Letters to the Editor

Pollution ignorance

January 31, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

While global warming has been a concern for many, many, many decades, some things are for certain:

  1. Never before have there been billions upon billions of humans polluting planet Earth.

  2. Never before have there been billions upon billions of gasoline-burning vehicles spewing pollution into the atmosphere.

  3. Never before have there been billions of homes demanding energy from polluting sources.

  4. Never before have there been billions of buildings demanding energy from polluting sources.

  5. Never before have there been billions of polluting energy-generating sources.

  6. Never before have there been billions upon billions of humans supporting the clearing of the rainforest for food products not knowing the long-term impact of removing massive numbers of trees and medicinal plants.

  7. Never before has planet Earth been expected to absorb tons and tons and tons of pollution with human beings having no idea what the impact might be.

  8. Never before have there been billions upon billions of human beings believing THEIR pollution is having zero impact. Can we say ignorance is bliss?

Comments

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

The Global Warming Religion has taken away from real environmentalism over the years. The reason the rainforest is being cleared is so Brazil can grow soybeans and sugar cane to produce bio-fuels that the greenies so praise them for using instead of petroleum. We now grow corn in Western Kansas, draining the Ogalala aquifer for bio-fuels that the greenies want us to use. We are forced to use the little curly bulbs that cannot be made here because they are too toxic to produce under our environmental rules, because they are supposedly more efficient and supposedly lower our magical carbon footprint. Really? How does having something produced in China, with energy from power plants who do not spend billions of dollars on pollution reducing backends, then having them shipped here via cargo ship and diesel semis reduce the carbon foot-print from something that is produced in the United States? Real environmentalism used to be saving the rainforest, saving our fresh water resources, recycling, and such. Now the greenies have lost all touch with reality since they want to control our lives in a religious like fashion.

And Merrill, what is your solution to the human population? Massive euthanasia? According to a study I read on Slate.com (yes, a liberal publication), the population is supposed to rise until about 2050, then it will actually decline to the point where it will be half of today's population by 2150 if current rates and trends continue.

gudpoynt 3 years, 3 months ago

haha. Stop watching fox news labmonkey. The real environmentalists are still out there and are well aware of the points you make. What you describe is the inaccurate caricature used by right wing media to invalidate environmentalists -- all because they tend to call polluters out on their polluting -- which we all know can be bad for business.

It saddens me beyond believe that there is such a strong anti-environmentalist media machine churning right now, recruiting gullible hearts and minds in their battle against conservation. Just sad.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

I really don't know what the right wing media says as I do not watch cable news or listen to any talk radio. My point is that global warming people are not environmentalists... they want to religiously control your life like an Assembly of God preacher yet they do not even practice what they preach and many things they advocate actually cause harm. My personal beliefs are we need to protect the Ogalala aquifer and have changed my stance on the Sunflower plant to reflect that. I also think the Keystone pipeline needs to be rerouted to go around the aquifer instead of right over it. And for the love of God, quit growing corn in western Kansas. I grew up on a farm and have a biology degree so I do know a thing or two about real conservation. I detest it when common-sense environmentalism becomes hijacked by extremists with their own self-righteous agenda.

gudpoynt 3 years, 3 months ago

I just don't know of any environmentalists who are advocating for corn in w. ks. I think most are in agreement that water intensive crops in drought ridden areas is generally a poor use of resources.

gudpoynt 3 years, 3 months ago

Amen. I remember replacing shake roofs in Wichita. The hoa for the neighborhood required shake roofs. They also required green, manicured lawns. But they didn't care when you watered. The 100 degree afternoons of July apparently seemed like a fine time to the homeowners... who were never at home in the afternoon.

That was over ten years ago though. I wouldn't be surprised if they have since employed more conservative practices. If so, thank the greenies.

Now, if we can only convince them that a massive yard of imported grass that requires near constant irrigation is not required for aesthetic value, then we are really getting somewhere.

Stephen Roberts 3 years, 3 months ago

what about pollution from lawnmowers? I think we should tax ALL lawn mowing businesses more because of the environmental impact.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

Reduce the size of lawns by installing Kansas perennial blooming gardens that can significantly reduce the need for local water and mowing frequency.

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 3 months ago

Using push mowers would reduce pollution from motorized mowers entirely. Why do you hate the environment? Can we say Merrill hates children?

verity 3 years, 3 months ago

Been saying and doing that for years.

Ragingbear 3 years, 3 months ago

First of all, Global Warming is no longer the proper term. It's climate change. We call it that because as the ocean currents get warmer, the ice caps start to melt and can cause a global shift, starting a mini-ice age. Think "The Day After Tomorrow" but not stupid.

Also, I would like you to explain why out of the 10 hottest years on record, that 9 or them happened after the year 2000.

Also, it is people like you, denying things like Climate Change, that is the problem. It is YOU that are the problem.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 3 months ago

Thanks for proving my point. As soon as the fraudulent notion of "global warming" started getting seriously debunked by real scientists and the East Anglia scandal came to light, Glowarmers began, quietly at first, to call their unproven theories "climate change" instead.

It's a lot like what's happened to political liberals in this country. Once they began to realize that only 20% of the country consistently identified themselves as "liberals," they started calling themselves "progressives."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

Actually, both "global warming" and "climate change" are accurate descriptions of what is taking place.

BTW, all independent reviews of the "East Anglia scandal" have determined that there was nothing wrong with the science being done-- why do you choose to omit that in your little screeds of ignorance?

cato_the_elder 3 years, 3 months ago

Bozo, to you "all independent reviews" means "all reviews generated by Glowarmers and their lemmings."

The East Anglia scandal proved once and for all that those propagating this fraud knew themselves that their own data didn't support their conclusions.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

Yea, I know, you'll never believe any review that doesn't produce the results you want.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

Would you care to share a link with an independent review of "climategate" that says what you want it to?

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

No, it is you that is the problem. Global warming/climate change has so blinded the left, that they do things that actually hurt the environment in the name of protecting the climate.

And your record only goes back about 130 years... not even a drop in the ocean of the world's time of existence. Give me a correct two week, 30 day, one year forecast before you tell me what the climate is going to be 100 years from now.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

The real problem is that "capitalists" don't want to admit that capitalism by itself is incapable of forestalling the disaster that global warming will create.

So you celebrate your denial, and make it a purely ideological issue, because the science is against you.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 3 months ago

Wow, does it really surprise anyone that the Murdoch media propaganda machine could come up with 16 so called experts to say "don't worry" about climate change?

Do you think that Murdoch has enough money to buy this sort of a finding?

Does it really surprise anyone that the Murdoch propaganda machine would publish something like this despite the fact that the fact that 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences published a much more scientifically accurate essay in "Science" magazine, [yes, that's a publication dedicated to science, rather than enriching the already rich] signed by 15 times as many well recognized scientists as the essay in the WSJ?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf

cato_the_elder 3 years, 3 months ago

You have no evidence that Rupert Murdoch had anything to do with these distinguished, internationally-known scientists lending their names, and thus their hard-earned reputations, to assist in debunking the myth of anthropogenic "global warming."

It's fascinating how leftists rant all the time about Murdoch, the Kochs, et al., while, as the lemmings they are, they believe in lock-step everything they read from the "Union of Concerned Scientists," a left-wing cabal if there ever was one.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 3 months ago

Chairman and chief executive along with controlling interest in News Corp is Rupert Murdoch, and he had no influence over what was published in his newspaper, the Wall Street Journal?

Care for some Kool-Aid?

cato_the_elder 3 years, 3 months ago

Still waiting for evidence. By way of direct analogy, you might bear in mind that while the editorial stance of the J-W leans Republican, Scott Rothschild, as biased a reporter who has ever worked in Kansas, continues to ply his trade daily for the J-W.

In the meantime, I'll have a Dos Equis and leave the Kool-Aid to leftist twits who believe in "global warming."

progressive_thinker 3 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 3 months ago

Oh, so drinking that European import crap? Yes, Dos Equis is nothing more than Heineken.

Why not try something American? I just got censored for mentioning two, even one here in Lawrence I hope that this "refined" version meets the censor bureau...

voevoda 3 years, 3 months ago

A whole sixteen scientists disagree about global climate change. And how many other internationally-recognized scientists have concluded from the evidence that climate change is occurring at an unprecedented rate? You choose to believe the sixteen, cato_the_elder, because they say what you'd like to believe anyway.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 3 months ago

No, I choose to believe them because they're not part of any left-wing cabal with an anti-capitalist agenda, including the "Union of Concerned Scientists."

voevoda 3 years, 3 months ago

Oh, so you choose your scientific views based on your political views. You have decided that certain scientists are politically "wrong," and therefore they must be scientifically wrong, too.
Some of the rest of us actually consider the merits of the science.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 3 months ago

Baloney. The "scientists" whom you worship are 100% politically-driven, especially those with the "Union of Concerned Scientists." The only "merit" you respect is preaching against capitalism and moving wealth from our country to petty dictators abroad, as is continually advocated by the UNFCCC.

Wake up and smell the wealth redistribution, Voevoda. It's a scent of which I know you are quite fond.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

More than 2000 members of the Union of Concerned Scientists disagree with the 16 mentioned above:

Global Warming

The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impacts—such as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughts—are already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions.

However, there is much we can do to protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations from the consequences of the heat-trapping emissions caused when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses.

Our country is at a crossroads: the United States can act responsibly and seize the opportunity to lead by developing new, innovative solutions, as well as immediately putting to use the many practical solutions we have at our disposal today; or we can choose to do nothing and deal with severe consequences later. At UCS we believe the choice is clear. It is time to push forward toward a brighter, cleaner future. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

Dismal Science at the Wall Street Journal, Peter Frumhoff http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

What is Global Warming? When CO2 and other heat-trapping emissions are released into the air, they act like a blanket, holding heat in our atmosphere and warming the planet. Overloading our atmosphere with carbon has far-reaching effects for people everywhere. Learn more http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

More food for thought from UCS:

Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy New UCS Analysis http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html

Kansas does not need more power/energy sources only cleaner sources.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

Merrill, lets call the UCS what is it... a political lobbying group.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

call the UCS what is it... a political lobbying group.

How so? Can that be verified?

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

We are destroying the environment in a variety of ways, and it's going to make things very difficult for human life on earth at some point, as well as other animal/plant life.

Some people care about that, and others don't.

It is unfortunate that some environmentalists have gotten swayed by things like ethanol, which is clearly not good for the environment.

But, there are still many who can see through such things.

We need both the caring of environmentalists combined with the ability to analyze critically, to determine the best way to proceed.

Those who simply want to deny the harm aren't helping at all.

Hooligan_016 3 years, 3 months ago

Agree, I try to be environmentally conscious for the most part ... and I am totally against bio-fuels. At one juncture they looked promising, but they are only a temporary stop-gap measure. While people starve in the world and even in the US, it is just nuts to think we are using food for fuel.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

How many ways can all of us reduce our impacts?

  1. Reduce our driving time

  2. Use Mass transit

  3. Consider an electric golf cart for errands within 3-5 miles of home which is said to be the majority of errands. This is faster than walking yet likely slower than bike travel. Electric powered golf cart “Highway” travel is prohibited. There are plenty of ways to get around town.

  4. Don’t want to be concerned about the environment? Do your joints and heart a favor. Start walking more places before the doctor orders one to do it.

  5. Don’t want to be concerned about the environment? Do your joints and heart a favor. Start bicycling more places before the doctor orders one to do it.

  6. Turn off our lights when we leave rooms.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 3 months ago

merrill, don't forget to add gardening nekkid to your list. Give the neighbors a thrill!

Hooligan_016 3 years, 3 months ago

Really getting tired of the trolls here on the LJWorld ...

rtwngr 3 years, 3 months ago

He sounds like Carl Sagan: Billions and billions and billions...

The UCS has a vested, monetary interest in perpetuating the man made global warming myth. Sorry, the fact is all of the models used to substantiate man made global warming are based on doctored information.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 3 months ago

merrill is contributing to global warming by overuse of the copy/paste function on his pc.

Hooligan_016 3 years, 3 months ago

The cognitive dissonance on display is astounding.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

How many ways can all of us reduce our impacts?

  1. Reduce our driving time

  2. Use Mass transit

  3. Consider an electric golf cart for errands within 3-5 miles of home which is said to be the majority of errands. This is faster than walking yet likely slower than bike travel. Electric powered golf cart “Highway” travel is prohibited. There are plenty of ways to get around town.

  4. Don’t want to be concerned about the environment? Do your joints and heart a favor. Start walking more places before the doctor orders one to do it

  5. Don’t want to be concerned about the environment? Do your joints and heart a favor. Start bicycling more places before the doctor orders one to do it.

  6. Turn off our lights when we leave rooms.

  7. Go Energy Star ASAP.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

Your electric golf cart idea has to be one of the stupidest ideas yet. 1) How do you recharge said cart, and 2) and slowing combustion engine traffic to a standstill actually increases pollution. Again, Greenies actually doing more harm than good.

Personally, I think I should take my Cub Cadet LT1050 to run errands. You shouldn't have a problem with that.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

If you want to do the environment good, lobby for the right things for the right reasons. I am now actually against the Sunflower Power Plant when I found out the Ogalala aquifer is the water source. Fresh water is important, nobody can dispute that. Campaign to help get us off foreign oil. That helps us economically and environmentally.... but like a whacked out religious pastor who brings God into everything, you have to bring up your global warming/climate change religion and it frankly turns many people off.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

Since you can't argue the science, you go for the personal attack.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

Sorry, but there is no "mirror image" here. The science is well-researched and documented. Your ideology, not so much.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

And you do not resort to name and personal insults? You are actually one of the worst commenters on here about that.

And my original point still stands... "combating" global warming has actually hurt real environmentalism... and you put people off with the religious, holier than thou tone most global warming people use. God forbid we do something that is good for different reasons yet we are too stubborn that we have to shove ideology down each other's throats.

gudpoynt 3 years, 3 months ago

yes, yes.

The environment and the economy are mortal enemies destined to battle to the death. There can be only one survivor.

The only way to save the planet is to become poor, never consume anything, and ruin the economy so nobody else can consume anything. If you can ruin the economy by spending everybody's money on environmental "causes", all the better.

Turn of your Fox Box for a little while captain paranoia. I can hear you getting dumber all the way through the Internet.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

Actually, there is some sort of built-in conflict between environmental awareness, which encourages one to buy less, and use less, and an economy that relies on consumer spending.

It's a bit of a problem, and I haven't been able to sort it out to my own satisfaction.

gudpoynt 3 years, 3 months ago

The conflict isn't built in.

People can spend lots and lots of money on a wide variety of products and services that are considered sustainable. The only products and services that environmentalists suggest you buy and use less of are those that that are not.

In other words, the conflict is not with an economy that relies on consumer spending, but rather an economy with unsustainable production practices on the supply side.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

All products use energy and resources to produce and transport.

Care to share a few of the products on your list?

Even recycled products use energy and resources to produce.

The famous trio is "reduce, reuse, and recycle" - all of those would cut down on the number of products purchased.

gudpoynt 3 years, 3 months ago

yes, all products use energy and resources to produce and transport.

and yes, reduce, reuse, recycle is essential -- but it's only essential because of the way that most products are currently produced.

Reducing the negative externalities production down to manageable levels is the whole point of environmentalism. Doing so reduces the strain between being environmentally friendly and being a consumer.

So rather than pitting a healthy environment against a healthy economy, which is the tactic used by the great FalseHope above, the goal of the environmentalist is to do the exact opposite -- to strive for a world where building a strong economy through production and consumption is one and the same with being environmentally friendly.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

That's a nice goal, but I think there will always be a tension between the two.

And, there's no free lunch.

gudpoynt 3 years, 3 months ago

well, as long as the argument is framed as a choice between either a healthy environment OR a healthy economy, but never both, the tension will remain high, and we'll end up with neither.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

The problem is that as long as our economy depends on consumption, and it's hard to imagine one that wouldn't, it depends on people buying a lot of stuff, and a lot of new stuff.

Even if we reduced the energy/resource use and pollution of product creation/transportation, it's still better for the environment to buy less stuff, and less new stuff.

And, of course, your utopian vision would have to include the entire planet, not just the US - all of the nations on the earth would have to get their energy/resource use and pollution down to "sustainable" levels, if we could even define those well enough.

How much pollution can the environment absorb, sustainably?

How much nonrenewable resources can we use sustainably?

I suppose if everything were made from renewable resources, and only renewable energy sources were used, we might be able to get close, but that seems very unlikely to me.

Don't get me wrong - I think it would be great if we did so.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 3 months ago

Back in the day, every little mudshow had a geek to caper and gibber to draw in the crowds. merrill is filling that role for this award-winning website.

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 3 months ago

So if human behavior is destroying our habitat, much like the inhabitants of Easter Island destroyed themselves, why is Gingrich talking about colonizing the moon instead of promoting sustainability practices and working on sane energy policy and new technologies?

Why?

Because Republican voters would rather make Obama the boogie man for all that is evil and give Billionaires tax breaks rather than admit their right wing theo-politics is a joke.

If we had more moderate Republicans we would probably have more Conservative Democrats and better policies across the board.

If the strategy of the Republican Party is to kill themselves off and start over again, I am all for it.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 3 months ago

Potholes are excellent traffic-calming devices. It's true, I read it right here on this award-winning website.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 3 months ago

They're also excellent sales tax generators. Suspension parts and tires are expensive.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 3 months ago

Undeniable evidence of climate change: January 30, 2012; The USDA has released an updated version of the Plant Hardiness Zone map, shifting many zones one half zone warmer than the previous version of the map, released in 1990. This new edition of the map is based on weather data over a 30 year period, from 1976 to 2005. http://www.todaysgardencenter.com/news/newsacrosschannels/?storyid=4917

Undeniable evidence of climate change (is NASA a credible source? Meh, not as credible as God): January 12, 2012; NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. (Watch the video) http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 3 months ago

The USDA wants to remain unbiased in the GW debate and does not want to link their new map to directly to "global warming". This doesn't change the fact that surface temperatures are warming.

In the big scheme of things, i.e. the galaxy, the Earth is merely a petri dish and humans are the microbes. Could it be that we're following the classic microbial growth curve?
http://classes.midlandstech.edu/carterp/courses/bio225/chap06/06-14_BacteriaGrowth_1.jpg

Lag phase - slow population growth (humans adjust to circumstances and learn to exploit their resources), growth phase - exponential population growth (humans exploit resources to full extent); stationary phase - population growth stagnates (humans have reached maximum resource exploitation levels and bi-products of consumption grow in the environment); death phase - bi-products of consumption grow in the environment to toxic levels and the environment is no longer capable of sustaining human population.

And here's where religion screws everyone! "It's God's will and there's nothing we can do to change that!" (sigh)

Flap Doodle 3 years, 3 months ago

"It would be to say that much of the actual entertainment that people joy comes from copy pasting." (from a source)

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 3 months ago

Can we say that individuals who make a living mowing lawns using truck transport and gasoline lawn mowers, one of the single worst cause of pollution, shouldn't also constantly tell others how they should treat the environment? It's reckless!

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 3 months ago

"The planet is fine! The PEOPLE are &%$#ed!"

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

My mowers have always been commercial grade meeting California EPA requirements which are stiffer than most. And I keep them tuned up to burn as clean as possible as well as efficient. In fact the commercial grade machines get real good gas mileage.

And of course they don't require near as much time to mow a yard as a typical homeowner model. Nor do they run many hours a day. Yes they are quick and efficient. In essence do all I can to reduce my impact.

It's always good to keep vehicles tuned up for the sake of burning cleaner.

This family is known to put a number of miles on our feet over the years as well as with bicycles. Again an effort to reduce our footprints. A never ending task.

Reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce is the objective.

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 3 months ago

Why do you hate the environment? You could use a push mower or electric mowers charged by wind energy. Can we say that family is hypocritical?

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

Will the USA ever be oil free? I doubt it but it sure is not worth going to war.

Meanwhile:

MARK COLVIN: New research predicts that climate change will have a far greater impact on wheat crops than expected.

Scientists from Stanford University found that a two degree increase in temperatures would reduce the growing season by nine days, yielding 20 per cent less wheat.

This could have a dire effect on global food security.

Meredith Griffiths reports.

MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Wheat is the world's second biggest crop and provides a fifth of the world's protein. But it doesn't grow well in the heat.

Professor David Lobell from Stanford University used nine years worth of satellite images to observe when Indian wheat crops turned brown, that is when they stopped growing.

He looked at what happened when temperatures exceeded 34 degrees Celsius; relatively few studies considered temperatures this high.

The extreme heat caused the wheat to age faster, reducing the length of the growing season.

That doesn't surprise Mark Swift who grows wheat near Parkes in central western New South Wales.

MARK SWIFT: We know that severe heat basically from - at any point during the crop lifecycle isn't healthy and it does have some pretty serious impact on the crop. It's wonderful that people are looking at it. And if they have been underestimating it, it's wonderful that they're now realising that it is more of an issue than they have in the past.

MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Do you worry about the effect that climate change will or could have on your crops one day?

MARK SWIFT: Look, in all honesty we live in a fairly variable climate anyway. The predictions I've seen so far are that we will continue to get maybe slightly more variability at the pointy ends of the spectrum. We've got a fairly wide - fairly varied climate here as it is so it's just another one of those things that sort of comes into the thinking as to how we run our business.

MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: But Professor Lobell calculated that higher temperatures could reduce crop yields by up to 20 per cent. That's much worse than forecast by previous models

Jeff Amthor is a Professor of Agronomy at the University of Sydney

JEFF AMTHOR: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3418905.htm

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

LONDON (Reuters) - Climate change cut global wheat and corn output by more than 3 percent over the past three decades compared to growth projections without a rise in temperatures, a study found on Friday. The impacts translated into up to 20 percent higher average commodity prices, before accounting for other factors, according to the paper published in the journal Science.

Crop yields rose over the period for example as a result of improvements in practices and plant breeding, and the isolated, negative impact of climate change was equivalent to about one tenth of those advances.

But that varied widely between countries with Russia, Turkey and Mexico more affected for wheat, for example.

The isolated impact of climate change on wheat and corn was a warning of the future food supply and price impact from an expected acceleration in warming, the paper said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/us-climate-food-idUSTRE74520720110506

Flap Doodle 3 years, 3 months ago

"It would be to say that much of the actual entertainment that people joy comes from copy/pasting" (from a source)

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

Published on Sunday, January 29, 2012 by Common Dreams

New Study: Global Warming Threatens World's Wheat Crop

It could be much more difficult than we thought to feed everyone in a warmer world. - Common Dreams staff

A study released Sunday afternoon finds that wheat crop yields could plunge due, in part, to climate change.

Extreme temperatures are already cutting wheat yields in India (Narinder Nanu/AFP) The study, published in Nature Climate Change, researchers warn that current projections underestimate the extent to which hotter weather in the future will accelerate this process. Extreme heat causes wheat crops to age faster and reduce yields, the Stanford University-led study shows, underscoring the challenge of feeding a rapidly growing population as the world continues to warm. == New Scientist magazine reported Sunday:

It could be much more difficult than we thought to feed everyone in a warmer world. Satellite images of northern India have revealed that extreme temperatures are cutting wheat yields. What's more, models used to predict the effects of global warming on food supply may have underestimated the problem by a third.

Two-thirds of wheat in poor countries, and 23 per cent in rich countries – nearly half the world's total crop – is at risk from warming.In India's breadbasket, the Ganges plain, winter wheat is planted in November and harvested as temperatures rise in spring.

David Lobell of Stanford University in California used nine years of images from the MODIS Earth-observation satellite to track when wheat in this region turned from green to brown, a sign that the grain is no longer growing.

He found that the wheat turned brown earlier when average temperatures were higher, with spells over 34 ºC having a particularly strong effect. [...]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/29-2

gudpoynt 3 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

gudpoynt 3 years, 3 months ago

I'm glad it was able to somehow seep into your typically closed mind.

I have yet to tire of calling you (and your clones) out on your imbecility. I realize it's a totally counterproductive venture, but if you all are going to insist on polluting the web with misinformation and bitterness in a childish effort to simply smear liberals and everything they stand for, then I feel compelled to, at the very least, acknowledge the baselessness of your comments. Particularly when the piece of web you are polluting is somewhat representative of the community I love. I'd hate for visitors to come to this site, see the comments made by you, or one of your clones, and think for a second that you are representative of the community in any way. Because you are not. At all.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

Merrill, if you were brainwashed by overzealous Christians instead of the far left/climate change people, you would have made one hell of an Assembly of God pastor preaching only the book of Revelations.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 3 months ago

LJW, if you are really hurting for clicks, a page 3 person would generate many many many many more page views that posting these "heard-it-all-a-thousand-times" LTEs. (from a source)

RoeDapple 3 years, 3 months ago

I quit reading at "billions and billions of gasoline burning vehicles". Please don't let facts get in the way of your argument. There are approximately 12.5 million (with an M) motor vehicles worldwide. About 80% of them in the US

dwendel 3 years, 3 months ago

I just did a 20 second search of the interwebs and got estimates of between 600 and 806 million world wide from the 4-5 hits I scanned. Hardly a definitive answer, but at least not completely rediculous and made up. I found another source that estimated 5.5 million cars in Los Angles County alone (not even half the greater L.A. area).

As you said, RoeDapple, "Don't let facts get in the way of your argument."

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

I thought the automakers sold 12.5 million new cars alone in the United States, and used to produce 16 million a year prior to the economic collapse.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 3 months ago

RoeDapple, there are billions and billions if you include vehicles of all types.

Tonka Toys are just one example.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 3 months ago

Maybe the lad was channeling Carl Sagan.

RoeDapple 3 years, 3 months ago

My apologies! I too did a 20 search but misread the figures on the first site I brought up. 600 to 800 is still not "billions and billions"

And that's . . .

a fact.

kernal 3 years, 3 months ago

Neither exaggeration nor denial get respect and support when discussing the changes taking place with our planet and they are taking place, whether we accept it or not.

To say that overpopulation and our bad habits, the latter which this country has historically been the worst, has nothing to do with any of it is either ignorance or delusion.

melott 3 years, 3 months ago

Do as much with hybrid cars, organic gardening, whatever. There are too many people plan and simple. Cutting the world population by about 90% might give us a future.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 3 months ago

Things have certainly changed a whole lot from when I was in high school in 1969 and 1970.

We never discussed climate change at all back then. The big subject as far as we were concerned was contaminates of various types in the air and water. Their adverse health effects were well documented.

There were a lot of successes, two of which were that DDT was banned, and environmental pollution controls became mandatory in motorized vehicles.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 3 months ago

The DDT ban is not universally seen as having been a good thing.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

Uh snap... as a God-fearing male, you should be glad DDT was banned. It actually concentrates as it moves up the food chain which makes it very dangerous for humans... especually males. DDT has caused the average sperm count to decline by almost half in the last 60 years, has caused the male to female ratio to skew toward females, and in areas where there are large spills, male live births are far and few in-between.

Someone even wrote an article about the subject entitled "You're half the man your grandfather was," talking about the effects of DDT.

camper 3 years, 3 months ago

I sure hope the deniers are right. But if by some slight chance they are wrong, they will quite possibly go down as possibly the most foolish of men to inhabit this planet.

As Steinbeck noted in his book the Sea of Cortez while observing sea invertebrates, the success of species ultimately leads to their extinction. I always thought this was true of animals, but believed man was smarter and could avoid this. Not sure this is so anymore.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 3 months ago

Trinity, Little Boy, and Fat Man should have been enough to convince you.

Armstrong 3 years, 3 months ago

Heckler also fails to mention to billions upon billions who have been duped into believing the global warming / climate change scam.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 years, 3 months ago

Heckler is a product of the Lawrence school system....need I say more?

Ken Lassman 3 years, 3 months ago

Folks may not like Heckler's approach to making the case for the reality of human induced climate change and the need for changing the way we do things if we want to slow and eventually reverse the effects of our collective lifestyles, but nobody above has refuted this well documented situation.

Those 16 scientists who wrote to the Wall Street Journal to deny humanity's role in climate change are not representative at all of the overwhelming number of scientists who publish in the field. Poke around a bit and you'll find that they have already been roundly dismissed by those in the know as akin to asking a dentist to give advice on your back surgery--they are simply not qualified to speak on the matter.

And that's not even the real reason that the overwhelming majority of scientists from across the earth sciences spectrum reject the denialists. Those who deny the impact of humans cannot provide good physical models that explain what we're seeing without including humanity's impact on the atmosphere. The physics of heat absorption and transfer, of solar irradiance, etc. cannot adequately account for the changes-- in the rise of global air temperatures, of sea surface temperature, of ocean heat, of sea level rise, of ocean acidification, of ice melting, of increases in weather extremes etc. without the additional energy retention that is made possible by the massive amounts of greenhouse gases released by human activity. Period.

Sorry, guys, but it's real, the trends are going to continue to worsen, and the longer we deny, the worse things will get.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 3 months ago

Well, maybe the rock they are living under will protect them ;>)

usnsnp 3 years, 3 months ago

I am not a climate scientist, so all I can base what I know on what I read. But here is a thought, mabey all scientist that make important statements about anything should also say who is paying them or who payed for their study. Secondly what if people are right about the climate changisng for the worst and we dont do anything about it and 20 or 30 years down the road they are proven right it could be too late to do anything about it. I dont know the answer but for our children I would error of the side caution.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.