The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[lpetrich]

(AOC)

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

Sure. Cut down on CO2 emissions and remove CO2 from the air.

And how does this genius propose to do that?

Ocasio 2018: Vote November 6th states

Mobilizing Against Climate Change

In order to address runaway global climate change, Alexandria strongly supports transitioning the United States to a carbon-free, 100% renewable energy system and a fully modernized electrical grid by 2035. She believes renewable fuels must be produced in a way that achieves our environmental and energy security goals, so we can move beyond oil responsibly in the fight against climate change. By encouraging the electrification of vehicles, sustainable home heating, distributed rooftop solar generation, and the conversion of the power grid to zero-emissions energy sources, Alexandria believes we can be 100% free of fossil fuels by 2035.

 

[DBT]

It is a false claim that may have seemed marginally plausible 20 years ago (though only if you restrict yourself to per capita grain production), but much less so 20 years later, when per capita food calorie supply has globally increased by another 10-15%, and more in places that used to be most vulnerable to food insecurity, thus partially closing the gap.

So there we have it, you are incapable of understanding what the sentence means in context with the issues being described.

"too small to keep pace with population growth" does not mean food shortages today, tomorrow or in twenty years time. The article was talking about conditions decades ahead.

This issue always is projected to become an issue in the period from mid century and decades beyond. How may times do I have to state that?

Maybe colour will help?


This issue is about the period from mid century and beyond.


This issue is about the period from mid century and beyond.



This issue is about the period from mid century and beyond.


I've said that, what seven or eight times now, but you cannot accept what I say....like a true anal retentive you seize upon what you see is a key word or sentence and clutch to it like your life depended on it, adamantly refusing to consider anything and everything that is subsequently said.

I have not claimed that there is food production shortfall right now, neither has anyone else.

The issue was always about the possible conditions relating to climate change, food production, water, land and resources from mid century and beyond.

Taking a sentence on stalling gains in food production and pretending that you are making some sort of a point is just plain silly.


The point once again;




Food shortages could be most critical world issue by mid-century

Summary:

''The world is less than 40 years away from a food shortage that will have serious implications for people and governments, according to a scientist. "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said a senior science advisor on food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

"For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said Dr. Fred Davies, senior science advisor for the agency's bureau of food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

"The U.S. agricultural productivity has averaged less than 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2007," he said. "More efficient technologies and crops will need to be developed -- and equally important, better ways for applying these technologies locally for farmers -- to address this challenge." Davies said when new technologies are developed, they often do not reach the small-scale farmer worldwide''


Cereal yields

''To confront global imbalances in the long term, the World Bank says the world needs to produce 50 per cent more food to feed 9bn people by 2050, but climate change could cut crop yields by over 25 per cent. It says land, biodiversity, oceans, forests and other forms of natural capital are being depleted at unprecedented rates.''

From your link, first paragraph. The one you quoted in full:

"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."

That's two past perfect verb forms and one temporal adverb referring to the present, in three sentences. I'm not a native speaker, so I wouldn't know, but I guess it's idiomatic English to use such language to refer to events from mid-century onward.

You learn something new every day, I guess...

Still fixated on your absolute interpretation of the wording. I don't give a rats arse about the wording of a sentence in an article I quoted. It doesn't change the essential purpose of the article, which is to draw attention to a looming climate and environmental crisis where agriculture may not be as productive as it is now.


Do you vouch for every word and sentence in articles that you quote from? Every word and dot and comma must be correct or the article is null and void?

I made my position clear that all projections are related to mid century and beyond. Which doesn't mean that the projected crisis hits precisely on new years day 2050. It wouldn't surprise me if that's how you interpret things, rigid to Nth degree, dot and comma.

 

[DBT]

Pure fear mongering (a la Paul Ehrlich). But then the writer did throw in a "could be" to fall back on while Ehrlich stated with certainty that there would be mass famine and food riots in the U.S. by the 1990s. Why the fuck are people so attracted to fear mongers? I understand why the fear mongers do it - they get rich selling books and giving talks. But why people eat up their dire predictions is beyond me.

I don't see it as fear mongering at all. Just problems being identified and described. Problems that need to be addressed if we are to soften what is likely to be a significant crunch as climate change effects agriculture in a period of growing population and consumption as living standards are being raised.

The simple fact being, the planet cannot support a population of 9 billion inhabitants consuming resources at developed nation rates, yet it is unethical to expect a large percentage of the population to live like subsistence farmers in developing nations.

The Looming Environmental Crisis
''As governments around the world attempt to prop up our ailing economies by developing large stimulus packages in an attempt to restore and promote new growth and development, it appears that both health and environment have taken a back seat when in fact they should still be at the forefront of government policy. In this issue of the MJM we have assembled a collection of articles that discuss and investigate the close relationship that exists between health and environment, and we argue that as government officials attempt to restore our nation’s economy, they should not overlook the important alliance that coexists between environment, the health of a nation’s workforce and their GDP (1).

The policies of our predecessors have already left the world committed to many upcoming years of global warming, a predicament which will only be relieved by drafting and implementing critical policies in the coming years which aim to deter and prevent further climate change (2, 3). In fact, even modest increases in temperature have been associated with significant elevations in morbidity and mortality, especially in the most vulnerable members of society, the young and old (2, 4). Thus, as the Canadian population ages, with one in five expected to reach 65 years of age by 2026 (5), and as the lifespan of immunocompromised patients is prolonged thanks to the great feats of contemporary medicine, we must find a way to palliate the imminent increase in mortality in these most vulnerable groups due to the consequences of our deteriorating environment. For example, the World Health Organization estimated that there were at least 27,000 more deaths in Europe over the summer of 2003 relative to the previous years which was associated with unusually elevated temperatures recorded during the same time period (6). If such an alarming event could occur in a relatively well-endowed region of the globe, the repercussion of human-induced climate derangement on casualties in the third-world, although difficult to document, likely reaches pandemic proportions in an era where the scarcity of medical aid and adequate water for human consumption is deplorable.''

The main problem humanity will face if there is rising global temperatures and sea level rise is disruption, relocation of populations, and political as coastal cities flooded. Higher global temperatures would increase global rain fall opening the Sahara to agriculture (as it was six or so thousand years ago) and the higher temperatures would make the Canadian muskegs and Siberia arable lands. More rains in Americas corn belt would be a major boon to food production..

Not that simple;

Higher CO2 levels can affect crop yields.

Some laboratory experiments suggest that elevated CO2 levels can increase plant growth. However, other factors, such as changing temperatures, ozone, and water and nutrient constraints, may counteract these potential increases in yield. For example, if temperature exceeds a crop's optimal level, if sufficient water and nutrients are not available, yield increases may be reduced or reversed. Elevated CO2 has been associated with reduced protein and nitrogen content in alfalfa and soybean plants, resulting in a loss of quality. Reduced grain and forage quality can reduce the ability of pasture and rangeland to support grazing livestock.[1]

More extreme temperature and precipitation can prevent crops from growing.

Extreme events, especially floods and droughts, can harm crops and reduce yields. For example, in 2010 and 2012, high nighttime temperatures affected corn yields across the U.S. Corn Belt, and premature budding due to a warm winter caused $220 million in losses of Michigan cherries in 2012.[1]

Dealing with drought could become a challenge in areas where rising summer temperatures cause soils to become drier.

Although increased irrigation might be possible in some places, in other places water supplies may also be reduced, leaving less water available for irrigation when more is needed.

Many weeds, pests, and fungi thrive under warmer temperatures, wetter climates, and increased CO2 levels.

Currently, U.S. farmers spend more than $11 billion per year to fight weeds, which compete with crops for light, water, and nutrients.[1] The ranges and distribution of weeds and pests are likely to increase with climate change. This could cause new problems for farmers' crops previously unexposed to these species.

Though rising CO2 can stimulate plant growth, it also reduces the nutritional value of most food crops.

Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide reduce the concentrations of protein and essential minerals in most plant species, including wheat, soybeans, and rice. This direct effect of rising CO2 on the nutritional value of crops represents a potential threat to human health. Human health is also threatened by increased pesticide use due to increased pest pressures and reductions in the efficacy of pesticides.[3]

 

[Jokodo]

From your link, first paragraph. The one you quoted in full:

"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."

That's two past perfect verb forms and one temporal adverb referring to the present, in three sentences. I'm not a native speaker, so I wouldn't know, but I guess it's idiomatic English to use such language to refer to events from mid-century onward.

You learn something new every day, I guess...

Still fixated on your absolute interpretation of the wording. I don't give a rats arse about the wording of a sentence in an article I quoted. It doesn't change the essential purpose of the article, which is to draw attention to a looming climate and environmental crisis where agriculture may not be as productive as it is now.

You can keep calling falsehoods "wording" if you get a raise from it, I don't care. Neither does reality. A factual error remains a factual error.

Do you vouch for every word and sentence in articles that you quote from? Every word and dot and comma must be correct or the article is null and void?

Of course not. If I do however not only link an article but literally quote a section that says something that's simply not/no longer true, I will note that, although it appears outdated on issues xyz, I believe it has valid points about qvw. Failign to do so, you're in your right to assume that I didn't notice the factual inaccuracy and consequently doubt my expertise on the subject.

 

[Jokodo]

... snip ...

The point once again;




Food shortages could be most critical world issue by mid-century

Summary:

''The world is less than 40 years away from a food shortage that will have serious implications for people and governments, according to a scientist. "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said a senior science advisor on food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

"For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said Dr. Fred Davies, senior science advisor for the agency's bureau of food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

"The U.S. agricultural productivity has averaged less than 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2007," he said. "More efficient technologies and crops will need to be developed -- and equally important, better ways for applying these technologies locally for farmers -- to address this challenge." Davies said when new technologies are developed, they often do not reach the small-scale farmer worldwide''


Cereal yields

''To confront global imbalances in the long term, the World Bank says the world needs to produce 50 per cent more food to feed 9bn people by 2050, but climate change could cut crop yields by over 25 per cent. It says land, biodiversity, oceans, forests and other forms of natural capital are being depleted at unprecedented rates.''

Pure fear mongering (a la Paul Ehrlich). But then the writer did throw in a "could be" to fall back on while Ehrlich stated with certainty that there would be mass famine and food riots in the U.S. by the 1990s. Why the fuck are people so attracted to fear mongers? I understand why the fear mongers do it - they get rich selling books and giving talks. But why people eat up their dire predictions is beyond me.

The main problem humanity will face if there is rising global temperatures and sea level rise is disruption, relocation of populations, and political as coastal cities flooded. Higher global temperatures would increase global rain fall opening the Sahara to agriculture (as it was six or so thousand years ago) and the higher temperatures would make the Canadian muskegs and Siberia arable lands. More rains in Americas corn belt would be a major boon to food production. Now a real disaster for humanity would be the end of the Holocene with a return of glaciation and droughts. Given a choice of either the Holocene ending with the current ice age ending or the current ice age continuing and a return of glaciation, I would go with the end of the current ice age.

I call bullshit.

The only thing that really matters it's the disruption, the transition to another temperature regime. And that one us much faster and thus disruptive with man made climate change than with geological cycles.

To be more explicit here: You may well be right that in the abstract, a world 2 (or 5) degrees warmer than today is a better place to be than a world 5 degrees colder, or even than the world as it is now.

This would be very relevant if we were Martians considering to colonize the Earth sometime in the next couple millennia (well, maybe not Martians: we'd be well adapted to the cold).

It is however not particular relevant for a race already here which has to live through the transition. It might be centuries before we can harvest the full potential of the muskegs or Siberia of arable lands and/or replace lost infrastructure, but only decades before we loose Holland and Bangladesh, along with hundreds of coastal cities where a lot of our global wealth is concentrated. That transition is going to be painful, and it is going to be a lot more painful when it is fast.

The transitions between interglacial periods and glaciations in the current ice age have been fast on geological timescales, but what we are experiencing now is about an order of magnitude faster. I'm confident that we can adapt to a warmer or colder climate given a millennium to adapt (you're probably right that adapting to a warmer climate is somewhat easier, but on those timescales, both are feasible), but much less so that we can adapt to either in a fraction of the time.

 

[DBT]

You can keep calling falsehoods "wording" if you get a raise from it, I don't care. Neither does reality. A factual error remains a factual error.

Do you vouch for every word and sentence in articles that you quote from? Every word and dot and comma must be correct or the article is null and void?

Of course not. If I do however not only link an article but literally quote a section that says something that's simply not/no longer true, I will note that, although it appears outdated on issues xyz, I believe it has valid points about qvw. Failign to do so, you're in your right to assume that I didn't notice the factual inaccuracy and consequently doubt my expertise on the subject.

The fact of it is that you misrepresented both my position and what the article is saying in terms of a slowdown in production gain since the 80's. The slowdown in gains was the point. Which is not to say or suggest that there is insufficient food production to feed the world right now, it was always about conditions from mid century on...which I stated numerous times. That is what you refuse to accept in an attempt to score a cheap brownie point.

 

[skepticalbip]

You can keep calling falsehoods "wording" if you get a raise from it, I don't care. Neither does reality. A factual error remains a factual error.

Do you vouch for every word and sentence in articles that you quote from? Every word and dot and comma must be correct or the article is null and void?

Of course not. If I do however not only link an article but literally quote a section that says something that's simply not/no longer true, I will note that, although it appears outdated on issues xyz, I believe it has valid points about qvw. Failign to do so, you're in your right to assume that I didn't notice the factual inaccuracy and consequently doubt my expertise on the subject.

The fact of it is that you misrepresented both my position and what the article is saying in terms of a slowdown in production gain since the 80's. The slowdown in gains was the point. Which is not to say or suggest that there is insufficient food production to feed the world right now, it was always about conditions from mid century on...which I stated numerous times. That is what you refuse to accept in an attempt to score a cheap brownie point.

That is exactly your problem. In the 1980s there was demand for growth in food production so growth rate was high. The current slowdown in growth rate of production isn't because farming can not keep up which the article wanted the reader to believe because it fits the narrative it is pushing. The slowdown in growth rate is intentional because there is no demand for the excess crops produced so acreage is being taken out of production. And even at that, approximately one third of the crops produced are not consumed... so just the waste at current production levels could feed another two and a quarter billion people more than today's world population.

 

[Jokodo]

You can keep calling falsehoods "wording" if you get a raise from it, I don't care. Neither does reality. A factual error remains a factual error.

Do you vouch for every word and sentence in articles that you quote from? Every word and dot and comma must be correct or the article is null and void?

Of course not. If I do however not only link an article but literally quote a section that says something that's simply not/no longer true, I will note that, although it appears outdated on issues xyz, I believe it has valid points about qvw. Failign to do so, you're in your right to assume that I didn't notice the factual inaccuracy and consequently doubt my expertise on the subject.

The fact of it is that you misrepresented both my position and what the article is saying in terms of a slowdown in production gain since the 80's. The slowdown in gains was the point. Which is not to say or suggest that there is insufficient food production to feed the world right now, it was always about conditions from mid century on...which I stated numerous times. That is what you refuse to accept in an attempt to score a cheap brownie point.

I cannot logically have misrepresented your position since I did not attribute a position to you. And i did not misrepresent the article's position - the article actually claims that food production is falling behind population growth, hilarious as that claim is.

 

[lpetrich]

Matthew Yglesias on Twitter: "This is completely insane. https://t.co/2gLs283qg7" / Twitter has a screenshot of an exchange between Trump and MBS. Here is the original:
Remarks by President Trump and Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain Before Bilateral Meeting | The White House

Q Have you promised the Saudis that the U.S. will protect them in this case?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I haven’t. No, I haven’t. I haven’t promised the Saudis that. We have to sit down with the Saudis and work something out. And the Saudis want very much for us to protect them, but I say, well, we have to work. That was an attack on Saudi Arabia, and that wasn’t an attack on us.

But we would certainly help them. They’ve been a great ally. They spend $400 billion in our country over the last number of years. Four hundred billion dollars. That’s a million and a half jobs. And they’re not ones that, unlike some countries, where they want terms; they want terms and conditions. They want to say, “Can we borrow the money at zero percent for the next 400 years?” No. No. Saudi Arabia pays cash. They’ve helped us out from the standpoint of jobs and all of the other things. And they’ve actually helped us.

I would call and I would say, “Listen, our oil prices, our gasoline, is too high. You got to let more go.” You know that.

CROWN PRINCE SALMAN: Yeah.

(bolded part was emphasized by Matthew Yglesias)
Chris Hayes on Twitter: "In discussing why the US stands ready to wage war on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia the president literally said they “pay cash.” https://t.co/stcn2EMdlX" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Whoomp! (There It Is) https://t.co/0MJFjvqhIQ" / Twitter

From the context of "pay cash", I think that it means that Saudi Arabia can easily finance US troops being Saudi-employed mercenaries.

But is Saudi Arabia's corrupt monarchy really worth dying for?

 

[DBT]

The fact of it is that you misrepresented both my position and what the article is saying in terms of a slowdown in production gain since the 80's. The slowdown in gains was the point. Which is not to say or suggest that there is insufficient food production to feed the world right now, it was always about conditions from mid century on...which I stated numerous times. That is what you refuse to accept in an attempt to score a cheap brownie point.

I cannot logically have misrepresented your position since I did not attribute a position to you. And i did not misrepresent the article's position - the article actually claims that food production is falling behind population growth, hilarious as that claim is.

Of course you misrepresented my position. My position was always about conditions from mid century on. Which I stated numerous times.

The reason I posted the quote on the slowdown of production gain was merely to illustrate that production gains cannot be sustained indefinitely and given climate change and rising demand, problems are likely to emerge in the decades to come. That's all; peak production in relation to changing conditions, climate challenges, consumption, etc.

If anything else was implied, it was not intended.



Peak production:

''The world has entered an era of “peak food” production with an array of staples from corn and rice to wheat and chicken slowing in growth – with potentially disastrous consequences for feeding the planet.

New research finds that the supply of 21 staples, such as eggs, meat, vegetables and soybeans is already beginning to run out of momentum, while the global population continues to soar.

Peak chicken was in 2006, while milk and wheat both peaked in 2004 and rice peaked way back in 1988, according to new research from Yale University, Michigan State University and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany.

What makes the report particularly alarming is that so many crucial sources of food have peaked in a relatively short period of history, the researchers said.

“People often talk of substitution. If we run out of one substance we just substitute another. But if multiple resources are running out, we’ve got a problem. Mankind needs to accept that renewable raw materials are reaching their yield limits worldwide,” said Jianguo “Jack” Liu, of Michigan State University.

Peak production refers to the point at which the growth in a crop, animal or other food source begins to slow down, rather than the point at which production actually declines. However, it is regarded as a key signal that the momentum is being lost and it is typically only a matter of time before production plateaus and, in some cases, begins to fall – although it is unclear how long the process could take.

“Just nine or 10 plants species feed the world. But we found there’s a peak for all these resources. Even renewable resources won’t last forever,” said Ralf Seppelt, of the Helmholtz Centre.

The research, published in the journal Ecology and Society, finds that 16 of the 21 foods examined reached peak production between 1988 and 2008.

This synchronisation of peak years is all the more worrying because it suggests the whole food system is becoming overwhelmed, making it extremely difficult to resurrect the fortunes of any one foodstuff, let alone all of them, the report suggested.''

 

[DBT]

The fact of it is that you misrepresented both my position and what the article is saying in terms of a slowdown in production gain since the 80's. The slowdown in gains was the point. Which is not to say or suggest that there is insufficient food production to feed the world right now, it was always about conditions from mid century on...which I stated numerous times. That is what you refuse to accept in an attempt to score a cheap brownie point.

That is exactly your problem. In the 1980s there was demand for growth in food production so growth rate was high. The current slowdown in growth rate of production isn't because farming can not keep up which the article wanted the reader to believe because it fits the narrative it is pushing. The slowdown in growth rate is intentional because there is no demand for the excess crops produced so acreage is being taken out of production. And even at that, approximately one third of the crops produced are not consumed... so just the waste at current production levels could feed another two and a quarter billion people more than today's world population.

The point was not that production can't keep up currently or in ten years time, but conditions in the decades post 2050 (roughly). That is the problem and that is what I said.

The quote I used was intended to illustrate peak production..

Keep in mind that this is still early days, nor is this issue only about food production which is but one aspect of the challenges ahead.

Climate change has likely already affected global food production

Abstract

Crop yields are projected to decrease under future climate conditions, and recent research suggests that yields have already been impacted. However, current impacts on a diversity of crops subnationally and implications for food security remains unclear. Here, we constructed linear regression relationships using weather and reported crop data to assess the potential impact of observed climate change on the yields of the top ten global crops–barley, cassava, maize, oil palm, rapeseed, rice, sorghum, soybean, sugarcane and wheat at ~20,000 political units. We find that the impact of global climate change on yields of different crops from climate trends ranged from -13.4% (oil palm) to 3.5% (soybean). Our results show that impacts are mostly negative in Europe, Southern Africa and Australia but generally positive in Latin America. Impacts in Asia and Northern and Central America are mixed. This has likely led to ~1% average reduction (-3.5 X 1013 kcal/year) in consumable food calories in these ten crops. In nearly half of food insecure countries, estimated caloric availability decreased. Our results suggest that climate change has already affected global food production.


quote;
''Nature, of course, couldn’t care less how many of us there are. What matters to the environment are the sums of human pulls and pushes, the extractions of resources and the injections of wastes. When these exceed key tipping points, nature and its systems can change quickly and dramatically. But the magnitudes of environmental impacts stem not just from our numbers but also from behaviors we learn from our parents and cultures. Broadly speaking, if population is the number of us, then consumption is the way each of us behaves. In this unequal world, the behavior of a dozen people in one place sometimes has more environmental impact than does that of a few hundred somewhere else.''


''Consider how these principles relate to global warming. The greenhouse gases already released into the atmosphere are likely to bring us quite close to the 3.6 degree F (two degree C) increase from the preindustrial global temperature average that many scientists see as the best-guess threshold of potential climate catastrophe. Already the earth is experiencing harsher droughts, fiercer storms and higher sea levels. If the scientists are right, these impacts will worsen for decades or centuries. Indeed, even if we ended all emissions tomorrow, additional warming is on the way thanks to the momentum built into the earth’s intricate climate system. (The oceans, for example, have yet to come into equilibrium with the extra heat-trapping capacity of the atmosphere. As the oceans continue to warm, so will the land around them.)''

 

[skepticalbip]

The fact of it is that you misrepresented both my position and what the article is saying in terms of a slowdown in production gain since the 80's. The slowdown in gains was the point. Which is not to say or suggest that there is insufficient food production to feed the world right now, it was always about conditions from mid century on...which I stated numerous times. That is what you refuse to accept in an attempt to score a cheap brownie point.

I cannot logically have misrepresented your position since I did not attribute a position to you. And i did not misrepresent the article's position - the article actually claims that food production is falling behind population growth, hilarious as that claim is.

Of course you misrepresented my position. My position was always about conditions from mid century on. Which I stated numerous times.

The reason I posted the quote on the slowdown of production gain was merely to illustrate that production gains cannot be sustained indefinitely and given climate change and rising demand, problems are likely to emerge in the decades to come. That's all; peak production in relation to changing conditions, climate challenges, consumption, etc.

If anything else was implied, it was not intended.



Peak production:

''The world has entered an era of “peak food” production with an array of staples from corn and rice to wheat and chicken slowing in growth – with potentially disastrous consequences for feeding the planet.

New research finds that the supply of 21 staples, such as eggs, meat, vegetables and soybeans is already beginning to run out of momentum, while the global population continues to soar.

Peak chicken was in 2006, while milk and wheat both peaked in 2004 and rice peaked way back in 1988, according to new research from Yale University, Michigan State University and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany.

What makes the report particularly alarming is that so many crucial sources of food have peaked in a relatively short period of history, the researchers said.

“People often talk of substitution. If we run out of one substance we just substitute another. But if multiple resources are running out, we’ve got a problem. Mankind needs to accept that renewable raw materials are reaching their yield limits worldwide,” said Jianguo “Jack” Liu, of Michigan State University.

Peak production refers to the point at which the growth in a crop, animal or other food source begins to slow down, rather than the point at which production actually declines. However, it is regarded as a key signal that the momentum is being lost and it is typically only a matter of time before production plateaus and, in some cases, begins to fall – although it is unclear how long the process could take.

“Just nine or 10 plants species feed the world. But we found there’s a peak for all these resources. Even renewable resources won’t last forever,” said Ralf Seppelt, of the Helmholtz Centre.

The research, published in the journal Ecology and Society, finds that 16 of the 21 foods examined reached peak production between 1988 and 2008.

This synchronisation of peak years is all the more worrying because it suggests the whole food system is becoming overwhelmed, making it extremely difficult to resurrect the fortunes of any one foodstuff, let alone all of them, the report suggested.''

Nowhere in that is there any indication of an understanding of market dynamics. All those seem to assume that demand is infinite and rate of supply production increases until it can't increase any more. Total bull shit.

Demand is finite. Supply rate increases until it satisfies demand. At that point it is senseless to increase supply beyond demand so supply stops increasing even though it could easily increase many, many times over.

To make it understandable to you... Assume you make a dozen cup cakes a day and sell them to co-workers. They really like them and want more so you increase your production by 100% and sell them all. They want more so you increase production by another 100% (now making four dozen cup cakes a day). However, not all are sold so you keep making four dozen cup cakes a day... You have reached "peak cup cake" because you have satisfied demand even though you could easily make thirty dozen cup cakes a day if you wanted.

 

[DBT]

Of course you misrepresented my position. My position was always about conditions from mid century on. Which I stated numerous times.

The reason I posted the quote on the slowdown of production gain was merely to illustrate that production gains cannot be sustained indefinitely and given climate change and rising demand, problems are likely to emerge in the decades to come. That's all; peak production in relation to changing conditions, climate challenges, consumption, etc.

If anything else was implied, it was not intended.



Peak production:

''The world has entered an era of “peak food” production with an array of staples from corn and rice to wheat and chicken slowing in growth – with potentially disastrous consequences for feeding the planet.

New research finds that the supply of 21 staples, such as eggs, meat, vegetables and soybeans is already beginning to run out of momentum, while the global population continues to soar.

Peak chicken was in 2006, while milk and wheat both peaked in 2004 and rice peaked way back in 1988, according to new research from Yale University, Michigan State University and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany.

What makes the report particularly alarming is that so many crucial sources of food have peaked in a relatively short period of history, the researchers said.

“People often talk of substitution. If we run out of one substance we just substitute another. But if multiple resources are running out, we’ve got a problem. Mankind needs to accept that renewable raw materials are reaching their yield limits worldwide,” said Jianguo “Jack” Liu, of Michigan State University.

Peak production refers to the point at which the growth in a crop, animal or other food source begins to slow down, rather than the point at which production actually declines. However, it is regarded as a key signal that the momentum is being lost and it is typically only a matter of time before production plateaus and, in some cases, begins to fall – although it is unclear how long the process could take.

“Just nine or 10 plants species feed the world. But we found there’s a peak for all these resources. Even renewable resources won’t last forever,” said Ralf Seppelt, of the Helmholtz Centre.

The research, published in the journal Ecology and Society, finds that 16 of the 21 foods examined reached peak production between 1988 and 2008.

This synchronisation of peak years is all the more worrying because it suggests the whole food system is becoming overwhelmed, making it extremely difficult to resurrect the fortunes of any one foodstuff, let alone all of them, the report suggested.''

Nowhere in that is there any indication of an understanding of market dynamics. All those seem to assume that demand is infinite and rate of supply production increases until it can't increase any more. Total bull shit.

Demand is finite. Supply rate increases until it satisfies demand. At that point it is senseless to increase supply beyond demand so supply stops increasing even though it could easily increase many, many times over.

To make it understandable to you... Assume you make a dozen cup cakes a day and sell them to co-workers. They really like them and want more so you increase your production by 100% and sell them all. They want more so you increase production by another 100% (now making four dozen cup cakes a day). However, not all are sold so you keep making four dozen cup cakes a day... You have reached "peak cup cake" because you have satisfied demand even though you could easily make ten dozen cup cakes a day if you wanted.

The point is that according to estimates from multiple sources, including the world business council (which I quoted) the planet cannot support a population of a projected 9 billion plus inhabitants consuming not only food but a range of natural resources at the rate of citizens of developed nations.

That is unsustainable, yet people in developing nations cannot be denied the lifestyles that we in developed nations enjoy, which in turn is likely to create a major problem of rising demand in relation to supply and consumption rate from mid century on.

 

[skepticalbip]

The fact of it is that you misrepresented both my position and what the article is saying in terms of a slowdown in production gain since the 80's. The slowdown in gains was the point. Which is not to say or suggest that there is insufficient food production to feed the world right now, it was always about conditions from mid century on...which I stated numerous times. That is what you refuse to accept in an attempt to score a cheap brownie point.

That is exactly your problem. In the 1980s there was demand for growth in food production so growth rate was high. The current slowdown in growth rate of production isn't because farming can not keep up which the article wanted the reader to believe because it fits the narrative it is pushing. The slowdown in growth rate is intentional because there is no demand for the excess crops produced so acreage is being taken out of production. And even at that, approximately one third of the crops produced are not consumed... so just the waste at current production levels could feed another two and a quarter billion people more than today's world population.

The point was not that production can't keep up currently or in ten years time, but conditions in the decades post 2050 (roughly). That is the problem and that is what I said.

Yes, I know what you said. Your 'predictions' have nothing to do with how much food we produce now or in the 1980s so WTF do you keep citing current production rates. Your 'predictions' are that the world is going to hell and we won't be able to grow food.

 

[skepticalbip]

Of course you misrepresented my position. My position was always about conditions from mid century on. Which I stated numerous times.

The reason I posted the quote on the slowdown of production gain was merely to illustrate that production gains cannot be sustained indefinitely and given climate change and rising demand, problems are likely to emerge in the decades to come. That's all; peak production in relation to changing conditions, climate challenges, consumption, etc.

If anything else was implied, it was not intended.



Peak production:

''The world has entered an era of “peak food” production with an array of staples from corn and rice to wheat and chicken slowing in growth – with potentially disastrous consequences for feeding the planet.

New research finds that the supply of 21 staples, such as eggs, meat, vegetables and soybeans is already beginning to run out of momentum, while the global population continues to soar.

Peak chicken was in 2006, while milk and wheat both peaked in 2004 and rice peaked way back in 1988, according to new research from Yale University, Michigan State University and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany.

What makes the report particularly alarming is that so many crucial sources of food have peaked in a relatively short period of history, the researchers said.

“People often talk of substitution. If we run out of one substance we just substitute another. But if multiple resources are running out, we’ve got a problem. Mankind needs to accept that renewable raw materials are reaching their yield limits worldwide,” said Jianguo “Jack” Liu, of Michigan State University.

Peak production refers to the point at which the growth in a crop, animal or other food source begins to slow down, rather than the point at which production actually declines. However, it is regarded as a key signal that the momentum is being lost and it is typically only a matter of time before production plateaus and, in some cases, begins to fall – although it is unclear how long the process could take.

“Just nine or 10 plants species feed the world. But we found there’s a peak for all these resources. Even renewable resources won’t last forever,” said Ralf Seppelt, of the Helmholtz Centre.

The research, published in the journal Ecology and Society, finds that 16 of the 21 foods examined reached peak production between 1988 and 2008.

This synchronisation of peak years is all the more worrying because it suggests the whole food system is becoming overwhelmed, making it extremely difficult to resurrect the fortunes of any one foodstuff, let alone all of them, the report suggested.''

Nowhere in that is there any indication of an understanding of market dynamics. All those seem to assume that demand is infinite and rate of supply production increases until it can't increase any more. Total bull shit.

Demand is finite. Supply rate increases until it satisfies demand. At that point it is senseless to increase supply beyond demand so supply stops increasing even though it could easily increase many, many times over.

To make it understandable to you... Assume you make a dozen cup cakes a day and sell them to co-workers. They really like them and want more so you increase your production by 100% and sell them all. They want more so you increase production by another 100% (now making four dozen cup cakes a day). However, not all are sold so you keep making four dozen cup cakes a day... You have reached "peak cup cake" because you have satisfied demand even though you could easily make ten dozen cup cakes a day if you wanted.

The point is that according to estimates from multiple sources, including the world business council (which I quoted) the planet cannot support a population of a projected 9 billion plus inhabitants consuming not only food but a range of natural resources at the rate of citizens of developed nations.

That is unsustainable, yet people in developing nations cannot be denied the lifestyles that we in developed nations enjoy, which in turn is likely to create a major problem of rising demand in relation to supply and consumption rate from mid century on.

The point is that you can get 'estimates' and predictions from many, many sources that contradict each other. The fact that someone can cite a prediction from a source that agrees with their favorite doomsday scenario doesn't necessarily make it reliable. I wouldn't rely on whoever you got all your 'peak grain' nonsense from.

 

[angelo]

And how does this genius propose to do that?

Ocasio 2018: Vote November 6th states

Mobilizing Against Climate Change

In order to address runaway global climate change, Alexandria strongly supports transitioning the United States to a carbon-free, 100% renewable energy system and a fully modernized electrical grid by 2035. She believes renewable fuels must be produced in a way that achieves our environmental and energy security goals, so we can move beyond oil responsibly in the fight against climate change. By encouraging the electrification of vehicles, sustainable home heating, distributed rooftop solar generation, and the conversion of the power grid to zero-emissions energy sources, Alexandria believes we can be 100% free of fossil fuels by 2035.

Of course, now Why didn't I think of that! AOC truly is THE American savior and much more than just a genius! Reduce American carbon emissions to zero [which are at approx 16-19% of the world's carbon emissions ATM] thereby destroying the economy completely by throwing millions of people on to food stamps and poverty that would make the poverty in India and Africa seem like middle class in comparison. The Americans are so lucky to have such a one as AOC...........not!

 

[DBT]

The point was not that production can't keep up currently or in ten years time, but conditions in the decades post 2050 (roughly). That is the problem and that is what I said.

Yes, I know what you said. Your 'predictions' have nothing to do with how much food we produce now or in the 1980s so WTF do you keep citing current production rates. Your 'predictions' are that the world is going to hell and we won't be able to grow food.

Where the hell have I said that the world will not be able to grow food? Food will always be grown, the question being, can enough be grown to not only feed a world populated by 9 billion people living at developed nation standard but sustainability supply the goods and services the average American expects. . Multiple studies say that it is not possible. That is the point.

Both past and current production rates are relevant to production capacity, which is relevant to peak production, conditions into future, cimate change, rising consumption, etc, as I've already pointed out.

 

[DBT]

The point is that according to estimates from multiple sources, including the world business council (which I quoted) the planet cannot support a population of a projected 9 billion plus inhabitants consuming not only food but a range of natural resources at the rate of citizens of developed nations.

That is unsustainable, yet people in developing nations cannot be denied the lifestyles that we in developed nations enjoy, which in turn is likely to create a major problem of rising demand in relation to supply and consumption rate from mid century on.

The point is that you can get 'estimates' and predictions from many, many sources that contradict each other. The fact that someone can cite a prediction from a source that agrees with their favorite doomsday scenario doesn't necessarily make it reliable. I wouldn't rely on whoever you got all your 'peak grain' nonsense from.

Which source/study is it that tells us that a projected 9 billion plus people living on the planet can consume its resources at the rate of consumers in developed nations, USA, Australia, Britain, etc, long term, no end I nn sight, well into the future?

Please cite a source and quote the relevant material.

 

[lpetrich]

Of course, now Why didn't I think of that! AOC truly is THE American savior and much more than just a genius! Reduce American carbon emissions to zero [which are at approx 16-19% of the world's carbon emissions ATM] thereby destroying the economy completely by throwing millions of people on to food stamps and poverty that would make the poverty in India and Africa seem like middle class in comparison. The Americans are so lucky to have such a one as AOC...........not!

Successfully substituting renewable sources won't cause a collapse of civilization.

AOC herself has stated that the US ought not to imitate the worst of other nations, but instead be a leader of renewable-energy transition.

 

[skepticalbip]

The point is that according to estimates from multiple sources, including the world business council (which I quoted) the planet cannot support a population of a projected 9 billion plus inhabitants consuming not only food but a range of natural resources at the rate of citizens of developed nations.

That is unsustainable, yet people in developing nations cannot be denied the lifestyles that we in developed nations enjoy, which in turn is likely to create a major problem of rising demand in relation to supply and consumption rate from mid century on.

The point is that you can get 'estimates' and predictions from many, many sources that contradict each other. The fact that someone can cite a prediction from a source that agrees with their favorite doomsday scenario doesn't necessarily make it reliable. I wouldn't rely on whoever you got all your 'peak grain' nonsense from.

Which source/study is it that tells us that a projected 9 billion plus people living on the planet can consume its resources at the rate of consumers in developed nations, USA, Australia, Britain, etc, long term, no end I nn sight, well into the future?

Please cite a source and quote the relevant material.

WTF?

Name what country (other than Vatican City) you think is incapable of growing more than enough food within its territorial borders to feed much more than its current population if they use modern farming techniques.

The U.S. has one of the highest living standards and is able to and does produce enough food to feed most of the world. Are you so dismissive of those in other countries that you really don't think they could at least feed themselves using modern farming methods and also raise their living standards?

The only real reason for international trade of food should be to trade for the kind of crops that each country can't grow, e.g. Russia can't grow bananas and the Bahamas can't grow wheat so they could swap but each can grow more than enough within their own country to feed their population with balanced diets.