The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[DBT]

Decline in food production

Nature:

After two decades of impressive gains, global food production has slowed. The rocketing growth in grain production experienced during the so-called "Green Revolution" has ceased; now the gains come in tiny increments, too small to keep pace with population growth.

Incidence:

The world reaped its largest harvest of grain per capita in 1984; since then the amount of corn and wheat and rice per person has fallen by six percent. 1987 was the first in recent years that food production fell below consumption. World grain stocks in storage at the time of harvest dropped from 457 million tonnes to 390 million. By 1996, grain stockpiles had shrunk to less than two months' supply. A 1997 Environmental Protection Agency study found that, at a time when global food demand is likely to soar, actual international production of wheat, rice and other grains is likely to drop 7.6 percent by 2060.

The loss of momentum in world food output is widespread. Notably, the growth of grain production has slowed in several populous countries, including China, India, Indonesia and Mexico. The world area in grain has declined steadily from a record high in 1981.

The remarkable increases in food production during the 1960s and 70s come in part at the expense of soil and water resources. Since the 1970s soil erosion has increased sharply. For example, in the USA in 1976, farmers were estimated to be losing six tonnes of soil for every ton of grain produced. In the former Soviet Union and the USA erodible land is being converted to grasslands and woodlands. Across the southern fringe of the Sahara the agricultural frontier is retreating as a result of declining rainfall, land degradation, and dune formation. China and the USA have reduced the area of irrigated land. Water tables have fallen in both these countries and in the former Soviet Union and India, where wells are running dry and thousands of villages are relying on tank truck for drinking water. Climatic changes may further reduce land and water resources.

 

[Jokodo]

Decline in food production

Nature:

After two decades of impressive gains, global food production has slowed. The rocketing growth in grain production experienced during the so-called "Green Revolution" has ceased; now the gains come in tiny increments, too small to keep pace with population growth.

Incidence:

The world reaped its largest harvest of grain per capita in 1984; since then the amount of corn and wheat and rice per person has fallen by six percent. 1987 was the first in recent years that food production fell below consumption. World grain stocks in storage at the time of harvest dropped from 457 million tonnes to 390 million. By 1996, grain stockpiles had shrunk to less than two months' supply. A 1997 Environmental Protection Agency study found that, at a time when global food demand is likely to soar, actual international production of wheat, rice and other grains is likely to drop 7.6 percent by 2060.

The loss of momentum in world food output is widespread. Notably, the growth of grain production has slowed in several populous countries, including China, India, Indonesia and Mexico. The world area in grain has declined steadily from a record high in 1981.

The remarkable increases in food production during the 1960s and 70s come in part at the expense of soil and water resources. Since the 1970s soil erosion has increased sharply. For example, in the USA in 1976, farmers were estimated to be losing six tonnes of soil for every ton of grain produced. In the former Soviet Union and the USA erodible land is being converted to grasslands and woodlands. Across the southern fringe of the Sahara the agricultural frontier is retreating as a result of declining rainfall, land degradation, and dune formation. China and the USA have reduced the area of irrigated land. Water tables have fallen in both these countries and in the former Soviet Union and India, where wells are running dry and thousands of villages are relying on tank truck for drinking water. Climatic changes may further reduce land and water resources.

Your link, while it states at the bottom "DATE OF LAST UPDATE 13.05.2019 – 21:13 CEST" doesn't contain any actual data more recent than 1997. I suspect that the content is similarly 20 years old and the "last update" refers to some minor metadata, or even the website as a whole.

Here's a more up-to-date chart of global per capita grain production: https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1trtk8/world_cereal_production_per_capita_19632013/ It ties well with your source in reflecting a decline from the mid-80s to late 90s, but that trend has been solidly reversed.

Also, per capita grain is a rather weird metric - in a world where a growing share of the global population is at home in countries where the most important staple foods are cassava, yam and plantain, you might expect grain production per capita to decline even if the quality of food supply overall remains constant or improves slightly. A much more useful measure is food calories per capita, and that one has been rising almost continuously for the last decades (the last - small - downtick was when the Warsaw Pact collapsed in 1991, and might actually boil down to embellished data before that date): https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person

If you unselect the individual preselected countries and select "world" in the first interactive chart, this is what you get:

 

[DBT]

Even granted that current conditions enable an ample food supply, which I'm not disputing, the concern still remains climate change and increasing consumption rates as living standards are raised in developing nations, nor is this issue only about food supply.

The projected social, political, economic and climate picture is far more complex than graphs of food stats suggest. Growing inequality, for example, being a factor for destabilization, ie, non linear projections.

Abstract

''This paper analyses the global consequences to crop yields, production, and risk of hunger of linked socio-economic and climate scenarios. Potential impacts of climate change are estimated for climate change scenarios developed from the HadCM3 global climate model under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1FI, A2, B1, and B2. Projected changes in yield are calculated using transfer functions derived from crop model simulations with observed climate data and projected climate change scenarios. The basic linked system (BLS) is used to evaluate consequent changes in global cereal production, cereal prices and the number of people at risk from hunger.

The crop yield results elucidate the complex regional patterns of projected climate variables, CO2 effects, and agricultural systems that contribute to aggregations of global crop production. The A1FI scenario, as expected with its large increase in global temperatures, exhibits the greatest decreases both regionally and globally in yields, especially by the 2080s. The contrast between the yield change in developed and developing countries is largest under the A2a–c scenarios. Under the B1 and B2 scenarios, developed and developing countries exhibit less contrast in crop yield changes, with the B2 future crop yield changes being slightly more favourable than those of the B1 scenario.


When crop yield results are introduced to the BLS world food trade system model, the combined model and scenario experiments demonstrate that the world, for the most part, appears to be able to continue tofeed itself under the SRES scenarios during the rest of this century. However, this outcome is achieved through production in the developed countries (which mostly benefit from climate change) compensating for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations. While global production appears stable, regional differences in crop production are likely to grow stronger through time, leading to a significant polarisation of effects, with substantial increases in prices and risk of hunger amongst the poorer nations, especially under scenarios of greater inequality (A1FI and A2).

The use of the SRES scenarios highlights several non-linearities in the world food supply system, both in the biophysical sense, where the levels of atmospheric CO2 tested reach new levels, and the socio-economic sense, where changes in population dynamics and economic and political structures complicate the translation of biophysical climate change impacts into social indices, such as the number of people at risk of hunger.''

 

[steve_bank]

Complexity is nonsense. It has always been and always will be about food, resources, water, and energy. In the USA people growing up in abundance have no idea that it all comes down to water and how important that is. Water comes from a faucet and food comes from a store.

China annexed Tibet after surveys showed mineral resources. Its attempt at taking control of international waters in the South China Sea is about fish, oil, and minerals.

Cheap fast food beef for Europe and North America has been coming from South America for a long time. Cattle ranching is a large part of what is driving destruction of the Amazon.

An economy based on investment and profit has to grow or die. A growing population means more consumption and profit, and more consumption of resources.

 

[Jokodo]

Even granted that current conditions enable an ample food supply, which I'm not disputing,

yeah, right.
If you are not disputing it, why do you keep quoting, without comment or qualification, sources that do dispute it implicitly out explicitly?

the concern still remains climate change and increasing consumption rates as living standards are raised in developing nations, nor is this issue only about food supply.

And yet you keep quoting sources that paint a misleading picture re the current situation about food supply specifically.

The projected social, political, economic and climate picture is far more complex than graphs of food stats suggest. Growing inequality, for example, being a factor for destabilization, ie, non linear projections.

Abstract

''This paper analyses the global consequences to crop yields, production, and risk of hunger of linked socio-economic and climate scenarios. Potential impacts of climate change are estimated for climate change scenarios developed from the HadCM3 global climate model under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1FI, A2, B1, and B2. Projected changes in yield are calculated using transfer functions derived from crop model simulations with observed climate data and projected climate change scenarios. The basic linked system (BLS) is used to evaluate consequent changes in global cereal production, cereal prices and the number of people at risk from hunger.

The crop yield results elucidate the complex regional patterns of projected climate variables, CO2 effects, and agricultural systems that contribute to aggregations of global crop production. The A1FI scenario, as expected with its large increase in global temperatures, exhibits the greatest decreases both regionally and globally in yields, especially by the 2080s. The contrast between the yield change in developed and developing countries is largest under the A2a–c scenarios. Under the B1 and B2 scenarios, developed and developing countries exhibit less contrast in crop yield changes, with the B2 future crop yield changes being slightly more favourable than those of the B1 scenario.


When crop yield results are introduced to the BLS world food trade system model, the combined model and scenario experiments demonstrate that the world, for the most part, appears to be able to continue tofeed itself under the SRES scenarios during the rest of this century. However, this outcome is achieved through production in the developed countries (which mostly benefit from climate change) compensating for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations. While global production appears stable, regional differences in crop production are likely to grow stronger through time, leading to a significant polarisation of effects, with substantial increases in prices and risk of hunger amongst the poorer nations, especially under scenarios of greater inequality (A1FI and A2).

The use of the SRES scenarios highlights several non-linearities in the world food supply system, both in the biophysical sense, where the levels of atmospheric CO2 tested reach new levels, and the socio-economic sense, where changes in population dynamics and economic and political structures complicate the translation of biophysical climate change impacts into social indices, such as the number of people at risk of hunger.''

Wow, a source from 2004! We're making progress! However it too appears to use cereal production as a proxy for food supply. In a world where a growing proportion of the global population lives in countries where the main staple foods are not cereals, that's a poor proxy.

 

[DBT]

yeah, right.
If you are not disputing it, why do you keep quoting, without comment or qualification, sources that do dispute it implicitly out explicitly?

I have stated the issue as I see it numerous times, ie, population pressure and increasing consumption as living standards in developing nations are raised in relation to climate change....a multifaceted, non linear problem that involves a single factor like current food production.

Yet despite have said this numerous times, you insist on making it a single issue linear projection.

And yet you keep quoting sources that paint a misleading picture re the current situation about food supply specifically.

The projected social, political, economic and climate picture is far more complex than graphs of food stats suggest. Growing inequality, for example, being a factor for destabilization, ie, non linear projections.

The articles I posted describe possible outcomes in relation to projected conditions in relation to climate, consumption rate, economic systems, political and social factors.

Wow, a source from 2004! We're making progress! However it too appears to use cereal production as a proxy for food supply. In a world where a growing proportion of the global population lives in countries where the main staple foods are not cereals, that's a poor proxy.

Still irrelevant. The projections and issues referred to being for mid century onward.

For example, the date of the article doesn't change the situation and keep in mind that is only a small part of the overall picture of climate change in relation to increasing demand being placed on the environment due to consumption/rising living standards in developing nations;

Quote;
''1 in 6 People in the Word Rely on Imports to Feed Them Today

Continued population and/or income increase have pushed the United States, China, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom up the list of the Countries Who Import the Most Food.

Are Countries Becoming More Food Insecure?

By year 2050, more than half of the world’s population is expected to rely in food sourced from other countries. A comprehensive study conducted by Marianela Fader of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research shows that population pressures will push many nations to make maximizing their domestic food production capacity a top priority. This conclusion was made after the research team computed the growing capability of each and every country to do so, and differentiated their respective production capacities with their current and future food requirements. The team’s model made use of soil categories, climate information, and patterns of land utilization for each country, which were then translated into yields for numerous kinds of crops. By using the information on hand regarding the respective populations and water and food intakes of each nation, the team was able to closely evaluate what percentage of its food requirement each country could produce on their own in the future.

Significant issues with food security will continue to trouble the world in coming years if the aforementioned study plays out to be an accurate projection. One way to combat such concern is for each country, rich or poor, to focus its resources on improving their agricultural productivity, which can play an important role in alleviating food shortages. Another possible solution is diet modifications geared towards the consumption of crops that are already produced locally, although further studies will have to be conducted to determine the viability of this option.'

 

[Jokodo]

I have stated the issue as I see it numerous times, ie, population pressure and increasing consumption as living standards in developing nations are raised in relation to climate change....a multifaceted, non linear problem that involves a single factor like current food production.

Who the hell is talking claiming linear trends or singling out one particular factor? Quit with your strawman already, will you? I'm reacting to your posting of quotes designed to leave a misleading impressions that current food production is on the verge of insufficiency. Your weaseling doesn't change the fact that you're a repeat offender.

Yet despite have said this numerous times, you insist on making it a single issue linear projection.

Show me where I'm doing that. I'm pointing out that a 20-year-old article making the (then accurate, it seems) claim that per capita grain production is declining is useless in determining whether food production is currently declining - both because grain production != food production, and because even that trend has since turned out to be a fluke.

The articles I posted describe possible outcomes in relation to projected conditions in relation to climate, consumption rate, economic systems, political and social factors.

They do that too. But besides, many of them contain misleading factoids about current food supply, and all I'm doing is correcting those.

Wow, a source from 2004! We're making progress! However it too appears to use cereal production as a proxy for food supply. In a world where a growing proportion of the global population lives in countries where the main staple foods are not cereals, that's a poor proxy.

Still irrelevant. The projections and issues referred to being for mid century onward.

Surely you understand that a projection based on empirical data up to 2018 is going to be more accurate than a projection based on data up to 2003?

If not, why not make a projection based on data up to 1961?

Shit, I may have given you ideas...

 

[Jokodo]

Decline in food production

Nature:

After two decades of impressive gains, global food production has slowed. The rocketing growth in grain production experienced during the so-called "Green Revolution" has ceased; now the gains come in tiny increments, too small to keep pace with population growth.

So you are claiming that "now the gains come in tiny increments" is a projection into the future?

Who exactly do you think you are fooling?

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

It seems that some people love predictions of doom. That is likely why the Book of Revelations was written and why the religious rant about hell. Thomas Malthus was a big hit for predicting mass worldwide famines to come in the mid 1800s. Paul Ehrlich used the same reasoning as Malthus in his book, The Population Bomb, published in the 1960s which predicted famine and food riots in the U.S. by the 1990s. Ehrlich was elevated to guru status and his current dire predictions (which are still as senseless) are still being heeded by some.

 

[steve_bank]

The beginning of the industrial revolution and the rise in temperature begins with the steam engine.

Better water pumps for coal mines meant more efficient coal mining. This led to excess energy for the growth of manufacturing. Average people could afford a daily coal supply for heat. Burke's observation in the series Connections.

Climate charge today is driven by economics. 'London Fog' refers to the at times deadly pea soup pollution of London's past. Possible effects on climate were foreseen in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I remember a temperature inversion on the NYC metro area in the 60s. We lived about 50 miles outside of NYC. The skies were clear. As pollution got trapped each day the sky went dimmer and the temperature went up.


Business and profit so far over the last 200 tears trumps any environmental impact. Wines Trump's rollback on the EPA.

Change will likely take a large scale kill off of humans.

 

[DBT]

Decline in food production

Nature:

After two decades of impressive gains, global food production has slowed. The rocketing growth in grain production experienced during the so-called "Green Revolution" has ceased; now the gains come in tiny increments, too small to keep pace with population growth.

So you are claiming that "now the gains come in tiny increments" is a projection into the future?

Who exactly do you think you are fooling?

You don't realize that the wording you quote is from the article, not me? Or that the wording is just saying that gains in production are no longer like that of the green revolution period?

The wording is irrelevant in any case, given a finite planet nothing can keep growing forever, no perpetual growth in production or consumption, at some point there is a limit, carrying capacity in relation to climate change in this instance.

 

[DBT]

Who the hell is talking claiming linear trends or singling out one particular factor? Quit with your strawman already, will you?

As soon as you do....you being the master strawman builder. My comment about linear trends is related to your habit of seizing upon a single factor, current food production in this instance, as if that is the sole determinant for future predictions or conditions....implying ''oh, we can grow ample food right now so nothing can go wrong in the future,'' like a true Cornucopian

I'm reacting to your posting of quotes designed to leave a misleading impressions that current food production is on the verge of insufficiency. Your weaseling doesn't change the fact that you're a repeat offender.

No, that's your slant, your strawman. I have clearly stated that the issue of carrying capacity/consumption rates in relation to climate change is projected to become an increasing problem from mid century onward. I can quote that I said this on more than one occasion if I need to.

Meanwhile, here's more to chew on, and never mind the date of the article because this is a long term issue and what it says is still relevant, the distinction between development and economic growth/rising consumption in relation to the environment.

Quote;

Conclusion

''Both the Limits to Growth approach and the Sustainable Development approach have neglected the ethical and political dimensions. The limits to growth advocates of the 1960s and 70s tended to avoid the social implications of aborting economic growth in low-income countries and the issue of which nations were responsible for most resource use. The sustainable development advocates of the present similarly want to avoid the ethical issues by falling back on economic calculus to make decisions as if values can be determined by doing the sums correctly. They also avoid the distributional issues by advocating economic growth for all in the hope that this will solve the problem of equity.

On top of this the sustainable development approach makes further environmental degradation inevitable. It is apparent there is a need to go beyond these two failed approaches and find a third one which embraces the ethical dimension. This will involve getting beyond the current preoccupation of governments with economic growth as the overriding priority for all nations at all times. Our endeavours need to be focused on new ways of achieving a reasonable level of comfort in all nations, without the environmental damage normally associated with economic development.

We need to find ways of ensuring the fruits of this development are more evenly distributed within populations. This cannot be done if decision-making is based on the premise that any development that provides a net monetary benefit to a nation should be approved. Even if the calculation of the benefit incorporates measures of environmental damage, environmental amenity is likely to decline and equity issues will still be ignored. We need new forms of social decision-making that integrate the ethical dimension - neither limits to growth nor sustainable development offer the answers.''

 

[Jokodo]

Decline in food production

Nature:

After two decades of impressive gains, global food production has slowed. The rocketing growth in grain production experienced during the so-called "Green Revolution" has ceased; now the gains come in tiny increments, too small to keep pace with population growth.

So you are claiming that "now the gains come in tiny increments" is a projection into the future?

Who exactly do you think you are fooling?

You don't realize that the wording you quote is from the article, not me?

An article you quoted without comment or qualification, so we ate left to conclude that you agree with its general line if thought, and specifically with the sections you quoted. Would you prefer me to conclude that you don't read the articles you link, not even the sections you directly quote?

Or that the wording is just saying that gains in production are no longer like that of the green revolution period?

It's actually insinuating that food supply is already deteriorating. Which is demonstrably false. It literally says "too small to keep pace". Can you read?

The wording is irrelevant in any case, given a finite planet nothing can keep growing forever, no perpetual growth in production or consumption, at some point there is a limit, carrying capacity in relation to climate change in this instance.

The finite planet part is irrelevant. Nothing can keep growing forever in a finite universe, or for that matter in an infinite universe with a finite maximum speed of expansion. Whether that fact is relevant depends on whether continued exponential growth is a reasonable extrapolation based on current trends. Spoilers: with respect to population, it isn't.

 

[Jokodo]

No, that's your slant, your strawman. I have clearly stated that the issue of carrying capacity/consumption rates in relation to climate change is projected to become an increasing problem from mid century onward.

Yes, you've started that, and you may have a point there - but then you turn around and in the same post quote yet another article that implies that food supply is a problem now, which relative to all previous eras, is simply false, thereby forcing me to offer a correction.

implying ''oh, we can grow ample food right now so nothing can go wrong in the future,'' like a true Cornucopian

Quote me saying that our shut the fuck up!

 

[DBT]

An article you quoted without comment or qualification, so we ate left to conclude that you agree with its general line if thought, and specifically with the sections you quoted. Would you prefer me to conclude that you don't read the articles you link, not even the sections you directly quote?

I have described my position too many times as it is, so feel no need to keep repeating and 'qualifying' what I have already said in each and every post I make.

If you can't put it together in your own mind, relate what I said in relation with the articles being quoted, I can't help you, you can flounder on your own.

Not to mention your Prosecutor gambit of isolating irrelevant details in order to make out the proposition as a whole is invalid.

The finite planet part is irrelevant. Nothing can keep growing forever in a finite universe, or for that matter in an infinite universe with a finite maximum speed of expansion. Whether that fact is relevant depends on whether continued exponential growth is a reasonable extrapolation based on current trends. Spoilers: with respect to population, it isn't.

Well, no, it is not irrelevant. That by some estimates we have already past overshoot means that it is relevant. In fact sustainability is the whole point. Especially in relation to climate change, which magnifies the problem and shortens the window of opportunity to take the necessarily action to avert a major catastrophe past mid century.



Country Overshoot Days

A country’s overshoot day is the date on which Earth Overshoot Day would fall if all of humanity consumed like the people in this country.

To calculate a country’s Overshoot Day, we use the latest data available from the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts. The 2019 edition features data from 2016, as data is reported to the United Nations with some time delay.

Let’s take Switzerland, for example, using the latest data available (for 2016):

The Ecological Footprint for Switzerland is 4.64 gha per person (in 2016)
Global biocapacity is 1.63 gha per person (in 2016)

Therefore, it would take (4.64/ 1.63) = 2.8 Earths if everyone lived like the Swiss,
OR
we can determine Switzerland’s overshoot day as 365 * (1.63/ 4.64) = 128th day in the year. The 128th day is the 9th of May, Switzerland’s Overshoot Day (in 2016).

Not all countries will have an overshoot day. By way of the country overshoot equation above, a country will only have an overshoot day if their Ecological Footprint per person is greater than global biocapacity (1.63 gha). Countries whose Ecological Footprint per person are less than global biocapacity (1.63 gha) do not have an overshoot day and are therefore not included in our list below. In leap years, we compare the date against 366 days of the year.figure showing country overshoot days

 

[DBT]

Quote me saying that our shut the fuck up!

Wow, a full blown dummy spit, nice.

I was referring to your apparent attitude of 'oh, look, the world grows more than enough food to feed the population of the world'' as I've already mentioned.

In other words the impression I get from your objection to what I am saying being, to paraphrase: ''she'll be right, plenty of food, no crisis, no need to worry''

 

[fromderinside]

All day I paced the barren waste in search of water, Cool clear water. Oh Dan can't you see that big green tree where the water's running free .....

As the song says it's all about water.

Technology intervensi every now and then with 'solutions' only to be replaced with problems those solutions generated. We're stuck on a planet with limited resources which naturally will determine our demise someday when options and workarounds have chewed up all the options.

Arguing about whether this or that scenario will kill us is fruitless and frustrating. Ultimately given continued population growth soethingwill bend, then crack, finally break and down will come baby cradle and all.

Seems humans, probably other species as well, have some little genetic surprises in store for us that might indicate we've played this tune before and have found a way out. One can only hope. Dropping birthrates may save us from over consumption but will it save us from losing technology as well. What's happening in Europe and Japan don't bode well for the latter, Maybe the lesson of Tasmania, lose of technology, needs to be relearned.

 

[lpetrich]

Opinion | Hurricanes Are Getting Worse - The New York Times

From the 1960s through the 1990s, a typical year had only one severe hurricane. In this century, the average number has roughly doubled, as you can see in the chart above. And because global warming is intensifying, scientists expect the number of extreme storms to continue rising.

Miami is a huge sitting duck for the next hurricane

How would the region, which continues growing and sprouting waterfront condos, stand up to a massive surge of water like those produced by Hurricane Katrina or Superstorm Sandy?

"It won't survive," Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Craig Fugate says bluntly.

The world has never seen a Category 6 hurricane. But the day may be coming. - South Florida Sun-Sentinel - more than 200 mph
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale - South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Category 1 (winds 74-95 mph)
Category 2 (winds 96-110 mph)
Category 3 (winds 111-130 mph)
Category 4 (winds 131-155 mph)
Category 5 (winds more than 155 mph)
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale
 Saffir–Simpson scale

Ocasio-Cortez tweets video of damage caused by Dorian: 'This is what climate change looks like' | TheHill - that hurricane was category 5 for a while.

In her Green New Deal video, AOC called Hurricane Maria a "climate bomb" - it devastated Puerto Rico.

AOC appears to claim Miami will be gone 'in a few years' because of climate change | Fox News
From (1) Miami being very vulnerable and (2) it being a matter of time before a big hurricane hits that city, I'd say that she's essentially correct.

A Message From the Future With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - AOC called Hurricane Maria a "climate bomb" in it. That was a hurricane that hit Puerto Rico a few years ago, her family's ancestral home.

 

[angelo]

^^^^^^^^ And does this genius provide any answers on how to protect Miami from complete destruction by GW/CC/CD?

 

[Jokodo]

An article you quoted without comment or qualification, so we ate left to conclude that you agree with its general line if thought, and specifically with the sections you quoted. Would you prefer me to conclude that you don't read the articles you link, not even the sections you directly quote?

I have described my position too many times as it is, so feel no need to keep repeating and 'qualifying' what I have already said in each and every post I make.

Maybe just stop quoting sources that contradict your alleged position by pretending that food shortages are a problem now? It would make your professed position so much more credible.

If you can't put it together in your own mind, relate what I said in relation with the articles being quoted, I can't help you, you can flounder on your own.

Not to mention your Prosecutor gambit of isolating irrelevant details in order to make out the proposition as a whole is invalid.

Yeah, right. You keep sneaking in texts that suggest that oh my god we're already starving, and when challenged about the factual basis of such claims weasel out that's not your position at all, and post another link that does exactly that.

But I'm the one using tricks?

The finite planet part is irrelevant. Nothing can keep growing forever in a finite universe, or for that matter in an infinite universe with a finite maximum speed of expansion. Whether that fact is relevant depends on whether continued exponential growth is a reasonable extrapolation based on current trends. Spoilers: with respect to population, it isn't.

Well, no, it is not irrelevant. That by some estimates we have already past overshoot means that it is relevant.

One has hardly anything to do with the other. We could be in overshoot on an infinite planet, or not be in overshoot (and never expect to get there) on a finite one.

In fact sustainability is the whole point.

Sustainability is orthogonal to the finiteness of the planet - even if you take exponential growth as a given. An infinite planet would imply infinite distances between points on the planet, which given a finite speed of light means some points cannot be reached in finite time. The consequence being that if you consider continued constant-rate exponential growth a given, there's only a small lag between the point in time at which we exceed carrying capacities on a finite planet, and the point in time at which we exceed carrying capacity in the regions of an infinite planet that can be reached, even theoretically, by then.