The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[skepticalbip]

... snip ....

Peak production just refers to the limitations that prevent further gains in production, be it available water for crops, arable land, etc. The term can apply to conditions within a nation state, insufficient water supply to grow more rice, or to the World at large, peak oil.

... snip...

You keep repeating this even though you keep denying it is what you mean when corrected.

Remember "Peak Cupcakes"?

 

[DBT]

... snip ....

Peak production just refers to the limitations that prevent further gains in production, be it available water for crops, arable land, etc. The term can apply to conditions within a nation state, insufficient water supply to grow more rice, or to the World at large, peak oil.

... snip...

You keep repeating this even though you keep denying it is what you mean when corrected.

Not if you understand what is being said. Perhaps its the Rose Coloured glasses that prevent understanding, simply dismissing issues being raised as alarmist?

I am using the term just as it is used in the articles and examples I gave, nothing more, nothing less.

And obviously there are several different references being use and issues referred to.

In the case of peak oil:

''Peak water is a concept that underlines the growing constraints on the availability, quality, and use of freshwater resources.

Peak water was defined in a 2010 peer-reviewed article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Peter Gleick and Meena Palaniappan.[2] They distinguish between peak renewable, peak non-renewable, and peak ecological water in order to demonstrate the fact that although there is a vast amount of water on the planet, sustainably managed water is becoming scarce.[3]''


And of course food production becomes an issue in relation to climate change, consumption rate, water availability, phosphorous, etc.

''The biophysical limit of food production is reached when all land suitable for agriculture is cropped and the potential yield on each field is attained. There is a specific upper limit to crop yield on any given piece of land, which is determined by soil type, climate, crop properties, and available irrigation water''


While we are nowhere near that point now, the issue may well become more pressing with a global temperature rise above 1.5 degrees.

Not that this is a one element problem, food availability is not at the top of the list. Food distribution and its related problems, destabilization, etc, is more of an issue than production.

Remember "Peak Cupcakes"?

The term 'Cupcake' has more than one meaning. One comes to mind now.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

''The biophysical limit of food production is reached when all land suitable for agriculture is cropped and the potential yield on each field is attained. There is a specific upper limit to crop yield on any given piece of land, which is determined by soil type, climate, crop properties, and available irrigation water''

And now you are back to your denial phase of what you said in your yo-yo 'logic'. You and your "source" made a big deal that "peak crop" had already been reached. Now you are right in saying that we are nowhere near a limit on crop production since much arable land is laying fallow because of lack of demand and much more not yet put into agriculture. Now add that demand will soon level off and you can only conclude that production is no problem.

While we are nowhere near that point now, the issue may well become more pressing with a global temperature rise above 1.5 degrees.

then again higher temperatures will extend the growing season plus open higher latitudes to agriculture. Also higher temperatures should result in more rainfall because of more evaporation from the seas (that is unless you are predicting the laws of physics will no longer apply) so more accessible water for crops.

 

[Jokodo]

I've already said that I don't support the phrase 'the population continues to soar.' Your insistence that I am responsible for the wording regardless is just desperation. It's typical of your habit of seizing onto minor errors and making a case of it where no case exists. Your own errors are just fine though, only human, eh?

You are solely responsible for what you post, unless someone was holding a gun to your head. You can't void that responsibility by saying "I just copy- pasted without reading what it says".

Peak production just refers to the limitations that prevent further gains in production, be it available water for crops, arable land, etc. The term can apply to conditions within a nation state, insufficient water supply to grow more rice, or to the World at large, peak oil.

Sure. Peak oil however refers to when petroleum extraction reaches a peak and henceforth declines. Your article talks about when the growth rate peaks - it doesn't imply an actual decline in production, or even in per capita production.

Your objections are unfounded.

You do have a reading comprehension issue. My objection is not about the use of "peak commodity" per se. It is about the deceptive use of the phrase to signify not when the production peaks, but when it's growth rate peaks. If wheat production used to grow at 2.5% annually but now only grows at 2% annually (while population growth went from 2% to 1%), not only its actual production still growing, but so is pet capita production, the latter actually faster than it used to. Yet in their terms, we're part peak. Calling that a peak is misleading, when the phrase has an established meaning that's quite something different. Which it does, as your item links confirm.

Go ahead and do that when you meet one. Here y you're talking to a socialist.

Socialist now? Your desperation is showing. This issue has nothing to do with ideology. It's basic physics. A finite planet physically cannot support perpetual growth in the form of ever increasing resource use

Indeed. And neither can an infinite one. The only real question is, are we actually looking at perpetual growth, and the answer is, we aren't.

''Since the middle of the twentieth century,the scale of the human enterprise has rapidly escalated, and with it the exploitation of the natural world as a source of raw materials and a sink for the disposal of waste. Though the roots of this explosion lie in the history of the last five hundred years at least (in the rise of capitalism, European colonialism, Enlightenment science, and the Industrial Revolution), the associated disruption of the global biosphere has become evident only over the last half century.''

Economic Growth: Perceptions

Ecological economists see economic growth very differently from mainstream economists and most policymakers. First, and most fundamental, is the question of which is primary: the economy or the planet’s ecological systems? The answer chosen is crucial, since all questions of the limits, boundaries, and scale of the human economic enterprise hinge on whether or not the economic system can be theorized independently of its physical and natural context.

Many standard economics textbooks introduce students to a diagram of “the economy” that includes only the relationship between businesses and households (producers and consumers)

The Free Market Assault on Environmental Science

In chapters 10 and 11, I traced the step-by-step creation of channels of propaganda and direct influence by corporate America, and their spread to other countries. I have also indicated the process whereby pro-corporate ideology was internalized in popular belief and became the commonsense way to see the world. Economic growth is intrinsic to the corporate system so that, even when growth itself is not the overt topic of the propaganda, it remains an underlying objective. This is particularly true of the battle to continue burning the fossil fuels on which the entire productive apparatus currently depends.''
.

You're also missing the mark quite a bit: the finiteness of the planet is perpendicular to whether it will continue to supply for all or needs. If you assume indefinite exponential growth, an infinite planet wouldn't save us. If you don't, I finite one might very week be big enough.

Looks like nonsense. You need to give an actual argument for your terms and references, not just make proclamations.

It's not that hard.

Putting new land under cultivation requires transporting workers, tools and seeds to that location, and transporting the crops harvested to consumers. Assuming constant exponential growth, the distance and consequently the speeds needed to achieve that also grow exponentially. In a universe where all speeds have a hard limit at just under 300 million meters per second, that'll eventually become impossible no matter a finite planet.

Of course, that's making the unreasonable assumption that continued exponential growth is actually what we are looking at. However without that assumption, a finite planet isn't an issue either. So earth being finite is trivially true but irrelevant.

 

[Jokodo]

Not if you understand what is being said. Perhaps its the Rose Coloured glasses that prevent understanding, simply dismissing issues being raised as alarmist?

I am using the term just as it is used in the articles and examples I gave, nothing more, nothing less.

Simply not true. Your bullshit article on "peak food production" uses it to mean when the growth rate of production peaks, every one else, including in the links you gave us, talks about when production itself peaks.

And obviously there are several different references being use and issues referred to.

In the case of peak oil:

See, that's a peak in the raw production rate. Now be so kind and have a look at the raw data underlying your peak foods production nonsense, I provided a link. You'll find production in all of the commodities for which they say w we're past peak is still growing.

 

[Jokodo]

... snip ...

''The biophysical limit of food production is reached when all land suitable for agriculture is cropped and the potential yield on each field is attained. There is a specific upper limit to crop yield on any given piece of land, which is determined by soil type, climate, crop properties, and available irrigation water''

And now you are back to your denial phase of what you said in your yo-yo 'logic'. You and your "source" made a big deal that "peak crop" had already been reached. Now you are right in saying that we are nowhere near a limit on crop production since much arable land is laying fallow because of lack of demand and much more not yet put into agriculture. Now add that demand will soon level off and you can only conclude that production is no problem.

While we are nowhere near that point now, the issue may well become more pressing with a global temperature rise above 1.5 degrees.

then again higher temperatures will extend the growing season plus open higher latitudes to agriculture. Also higher temperatures should result in more rainfall because of more evaporation from the seas (that is unless you are predicting the laws of physics will no longer apply) so more accessible water for crops.

The effects aren't going to equal globally. Some areas will get more arid even if rainfall increases globally. Some areas will even get colder. There's a good chance this will happen in much of Europe if the gulf stream stalls. Our current cornchambers will almost certainly deteriorate on average. Shifting production wholesale to previously unused areas isn't as easy as identifying regions that should expect improvements on a map.

Also weather patterns will become less predictable globally. In an economic system where producers produce only what they expect to sell, this carries the danger of insufficient supply in individual years even if average supply continues to be strong.

 

[DBT]

... snip ...

''The biophysical limit of food production is reached when all land suitable for agriculture is cropped and the potential yield on each field is attained. There is a specific upper limit to crop yield on any given piece of land, which is determined by soil type, climate, crop properties, and available irrigation water''

And now you are back to your denial phase of what you said in your yo-yo 'logic'. You and your "source" made a big deal that "peak crop" had already been reached. Now you are right in saying that we are nowhere near a limit on crop production since much arable land is laying fallow because of lack of demand and much more not yet put into agriculture. Now add that demand will soon level off and you can only conclude that production is no problem.

While we are nowhere near that point now, the issue may well become more pressing with a global temperature rise above 1.5 degrees.

then again higher temperatures will extend the growing season plus open higher latitudes to agriculture. Also higher temperatures should result in more rainfall because of more evaporation from the seas (that is unless you are predicting the laws of physics will no longer apply) so more accessible water for crops.

No, you misrepresent what is being said. Not just me, but the articles and quotes.

You need to read more carefully and stop interpreting in a way that suits your rose coloured glasses.

The page I quoted gave a summary of foods that appear to have lost momentum in production...which is not to say that overall food production has peaked as some crops have a long way to go before that happens.

The issue once again. Please read carefully, and keep in mind that as the article says, it is possible to turn things around, but the question is: are we doing enough to prevent a major crisis. Some commentators say no, we are not. I agree with the latter.

Quote;
''The challenge of ensuring future food security as populations grow and diets change has its roots in soil, but the increasing degradation of the earth’s thin skin is threatening to push up food prices and increase deforestation.

While the worries about peaking oil production have been eased by fresh sources released by hydraulic fracturing, concern about the depletion of the vital resource of soil is moving center stage.

“We know far more about the amount of oil there is globally and how long those stocks will last than we know about how much soil there is,” said John Crawford, Director of the Sustainable Systems Program in Rothamsted Research in England.

“Under business as usual, the current soils that are in agricultural production will yield about 30 percent less than they would do otherwise by around 2050.”


Abstract

''Growing consumption can cause major environmental damage. This is becoming specially significant through the emergence of over 1 billion new consumers, people in 17 developing and three transition countries with an aggregate spending capacity, in purchasing power parity terms, to match that of the U.S. Two of their consumption activities have sizeable environmental impacts. First is a diet based strongly on meat, which, because it is increasingly raised in part on grain, puts pressure on limited irrigation water and international grain supplies. Second, these new consumers possess over one-fifth of the world's cars, a proportion that is rising rapidly. Global CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, of which cars make up 74%, increased during 1990–1997 by 26% and at a rate four times greater than the growth of CO2 emissions overall. It is in the self-interest of new consumer countries, and of the global community, to restrict the environmental impacts of consumption; this restriction is achievable through a number of policy initiatives.

Increasing consumption and especially its environmental impacts (1–5) are becoming all the more important now that the 850 million long-established consumers in rich countries have recently been joined by almost 1.1 billion new consumers in 17 developing and three transition countries. Most of these new consumers are far from possessing the spending capacity of the long-established consumers, but they have enough aggregate spending capacity, in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), to match that of the U.S. Their numbers, consumption activities, and environmental impact are rising fast.

 

[Jokodo]

The irony of DBT telling others they "need to read more carefully" really is hard to beat...

 

[DBT]

Not if you understand what is being said. Perhaps its the Rose Coloured glasses that prevent understanding, simply dismissing issues being raised as alarmist?

I am using the term just as it is used in the articles and examples I gave, nothing more, nothing less.

Simply not true. Your bullshit article on "peak food production" uses it to mean when the growth rate of production peaks, every one else, including in the links you gave us, talks about when production itself peaks.

And obviously there are several different references being use and issues referred to.

In the case of peak oil:

See, that's a peak in the raw production rate. Now be so kind and have a look at the raw data underlying your peak foods production nonsense, I provided a link. You'll find production in all of the commodities for which they say w we're past peak is still growing.

You asked for examples of how the term 'peak food' etc is being used and I gave examples of usage. The graphs describe exactly what is meant by the term.


The issue was, is now and always will be sustainability. It is not about conditions right now, but the problems most likely to emerge as climate change, resource overuse and greater demand becomes a greater burden on our ecosystems and resources.

This is simply about sustainability. And I think that any reasonable observer would agree that current human activity is not sustainable, yet alone growing demand for goods and services.

All the rest is window dressing. Nitpicking over this detail or wailing and gnashing your teeth over how this or that is phrased, changes nothing in terms of the fundamentals. That if we don't change our ways soon, well before the end of the century - in your own words - we are fucked.



Quote:
Humans are completely living beyond their ecological means, says a major report published by the UN Environment Programme on Thursday.

The 550-page document finds the human ecological footprint is on average 21.9 hectares per person. Given the global population, however, the Earth’s biological capacity is just 15.7 hectares per person.

The report is UNEP’s latest on the state of the planet’s health, taking five years in the making. It was put together by about 390 experts and peer-reviewed by an additional 1000.

It reviews the state of Earth’s natural resources, from the atmosphere and water, to land surfaces and biodiversity. It concludes that instead of being used and maintained as a tool for the sustainable development of human populations, the environment is being sucked dry by unsustainable development.

Examples of how humans are over-exploiting natural resources to their own detriment include:

• Water – by 2025, 1.6 billion people will live in countries with absolute water scarcity; 440 million school days are already missed every year because of diarrhoeal diseases.

• Land use – modern agriculture exploits land more intensively than it has in the past. In 1987, a hectare of cropland yielded on average 1.8 tonnes of crops, today the same hectare produces 2.5 tonnes. This increased productivity comes at a cost – overexploited land is degraded and becomes less productive.

• Fish – 2.6 billion people rely on fish for more than 20% of their animal protein intake, yet as the intensity of fishing increases, the biodiversity of the ocean and the ocean’s capacity to produce more fish decreases.

• Air – more than 2 million people die each year because of indoor and outdoor pollution.
Unsustainable consumption

The individual average footprint of 21.9 hectares per person estimated by UNEP, includes the areas required to produce the resources we use, as well as the areas needed to process our waste.

“About half of the footprint is accounted for by the areas that are required to absorb our greenhouse gas emissions,” says Neville Ash of the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, underlying the scale of the climate change problem. “The other half is the land which produces our food, the forests which produce our timber, the oceans and rivers which produce our fish.”

The inflated size of the footprint, says Ash, is partially the result of the growth of the human population. The population is currently estimated at 6.7 billion people, and is expected to reach 8 to 10 billion by 2050.

But for Ash, the main driver of the size of our footprint is our unsustainable consumption. “There is no doubt that we could sustain the current and projected population if we lived sustainably,” he told New Scientist.
‘Inexorable decline’

According to the report authors, energy efficiency is key to sustainability. Johan Kuylenstierna of the Stockholm Environment Institute says that the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in developing nations could be halved by 2020 simply by using existing technologies for energy efficiency.

According to Jo Alcamo, at the University of Kassel in Germany, who led the group which looked at future development for the report, open borders and free trade could also be important. In models of the future where trade between countries is made simpler, technologies that improve the sustainable use of resources are adopted more quickly.

“Much of the ‘natural’ capital upon which so much of the human wellbeing and economic activity depends – water, land, the air and atmosphere, biodiversity and marine resources – continue their seemingly inexorable decline,” warns Achim Steiner, UNEP executive director.

“The cost of inaction and the price humanity will eventually pay is likely to dwarf the cost of swift and decisive action now.”

 

[DBT]

The irony of DBT telling others they "need to read more carefully" really is hard to beat...

There is no irony. I explained my position and that position has not changed. The problem is your gambit of seizing upon a bit of hyperbole or a phrase in a quoted article, take it literally and insist that I am responsible for every word or sentence even though I said several times that I don't support the wording (who agrees with everything said in any article?). You play with trivial details while ignoring the issues raised. Your manner of response comes across as arrogant and childish. I can understand why some put you on ignore.

 

[Jokodo]

DBT, remember that time when you "raped my sister"?

I mean, "raped" might be hyperbole, if you're nitpicking we might call it "hit on her while she was uninterested"; and "sister" is obviously figurative, you probably never met my actual sister, but I like to think of all humans as brothers and sisters. But that's just you getting hung up in irrelevant details and losing sight of the big picture. And anyway the whole things in quotes si don't hold me responsible for what it says. </dbt_style>

This is exactly how your method of throwing out bold statements to see what sticks, and when challenged pretending it didn't happen but without ever retracting anything comes across.

 

[Jokodo]

You asked for examples of how the term 'peak food' etc is being used and I gave examples of usage.

Another reading failure. I didn't ask for any and all examples of it, I specifically asked for examples where it's used in the same misleading way.

The graphs illustrate what regular folks mean when they say peak something, but the fact that your source uses it to mean something else entirely is exactly the issue.

Obviously you didn't read your own source. Here it is - not the newspaper summary but the study itself: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss4/art50/ and here's their raw data: https://figshare.com/articles/Time_series_of_global_resources/929619

They calculate a peak rate year of eg 1993 for eggs, when global production was 44m tons. In the last year of their data. 2010, production was 70m tons. Similarly for maize their peak rate year is 1985 (450m tons), while at the end of their time series, annual production is very nearly twice that at 880. All of that according to their very own data.
Clearly, whatever their "peak rate year" refers to, it's not at all what every one else means with "peak production".

Incidentally, postulating a peak rate year of 2009, as they do for some crops, when your data only goes up to 2011 or in some cases 2010 is well, bold - even ignoring that the recession is expected to cause a temporary downturn in demand.

 

[angelo]

So there is nothing to worry about? The human race has everything under control?

Are you forgetting that not that long ago it was predicted that the planet couldn't sustain a population exceeding 2-3 billion?

 

[DBT]

DBT, remember that time when you "raped my sister"?

I mean, "raped" might be hyperbole, if you're nitpicking we might call it "hit on her while she was uninterested"; and "sister" is obviously figurative, you probably never met my actual sister, but I like to think of all humans as brothers and sisters. But that's just you getting hung up in irrelevant details and losing sight of the big picture. And anyway the whole things in quotes si don't hold me responsible for what it says. </dbt_style>

This is exactly how your method of throwing out bold statements to see what sticks, and when challenged pretending it didn't happen but without ever retracting anything comes across.

False analogy. The hyperbole was related to the remark in the quote "population continues to soar".- where I explained that I don't agree with the wording.

The problem being that you don't appear to accept explanations or revision from opponents, you impose your own rules. Once something is said that you feel helps your case you don't let go even when it makes no difference to the overall picture of climate change, food security and rising demand, not so much to do with population growth but growing affluence and consumerism which is already unsustainable in developed nations.

 

[DBT]

So there is nothing to worry about? The human race has everything under control?

Are you forgetting that not that long ago it was predicted that the planet couldn't sustain a population exceeding 2-3 billion?

The green revolution doesn't go on forever. The planet has a carrying capacity where ever increasing problems arise when that capacity is exceeded.

Past conditions are not always an indicator of future conditions. Two to three billion is a fraction of nine billion plus. Not to mention increasing affluence and its related demand for goods and services.

Quote
''Yes, it is beyond dispute that the modern industrial world has been able to temporarily expand Earth’s carrying capacity for our species. As Nordhaus points out, population has grown dramatically (from less than a billion in 1800 to 7.6 billion today), and so has per capita consumption. No previous society was able to support so many people at such a high level of amenity. If we’ve managed to stretch carrying capacity this much already, why can’t we do so ad infinitum?

''To answer the question, it’s first important to understand the basis of our success so far. Science and technology usually glean most of the credit, and they deserve their share. But sheer energy—the bulk of it from fossil fuels—has been at least as important a factor.''

Yes, it is beyond dispute that the modern industrial world has been able to temporarily expand Earth’s carrying capacity for our species. As Nordhaus points out, population has grown dramatically (from less than a billion in 1800 to 7.6 billion today), and so has per capita consumption. No previous society was able to support so many people at such a high level of amenity. If we’ve managed to stretch carrying capacity this much already, why can’t we do so ad infinitum?

To answer the question, it’s first important to understand the basis of our success so far. Science and technology usually glean most of the credit, and they deserve their share. But sheer energy—the bulk of it from fossil fuels—has been at least as important a factor.''

 

[Jokodo]

DBT, remember that time when you "raped my sister"?

I mean, "raped" might be hyperbole, if you're nitpicking we might call it "hit on her while she was uninterested"; and "sister" is obviously figurative, you probably never met my actual sister, but I like to think of all humans as brothers and sisters. But that's just you getting hung up in irrelevant details and losing sight of the big picture. And anyway the whole things in quotes si don't hold me responsible for what it says. </dbt_style>

This is exactly how your method of throwing out bold statements to see what sticks, and when challenged pretending it didn't happen but without ever retracting anything comes across.

False analogy. The hyperbole was related to the remark in the quote "population continues to soar".- where I explained that I don't agree with the wording.

The problem being that you don't appear to accept explanations or revision from opponents, you impose your own rules. Once something is said that you feel helps your case you don't let go even when it makes no difference to the overall picture of climate change, food security and rising demand, not so much to do with population growth but growing affluence and consumerism which is already unsustainable in developed nations.

Well, talking about how the "population continues to soar" is actually the smallest problem of that particular article (still quite telling that you'd quote that without comment). A much bigger problem is that it uses "peak production" for something that is neither a peak in production, nor otherwise worrying or surprising in and if itself.

You still haven't properly reacted to that point, other than pretending they use it in the established sense, which is clearly not the case.

How about we're just agree that it was a stupid article to bring up?

 

[bilby]

So there is nothing to worry about? The human race has everything under control?

Are you forgetting that not that long ago it was predicted that the planet couldn't sustain a population exceeding 2-3 billion?

The green revolution doesn't go on forever. The planet has a carrying capacity where ever increasing problems arise when that capacity is exceeded.

Past conditions are not always an indicator of future conditions. Two to three billion is a fraction of nine billion plus. Not to mention increasing affluence and its related demand for goods and services.

Quote
''Yes, it is beyond dispute that the modern industrial world has been able to temporarily expand Earth’s carrying capacity for our species. As Nordhaus points out, population has grown dramatically (from less than a billion in 1800 to 7.6 billion today), and so has per capita consumption. No previous society was able to support so many people at such a high level of amenity. If we’ve managed to stretch carrying capacity this much already, why can’t we do so ad infinitum?

''To answer the question, it’s first important to understand the basis of our success so far. Science and technology usually glean most of the credit, and they deserve their share. But sheer energy—the bulk of it from fossil fuels—has been at least as important a factor.''

Yes, it is beyond dispute that the modern industrial world has been able to temporarily expand Earth’s carrying capacity for our species. As Nordhaus points out, population has grown dramatically (from less than a billion in 1800 to 7.6 billion today), and so has per capita consumption. No previous society was able to support so many people at such a high level of amenity. If we’ve managed to stretch carrying capacity this much already, why can’t we do so ad infinitum?

To answer the question, it’s first important to understand the basis of our success so far. Science and technology usually glean most of the credit, and they deserve their share. But sheer energy—the bulk of it from fossil fuels—has been at least as important a factor.''

We have known how to make effectively unlimited amounts of sheer energy without fossil fuels since the mid 1950s.

So this is not a problem at all. The only problem is the ongoing irrational opposition to the adoption of the cleanest, safest, most reliable and most sustainable energy generating technology in human history. As brought to you by science and technology.

 

[DBT]

DBT, remember that time when you "raped my sister"?

I mean, "raped" might be hyperbole, if you're nitpicking we might call it "hit on her while she was uninterested"; and "sister" is obviously figurative, you probably never met my actual sister, but I like to think of all humans as brothers and sisters. But that's just you getting hung up in irrelevant details and losing sight of the big picture. And anyway the whole things in quotes si don't hold me responsible for what it says. </dbt_style>

This is exactly how your method of throwing out bold statements to see what sticks, and when challenged pretending it didn't happen but without ever retracting anything comes across.

False analogy. The hyperbole was related to the remark in the quote "population continues to soar".- where I explained that I don't agree with the wording.

The problem being that you don't appear to accept explanations or revision from opponents, you impose your own rules. Once something is said that you feel helps your case you don't let go even when it makes no difference to the overall picture of climate change, food security and rising demand, not so much to do with population growth but growing affluence and consumerism which is already unsustainable in developed nations.

Well, talking about how the "population continues to soar" is actually the smallest problem of that particular article (still quite telling that you'd quote that without comment). A much bigger problem is that it uses "peak production" for something that is neither a peak in production, nor otherwise worrying or surprising in and if itself.

You still haven't properly reacted to that point, other than pretending they use it in the established sense, which is clearly not the case.

How about we're just agree that it was a stupid article to bring up?

Neither is a problem given that I clearly stated that these issues are projected to become significant problems from roughly mid century on.

The ''population continues to soar'' was minor hyperbole used by the article.....and the term 'peak production' was used to illustrate that everything has limits within a finite system. Some sectors - commercial fishing for example - have been in decline for a while.


Neither I or any of the articles that were quoted are referring to the present....except that we are on a whole living beyond our means in relation to long term sustainability in developed nations, consumerism, etc.

As for the remark, ''population continues to soar,'' that probably refers to numbers not percentages. Given a population of over seven billion, even 1.1% annual growth adds up to quite a significant number of inhabitants.

 

[Jokodo]

Well, talking about how the "population continues to soar" is actually the smallest problem of that particular article (still quite telling that you'd quote that without comment). A much bigger problem is that it uses "peak production" for something that is neither a peak in production, nor otherwise worrying or surprising in and if itself.

You still haven't properly reacted to that point, other than pretending they use it in the established sense, which is clearly not the case.

How about we're just agree that it was a stupid article to bring up?

Neither is a problem given that I clearly stated that these issues are projected to become significant problems from roughly mid century on.

The ''population continues to soar'' was minor hyperbole used by the article.....and the term 'peak production' was used to illustrate that everything has limits within a finite system.

"everything has limits within a finite system" is a trivial fact that needs no illustration. The term was used to leave the impression that food production is in decline, when in fact it isn't.

Some sectors - commercial fishing for example - have been in decline for a while.

Yet, including aquaculture, fish production was still rising by about 5% (!) annually in the late 00s, towards the end of their time series. Here's a more up to date source with data up to 2015: https://sustainablefisheries-uw.org/state-of-world-fisheries-and-aquaculture-2018/

Neither I or any of the articles that were quoted are referring to the present....

This claim is demonstrably false.

except that we are on a whole living beyond our means in relation to long term sustainability in developed nations, consumerism, etc.

As for the remark, ''population continues to soar,'' that probably refers to numbers not percentages. Given a population of over seven billion, even 1.1% annual growth adds up to quite a significant number of inhabitants.

The article we're talking about did in fact insinuate that the production if several staple crops has peaked already as of the time of writing, 2015. The study doesn't actually say that, it explicitly talks about peak growth rates, but the wording in its newspaper discussion was apparently misleading enough to fool you when you summarised it as "Yet some products do appear to have reached peak production" in post 196. So don't tell me wording doesn't matter when it results in smart and educated people like you taking home all the wrong conclusions.

 

[DBT]

Well, talking about how the "population continues to soar" is actually the smallest problem of that particular article (still quite telling that you'd quote that without comment). A much bigger problem is that it uses "peak production" for something that is neither a peak in production, nor otherwise worrying or surprising in and if itself.

You still haven't properly reacted to that point, other than pretending they use it in the established sense, which is clearly not the case.

How about we're just agree that it was a stupid article to bring up?

Neither is a problem given that I clearly stated that these issues are projected to become significant problems from roughly mid century on.

The ''population continues to soar'' was minor hyperbole used by the article.....and the term 'peak production' was used to illustrate that everything has limits within a finite system. Some sectors - commercial fishing for example - have been in decline for a while.


Neither I or any of the articles that were quoted are referring to the present....except that we are on a whole living beyond our means in relation to long term sustainability in developed nations, consumerism, etc.

As for the remark, ''population continues to soar,'' that probably refers to numbers not percentages. Given a population of over seven billion, even 1.1% annual growth adds up to quite a significant number of inhabitants.

The article we're talking about did in fact insinuate that the production if several staple crops has peaked already as of the time of writing, 2015. The study doesn't actually say that, it explicitly talks about peak growth rates, but the wording in its newspaper discussion was apparently misleading enough to fool you when you summarised it as "Yet some products do appear to have reached peak production" in post 196. So don't tell me wording doesn't matter when it results in smart and educated people like you taking home all the wrong conclusions.

It doesn't matter what the article did or did not insinuate, it doesn't matter if in my haste (doing two or three things at a time) I poorly composed or phrased a reply. It happens. It is irrelevant to my position, because I explained what my position was in light of any errors made in composing a reply or phrasing a sentence.

Your way of dealing with this is to seize upon any apparent inconsistency, refusing let go regardless of any further explanation. A means of discrediting the argument, the issue of long term sustainability in the form of a choke point from mid century on.

I'd say that the article that comes closest - barring phrases like 'dying oceans' - to representing my position is this:


Quote;
''Yes, it is beyond dispute that the modern industrial world has been able to temporarily expand Earth’s carrying capacity for our species. As Nordhaus points out, population has grown dramatically (from less than a billion in 1800 to 7.6 billion today), and so has per capita consumption. No previous society was able to support so many people at such a high level of amenity. If we’ve managed to stretch carrying capacity this much already, why can’t we do so ad infinitum?

Another way of keeping track is the ecological footprint, which measures human demand on nature in terms of the quantity of land and water it takes to support an economy sustainably. The Global Footprint Network calculates that humanity is currently exceeding Earth’s sustainable productivity by 60%. We do this, again, by drawing down resources that future generations and other species would otherwise use. So, as a result of our actions, Earth’s long-term carrying capacity for humans is actually declining. Nordhaus is right that it’s not a fixed quantity; the problem is that we’re reducing it rather than adding to it in a way that can be maintained.

Devise your own scorecard. What warning signs would you expect to see if we humans were pressing at the limits of global carrying capacity? Resource depletion? Check. Pollution? Check. Dying oceans? Check. Human populations subjected to increasing stress? Double check.

Here’s one more that we probably should be paying more attention to: Wild terrestrial mammals now represent just 4.2% of terrestrial mammalian biomass, the balance—95.8%—being livestock and humans. Maybe we could make some inroads on that remaining 4.2%, but it’s pretty clear from this single statistic that we humans have already commandeered most of the biosphere.