The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[DBT]

Rather than 'dying oceans' I'd put it as being;

Oceans under threat
''Humankind has been damaging the seas for decades by discharging pollutants into the water, destroying coastal ecosystems and overexploiting fish stocks. Ocean warming and ocean acidification are new global-scale threats affecting the seas today. A precondition for sustainable ocean use will be an exact analysis of its con*di*tion so as to allow for the correct environmental policy measures to be taken from now on.''

 

[Jokodo]

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 does matter whether your position is based on a sober analysis of reality, or on a misunderstanding of a journalists misunderstanding of a sloppy study.

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.

In what sense are "[h]uman populations subjected to increasing stress"? "Dying oceans" is not the most problematic wording here - it is arguably a bit hyperbolic, but not counterfactual. "Human populations subjected to increasing stress", at a time when the standard of living globally has never been high, and the gap between the so called first world and the so-called third world is closing, albeit slowly, is.

 

[DBT]

It does matter whether your position is based on a sober analysis of reality, or on a misunderstanding of a journalists misunderstanding of a sloppy study.

Well there you go, twisting things to suit your own purposes. If a journalist or author happens to say 'dying oceans' instead of 'oceans under threat' this does not make the ecological studies that prompted the remark wrong. If independent studies show that our oceans are under stress or threat, fishing grounds depleted or in decline, plastic pollution, etc, casual wording in articles that are drawing attention to the problem hardly matter.

You either downplay or dismiss the underlying problem of unsustainable human activity as defined by various studies by criticizing the wording of authors who seek to bring these issues to public attention.

It seems that if someone uses a turn of phrase that is not as correct as you like, everything else goes out the window?

In what sense are "[h]uman populations subjected to increasing stress"? "Dying oceans" is not the most problematic wording here - it is arguably a bit hyperbolic, but not counterfactual. "Human populations subjected to increasing stress", at a time when the standard of living globally has never been high, and the gap between the so called first world and the so-called third world is closing, albeit slowly, is.

The issue is reduction of carrying capacity and the stress that this degradation places on ecosystems, and in turn upon human populations, estimated to become an increasing problem from mid century on.

From the article:
''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.''

In your words, 'if we don't sort out our shit before the end of the century we are fucked' - or words to that effect. Perhaps not word perfect, but you get the gist of it.

 

[Jokodo]

It does matter whether your position is based on a sober analysis of reality, or on a misunderstanding of a journalists misunderstanding of a sloppy study.

Well there you go, twisting things to suit your own purposes. If a journalist or author happens to say 'dying oceans' instead of 'oceans under threat' this does not make the ecological studies that prompted the remark wrong.

Indeed, that would be a case of perfectly acceptable hyperbole. Claiming that maize production peaked in 1985 when in fact it has doubled since then isn't hyperbole. It's a reversal of the truth.

I might even accept that talk of a soaring population can pass as hyperbole - in isolation. It's when it's juxtaposed, in the same sentence, with maize/ meat/ egg/ production "losing momentum" when the latter are growing at twice the rate of population and more that it becomes misleading.

If independent studies show that our oceans are under stress or threat, fishing grounds depleted or in decline, plastic pollution, etc, casual wording in articles that are drawing attention to the problem hardly matter.

You either downplay or dismiss the underlying problem of unsustainable human activity as defined by various studies by criticizing the wording of authors who seek to bring these issues to public attention.

It seems that if someone uses a turn of phrase that is not as correct as you like, everything else goes out the window?

When someone looks at a dataset that shows global production of maize to be 450 megatons in 1985, and 880 megatons in 2010, and goes away saying "maize production has peaked in 1985", yes, that gives me a hard time taking the rest of what they say seriously. Pretending that an impressive increase is a worrying drop is not an unfortunate turn of phrase, however often you pretend otherwise. It's a falsehood. Assuming it is not an intentional lie, it casts serious doubts on the author's understanding of the topic and disqualifies them as an authority on the subject.

In what sense are "[h]uman populations subjected to increasing stress"? "Dying oceans" is not the most problematic wording here - it is arguably a bit hyperbolic, but not counterfactual. "Human populations subjected to increasing stress", at a time when the standard of living globally has never been high, and the gap between the so called first world and the so-called third world is closing, albeit slowly, is.

The issue is reduction of carrying capacity and the stress that this degradation places on ecosystems, and in turn upon human populations, estimated to become an increasing problem from mid century on.

From the article:
''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.''

In your words, 'if we don't sort out our shit before the end of the century we are fucked' - or words to that effect. Perhaps not word perfect, but you get the gist of it.

That's all fair, but the particular paragraph was talking about warning signs that are visible now, and listing "[h]uman populations subjected to increasing stress" as one of those. So, in what sense, and compared to which previous epoch, are human populations subject to increased stress now?

 

[lpetrich]

Kyle Griffin on Twitter: "Greta Thunberg at #UNGA: "This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you come to us young people for hope. How dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words." Via ABC https://t.co/NudonxKNss" / Twitter

Greta Thunberg on Twitter: "“People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”My speech in UN General Assembly in print https://t.co/8wYyCa4H01" / Twitter
noting
If world leaders choose to fail us, my generation will never forgive them | Greta Thunberg | Opinion | The Guardian

If world leaders choose to fail us, my generation will never forgive them | Greta Thunberg | Opinion | The Guardian

The climate crisis explained in 10 charts | Environment | The Guardian

#ChildrenVsClimateCrisis - the 16 children here are teenagers, as far as I can tell.

They are from the US, Brazil, Argentina, Sweden, France, Germany, Tunisia, Nigeria, South Africa, India, Palau, Marshall Islands

In another tweet, GT mentions an Afghan activist.

An Al Jazeera story mentions demonstrations in NYC US, London UK, Sydney Australia, Nairobi Kenya, Seoul S Korea, Bangkok Thailand, Islamabad Pakistan, Johannesburg S Africa, Philippines, Mexico, Philippines, India, Belgium, Brazil, Greece, Colombia, France

 

[lpetrich]

Greta Thunberg on Twitter: ""You must do the impossible. Because giving up can never ever be an option." Here is my full speech from the US Congress in print. https://t.co/8KCBeI3klW" / Twitter
noting
Greta Thunberg speech: I have a dream that the powerful will take the climate crisis seriously | The Independent

I've looked at GT's Twitter feed, and I've tallied up the nations mentioned there and elsewhere as having climate-change activists. I've also found Global Climate Strike → Sep. 20–27

It's revealing where there are events and where there aren't events. All of the wealthier and more open nations have plenty of events. Wealthy but less open ones are China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia - those nations have no events. Russia has only one event listed, in St. Petersburg, despite its size. India, however, has lots of events, as do Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America. Canada and Australia also have some.

So China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and probably also Russia are difficult for activism, while India looks like a much easier prospect.

 

[DBT]

Indeed, that would be a case of perfectly acceptable hyperbole. Claiming that maize production peaked in 1985 when in fact it has doubled since then isn't hyperbole. It's a reversal of the truth.

I doubt that it was meant to deceive. It may have been related to ''patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation'' - ''In the coming decades, continued population growth, rising meat and dairy consumption and expanding biofuel use will dramatically increase the pressure on global agriculture. Even as we face these future burdens, there have been scattered reports of yield stagnation in the world’s major cereal crops, including maize, rice and wheat.''

None of which is being claimed to be the final word, fixed in granite, there it is: the Truth^tm

An error in estimation here or there doesn't make a lot of difference to the overall picture of ecological decline, environment degradation, growing demand and issues related to climate change, according to several indicators that the ''Earth’s long-term carrying capacity for humans is actually declining''

I might even accept that talk of a soaring population can pass as hyperbole - in isolation.

The percentage may be small but even 1% growth in a population of 8 billion plus adds a lot of people each year.

It's when it's juxtaposed, in the same sentence, with maize/ meat/ egg/ production "losing momentum" when the latter are growing at twice the rate of population and more that it becomes misleading.

It's not intended to be misleading. Sometimes information has been revised, the situation has changed, etc. Maize production here, fish stocks there may vary in estimate, grow, decline, yet makes little difference when you take the overall picture into account, that our activity appears to be unsustainable in the long term.

When someone looks at a dataset that shows global production of maize to be 450 megatons in 1985, and 880 megatons in 2010, and goes away saying "maize production has peaked in 1985", yes, that gives me a hard time taking the rest of what they say seriously. Pretending that an impressive increase is a worrying drop is not an unfortunate turn of phrase, however often you pretend otherwise. It's a falsehood. Assuming it is not an intentional lie, it casts serious doubts on the author's understanding of the topic and disqualifies them as an authority on the subject.

I can't account for the "maize production has peaked in 1985" claim, which doesn't make everything else that the article said wrong. It was probably an unintended error.

It makes no difference. The issue is still not food production right now, but in the coming decades:

The challenge being:
''The global demand for agricultural crops is expected to roughly double by 2050, driven by increases in population, meat and dairy consumption and biofuel use^1,2,3. However, between 1985 and 2005, the total global crop production increased by only 28% (through a ∼2.5% net expansion of global cropland area, an ∼7% increase in the frequency of harvesting, and an average ∼20% increase in crop yields per hectare)⁴. Clearly, these recent gains in global crop production fall short of the expected demands, leaving us with an important question: Which crops and which geographic regions offer the best hope of meeting projected demands, and where are improvements most needed?''

And of course it's not just an issue of food production, but overall resource use, arable land, water, minerals, ecosystems.

That's all fair, but the particular paragraph was talking about warning signs that are visible now, and listing "[h]uman populations subjected to increasing stress" as one of those. So, in what sense, and compared to which previous epoch, are human populations subject to increased stress now?

Depends on how you look at it;

One-quarter of the world's population is facing "extremely high water stress", a newly published ranking has revealed.
Data published by the World Resources Institute (WRI) shows 17 countries — including San Marino — fall into this category.
“Water stress is the biggest crisis no one is talking about," said Dr Andrew Steer, president and CEO of WRI.
"Its consequences are in plain sight in the form of food insecurity, conflict and migration, and financial instability.”
Most of southern Europe falls into the 'high water stress' category, with some cities and region facing an even deeper crisis.

I can't vouch for exactly how accurate any given source is, but there it is.

 

[Jokodo]

I doubt that it was meant to deceive. It may have been related to ''patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation'' - ''In the coming decades, continued population growth, rising meat and dairy consumption and expanding biofuel use will dramatically increase the pressure on global agriculture. Even as we face these future burdens, there have been scattered reports of yield stagnation in the world’s major cereal crops, including maize, rice and wheat.''

None of which is being claimed to be the final word, fixed in granite, there it is: the Truth^tm

An error in estimation here or there doesn't make a lot of difference to the overall picture of ecological decline, environment degradation, growing demand and issues related to climate change, according to several indicators that the ''Earth’s long-term carrying capacity for humans is actually declining''

Read your own sources for once! The doubling of maize is not from a different source, it's right there in the raw data underlying the study your news piece talks about! Here's the link to their raw data, for the third time: https://figshare.com/articles/Time_series_of_global_resources/929619 This is not an error of estimation or an outdated source. It's either of three things: 1, the study is bogus, 2, the article misrepresented it, or 3, you misunderstood the article. I'm guessing it's a mix of the latter two. The study doesn't claim to report peak production, though their choice of words, calling what they find "peak rate years" may have contributed to the misunderstanding.

The percentage may be small but even 1% growth in a population of 8 billion plus adds a lot of people each year.

It's when it's juxtaposed, in the same sentence, with maize/ meat/ egg/ production "losing momentum" when the latter are growing at twice the rate of population and more that it becomes misleading.

It's not intended to be misleading. Sometimes information has been revised, the situation has changed, etc. Maize production here, fish stocks there may vary in estimate, grow, decline, yet makes little difference when you take the overall picture into account, that our activity appears to be unsustainable in the long term.

Again, read your own sources. I even provided a link to their raw data. It's not just maize, all of the products for which they report past "peak rate years" still grow (with the possible exception of wild caught fish which is more than offset by aquaculture), and all but a few at rates significantly above population growth.

When someone looks at a dataset that shows global production of maize to be 450 megatons in 1985, and 880 megatons in 2010, and goes away saying "maize production has peaked in 1985", yes, that gives me a hard time taking the rest of what they say seriously. Pretending that an impressive increase is a worrying drop is not an unfortunate turn of phrase, however often you pretend otherwise. It's a falsehood. Assuming it is not an intentional lie, it casts serious doubts on the author's understanding of the topic and disqualifies them as an authority on the subject.

I can't account for the "maize production has peaked in 1985" claim, which doesn't make everything else that the article said wrong. It was probably an unintended error.

No, it shows they're not talking about peak production, at least not in the conventional sense. As you'd know if you read your own sources!

 

[DBT]

Read your own sources for once! The doubling of maize is not from a different source, it's right there in the raw data underlying the study your news piece talks about! Here's the link to their raw data, for the third time: https://figshare.com/articles/Time_series_of_global_resources/929619 This is not an error of estimation or an outdated source. It's either of three things: 1, the study is bogus, 2, the article misrepresented it, or 3, you misunderstood the article. I'm guessing it's a mix of the latter two. The study doesn't claim to report peak production, though their choice of words, calling what they find "peak rate years" may have contributed to the misunderstanding.

Whether corn production peaked in 1985 is of no concern to me for the reasons given: the problem is more far reaching than corn production.

I don't know why the author made the remark, nor do I particularly care.

I was speculating because you appear to think that the issue of sustainability rests upon an author making a mistaken or false remark - for whatever reason, I cannot determine, that because of this false or mistaken remark the issue of our unsustainable economic/industrial and social practices on the planet is bogus because the claim 'corn production peaked in 1985' is false.

Your whole line of attack is absurd. The same thing over and over, seize onto a mistake, a casual remarkm an article, expression, rhetoric, hyperbole and work it to death, yet apparently not seeing that your ploy is irrelevant.

Again, read your own sources. I even provided a link to their raw data. It's not just maize, all of the products for which they report past "peak rate years" still grow (with the possible exception of wild caught fish which is more than offset by aquaculture), and all but a few at rates significantly above population growth.

The issue is still not about current conditions. Put it into context;

From the article:
''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.''

No, it shows they're not talking about peak production, at least not in the conventional sense. As you'd know if you read your own sources!

I was talking about peak production for the given reason, that gains cannot be sustained in perpetuity, That at some point a limit is reached, then we have peak production, peak water (already the case in some areas), peak oil, peak food.

So while we are currently growing sufficient food, that is not necessarily going to be the case in fifty years or so.

Once again;

The challenge being:
''The global demand for agricultural crops is expected to roughly double by 2050, driven by increases in population, meat and dairy consumption and biofuel use1,2,3. However, between 1985 and 2005, the total global crop production increased by only 28% (through a ∼2.5% net expansion of global cropland area, an ∼7% increase in the frequency of harvesting, and an average ∼20% increase in crop yields per hectare)4. Clearly, these recent gains in global crop production fall short of the expected demands, leaving us with an important question: Which crops and which geographic regions offer the best hope of meeting projected demands, and where are improvements most needed?''

Nor is it only about food production. The problems are more far reaching.

Now, I can't vouch for the accuracy of every bit of information in this page, but it does give a summary of the scale of the problem.


Incidence:

Unsustainable development now compromises the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Global warming, destruction of the ozone shield, acidification of land and water, desertification and soil loss, deforestation and forest decline, diminishing productivity of land and waters, and extinction of species and populations, demonstrate that human demand is exceeding environmental support capacities. The annual increase in industrial production in 1989 is as large as that of Europe's total production in the 1930s. The populations of 74 countries are doubling every 30 years or less. Population growth increases poverty and deprived people are forced to undermine the productivity of the land on which they live. It is extremely difficult for people, or other species, to adjust to change at this rate.

Claim:

The industrial way of life with its ethos of expansion is not sustainable. Its termination within the lifetime of someone born today is inevitable – unless it continues to be sustained by an entrenched minority at the cost of imposing great suffering on the rest of humanity. We can be certain, however, that sooner or later it will end (only the precise time and circumstances are in doubt).''


Hint: it's not about corn production.

 

[Jokodo]

Whether corn production peaked in 1985 is of no concern to me for the reasons given: the problem is more far reaching than corn production.

I don't know why the author made the remark, nor do I particularly care.

I was speculating because you appear to think that the issue of sustainability rests upon an author making a mistaken or false remark - for whatever reason, I cannot determine, that because of this false or mistaken remark the issue of our unsustainable economic/industrial and social practices on the planet is bogus because the claim 'corn production peaked in 1985' is false.

Your whole line of attack is absurd. The same thing over and over, seize onto a mistake, a casual remarkm an article, expression, rhetoric, hyperbole and work it to death, yet apparently not seeing that your ploy is irrelevant.




The issue is still not about current conditions. Put it into context;

From the article:
''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.''

No, it shows they're not talking about peak production, at least not in the conventional sense. As you'd know if you read your own sources!

I was talking about peak production for the given reason, that gains cannot be sustained in perpetuity, That at some point a limit is reached, then we have peak production, peak water (already the case in some areas), peak oil, peak food.

So while we are currently growing sufficient food, that is not necessarily going to be the case in fifty years or so.

Once again;

The challenge being:
''The global demand for agricultural crops is expected to roughly double by 2050, driven by increases in population, meat and dairy consumption and biofuel use1,2,3. However, between 1985 and 2005, the total global crop production increased by only 28% (through a ∼2.5% net expansion of global cropland area, an ∼7% increase in the frequency of harvesting, and an average ∼20% increase in crop yields per hectare)4. Clearly, these recent gains in global crop production fall short of the expected demands, leaving us with an important question: Which crops and which geographic regions offer the best hope of meeting projected demands, and where are improvements most needed?''

Nor is it only about food production. The problems are more far reaching.

Now, I can't vouch for the accuracy of every bit of information in this page, but it does give a summary of the scale of the problem.


Incidence:

Unsustainable development now compromises the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Global warming, destruction of the ozone shield, acidification of land and water, desertification and soil loss, deforestation and forest decline, diminishing productivity of land and waters, and extinction of species and populations, demonstrate that human demand is exceeding environmental support capacities. The annual increase in industrial production in 1989 is as large as that of Europe's total production in the 1930s. The populations of 74 countries are doubling every 30 years or less. Population growth increases poverty and deprived people are forced to undermine the productivity of the land on which they live. It is extremely difficult for people, or other species, to adjust to change at this rate.

Claim:

The industrial way of life with its ethos of expansion is not sustainable. Its termination within the lifetime of someone born today is inevitable – unless it continues to be sustained by an entrenched minority at the cost of imposing great suffering on the rest of humanity. We can be certain, however, that sooner or later it will end (only the precise time and circumstances are in doubt).''


Hint: it's not about corn production.

Does it actually kill you to admit that an article you used is so carelessly worded that you misunderstood what it says and took away a counterfactual conclusion?

I am glad I don't work with you, you must be an unbearable colleague, always blaming everyone else for your errors.

And stop already with calling plain falsehoods "hyperbole".

"Antarctica is one big glacier" is hyperbole - there are actually ice free areas on the continent. "Antarctica is one big lush rainforest" is not hyperbole, and saying that food production has peaked is clearly of the latter type.

 

[Jokodo]

What's the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and Malthusians?

The former have given up on a specific date, but still insist they know a concrete number of people (that'll be elevated to saints in armageddon) - while the latter have given up on specific numbers of people (for what's too much) but still think they have pretty good idea when it'll happen.

 

[lpetrich]

CNN on Twitter: ""You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words," climate activist Greta Thunberg tells the UN. "We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you." [url]https://t.co/F5Umw55Y5Y https://t.co/K0WxGCeU4A" / Twitter[/url]

She is right to be sore at those who don't seem to be doing very much. It's like AOC and her primary opponent, 20-year incumbent Joe Crowley. When JC stated how much he deplored the conditions at Trump's border camps, AOC responded with something like "What did you do about it?"

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This is a huge deal: one of the first major political party adoptions of a #GreenNewDeal as an official policy plank.
Our future relies on whether our leaders choose to act now.
Thank you @UKLabour and all people in the movement for leading the world with ACTION. https://t.co/XhhfZzxwpv" / Twitter
noting
Waleed Shahid on Twitter: "The UK Labour Party, with backing from one of the largest labor unions in the country, adopts a target of net-zero emissions by 2030.
The Conservative Party supports a target of net-zero emissions by 2050. https://t.co/3HBgxqwfiJ" / Twitter
noting
Radical Plan For Net Zero Carbon Emissions By 2030 Wins Unite Union Backing | HuffPost UK - "Chances of conference approval boosted by backing of Labour leadership, Momentum and large trade union."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "When it comes to climate change, we are going to pay no matter what.
The question is: will we pay (more) to react and contribute to destruction, or will we pay to proactively defend and preserve future generations?
Look around & read the science. That is the question before us. https://t.co/9K9rsgN1qA" / Twitter
noting
NowThis on Twitter: "‘People are dying … science should not be partisan.’ — @AOC’s spirited defense of environmental justice is a must-see https://t.co/aYIYkjjYKn" / Twitter

 

[skepticalbip]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This is a huge deal: one of the first major political party adoptions of a #GreenNewDeal as an official policy plank.

... snip ...

I think all these AOC tweets you are posting are being posted in the wrong forum. They should be in the politics forum.

As far as I am aware, she has no training in climate science. Her tweets are political, not scientific.

 

[bilby]

The challenge being:
''The global demand for agricultural crops is expected to roughly double by 2050, driven by increases in population, meat and dairy consumption and biofuel use^1,2,3. However, between 1985 and 2005, the total global crop production increased by only 28% (through a ∼2.5% net expansion of global cropland area, an ∼7% increase in the frequency of harvesting, and an average ∼20% increase in crop yields per hectare)⁴. Clearly, these recent gains in global crop production fall short of the expected demands, leaving us with an important question: Which crops and which geographic regions offer the best hope of meeting projected demands, and where are improvements most needed?''

Why would we assume that the rate of increase between 1985 and 2005 is an indicatior of the maximum achievable rate of increase?

Global population grew about 28% between 1985 and 2005; And while famine was a major issue in 1985 (the year of the Live Aid concerts), by 2005 it had almost entirely disappeared from the world (and has not returned since).

These data are absolutely consistent with food production rising at whatever rate demand rises, with no hint that any other factors are constraining growth in food production at all - all we can say for certain about the maximum rate of growth in food production from this data is that it is greater than 28% - but whether it's 29% or 280% or 2,800% is yet to be seen.

If I tell you that I drove 40km between 10am and 11am, you cannot use that data to determine the maximum speed of my car. All you can say for sure is that the maximum speed exceeds 40km/h.

To use that data to suggest that I will certainly be late if I leave for an appointment 60km away an hour before the appointment time, would be foolish and unwarranted.

 

[DBT]

Does it actually kill you to admit that an article you used is so carelessly worded that you misunderstood what it says and took away a counterfactual conclusion?

Of course not. Mistakes happen. The remark that the author made about corn production peaking in 1985 was wrong. And my mistake was not check that detail. I said that I can't account for where he got 'corn production peaked in 1985' or why it was used....and pointed out numerous times that it is irrelevant because this issue is about conditions past mid century.

I am glad I don't work with you, you must be an unbearable colleague, always blaming everyone else for your errors.

I'm aware of the errors that I make, but making an errors here or there, an expression, hyperbole, semantics, rhetoric or posting a quote form source that has an error (time constraints, casual discussion forum) doesn't mean that the studies which point to our unsustainable activity are wrong or that we don't face major problems in the decades ahead.....which you yourself agree with.

"Antarctica is one big glacier" is hyperbole - there are actually ice free areas on the continent. "Antarctica is one big lush rainforest" is not hyperbole, and saying that food production has peaked is clearly of the latter type.

Your analogy is quite absurd. A fine example of the very thing you complain about. The issue still about conditions from about mid century on in relation to long term carrying capacity, which according to several indicators appears to declining;


''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.''


The challenge being:
''The global demand for agricultural crops is expected to roughly double by 2050, driven by increases in population, meat and dairy consumption and biofuel use1,2,3. However, between 1985 and 2005, the total global crop production increased by only 28% (through a ∼2.5% net expansion of global cropland area, an ∼7% increase in the frequency of harvesting, and an average ∼20% increase in crop yields per hectare)4. Clearly, these recent gains in global crop production fall short of the expected demands, leaving us with an important question: Which crops and which geographic regions offer the best hope of meeting projected demands, and where are improvements most needed?''

 

[DBT]

What's the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and Malthusians?

The former have given up on a specific date, but still insist they know a concrete number of people (that'll be elevated to saints in armageddon) - while the latter have given up on specific numbers of people (for what's too much) but still think they have pretty good idea when it'll happen.

That's quite amusing given that you yourself said that - ''If we don't get up our collective asses and do something big to slow climate change in the next few years and/or find efficient workaround to deal with the consequences in the next few decades, we're pretty fucked by 2100'' - so the quibble is only about what exactly is going to 'fuck us up' if we 'If we don't 'get up our collective asses and do something big' and whether we are actually taking the necessary steps to prevent being ''pretty fucked by 2100.''

Given that the overall attitude by political and business leaders appears to be 'business as usual,' I'd say that not enough is being done to prevent us from being ''pretty well fucked by 2100''

Cheers.

 

[Jokodo]

Of course not. Mistakes happen. The remark that the author made about corn production peaking in 1985 was wrong.

If by "the author" you mean the authors of the study, no. Their remark about corn, in the context of what they were actually trying to say, was correct. Corn production did grow at higher rates in the 1970s than in the 1990.

It's just not particularly relevant when the growth rate in the 1990s is still about double that of the global population. And the same for every other category of produce they talk about.

The mistake is not about one data point. The mistake is interpreting the study's - admittedly confusing - term "peak rate year" to mean peak production. And it makes the entire study useless for your purposes, not just this one remark about maize.

And my mistake was not check that detail. I said that I can't account for where he got 'corn production peaked in 1985' or why it was used....and pointed out numerous times that it is irrelevant because this issue is about conditions past mid century.

Whatever else you're also interested in, you did use a study that doesn't talk about peak production to illustrate a point about peak production.

I'm aware of the errors that I make, but making an errors here or there, an expression, hyperbole, semantics, rhetoric or posting a quote form source that has an error (time constraints, casual discussion forum) doesn't mean that the studies which point to our unsustainable activity are wrong or that we don't face major problems in the decades ahead.....which you yourself agree with.

"Antarctica is one big glacier" is hyperbole - there are actually ice free areas on the continent. "Antarctica is one big lush rainforest" is not hyperbole, and saying that food production has peaked is clearly of the latter type.

Your analogy is quite absurd. A fine example of the very thing you complain about. The issue still about conditions from about mid century on in relation to long term carrying capacity, which according to several indicators appears to declining;

About which we might be having a fruitful discussion if you didn't insist on injecting false claims about current conditions every so often, and react as if being called a child rapist when that's pointed out, and try to paint me as nitpicking because I don't accept blatant falsehoods as hyperbole.

 

[Jokodo]

What's the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and Malthusians?

The former have given up on a specific date, but still insist they know a concrete number of people (that'll be elevated to saints in armageddon) - while the latter have given up on specific numbers of people (for what's too much) but still think they have pretty good idea when it'll happen.

That's quite amusing given that you yourself said that - ''If we don't get up our collective asses and do something big to slow climate change in the next few years and/or find efficient workaround to deal with the consequences in the next few decades, we're pretty fucked by 2100'' - so the quibble is only about what exactly is going to 'fuck us up' if we 'If we don't 'get up our collective asses and do something big' and whether we are actually taking the necessary steps to prevent being ''pretty fucked by 2100.''

Given that the overall attitude by political and business leaders appears to be 'business as usual,' I'd say that not enough is being done to prevent us from being ''pretty well fucked by 2100''

Cheers.

If you don't see the difference between "we might be struggling to adapt to how quickly the world changes around us" and "there's simply too many of us", there's little I can do to help you.

 

[angelo]

What's the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and Malthusians?

The former have given up on a specific date, but still insist they know a concrete number of people (that'll be elevated to saints in armageddon) - while the latter have given up on specific numbers of people (for what's too much) but still think they have pretty good idea when it'll happen.

That's quite amusing given that you yourself said that - ''If we don't get up our collective asses and do something big to slow climate change in the next few years and/or find efficient workaround to deal with the consequences in the next few decades, we're pretty fucked by 2100'' - so the quibble is only about what exactly is going to 'fuck us up' if we 'If we don't 'get up our collective asses and do something big' and whether we are actually taking the necessary steps to prevent being ''pretty fucked by 2100.''

Given that the overall attitude by political and business leaders appears to be 'business as usual,' I'd say that not enough is being done to prevent us from being ''pretty well fucked by 2100''

Cheers.

Didn't Professor Stephen Hawkins predict that we had around 100 years to find another planet humanity could move to or perish? Of course remembering that extinction of life forms on Earth is the rule not the exception!