Global heating pushes tropical regions towards limits of human livability

[Lord of Planar]

Climate change have already a negative effect on farming and the effects can get a lot worse.

Rapid global heating is hurting farm productivity, study finds

Research shows rising temperatures since 1960s have acted as handbrake to agricultural yield of crops and livestock

www.theguardian.com

Climate change has cut Australian farm profits by 22% a year over past 20 years, report says

Agriculture department report says changes in climate since 2000 have reduced revenue of cropping farms by $1.1bn a year

www.theguardian.com

Brazil faces crops loss due to climate change and unsustainable farming practices

Brazil should prepare for a future heating of 3-6C and more unpredictable weather, which could severely affect its position as one of the world’s largest exporters of food. Scientists from the Brazilian Panel on Climate Change (PBMC) have predicted that the South American nation might experience...

blueandgreentomorrow.com

With all those misinformation links, next, you will be telling us this is the future:

How a Nuclear Diamond Battery Could Power Your Smartwatch for 28,000 Years

The concept is still in its infancy, but it could revolutionize the way we think about power. That is, if it’s not a hoax.

www.popularmechanics.com

Diamond battery powered by nuclear waste runs for 28,000 years

Would you use one in your phone though?

www.zmescience.com

The idea is to use carbon 14 from used nucler power plant modulator rods, as they produce beta radiation (electrons) and has a half-life of almost 5,760 years. This means it will produce half the energy output after that 5,760 year timeframe. Thin slices of the 14C and thin slices of created diamond produces electricity. I'm not sure what else goes into the batter, but... This is right up your alley!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

With all those misinformation links, next, you will be telling us this is the future:

How a Nuclear Diamond Battery Could Power Your Smartwatch for 28,000 Years

The concept is still in its infancy, but it could revolutionize the way we think about power. That is, if it’s not a hoax.

www.popularmechanics.com

Diamond battery powered by nuclear waste runs for 28,000 years

Would you use one in your phone though?

www.zmescience.com

The idea is to use carbon 14 from used nucler power plant modulator rods, as they produce beta radiation (electrons) and has a half-life of almost 5,760 years. This means it will produce half the energy output after that 5,760 year timeframe. Thin slices of the 14C and thin slices of created diamond produces electricity. I'm not sure what else goes into the batter, but... This is right up your alley!

Here are direct quote and links to some of the studies.

"Agricultural research has fostered productivity growth, but the historical influence of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) on that growth has not been quantified. We develop a robust econometric model of weather effects on global agricultural total factor productivity (TFP) and combine this model with counterfactual climate scenarios to evaluate impacts of past climate trends on TFP. Our baseline model indicates that ACC has reduced global agricultural TFP by about 21% since 1961, a slowdown that is equivalent to losing the last 7 years of productivity growth. The effect is substantially more severe (a reduction of ~26–34%) in warmer regions such as Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. We also find that global agriculture has grown more vulnerable to ongoing climate change."

Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth - Nature Climate Change

Agricultural productivity has increased historically, but the impact of climate change on productivity growth is not clear. In the last 60 years, anthropogenic climate change has reduced agricultural total factor production globally by 21%, with stronger impacts in warmer regions.

www.nature.com

"Previous ABARES research has shown that changes in climate conditions over the last 20 years have had an adverse effect on the productivity of Australian cropping farms (Hughes et al. 2017). ABARES most recent analysis finds that changes in climate over the period 2000 to 2019 (relative to the period 1950 to 1999) have had a negative effect on the profitability of broadacre farms in Australia, including both cropping and livestock sectors, as shown in Figure 6, Figure 7, and Table 1.

Controlling for non-climate factors, we find changes in climate since 2000 have reduced average annual broadacre farm profits by 22%, or around $18,600 per farm (see Table 1)."

The effects of drought and climate variability on Australian farms - Department of Agriculture

Authors: Neal Hughes, David Galeano and Steve Hatfield-Dodds

www.agriculture.gov.au

While you have provide no sources to refute my sources.

 

[JBG]

"Cult". Yet another quite common DENIER TALKING POINT.
Thanks for proving my statements.

I thought you said it was mostly occurring in the higher latitudes, not in the tropics.

 

[CLAX1911]

If climate deniers are correct then we have nothing to worry about, if not then we cannot do anything about it anyway....here...hold my beer.

This climate change rhetoric is an exact duplicate of other religions. I don't deny the global temperatures are rising, they have been for 25,000 years. I don't even deny the activity of man has an effect on it.

I only deny the religious dogma, that the end is near and we should atone for the original sin of burning fossil fuels. I deny that the church/government is the only solution and tithing is necessary. I deny the rath of god/raging climate will be felt by all.

I simply deny the non factual religious crap.

 

[watsup]

This climate change rhetoric is an exact duplicate of other religions. I don't deny the global temperatures are rising, they have been for 25,000 years. I don't even deny the activity of man has an effect on it.

I only deny the religious dogma, that the end is near and we should atone for the original sin of burning fossil fuels. I deny that the church/government is the only solution and tithing is necessary. I deny the rath of god/raging climate will be felt by all.

I simply deny the non factual religious crap.

The religious dogma denier talking point. *YAWN*

 

[JBG]

The religious dogma denier talking point. *YAWN*

Do the progressive forces, or believers in taking action against "climate change" have any response other than to call something a "talking point"?

 

[CLAX1911]

Do the progressive forces, or believers in taking action against "climate change" have any response other than to call something a "talking point"?

Yeah install socialist government.

The term is watermelon. Green in the outside red on the inside.

 

[JBG]

Yeah install socialist government.

The term is watermelon. Green in the outside red on the inside.

That's a keeper.

 

[tecoyah]

This climate change rhetoric is an exact duplicate of other religions. I don't deny the global temperatures are rising, they have been for 25,000 years. I don't even deny the activity of man has an effect on it.

I only deny the religious dogma, that the end is near and we should atone for the original sin of burning fossil fuels. I deny that the church/government is the only solution and tithing is necessary. I deny the rath of god/raging climate will be felt by all.

I simply deny the non factual religious crap.

You mean the crap you just made up?

 

[CLAX1911]

You mean the crap you just made up?

Yeah that I made up lol

 

[watsup]

Do the progressive forces, or believers in taking action against "climate change" have any response other than to call something a "talking point"?

We have a response to serious input, but if it's just the standard talking point that every single new denier posts when they show up here, then why not call it that?

 

[JBG]

We have a response to serious input, but if it's just the standard talking point that every single new denier posts when they show up here, then why not call it that?

The reason is that the lack of provability or falsifiability of a remedy is a serious matter. I'm not against experimentation. For example, probably like you I am totally in favor of COVID vaccinations even though the approval is not final and data is still being collected. I am even in favor of the vaccination being almost mandatory. But plunging ahead with 100% vehicle electrification and 100% renewables on electricity generation, for me, is many bridges too far. Mind you I have an adequate income. If my power bill doubles I may grumble a bit but I won't be badly hurt. Ditto if gasoline goes to $5/gallon, and I am in favor of higher gas taxes.

But I always worry that the burden inevitably falls on those that can least afford it. Somehow the programs designed to smooth that out are either nonexistent or are badly botched. Even in liberal New York, a "renter's assistance" program designed to protect people who are in Covid lockdown from eviction has tons of money and very little of it allocated. This may be off-topic but I do owe you an explanation on why at least I am hesitant to experiment. I know you will say that the cost of doing nothing could be quite high. But to my mind we are weighing the certainty of high costs for efforts to combat "climate change" against the uncertainty both of its severity and its impact. I know that we are having climate disasters. My point is that we have been having those for a long time and I see no scenario where we reach meteorological Nirvana. Heck, my area just dodged a bullet from Hurricane Henri.

 

[watsup]

The reason is that the lack of provability or falsifiability of a remedy is a serious matter. I'm not against experimentation. For example, probably like you I am totally in favor of COVID vaccinations even though the approval is not final and data is still being collected. I am even in favor of the vaccination being almost mandatory. But plunging ahead with 100% vehicle electrification and 100% renewables on electricity generation, for me, is many bridges too far. Mind you I have an adequate income. If my power bill doubles I may grumble a bit but I won't be badly hurt. Ditto if gasoline goes to $5/gallon, and I am in favor of higher gas taxes.

But I always worry that the burden inevitably falls on those that can least afford it. Somehow the programs designed to smooth that out are either nonexistent or are badly botched. Even in liberal New York, a "renter's assistance" program designed to protect people who are in Covid lockdown from eviction has tons of money and very little of it allocated. This may be off-topic but I do owe you an explanation on why at least I am hesitant to experiment. I know you will say that the cost of doing nothing could be quite high. But to my mind we are weighing the certainty of high costs for efforts to combat "climate change" against the uncertainty both of its severity and its impact. I know that we are having climate disasters. My point is that we have been having those for a long time and I see no scenario where we reach meteorological Nirvana. Heck, my area just dodged a bullet from Hurricane Henri.

Fair enough. Just try to stick with the science rather than talking points from right wing pundits.

 

[JBG]

Fair enough. Just try to stick with the science rather than talking points from right wing pundits.

I am not a right-winger so I don't read right-wing pundits. Even though I have an IQ barely above room temperature, 79, I do my own thinking. I don't read the garbage that either CNN or Fox posts, except to mock it.

 

[watsup]

Fake

I am not a right-winger so I don't read right-wing pundits. Even though I have an IQ barely above room temperature, 79, I do my own thinking. I don't read the garbage that either CNN or Fox posts, except to mock it.

Fair enough.