Scientists Say Climate Change Is Damaging Iowa Agriculture 444
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Radio Iowa reports that 155 scientists from 36 colleges and universities in Iowa are jointly issuing a call for action against global warming and calling on the US Department of Agriculture to update its policies to better protect the land. 'The last couple of years have underscored the fact that we are very vulnerable to weather conditions and weather extremes in Iowa,' says Gene Takle, director of the Climate Science Program at Iowa State. Both years were marked by heavy spring rains followed by droughts that damaged Iowa's farmland. 'This has become a real issue for us, particularly with regard to getting crops planted in the spring,' says Takle adding that Iowa had 900,000 acres that weren't planted this year because of these intense spring rains. 'Following on the heels of the disastrous 2012 loss of 90% of Iowa's apple crop, the 2013 cool March and record-breaking March-through-May rainfall set most ornamental and garden plants back well behind seasonal norms,' says the Iowa Climate Statement for 2013 . 'Iowa's soils and agriculture remain our most important economic resources, but these resources are threatened by climate change (PDF)." When the Iowa climate change statement was first released in 2011, 44 Iowa scientists signed on and last year's statement was signed by 137 Iowa scientists. "It's easy to set up a straw-man argument, to say, 'Oh, well climates always change; there have been changes in the past. This might just be natural,' " says David Courard-Hauri. "And often that gets played on the Internet as, 'Maybe scientists haven't thought about the fact that there have been natural changes in the past and maybe this is related.' " Of course scientists have thought about that possibility, says Courard-Hauri, but the evidence strongly suggests the climate is changing faster than could be expected to happen naturally."
So we all migrate to iowa then. (Score:2, Insightful)
I take it that they're going to allow us to adapt to climate change this way rather than have to, you know, stop polluting.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not one or the other. Climate change is happening, most of it is beyond the control of Kansans and they must adapt to the changing conditions as best they can, while doing what little they can to slow the change if you can. Suppose Kansas became carbon neutal. Would that stop climate change in Kansas?
1. Legalize Regulated Marijuana Cultivation (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Profit!
Re: (Score:3)
KGB is under $1000/lb in California at harvest time (now). The cops have multiple checkpoints on I-80 and I-70 going east. Current estimate is CA grows 60% of the nations sweet leaf.
Iowa can continue to send money out of state for an agricultural product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hemp growth is incompatible with sensimia growth in the same general area.
Iowa can have the hemp.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How much under? What would a 200lb agent bring? Is that hanging or live weight? What's the price elsewhere? Really don't want to pay California taxes.. So, is the cold war back?
They didn't think this through (Score:3, Insightful)
More or less the entire scientific community of the planet has been in a consensus about this for most of the last decade or two and our government still does not give a fuck. Iowa is not going to accomplish by itself what the whole freaking world didn't all together. The only way we'll ever start making progress on climate change is if somebody finds a way to outspend big oil, the car manufacturers, and every other petro-lobby.
not the issue (Score:3)
AGW is real, in that humans have caused the climate to warm, but that doesn't mean we can or should do anything about it.
Yes, that's the only way, and fortunately that's not
Re:not the issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you shouldn't speak for anyone but yourself.
I'll bet the same argument was once made when it came to not just shit in the street but to dig a hole out back.
And the bit about "economic growth" is bullshit. The only "growth" that ignoring climate change guarantees is that of the bank accounts of a handful of energy companies.
Did you learn to live with a 640k limit on address space? It appears as though you have learned to live with a very dim view of humanity's ability to innovate. "Solar energy isn't any good and we just need to learn to live with it" and, "Internal combustion engines are here to stay and we just need to learn to live with it" and, "Pumping toxic chemicals into the ground water under extreme pressure is how we're going to keep the lights on and we just need to learn to live with it".
I will never understand why there is a small but vocal cadre of tech nerds who for some reason believe that we have reached the absolute zenith of technological innovation when it comes to energy, but will gladly engage you in a discussion of the best types of interstellar drives to power ships for colonization of deep space.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the contrary: I think humanity will have no problem coping with warmer temperatures and rising sea levels. I also think humanity will have no problem developing new, clean energy sources.
Quite to the contrary:
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ohhhh. You could have just /said/ that you're of the libertarian religion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
“In the scientific community, we have debates on the details,” [director of Iowa State University’s climate science program] said. “But there are very, very few scientists who are active in studying climate science who deny the existence of the role of heat-trapping gases in raising our global average temperatures, and the fact that these heat-trapping gases are produced by humans.”
Note that he does not say 'scientists agree what will happen as a result of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.' Scientists don't agree on that topic, it ranges from "nothing serious" to "civilization will be destroyed."
Note that he does not say 'scientists agree on how we should respond to global warming.' Scientists once again don't agree on that topic, it ranges from
Because science are not plitics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop saying there is no consensus.
I didn't. I clearly explained which points have consensus and which don't. Read it again.
Re: (Score:3)
Mature people look for more evidence than, "if we don't do something, there could be a catastrophe!"
Re: (Score:3)
There is consensus that there is risk
Once again, arguments like this are what makes people do stupid things. We must invade Iraq because there is a risk terrorists will attack us
there is consensus that the risks are not trivial.
I'm not sure where you are getting this. What survey have you read there is a consensus that the risks are not trivial? On what evidence are you basing this assertion?
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists won't never tell the government what to do. It's not their task.
I don't know if you're an idiot or ignorant, but counter-examples abound [insideclimatenews.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for a decade or two the entire scientific community agreed that the climate in the western USA had permanently changed. For the better, mind you. That was in the 1870ies and 1880ies. And then ... things went back to normal and all explanations for the supposedly permanent changes that scientists came up with were rendered moot.
After decades of one-up-manship and changing goalposts for "global warming" ... oh no ... look, they call it "climate change" these days. Of predicting less rain for Germany whe
Re: (Score:2)
Your problem isn't with the science, it's with the deliberately disingenuous reporting on said science.
Re: (Score:3)
No, my problem is also with the deliberately disingenuous science by people who take "publish or perish" as an excuse to put out "scientific" papers according to their news value, instead of their scientific merit.
The scientific merit of papers in climate science is questionable in any case, since the concept of "replicability" is virtually non-existent. They are not replicable, period. Because the raw data and computer models used are not published and quite jealously guarded, on the grounds of preventing
Re: (Score:2)
The coal industry funds the bulk of the anti-science propaganda. Washington is the center of the universe for professional climate deniers, all 50 loosely associated (for hire) anti-AGW lobby groups such as the "Heartland Institute", have their headquarters within a mile of K street. They are very good at what they do and I've have had many long debates o
Re: (Score:3)
... The only way we'll ever start making progress on climate change is if somebody finds a way to outspend big oil, the car manufacturers, and every other petro-lobby.
You have my sympathy, but outspending the big corporations is futile. Not to mention that doing so should not be necessary in a healthy democracy. The reason all that money is so effective in Washington D.C. is because of government corruption -- bribery in the form of campaign donations and Super PAC support that is currently legal. As a result, for those in Congress today 94-95% of the time the ability to raise the most money is what got them (re)elected. Moreover, since that kind of money always comes w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When the overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology say "AGW is real", and even the very small number of researchers working in fields related to climatology who are publicly skeptical rarely if ever actually publish papers in journals backing up their skepticism, I have to say, seeing some random AC on /. posting links to notorious denier sites doesn't exactly convince me that said AC actually a. knows what the fuck he's talking about, b. cares about what the fuck he's tal
Re:You're an idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what's awkward for the deniers?
When you talk about the ozone layer.
The same people who said "if we stop using halons and CFCs, we can fix the hole in the ozone layer"
are the ones saying "hey, this global warming stuff is a problem"
Unlike the denial industry, the scientists have already been proven correct once.
Re:You're an idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint : IT WASNT A THEORY
I guess you're unaware of what a theory is. Theories of gravity are still theories despite being confirmed to a lot of decimal places for the regimes where they apply. The speculated effect of surface emitted CFCs on the ozone layer is a theory.
Any rational person would be concerned about the lack of good data collection before the era of satellites. This problem cripples all of climate research.
I find it interesting how people babble about how bad "deniers" are while simultaneously demonstrating profound ignorance of scientific matters.
Re:You're an idiot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Satellites are not the only means of collecting climate data. Ice cores go back tens of thousands of years and even human recorded history goes back thousands of years.
Re: (Score:3)
We do, however, know that CFCs are harmful to the ozone layer, and there obviously were no CFCs up there before the modern era.
Re: (Score:3)
Phasing out CFCs had higher profit margins for the chemical companies and no significant opposition from anyone else, thus it was done.
Oh, it was the chemical lobby. You know there is a real history to this that you can look up. I recommend doing so, because it is a fascinating window into how power structures really work regarding these types of issues.
Re:Except the IPCC has just admitted it ain't warm (Score:4, Insightful)
Make what the fuck public? Jesus, fucktard, the evidence, the models, all of it out there.
How about you actually go look, instead of hiding up your own ass and only visiting denier sites that function as you're echo chamber.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about, and worst of all, you think that's a good thing.
Re:Except the IPCC has just admitted it ain't warm (Score:4, Insightful)
Has anyone published a comprehensive plan for world-wide replacement of fossil fuels? One that address the loss of the benefits of fossil fuels. Much of the quadrupling of the population of Africa in the last 50 years was fed by the over production of subsidized Western farms. A self impoverish West will not be sending food anywhere. India and China will not re-impoverish themselves, who is going to make them?
Posters on another thread voiced the dangers of a world wide economic collapse from an American debt default. The American money machine runs on oil, sun beams and unicorn farts will not power it.
Re: (Score:3)
The evidence! The models! It must be true! Someone wrote SimEarth and it shows that AGW is real, so it must be! Look at how much happier the Sims are when I spend simoleans on solar plants and fusion plants!
If only we had cheat codes for real life, we could actually pay for all that.
What's really sad is that irrational rants like yours that make literally zero logical arguments get modded +5 Insightful. Either most people really are so gullible that they fall for it, or there really is a giant conspira
Re: (Score:3)
You do know what scientific models are, fall back to a conspiracy, and use Ad Hom attacks.
Nice argument~
DO you know the facts all this science is based on? at all?
Let me clue you in:
1) CO2 is transparent to visble light
2) CO2 is opaque to infrared light.
3) Visible light creates Infrared frequencies when it strikes something.
Predictions form these faces:
1) The globe will trend up on top of preexisting cycles. Check
2) The upper most atmosphere will not warm: Check.
and so on and so on
What do you propose will h
Re: (Score:3)
What extra energy? What would "extra" energy even be? What qualifies as "extra"? And who says it's trapped? The earth is radiating energy constantly.
The energy coming in that the top of atmosphere (TOA) can and is being measured. The energy leaving at TOA can and is being measured. From the conservation of energy the difference has to be the change in energy within the system. The difference is positive meaning more energy is being retained. It's as simple as that.
Re:Except the IPCC has just admitted it ain't warm (Score:4, Interesting)
The code for one of the major models, the GISS Model E is here. [nasa.gov]
Links to other models and both raw and cooked data can be found on this page. [realclimate.org]
All of what you ask for is out there, you just have to be willing to put in the time to look for it.
The climate models don't get fed much raw data, just starting conditions and whatever scenario they're evaluating for a particular run.
Re: You're an idiot... (Score:2)
The irony about this issue with regards to Iowa growing seasons is that one of the driving trends of global warming is the movement of the start of the growing season earlier in the year. This last year the unseasonal cold in March and April pushed the start of the growing season way back.
The extra spring rains may be a global warming related trend, but the later start of the growing season is not something that is expected due to global warming, it fact is is counter to the expectations and the trend.
Re: You're an idiot... (Score:4, Informative)
You seem blissfully unaware of two things:
1) Weather != climate
2) Weather is an inherently chaotic system, and adding more energy (c.f. global warming) increases the chaos, i.e. makes for more unexpected/extreme weather.
Re: (Score:3)
Screw you. Unaware that weather is not climate...
I freaking state that in my post!!
The trend, from a climate perspective is for the start of the growing season to get earlier. This means that on the trend line for that variable, last year's value will be an outlier in the overall climate trend.
I'm getting sick of chaos being used as the trump card to invalidate any measure that doesn't meet the expected values.
A large portion of North America last March and April were unseasonably cold. Where I live, we
Re: You're an idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
You aren't the only one. It was clear to me the moment the AGW High Priests invoked chaos to explain what was happening that they'd made it impossible to falsify their claims because if things go the way they predict, it's considered to be proof that they're right, and if it doesn't, they just invoke chaos. IANACS, but to me, at least, ever since they started explaining inconvenient events with chaos, AGW became, as Popper would phrase it, a meaningless noise.
That being said, I do think that cutting back on CO2 emissions is a good thing and that the farmers in Iowa should be taking better care of their topsoil, because that's just common sense, and AGW has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:3)
If you actually bothered to just even look at historical climate records, you'd realize that your statement is total bullshit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png [wikipedia.org]
Even if it were true, it would make no difference, because it is hard to image climate that's less hospitable and stable than the climate that has existed during the past 7 millio
Re: (Score:3)
And yet the AGW models The overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology today get paychecks that rely on people being focused on their alarmism
Where are you suggesting these pay checks issue from? What would the UN, say, stand to gain by influencing IPCC research toward alarmism -- or bias in any direction, for that matter? In the other corner, as it were, who is bankrolling the denial camp?
Also I am pretty sure the latest IPCC report made a point of stating more clearly and unambiguously then ever before that climate change is real and man-made. We discussed it here [slashdot.org] on /. at the time.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Where are you suggesting these pay checks issue from? What would the UN, say, stand to gain by influencing IPCC research toward alarmism -- or bias in any direction, for that matter? In the other corner, as it were, who is bankrolling the denial camp?"
I didn't write anything about "bankrolling" a "camp". That sound suspiciously like conspiracy theory to me. As for paychecks... they do come from somewhere, yes? I'm not suggesting any kind of big conspiracy, as you seem to be doing. I'm simply saying: AGW is what they're doing, and they are getting paid for it. Is there something about that with which you disagree?
"Also I am pretty sure the latest IPCC report made a point of stating more clearly and unambiguously then ever before that climate change is real and man-made. We discussed it here on /. at the time."
Yes, the report does make a point of saying so, in their executive summary. Which is just proving my point. Because the actual science in the re [ed.ac.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
You were clearly implying that a bias in favour of what you call alarmism would somehow be related to these scientists' compensation. Many of whom are publicly funded (and therefore typically subject to various kinds of oversight, budgets included). So I just meant to ask you, how do you believe that would even work?
On the other hand, the skeptics are mostly funded privately, or at least that's how it looks -- often donors remain anonymous (I am not saying that is a bad thing per se, but cones with differen
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't write anything about "bankrolling" a "camp". That sound suspiciously like conspiracy theory to me. As for paychecks... they do come from somewhere, yes? I'm not suggesting any kind of big conspiracy, as you seem to be doing. I'm simply saying: AGW is what they're doing, and they are getting paid for it. Is there something about that with which you disagree?
They are paid to research the climate. The climate exists and needs to be studied regardless of what it's actually doing, so as long as their research is based on actual data they would be getting paid to do their job no matter what... so there is no logic in asserting that funding grants are biased toward researchers who advocate AGW. Such bias would be pretty easy to show, since there seems to be a complete lack of angry climatologists whose grant applications have been repeatedly denied.
So the idea that
Re: You're an idiot... (Score:4, Informative)
Let's stick to the science, whether it supports AGW or not (at the moment the probability of AGW being the most significant factor in our climate is decreasing - as far as I can tell).
Then maybe you should be looking more closely at the actual science, as the IPCC AR5 review upgraded their assessment of the majority of climate change being human-caused to "extremely likely" (95%+ probability). And while a few specific effects of climate change are now considered less likely, others such as polar ice melt have been outstripping projections.
Be careful about cherry picking your science, or letting others do so for you. Read the AR5 executive summary for yourself; it's by far the most comprehensive review of the actual science. And its conclusions are not that everything's fine - quite the opposite.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Then maybe you should be looking more closely at the actual science, as the IPCC AR5 review upgraded their assessment of the majority of climate change being human-caused to "extremely likely" (95%+ probability). And while a few specific effects of climate change are now considered less likely, others such as polar ice melt have been outstripping projections."
If you want to pay attention to the "actual science", then you should not be paying attention to the summary, because as Dr. Richard Lindzen [dailycaller.com] rather gleefully points out, as the actual science in the IPCC reports has been progressively offering weaker and weaker evidence of AGW, those summaries have become ever more alarmist.
Your comment is really just more evidence of what I was saying.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: You're an idiot... (Score:4, Interesting)
What's it to you whether climate disruption is real or not? Why are you so hot to deny it? You don't want to feel guilty for living a western lifestyle that generates lots of CO2, something like that? Makes you angry that you could be accused of contributing to the problem? You'd really throw our future away over such a petty emotional response? Really?
We're looking at the facts. And the facts say that big changes are happening, that we're the cause, and some of those changes are very bad. Yes, so bad that civilization could collapse. I know you think that's alarmist. You'd better wake up and pay attention. Do you understand why civil war is raging in Syria now? At the root it is crop failures thanks to an extended drought. If our food production falters, watch out. As Syria goes, so we all might go if we screw this up. Climate disruption has destabilized many civilizations in the past. The Mayas and the Pueblo Indians fell, and even the Roman Empire took a hit. If you think we are immune to that, because we're much more technologically advanced than those ancient civilizations, think again.
As to the accusations that scientists are making this all up to secure more funding, think more carefully about that. Not saying that such pressures can't lead to the production of less than stellar science, but this is beyond ridiculous. Any scientists who could show that climate disruption is not caused by us, and convince others because they are right, would publish in a heartbeat. The rewards for such groundbreaking work would be so great that some would break ranks to publish. There are so many organizations eager to publicize such work that it would be no problem finding a publisher. Yet this has not happened. Why? Because climate disruption is real.
Now, many of the more rabid environmentalists indulge in shaming. That's counterproductive. Try to get past that, and let's look at the problems, and think what is best to do about it. It's not only climate disruption, there is also ocean acidification. It may be that we need not be proactive, and the problem will fade away thanks to peak oil. We may be able to engineer our way out of this. Build dikes, scrub CO2 from the air, build more canals to maintain water supplies, and other measures of that sort. We can also act now, try to shift our energy production towards carbon neutrality. We will have to eventually anyway, so why not start now? We certainly should shift towards processes that save us money regardless of whether climate disruption is a problem or not.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I tend to look at what climatologists say. You know, sort of how if I was wondering about quantum mechanics, I'd probably prefer to read what a particle physicist had to say, rather than what Archimedes Plutonium had to say.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire Human Created climate change theory was created, financed, pushed through science and the mainstream media through the Rothschilds.
The lizard people? David Icke [davidicke.com], is that you?
Damn tree huggers (Score:4, Insightful)
The first Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970, to " to create awareness for the Earth's environment and to encourage conservation efforts."
The phrase "Damn tree huggers" has been heard ever since. Yeah, even in Iowa. So, 40 years of deliberate ignorance and acrimony is coming home to roost? Tough grid.
Re:Damn tree huggers (Score:5, Insightful)
So, 40 years of deliberate ignorance and acrimony is coming home to roost? Tough grid.
Shit. Not only do we see the promotion of ignorance and acrimony on the far right coming home to roost in the area of climate change, we see it in a general distrust of experts no matter the field. Look at the latest government financing 'crisis'. Most of those on the far right were in favor of a government default on the debt. They do not believe the consensus of economists that the results would be really bad. Also, look at vaccines, we're starting to see the results of all of the people who believe that somehow vaccines are harmful so they don't get their kids vaccinated.
The promotion of ignorance was a useful tool for some of the ruling class to promote their agenda, but now it's really starting to bite them in the ass. Unfortunately it's biting all of us in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
It will not affect them, only their voters.
Our representatives live in an entirely separate world.
Re: (Score:2)
You ever think about why the founders of earth day choose Lenin's 100th birthday? Because Green is the new Red.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying this is all some complicated ploy by communists in their nefarious quest to redistribute wealth?
Hold On For Just One Minute Bubba... (Score:5, Funny)
I smell a conspiracy to pollute our precious bodily fluids. Or communists. Or something.
And Isn't Area 51 almost also next door to Iowa? You never can be sure, since the government also makes all of the maps.
Re: (Score:2)
wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (Score:4, Interesting)
excerpt:
U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North [wsj.com] "Warmer Climate, Hardier Seeds Help Crop Gain on Wheat, North Dakota's Staple
RUGBY, N.D.—Wheat has long dominated the windswept farm fields of the northern Great Plains. But increasingly, farmers here are switching to corn, reflecting how climate change, advancements in biotechnology and high corn prices are pushing the nation's Corn Belt northward.
...
The shift, which is occurring in northern Minnesota and Canada's Manitoba province as well, shows how warming temperatures and hardier seeds are enabling farmers to grow corn in areas once deemed inhospitable to the crop."
Re: (Score:2)
But see, they're spinning climate change as being a positive thing (and, by omission, as not being man-made), so we can still ignore scientists when they say we have to stop polluting so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how that is spinning it as "not being man-made".
I also don't see how that is spinning it as a "positive thing"; rather, it is saying that we can adapt to climate change.
Scientists can tell us what the consequences of our actions are, but they have no business making policy choices for the nation. That's somet
Re: (Score:3)
1) By omission. Did you read? They call it "climate change" and omit any reference to how it's caused by pollution. That's part of WSJ's staying on the conservative message.
2) It's implicitly positive that we can grow corn further north now, i.e. over a larger area. Article omits how this implies we won't be able to grow it anymore in southerly regions.
3) Strawman, nobody's saying that scientists should be able to make policy decisions. We are saying that common fuckwits should pay attention to them de
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is that climate change has multiple sources, both man-made and natural. WSJ is correct, and you are attempting to "spin" things.
No, it's not "implicitly pos
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between Americans and 'merkins. Only in certain areas will you see biblical literalists being elected to office.
Re: (Score:2)
Cut CO2 to 0 and you still have to deal with change.
Don't be stupid. Cut carbon dioxide to zero and you've got two things:
1) no life exhaling it (animals)
2) no life inhaling it (plants).
Nobody's suggesting cutting it down that far.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are suggesting cutting down the carbon emissions per person to what the equivalent of 1850's level.
Re: (Score:2)
"They"? Uh huh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cut man controlled mechanical CO2 emissions to 0 and it will cause no deaths
Cut C02 concentrations in the air to 0 and all hell breaks loose instantly.
So when someone says "Cut CO2 to 0" they are probably talking about some source of emissions or group of sources of emissions that excludes the CO2 required for living and produced by living.
Just like if someone says "cut off the heat" they don't mean bring the temperature to absolute zero. You don't have to think in such extremes just because a casual statem
Re: (Score:2)
Cut man controlled mechanical CO2 emissions to 0 and it will cause no deaths
That depends entirely on how it's done, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how many farmers in the midwest and southwest are going to be thrilled when the boon in the northern areas of North America are permanently coupled with decreases in arable land in their part of the world.
But being a Canadian, I think it's great news. The longer the pseudoskeptics funded by the Kochs keep folks blinded, the more likely in a hundred years or so Canada will own the US's ass because we'll be planting grain in the Northwest Territories.
They can always grow (Score:2)
rice?
Does it matter? (Score:2)
No. There will be more food problems. Food prices will increase, so people in poorer countries will starve. Western world will not care, but just buy their food and say something about capitalism having it's way.
Climate will change and nature will adjust as it did for millions of years. The question is not if the "new" climate will be habitable. It will be. The question is if will fit in.
Don't Tell Anyone But Change is Already Here. (Score:2, Insightful)
We have had a 50 meter rise in sea level in about 20,000 years. Does that give ANYONE a clue? Do you think any government could have stopped that?
Egypt was the most powerful nation on earth about 5000 years ago because of its fabulous growing regions. They are now desert caused by NATURAL climate change. Could any government reverse that change?
Based on lack of Sunspots of late, we may have an inordinately cold hard winter (climate change?) and some areas in the upper midwest already had 20,000 steers f
Re: (Score:2)
Not we didn't have a 50 meter rise in sea level in the last 20000 years. We had a sea level rise of roughy 150m in the last 20000 years. Permafrost soil thawed at rates that cannot be repeated these days, because there is so much less of it these days than during the iceage. Temperatures rose by several degrees, deserts didn't expand, there was much more fertile land on the globe that used to look like Siberia or Canada before the end of the ice age.
Of course, we all know that tundra and taiga have vastly p
Re: (Score:2)
"Please learn a little bit ..." You are WRONG! Citations follow
Just a quick quote from wikipedia on Egypt, without the scientific article citations: "Climate changes and/or overgrazing around 8000 BC began to desiccate the pastoral lands of Egypt, forming the Sahara. Early tribal peoples migrated to the Nile River where they developed a settled agricultural economy and more centralized society.[18]
Re: (Score:2)
"Egypt was always a desert you fucking moron." Read the Wikipedia article on Egypt's prehistory Sorry you didn't check that first.
Life In Alberta (Score:3)
http://albertaventure.com/2013/06/albertas-farmers-adapt-to-climate-change/ [albertaventure.com]
“It’s jokingly been said by some people that we’ll eventually become the grape producers of America.”
The Good:
One of the ways this is measured is through the boundary for corn heat units, which measures where corn can be grown in the province. The northern boundary for these units has moved up a couple hundred kilometres since the 1910s, and it’s advanced about 50 kilometres since the 1940s.
The Bad:
His county was flooded four years ago, but he didn’t get any rain at all in July or August of 2012. “You can go from one wet year to extremely dry with no gradual buildup. Basically you just get hit with it and you have to survive it,” he says. “Nothing is consistent anymore. You think you have things figured out and then it throws a loop at you to say to you, ‘No, you don’t.’
Follow The Money:
agriculture-oriented investment funds have taken an increased interest in Canadian farmland?
Iowa (Score:5, Insightful)
Iowa agribusiness has been cultivating more land than ever due to high commodity prices. Between 2001 and 2011 [thegazette.com] Iowa went from under 1700 million bushels of corn to over to almost 2400 million, while soybean is nearly the same during that interval.
We did not become 40% more efficient at growing corn since 2000. That growth represents more land use; land that was considered marginal when commodity prices were low is now viable. Marginal means flood plain, land with poor drainage or limited access to water. What's actually happened here is that since the marginal land is now in the rotation, farmers incur higher risk of big losses during outlier years.
Two bad years after apparently 10 good years (at least) is not Climate. It's weather. And "Weather Is Not Climate." Or so I'm told whenever we get a cold spell.
Meanwhile, down here in Missouri... (Score:2)
I own about 500 acres that I rent out. Last year we had our best yielding soybean crop yet plus the prices were up there. I know we sold most of ours at about $15 a bushel last year and even booked a bunch this year @ $14 a bushel.
Rice yields last year were up, but not by a large amount. This year's rice looks to be a slight improvement over last year and the beans are still in the field, yet is the most consistent stand I've ever seen in 20 years on the farms.
The farm income and my work income are about
Re: (Score:2)
Last year Missouri had a really bad drought, especially here in the western part and the area farmers lost their whole corn and bean crops. Where, exactly, is your land?
Re: (Score:2)
Last year Missouri had a really bad drought, especially here in the western part and the area farmers lost their whole corn and bean crops. Where, exactly, is your land?
That's probably why he's boasting. If his crop wasn't destroyed and most of everybody else's was, then of course he is going to get top dollar. What is at play there is simple economics of supply and demand. Because of the recent cattle deaths in South Dakota, this should be a good year for cattle farmers, too. Unless, that is, you live in South Dakota.
That's impossible (Score:3)
155 scientists from 36 colleges and universities in Iowa
That would mean there are more scientists and universities in Iowa than there are in the country I currently live, which is one of the more civilized in Europe. Now I may have been sleeping for all those years, yet....
Re: (Score:3)
As for 'scientists,' it doesn't say who they are in the link, but I'm guessing they count nearly anyone who is a professor, which isn't entirely unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience in the US, every town larger than 300,000 or so has its own community college. That's in California and completely anecdotal, but right now I live in a more heavily populated area (silicon valley), and there are at least three colleges/universities within a 12 minute drive of my house. So 36 doesn't sound completely impossible to me.
As for 'scientists,' it doesn't say who they are in the link, but I'm guessing they count nearly anyone who is a professor, which isn't entirely unreasonable.
Isn't a "scientist" someone who actually practices science? One would think a professor in an unrelated field wouldn't count, nor would someone consumed with faculty paperwork who hadn't done research in decades.
Re: (Score:3)
155 scientists from 36 colleges and universities in Iowa
That would mean there are more scientists and universities in Iowa than there are in the country I currently live, which is one of the more civilized in Europe. Now I may have been sleeping for all those years, yet....
According to Wiki, there are 60 colleges and universities in Iowa. While one can question what exactly is a scientist, whatever the definition, it's not hard to imagine that there might be an average of 3 of them per college and university. At the University of Iowa itself, there are probably at least that many, without counting the medical school, if you include just the physics, chemistry, biology, and various agriculture disciplines.
You don't mention what country you currently live in, but if what you s
If I were in Iowa... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were in Iowa I'd worry less about the impact of climate change on the agriculture, which will take decades versus the immediate impact diverting massive amounts of ground water into ethanol production for fuel, which scientists estimate will take centuries to replenish. Stopping climate change today won't refill the underground aquafiers and without water, there are no farms, nor rural communities to farm them.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were in Iowa I'd worry less about the impact of climate change on the agriculture, which will take decades versus the immediate impact diverting massive amounts of ground water into ethanol production for fuel, which scientists estimate will take centuries to replenish. Stopping climate change today won't refill the underground aquafiers and without water, there are no farms, nor rural communities to farm them.
This. It's time to admit that burning our food for fuel was a bad idea.
Cause.... (Score:3)
The midwest has never suffered from floods and dustbowls before in modern history.
*yawns*
Honestly, the poor agricultural techniques practiced are probably more to blame than anything else. Corn, Soy, Corn, Soy, Corn, Soy, oh and Alfalfa on occasion.
Miles of mono-crop with poorly tended farm soil and bad farming practices. There is a reason the dustbowl happened. And no, we didn't change ANYTHING except discover a deep underwater aquifer.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that you, Bobby Jindal?
Re:So they want money for Iowa? (Score:5, Informative)
Just as a point of reference, Iowa has been an incredibly fertile place to grow many types of crops. It is one of two places in the world that had huge loess deposits. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loess [wikipedia.org]:
"Loess tends to develop into very rich soils. Under appropriate climatic conditions it is some of the most agriculturally productive terrain in the world."
Now, it's another thing entirely that Iowa farmers have been systematically killing their soil with heavy application of ammonia, fertilizers and the practice of fence-to-fence planting rather than the traditional "steward of the land" approach that prevailed so long ago.
Re:Agribusiness (Score:5, Insightful)
We're mostly growing crops that nutritionally not the best for our population, and by not rotating in crops of different nature (how about more green leafy veggies or other veggies that can be eaten fresh and not processed 1400 different ways before consumption?) or allowing fields sufficient time to recover...the soil depletion will likely be the death of the food basket section of the US.
Re:Agribusiness (Score:5, Informative)
Having lived in Iowa for awhile, I have to jump in and say that no, you're quite wrong. A typical Iowa farm does rotate crops between fields - usually between some variety of corn, soybean, and either alfalfa or wheat. They have even gone beyond and introduced no-till, contour plowing, and many other means of conserving the soil.
If there is a problem in farming there, it isn't in any alleged lack of crop rotation, but in the constant (and in many cases over-) use of Anhydrous Ammonia as a fertilizer - and in huge quantities.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Agribusiness (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't growing a fodder crop like wheat be the same as fallow?
Negative, you need a nitrogen fixing crop like Alfalfa, Soybeans, etc...
Wheat is pretty much the definition of a 'depleting crop'.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone noticed that they now describe Man Made Global warming, which nobody uses anymore to describe climate change based on man made contribution, or that is, to initiate a world wide carbon tax, is now generic Climate Change?
They had to. Thermometers joined the "denialist" camp at least 10 years ago, and kept denying that the planet is warming. But thermometers are still on board with daily temperature changes, so "Climate Change" it is!
Now the same people who'll tell you that 10 years of basically constant temperatures over the globe means nothing will also tell you that a rainy spring in Iowa means everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone noticed that they now describe Man Made Global warming, which nobody uses anymore to describe climate change based on man made contribution, or that is, to initiate a world wide carbon tax, is now generic Climate Change?
Which, nobody will argue that climate change happens, which is I think why they are starting to try and deceive people by suggesting historic climate change is the same as mane made climate change, which there is not one shred of evidence to support, and in fact is false.
We should have no winters by now, and extreme changes in climate when Al Gore and his crony investment banker buddies were setting up a Global Carbon Exchange to make billions.
Climate Change used as a term to masquerade as Man Made Global Warming is a gigantic scam.
-Hack
Your problem is with semantics? At best, man made or not, global warming was an inaccurate description as the models all show much more than just temperature increases. There are changes in precipitation, changes in storm frequency, wider variations between summer and winter temperatures, etc.
It is quite possible that as the minority argues, what is going on is merely normal activity, even though the records as far back as can be measured never show such an increase of temperatures in such a short period o
Re: (Score:2)
Too cold, too hot, too much rain, too little rain, it's all the fault of that evil Bogeyman climate change.
The long term trend is warmer, wetter, greener, which has overall been good for food production.
Unless you live in the Southwest or most of the Western US.