5 ms·
I appreciate that you're clearly a passionate activist, but your statements are alarmist and counterproductive. 'Whole countries wiped off the map'..'mass fami
by brc 13y ago
I appreciate that you're clearly a passionate activist, but your statements are alarmist and counterproductive.
'Whole countries wiped off the map'..'mass famine and suffering'...'yield rates going down'...
These are unsupported by real world observations. I understand you wish to alarm people into joining your activist groups, and the more dramatic language, the better (I assume this has been A/B tested). But I think the dramatic language undermines your cause.
The last report I saw was that grains harvest have recently broken records, despite a smaller overall percentage of land devoted to crops. This is mostly due to technology improvements in farming and grain types.
Climate change is an ongoing process which humans have had to, and will have to, deal with. They will use ingenuity, technology and skill to deal with whatever arises.
So you're free to say and believe whatever you want, but I don't think this was really the place for a long recruiting ad.
- ridicter 13y agoThe highest point in the Maldives is 2.4M, and by 2100, nearly all inhabitable land will be underwater [1]. Likewise the average elevation of Bangladesh is a few feet. In effect, these countries will be wiped off. With tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of refugees due to climate change, mass famine and suffering will result. That's just logic. If calling that situation "mass famine and suffering" is "alarmist" of me, what words would you prefer? As far as yield rates, climate change will decrease yield rates [2], but you're right that science will mitigate and address some of these issues. From my link: > Through the years of 1985 through 2011, wheat breeding programs boosted average wheat yields by 13 bushels per acre, or 0.51 bushels each year, for a total increase of 26%. A simulation also found that 1.8 degree Fahrenheit in projected mean temperature was found to decrease wheat yields by 10.64 bushels per acre or nearly 21%. Yes, humans will adapt. But in the process, hundreds of millions of people will suffer very gravely, and an innumerable # of species will go extinct in the ocean alone. I'm a huge tech guy, but it's silly to think technology will be able to address all of these issues. I stand by what I said. Conviction is important to move the ball forward. [1] www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/the-island-president-mohamed-nasheed_n_1383413.html [2] http://www.agriculture.com/crops/wheat/climate-chge-may-affect-wheat-yields_144-ar33557 http://www.agriculture.com/crops/wheat/climate-chge-may-affe...
- brc 13y ago2.4 M in 85 years? That is 28 mm a year increase - current observations are about 3mm per year. That is an exponential growth that is unlikely to occur.
- ridicter 13y ago2.4 M is the highest point. In other words, on a number line, the rest of the country falls to the left of it. Averages are an important concept to master. Also, as positive feedback loops kick in (e.g., trapped methane will be released from the ice, and methane is a 50x stronger greenhouse than CO2), heating will occur much more rapidly. Finally, ice sheets will melt pretty rapidly, as melting water acts as a lubricant, and encourages faster ice breakage and melting. There's a documentary on this I'll try to link.
- glenra 13y agoWhat makes you think new positive feedback loops will kick in faster than old ones run out of steam or new negative feedback loops kick in?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- glenra 13y agoAre you aware that Bangladesh has been on a trend of gaining land mass? It gained ~1000 square kilometers between 1973 and 2008. Given current trends it'll gain another thousand in the next 50 years. If it ever starts losing land mass, it should by then be in a decent economic position to deal with the problem. (Unless we tank the world economy in the meantime, I suppose...) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7532949.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7532949.stm