Slashdot Mirror
Ethiopia's Coffee Is the Latest Victim of Climate Change (theverge.com)
According to a study published today in Nature Plants, by the end of this century, increasing temperatures could make it impossible to grow coffee in about half of Ethiopia's coffee-growing regions. "That's because Arabica coffee trees (which are grown in Ethiopia) require pretty mild temperatures to survive, ideally between 59 to 75 degree Fahrenheit," reports The Verge. "Climate projections show that Ethiopia will generally become warmer and drier, and that means that 40 to 60 percent of areas where coffee is currently grown won't be suitable to grow the beans, the study says." From the report: In fact, climate change is already hurting Ethiopia's coffee growers: days and nights are already warmer, and the weather is more unpredictable and extreme. Hot days are hotter and rainy days are rainier. That leads to more unpredictable harvests and it hurts the local economy. Ethiopia is Africa's biggest coffee producer and the world's fifth largest coffee exporter, with 15 million Ethiopians living off coffee farming. Climate change risks disrupting the country's future. But there is a way Ethiopia can brace for its brewing troubles. The study found that rising temperatures will turn swaths of land at higher elevation into just the right places to grow coffee in the future. In fact, coffee farming could increase four fold if plantations are moved uphill, the study says. But to do that, the country needs to prepare: millions of farmers can't just take their crops and move to land they don't own. You need careful planning.
Who cares?
You're senseless then. We're now growing pineapples in North Florida without bothering with freeze protection. Pineapples are very cold-sensitive, but the last couple of winters here would have counted as warm for Central Florida.
Stop blowing the trumpet on this shit. Its not working.
Carbon reduction isnt working. Even if we ceased all output tomorrow is probably already too late.
Put some reflective dust into the upper atmosphere and cool us back down, then those drunk on hydrocarbons get what they want until it runs out and is replaced with the next thing. win/win.
Chile has better coffee than Ethiopia. No big loss.
A large orange fellow told me climate change isn't real.
He also offered to shout me dinner at this pizza parlour he knows about.
This. I remember when I was in school we had a chapter in our textbook about the year 2000 which was 39 years away at that point. It claimed most of Florida would be under water and you would have to wear a gas mask to go outside. Also, it predicted that WWIII would be fought over water. None of those things have happened.
Alarmist headlines sell.
it's an Ethiopian hiding behind a tree lol
Bit my asthma has gotten much worse since Trump left the Paris Accords. We're already suffering from that. In ten years, asthma might be the leading killer of children.
"The study found that rising temperatures will turn swaths of land at higher elevation into just the right places to grow coffee in the future. In fact, coffee farming could increase four fold if plantations are moved uphill, the study says."
#ThanksClimateChange
hurts the local economy.
Coffee production in Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Vietnam invested in a lot of different farming crops, so did a lot of other nations. A global flood of cheap and quality coffee now exists from many different nations.
Other nations have learned how to do all the different coffee crops and are selling on the open market.
Lots of nations saw coffee prices and helped their farmers into a cash crop. Some made quality, some went for a lot of low cost production.
Consumers want a low cost product too, so costs are been pushed down. A low price still keeps farmers in work so different nations flood the coffee market with well planned plantations.
Other nations did the planning, used their best experts over the years and can now produce at a lower cost.
Its not the weather, its just classic competition and having much better experts.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
an yet here you are, accessing slashdot on something that consumes power generated by something the probably produces carbon commissions, built by someone in china where they don't care about the environment, in your nice air conditioned or heated home, probably sucking down some soda or eating chips you did not grow yourself.
This. I remember when I was in school we had a chapter in our textbook about the year 2000 which was 39 years away at that point. It claimed most of Florida would be under water and you would have to wear a gas mask to go outside. Also, it predicted that WWIII would be fought over water. None of those things have happened.
Alarmist headlines sell.
I doubt you had that in a school textbook. What you're probably "remembering" are Paul Ehrlich's doomsayings from 1970, so about 10 years after what you think you remember
Denier trolls will spam this article with fallacious arguments against climate change.
And supporter trolls with spam this article with fallacious arguments for climate change.
Sorry, but both sides are guilty here.
The problem, in fact, is that there are "sides" in the first place. We need to let honest, non-politicized, non-agenda-driven science speak for itself.
Republicans don't care about children.
Carbon Dioxide emitted by ignorant 'muricans has been scientifically proven to be the only cause of asthma. Scientific leader John Kerry said so and shall be deified along with Enviro God-Emperor GORE (holy be his name). Carbon Dioxide emitted by those who have been sanctified by GORE is harmless and leads to immortality (holy be the private jets of the enviro-elites who shall rule us).
In fact, asthma didn't exist before nazi-Bush was elected and it's science that asthma disappeared during the reign of the Prophet Obama. If the martyred saint Hillary had ascended to her rightful Gawdhood then all the unbelievers would have been cleansed from the earth.
Let any who deny the settled science of this post burn for their heresy (with proper holy carbon offset indulgences being charged).
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
If you shame someone that doesn't respect you, not only will they refuse to listen, they will dislike you even more.
The study itself says "In fact, coffee farming could increase four fold if plantations are moved uphill, "
FOUR FOLD.
Yet, the headline is about how some coffee fields will be too hot.
Perhaps a more fair headline would be "Climate change displacing Ethiopian Coffee farmers, but will increase their productivity fourfold."?
-Styopa
It's not extrapolation if there is a mechanistic explanation.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
They're not fallacious. It has been evidence based since at least the 1970's. I remember discussing greenhouse gases in my HS Chemistry class.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
If they're already observing an impact from climate change, that's not extrapolation.
Where will we get coffee? I guess we could grow it ... somewhere it's too cold to grow coffee right now, but won't be when it warms up.
Still though, not growing coffee in the precise location it is currently being grown is a monumental tragedy.
Mine too. Thought it was just me.
As long as my cup of coffee does not increase in price we don't need to worry about the temperature in ....
And the dinosaurs are dead and the glaciers retreated... if only the planets temperature had remained constant... we would not be having these arguments on the internet...
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
It's not extrapolation if there is a mechanistic explanation.
In 1900 there was a mechanistic explanation why NYC would have horse manure six feet deep on all the streets.
The Republicans won't let the CDC do science so we'll never know.
If they're already observing an impact from climate change, that's not extrapolation.
We are also seeing the impact of wider adoption of solar panels because of lower prices. If you project the price drop forward, within a decade they will actually go negative, and solar companies will PAY YOU to have panels installed on your roof.
If we are already observing the price declining, that's not extrapolation.
A warmer climate means LESS extremes in weather, because as the temperature grows more water vapor enters the system and it acts on a damper (ha!) for really extreme weather.
So far we have witnessed that first hand, being in an epic lull in terms of major hurricanes hitting the U.S..
It is so sad to see so many be taken in by such obvious fear-mongering, devoid even of what little real science we do know describes how the Earth works in reality... dry portions of the earth are not caused by heat, they care caused by local weather patterns that scrub moisture from the air before it reaches an area. The Antarctic even has a desert after all...
And as mentioned - why even fear anything when it means Ethiopia could simply shift where it grows the crops?? This is what I really don't get about fear mongering, the inability to realize just how good humans are at dealing with change, never mind change that takes place slowly over decades or centuries... why are you so scared of warming? The only thing there ever was to fear was runaway warming and we can see plainly that's not happening (requiring 10 times more CO2 than is currently in the atmosphere, even as countries are gradually ramping down emissions as the increase use of solar power...).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Scientists project climate change could increase coffee production in Ethiopia fourfold."
But that probably wouldn't get as many clicks.
I'm a Socialist but even I realize that "careful planning" always loses to the invisible hand of the market. Greed is very effective in adapting to climate change.
I take it you've never been to New York.
This alarmism is based on an extrapolation of current conditions. Extrapolations 80 years into the future have a long history of looking laughably silly in hindsight.
The snow on Kilimanjaro was predicted to disappear by 2015 or thereabouts.
Of course, it actually didn't.
Science is all about forming hypotheses, then making falsifiable predictions.
What testable predictions do we have for Ethiopian coffee? What year will coffee be untenable as a crop?
Wait a couple of years and see if these predictions are correct - sounds like a valid test of climate change.
What's the problem with doing that?
(If you don't like waiting years, then let's look at previous testable predictions and see how well they held up. Anyone have a list of testable predictions?)
People will want to dismiss this "Oh noes, Ethiopia will be poor." But the truth is this is how things go from bad or barely manageable to absolute hell. Civilized societies turn to civil war and in our time feeding grounds for terrorism. The Yucatan peninsula went from 1.2 million people, with scientists, politicians, and surprisingly advanced civilization at the time, to just over 100k in less than 100 years. Drought was a big part of that.
Imagine what kind of havoc had to have happened for 9/10 of your friends and family to not have descendants. That's serious war and hell, and we see our own human history showing that we're not good at these long term planning challenges. The funny thing is that there were politicians in the Yucatan, in the beginning, that tried to get people to change farming practices to cope with the changing climate, but they were always immediately voted out of office because it would have affected profits.
So laugh and dismiss all you want, but vote for leaders that take this seriously and plan properly.
(Emphasis mine)
Sorry, I read that and just laughed out loud! Cats and dogs living together! Bwa ha ha ha.... !
Seriously.
Do you have any hard evidence to cite? Something without, for example, emotional content?
Exactly -- and then the car came along.
We have a similar situation now: it's looking like the whole world will be six feet deep in proverbial horse shit (AGW/climate change/whatever phrase you like) if we don't adopt the proverbial car (new power generation techniques).
Extrapolations 80 years into the future often look ridiculous because of some fundamental shift (in technology, policy, etc.). Visions of the future before the transistor (or active matrix/LCD-based screens, or CCDs, or...) was invented are often pretty laughable, but that's because these devices had a *huge* role to play in shaping technology. These sorts of climate predictions will more than likely look laughably silly in hindsight, but I suspect that's because we'll violate the assumptions of the extrapolations -- we'll be doing something differently by then (and of course, these models are probably very sensitive to initial conditions).
As long as my cup of coffee does not increase in price we don't need to worry about the temperature in ....
Every Coffee Retailer in Existence: "Hey, guys, global warming! Perfect excuse to raise our prices! *cash register ka-ching*"
Perfect. Then, let's mark the projected date of this coffee calamity on a calendar and see how it plays out.
sig: sauer
In 1900 there was a mechanistic explanation why NYC would have horse manure six feet deep on all the streets.
Joke's on them - the manure ain't from horses!
#DeleteChrome
I'm hoping that climate-change-denier idiots like Mr. Trump prefer Ethiopian coffee over other sources. Then they might start to understand how wrong they are, to oppose doing stuff about climate change.
Hey scientist, you're confusing facts from projections and interpolations. Climate change is an observable fact, what someone thinks climate will look like in the future is definitely not.
Just how arrogant you people are, to claim to know the dystopian future while ignoring all the positives of slight warming and some more CO2 in the air. Be happy you fool, the planet is going green!
we'll be doing something differently by then
Unless we'll be actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it will still be there in 80 years.
1- Seems like fake news designed to excite Leftards with random fearmongering.
2- My coffee doesn't come from Ethiopia.
3- Maybe the US can develop coffee independence. Colorado coffee would be great.
So, suck it bitches. No UBI-paid fancy coffee for you!
Oh so you are six feet tall. Good to know.
The hell are you talking about? Is that kind of like saying "it's not gay if the balls don't touch"?
we'll be doing something differently by then
Unless we'll be actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it will still be there in 80 years.
Well since it's inevitable then trying to reduce CO2 output is a waste of money.
The only way we could possibly sequester a meaningful amount is if someone managed to find a way to un-desertify the Sahara and planted trees throughout the whole thing in the next decade.
Yeah, because everything they teach kids in HS is gospel. Nevermind that a basic tenet of science is that all theories are falsifiable. Nevermind that theories get revised all the time. I'm sure that your chemistry teacher really knew what was going on despite the effectively infinite number of variables involved in predicting the climate and our repeated inability to predict anything close to reality over a couple of decades let alone over a century into the future. Yeah, you're probably right.
Unfortunately, in most scientific fields the fastest way to brand yourself a traitor is to question any part of the gospel of climate change. This isn't science anymore, it's like a religion with holy teachings and clergy. Science is a method of inquiry, it's not a damned belief system. Yet people go around saying stuff like "I believe in science" or "so and so doesn't believe in science." Fuck 'em. They have no idea what they're talking about. You don't "believe" in science, you test it, question it, criticize it, refine it, and the process never ends. Nothing is set in stone, no matter what these idiots everywhere claim.
Hmm. A peculiar notion about economics ... and extrapolation too.
The government ALREADY pays you to have solar panels. It's called a subsidy.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Obligatory xkcd about the changing temp.
i'm old enough to remember when all this climate bs started
al gore and fellow nwo puppets said that there would be no snow on the Himalayas by the year 2000,
the arctic ocean and great lakes would be ice free,
and the pacific islands would all be under water.
what a load of toss,
wake up sheeple before it's too late,
it's all a lie,
don't believe the libtard msm sjw hypocrites and their massive carbon footprint,
who've make a lot of money from this,
sipping their lattes on their private jets
You make an excellent point:
Are there any other non-coffee drinkers who welcome this? I'm hoping beyond all hope that the hipster poseurs w@nking about their addictive beans might stop yapping about it for a few minutes ? If you enjoy coffee, wonderful, but pretending one cup of seemingly burnt toast scrapings differs much from another cup of seemingly burnt toast scrapings warrants the same sniffy pontification as wine tasting is even more tedious than it is comical (I live in the city with the highest ratio of coffee outlets to citizens, and whose citizens are uberserious about their coffee, but it still tastes vile to me).
or CCDs, or...
Super, super tiny vidicon tubes.
Late in the tube era, there were little tiny tubes the size of an NE-2 neon lamp.
un-desertify the Sahara and planted trees throughout the whole thing
There would be people screeching about the damage to the Sahara desert's indigenous flora and fauna.
Please point out in the historical record where you can show people were saying "there are lots of other good reasons to stop using horses".
So they will pay more and more as time goes on? If I put on solar panels, within five years or so I won't have to pay a mortgage, and the subsidy will then soon also pay for my food?
Cool!
For the first time in years I haven't had any allergies this spring.
Thanks, Trump!
It hasn't happened yet.
No, they don't. In fact in my country you pay an extra fee to connect to the grid.
Initially the gas and steam engines were created to haul the barn around in front of the horses, because people knew a tired horse would head for the barn. They could get a couple more hours work out of a horse that way.
Extrapolations 80 years into the future have a long history of looking laughably silly in hindsight.
So the result could be worse than the models predict?
piles of shit and urine and the accompanying flies is enough reason for me
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
And how accurate have the denialist's predictions been?
This alarmism is based on an extrapolation of current conditions
I realize xkcd goes over the heads of many people, but the *joke* is that if you reduce the sample size enough (in this case, down to 2 days), you can make an extrapolation say whatever you want. If you need it explained in a webcomic, here you go.
We have detailed climate data going back to 1850, which means an 80 year extrapolation into the future isn't exactly a shot in the dark.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
At least after they're born.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So, in other words, your immune system is shot or the environment is.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Forget it. Too many people and organizations have stakes in this matter by now to ever allow you to get any unbiased information. Let's just enjoy life 'til it's no longer possible on this planet, then lament how we could never have foreseen this. Just like we always do.
I mean, nobody could have foreseen what's going down in Syria, after all.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We gotta Trump, the wisest ape of them all. And he grabs pussies... mmm.
What's the population density in Ethiopia?
Depends on the wind direction.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And just like in the 1980s, nobody will give a fuck and a few celebrities will sing a song about it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That coffee definitely maybe for sure 100% of the time might causes in an increase in cancer by 27% as proven by a million dollar NSF funded double blind placebo controlled study. Now that we have 98% of the climate scientist saying that with100% certainty that no coffee will be able to grow in Ethiopia. Combined, this is good news. Thanks to science we know that in the future there will be no cancer. If you dont agree with everything i just said, you are a science denier who believes the world is 6000 years old.
Remember science is always right.
In some alternate universe where warmer, more humid are doesn't == more tornadoes, hurricanes in the summer, and more blizzards in the winter.
I remember when I was in school we had a chapter in our textbook about the year 2000 which was 39 years away at that point. It claimed most of Florida would be under water ...
Yeah that was right next to the chapter in your textbook that said that by about the year 2000 Florida would be covered in ice. Can you science deniers at least get your lies to be consistent?
an yet here you are, accessing slashdot on something that consumes power generated by something the probably produces carbon commissions,
Speak for yourself, I'm 100% nuclear powered, as green as it gets.
Dampener forr what?
Temperature? Yes.
Amount if rain? No.
If I never had a flood on my fields or in my streets, and now have that every rain season, I would call that: extreme.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The problem, in fact, is that there are "sides" in the first place.
It's an entirely artificial debate that only exists in the US, thanks to large investments in "anti-climate change" agendas. The debate doesn't exist anywhere else because in other parts of the world just take the opinions of the vast majority of scientists (> 95%) on a matter in order to make informed decisions.
In combination with half-hearted attempts of most politicians worldwide, the primary effect in the long run will be that global warming will continue to accelerate, though it slow down a little bit due to efforts of the rest of the world (as the US is pretty much alone regarding this topic), and that European countries and China will continue to be the world-wide leading manufacturers of green energy production whose relevance will increase whether there is man-made climate change or not.
My opinion is that the current US position is overall good for Europe, especially for Germany which is already leading in green energy technology. Regarding the US pseudo-discussion, well, what should I say, science has been right and science has been wrong, but it's retarded not to make your policy decisions on the basis of the current scientific consensus. There is a lot to discuss for laymen and politicians in terms of how to respond, but certainly not the scientific details.
100 years ago probably almost nobody at all in continental Nth America was growing corn, because it's a modern cash crop.
FTFY
Yes. the models are not the issue, The interpretation, neither. Publishing is.
If we can mot manage a rapid change in CO2 exhaust, we as a species are basically doomed.
However I believe we will manage. Even rogue states like the USA will soon switch dramatically.
We won't be able to save most of the pacific islands but can still welcome the refugees.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Fossil water consumption, deforestation etc etc. The impact a doubling of population every 25 years can have on an environment is so far in excess to what the relative steady global warming can do it's almost laughable.
But you are allowed to talk about global warming, you have to pretend population growth is irrelevant.
In the same way that a 20% coupon for BBAB means you're "saving" 20% of your money
/capitalistlogic
In the same way that people who argue against lead paint, arsenic, or cars without seat belts are making fallacious arguments. Or...maybe you're just a hand waiving dumbfucker.
Gravity is "just a theory". Jumped off a 20 story building to test it? If not, why not.
The title says the industry is the latest victim. The content says there 'could' be impact. The objective evidence is that over the past decade Ethiopia has increased their coffee production from around 240k mt to 360k mt, meanwhile the 'projections' from the end of the 90s were that the climate would have been drastically warmer than it actually is, so you can take your bullshit alarmists and 'could' go fuck yerselves ;)
Oh the humanity! I won't be able to drink some overpriced "boutique" swill at my local gay transgender coffee house!
you insensitive clod...
"ideally between 59 to 75 degree Fahrenheit,"
If the "The National Coffee Association" are idiots, we do not have to mirror them...
No, because NYC has been flooded.
Moreover your tired old denier zombie argument is false.
Lets say that the prices drop 20% every year. At what point will the 99.99 price point become negative, moron?
That last one is still the most likely single scenario for world war 3. Water is scarce, and getting scarcer as it has to be divided among an ever larger population.
Hitherto a lot of technology like desalination plants haven't made economic sense since the cost of using it was higher than the cost of just outsourcing your farming to somewhere else with more rain. Now those things are, ever more, starting to make sense because even just enough to drink is becoming a problem.
More importantly though, your textbook (and yourself), seems to have made a classic mistake which is to fundamentally fail to understand how scientific predictions work. A scientific prediction is NEVER "x will happen".
A scientific prediction is "if y then x" and when scientists predict societal problems -it's with the stated AIM of having y changed so that X does not occur -they are betting that they can PREVENT their own prediction coming true.
Seen from that point of view - in fact their record has been astoundingly good. In nearly every case we DID address X and Y stopped being a severe problem.
Scientist: "Sulfur emisions are causing acid rain and if they continue at this raid acid rain will cause serious damage"
In that prediction - the continuing of sulfur emissions is X, the damage is Y.
That damage didn't occur - but not because the prediction was wrong, because - based on that science - we changed X - by regulating the hell out of sulfur emissions.
That vindicated the science - it didn't prove the scientists 'alarmist' or wrong.
Another example was Y2K. In this case computer scientists found that a fatal design flaw which was common in a great deal of hardware and software could cause serious issues if it wasn't fixed before 2000. A huge, international, effort was begun to fix the problem. Older, affected, hardware was upgraded. Software was upgraded, patched or replaced. It was a massive effort that lots of very smart people worked very hard on for many years.
End result: they did manage to fix almost all the computers, and when Y2K came around there was almost no actual negative impacts. One nuclear plant shut down because it thought it hadn't received an update from the temperature guages in over a hundred years. Other such isolated incidents occured - but the calamity was averted.
Not because the prediction was wrong -because it was RIGHT - and we changed the initial conditions so that the outcome would be avoided.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
"may be the vanishing snows of Kilimanjaro, which were predicted to disappear as early as 2015 in a widely-publicized report a decade ago. "
So widely publicised that the article you linked to did not provide it. Nor even what it meant by widely publicised. Published and available to anyone who had a journal subscription?
That's an extrapolation. You will die in something less than maybe 80 years. Laughable? No. It's a solidly evidenced inductive conclusion.
The only alarmism is the bullshitters like you screaming about how doing anything about AGW will result in the End Of The World. Based on fuck all but paranoid delusion.
Clueless morons who have no idea of science will calculate that falling at 9.8m/s/s over 3km will end up with you falling at a speed of 170m/s. But actual scientists know that air resistance exists and include that in their dynamical equation and get a figure for a human body around 60m/s after a 3km drop to ground level.
YOUR extrapolations are ridiculous, the ones scientists do are not.
One nuclear plant shut down because it thought it hadn't received an update from the temperature guages in over a hundred years.
Wow, who would've thunk we had nuclear power plants before we even figured out how to split the atom.
Erm... you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. Nobody suggested the plant was over a hundred years old.
Y2K affected the ability of computers to understand dates - so they ended up thinking a datestamp from 2000 was from 1900, it didn't change the actual date. It was a storage-overflow bug, not a time machine.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
t matter.
I know "tastes like shit" is horribly overused, but Ethiopian coffee gives a very strong smell of human fecal matter, with a taste to match. YMMV, obviously.
These are largest polluters in the world per acre and have almost environmental guide lines. At least none that readily enforced. They are largest reason for this tragedy.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
china is doing just that, co2 scrubbers ala dune-style water concentrators https://motherboard.vice.com/e...
Actually many environmental groups have been trying to help halt desertification and begin to reverse it, because it is destroying habitable areas and the habitats of the things that live there (including people).
One idea would be to install masses of solar power, using some of it to supply Europe (which will attract the investment) and some of it to help make more of the desert habitable and arable.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Are there actually people who deny climate change? I thought the argument was about causality.
"increasing temperatures could make it" ... could means not hasn't happened, so not a victim.
Damn alarmists. "Our models says we're all going to die unless you sacrifice to our green gods!"
Actually, you've got the wrong end of the stick here when you're talking about "extrapolation". If you look at the instrumental record from the 1940s to the mid 70s, the world actually cooled.
This was because of industrial sulfate aerosol emissions, which increases the Earth's albedo. This effect was understood in the 1950s, which was why scientists expected the Earth to continue cooling. Arrhenius's CO2 driven warming theories had been discredited for over half a century because of two mistaken beliefs: (1) that CO2's IR absorption band was the same as water vapor's, so that it coud not materially affect temperature and (2) atmospheric CO2 was in equilibrium with ocean CO2. Both these beliefs were proven false in the late 50s, so from 1967 until 1980 or so the question was whether CO2 driven warming or sulfate driven cooling would predominate.
Until the mid 70s sulfates prevailed, however two additional developments caused a shift in the scientific consensus. First, much more data was collected about the Earth's atmosphere. Second, the availability of computers allowed us to actually calculate the relative effects of CO2 and sulfates, and they predicted an imminent reversal in the temperature trends of the past three decades.
This is as good as scientific confirmation of a theory gets: a counter-intuitive prediction that proves to be true. This is why by the 90s the overwhelming majority of climate scientists had confidence in at least the broad picture the models were predicting.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yeap apperently it is the higth of hubris for us humans to think that we could have an effect on gods perfect creation
150 years is less than a whole warming or cooling period. The sample size is too small, so it is a shot in the dark.
Are you sick of this relentless propaganda, every single day, from this website?
There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', no matter how many paid shills (i.e. 'experts' whose jobs and funding depend on maintaining alarm among their victims) bleat on about it every single day.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Yes it is. And unlike some cults, it can even prove it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
hand waiving
You have this in two posts! It's actually "waving" - "waiving" is something else.
Why is this modded to 'troll'? Was it because the modders read the details of the model used like the assumptions made and the degree of error in the predictions? Well, no it's not because those details aren't available. By extension, the predictions also aren't science because 'science' allows open review.
The best one could say is that yeah, if Ethiopia gets hotter their coffee production could suffer.
But we already knew that right?
And as the post correctly points out, maybe it won't get hotter.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
They might sound the same but remember,
Horse manure != Whore's manure
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I'm gonna take a wild guess that you don't work in pricing, do you?
Well since it's inevitable then trying to reduce CO2 output is a waste of money.
The only way we could possibly sequester a meaningful amount is if someone managed to find a way to un-desertify the Sahara and planted trees throughout the whole thing in the next decade.
Seeding in properly selected parts of the oceans would be easier and faster.
Check out the acknowledgements:
Sound like the study's sponsor begins with the assumption that the Coffee economy is not climate-Resilient And that climate change that is expected will damage it
".. to realize just how good humans are at dealing with change ..."
You've clearly never met a Millennial.
After three attempt to get various palms and fruit trees to grow on my property I've given up and gone back to cold tolerant varieties.
I too am growing pineapples, but only because they grow fast and can be done so in a pot, which I cart into a heated garage during the winter.
This is why the weatherman never offers more than a week's worth of predictions about the weather. Anything past 2-3 days is just a WAG (wild ass guess) which only occasionally comes true.
The climate scientists are just simply taking that WAG and raising 4-5 orders of magnitude, which is why to this date they have failed to predict a single correct out come on global cooling, global warming, and now climate change.
Not if algae has anything to say about it.
One idea would be to install masses of solar power, using some of it to supply Europe (which will attract the investment) and some of it to help make more of the desert habitable and arable.
Please explain to me how you plan to "supply" Europe with electricity generated in African deserts?
Ken
other tax payers ALREADY pay you to have solar panels. its called robbery... i mean.. a subsidy
ftfy
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Of course that is much less sympathetic to the 1st world who won't send cash if they don't feel guilty about it.
Really, really long cables. High voltage DC to be precise.
Actually the distance to northern Africa isn't that far, certainly no further than some of the trans-European cables we already have.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Seriously. I come from a farming community in Canada. There was no 'careful planning', there was 'we have a bunch of land & people anyone in the world want to come, break their ass & farm stuff here?'
Farmers go where the crops will grow. So not only is the report alarmist in trying to first claim Ethiopian coffee growing is doomed THAN it admits 'O no, actually other places in Ethiopia will be able to grow MORE coffee', than concludes that apparently only government can ensure that...e.g. 'careful planning' = 'billions of government subsidies to screw with the market'...also what else will be grown in Ethiopia where coffee grows today?
I have no problem with scientists going 'hey it's getting warmer', making doomsday predictions every time they say that though is getting really grating.
china is doing just that, co2 scrubbers ala dune-style water concentrators
https://motherboard.vice.com/e...
Those aren't CO2 scrubbers. Those are particulate scrubbers.
It has been evidence based since at least the 1970's. I remember discussing greenhouse gases in my HS Chemistry class.
Yeah, and do you remember what that "evidence-based" investigation pointed out? A coming ice age... Then, when it didn't happen, the "evidence" was "cleaned up and then there was talk of global warming, until that proved it wasn't going to happen, then we settled on the hard to disprove "climate change" conclusion, which has the beauty of being impossible to dispute, because no matter what the climate does, as long as it continues to change, their "evidence-based" conclusions don't have to be revised again.
Ken
Once again, a "scientific" article carefully avoids making a scientific statement... Because such statements need to be falsifiable (among other requirements).
And I don't blame the authors — in the 4 decades of the "global warming" hysteria, plenty of predictions have been made. Those among them, that were falsifiable, ended up getting falsified indeed (any attempt to rebut this post must cite counter-examples or be returned unopened) — hence the switch from the firm "will" to the evasive "could". It still mongers the fears just as well, but without quite as much embarrassment, when the prediction fails...
The fear of commitment is like that of the insurance lizard: "15 minutes call could save you 15% or more".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
More processing power, models refined over the decades for more accurate forecasting.
...And they *STILL* can't get the computer climate models to even somewhat-accurately track *PAST* climate changes!
WTF makes anyone think that their predictions about *future* climate changes are any more reliable?
Strat
For anyone wanting something more than the parent's word on this, the IPCC backs him up on it in their 5th assessment report you can read about here:
For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
One of the referenced papers comments on the reason tuning is desirable:
The choices we make naturally depend on our preconceptions, preferences and objectives. We choose to tune our model because the alternatives - to either drift away from the known climate state, or to introduce flux-corrections - are less attractive. Within the foreseeable future climate model tuning will continue to be necessary as the prospects of constraining the relevant unresolved processes with sufficient precision are not good.
So, our inherent understanding of some processes is still not accurate enough for the job and tuning is a necessary evil. Regrettably, the corrections we tune for are bad enough that they are "essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state".
The challenges still faced from tuning are outlined in another of the referenced papers:
CM3w predicts the most realistic 20th century warming. However, this is achieved with a small and less desirable threshold radius of 6.0 m for the onset of precipitation. Conversely, CM3c uses a more desirable value of 10.6 m but produces a very unrealistic 20th century temperature evolution.
So the tuning process means using less realistic values for parameters just to make sure the TOA energy balances.
That same paper ends with the following note:
Furthermore, in order to predict a realistic evolution of the 20th century, models must balance radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, resulting in a well-documented inverse correlation between forcing and sensitivity [Schwartz etal. 2007; Kiehl, 2007; Andrews etal. 2012]. This inverse correlation is consistent with an intercomparison-driven model selection process in which “climate models’ ability to simulate the 20th century temperature increase with fidelity has become something of a show-stopper as a model unable to reproduce the 20th century would probably not see publication
So, as even the IPCC and many jumping on after me here will be liable to observe, the published climate models out there all more or less are able to recreate the historical temperature record. Of course, as noted this isn't necessarily a comment on inherent merit to the models as the authors note their own model tuning meant the choice between picking a parameter value that better fit the known data, or the parameter that would yield a better hindcast and unless you choose the hindcast you don't get published. If the only models that can get published are tuned for hindcasts, it's less surprising that a sampling of published models manages to do that. The question of HOW they manage to hindcast is key, and the inability to properly control TOA energy without hand balling things is huge.
One idea would be to install masses of solar power, using some of it to supply Europe (which will attract the investment) and some of it to help make more of the desert habitable and arable.
Please explain to me how you plan to "supply" Europe with electricity generated in African deserts?
They send it on container ships, obviously, it's too much for carrier pigeons
What's not clear is how electricity makes more of the desert "habitable". Are they going to set up huge electric fans ? [and don't forget some windmills to use the breeze from the fans to generate electricity for the fans]
Anecdotal evidence says you're wrong...
Number of times snow was recorded in Florida during 20th century: 21 times.
Number of times snow was recorded in Florida during the 21st century: 16 times.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The 1980's were especially bad for Florida, with 3 years in a single decade bringing bad freezes: 1983, 1985, and 1989.
And finally, here's a story about the freezing winter of 2015 in Tampa: http://www.tampabay.com/news/w...
Plants actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The higher the CO2 concentration, the greater the plant growth.
Ethiopia's coffee exports are hitting new volume records:
http://www.ena.gov.et/en/index...
/capitalistlogic
If only there was a word or phrase you could use when you make something up about a group and pretend that it is the way the group really is.
alarmist trash, there is no problem at present. this is the same nonsense as the "third of world's population exposed to heat wave danger " article today, as if that weren't always true, and as if we didn't have more massive amounts of deaths from heat waves decades and more ago.
I'm against carbon pollution; we have smarter ways to make energy now than burning organic fossil matter. but this kind of tabloid trash hype isn't helping any cause
Desalinization. It takes a good chunk of power to pull water out of the salt for irrigation.
Also pumps. They'll need some big ones to cover that much territory without regrading a bunch of sand which, if you've tried it at the beach, is generally not a long term solution.
Ethopia-specific predictions are a guess. Worldwide predictions are not. The amount of Co2 we release is known. Simple experiments confirm that CO2 prevents heat from escaping. The amount is calculable.
So while it may not be Ethiopia, it will. E somewhere. Lot s of places. And it's easier to lower CO2 emissions than predict every change it'll make and ward them off.
"The presence of 120,000 horses in New York City, wrote one 1908 authority for example, is “an economic burden, an affront to cleanliness, and a terrible tax upon human life.”
http://www.banhdc.org/archives...
It is a shot in the dark because we know for a fact that temperatures were different before that. We have weather recordings for about 2000 years albeit not on a modern temperature scale. If there was snow somewhere you can be pretty sure it was freezing cold.
The claim is that there has been a few degrees of warming, and that the worst case is that there will be a few more. Few being on the order of 5 in each case.
Since there is much more variation in daily, seasonal, and yearly averages, I don't get how this will cause a mass kill off of trees.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Just cover the Sahara in solar-powered air conditioners. Problem solved.
This space intentionally left blank
It's not extrapolation if there is a mechanistic explanation.
In 1900 there was a mechanistic explanation why NYC would have horse manure six feet deep on all the streets.
Not sure you realize this, but your post is actually an argument in favor of doing something about climate change.
it's too much for carrier pigeons
It could grip it by the husk...
You usually pay extra for that.
No. Haven't jumped myself. But, I know people that have (they wore parachutes, BTW). Theory proved out exactly as predicted. I was a little higher up for my test. My airplanes engine quit when I was at about 6,000ft. 15 minutes later, I was in a chicken farmer's back field. Yep, more support for that theory of gravity.
Warmest predicted more floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and severe weather of all sorts. How has that been working out?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Plants hold a certain amount of CO2, but unless the plant gets stored somewhere it's going to decay and release the CO2. Plant growth can be limited by all sorts of things.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Ah, so you had crappy textbooks also.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
While you obviously claim to know the non-dystopian future. Sorry, I'm going with what the smart people who've studied this hard say as the most likely possibility.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Actually, solar will be like candy bars: the price stays the same and the panels get smaller and more efficient...until they just become smaller...then your roi tanks.
Might want to do some research on the timescales of various carbon fluxes...
Maybe true for bubble tea, but even if coffee was $20 a cup in Starbucks, they'd sell, as long as it was $22 in the independent store over the road.
Besides, if anyone can afford to research some sort of engineered coffee and implement it, it would be them. Starbucks revenue was 21 billion last year (however, based on tax returns a mysteriously missing profit despite 10% growth) and Ethiopia's entire GDP was 61 billion, and they only have a government budget of 11 billion.
Today I learned CO2 isn't a particle. Rather, I learned people think CO2 isn't a particle.
Today I confirmed that some people don't know the difference between a particle and a particULate.
You don't seem to understand the arguments against your point of view very well. Why do progressives always call their opponents religious fanatics, dumb hicks, or racist nazis not worth listening to? You literally cut yourselves off from reasoned debate and become those very things: belligerent, ignorant, dogmatists. Progressives are not winning the talking points. Anyone who is not aware of this is living in their walled garden and needs to get out and find the facts.
I imagine they had heated arguments over the "horse manure problem" back then as well, with shit-deniers and shit-disturbers throwing shit everywhere. Hopefully there's a happy ending to our modern version of this story and the market trends we're seeing in renewables will continue to accelerate.
The difference now is that the stakes are quite a bit higher than simply covering New York in shit.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
The most dangerous person in the world would be a climate scientist who figures out how to completely eliminate CO2.
Pineapples are not fast growing. It takes a couple of years.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
Unless they don't have enough water/.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
There really are people that stupid out there, and they're the kind of people who support people like Trump and the Cock Sucker Brothers.
There are apples on the trees in our orchard. Flowers blooming all over. There's even some milkweed in the corner of the yard. I am going to not chop it down this year and see if we can attract a bunch of monarch butterflies.
The environment here isn't "shot." When I hear the red-tailed hawks scree up there I know the food chain is still working okay.
Selective memory.
The same people as that writer at present bemoan 'sprawl' as the biggest problem facing cities.
It's ideology speaking, though horses do place a burden on high density cities. The fix was actually streetcars and expanded suburbs, until the automobile infrastructure replaced the rails.
A couple years is fast growing by most things. Try planting a lime tree you only need to wait 10 years or so for them to produce fruit.
So you are saying that algae doesn't consume CO2? Interesting. I wonder what it lives on then.
A little tank in a lab with elevated CO2 levels with 3-4 variables is a far cry from a global environment that literally has hundreds of thousands of variables.
Also might want to work on reading comprehension. I didn't say anything about algae not consuming CO2. I said you should look into the timescales of carbon fluxes.