Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[eyeballkid]

I believe the evidence points more towards irreversible thread damage.

 

[96tbird]

Staple crops man, staples.

Subsistence crops man, subsistence.

 

[Unrepresented]

Staple crops man, staples.

Subsistence crops man, subsistence.

Because it's worth being reduced to glutinous starches so we don't have to forsake our precious current pollution levels. Citrus fruits are for quitters and socialists.

 

[DerHoggz]

Thanks for reminding me, I need to pick up some Nebraska Natural OJ on the way home. Only fresh squeezed, delicious Nebraska oranges go into every carton.

Actually I'm pretty sure CA is responsible for a huge amount of USA crops.

 

[BawanaRik]

Funny how that divide doesn't actually exist when you work in the sciences. Researchers enjoy talking about their fields and explaining it to all levels. Special? Heck, the usual comments are along the lines that - had they been smart enough, they'd have gotten a regular job, one with reasonable pay and working hours!

If only peer review was that simple. People are always looking for any loose thread by which to tear down research. While getting a paper doesn't automatically give you grant money, it can help strengthen an argument in a grant application. But you got to remember, the people reviewing your work will be from the same field and often going for that same small pool of grant money. What benefit is it to them to help their competition!

During a job interview last year, while being asked about papers, I found out one of the interview panel had been a reviewer for that paper. Talk about interview anxiety hitting the roof!

Now if you excuse me, I'm going to withdraw to the tower library and chortle at the unwashed masses with my cohorts.

When I got out of high school I got a job sweeping floors at a high school. If I would have stayed there I would have a killer pension and tons of money.

People say I was smart going back to school and getting an education.

Not by looking at the bottom line. I wanted to "better" myself and while I am glad I was able to go to college I would have been better of buck wise to have skipped.

Oh well. At least my life has been an adventure!

 

[BawanaRik]

I believe the evidence points more towards irreversible thread damage.

Reducing the population to 10% of current would go a long way to saving the planet. Flights to Mars are now being scheduled.

 

[Unrepresented]

Actually I'm pretty sure CA is responsible for a huge amount of USA crops.

Turns out we're number one in the U.S. in terms of sales. 11% of the nation. Oh well.

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/

 

[gbrooding]

You are from California and you didn't know that??? For shame...

Turns out we're number one in the U.S. in terms of sales. 11% of the nation. Oh well.

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/

 

[Unrepresented]

You are from California and you didn't know that??? For shame...

I knew we had a pretty solid breadbasket, just didn't realize how significant. This thread, if nothing else, has made me a better resident of my state.

 

[Humbled]

Turns out we're number one in the U.S. in terms of sales. 11% of the nation. Oh well.

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/

Yeah, but even California and Florida have the vast majority of their cropland nicely above sea level.

It's not like coastal development hasn't already pushed out the rice-plantations anyway, so your concern, while admirable, is "protecting" resort/residential and golf-courses. The swamps historically just move where they want to without human shepherding.

Just click below and then on the various states and see where "the majority" (I believe that's the term used) of agricultural acreage is:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[bolophonic]

You would think that something that obvious wouldn't have to be explained.



But hey...maybe they can unlock an I-phone in 30 seconds

Hey, I'm just posing a question for you guys who insist on rigorous scientific methodology, but if a gut level consensus is good enough for you, we can accept that, right?

 

[duff beer]

Hey, I'm just posing a question for you guys who insist on rigorous scientific methodology, but if a gut level consensus is good enough for you, we can accept that, right?

The vast majority of agricultural land is well above sea level. That's not a "gut level consensus" or an unanswered question, it's an undisputed fact.

 

[bolophonic]

The vast majority of agricultural land is well above sea level. That's not a "gut level consensus", it's an undisputed fact.



You do know what a fact is, don't you?

You are missing my point entirely, but that's ok.

 

[Humbled]

You are missing my point entirely, but that's ok.

No, he isn't. You implied that increases in sea-level are going to harm man's ability to feed our population and he correctly ridiculed your premise. Now you want to deflect to a discussion of who's more in favor of vigorous scientific methods.


That about sum it up?

 

[bolophonic]

No, he isn't. You implied that increases in sea-level are going to harm man's ability to feed our population and he correctly ridiculed your premise. Now you want to deflect to a discussion of who's more in favor of vigorous scientific methods.


That about sum it up?

I didn't imply any of that.

 

[Humbled]

Oops. You're right. He was responding to someone else. You indeed, simply asked for citation.


Why was it that we cared about the elevation of farmland?

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I'm sure farmers down south would have been better suited to elevated ground.

Though the problems in England were more to do with poor land management and using floodplains for agriculture.

 

[Tituscrow]

I'm sure farmers down south would have been better suited to elevated ground.

Though the problems in England were more to do with poor land management and using floodplains for agriculture.

You still got post-Chernobyl problems up there?

 

[96tbird]

Because it's worth being reduced to glutinous starches so we don't have to forsake our precious current pollution levels. Citrus fruits are for quitters and socialists.

The question was about arable land above sea level and the demand for a citation. I don't support pollution just because we have more land to pick up the slack. I don't support fossil fuels at all, but I'm forced to use them.

Now we are being told it's too late. That the scientist took too long to come together and agree.

Once the rising tides wash your seaside home into the sea, and the temperature rises, we will be able to grow oranges and celery on the new coast. Sad as it is, the experts say it's too late so we have clean up our act and prepare for the inevitable.

Yuma, Tucson, Az area, for example, will be forced replace SoCal.

For now, right where I live, farmers crop rutabagas, carrots, parsnips, onions, garlic, potatoes. Quinoa and all types of ancient cereals, oilseeds, peas, beans of every sort, etc etc etc.
But yeah. No oranges here.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

You still got post-Chernobyl problems up there?

Only on the Islands, but those folks weren't right to begin with