And I'm only half joking:
Three degrees warming doubles risk of civil war
Global patterns of civil conflict are directly associated with planetary-scale climate change. Specifically in tropical countries, the risk of civil war have just been shown to double in warmer El Niño years (to about 6% risk per country per year) compared to cooler El Niña years (when the risk is about 3%).
I love NPR, though I'm not a regular Splendid Table listener. This morning's show featured a guest who claimed that all GMO's are bad with no potential benefit to feed the developing world. That's simply not true....
A book you probably already know about: Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food
With the world's population projected to grow some 50 percent by midcentury, rigorous agricultural planning becomes indispensable to forestall the onset of ecological and human disaster. Ronald and Adamchak, a wife-husband team from the University of California at Davis, combine the training and insights of a geneticist and the know-how of a committed organic farmer. They examine the often-passionate debate about genetically engineered food and how it may affect the food supply of the future, meticulously dissecting arguments for and against such application of science.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Last summer "Skeptically Speaking" had an excellent interview with GMO researcher Kevin Folta. I've often used the information provided in that interview to argue with people on how GMOs will not destroy the world. Find it here: http://skepticallyspeaking.ca/episodes/71-genetically-modified-foods
The paper that was a basis for "Three degrees warming doubles risk of civil war" was in this week's Nature. The author was on Nature's podcast: Ref: http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index-2011-08-25.html The author gives a good explanation.
Having not yet read the paper, I suspect that it hinges more on ENSO associated climate disruption rather than temperature per se. A three degree C would be the difference in the western equatorial Pacific water temperature between a very strong el Nino v. average temperature. However, local western Pacific temperature does not translate to a similar rise throughout the global tropical regions.
Notwithstanding the fact that the temperature rise is local, el Nino does have a global impact on weather. And this looks to be an interesting paper.
Yo Greg- Methinks you have a spammer or troll whose comment deserves either removal or ridicule or perhaps to be ignored.
Back in the 80s when the EPA issued its first multi-volume report on climate change (this during the Reagan administration!), one of the obvious conclusions from reading it was:
Climate change causes weather change. Weather change causes shifts in the areas that will be agriculturally productive. HOWEVER, the ability to bring new areas into cultivation will lag behind the decline of areas that are presently agriculturally productive. This will lead to shortages of staple crops until the new areas for agriculture are identified and put into production, and served with the various infrastructure needed to make that production viable and marketable.
Today we're living in the times that we warned about. These scenarios and their sequelae are developing along with much suffering and death that could have been prevented with a bit of foresight.
Meanwhile a pernicious ideology has come in from the wacko fringe to the mainstream, that wealth and suffering are the rewards and punishments inflicted by a vengeful deity upon those who "he" has chosen for "his" favor and disfavor. This would be the various flavors of Dominionism, Reconstructionism, the New Apostolic Reformation, the Latter Rain movement, and various forms of radical Calvinism and reactionary Catholicism.
These ideologies seek to impose a Taliban-like theocracy upon the entire world as the means of entry to the Kingdom of God.
These ideologies will not only fail to seek any prevention or remediation of climate change and its consequences: they will revel in the crises as the fulfillment of their prophesies. By analogy think of a drug addict who enjoys the very sensations that any doctor would tell him are signs of a dangerous overdose.
You need to become aware of these ideologies, and one of the best resources is the site www.talk2action.org. Even if you're a ferocious atheist who considers religion to be a delusion unworthy of your least attention, you need to know this stuff, because these extremists are on the march and they are armed and they are dangerous, and they include two of the leading Republican candidates, Bachmann and Perry. Do not underestimate them one microgram. This is a fight in which we must be fully engaged, because there will be no opportunity for do-overs.
Purveyors of the "global-warming-is-a-socialist-conspiracy" are clearly addled morons.
Argue the facts, not your stupid and nonsensical conspiracy theories.
- CO2 is being added to the atmosphere by human activity
- CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is going up
- CO2 traps heat
- the temperature of the planet is going up
Facts.
Oh, and the Nature article is nothing new - Siouxsie and the Banshees released their research on this topic in 1986:
*http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DYIqyV…*
Jared Diamond in "Collapse" comes really close to saying this, too. Basically he said that if you look at the areas with environmental stress, you will find social upheaval.
@Vince whirlwind
"Correlation <> Causation" - Basic scientific principle.
And even if increased CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity (unproven, and even if it is it's more likely, IMO, to be due to deforestation than fossil carbon burning), and also responsible for the temperature going up (if it is, this isn't proven and probably can't be due to lack of info), that doesn't mean there isn't a "socialist-conspiracy" to take advantage of the reaction for ideological purposes.
The conspiracy is there, and obvious to anybody not wearing their (your) own ideological blinders. So is the widespread use of Marxist psuedo-science (a la Lysenko), including dialectical lies, intellectual hooliganism, and explicit conspiracies to prevent contrary science from being published. Dialectic materialism has no more place in science (e.g. climate science) than dialectical creationism (e.g. "Intelligent Design").
When Judith Curry is treated with the respect a highly experienced researcher is entitled to, rather than the intellectual hooliganism found at "Real" Climate and other pseudo-scientific sites, then perhaps you'll be justified in your statements. Until then, you just demonstrate your ignorance.
OOps:
Should be "Correlation <> Causation"
And even if increased CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity (unproven,
It is proven.
and also responsible for the temperature going up (if it is, this isn't proven
It is proven.
this isn't proven and probably can't be due to lack of info)
That is a lie.
The conspiracy is there, and obvious to anybody not wearing their (your) own ideological blinders.
You say this to everyone who disagrees with you, don't you?
Should be "Correlation <> Causation"
Fairy tales. Do you really think the global climate science community is at this level of conversation?
When Judith Curry is treated with the respect a highly experienced researcher is entitled to
...you'll continue slandering other highly experienced researchers with your lies about international criminal Marxist conspiracies.
There is probably perfect overlap between the Curry Cultists and the victims of Gore Derangement Syndrome. They all view science as a completely ego- and personality-driven pursuit, with evidence being far less important than popularity. I'd compare them to a pack of 6th-grade meangirls, but it would be an undeserved insult to meangirls.
@GL:
I know a biblical literalist who assures me the first two chapters of Genesis are both literally true, despite the obvious contradiction between them. Your use of the word "proven" reminds me of her use of "literally". I've actually examined these issues, and while I would agree with the real scientists who say there's a high probability of it, there are serious holes in all these "proofs". (Especially the one about humans causing the high CO2 levels.) The science isn't settled, and any scientist who says otherwise is either lying or an ignorant fool. (But most of them are practicing Marxist pseudo-science, IMO.)
No, but when they're (you're) clearly wearing ideological blinders, I might as well point that fact out. (Not that I expect it to do any good, but who knows?)
Doubtful. But it might help to remind people here, who don't seem to know the difference between correlation and causation.
@TTT:
Everything you say in your post is a good example of dialectic, in the Marxist tradition.
I never called it "criminal", that's your word. Although there are parts of the behavior I'm aware of that IMO should be.
This is the sheerest nonsense, as anybody who's actually followed Professor Curry's website knows. You simply show your abysmal ignorance by saying it.
"Any one eyed dumbass with an IQ of 3 could see that."
That should make it a bit easier to identify him.
AK, go back to the Curry Cult worship site and continue to pathetically genuflect to the goddess who rules you. You people could teach John Hinckley a lesson about twisted obsessions.
Ahhhhhg, the paper has NOTHING to do with global warming!!!!!! It is based on El Nino/La Nina weather patterns!!!!
Of course, some bright light bulbs might want to use it to predict some of the human consequences that will result from global warming.
@TTT:
You remind me of a little kid on a playground calling names. What are you going to do next, threaten to beat the cr*p out of me?
P.S. You're too easy. Why don't you either shut your fingers up or spend some time on a little research?