Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

KyussB wrote: »

The typical "blind to everything except that which can be positively spun" garbage, that you get from denialists.
The upsides in crop production elsewhere don't matter because the discussion is about the triggers for mass migration, from the mid-to-lower latitudes.The downsides aren't 'balanced out' by upsides - that's False Balance - the downsides cause mass migration regardless of any upsides elsewhere.

Lol Its your own 'garbage'! And as for 'blind' well yes indeed - I was quoting from your own map graphic which is detailed as the benefits of carbon fertilisation processes !!! Have you even seen that - seriously???

here it is:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/projected-impact-of-climate-change/trend09-1m-soer2010-eps/image_large

-See left hand panal for details about that map

This Map represents the case of beneficial carbon fertilisation processes

The projections on yields etc are also theoretical as has been pointed out and the 'facts' your spouting about lower agricultural yields yada yada are simply projections based on science which is stated on that map which is 'uncertain

And no it's not just me who are saying that there are balances and technological solutions. The scientists are!!! Are they 'denialists' really?

Many temperate regions will likely see increased crop yields under future climate, due to warmer temperatures and the CO2 fertilization effect. Depending on the extent of global trade and cooperation, these yield increases could help to partially ameliorate decreases experienced elsewhere. Many agricultural impact projections don’t include the CO2 fertilization effect, due to uncertainty, but in reality this effect will probably help soften the blow of climate change to some extent. (For example, global wheat production may be more likely to increase than decrease; Liu et al. 2018 Global Change Biology1.)...

For example, over the historical period of global warming, technological advancements have increased yields by 100-200% in spite of any negative impact of climate change. Even if this yield trend were to reverse, the total production of calories might not be affected if economic forces cause more land to be used for agriculture. In other words, if yields were to be reduced by 10% that does not translate directly into 10% less food available. It is likely that the reduction in yield would stimulate increased land use for agriculture. In this example, if 10% more land were used for agriculture, total production would remain unaffected....

All these factors would need to be reckoned with before one could make any credible projection of reduced food production in the future 

*

But no worries bro - its easy to make a mistake like that ...

*https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/prediction-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-will-kill-6-billion-people-unsupported-roger-hallam-bbc/

Akrasia wrote: »

It’s impossible to project accurately global food production 50 or 100 years from now, which is why climate scientists use scenarios to model different outcomes dependent on different assumptions for uncertain variablesThere are some scenarios where climate change is harmful but manageable, best case scenarios, and there are some scenarios where climate change causes a literal apocalypse (resource shortages causing conflict, mass immigration ultimately leading to WW3)And then there are all the scenarios in the middle, of which there are many plausible outcomes that have very negative outcomes including runaway climate change if we breach certain tipping points.The scientists who know the most are extremely concerned because they know that the most likely outcomes are very damaging in the medium term and potentially catastrophic in the long term (climate change doesn’t just stop at 2100)

Indeed scientists do hold many different opinions and they use scenarios to model theoretical outcomes. Believe it or not some of us actually understand this hence my comment above.

Regarding the direction of agricultural production - what we do know is technology transfer initiatives occurring between 1950 and the late 1960s increased agricultural production worldwide, particularly in the developing world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s. The initiatives resulted in the adoption of new technologies, including high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of cereals, especially dwarf wheats and rices, in association with new agricultural techniques and new methods of cultivation, including mechanization. 

Not only that but cereal production more than doubled in developing nations between the years 1961–1985. Yields of rice, maize, and wheat increased steadily during that period. The production increases can be attributed roughly equally to irrigation, fertilizer, and seed development especially in the case of Asian rice production.

The end result if all this innovation means that at present there is no global shortage of food. With surpluses in many crops year on year.

Where food is in short supply is mainly the result of corruption and other inequalities

https://www.worldhunger.org/letter-food-shortage-world-questions/

And rather than getting dragged off into a morass of 'yes but' type dialogue - the comment above simply points out that the Map being bandied about actually details theoretical projections of ' beneficial carbon fertilisation processes' >As is detailed on the graphic<. Not that difficult to understand tbh ....

Edit. Detail added.

gozunda wrote: »

Most likley identified as such due to the fact that the green new deal you were endlessly promoting in a thread about gretas travels in the US was shown to be a large pile of political poo.

If what is posted doesnt stand up to scrutiny and others point that out - that is not being 'brow' beaten - it is simply discussion. Some people dont seem to like that oddly enough ...

What exactly about it was 'political poo'? I took down pretty much every criticism of it.

KyussB wrote: »

The typical "blind to everything except that which can be positively spun" garbage, that you get from denialists.

The upsides in crop production elsewhere don't matter because the discussion is about the triggers for mass migration, from the mid-to-lower latitudes.

The downsides aren't 'balanced out' by upsides - that's False Balance - the downsides cause mass migration regardless of any upsides elsewhere.

Coupled with that is that the projected agriculture decline is in the areas of the world with the highest population densities. The tiny country of Monaco has the world's highest population density. With an area of three-fourths of a square mile (2 sq km) and a total population of 30,645, Monaco has a density of almost 39,798 people per square mile.

However, because Monaco and other microstates have very high densities due to their extremely small size, Bangladesh (population 157,826,578) is often considered the most densely populated country, with more than 2,753 people per square mile.



However reverting to the central point of your observation regarding the effects of migration I think it could be useful, in terms of moving the discussion forward, to link to the following article:

https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/climate-change-already-driving-mass-migration-around-globe

"Given the oversize role that migration plays in our current political discourse, you’d think there would be more emphasis on the one factor military and security experts believe will affect future migration patterns more than any other: climate change."

" In a report to Congress last week, the GAO criticized the manner in which the Trump administration has sought to remove any acknowledgement of climate change from our foreign policy and diplomatic strategies, keeping experts in the dark about an issue that’s growing only more urgent as a shifting climate—and all that comes with it—displaces millions of people and disrupts societies across the globe."

Deleted User wrote: »

oh my god.

that's just best left

tuisceanch youve made really interesting posts in this thread, cheers

Yet you felt you shouldn't leave it? I haven't seen you around before, so trust me when I tell you poor little thing that you're not going to find an interaction with me a fun experience.

If you want to address the fact that the people most vocally against the science behind human-caused climate change are (a) poor and (b) uneducated or (c) have an agenda, I'm willing to do so. Otherwise, run along dear.

gozunda wrote: »

Poor poor try my friend. And no I cant help you with your lack of comprehension. But If you really wish to find out about the Guardian Newspapers lack of editorial independance / being funding by a US 'think tank' (a much favourite phrase hereabouts by some) and why that is relevant - it's already been detailed. But you already know that. Now welcome to the ignore list.

That's a bit rich from you isn't it?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's a bit rich from you isn't it?

Is it or are you just scoring cheap points whilst discussing nothing?

If you like to point out any particular instance of a lack of comprehension as detailed in my comment above - then please do so. Otherwise keep the **** throwing where it belongs. Thanks.

gozunda wrote: »

Is it or are you just scoring cheap points whilst discussing nothing?

If you like to point out any particular instance of a lack of comprehension as detailed in my comment above - then please do so. Otherwise keep your **** throwing where it belongs. Thanks.

I think it belongs firmly pointed at your head. Perhaps you're admitting that it isn't lack of comprehension but an attempt to spin something which doesn't affirm the point you're making towards your side? It's one or the other: you're either not understanding the topic or you're telling fibs.

Tuisceanch wrote: »

However reverting to the central point of your observation regarding the effects of migration I think it could be useful, in terms of moving the discussion forward, to link to the following article:

https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/climate-change-already-driving-mass-migration-around-globe

"Given the oversize role that migration plays in our current political discourse, you’d think there would be more emphasis on the one factor military and security experts believe will affect future migration patterns more than any other: climate change."

" In a report to Congress last week, the GAO criticized the manner in which the Trump administration has sought to remove any acknowledgement of climate change from our foreign policy and diplomatic strategies, keeping experts in the dark about an issue that’s growing only more urgent as a shifting climate—and all that comes with it—displaces millions of people and disrupts societies across the globe."

Ya good point about the security implications - the funny thing is, while the US has their own immigration concerns/issues, it's actually the US which is causing all of the EU's immigration issues, due to wars in the middle east and destabilization of e.g. North-Africa/Libya - also causing issues on our (the EU's) borders with Ukraine and such.

So yea, while it's a concern for the US too, I don't think they overall care a whole lot, what effect it has on the EU - the political effects of immigration probably are even useful, in making politics more extreme in Europe.