Climate change contributing to World Hunger

a reply to: CB328

Uh.. this article does not blame AGW unless el Nino is caused by man. And the increase was less than 5%. Not that 5% is good just this OP hypes climate change when the article lists other causes such as military conflicts and economic slowdowns. Ever notice most of the starving is occurring in non-industrialized countries?

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: scraedtosleep



To increase the plant growing of we need more CO2 in the air not less. 400ppm is a low level for maximizing food production. There is a reason carbon dioxide is added in greenhouse.

It is counterproductive to increase crop growth if the quality of the crop is lowered - you thereby require so much more to meet your actual nutritional needs then crops grown under less CO2 to ingest the required vitamins and minerals required for health. That increased 'growth' in crops also increases the 'sugar/carb' content so you have to eat a lot more 'calories' in order to meet your needs - hence the mass increase in diabetes and obeseity in the last decades.

Please read the article above.

I would classify "more CO2 is great for food as a false meme promoted by corporate greed not the well-being of people.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: FyreByrd

If we take Eastern sea in Europe as an example:

Is the reason we have extreme growth of algaes because of increased carbon dioxide or because we are dumping an extreme amount of fertilizer into the ocean or both.

To much fertilization:
www.dw.com...

To reduce algae growth we should stop dumping fertilizers in the oceans and put it where it is supposed to be.

The article I referenced, cites studies with other 'plants' as well, please read it for a more nuanced understanding.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: scraedtosleep

To minimize the creation of Hurricanes humanity should probably implement a real climate adjustment project.

Desalt water from the oceans and use it to create a green Sahara.
response.restoration.noaa.gov...

To increase the plant growing of we need more CO2 in the air not less. 400ppm is a low level for maximizing food production. There is a reason carbon dioxide is added in greenhouse.

To make sure the CO2 level do not drop if we grown an extreme amount of plants in the Sahara we probably should compensate by burning coal and oil so that food production do not suffer by starving the plants of the needed CO2.

Greening does sound like a good idea, and the Sahara is near the Equator, (unless some bugger has moved it) and it sounds a lot better than the periodically ongoing, 'moralistic' debate on geo-engineering by clouding the skies..jet aircraft are just doing fine on their own anyway, and would probably do more harm than good to food production anyway.

This is a discussion that we need to have, whether you believe in man made global warming or not.

Idiots, like Rick Scott in florida, won't even let government officials use the term 'Climate Change".

We all know the climate goes through drastic changes. We all know that we're in the middle of a warming cycle.

All that really means is that some areas will be warmer, more arid, less likely to yield crops and other areas will be colder, wetter. We have a good idea of what's going to happen where.

We should have some good high level discussions on what that will cause and what will be our response. We should also have a discussion on Food. We know there is enough food on earth to feed everyone, generally we waste thousands of tons of food per week. The problem is logistics.

a reply to: amazing

The problem is logistics.

That. And politics and stuff.

Amidst political tensions, an estimated 18 million people across DPRK continue to suffer from food insecurity and undernutrition, as well as a lack of access to basic services. Recurrent natural hazards – particularly extended droughts punctuated by near-annual floods – exacerbate and create new humanitarian needs. As a result people have crucial, unmet food, nutrition, health and, water, sanitation and hygiene needs.

reliefweb.int...

Predicting the local effects of global warming (and the climate change which it brings about) is problematic. While it is true that some locations will "benefit" from it, it is also true that some locations will suffer from it. What does this mean sociologically? It means that people are going to have to move. Lots of people are going to have to move. And politics are not likely to help the situation.

The Spanish site was the ancient Roman town of Italia. Some statuary from Italia is now in the Praetorium in the Maria Theresa Gardens in Seville. Hint, Nero looked like our actor, Zero Mostel! Nearby Alta Mira, Espania, gives it's name!a reply to: Phage

a reply to: carpooler

I was looking for information about that "cycle."

AFAIK, it's Italia, but the Spanish use Italica. So search that Spelling. No, the WSU team worked out in the Roman ruins, looking at pollens and their crops! a reply to: smurfy

originally posted by: amazing
This is a discussion that we need to have, whether you believe in man made global warming or not.

Idiots, like Rick Scott in florida, won't even let government officials use the term 'Climate Change".

That's the kind of tricky bit, you could have 'Climate Change' without, 'Global Warming' so Mr Scott has got it a bit arse about face, so I guess he's out on Global Warming per se, but still wrong in regard to 'Climate Change'

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: CB328

The Human Species has at least another 25000 years to go before they solve every single problem.

I would bet 500 max..and that, in my opinion, is a conservative estimate. My optimistic estimate is about 150...and my pessimistic estimate is about 40 (but that number comes from extinction level wars)

originally posted by: amazing
This is a discussion that we need to have, whether you believe in man made global warming or not.

Idiots, like Rick Scott in florida, won't even let government officials use the term 'Climate Change".

We all know the climate goes through drastic changes. We all know that we're in the middle of a warming cycle.

All that really means is that some areas will be warmer, more arid, less likely to yield crops and other areas will be colder, wetter. We have a good idea of what's going to happen where.

We should have some good high level discussions on what that will cause and what will be our response. We should also have a discussion on Food. We know there is enough food on earth to feed everyone, generally we waste thousands of tons of food per week. The problem is logistics.

Because normal Climate Change has evolved into something it is not...
But I say , get rid of all that nasty pollutant CO2
No more having to use my weekend time for yard work...

a reply to: SaturnFX

www.straight.com...

Could abrupt climate change lead to human extinction within 10 years?

McPherson, author of Going Dark, has even predicted the near-term extinction of many species, including human beings, by the middle of 2026.

It's because of something called abrupt climate change, also known as nonlinear climate change.

This results when feedback loops caused by rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels cause the climate system to rapidly transition to a different mode, occurring on a scale that human or natural systems cannot adapt to.

a reply to: Gothmog

Because normal Climate Change has evolved into something it is not...
But I say , get rid of all that nasty pollutant CO2
No more having to use my weekend time for yard work...

Very many agree that what is being observed is not normal.

Over the years I have read a lot of food production reports, one instance in the sub continent of India, record wheat production, rotting by the road side in sacks not protected from the weather, seems to me storage and distribution are the main causes of starvation, that and the UN troops not allowed to shoot local war lords robbing food convoys.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: CB328
Here is some more proof of the harm done by climate change. Of course Irma destroying Florida citrus crops will only make things worse. Eleven percent of the world population doesn't have enough food, this at a time when corporations and the wealthy are raking in record profits. This disproves both the myth that climate change doesn't exist and the myth that capitalism provides for everyone's needs.

www.msn.com...

While I do believe in climate change I disagree that we do not have enough land devoted to producing food. Humans today possess the technological means to grow more than enough food for all current humans. Here are some examples from japan.
www.hortidaily.com...
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Food scarcity is more about logistics and the economy driving prices than an issue of not enough food.

Since this is a climate change thread I'll say this. I believe that humans are contributing to how the climate acts though they are not the only or main cause. I worry more about pollution than co2 build up. I will always be on board with any person that wont's to stop companies from polluting our land, water, or air in any way.

There is plenty of land. In fact we are actually taking land out of production because the use of fertilizers, land management and pesticides is that effective in boosting production. If Africa were to stop all the persecution of white farmers in order to keep their militias happy, both South Africa and Zimbabwe would be massive producers of food. Those two countries were both able to keep Africa fed. Now they are dependent on food handouts.

Polytunnel techniques allow food to be grown absolutely anywhere as long as their is electricity and water. Then the atmospheric conditions such as temperature, humidity and light can be adapted for optimum production. But international treaties have been signed preventing the widespread use because it would reduce global trade as every country could become self-sufficient and prevent profit from cash crops.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: FyreByrd

Sounds like another crackpot scientific estimation.

Actually it's legit. While I'm loath to trust info from a website named "Politico" I googled Irakli Loladze and came up with some interesting stuff.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Another recent study by mathematical biologist Irakli Loladze analyzed data from thousands of “free-air CO2 enrichment experiments” on 130 different species of food plants and found that increased CO2 reduced overall mineral (nutrient) content across the board. “People don't need large quantities of the manganese or potassium they get from plants, but they do need some,” comments David Berreby on BigThink.com in response to Loladze’s findings. “And for billions of people, plants are their only source.”

www.sciencedirect.com...
This is a paper you have to pay for, I may be able to access thru the Library?

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...
The study done on reduced nutrition in pollen.

www.scribd.com...

This last is very interesting and something to sink your teeth into. Published back in 2002 it would seem this really HAS been flying under the radar for a long time.

Climate is always going to be changing, so this really doesn't have anything to do with us as "bad polluting humans". It's more relevant to understand the differences of plant's nutritional qualities or lack as we move forward. Knowing that nutritional quality has decreased based on preliminary studies, this changes the accuracy of recommendations we are receiving from Nutritionists, Health Officials etc.

One thing that occurred to me is in light of this, would plants having less nutritional value, more carbs potentially have been evidenced by the larger size of the mega fauna or dinosaurs of past era's? More carbs and less protein resulting in the need for larger amounts of plant material needed to feed themselves?

a reply to: Caver78

Thank you for the thoughtful follow-up.