consensus of the scientific community, of all the universities, experts, etc - and favor the opinion of those who are aligned with your own political beliefs (Who are not authorities on the subject)?

With your nearly 3,700+ posts and outspoken and extremist view, I'm starting to think you are hired by DailyTech to increase ad revenue. Since your provocative comments incur further posts, this increases page views and thus ad revenue. Otherwise, I don't see why you would spend so much time spreading your opinion when the majority of users don't agree with you (As displayed with your average down-rating) and you have been repeatedly proven wrong. Why spend all this time on DailyTech posting, for nothing?


RE: Locally grown produce, organic, anti-GMO, etc.
By raf11 on 6/11/2010 11:12:58 PM , Rating: 3
This will be my last reply to you, as I realize any attempt to counter anything you say is pointless, and just a waste of time.

quote:
So if a "majority" of scientist agree on something, it's true.


If that something happens to be their field, and it's based on studied facts and testing, then yes, exactly. At least until legitimate evidence from the science community proves otherwise. I don't even see how you could argue against that.

quote:
If a "majority" of raters disagree with me, I'm an extremist paid Daily Tech mole?


No, the above was suggested because day in and day out you argue with posters and are continually proven wrong. When they prove you wrong, you label it "leftist" and disagree with it usually solely based on the fact that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be on the left (even several times in your last post). The fact that I don't believe a person could do this all day, every day without being paid for it is why I made that suggestion. If you aren't receiving some type of compensation for it, then that truly makes the situation entirely more pathetic.

quote:
You seem to be very hung up on majorities. Are you a very insecure person?


Funny, since you several times try to convince yourself that you are in the majority with your views when it supports your argument, which is why I pointed it out.

Quote from you on 5/17
quote:
The country IS "far right". It was founded on "far right" principles. And the majority of the country when polled, identify themselves as "far right".


And here is just one of the many posts from you that displays your extremism, from 5/28
quote:
Or maybe I should support the idea. That way when the rest of us finally snap from paying taxes for everyone else's EV car, it will be really easy to identify the enemy. Simply drag anyone out of an EV you find, kicking and screaming, and put a bullet in their face .


By ShaolinSoccer on 6/12/2010 12:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Climate Change research is a huge pile of money just waiting to be grabbed. It pays for itself.


lol I remember an article in Parade about "hot jobs" and one was 'anything to do with global warming'...

just wanted to throw that out there...


By AEvangel on 6/14/2010 1:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
You also have to remember back in the 70's it was the idea of Global cooling and their was this myth of a huge overwhelming majority of scientist in favor of that theory as well.

Personally, I would rather have global warming since that is much less of an overall threat to humanity then Global cooling since the last time we had a global cooling some 20k years ago everything north of Africa and Mexico was under ice.

I agree with climate change you have to be an idiot not to, I just don't believe in the man made concept since this is the latest fad of the scientific community(who love the grant $$ to do these studies) to come along.


By shin0bi272 on 6/12/2010 3:33:30 AM , Rating: 3
Actually in the US belief in man made global warming is down to 20% of the population according to a poll I saw about 3 months ago. Once the scientist that worked for the UN came out and admitted that the emails that were hacked were true and that there had been no appreciable warming since 1995 the belief in it sort of dropped out. Still hasnt stopped people from pushing a "green economy" or "going green" despite the laws of physics and thermodynamics and the economics of scale there are still zealots out there pushing for it... Barry Obama being one of them.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2010 6:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. Raf believes that scientific majority = population majority. So good luck convincing him that most American's actually CAN make their own opinions on something once they are informed enough about it.

Climategate opened our eyes, and confirmed a lot of suspicions. These aren't good men and women just doing a job. These are people HIGHLY motivated to push an agenda.

Now the media and several sources, based on East Anglia's own laughable "investigation", would like you to believe the "science was solid" but the people doing the science were flawed. I mean, honestly, who's buying that??


By just4U on 6/13/2010 12:03:46 AM , Rating: 2
The beauty of the internet. The masses in western civilization have more information at their fingertips then world leaders and thinkers of less then 100 years ago.

Regardless, the scientific majority only appears to agree on the fact that the world is warming up. Jury seems to be out on cause and effect. Or even if such warming will hurt us or be benifitial. Afterall, warming trends have meant massive growth for our planet in the past.


By BikeDude on 6/13/2010 2:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
AFAICT, almost every generation in human history have had one (or more) prophecy of doom. We all yearn to be the logical conclusion to a long history, so we celebrate rapture, ragnarok, y2k, 2012 and whatnot because surely our generation is the one that makes a difference. We're important, and that means the world must end now.

The hypothesis of man-made global warming fits neatly into the pattern of a good decent doomsday prophecy. Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Meanwhile, our planet is already a very crowded place. We have resorted to all sorts of tricks to increase crop yields, slowly poisoning everyone of us (including animals). Heck, some of us have tried to fuel our cars on sugar canes, and immediately someone starts complaining that the price of wheat started climbing. The price of wheat hit a record low in the late 80s and the US, Russia and EU have all paid farmers to stop growing anything. Yet when the price starts to pick up slightly, people panic.

Seeing the whole picture is a difficult task. The simple truth is probably what someone summed up in the question "what is better? 10 millions starve now, or 3 billions 10 years from now?". The more people we save now, the more people will need saving down the road. The human population breed like rats, and the Catholic ban on birth control (and abortion for that matter) is not helping.

What science tells us is that Greenland is named Greenland for a reason. The vikings farmed a large portion of Greenland in locations that are still covered with a thick layer of ice. We are emerging from a mini-iceage, and our society is not set up for the kind of migrations our forefathers had to endure.

The CO2 taxation won't work. Without CO2 there would be no life on this planet. Rather than focus on particle emissions that cause real (and sometimes irreperable) damage, our politicians are singeling out the one emission that occur naturally. I am not impressed. Initially I had hoped that the Kyoto agreement would lead to at least some discussion about e.g. NOx emissions, but our elected leaders are acting like headless chickens.


More theories...
By createcoms on 6/11/2010 4:14:31 PM , Rating: 3
Gosh they are a desperate bunch. Climate change science is a big fat load of waffle. And I'd be happy to leave them all in a little room dribbling on about this crud if it wasn't for the fact that they've convinced governments around the world including mine to start taxing us to "fight" this apparent "problem". I LOVE CO2!!!!!!




RE: More theories...
By Director on 6/11/2010 6:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yup the whole global warming scam goes back to a 1973 U.N. document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Confer... which blueprints a way for a global currency and global government based on a 'global issue' such as OMG! The sky is falling!

'Overpopulation' is simply a eugenicist lie, you could fit the whole current population of the Earth into Australia and each person would have about 600 square meters of land, enough for a home and self-sufficient garden and you'd still have half of Queensland AND the rest of the world left over. So while overpopulation will (I guess?) become a problem one day, that day is not here yet. The eugenicists didn't go away after Hitler's demise, they just changed their names and/or went underground. The real problem, as usual, is humanity itself. Our greed, selfishness and megalomania is what it is causing ALL of our problems.

As for the article itself, big deal, societies have always had to relocate due to environmental change or some kind of natural disaster, nothing new there.

The tell in all of this though is that the solution of your evil overlords is to tax you more. Taxing you more won't stop Co2 (even it that was a problem)it will simply prolong your slavery.

As soon as my spaceship is ready I'm outta here.


RE: More theories...
By Noya on 6/11/2010 9:47:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The eugenicists didn't go away after Hitler's demise, they just changed their names and/or went underground.


What's wrong with eugenics?

We (humans) apply it to nearly every plant and animal we consume and also to pets. Natural selection of the human race hasn't happened in quite some time. Watch the movie "Idiocracy" for a laugh.


RE: More theories...
By Director on 6/11/2010 11:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
Idiocracy was the BEST film of 2007, it's only flaw was it supposed to be 500 years in the future but in reality it's only about 10. ;P

And we don't practice eugenics on plants and animals, we just destroy them outright. ;(

But hey, as ling as the rich get richer I guess...


RE: More theories...
By BikeDude on 6/13/2010 3:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
'Overpopulation' is simply a eugenicist lie, you could fit the whole current population of the Earth into Australia and each person would have about 600 square meters of land


Impressive.

Would that be 600 m^2 of fertile soil, or mostly the dry desert sand that makes up quite a bit of Australia?

Are you a vegan? I'm not. I much prefer eating beef. That habit seems to require quite a lot of gracing land.

I have a suspicion that if it was simple to find a patch of fertile soil where you can be self-reliant, most poor people would have done so already. In the past, many have tried. In Africa large groups of people have moved as the desert of Sahara spread. Ironically they tend to move to a patch of fertile soil, chop down all the vegetation so they can grow their own stuff, and then the desert spreads a bit more because all the trees are gone.

Yes... We'd all fit on the continent of Australia... Where do you plan on getting the water from? I've heard water is a requirement for growing things. As the temperature climbs, that water seems to evaporate from glaciers and most of it ends up in the sea.


RE: More theories...
By drando on 6/11/2010 7:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Climate change science is a big fat load of waffle.


That's a good point, let me think about that for a minute. Oh wait, my mistake, that's absolute bull$h|t.

Climate Change with Bill Maher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f6Z0_HMLo8
quotes from Bill Maher:
quote:
Mainstream media, stop pitting the ignorant vs the educated and framing it as a debate


quote:
It's scientists vs non-scientists, and since the topic is science, the non-scientists don't get to vote


I'm sure you have no interest in educating yourself on the matter; you'd rather just stick to your ignorant crap and blindly follow anyone who spouts anything that you want to believe. So don't bother to watch this either about the so-called scientists who are against Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

Climate Change - Meet the Scientists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0&playnex...


RE: More theories...
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/11/2010 7:33:56 PM , Rating: 1
Prove to me that climate change is a seroius problem.

No quotes from professors, media clippings, papers, nothing of the sort. Just prove to me using your own research from real data that climate change is a serious problem.

I've done my own research and so far I see nothing conclusive to tell me that climate change is a serious problem.


RE: More theories...
By drando on 6/11/2010 8:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prove to me that climate change is a seroius problem. No quotes from professors, media clippings, papers, nothing of the sort. Just prove to me using your own research from real data that climate change is a serious problem. I've done my own research and so far I see nothing conclusive to tell me that climate change is a serious problem.


Are you serious? You want me to prove to you, using my own research (No quotes from professors, media clippings, papers, nothing of the sort)? It turns out that I'm not a scientist and I don't do "my own research." I rely on the publications of actual scientists through peer-reviewed journals for information, as any reasonable person should. Would you listen to a journalist for medical advice or go do a doctor who's actually educated and certified in the medical field that you need information in? Or would you do "your own research" to come up with the answer?

You've apparently done your own research on climate change? I guess that you did it with "No quotes from professors, media clippings, papers, nothing of the sort," right? How did that work out for you? What did you find out doing your own research with "No quotes from professors, media clippings, papers, nothing of the sort?"

You had better forward your own research to the experts, you know, the actual scientists with degrees in things like atmospheric physics, who know what they're talking about because they have the proper education in the field of discussion. Your info could set them all straight! I bet you could even win a Nobel Prize for environmental physics.

To respond to your ridiculous statement, there is no smoking gun research paper, that's not how science works. Science is a collection of knowledge gained by observation, testing and research. What we know about anthropogenic global warming, as well as any other field of science, comes from a variety of different science fields with the actual scientists collaborating to interpret and understand the data.

Notice how I didn't make any claims about climate change being a problem as you seem to think I did? The main article here suggests one potential problem of climate change. All I did was respond to someone's ignorant comment about it with the hopes that he/she, and anyone else seeing it, might take the time to learn something.


RE: More theories...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2010 8:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You had better forward your own research to the experts, you know, the actual scientists with degrees in things like atmospheric physics, who know what they're talking about because they have the proper education in the field of discussion. Your info could set them all straight! I bet you could even win a Nobel Prize for environmental physics.


You mean the ones who sullied all true science when they perpetrated Climategate?


RE: More theories...
By drando on 6/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: More theories...
By drando on 6/11/2010 9:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify a little:

From BBC
'No malpractice' by climate unit
The sub-headline:
quote:
There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the "Climategate" affair.


From the news article:
quote:
"We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever. That doesn't mean that we agreed with all of their conclusions, but these people were doing their jobs honestly."
- Lord Oxburgh


RE: More theories...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: More theories...
By raf11 on 6/11/2010 10:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
More than 1 group has investigated the issue, including the Associated Press. I read the article a while back (On a quick search I can't find the article hosted on their site, but any search on Google will turn up loads of search results referencing the article when it was still current) - as far as I've seen, they all pointed to no fraud (However there is a consensus that individual conduct and behavior was questionable, but no fraud as far as the facts are concerned as opponents of climate change would suggest)

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Although, I assume the above means nothing to you, since as long as any investigation produces a result that does not align with your own beliefs, you will believe it to be incorrect.

The fact remains that the majority of scientists agree that Climate Change is real. You are choosing to ignore this fact because it does not align with your political-fed beliefs.


RE: More theories...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2010 10:40:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Associated Press


*rolls eyes*

Right. Clearly another organization that truly embraces telling it like it is!

/sarcasm

quote:
The fact remains that the majority of scientists agree that Climate Change is real.


Yeah now THAT is another Leftist talking point that's been dispelled more times than I can count. Sorry but there is no scientific consensus that Man Made Climate Change is real. In fact, it's THE most debated issue in years.

quote:
You are choosing to ignore this fact because it does not align with your political-fed beliefs.


No I'm just equipped with common sense, critical thinking, and the ability to see through bullcrap. You, on the other hand, are a simple minded gullible fool.


RE: More theories...
By raf11 on 6/11/2010 10:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah now THAT is another Leftist talking point that's been dispelled more times than I can count. Sorry but there is no scientific consensus that Man Made Climate Change is real. In fact, it's THE most debated issue in years.


Not even close. Please provide the above proof that you reference. I usually refrain from posting Wikipedia links, but it holds a good amount of references on the subject that you can individually verify if you wish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contro...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

And a quick Google search could produce literally thousands of other sources in agreement. Although, I assume you will say that every single one of those sources is not reputable, for no reason other than they don't fit your belief.

More and more, I see that you must be just an internet troll. I don't know why I waste my time replying to you. For someone that has all the time in a day to comment on DailyTech, you sure don't put too much time into doing research on the subjects in which you speak.


RE: More theories...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2010 11:11:20 PM , Rating: 1
So let me get this straight, a consensus of people getting paid to say there's a consensus, proved the theory is fact?

I love how you constantly refer to this consensus instead of actually debating the theory with me. Like this is some kind of popularity contest! What are you, 12?

There was a time when a consensus of scientists agreed Earth was the center of the Universe and the world was flat. Einsteins theory of relativity was once laughed at. Oh and by the way, in the 1970's a "consensus" of scientists agreed we were heading for a global killer ICE AGE!


RE: More theories...
By drando on 6/11/2010 11:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
Bravo, Raf11, bravo!


RE: More theories...
By drando on 6/11/2010 11:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right because someone named "greenman" would clearly be unbiased?


What does a person's chosen name have to with facts? According to you, regardless of the facts, someone is right or wrong based on their name alone. Could it be that because he is well informed with the facts that he has chosen to do what he can to try and help other people and our planet to have a better future, and chosen a name in line with that? No, you're right, truth is all in a name and nothing else.

quote:
How are biased YouTube video's in ANY WAY some kind of "proof" ?


Similarly, what does the medium of a source of factual information have to do with the credibility of the info? If he appears on CNN or Fox News would that make it any more or less credible? Nope, turns out that facts are facts no matter where or how they're presented. Welcome to reality.

Peter Sinclair, the author of the Greenman3610 channel is a graphic artist, illustrator, animator, and advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives (not a scientist). He is not a scientist. That doesn't change the facts that he represents in his informational videos. Did you even bother to watch one or were you too biased against his name? He collects factual data from scientific, peer-reviewed papers and presents it in an easy to understand manner for the lay-person (you and me).

quote:
No law enforcement officials, you know, those who actually investigate for a living, were even involved.


"If you had dug a bit deeper you would see that the 'investigation' into Climategate" did include law enforcement officials. I found this in under a minute, how deep did you dig?:
Police probe UEA climate scientist over Climategate
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59380,news-comment,n...

And this one from Telegraph.co.uk:
Police question climategate information seekers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...

Oh, here’s a good one from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Uni...
quote:
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. Climate change sceptics's allegations that they revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media, provoking the controversy.The UEA and CRU issued rebuttals of the allegations.[5] Additionally, the Norfolk Constabulary is conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach.


The Norfolk Constabulary is the territorial police force responsible for the county of Norfolk in England. As of March 2009 the force had a strength of 1,668 police officers, 243 Special Constables, 277 PCSOs and just over 1,300 police staff. Does that count as law enforcement officials, you know, those who actually investigate for a living?

Damn, all that digging was tough work, I can see why you didn't bother. So much effort to type in <East Anglia University investigation> into Google.

Care to vomit any more false information or blatant lies on the forums here so you can be corrected and publicly humiliated for your overemotional, undereducated, misinformed, and biased opinions? It's painfully clear that all you have are your opinions because you offer no valid information to substantiate any of your wild claims.


RE: More theories...
By raf11 on 6/11/2010 11:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's no use drando, Reclaimer has been around DailyTech quite some time, perpetually pushing the same viewpoint in opposition to the facts. It's no use, he is nothing more than an internet troll.


RE: More theories...
By kyleb2112 on 6/12/2010 5:26:13 AM , Rating: 2
You mean facts like the hockey stick graph? Funny I don't see you guys defending that one so much these days.


RE: More theories...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2010 9:50:32 AM , Rating: 2
He won't go there. He'll pretend it didn't happen. Just like he'll pretend the Earth hasn't, in fact, been cooling for the last 6 years. Just like he'll gloss over how the theory went from Global Warming to "Climate Change". He'll also ignore the fact that the supposed increase in violent storms hasn't happened as predicted by Climate Change, the past two hurricane seasons have been very mild. Just like he's pretending Climategate didn't show how the scientific pier review process can be tainted.

I'm not saying there is no evidence supporting man made Climate Change, but the fact is there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Most studies STILL ignore solar output, which we know to not be a constant and has a major impact on our global temperatures.

But hey, I'm just some looney extremist racist uneducated right wing activist hired by Daily Tech to boost readership...


RE: More theories...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2010 11:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Did you actually read the articles you "dug" up? The first one, the police were probing HOW the leak happened. Not actually investigating East Anglia for fraud.

The second one, the police are questioning those who requested information from the Climate Center. What part of investigating ClimateGate did you not apparently understand? Police probing how the hack happened isn't the same as saying there is an ongoing investigation into East Anglia's conduct of Global Warming research. But nice try.

IN fact I'm pretty sure NO local police force would be equipped for this. It would fall on some Government or International organization.

quote:
Damn, all that digging was tough work, I can see why you didn't bother. So much effort to type in <East Anglia University investigation> into Google.


I think in your haste for disproving me, you never actually read the stories. Google is great but it's not a substitute for using your brain and deductive skills.

quote:
Peter Sinclair, the author of the Greenman3610 channel is a graphic artist, illustrator, animator, and advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives (not a scientist). He is not a scientist.


So basically he's a biased tree hugger, and I'm supposed to be shocked at what side of this debate he is on? I mean don't you honestly think someone like that would be HIGHLY motivated with the whole "global warming" thing? Come on, be honest for once.

Someone filled your head with a bunch of lies, kid.


RE: More theories...
By SPOOFE on 6/13/2010 12:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quotes from Bill Maher:

Bill Maher's not a scientist. And science doesn't use "votes".


RE: More theories...
By Suntan on 6/14/2010 12:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...desperate bunch. Climate change science is a big fat load of waffle. And I'd be happy to leave them all...


[stomach growling]

Hmmmm.... Big, Fat, Loaded Waffle....

-Suntan


Stop having more than one child
By superstition on 6/11/2010 2:32:47 PM , Rating: 4
Everyone.

Yeah, it sucks economically because it will cause a labor shortage and contraction. We'll have to find ways of keeping 50s—seniors productive.

But, overpopulation is a bigger problem than climate change. It makes the problems from climate change worse and speeds it up.




RE: Stop having more than one child
By mdogs444 on 6/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Stop having more than one child
By geddarkstorm on 6/11/2010 3:07:56 PM , Rating: 3
Or maybe it's time we started expanding into space instead of trying to extinct ourselves with short sighted, reactionary plans like that.


RE: Stop having more than one child
By GuinnessKMF on 6/11/2010 3:23:02 PM , Rating: 5
Wow... I wonder why know one thought of that... just expand into space! Here we are worried about food shortage and overpopulation when all we had to do was research up the space tree and we'd be all set.

I think tomorrow I'll load up my wagon, you know, all ammunition and extra spokes, and head out into space to find myself a nice plot of land to settle.


By ClownPuncher on 6/11/2010 3:36:41 PM , Rating: 3
I'm in space right now, saving you a spot at the SpaceRanch.


RE: Stop having more than one child
By thekdub on 6/12/2010 1:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
Careful that your party doesn't die from space dysentery.


By mindless1 on 6/11/2010 4:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ceiling cat says it's better down here.


RE: Stop having more than one child
By Spuke on 6/11/2010 3:54:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We'll have to find ways of keeping 50s—seniors productive. But, overpopulation is a bigger problem than climate change. It makes the problems from climate change worse and speeds it up.

I really expected some "it's made from people" jokes.


RE: Stop having more than one child
By clovell on 6/14/2010 12:19:10 PM , Rating: 3
The replacement rate is 2.3 births per woman. Having one child per woman would cause revolutions, wars, famine, and civil unrest worldwide.

Starting at 2 would be a much better idea. Of course, so would knowing wtf you're talking about before opening your mouth with such a stupid-ass argument.


Mayb locally...
By zozzlhandler on 6/11/2010 2:14:45 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe food shortages locally. But warming will lengthen growing seasons in many places, and make previously unproductive land productive.

In the "medieval optimum" period, grapes were grown in Scotland, and there were dairy farms in Greenland. Of course warming would cause problems in some areas, but overall it is great for food production. Cooling, on the other hand, is terrible.




RE: Mayb locally...
By DarthKaos on 6/11/2010 3:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree that global warming will cause as much good if not more than it will cause bad. Humans can survive a temperature increase of 5 to 10 degrees I would bet. Yes the earth would change drastically and so would how we live on it. But an ice age would almost surely kill a large portion of the human race.

I would also like to say that siting CO2 as the main cause for the warming is just ignorant. The earth has always had temperature changes with or without humans. This change is surely a combination of things natural and man made. There have been solar flares lately too. That could even be affecting the temperature of the planet.


RE: Mayb locally...
By drando on 6/11/2010 3:22:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would also like to say that siting CO2 as the main cause for the warming is just ignorant. The earth has always had temperature changes with or without humans. This change is surely a combination of things natural and man made. There have been solar flares lately too. That could even be affecting the temperature of the planet.


Do just a little research before making stupid comments, please. Scientists don't say that CO2 is the only factor. Here's a simple explanation:
Change -- isn't it natural?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&playnex...


RE: Mayb locally...
By drando on 6/11/2010 3:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
My mistake; you said "main" cause and I used "only." Scientists don't say that CO2 is the main cause, just a major cause. See my previous link for the explanation.


RE: Mayb locally...
By ninus3d on 6/11/2010 4:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link drando :)


RE: Mayb locally...
By Exodite on 6/11/2010 4:02:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But warming will lengthen growing seasons in many places, and make previously unproductive land productive.


Sadly that doesn't matter in the slightest, even if true.

If we end up suffer a notable change in climate, and I do stress the if, nothing good will come of it.

True, maybe previously infertile lands will prove adequate for producing crops as the climate shifts but that still means we'll have to move our food-producing industries, machinery and people to those new lands.

Even those who care nothing about the other negative aspects of climate change would have to appreciate the immense economic costs that moving large parts of global food production centers would entail.


RE: Mayb locally...
By surt on 6/11/2010 6:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Canada has massive amounts of land that have a narrow fertile window right now that are already heavily farmed. Doubling the fertile window would make a tremendous amount of additional food available, with next to nothing in additional costs.


RE: Mayb locally...
By zozzlhandler on 6/11/2010 6:24:18 PM , Rating: 3
People are rarely happy with change, but I would hardly say "nothing good will come of it". Longer growing seasons will allow much existing land to produce more food. The increase in arable land is slightly more long-term, and may not produce the food where it is needed, but that's why we have modern transportation isn't it?

We are not talking about moving major parts of the global food production. We are talking about being able to cover short-term shortages due to climate change (if any). We are most emphatically NOT going to stop the climate from changing. We don't have that level of power. If the changes result in greater overall food production (which warming would) we can certainly move the new food surplus around to where it is needed in the short term.


RE: Mayb locally...
By JediJeb on 6/11/2010 6:37:08 PM , Rating: 3
Mankind has been spoiled by the recent era of relatively stable climate. We are arrogant to believe we can control it, and selfish to believe we need it to not change. Ever since man first walked on this planet he has had to migrate as the climate changed, why should those of us currently present on the planet not expect to do the same?

How can we think our society and way of doing things should remain static when we live on such a dynamic planet? It is the world leaders who relish their power over everything who do not want things to change because it shows that there are areas where they have no control. They will tax and regulate us to death in an attempt to first control what they can not control, then to avert our attention from their lack of control. In the end we will all suffer for their arrogance if we allow them to continue.


RE: Mayb locally...
By TeXWiller on 6/11/2010 11:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
Local food shortages lead to global refugee problems. We are talking about at least tens of millions of people, maybe even hundreds of millions by the end of century, if the effects are widespread. It is funny how some climate change enthusiasts are pointing towards something as absurd as possibility of additional earthquakes, when the complete ceasing of the monsoon would destroy the main food supply from billions of people, literally.


Sam Kinison was smarter than these guys
By torpor on 6/11/2010 1:41:18 PM , Rating: 5
Or when they needed an answer for world hunger, what did I do? I said, "Hey! Move to the FOOOOOODDD!! You live in a DESERT, MOVE to the FOOD!!"
-Sam Kinison




RE: Sam Kinison was smarter than these guys
By FaceMaster on 6/11/2010 1:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't mind living in a dessert


By therealnickdanger on 6/11/2010 1:57:33 PM , Rating: 4
I would live in a Peanut Butter Cup Blizzard. omnomnomnom


By djcameron on 6/11/2010 3:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'd move to the Canadian dessert! I just love maple-based desserts!!


But...
By Schrag4 on 6/11/2010 2:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
...wouldn't an increase in temperature result in more arable land, overall? If you look back at earth's history to when there was 10x as much CO2 in the atmostphere, the earth was a much greener place. The deserts were rainforests. So a few relatively small regions produce less food. Overall, however, we'd have the capacity to produce much more food.




RE: But...
By clovell on 6/11/2010 2:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
The way I read it, it seems as though the new study takes that into account to some degree.


RE: But...
By drycrust3 on 6/11/2010 4:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a different link to what looks like the same report.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19029-himala...

I think this is a load of nonsense.

quote:
The model shows that the Indus and the Brahmaputra rely most on glaciers: meltwater accounts for 60 per cent of water carried by the Indus and 20 per cent of that in the Brahmaputra, but less than 10 per cent of the Ganges, Yangtze and Yellow rivers comes from melted ice. Rainfall makes up the rest.


quote:
These results would suggest that the Indus and Brahmaputra will be hardest hit by climate change – but taking into account changes in rainfall patterns with climate change causes a different pattern to emerge, says Immerzeel.
To make up for this, he fed temperature, rainfall and snow projections into his model. He found that by 2050, the upstream flow of the Brahmaputra and Indus could shrink by 19.6 per cent and 8.4 per cent respectively, despite 25 per cent more rain.


So on the one hand we have less snow, but on the other hand we have more rain? And when they say "rain" do they mean the annual monsoon season is the same length but has 25% more downfall, or do they mean the 25% is outside of the annual monsoon season?
My guess on all this is the 25% more rain will fall on the arable land which means the farmers will be better off, not worse off.


RE: But...
By ninus3d on 6/11/2010 4:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is due to the fact that no glacies means no STEADY access to freshwater you currently have from freshwater glacierlakes etc. And while it may still rain, and on a yearly basis you may end up having even a bigger volume of water spewed over your lands, you dont necessarily have wateraccess when you actually need it.


By blakhama on 6/11/2010 1:21:49 PM , Rating: 3
Looks like another global cap and trade push...What about the natural earth cycles, who cause the last ice age? What ended it?

Ummm, nuclear disaster VS massive gulf oil spill? Hybrids/electric with rare earth metals and highly toxic batteries vs gasoline cars? Oil is organic, can bacteria feed on plutonium and uranium? What is the half life of plutonium and uranium? How long does it take for an environment to recover from an oil spill vs a nuke disaster?

It's not a political issue! This is a push for a global CCX market that is going to make alot of people rich, if global cap and trade ever passes. You can see the only positive thing about cap and trade in europe, is that it made a lot of EU gov't favored financial institutions and individuals rich; it had zero effect on the environment. Other than that, cap and trade and environmental extremism is being exploited all in the name of power and wealth.

Want to reduce pollution? decrease demand for "pollution" naturally through the market, come up with a breakthrough product. Creating an artificial gov't subsidized market will prolong the process and eventually fail like everything else the gov't tries to regulate! The gov't selects WINNERS and LOSERS, never the people or the natural free economic market. Or, you can just get rid of humans!

But then, talk that centers on unrealistic, govt. administered altruism (free health care for all!1!!!1 "green world") never will succeed, ie the EU/communsim/fascism and current US pseudo-socialism is slowly drifting out to sea.




By JediJeb on 6/11/2010 4:12:46 PM , Rating: 3
Just a silly hypothetical here but imagine this:

A new volcano opens up cutting through a major underground petroleum reserve. That volcano brings to the surface a large amount of lava mixed with the oil, releasing tons upon tons of CO2 into the atmosphere as the oil is burned at the surface. So, with international cap and trade in place, would the country in which the volcano erupted need to buy huge amounts of carbon credits from other countries to compensate for the amount of CO2 the volcano released? If there were not enough left over CO2 emission tonnage from other countries around the world would that country be fined for emitting too much CO2 above its limit?

Of course that is only a silly hypothetical situation, but just how far off base would it be? Also if such a thing happened would the world be wanting to stop all of its CO2 emissions just to save our current way of life, which would be impossible if the cut all of our CO2 emissions, but it may make our climate remain relatively the same?

The climate is changing, it always has and always will. We need to stop worrying about how to stop it, and start worrying about how to adapt. Even if many is contributing to the change, there is still very much natural warming occurring as is evident in the warming trend that was present before our industrialization period. It would be more prudent to put money into adapting now, than waste it trying to stop something we can't then later needing to adapt and have no money left to do the adapting.


WOW, that's some erosion
By rcc on 6/11/2010 2:07:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In addition, the U.N. report included other errors such as the Himalayas disappearing by 2035, when actual data indicates that this will happen by 2350


Even with the correction that is one heck of an erosion rate, the Himalayas will disappear by 2350??? If this isn't a David Copperfield trick, I'd better change my stance on Climate whatever it's called this year.

As far as the actual problem goes, it looks like they better get ready to relocate, or... start building a pipeline *before* it becomes an emergency.




RE: WOW, that's some erosion
By Chernobyl68 on 6/14/2010 12:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have to say, the "how the earth was made: the himalayas" pretty much refutes this...its one of the wettest regions on earth (hundreds of inches of rain, monsoon season!!!) and the Indian subcontinent is still moving northward against asia, raising the mountains faster than erosion.


x amount
By masamasa on 6/11/2010 6:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
x amount of people
x amount more every year
x amount more pollution, food usage, etc, etc.

Do the math. Push and push and eventually the planet will push us back. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" someone famous once said.




RE: x amount
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/11/2010 7:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
wow you have no idea what "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" means at all. It's refering to kenetic energy and the other related forces dealing with an action of something.


stfu
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/11/2010 7:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A FOOD SHORTAGE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME!




RE: stfu
By tharik on 6/14/2010 2:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe Al Gore should cut back a little to save us all.


LOLOLOL
By bill4 on 6/11/2010 7:37:25 PM , Rating: 1
We still pretend climate change is real?

Anyways we're all dead because all the bees died from climate change and cant pollinate our crops. So this is all in our imagination anyway. Remember a couple years ago all the news stories about that? Say, whatever happened to that?

LOL, just to remember another recent false environmentalist bullshit. Like the rain forests, acid rain, the hole in the ozone, all were going to kill us, now all ignored by the environmentalists in favor of climate change now.




RE: LOLOLOL
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/11/2010 7:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
Bee thing ended up being a virus similar to AIDS. That's why you don't hear about it anymore because it had nothing to do with climate change hysteria.


yeah ok sure
By shin0bi272 on 6/12/2010 3:21:07 AM , Rating: 2
And according to cas sunstein (Obama's regulatory czar) in his 1970's book, we are going to have a population bomb and it will cause famine all over the world so we may have to sterilize people through the drinking water and/or corn.

But lo and behold it hasnt happened... this climate crap too will pass and in 10 years we will look back on the whole global warming "crisis" as the retarded cousin to the summer vacation that is really is.




"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki