From the Carbon Brief:
Temperatures during the Iowa maize growing season are projected to increase by more
than five degrees Celsius, causing yields to drop by 18 per cent, according to new
research. In Southern Australia, 15 per cent less rainfall and temperatures 2.8 to
4.5 degrees warmer will see wheat yields decline by 70 per cent. This will pose
serious challenges to staple grain production, say the researchers. Journal of
Climate
How Climate Change Affects Extremes in Maize and Wheat Yield in Two Cropping
Regions
(http://carbonbrief.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=39b25e6afa81d7ffc0e925ee9&id=efe5082ce1&e=0eb5a6dc67)
On the other hand, this week’s economist takes a very positive look at the emerging new energy economy. Their special report argues that changes to storage for renewables, smart and micro grid technologies and improvements to managing demand, along with vast improvements in building design, are setting the stage for the demise of the old centralised electricity provider model. A very interesting and well researched report.
There are legions out there (not just me) who are ready to leap off the grid as soon as storage options for our roof top solar become viable.
Ronda, this is yet more proof that alarmists don’t believe in evolution. Do you think it is beyond the wit of man to breed new strains of maize, or whatever, that will deal with higher temperatures?
And given that the IPCC says the models have no skill in forecasting regional climate, this piece is highly speculative to say the least. Highly unlikely anything like the temperature increase and the rainfall decline will happen.
They need to check the paleo record and they’ll find at higher temperatures in the past the place was generally wetter.
Comment by Graham — January 24, 2015 @ 9:59 pm
Yes Graham and while that be that may well be inherently correct, there was a period identified by that record and a Mother Hubbard cupboard, that all life was very nearly destroyed by a total 5C increase in ambient temperatures, around 90 million years ago.
Which seems to have started out as a 2C rise, that in turn seems to have created a disastrous permafrost/tundra melt, which in turn seems to have allowed trillions of tons of formerly frozen methane to escape, and vastly exacerbate the problem.
And something no sanely lead population would knowingly repeat, given some of the identified options; some of which Ronda has identified.
Among some of those options is methane itself, used via locally invented ceramic fuel cells, where the methane is converted to energy, via a chemical process.
Which creates mostly water vapor in the process.
And given no moving parts, produces the highest energy coefficient in the world at 80%; four times better than reticulated coal fired power, which not only is just 20% in comparison, but bleeds energy during transmission; up to 50%, and in the process, creates twice as much carbon as very local micro grids would?
And people misunderstand the greenhouse process, where increased Co2, produces increased plant growth, the greenhouse effect.
And as part of that process, increases the amount of moisture in the atmosphere.
Which in turn traps more heat, as it does on a normally cold winter’s night, thereby negating the usual frost.
One can take a cubic metre of air and remove all the Co2 or carbon, which then allows measurable trapped radiant heat to be reduced by just 0.03C.
Whereas, if one removes all the atmospheric moisture, temperatures/retained radiant heat, can drop as much as 30C.
And endlessly repeatable for exactly the same result, the very cornerstone of the very best science.
Meaning, water vapor may well be the true greenhouse gas?
And typically, felt as increased humidity, when you enter any greenhouse.
Why there are some areas which use this very feature to use sea/salt water piped through glasshouses to water them, via collected pristine condensed evaporate!
And coal seam gas, almost pure methane, is perfectly usable in ceramic fuel cells, which as already alluded to, create mostly water vapor as the exhaust product.
Moreover, almost any problematic salt water released as part of the extraction process, can be used as reliable water, for any number of cropping options.
This is achieved with salt water transporting ag pipes, wrapped in membrane filtering medium buried under the crops!
Given there are many profitable cash crops, that have nice long tap roots, (i.e., lucerne/mitchel grass/ salt, frost and drought resistant native wisteria) and indeed, greater water pulling power, than many pumps.
[Native wisteria produces oil seed, suitable for bio diesel production, and the high protein crush is eminently suitable as animal fodder, good enough for feedlots, or chicken or fish farming?]
If only we could just get the disingenuous greens and their, I believe, par for the course misinformation, out of our farms.
We could stop some of the poor bar-stewards going to the wall, and or, contemplating suicide!
And we should mine the reef as opposed to mindlessly importing fuel, which in use, creates four times the amount of total carbon, we would produce, utilizing the vastly superior fuel types currently thought to lay beneath the, (sacred cow) which is now our reef!
We import 91% of our oil, and at a cost of around 26 billions?
Well that seemed to be the case before the recent reductions, and sure to go much higher yet again, once the competition has been forced out of business by these recent Machiavellian machinations!
We have seen the evidence of quite massive deposits, in an area the size of Victoria, emanating as mystery oil slicks, which was once all that lead prospectors to the oil fields of yesteryear; when they followed those slicks to the early shallow wells.
And given the constant rupturing of that ground by nearby tectonic plate movements, something we will need to do, as opposed to allowing more and more of it to pollute the marine environment, particularly gas, which escapes far more readily, and in millions of cubic metres in just minutes, through tiny cracks!
I mean if you were “genuinely” concerned about the environment, what would you chose?
Our own indigenous sweet light crude, which needs no real refining per se, but rather just a little insitu chill filtering to produce a superior, cleaner burning largely sulfur free diesel, and in common use, creates four times less total carbon, than current costly imports!
And that’s before you factor in the carbon footprint created by transporting it halfway around the world!
Drilling into and removing the oil or gas, is going to relive the pressure currently creating myriad mystery oil and or gas leaks, all of which harm the natural environment, and untapped, contribute to the bigger threat, that is oil tanker traffic around our coastline!
It will be a very long time before we transport everything in electric vehicles or harvest/transport our food with them; so we ought to use the fuel types, that produce the least amount of carbon in common use, and ask all others to do the same, during the unavoidable transition period!
And those options has to include, mostly currently unavailable indigenous sweet light crude, which leaves the ground as an almost ready to use diesel, as is!
Meaning the highly energy dependent massively carbon creating refining phase can be, for all practical purposes, eliminated!
Thereby reducing atmospheric carbon by as much as 75%, wherever this option is made available/released for common public use!
What can’t be allowed to decide these outcomes or energy options, is anti development greens and their locked and bolted mindset, nor can their political influence be allowed, like a tail wagging the dog, to decide the most efficacious outcomes!
If we are in a hypothetical lifeboat, we must be allowed to use the very efficient outboard; as opposed to all rowing in different directions or in ever decreasing circles!
And we all know the only possible destination/oblivion of ever decreasing circles, given that is the preferred option, just so some can exercise a compulsion to wield, (tail wagging the dog) power!
As opposed to genuine consensus, and or persuasively arguing a totally rational position!
Unfortunately, just not happening now!
Alan B. Goulding.
Comment by Alan B. Goulding — January 25, 2015 @ 11:03 am
Rhonda, if they are lying to us about “bail in” ie bank deposit theft,and invasions of many countries like Iraq under the cover of terrorism, why not lie about CO2 which they can use to manipulate us into total subjugation under the noble virtue of saving the planet?
Those who can create money from nothing for our Govts and corporations to function have absolute power. They are the Central Banks of this planet and they fund the Greens and all the major noble environmental groups on the planet. Do you now understand ?
Comment by Ross — January 25, 2015 @ 6:08 pm
What evidence is there that the bank fund the environmental groups? That is news to me.
Graham, the paleo climate was vastly different from now, and much more differs than water availability. The questin is not whether we humans and all our science can invent new varieties of crops, but rather whether it will happen in ways that promote survival of more than a small number.
Comment by ronda jambe — January 25, 2015 @ 7:22 pm
Rhonda we are talking about the most powerful central bankers on the planet. For 300 yrs they’ve created from nothing all the money for our Govts and Corps to function. They have major share holdings in all the Media, oil, pharma and resource companies on the planet. They own our Govts.
No one gets a job in their corps without agreeing to their agendas. It’s always been, nudge,nudge,wink,wink, big brother is watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7q6rsXn15s
Comment by Ross — January 25, 2015 @ 8:01 pm
I’m not sure what your comment about the paleo-climate is supposed to mean Ronda. In what was was it supposedly “vastly different”? I’m talking hundreds of millions of years, not billions. We’ve had a habitable planet for quite some period of time, it just had to wait for us to turn up.
Comment by Graham — January 26, 2015 @ 7:18 am
“well researched”? That Economist article (presumably http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21639020-renewables-are-no-longer-fad-fact-life-supercharged-advances-power) is one of the classic examples of how not to write about these issues, confusing power with storage (and units thereof) throughout, and failing to distinguish capacity factors of different energy sources. And as with this piece, it fails to think beyond household electricity consumption, not recognising that this accounts for less than a third of electrical (never mind total) energy demand, taking Australia as an example.
The “emerging new energy economy” trumpeted in the second paragraph does not equate to a solution to the problems highlighted in the first.
Comment by Mark Duffett — January 27, 2015 @ 10:28 pm