What Will You All Do If Something Happens To The Food Supply?

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
Damn, that sounds horrible.

But it would also explain many things that happened recently.

Why are they doing that?
As far as China is concerned, they picked up food imports massively last year because of the huge floods along the Yangtze. This was largely unreported in Western media. The Three Gorges Damn was releasing far more water than it should have downstream in order to prevent damn collapses and catastrophic flooding further upstream, net result being harvests being wiped out downstream. Prices for staples such as corn, wheat, and pork went through the roof. That's why the US was exporting so much to China.
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
@Perry Staltic This has turned into a fantastic conversation! Thank you for these great posts. I agree with those appreciating your efforts. I am an EU follower for more than 6 years. I appreciate @tara and @Giraffe contributing. I saw a research that proposes that when the Antarctic ice melts it signals the ice age is beginning. Funny enough a couple of days ago saw another research saying the Antarctic ice is melting.

One area of Antarctica has melting ice, possibly due to heat from volcanic activity, but Antarctica as a whole has actually been adding ice mass in recent years, offsetting whatever loss there may be in the Artic. The world as a whole is not losing ice.
 

BearWithMe

Member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
2,020
As far as China is concerned, they picked up food imports massively last year because of the huge floods along the Yangtze. This was largely unreported in Western media. The Three Gorges Damn was releasing far more water than it should have downstream in order to prevent damn collapses and catastrophic flooding further upstream, net result being harvests being wiped out downstream. Prices for staples such as corn, wheat, and pork went through the roof. That's why the US was exporting so much to China.
Very interesting!
 

Vesi

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
74
Climate change is too complex topic to try to understand by looking at individual areas, time periods or actions.

Simple way to see it is to calculate total released energy by human action. Its alot. And like energy use, it has been rising almost exponentially to this day. Now, the question is, if we are releasing so much energy, why dont we see it in our environment? Reason to that is, that oceans absorb most of that energy. Water transfers heat. Without oceans we wouldnt have raised earths air temperature by about one degree celcius, during the last 200 years, but by about 30c.

I have no idea what will happen during my lifetime. Maybe we will have an ice age, its not ruled out by what i said previously. What is obvious, from my point of view, is that that extra energy in earth system will cause climate to be unstable. Loss of stability may cause triggering of feedback loops, that could raise temperature too much too fast. From food production point of view it is relevant, that when earth avg rises by 1 degree celcius, ocean air temperature doesnt rise really at all, but in central areas of continents it could mean air to be 4c warmer. Grain are grown in narrow temperature range, so even +2c over pre-industrial baseline is eventually going to mean contraction of civilization. Small change to +3c will mean end of civilization.

Ignore IPCC, their calculations dont factor in feedback loops, and they presume finding magical technology that should break laws of thermodynamics. Humanitys research efforts should change from everything non-essential to STEM and basic physics research, because without stargate we will likely be extinct in two hundred years.

Some links about the problems of civilization, if some one is interested:
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Simple way to see it is to calculate total released energy by human action. Its alot. And like energy use, it has been rising almost exponentially to this day. Now, the question is, if we are releasing so much energy, why dont we see it in our environment? Reason to that is, that oceans absorb most of that energy. Water transfers heat. Without oceans we wouldnt have raised earths air temperature by about one degree celcius, during the last 200 years, but by about 30c.

Heat transfer from the atmosphere to the oceans is relatively very little because conduction only happens within the first few millimeters. Most of the heat transferred into the oceans comes from the sun because it penetrates ocean water several tens of meters.
 
Last edited:

Missenger

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
720
Also, people might want to read Masanobu Fukuoka's book One Straw Revolution, which may be the best book I've ever read, period.
Masanobu appeared to be an endearing man when he was alive, a 'no-bull' natural farmer.
 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
5,267
One area of Antarctica has melting ice, possibly due to heat from volcanic activity, but Antarctica as a whole has actually been adding ice mass in recent years, offsetting whatever loss there may be in the Artic. The world as a whole is not losing ice.
+1 I agree. When I looked back at the research I mentioned it was full of warming assumptions. My bad for not digging deeper. Thank you for your voice of reason on the forum.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Climate change is too complex topic to try to understand by looking at individual areas, time periods or actions.

Simple way to see it is to calculate total released energy by human action. Its alot. And like energy use, it has been rising almost exponentially to this day. Now, the question is, if we are releasing so much energy, why dont we see it in our environment? Reason to that is, that oceans absorb most of that energy. Water transfers heat. .
.....
What is obvious, from my point of view, is that that extra energy in earth system will cause climate to be unstable. Loss of stability may cause triggering of feedback loops, that could raise temperature too much too fast. From food production point of view it is relevant, that when earth avg rises by 1 degree celcius, ocean air temperature doesnt rise really at all, but in central areas of continents it could mean air to be 4c warmer. Grain are grown in narrow temperature range, so even +2c over pre-industrial baseline is eventually going to mean contraction of civilization. Small change to +3c will mean end of civilization.
I think you make some good points, especially about about the ocean absorbing a lot of heat, about feedback loops, instability, crops, etc.

I wouldn't completely ignore the IPCC, but you are probably right that the IPCC underestimate the risk of higher warming. I think they take a conservative approach, and only include what there is very wide support for.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
Recently published:
"We combine satellite observations and numerical models to show that Earth lost 28 trillion tonnes of ice between 1994 and 2017. Arctic sea ice (7.6 trillion tonnes), Antarctic ice shelves (6.5 trillion tonnes), mountain glaciers (6.1 trillion tonnes), the Greenland ice sheet (3.8 trillion tonnes), the Antarctic ice sheet (2.5 trillion tonnes), and Southern Ocean sea ice (0.9 trillion tonnes) have all decreased in mass. Just over half (58 %) of the ice loss was from the Northern Hemisphere, and the remainder (42 %) was from the Southern Hemisphere. The rate of ice loss has risen by 57 % since the 1990s – from 0.8 to 1.2 trillion tonnes per year – owing to increased losses from mountain glaciers, Antarctica, Greenland and from Antarctic ice shelves. During the same period, the loss of grounded ice from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and mountain glaciers raised the global sea level by 34.6 ± 3.1 mm. The majority of all ice losses were driven by atmospheric melting (68 % from Arctic sea ice, mountain glaciers ice shelf calving and ice sheet surface mass balance), with the remaining losses (32 % from ice sheet discharge and ice shelf thinning) being driven by oceanic melting. Altogether, these elements of the cryosphere have taken up 3.2 % of the global energy imbalance."
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Recently published:
"We combine satellite observations and numerical models to show that Earth lost 28 trillion tonnes of ice between 1994 and 2017. Arctic sea ice (7.6 trillion tonnes), Antarctic ice shelves (6.5 trillion tonnes), mountain glaciers (6.1 trillion tonnes), the Greenland ice sheet (3.8 trillion tonnes), the Antarctic ice sheet (2.5 trillion tonnes), and Southern Ocean sea ice (0.9 trillion tonnes) have all decreased in mass. Just over half (58 %) of the ice loss was from the Northern Hemisphere, and the remainder (42 %) was from the Southern Hemisphere. The rate of ice loss has risen by 57 % since the 1990s – from 0.8 to 1.2 trillion tonnes per year – owing to increased losses from mountain glaciers, Antarctica, Greenland and from Antarctic ice shelves. During the same period, the loss of grounded ice from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and mountain glaciers raised the global sea level by 34.6 ± 3.1 mm. The majority of all ice losses were driven by atmospheric melting (68 % from Arctic sea ice, mountain glaciers ice shelf calving and ice sheet surface mass balance), with the remaining losses (32 % from ice sheet discharge and ice shelf thinning) being driven by oceanic melting. Altogether, these elements of the cryosphere have taken up 3.2 % of the global energy imbalance."

This is a modeled estimate based on a lot of assumptions and proprietary algorithms. There are very little real world measurement data to work with, so they resort to sophisticated (computerized) guesswork. Model-based science is basically crap because they can program models however they want and parameterize them with whatever values they want to reach whatever conclusions they want. But that's basically the current state of climate science.

They admit "Only our estimate of Southern Ocean sea ice mass imbalance depends on modelling alone", but in reality all sea ice estimations are modeled. Calculating sea ice area from satellite photos alone cannot be done due to limitations of the technology. A lot of assumptions and calculations have to be made because things which aren't known via measurements, like snow cover, snow fall, wind speed, etc, affect the microwave signal. Even how microwave signals are processed affects the outcome. And calculating sea ice volume (thickness) is even bigger guesswork because that requires even more assumptions and much more complex modeling.

There's too little in this study based on actual facts to give it credence.
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
I think you make some good points, especially about about the ocean absorbing a lot of heat, about feedback loops, instability, crops, etc.

I wouldn't completely ignore the IPCC, but you are probably right that the IPCC underestimate the risk of higher warming. I think they take a conservative approach, and only include what there is very wide support for.

The IPCC is a completely political body. The UN Framework on Climate Change is pretty clear that its mandate to the IPCC is to make the case for man-made global climate change to the exclusion of everything else. The approach they take is to favor research pushing the narrative of impending climate doom as a result of man's activities, with little space given to other theories and observations. Since CO2 is their prime driver of temperature changes, they do some scenario analysis about CO2 emissions (high case/medium case/low case type stuff) to try and estimate where future temperatures might be, using climate models. Even if the models weren't already abysmally poor at forecasting temperature based on CO2 levels, their high/medium/low scenario assumptions for future CO2 emissions are too generous, meaning that the IPCC is doing the opposite of being conservative.

Feedback loops of the kind that would lead to runaway warming are rank speculation. CO2 levels have fluctuated massively in Earth's past, as have temperatures, and for huge chunks of pre-history were higher than they are today, yet at no point was there ever runaway warming. In fact, Earth has spent most of the past few hundred thousand years cycling into and out of extended ice ages.

Again, here is a 50 kiloyear temperature history taken from GISP ice cores. The teeny tiny uptick on the far right hand side is recent global warming in the 20th century. Also note how variable the temperature record becomes when viewed over thousands of years:
GISP2.png


Re: crops, CO2, and temperature, a warmer planet with more CO2 is a positive for plants and crop production. CO2 is not a pollutant. It's literally plant food. Commercial greenhouses pump CO2 inside in order to grow bigger plants faster. If you look in the graph above, you'll see a period of 3-4 thousand years in the early Holocene, after the most recent ice age, where average temperatures were significantly higher than today. This period is referred to by paleoclimatologists as a global optimum, the reason being that plant life was abundant, coinciding with higher temps. The world needs minimum atmospheric CO2 concentration of 160-180ppm for complex plant life to be viable (i.e. agriculture). Below this level, photosynthesis is severely negatively impacted and there would be massive die-offs of animal and human life for lack of food. At the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-19th century, CO2 levels were around 250ppm or so, which is on the bottom end of the range.

In short, there is precious little evidence to show that any recent changes in temperature or climate are due to human activity, natural climate variation dwarfs by orders of magnitude whatever we think humans might be doing to the climate, and even so, higher temps and higher CO2 are good for the flora of the world, not bad.

Greenhouse_Gases.jpg
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
This is a modeled estimate based on a lot of assumptions and proprietary algorithms. There are very little real world measurement data to work with, so they resort to sophisticated (computerized) guesswork. Model-based science is basically crap because they can program models however they want and parameterize them with whatever values they want to reach whatever conclusions they want. But that's basically the current state of climate science.

They admit "Only our estimate of Southern Ocean sea ice mass imbalance depends on modelling alone", but in reality all sea ice estimations are modeled. Calculating sea ice area from satellite photos alone cannot be done due to limitations of the technology. A lot of assumptions and calculations have to be made because things which aren't known via measurements, like snow cover, snow fall, wind speed, etc, affect the microwave signal. Even how microwave signals are processed affects the outcome. And calculating sea ice volume (thickness) is even bigger guesswork because that requires even more assumptions and much more complex modeling.

There's too little in this study based on actual facts to give it credence.

Not to mention that Antarctic temperatures have been steady to falling for a couple of thousand years. Only West Antarctica shows a significant recent rise and this can be explained by a very large and volcanically active rift just off the coast - at least 91 active volcanoes:
antarcticacooling.gif
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Not to mention that Antarctic temperatures have been steady to falling for a couple of thousand years. Only West Antarctica shows a significant recent rise and this can be explained by a very large and volcanically active rift just off the coast - at least 91 active volcanoes:

The largest heat flux lies beneath the headwaters of Thwaites and some other glaciers they say are melting.

Heat-flux-map-image-976x1024.jpg
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Here's another heat flux map that I haven't seen before. The largest red spot is the location of Pine Island glacier, another one they say is melting.

Terrestrial-heat-flow-in-Antarctica-from-the-mean-geothermal-heat-flux-model-of-Van_Q320.jpg
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
Re: crops, CO2, and temperature, a warmer planet with more CO2 is a positive for plants and crop production. CO2 is not a pollutant. It's literally plant food. Commercial greenhouses pump CO2 inside in order to grow bigger plants faster.
There was a study in which they tried to simulate the conditions that climate models predict for Germany (temperature climate). So they grew a typical crop (I think it was wheat) at higher CO2 levels and higher temperatures. They found that not only the plants grew much better under those conditions, but they also used water more efficiently. When they simulated a drought they found that the plants grown at higher CO2 were more resilient.
 
Last edited:

ursidae

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2020
Messages
1,792
I’d do Elephanto’s monk diet. Cheapest way to be organic, extremely convenient, zero opioids, and it’s all famine foods
1617127095554.jpeg

1617127148217.jpeg

1617127487211.jpeg

1617127239948.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Cloudhands

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
988
Food runs out im gonna hunt and forage. Mushrooms, greens, berries, some fruit, deer, small game, pine trees, barks, lichen, itd be pretty easy to get food, especially if everyone else is busy falling prey to false scarcity
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom