[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Where are these millions dying? Mass starvation is principally an African problem, but according to http://biofuel.org.uk/major-producers-by-region.html the continent produces very little biofuel, mostly from animal poo. If anything, the solution would be to farm fewer animals.

The world's poor have to buy food at world market prices just like the rest of us.

The price of that food is supply and demand related.

By taking out 40% of US grain and a similar amount of EU food production the price is increased by 30% to 70%.

The effect is an extraction of £200 to £400 form each and every person on the planet into the pockets of already rich farmers in the West. For us rich people this is mearly cheaky. If you survive on £2 a day it is to continue to lock you in the poverty of the poorest 2 billion people in the world.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Ok Tim, let's just wait and see what happens. No one can stop it anyway. It is after all a natural cycle in the history of the planet. It's not like lot of animals are going to become extinct, is it? Of course everything isn't interdependent either.

This is sarcasm, right?

Tim thinks biofuel is the worlds number one problem. So he won't let anything get in the way of his prejudice. So I am making him happy by agreeing with him.

Rather than face the unconfortable situation of believing something that you are unable to support with any science. Difficult to change your mind when it was a plumber who pointed out that the king's new cloathes were not there at all.

[alancalverd]

The world's poorest grow their own food, except when it doesn't rain and they are given American rice.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

The world's poorest grow their own food, except when it doesn't rain and they are given American rice.

No. Those are not the world's poorest.

The poorest do not have land to grow their own food.

The street children of India or Nigeria die of hunger related deaths and the poorest 3 billion are artifically locked into their desperate poverty due to the use of food as fuel.

[evan_au]

If you cannot find any science to support your precious idea there is a reason.

I will not be diverted by links to too long to read masses of vague drivel.

To parody: I will demand absolute, detailed proof, but I will ignore any evidence you provide.

[chiralSPO]

I agree that biofuel is folly. If you count the energy requirements of irrigating, fertilizing, tending, harvesting, and processing of crops to make ethanol, it is rare to see any benefit at all.

But arguments about food security and famine are very much on the side of climate change being a major threat to food security. If you claim ti be concerned about those starving in the world, at least consider than substantial changes to the weather patterns over the next 50 to 100 years could cause significant disruptions to food supply and distribution.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

If you cannot find any science to support your precious idea there is a reason.

I will not be diverted by links to too long to read masses of vague drivel.

To parody: I will demand absolute, detailed proof, but I will ignore any evidence you provide.

If you quote relavent bits from it and then link to the site I will read it.

If you link to a vast ream of stuff with no quote from it I will presume that like all the rest you are doing the religious think of refering to a too long to read loadd of drivel.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

I agree that biofuel is folly. If you count the energy requirements of irrigating, fertilizing, tending, harvesting, and processing of crops to make ethanol, it is rare to see any benefit at all.

But arguments about food security and famine are very much on the side of climate change being a major threat to food security. If you claim ti be concerned about those starving in the world, at least consider than substantial changes to the weather patterns over the next 50 to 100 years could cause significant disruptions to food supply and distribution.

That is often said.

It does not however have any justification scientifically.

If ypou can find support, in a sciece way, for such concearns please post them.

[Walterhurley56]

There are lots of scientific evidences which show that the issue is real and there are ways to make consequences less harmful. The Paris Climate Agreement was a big step towards improvement but unfortunately not all can understand that. That is why I think the best way is when every one put their daily routine, <<<Spam removed>>> think about what they can do to prevent climate change and act. 

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

There are lots of scientific evidences which show that the issue is real and there are ways to make consequences less harmful. The Paris Climate Agreement was a big step towards improvement but unfortunately not all can understand that. That is why I think the best way is when every one put their daily routine, think about what they can do to prevent climate change and act. 

Just because you clearly have not taken any notice what so ever of any of the previous posts in this thread;

Can you describe one issue of a slightly warmer world that is scary.

Then, in your own words, explain the mechanism of this happening, not the temperature rise but the bit between the increased temperature and the bad thing.

Then cite some supporting science. Link to it and quote relavent bits from it to show that you have actually read it your self.

The we can look at it and see if it is possibly going to be more difficult to sort out than any local council, that has traffic lights, will spend on traffic lights.

So far nobody has actually managed this. the best so far has been that Maple syrup production has been hit by milder winters but the tecnology has go better and is Canada being the bigger producer a bad thing?

[jeffreyH]

There are determinations for 100, 500 & 1000 year floods based on the limited hydrological data we have so far gathered. These are revised as more data is gathered. This was where the alarm signals started to sound for hydrologists.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-floods-may-be-the-new-normal/

[jeffreyH]

And if you think it's just a bit more rain look up flash flooding. Do a bit of your own research for once.

[Bored chemist]

Just because you clearly have not taken any notice what so ever of any of the previous posts in this thread;

Can you describe one issue of a slightly warmer world that is scary.

Then, in your own words, explain the mechanism of this happening, not the temperature rise but the bit between the increased temperature and the bad thing.

Then cite some supporting science. Link to it and quote relavent bits from it to show that you have actually read it your self.

The we can look at it and see if it is possibly going to be more difficult to sort out than any local council, that has traffic lights, will spend on traffic lights.

So far nobody has actually managed this. the best so far has been that Maple syrup production has been hit by milder winters but the tecnology has go better and is Canada being the bigger producer a bad thing?

"Just because you clearly have not taken any notice what so ever of any of the previous posts in this thread;"
Get a mirror.

"Can you describe one issue of a slightly warmer world that is scary."
Two things, firstly

Why are you clearly asking what you must realise is the wrong question.
I don't see a slightly warmer world as much of a problem; but that's not what we will get.

Secondly

This is
 why people on your side of the debate get called "deiniers"
The first few posts in the tread cite explanations why it's scary
"Uncontrolled movement of massive numbers of people across borders. Civil unrest. War."
"Changing weather and weather patterns that relocate the arable land across continents. This means that the location of farmers will have to change. In some cases, the location of climate suitable for food crops will no longer coincide with land suitable for food crops."
And the thread carries on in that way with people explaining why it's a bad thing- giving specific instances.

And you just tell the lie that nobody has said why it's a problem.

Do you think we are blind?
Did you not think we would notice?

"Then, in your own words, explain the mechanism of this happening, not the temperature rise but the bit between the increased temperature and the bad thing."

Well, I'm not qualified to speak on most of the issues related to climate change but I think straightforward common sense is enough to undermine Tim's complacency.

Much of the time, farmers in much of the world struggle to grow enough food.
Sometimes the weather is too dry and  sometimes it's too wet for the things they have planted.
That last bit is an important aspect but it's often overlooked.
So we get people saying "so what if it's a bit warmer in the UK- the French do OK and their weather is warmer."
Clearly that's true- but it ignores the fact that the French farmers plant different crops and at different times compared to the UK farmers.

And they can do that because they all know what weather to typically expect.

But the problem is that increased energy input to the Earth's atmosphere will create more extreme weather and make the prediction of " typical" weather much more uncertain.
So the farmers will more often face the problem of having planted the "wrong" crops.
There are similar issues with flooding, drought cold and so on.

Basically, messing with the weather makes it more difficult to feed ourselves.

Obviously there are also issues of property damage and people simply dying from the heat or cold.

To ignore those risks  and pretend that we can maintain "business as usual" is morally bankrupt.


And,once again...
"What do you want me to produce to support my view that you should listen to the people who have studied it?"

Right, I think that I am not going to get any more replies which attempt to in any way answer my question so the next question is;

Have I missed somebody answering my challenge? BC says so. If I have please, somebody else, tell me what the answer was.

If someone else tells you that coupling more power into the atmosphere will give rise to more disruptive weather, will you believe them?
If so, why didn't you believe it when I said it?

Well, you have done 1/2 of the 4 things needs. As in 0.5 out of 4.

You need to describe the issue. "Extreme weather" is just too vague so scors 0.5.

You need to describe, in your own words, the mechanisms involved. Again, more energy is not enough.

You need to link to some science, not a blog, a paper that explains this mechanism. In detail.

Then we need to look at how much damage this will do. Given the complete lack of any decent description of exaclt what the hell we are talking about it is impossible to understand what the damage would be.

I think that you will find I don't need to do anything of the sort.


I would expect a 10 year old kid to understand that bad weather kills people. More bad weather will kill more people
If you don't understand that, there's really not much point in me trying to explain anything more complex for you.- I certainly don't expect to find a peer reviewed paper stating such an obvious  fact.
So it's either that you are the blind man who will not see, (i.e.- the lack of seeing is an act of will) or you just don't have the background common sense to make any progress.

Which is it?

And so on.

[chiralSPO]

Tim, I recommend this link: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

Choose the "intermediate" or "advanced" tabs, and it will walk you through the studies (with citations) of the pros and cons of climate change with respect to agriculture, health, economics, environment and sea level.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

There are determinations for 100, 500 & 1000 year floods based on the limited hydrological data we have so far gathered. These are revised as more data is gathered. This was where the alarm signals started to sound for hydrologists.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-floods-may-be-the-new-normal/

It is becoming increasingly pathetic that there is not the actual correct response to the challenge. You are unable to actually read the stuff you link to.

Some communities in Louisiana have already begun such adaptation, including requiring higher minimum elevation of new structures and requiring older ones to be raised higher to qualify for lower flood insurance rates. In some communities where Superstorm Sandy flooded homes and businesses, building codes now require construction of what’s known as freeboard, the space between where 100-year flood levels are projected to rise to in major storms or floods and the start of the building.

So that is sorted then. A little more protection.

Still not found an actual paper that describes the mechanism and looks at the degree of change or couse. Fail all round.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Tim, I recommend this link: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

Choose the "intermediate" or "advanced" tabs, and it will walk you through the studies (with citations) of the pros and cons of climate change with respect to agriculture, health, economics, environment and sea level.

And recomend you actually do the challenge.

Say which single scary thing it is you want to look at.

Then explain the mechanism that will cause this in your own words. Linking to drivel will not do. You want the world to react to this global warming thing so you have to know what you are talking about or shut up.

Then link to and quote from supporting science.

The we can see the degree of badness that that will cause. Without such rigor you are just a hand waving man in the high street with a sign saying that the end of the world is neigh.

[alancalverd]

Going back a few posts, drought is not an example of extreme weather. It hardly ever rains in the Nazca plain, and Antarctica is a desert. It rarely rains in the Canaries but the soil is kept fertile by night fog. This is all called "climate". Occasional extreme weather occurs when warm, wet air penetrates the Antarctic high, but continuous dryness is not associated with high winds or damaging precipitation. I guess it depends on what you mean by "weather" and "extreme"

[jeffreyH]

There are determinations for 100, 500 & 1000 year floods based on the limited hydrological data we have so far gathered. These are revised as more data is gathered. This was where the alarm signals started to sound for hydrologists.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-floods-may-be-the-new-normal/

It is becoming increasingly pathetic that there is not the actual correct response to the challenge. You are unable to actually read the stuff you link to.

Some communities in Louisiana have already begun such adaptation, including requiring higher minimum elevation of new structures and requiring older ones to be raised higher to qualify for lower flood insurance rates. In some communities where Superstorm Sandy flooded homes and businesses, building codes now require construction of what’s known as freeboard, the space between where 100-year flood levels are projected to rise to in major storms or floods and the start of the building.

So that is sorted then. A little more protection.

Still not found an actual paper that describes the mechanism and looks at the degree of change or couse. Fail all round.

So you think that because Louisiana has woken up then everything is sorted? What about everywhere else? You really should think before you type.

[jeffreyH]

Helicopter rescue. The accumulative cost is more than traffic lights.

[jeffreyH]

Dealing with 500 incidents. Cost more than traffic lights? Maybe.