Slashdot Mirror
Brits Ready Crops For Global Warming
Anonymous Coward writes "Not wanting to come up short at the dinner table, British researchers are developing new crops for a dryer, hotter UK. Starting with barley, they're turning genes on and off to help plants overcome their affinity for the country's cool, wet summers."
Unless of course the other half of climatologists are right and global warming shuts down the north atlantic current and "buried under ice" is what they get instead of "hot and dry".
Whatever happened to old-fashioned selecting crops? If you plant enough of them and grow them for a few years, you'll be able to get seeds that are suited for your area, if I'm not mistaken. Is it just the shortcut factor that makes the GM appealing in this case?
Not that I'm against genetic modification in principle, but I'm just curious if it's really that much superior to simple selection.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
This may be heading in the wrong direction. The expected perverse consequence of global warming for Britain is the shut down of the Gulf Stream and consequently much colder weather. If it dries out as well, Canadian wheat will be the crop to go to.
Instead of worrying about all this climate change nonsense we can just genetically modify ourselves and our food to suit. Oh, except if these guys had spent half an hour ringing round a few climatolagists they would have found out that the most likely outcome isn't a smooth, predictable change in temperature but wild, chaotic swings in climate caused by a million climate systems and feedback loops (not limited to the gulfstream) going totally out of whack.
Well, a whole bunch of people have already pointed out that the current widely accepted hypothesis is that global warming will shut down the gulf stream, and make Britain colder. However,
The Gulf stream tends to have a moderating effect on Britain. It makes the winters warmer and the summers cooler. If the Gulf Stream shuts down, won't that just eliminate the moderating effect? Wouldn't you have colder winters and warmer summers? If that's the case, then developing plants that can survive in a hotter climate (during the hotter growing season) is the right move.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
It matters on a lot of things. Take South Africa for example. Early European settlers were shocked by the treeless terrain so they spread pine, oak, and other water hungry plants around the country side. Those trees drink a lot more water then the native plants and have cause rivers to dry up to nothing more then trickles. With less water flowing down stream other plant life suffers and the landscape is drying out.
There are now government programs that are going through cutting back these huge trees. The effects have been amazing. Not only have the rivers started flowing more water, but the native plant life is bouncing back and some of South Africa's unemployed are getting jobs and training.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Suppose global warming isn't real, then the British can sell these new crops to those countries that are dryer and hotter than the UK.
No doubt this type of change could also be accounted for with genetic engineering, but I was under the impression that the British and most Europeans in general were pretty dead set against about "frankenfoods" that had been genetically modified. Does this project really stand a chance of getting off the ground if it depends on this sort of technology?
As for the slelective breeding option, I'm not convinced that would work, either. Selective cultivation depends on having some sort of genetic variablility in the current population. The more desirable traits are slected for. Current stocks of seed are not terribly genetically diverse, and if they don't mutate fast enough, you may not be left with enough genetic variants to choose from. Also, this type of selection requires a lot of time--something which may or may not be available as the climate changes.
So they are developing crops for summer conditions. The (corrected) link about the effect on the gulf stream, OTOH, states:
So, while an interuption in the gulf stream may result in colder UK winters, it may have less of an effect on the summers, which then may be warmer due to general global warming. Lower water temperatures in the north atlantic will also mean less moisture in the air, and a drier climate. So, if you actually take the time to read both of these articles (the original and the second one liked by the AC), you'll find that they are not in conflict at all.
--
Debunk the Monk!
Starting with barley
In other words, "Forget the orphans, save the beer!"
Generally in the UK we use the word weather to refer to the weather but I must admit that having lived in the UK for 30 years I have never heard this saying of yours. Of course this doesn't detract from the fact that it is always raining in Manchester, The Lake District and Wales.
Err, I mean no. Sorry about that.
Why not just plant crops that come from hotter, dryer, climates? Or if the other climate model prediciton comes true, shorter, colder growing seasons?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Are you just ignorant on purpose? Go to ANY arctic research site, run by ANYONE. TAKE YOUR PICK. You won't find any credible dissent. ZERO. It's MELTING because it's getting HOTTER. that's just basic observable data, and on the planet Earth, watching the poles is a good indicator of what happens generally around the planet. And the poles haven't been in a state of melted for a FREAKING LONG TIME. they have ice cores indicating constant frozen ness going way back, now that they are obviously melting, and in an accelerated state, is REAL DATA AND BIGTIME NEWS. For whatever combination of reasons, but please, how can you possibly deny what is observable data? Just because it hasn't happened for thousands of years is no reason to negate the effects that are happening now, or to fail to come up with any reasonable extrapolations for the future. It DOESN'T MATTER if it's a "natural cycle" or "mostly human caused" or because of "causes unknown at this point", to us humans, it WILL cause profound changes in society as the planet gets warmer. End of story. And it won't be "minimal" changes, either.
Well, 2 summers ago Winnipeg experienced its first August snow in recorded history. It was the coldest summer overall, by leaps and bounds. Calgary just experienced a colder than average spring and summer, with snow in the mountains lasting well into August that normally melts by June.
For every anecdote of a warmer-than-average day/month/season, you can find one of a colder-than-average day/month/season. It doesn't mean the sky is falling, it means that there's no such thing as "normal" temperatures.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Guys in BC are reporting a LOT of rain.
. html?img=ccatemp_12_s_m1. html?img=ccapcpn_12_m1_s
Trees budding already.
No doubt there is a lot of changes going on all over the place.
From where I sit, things are just not right at all.
If Alberta does not get a sustained snow/rain fall before spring, there is going to be water restrictions/bans and a whole lot of fire fighting going on.
The fire fighters I work for are already reporting for duty in January.
That is just crazy.
Just so you don't think I'm doing the Chicken Little dance, here is the long term forcast 9-12 months, from environment Canada:
http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/saisons/image_e
http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/saisons/image_e
If things don't go back to normal, there is about to be some serious issues to contend with.