4 ms·

"Minor" is a fairly reasonable description IMO; best predictions suggest single digit productivity loss a hundred years from now, compared to a number of existe

by wyager 5y ago

"Minor" is a fairly reasonable description IMO; best predictions suggest single digit productivity loss a hundred years from now, compared to a number of existential risks like nuclear proliferation, advanced biowarfare, normal warfare, etc. Of course it's all relative.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
undoware 5y ago
This post will not age well. Neither will its author. Aging requires food.
- hagbard_c 5y ago
  Food comes from plants, which require CO₂ to grow. An increase of atmospheric CO₂ leads to an increase in plant growth, proof of which can be easily had by checking historical records which show a direct relation between the CO₂ concentration and the amount of biomass. It is possible that the growth zones will move and that areas which are currently too cold for food production become viable for agriculture - Russia and Canada stand to gain here. So yes, ageing requires food which should be plentiful. There have been earlier warm periods which saw e.g. the flourishing of the Roman empire. This was followed by a cooler period (during which the Roman empire saw its demise), followed by another warmer period in which the Vikings sailed the known world and colonised Greenland. Grapes for wine were grown in the south of Sweden in those days, these eventally disappeared and the Greenland colonies had to be abandoned when the climate turned colder. Now grapes are grown again in the south of Sweden even though it took the cultivation of a more hardy species (among these a frost-resistent Frankenthaler, I tried to grow it in the west of Sweden but it turned out not to be frost-resistant enough, alas...) to make this possible. If you don't agree with what I wrote here I'd like to see a rebuttal. Why will there be less food on a greener planet?
  - undoware 5y ago
    rubs face ok so here's the thing. Food grows in topsoil. As an eater of food, you need to know this. It's important: food that does not come from the ocean[1] comes from topsoil. Beef? Cows. Cows graze. Pork? Pigs are calorie batteries. They eat anything. But they don't do so great in bog. Chickens? ....yeah. The places that you think are coming online as 'greener' locations are places where the soil just unthawed. It's not topsoil. It's not loam. It's moss and bog, where it isn't boreal forest[2]. The land is not usable for agriculture or animal husbandry. Probably won't be for thousands of years. It's the crossfade. It's also going through massive subsidence as the permafrost melts, and is constantly belching methane. It's a soup of microrganisms, mosquitos, and (scientific term here) gunk. --signed, a Canadian from a farmtown that was just a lil too far north. (Yes, really.) [1] before you call loophole: yes, we're running out of that, too. Faster, in fact. Fun times. Those are some empty empty oceans. [2] Conifers often intentionally (to the extent that plants have intent) make the soil around them acidic; this is because only conifers can survive in this soil. The territories you're eyeballing as a future breadbasket are often currently boreal. When they're not bog. And the boreal tends to turn into bog. That subsidence. Trees hate it -- they like being vertical. So, yeah, idk what you'd grow there, unless you eat mosquitos.
    - hagbard_c 5y ago
      You might want to study your farming books again before you write your next condescending rant? It will be a while before permafrost becomes farmland but luckily there is a huge - and I mean enormous - area which has not seen permafrost for thousands of years but simply is too cold for many crops to be grown profitably. If the planet really ends up those 1.5°C to 2.5°C warmer than it is now (but cooler than it has been) growth zones move up and farming those crops becomes profitable where it currently isn't. This is something you know but for some reason decide to ignore only to indulge in apocalyptic fantasies. Why is that? Why do you - and the many with you who show similar behaviour - choose this path of rapture? If you think this makes people who do not follow your beliefs take them more seriously realise that it achieves exactly the opposite: the more outlandish the proposed scenarios of doom, the less likely non-believers are to fall in line.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wyager 5y ago
  The fact that you think GW places us at imminent risk of starvation suggests you're probably not operating on a coherent model of GW risks. Are you willing to put money on the table? Make me a market about a measurable GW-related food production loss and I'll probably take you up on it, assuming you're willing to commit to it.
imglorp 5y ago
This is so vastly understating the problem that it appears to be fossil fuel shill fud.
- wyager 5y ago
  Yeah you got me, I'm a fake account funded by Shell. Care to explain your eminently rational model of the costs of global warming, which I'm sure you didn't get from TV?

by wyager 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

undoware 5y ago

This post will not age well. Neither will its author. Aging requires food.

hagbard_c 5y ago
Food comes from plants, which require CO₂ to grow. An increase of atmospheric CO₂ leads to an increase in plant growth, proof of which can be easily had by checking historical records which show a direct relation between the CO₂ concentration and the amount of biomass. It is possible that the growth zones will move and that areas which are currently too cold for food production become viable for agriculture - Russia and Canada stand to gain here. So yes, ageing requires food which should be plentiful. There have been earlier warm periods which saw e.g. the flourishing of the Roman empire. This was followed by a cooler period (during which the Roman empire saw its demise), followed by another warmer period in which the Vikings sailed the known world and colonised Greenland. Grapes for wine were grown in the south of Sweden in those days, these eventally disappeared and the Greenland colonies had to be abandoned when the climate turned colder. Now grapes are grown again in the south of Sweden even though it took the cultivation of a more hardy species (among these a frost-resistent Frankenthaler, I tried to grow it in the west of Sweden but it turned out not to be frost-resistant enough, alas...) to make this possible. If you don't agree with what I wrote here I'd like to see a rebuttal. Why will there be less food on a greener planet?
- undoware 5y ago
  rubs face ok so here's the thing. Food grows in topsoil. As an eater of food, you need to know this. It's important: food that does not come from the ocean[1] comes from topsoil. Beef? Cows. Cows graze. Pork? Pigs are calorie batteries. They eat anything. But they don't do so great in bog. Chickens? ....yeah. The places that you think are coming online as 'greener' locations are places where the soil just unthawed. It's not topsoil. It's not loam. It's moss and bog, where it isn't boreal forest[2]. The land is not usable for agriculture or animal husbandry. Probably won't be for thousands of years. It's the crossfade. It's also going through massive subsidence as the permafrost melts, and is constantly belching methane. It's a soup of microrganisms, mosquitos, and (scientific term here) gunk. --signed, a Canadian from a farmtown that was just a lil too far north. (Yes, really.) [1] before you call loophole: yes, we're running out of that, too. Faster, in fact. Fun times. Those are some empty empty oceans. [2] Conifers often intentionally (to the extent that plants have intent) make the soil around them acidic; this is because only conifers can survive in this soil. The territories you're eyeballing as a future breadbasket are often currently boreal. When they're not bog. And the boreal tends to turn into bog. That subsidence. Trees hate it -- they like being vertical. So, yeah, idk what you'd grow there, unless you eat mosquitos.
  - hagbard_c 5y ago
    You might want to study your farming books again before you write your next condescending rant? It will be a while before permafrost becomes farmland but luckily there is a huge - and I mean enormous - area which has not seen permafrost for thousands of years but simply is too cold for many crops to be grown profitably. If the planet really ends up those 1.5°C to 2.5°C warmer than it is now (but cooler than it has been) growth zones move up and farming those crops becomes profitable where it currently isn't. This is something you know but for some reason decide to ignore only to indulge in apocalyptic fantasies. Why is that? Why do you - and the many with you who show similar behaviour - choose this path of rapture? If you think this makes people who do not follow your beliefs take them more seriously realise that it achieves exactly the opposite: the more outlandish the proposed scenarios of doom, the less likely non-believers are to fall in line.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wyager 5y ago
The fact that you think GW places us at imminent risk of starvation suggests you're probably not operating on a coherent model of GW risks. Are you willing to put money on the table? Make me a market about a measurable GW-related food production loss and I'll probably take you up on it, assuming you're willing to commit to it.

imglorp 5y ago

This is so vastly understating the problem that it appears to be fossil fuel shill fud.

wyager 5y ago
Yeah you got me, I'm a fake account funded by Shell. Care to explain your eminently rational model of the costs of global warming, which I'm sure you didn't get from TV?