Just get off the bridge b4 you get removed, and let us all live our lives, please.
General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
I wished it was as simple as that, alas, I'm not too keen of being part of the sinking ship.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
What are you basing that claim on?
So are the model(s) capable of predicting prey switching for example?I think people got emergence wrong in some (many) cases. When they say that life is an emerging property, that is correct in the same way as the property of a watch being able to show the time when all the parts are put together. It's not that you can't explain a living cell using a reductionistic approach, starting from the bottom with the particles. It's just bloody complicated. If you had never seen a watch before, you could still learn quite a lot about it by observing it, and after some time, you would probably notice that it correlated with the movement of the Sun.
Likewise I'm a strong beliver in the classic "Correlation does NOT imply causation". But... Sharks don't eat more people when they taste of ice cream. However if you look deeper, you will find the reason why the amount of sold ice cream correlates with shark attacks. The more you dig into system theory the more humble you get, but you also realize that there are a lot of mechanisms we don't know about.
As I wrote, I try to primarily focus on things that we know for sure. Those are set in stone. Like: The Earth is a "closed" system receiving energy from the Sun. It radiates roughly the same amount of energy in the form of IR. The mechanism that makes the system work is that the photons from the Sun have low entropy, and the emitted IR photons have high entropy. The 2. law drives this planet. That is "simple" physics. It won't change in the foreseeable future, and if it does, the climate will be the least of our worries
Prey switching
Last edited:
Don't get me started on the wolves
Models can't predict everything, and they are often claimed to be able to. Also there is the thing about how the models should change our behavior, but first of all, that's politics (which is banned here), and secondly they are often not interpenetrated with a lot of ethics involved .
And yes Bob, I know that you will now point to all the gazillion times I've written that we need to change our behavior in this and that way, but let me be "proactive" (I hate that word): I also like to bend any rule I stumble upon
Which claim are you referring to? I see quite a few?
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Don't get me started on the wolves
Models can't predict everything, and they are often claimed to be able to. Also there is the thing about how the models should change our behavior, but first of all, that's politics (which is banned here), and secondly they are often not interpenetrated with a lot of ethics involved .
And yes Bob, I know that you will now point to all the gazillion times I've written that we need to change our behavior in this and that way, but let me be "proactive" (I hate that word): I also like to bend any rule I stumble upon
Which claim are you referring to? I see quite a few?
The one I put in bold, at the end of the part I quoted.
Climate change may very well increase crop yields.
You do know how CO2 affects plant growth, right?
@ Bob: Go back a few pages and you'll find my answer(s):
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...lite-environmental-thread.377737/post-7762713
Note to myself: Do not leave the Conda scraping against an asteroid while answering posts on the forum!
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...lite-environmental-thread.377737/post-7762713
Note to myself: Do not leave the Conda scraping against an asteroid while answering posts on the forum!
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Aside from your fallacious use of that data point, conflating weather with climate change is disingenuous.
Crop yields have never been better:
That is not because of the weather. Look at the amount of NPK in the soil instead. Those are proportional.Aside from your fallacious use of that data point, conflating weather with climate change is disingenuous.
Crop yields have never been better:
Edit: If your argument was sound, which it isn't, the best place to have agriculture would be at the equator, which it also isn't
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I wasn't actually drawing a causal relationship, but falsifying yours.
Point being I see no indications that climate change, if your premise is that's a given, has had any negative effect on crop yields, despite what a spate of bad weather in Denmark may have caused.
It's going up steadily.
Btw, my botany professor famously had this as a question on an exam:
"What are the 3 most important nutrients for any plant?"
Sunlight, water and carbon dioxide.
Well a plant can't grow without phosphorus, and were running low on that. A human being can't survive without phosphorus (~1 gram per day), and guess where we get that from?I wasn't actually drawing a causal relationship, but falsifying yours.
Point being I see no indications that climate change, if your premise is that's a given, has had any negative effect on crop yields, despite what a spate of bad weather in Denmark may have caused.
It's going up steadily.
Btw, my botany professor famously had this as a question on an exam:
"What are the 3 most important nutrients for any plant?"
Sunlight, water and carbon dioxide.
It's in our food, which all originate in a plant
Here's a question for you: How do you think it will influence the crop yield, when we run out of diesel for the harvester and the tractor? We don't even have enough lithium to solve the transportation problem?
Edit: If you don't believe me, do you believe FAO?
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
You need to read about energy balances, mass balances and the elements Bob.
I know how to make biofuels (in every single detail), but how much arable land do you think we have for that, without loosing food production? None. That's why people are removing forrests. It does not add up, but if you only look at the details separately you might get fooled.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
LOL I don't need to do anything of the sort.
I am just pointing out the glaring inconsistencies.
1 Weather /= climate change.
2 Crop yields are great, despite what happened in Denmark at that single point in time.
In fact a warming trend would likely increase their yields.
It's cold and dark, lol.
I lived there.
And that's not the problem vis a vis hunger anyhow.
Heck, obesity kills more people than starvation, fwiw.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
In fact, behind many, many Danish homes, you find actual greenhouses!
"I wasn't actually drawing a causal relationship, but falsifying yours."
No, you weren't
Don't quote me for something I didn't state. I clearly said that you can't use one single summer to prove anything regarding the climate change. I know the difference between weather and climate. The rising temperatures will give more extreme weather, and THAT is a problem for the agriculture. Ask a farmer.
Crop yields are "great", now. There is still people starving. Whenever I loose motivation, I read this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/22/asia/afghan-child-sales-intl/index.html
There are plenty more stories like that.
Seriously Bob, from the bottom of my heart, because I'm genuinely interested:
What would it take to convince you that science is right about the climate and sustainability?
You don't convince me quoting your botany professor. Every living cell needs a long list of vital nutrients to survive. That's why they are called vital. I know he said the three most important ones, but my point is that they are all important. Life, as we know it, can't exist without those. Phosphorus is used in your cell membranes, your DNA and your metabolism. No DNA, no you, no plants.
What would it take to convince you that science is right about the climate and sustainability?
You don't convince me quoting your botany professor. Every living cell needs a long list of vital nutrients to survive. That's why they are called vital. I know he said the three most important ones, but my point is that they are all important. Life, as we know it, can't exist without those. Phosphorus is used in your cell membranes, your DNA and your metabolism. No DNA, no you, no plants.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
"I wasn't actually drawing a causal relationship, but falsifying yours."
No, you weren't
Don't quote me for something I didn't state. I clearly said that you can't use one single summer to prove anything regarding the climate change. I know the difference between weather and climate. The rising temperatures will give more extreme weather, and THAT is a problem for the agriculture. Ask a farmer.
Oh good, then we agree that anecdote doesn't prove squat.
Again, you have not established anything is getting worse in the first place.
Quite the contrary, the world is steadily becoming a safer, more educated, and more prosperous.
Crop yields are at record highs.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Where exactly did I suggest otherwise?
LOL, try grow any plant without water, light or CO2!
- Status