then 1 degree highter temperature will boost farming !!!!
more food for the hungry and problem of world hunger solved!

my point is that man can not fight with nature and expect to win.
i also believe that temperature change is a trend of a natural cycle.
there is no proof that it is caused by mankind.

then why politicans using global warming to gain votes and ppl fall for that crazy idea?

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

I wouldn't be so sure if a general higher temperature and thus affected climate would be so nice for farmers like you think.
And farming efficiency is not going to solve world hunger. We could already feed every mouth twice if we all wanted to.

Not in the long run. We are in effect "eating oil". The energy inputs are not always obvious. For example, where is the energy coming from for synthetic fixing of N? Yes of course we can do it the old fashioned way, rotate the human edible grain crop with a couple years of Nitrogen fixing legume. But that means no grain from that bit of land perhaps 2 years out of 3 (or 2 out of four, depends on the rotation).

When people tell you what fabulously high yields are possible keep in mind that's with one heck of a lot of fertilizer added.

I was speaking of the enourmous amount of crop/grain etc. we produce so we can eat more meat.

Fertilizer in a nice poisoned monocrop field that is slowly desertifying and killing the local bee population <3
Industrial farming accelerates it, but conventional agriculture achieves the same results in the end. Then we will have nothing to eat but the short-term fiat money profits that inflation ate away ^___^

How do you know it'll have that effect? The opposite seems more likely to me- with deserts expanding due to increased temperatures, rising sea levels inundating low-lying agricultural land, and more frequent and extreme weather events ruining it.



Oh, yes there is. There's plenty of evidence that climate change is caused by humans. You should acquaint yourself with the scientific literature on the subject- there's tons and tons of it and the scientific consensus is nearly unanimous. Here's a good one to get you started, which shows how it is the science deniers that are wrong and dishonest, not the scientists.



Again, wrong. Politicians are purchased by beholden to the various lobby groups and business interests that provide their bribes campaign contributions, and big polluters looking to protect their business model are better able to purchase politicians than scientists are. That's why we see the pollies, particularly from the right, pretend that scientists are evil conniving liars out to wreck the economy for some inexplicable reason.

_________________
Poka King of the south east.

I hesitated to even enter into this conversation, but I feel that I can contribute something at this point. Attached is a paper I wrote as a undergraduate. It is mostly my spouting off my opinions about the economics of climate change to my professor, but it contains some of the references to the real science I used to support my stance. Mind you, I wrote it 5 years ago. There is (in my older eyes anyway) a LOT of naivety. I was still a starry eyed undergraduate firmly in the protective embrace of academia. The real world is much more messy. More importantly, it offers directed references to peer-reviewed papers and IPCC-4. Obviously, it is dated since IPCC-5 isn't due for another year... Well what can you do? I do recommend that anyone who wishes to gain education on the matter start with reading (chronologically) the IPCC reports in total. Wade through them and you will be well on your way to a place where you can ask rational questions and know where to start looking for rational answers. I know that, personally, I gained a enormous amount of knowledge from reading them. Not all of it was scientific either. There is a certain value of how politics influences science in them as well. Anywhoo, without further comment...

There is certainly a lot of pro and con material out there. However, I am puzzled by the idea that everything is relative.

If you are in the U.S. did you start with BAMS State of the Climate Report, published annually since 1991 (BAMS = Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society)? If not, why not?

If you are in Europe did you start with Annual Bulletin on the Climate in WMO Region VI - Europe and Middle East, published annually since 1995 (WMO = World Meteorological Organization)? If not, why not?

If you are concerned about the effects on agriculture and you are in the U.S., have you read The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity, produced by the U. S. Department of Agriculture under the U. S. Global Change Research Program? If not, why not?

A lot of this stuff really is rocket science, but finding information really isn't!

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

I did not. I started at IPCC and the Kyoto Protocol. That is the assignment that was given to me. I have read those resources and used them since then, but at the time I was fulfilling the obligations of a student to her teacher to do the assignment that I was given.

(BTW that igoneko is my post , somehow I have ended up with two accounts. something I am trying to sort out with the admins right now. )

You are correct that real information is readily available. The other side of that coin is that it can be beeping hard to wade through it all. Even as a student of the science, I approach it with a scientific dictionary and Google in hand (so to speak) to aid me in truly understanding the material. Add to that the 3-deep clause and nearly all laymen (and many frustrated students without a doubt) will give it up as impossible. It takes time.

EDIT: Sorry, I just realized I referenced 3-deep and that I cannot reasonably expect anyone else to understand that. It is something I was taught as a undergrad, like the sin of confirmation bias. (which really is beaten into you with vigor)

The 3-deep clause is a... concept? rule? teaching aid?... Basically, it works like this. One should not reference your unique work with a paper that you cannot "prove" 3-deep. So for any scientific paper that you wish to use in your own work you must "prove" it.

1. You read the paper.
2. You read all the references of that paper
3. You read all the references of the references of that paper.

That is how you prove a paper 3-deep.

As I was taught, the 3-deep clause is intended to minimize suspect material. This is because of how peer-reviewed science works.

This is new to me, and kind of interesting. I do not guess anyone really does it, not twice. One or two papers with extensive note lists and the combinatorial explosion of spadework would be awful. In some papers, you see lines like "Efforts to account for the discrepancy by direct calculation have had questionable success. (Fitzhugh[1941]; Davies, Davies, Davies and Thomas[1948]; Martindale[1949]; Oh, Fralins and Dixit[1951]; [14 other references] ; Hedley[2012])" What a nightmare. All to prove that, well, the thing we didn't do might be of some value, but then again, who's to tell? I mean, yes, a bit of duplication will be there and someone with a serious knowledge of the field would have already read many of the papers, but it's still a lot of meaningless labor. I would also question the value of it beyond as a training exercise for someone initially becoming acquainted with the field. Surely many papers present direct observations, which are not dependent for validity on much that is in prior papers, only on the integrity and method of the author. Selected reading in depth, maybe, to ensure you understand the key points that you are taking from the paper, but all of it? On top of that, the time you spend doing things matters and delaying submitting for publication while you earnestly plow through every paper Davies, Davies, Davies or Thomas thought relevent during the Truman Administration, when no one will know whether you actually did or not, seems unlikely in the extreme.

Also, there is some gamesmanship available in the standard if applied, in fields where there is competition for attention. If yours is one of five groups attempting to recreate or expand upon a result, you could be careful to cite as small a number of references as possible, each of which itself has a minimal number of references. This would give you some significant edge in later being cited.

All a bit in jest. More seriously, I cannot see what 3-deep reading has to do with any of it. Studying a subject 3-deep is neither taught to, nor imposed on, nor practical for, nor needed by the layman, the journalist or the policymaker. Yes, they should dive into things and examine premises and assumptions, but what to dive into and how deep is a practical matter. A person wanting to form their own conclusion about some complicated and controversial topic may have to devote their life to it or give up. A layman wanting to form a conclusion about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, on the other hand, does not have to go "3-deep" into the Moana Loa readings; they can grab the graph off google and it's right. Indeed, the point of much of the best summaries out there, especially IPCC, is to provide something you can read where someone else did all that 3-deep stuff in a public process so readers can get precise and up-to-date information and be informed without switching careers.

So, considering overlap, for one reference you need to read on the order of 1,000 references. More power to you!

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I believe that humanity has had an impact on climate change, but I also believe that the Earth goes through cycles where the weather changes. Like with global warming. Let's face it, those icecaps weren't going to last forever. Those glaciers weren't going to remain frozen forever. That much is obvious.

So can humanity limit its' impact on things like this? Doubtful. We've become far too reliant on things that are harmful for the world in general.

We may not see the devastating effects in our lifetimes. But eventually, we're heading towards an age where the Earth will be uninhabitable. Stephen Hawking has even said we're eventually going to need to be a space faring people.

That's just my two cents. Take it with a grain of salt.

_________________
Slava Ukraini!

It can be torturous. It is also, as I said, a teaching aid. The objective which is to teach students of science not to take anything at face value as "The Truth" until one has read many many many many papers on the subject. I did it and to some extent I still do. Not to completion, because it starts to really get outrageous in some papers as was pointed at with some humor, but I try and read all the relevant ones. Yes, that means I have read and will read in the future THOUSANDS of scientific papers. I call that due diligence AKA "Doing my research before I run my mouth." Most of the time it keeps me from looking like a idiot. Since knowledge is never wasted, I have never had a quarrel taking a couple weeks to read a hundred papers. It takes time to get advanced degrees for a reason. Despite the jokes they don't let you just BS your way through it.
I would ask ANY PHD among us how much research they did for those letters. It is probably more than most people think.

...Although, climate modeling is a young branch of its parent science. Less than 20 years, I think... There may not be the great body of research that exists in the more established branches.

It seems that a useful statistic might be the breadth of the "3-DEEP"

If we assume that each paper has 30 references (on the low end, just for the sake of the calculation), then the max 3-DEEP stat we could have is 900.

On the other hand, we have a lower bound of 60 (our paper references 30, in the second level, paper 1 references the other 29 + 1 additional, paper 2 references 28+2 additional, etc...)

This statistic might be very useful for determining just how "incestuous" a community is.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Sorry about that! The "you" in my post was not igoneko but rather the collective authors of the preceding 150 or so posts. My bad (as usual).

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

In my experience, a paper with 30+ references often has at least one incorrect reference anyway, another few that don't support the original paper's point in the way the author thought it did, and references to papers that are old enough that the views within them have been superceded by more recent research that found something somewhat different.

Even then, there are enough papers (including poor quality ones) that you can cherry pick your references to support one side of a debate quite nicely, even applying a 3-deep rule.

This isn't restricted to obscure journals either, this has been found repeatedly with Science and Nature, amongst other high ranking / high impact journals (in fact, a rather scathing paper was published in Nature a couple of years ago).

It might, but certain subjects invariably reference what i am going to call "milestone" papers. That is, papers that are considered of such good quality or completeness that they are considered a standard and referenced hundreds of times. For example, in the study of global tectonics there is Bird 2003. One almost cannot do research (or take a class) in that field without hitting that paper. It is so preeminent that even a general Google search (as opposed to Scholar) of bird 2003 will yield that paper as a top hit! Things like that quickly lift the apparent "incestuous"-ness of a research community. However, the other side of that is that you may be reassured that a milestone paper like Bird 2003 dose represent in some way the general scientific consensus on the subject (or else it would not be so heavily referenced)

Also, science has almost completely moved out of the realm of individual "gentleman-scholars" and in to the arena of collaboration. For example, the recorded observation of the Higgs-Boson has again confirmed the Standard Model of particle physics. Surely that work is worthy the Nobel. It is of monumental importance to that science! To whom do we award it? The Nobel prize has a limit of 3 persons to share an award but there were dozens of researchers at CERN working on it. It is very easy to see "incest" when everyone works with everyone else. That dose not invalidate the science.

Your quite right. Personally, research more that 15 years old should be considered suspect in a dynamic research field. As for Science and Nature... While it is a cachet to have a paper published in them and I would definitely not turn it down because it is a sure path to funding... they publish hot new bleeding edge stuff to appeal to the readers with drama. Frequently... well... the science often doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. Those two specifically are a bit more like the pop charts than the symphony. My opinion, YMMV

FWIW, I agree with you on those



This is the kind of statistic that always grates somewhat.