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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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
Homer Simpson?
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+
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.
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.
"Scientists project climate change could increase coffee production in Ethiopia fourfold."
But that probably wouldn't get as many clicks.
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?)
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).
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.
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.
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.
Over 10x that many people have moved to the US, legal and otherwise, in much less than the past 100 years. I think we have better tools to deal with the problem than the Mayans did.
Can't this Ethiopian tree be replanted in a cooler place, such as Russia, so that it won't continue to suffer the hotter & drier weather?
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.
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!
Uh... Syria?
Obligatory xkcd about the changing temp.
You make an excellent point:
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!
They probably don't own the land anymore. They probably have to go to the company store and buy imported canned corn from the US for food.
It also supposedly floods places like New York, and will flush out all sorts of vermin.
Who will be left to buy the non-Maxwell House coffee??
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?
Utter rubbish. It appears that you nothing about good coffee.
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.
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.
In some alternate universe where warmer, more humid are doesn't == more tornadoes, hurricanes in the summer, and more blizzards in the winter.
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.
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.
No. ...
Most parts of Russia are hotter in summer than Etopia.
And most parts of Russia are a freezing hell in winter
Honestly, that was actually a stuoid question. (I usuall say: there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. However, thisbwas a stuoid question)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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 *
The difference between Steward and Trump is - Steward asked the owner of the pussy for permission before grabbing it. Trump just assumed he'd get away with it because of his celebrity status.
The former is how decent men get pussy.
The latter is called sexual assault.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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 *
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
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.
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.
It's also going to get hard for some construction workers to get his pick-me-up before work. Do you want some hard working men in dangerous jobs to do their jobs without their morning wake up coffee? Why do you hate the American worker that you want them injured or even killed?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sacrifice to our green gods? What kind of drugs are you on?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
And you welcome immigrants with open arms correct?
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
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.
Common. Din't you learn no math. It's eazy.
/sarc (in case it wasn't obviousl)
Sooner or later 0.01 gets rounded down to 0 and then you get a 20% reduction on 0.00 and then it goes negative.
Sheesh. Go back to school.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
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.
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
Each year aprox. one million legal immigrants of various statuses are admitted into the United States, so as a matter of fact, yes, we do welcome them with open arms. A desire to know who you are welcoming is prudent.
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.
Ahhh so there are conditions attached. Typically: Wealth and education. Skills that are specialised. It really helps a lot if you're white and believe in the correct skydaddy too.
It's quite sad seeing people pat themselves on the back on immigration claiming they just have a desire to know who is coming while at the same time talking about immigration as a solution to a geographical problem.
You can't have both. You either take less interest in who is coming, or you drop the argument that it is a solution.
But yeah I get it, talking about the 1million people who want and have the means to enter the USA is better than the 1/10th of the number who go through an incredibly arduous and de-humanising process of claiming asylum. The ultimately solution to global warming: Save only the people I like.
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...
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
"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...
Naah, Colombian coffee is the best! And it's smack dab near the equator, can't get much warmer than that
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 too much for carrier pigeons
It could grip it by the husk...
Why are you so angry that there are people who like coffee? There are tons of things that some people like and others don't - Chocolate, Subarus, Cheez-its, ethanol, sex, Justin Bieber, the list is endless. That's part of life. If you don't like coffee nobody is forcing you to drink it.
The sooner you figure out that other people gonna do what they do and you don't have to like it the sooner you can start enjoying life.
Man, you really need that seminar!
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
Third world population growth is already going away. The population will continue to rise for a time despite fertility at or below replacement level, because of the age demographics.
"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
Might want to do some research on the timescales of various carbon fluxes...
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 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.
Omg, the troll factor in this thread. Yes, the Maya did science. And even Fox news admits civil war was a cause of the collapse. Most of the story came from a well-researched book depicting the leading theory a few years ago. But what's the counterpoint? You want people to ignore the real scientists (I am admittedly not one) and do nothing, plan nothing? Where's the proof that climate change doesn't exist, and it won't affect anyone, and even if it did, people would adjust without any trouble at all? Where's your citations?
I should quit asking, you all seem to have none.
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.