Climate change will alter where many crops are grown • Hacker News Board

Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown

#181

Post by yosito » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 12:03 PM UTC

spython wrote: post #177

yosito wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't quantify it, then you can't make a quantitative claim about it.

Just read the linked article, man.

The entire linked article is a claim that things are accelerating, with anecdotes of changing landscapes. But as the article itself says:

> processes within them are subject to distortion, to variable slowing and acceleration

It's normal for specific landscapes to slow or accelerate. There is no quantifiable evidence that landscapes on a global scale are changing any faster than usual, and anecdotes of specific changes aren't enough to indicate a trend. For every example of a changing landscape, there are several landscapes that have barely changed in millions of years. But you only hear about the changes. Lack of change goes unnoticed. A news story claiming "mountaintop is exactly the same as it was a million years ago" doesn't grab your attention.

Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown

#182

Post by germandiago » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 6:54 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #152

davidhbolton wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trend is not clear and undeniable. Climate science is at best contentious and certainly highly politicised. All of the IPCC predictions of temperature rises have not happened. Sea level rises? The Maldives have been building several airports and both Al Gore and Barack Obama bought very expensive properties ($9 million and $15 million) by the sea. Hardly the actions of someone who believes flooding is imminent.

Each of the last 10 years have been the hottest years on record. 18 of the last 20 years have as well. There is not a single credible scientist who doesn't believe anthropogenic climate change is real - many fault the IPCC predictions for being optimistic. Greenland is now known to be inexorably thawing. This year has seen places on the globe (e.g. southern Canada) beat previous all-time temperature records by 5 degr…

Yet there is no data I know of that confirms this is due to humans only or mostly.

Read carefully bc I kbow where you are going to put the ball on: we do know about the gases that produce heat. But there are PLENTY of variables that we cannot predict most likely.

And as the other reply says, it is a topic that is more politics than anything else. Now go vote me down and do not discuss. Religions are like that, I know. Even if you dare to call it strict science.

Plenty of predictions have failed before. Predicting is difficult. And if we dnt know what is going on with enough accuracy what it is going to come for sure is a lot of people living in worse conditions (I mean developing countries mainly) because a set of bureaucrats decided that we need to do it. What if that is not the main cause? What about the damage to those people? If it is for health and proved I can understand it. If it is for hypothesis we should be VERY careful and do the right things. You could set restrictions and the temperature still go up. And what? The people who take the wrong decisions what?

This is like the pandemic in my country: u dnt vaccinate everyone on time even for ur own self-set goals, you forbid private clinics to buy vaccines creating a monopoly (but that is ok even if they are slow as f*ck!). When things come bad, what? Easy: we blame it on here and there WITHOUT data, close businesses and put restrictions. Later we make those people we locked down pay the bill even if we did not do our homework with our goals and problem solved.

Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown

#183

Post by masklinn » Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #179

bobbytit wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wet bulb temp is the latest wank in what has been the biggest propaganda exercise of all time. You have been misled. You are being deliberately turned against the human race.

You have this precisely the opposite. The huge propaganda machine of industrial interests has been leading an effort to bury this very real threat to humanity for 50 years, in the name of corporate profits.

I don’t think there is any point wasting your time, it’s a month-old troll account.

Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown

#184

Post by lenkite » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 6:32 AM UTC

mark_l_watson wrote: post #110

Sorry for being off topic here: I get pushback on this opinion from my friends, so I expect this to be an unpopular opinion here also: the cost of meat should be priced to also cover external costs of water and harm to the environment. I enjoy a steak once or twice a month, so I am not talking from a vegan-purity perspective. I think that there should be a tax on meat that directly supported research and infrastructu…

Very egalitarian. The poor should no longer eat meat - restrict this to the rich.

Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown

#185

Post by spython » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

yosito wrote: post #181

spython wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just read the linked article, man.

The entire linked article is a claim that things are accelerating, with anecdotes of changing landscapes. But as the article itself says: > processes within them are subject to distortion, to variable slowing and acceleration It's normal for specific landscapes to slow or accelerate. There is no quantifiable evidence that landscapes on a global scale are changing any faster than usual, and anecdotes of specific chang…

Strangely enough, the mountaintops change quite often due to erosion and plate tectonics. They shrink [1] or even gain in height like the Everest did recently [2]. We get to know it only because we are extremely interested in mountaintops.

My question on how to format the data on changing landscapes was a serious one. It is so complicated, just to measure the signals of life processes in even one small region. There's so much data. There are now Critical Zone Observatories being built, in order to monitor these processes to the fullest extent on a local scale.[3]

I visited one such observatory in Aubure, France. There are dozens of people working there, just to monitor the vitals of a small watershed. They do a great job, but even they don't capture the data on living beings, animals, insects that are arguably also part of the landscape, or of a force that shapes the landscape through pollination, consumption, destruction or regulation of other living beings that have an effect on the landscape.

As hard as is it to define the borders and contents of a landscape, even harder question seems to me of how to represent changes. How to talk about changes on a global scale. Sure, the animation used in the article [4] shows quite clearly the change of planting zones over time, but this is just one data point. And a very abstract one, since one sees it, says 'yes, wow, it's changing' and then goes on to make a coffee and forget about it. The closer to the global scale we go, the more abstract the story telling becomes, the less personal the story becomes, the less likely it is to reach the reader. In the last years in the Rhine region where I live, the Asian tiger mosquito was introduced. It is an invasive species that is able to survive in the new landscape because of climate change. It's just one anecdote of a changing landscape, but one that people are talking about since, well, the mosquito is biting them, forcing them to pay attention. No one is talking about the other changes.

So my question still stands – if you are asking for quantifiable evidence on changing landscape, please define how it would look like so that you would be satisfied with it. Define the formatting of such data, of what constitutes a landscape, of what constitutes change. And how to gather such data on a global scale. And even harder, how to present the huge amount of data in a human readable way.

By doing so, you would do an immense service to our understanding of the earth and the processes of life on it. Because, while the news of a new mosquito or a mountain growing in height spreads like wildfire, hardly anyone is paying attention to the small but significant changes around us.

1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/18/swedish-mounta...

2. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a349107...

3. https://www.czo.wzw.tum.de/home.html

4. https://placesjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/milliga...

Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown

#186

Post by unearth3d » Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

bobbytit wrote: post #77

unearth3d wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Above 600 increasingly toxic to us us, and above 300 mineral and protein falls off for most plants. Some plants also become > flammable. Have peer papers if interested.

I would love to see those papers. I am sure that any drop off would be insignificant compared to the additional vegetation at higher co2 levels. The people in the Biosphere experiment were living in an environment with co2 over 5000 ppm but it was not good for them. Most unventilated homes are between 700 and 900 ppm. For example, Tomato growers keep co2 levels greater than 1500 ppm in their greenhouses and their tom…

hi bobbytit, here's some of them, these are the most meaningful papers from my collection

There is a knowledge/research gap between now ~415ppm and 600ppm - and very little research below ~900ppm. A few studies start at 600ppm, most start approx 900ppm

I don't know what it is about eCO2 and human health but almost anything I've found looks sketchy/amateurish or is hosted somewhere odd, or when I go to a site it's been hacked.

There are indications that ambient eCO2 results in high blood CO2 altho afaict this has only been derived stoichiometrically

Human health and cognition Seppänen OA, Fisk WJ, Mendell MJ. 1999. Association of Ventilation Rates and CO2-Concentrations with Health and other Responses in Commercial and Institutional Buildings. Indoor Air 9: 226-252. Discusses where sick building syndrome effects fell sharply Bierwith - a preprint I think https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_di...

Irakli Loladze - a lot of people have tried to defund and otherwise harass this brilliant mathematical biologist as he not a plant physiologist. He has highlighted one of the most critical effects of eCO2. Rising CO2 affects human nutrition: systemic depletion of essential minerals in crop and wild plants https://sites.google.com/site/loladze/elevated-CO2-alterns-c...

Ziska 2021 Climate Change, Carbon Dioxide, and Public Health: The Plant Biology Perspective. Global Climate Change and Human Health, 2021 - John Wiley & Sons

Wildfire, by lowering plant lignin content Blank White Ziska 2006 Combustion properties of Bromus tectorum L.: influence of ecotype and growth under four CO2 concentrations. Ziska is a very active researcher in the eCO2 space. https://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/wf05055

Flooding and resulting in flooding by making many plants more water efficient Fowler et al 2019 The effect of plant physiological responses to rising CO2 on global streamflow. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10193353

Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown

#187

Post by bobbytit » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:12 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #183

tsimionescu wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have this precisely the opposite. The huge propaganda machine of industrial interests has been leading an effort to bury this very real threat to humanity for 50 years, in the name of corporate profits.

I don’t think there is any point wasting your time, it’s a month-old troll account.

Yeah fuck that troll

Re: Climate change will alter where many crops are grown

#188

Post by bobbytit » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

unearth3d wrote: post #186

bobbytit wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see those papers. I am sure that any drop off would be insignificant compared to the additional vegetation at higher co2 levels. The people in the Biosphere experiment were living in an environment with co2 over 5000 ppm but it was not good for them. Most unventilated homes are between 700 and 900 ppm. For example, Tomato growers keep co2 levels greater than 1500 ppm in their greenhouses and their tom…

hi bobbytit, here's some of them, these are the most meaningful papers from my collection There is a knowledge/research gap between now ~415ppm and 600ppm - and very little research below ~900ppm. A few studies start at 600ppm, most start approx 900ppm I don't know what it is about eCO2 and human health but almost anything I've found looks sketchy/amateurish or is hosted somewhere odd, or when I go to a site it's bee…

Thanks very much. I'll check these out.