Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Luis Dias on August 04, 2011, 08:09:13 am
-
Sidney Institute made public a podcast about a recent speech by a researcher.
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wp-content/uploads/podcasts/2011/THE_SYDNEY_INSTITUTE_MURRY_SALBY_2_AUGUST_2011.mp3
Andrew Bolt reports:
Salby has worked at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, and is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, due out in 2011.
Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.
But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are - the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa - which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.
Pity that the podcast isn't visual. I'd love to see those charts. He has issued his thesis on a paper that has been reviewed and approved for publication.
The abstract for his talk is here:
and some highlights:
Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.
It will undoubtedly provoke quite the stir in all the academia and public in general, I can already predict many outcries of denialmachinefunding accusations, defamations, honest but aggressive criticisms, etc.,etc. It will be quite the carroussel. It may end up badly as well, with people clamoring that this paper is "fundamentally flawed" in X, Y or Z, and they may well be right.
I would hope not. But the universe doesn't care about our hopes.
-
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
English essayist, novelist, & satirist (1903 - 1950)
To have to defend the simple fact that Carbon Dioxide is part of the life-cycle of the planet, what plants and trees need to produce oxygen, shows how strange the world has become. Up is down, two by two is?
-
To have to defend the simple fact that Carbon Dioxide is part of the life-cycle of the planet, what plants and trees need to produce oxygen, shows how strange the world has become.
How, when no one has needed to defend that?
-
The single act of wanting to limit carbon emissions by putting a tax on it, and trying to silence anyone claiming the obvious that carbon is part of the life cycle, and more of it means plants can grow faster and in turn produce more oxygen. It's been a long debate for years now, something that shouldn't even BE a debate. It's like banning Dihydrogen monoxide because it sounds scary or because too much of it will cause you to drown.
Example of it here, didnt expect Wikipedia to have an article on it though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
It's not much different, yet we almost have to fight not to have to pay a tax on something we actually breathe out (a tax on life itself).
-
We actually do pay taxes against too much water down here...
The problem is that both sides of this argument both have failed to provide damning evidence (it has become pretty hard). The thing is, however, if we would listen to the ''CO2 does not cause global warming" and it turns out that they are wrong, were all screwed. However, if people like the KNMI turn out to be false in their assessment that CO2 does cause global warming, we just lost a lot of money.
-
PUtting tax on Carbon Dioxide also forces companies to be less dependent on fossil fuels, with the obvious advantage that they will be less dependent on fossil fuels...
-
Another researcher throws his credibility away.
-
Another researcher throws his credibility away.
lol
Did you even listened to the presentation?
-
I think other venues would be more effective in becoming less dependent on fossil fuels than carbon dioxide taxing. Besides, all these taxes on cleaner industry in the USA and Europe leads to them moving to China and India which are exempt from carbon taxes, among many other taxes and rules. If you want to become less dependent on fossil fuels you have to invest in cleaner energy or at least better control of existing ones. Coal plants in the USA for instance are much much cleaner than the ones in China.
This is also a small factor of what's hurting the economy, when important industries move away because of high taxes. Generally lowering taxes actually leads to economic growth. It doesn't make it better knowing people like Al Gore own the biggest carbon trading companies, set to make many billions off this.
I understand taxes should be levied for heightening water barriers and dykes to ensure your land doesn't flood, but that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
Even more, the precedent of putting a tax on a life giving gas is a rather scary thing. And what if you can't afford to pay this tax?
-
Did you even listened to the presentation?
Yes, but honestly nobody should actually listen to this guy because it greatly decreases your ability to actually understand over reading. The man can speak a bit; but he only makes the same bad arguments, and his qualifications are kinda lulzy too if you check out how they're regarded.
Meanwhile JCDN is off in total la-la land.
-
They do not seem bad arguments to me. They may be flawed somewhere, and it is difficult to tell without seeing the graphical evidence, but to call them "bad" requires some justification. And what you mean by "regarded"? Are you talking about the university he is in?
-
I think other venues would be more effective in becoming less dependent on fossil fuels than carbon dioxide taxing. Besides, all these taxes on cleaner industry in the USA and Europe leads to them moving to China and India which are exempt from carbon taxes, among many other taxes and rules. If you want to become less dependent on fossil fuels you have to invest in cleaner energy or at least better control of existing ones. Coal plants in the USA for instance are much much cleaner than the ones in China.
For now. China is also investing a lot in clean energy. But right now clean energy is more expensive, so you can shift the balance more in the clean way by artificially making fossils more expensive.
This is also a small factor of what's hurting the economy, when important industries move away because of high taxes. Generally lowering taxes actually leads to economic growth.
And it also leads to economic crisises. Look at the USA, and Greece, with all their tax fraud, and low taxes. High taxes allow regulization and investment by the goverment.
It doesn't make it better knowing people like Al Gore own the biggest carbon trading companies, set to make many billions off this.
As far as I know, carbon trading happened in between companies, without intermeadiaries.
I understand taxes should be levied for heightening water barriers and dykes to ensure your land doesn't flood, but that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
If an excess amount of Carbon Dioxide raises the global temperature, then damn straight it is.
Even more, the precedent of putting a tax on a life giving gas is a rather scary thing. And what if you can't afford to pay this tax?
Zaih what? No one is being taxed to use carbon dioxide. The only tax is for putting it in the air, where it was abundant before we started using fossil fuels, adding CO2 into the cycle which would never have been there (untill that part of the continental plate submerges and is 'volcanoed')
-
Where did you get this idea that Greece had "low taxes"?
-
Where did you get this idea that Greece had "low taxes"?
Greece is bloody famous for its tax fraud. Political parties, for example, don't let the tax collectors go out in election periods to get more votes.
-
Ah, sure, but that's different. Could we at least get back on topic.
-
Ah, sure, but that's different. Could we at least get back on topic.
It is not really different, i'd say, when it is done by the ruling establishment. The net effect is the same too.
Hmm. JCDNWarrior, you should know about the carbon cycle. You seem to say that putting a tax on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels would disrupt the carbon cycle. Could you care to elaborate this further. I presumed that humanity only added (possibly excess) carbon into the mix, by burning fossil fuels who's carbons would only be returned into the cycle at a much slower pace naturally.
-
Ah, sure, but that's different. Could we at least get back on topic.
If you ask someone for an answer and then complain at them for being off-topic when they supply it again, you won't be taking part in the rest of this debate.
-
To have to defend the simple fact that Carbon Dioxide is part of the life-cycle of the planet, what plants and trees need to produce oxygen, shows how strange the world has become. Up is down, two by two is?
Alright, SOMEONE (and I think it was you, but I can't be sure) brought up this very point in another thread about climate science within the past 4 months and I know I thoroughly explained and debunked this simplistic nonsense then.
However, I will make the point (succinctly) again:
Carbon fixation by plants and carbon release by both natural processes and human activity is NOT balanced. Fixators (plants, algae, some microbes) work with finite amounts of CO2. CO2 release, on the other hand, occurs naturally as a result of respiration, decomposition, and exposure of natural deposits of hydrocarbons. It also occurs through human activity (predominantly the combustion of hydrocarbons).
Atmospheric composition changes over time based on what is fixating atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, etc), versus what sources are releasing them. This has fluctuated over the history of the planet (once upon a time, Earth had large concentrations of sulphur in its atmosphere; today it's very low). Human activity is contributing to CO2 production BEYOND what is naturally occurring at a rate that fixators can cope with; hence the concentration of CO2 is rising beyond the capability of the carbon cycle to actually "scrub it." Furthermore, CO2 is now being released to the atmosphere in concentrations unprecedented in the course of recorded human history (which doesn't even qualify as a blip on geological timescales).
The fact that CO2 is both released and fixated is immaterial to discussions about climate change. The rates of fixation and release relative to each other are what's important, provided the chemistry to establish CO2 as a greenhouse gas (which is pretty solid) is accepted within the broader climate system.
So quit saying it's all good because CO2 is part of the interaction between respirators and fixators on this planet - that completely ignores the fact that atmospheric compositions change over time, and those changes impact the planetary climate. Whether the skeptics are right and the changes are slower, or the doomsayers are right and the changes are faster is a secondary discussion - our atmosphere IS and always has been changing, and that's going to affect our lives. The problem is that if the doomsayers and their models are correct, that change may happen rapidly enough to have dire consequences for a number of species on this planet.
---
The problem with the climate change debate is the skeptic side is largely populated by people with a barely-literate grasp of high school chemistry and biology, along with a few genuine impartial academics that are mostly trying to poke holes in some parts of the theory rather than address the fairly obvious question:
"Since we know the atmosphere is always changing, and with it the climate, CAN and SHOULD we be trying to do something about it?"
It's a question that nobody has really bothered to answer because we're hung up on the politics concerning energy and hydrocarbon use, which is a red herring so gigantic it might as well be a blue whale's brother.
-
---
The problem with the climate change debate is the skeptic side is largely populated by people with a barely-literate grasp of high school chemistry and biology, along with a few genuine impartial academics that are mostly trying to poke holes in some parts of the theory rather than address the fairly obvious question:
that is COMPLETELY false. that's just the image most media would have you believe, because guess whose side they are on? i know i've put the following statement from a physics professor at my university who actually studies climate physics, rather than manufacture trends from broad sets of data.
"The media claims there is an alliance of scientists who say man made climate change is proven. Which is true, there IS such a group of 100 or so scientists. However, there is also a consortium of 30,000 scientists who say that we don't, and with our current very limited understanding of climate physics, can't know that man-made global warming exists. Anyone who claims climate-change 'fact' has an agenda to sell."
-
i know i've put the following statement from a physics professor at my university who actually studies climate physics, rather than manufacture trends from broad sets of data.
Your comment is already suspect based on this alone.
-
---
The problem with the climate change debate is the skeptic side is largely populated by people with a barely-literate grasp of high school chemistry and biology, along with a few genuine impartial academics that are mostly trying to poke holes in some parts of the theory rather than address the fairly obvious question:
that is COMPLETELY false. that's just the image most media would have you believe, because guess whose side they are on? i know i've put the following statement from a physics professor at my university who actually studies climate physics, rather than manufacture trends from broad sets of data.
"The media claims there is an alliance of scientists who say man made climate change is proven. Which is true, there IS such a group of 100 or so scientists. However, there is also a consortium of 30,000 scientists who say that we don't, and with our current very limited understanding of climate physics, can't know that man-made global warming exists. Anyone who claims climate-change 'fact' has an agenda to sell."
How many papers and labs have you read? How well do you know the science. Like me, you seem to have no legitimate claim to any knowledge of this. Media will say what media will say, I believe, based on previous experience, that the people you're arguing with probably have a lot of real education and have access to more actual documentation than vague claims of media injustice and hearsay testiment of a random university professor.
EDIT:
Also, what evidence do you have that the media is portraying things one way, what sources did your quote site. Do you honestly believe that there are only 100 qualified scientists who believe that humans are causing a significant change to the climate? I have no education to be in this discussion in any other capacity, but I can assure you that the number is much higher, thousands of scientists.
-
---
The problem with the climate change debate is the skeptic side is largely populated by people with a barely-literate grasp of high school chemistry and biology, along with a few genuine impartial academics that are mostly trying to poke holes in some parts of the theory rather than address the fairly obvious question:
that is COMPLETELY false. that's just the image most media would have you believe, because guess whose side they are on? i know i've put the following statement from a physics professor at my university who actually studies climate physics, rather than manufacture trends from broad sets of data.
"The media claims there is an alliance of scientists who say man made climate change is proven. Which is true, there IS such a group of 100 or so scientists. However, there is also a consortium of 30,000 scientists who say that we don't, and with our current very limited understanding of climate physics, can't know that man-made global warming exists. Anyone who claims climate-change 'fact' has an agenda to sell."
No, sorry, but I do not buy that claim at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
Can you tell us precisely which consortium of 30,000 scientists you're referring to?
-
---
The problem with the climate change debate is the skeptic side is largely populated by people with a barely-literate grasp of high school chemistry and biology, along with a few genuine impartial academics that are mostly trying to poke holes in some parts of the theory rather than address the fairly obvious question:
that is COMPLETELY false. that's just the image most media would have you believe, because guess whose side they are on? i know i've put the following statement from a physics professor at my university who actually studies climate physics, rather than manufacture trends from broad sets of data.
"The media claims there is an alliance of scientists who say man made climate change is proven. Which is true, there IS such a group of 100 or so scientists. However, there is also a consortium of 30,000 scientists who say that we don't, and with our current very limited understanding of climate physics, can't know that man-made global warming exists. Anyone who claims climate-change 'fact' has an agenda to sell."
No, sorry, but I do not buy that claim at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-AQAonAAPG-1)
Can you tell us precisely which consortium of 30,000 scientists you're referring to?
I've heard this claim before; I believe it refers to the "Oregon" petition where some global warming deniers started a petition, and it's a mish-mash of about 30.000(sounds about right) of varying professions, from physicists to dentists, opposing global warming. It's a kind of talking point that goes around the anti-science community - Person A claims that the vast majority of scientists agree with the theory of global warming, and denialists respond with this. Turns out pranksters have added fakes to it as well, which is probably why "Geri Halliwell, PhD" was among the scientists for some time until they removed that one. Oh and the person behind it is a right wing nutjob, not that that changes anything on the face of it, I'm just saying. Anyway, anyone who wants to suddenly be a scientist, just sign that petition! :)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
-
looks like the Oregon Petition is aimed at the Kyoto Protocol, which is quite a different target from global warming.
-
looks like the Oregon Petition is aimed at the Kyoto Protocol, which is quite a different target from global warming.
(http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/6/65/Oregon_project.jpg)
It's not really about the Kyoto Protocol. Rather, denialists use it as a "See? 30,000 scientists say there's no global warming!" token.
-
There is a difference between "global warming" and "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of earth's climate", but this kind of science-by-numbers **** is really amazingly just wrong. The IPCC report isn't about a collection of numbers of opinions by the scientists, it's a collection of scientific papers.
-
...
ok, it's aimed at both.
-
looks like the Oregon Petition is aimed at the Kyoto Protocol, which is quite a different target from global warming.
I'll see your claim and raise you a "No one who brings up the Oregon Petition as serious proof of anything understands the difference anyway" :p
-
well I'd never see/heard of it before. so sorry, my reaction was after skimming the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article.
-
Not having a go at you, just those who think it's actually worth anything. Anyone who does has about the same understanding of the difference between Kyoto and Global Warming as they do between arse and elbow.
-
Ah, sure, but that's different. Could we at least get back on topic.
If you ask someone for an answer and then complain at them for being off-topic when they supply it again, you won't be taking part in the rest of this debate.
That's unnecessarily harsh. Meanwhile NGTM1-R made two unsubstantiated drive-by (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=77494.msg1537163#msg1537163) attacks (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=77494.msg1537168#msg1537168) and you didn't say a word to him.
-
Not really. I explained to him in PM that he'd basically replied to Joshua and then said "but don't answer me back cause it's off-topic"
That's a pretty underhanded debating tactic. Far worse than drive-by posting.
-
actually it seemed more like asking a question, then realizing that it wasn't relevant.
-
At which point, he should have wiped out everything he just wrote, or perhaps asked for a split.
-
There is a difference between "global warming" and "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of earth's climate", but this kind of science-by-numbers **** is really amazingly just wrong. The IPCC report isn't about a collection of numbers of opinions by the scientists, it's a collection of scientific papers.
Hmmm? Global warming doesn't have to be to the point of 'catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate" for it to be too bad for us as a specie to survive as we are.
We're already in an unsustainable position, with incredible population growth and ridiculous food consumption.
Any arable land we lose to the effects of climate change /at all/ means we're that much more ****ed.
-
There is a difference between "global warming" and "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of earth's climate", but this kind of science-by-numbers **** is really amazingly just wrong. The IPCC report isn't about a collection of numbers of opinions by the scientists, it's a collection of scientific papers.
Hmmm? Global warming doesn't have to be to the point of 'catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate" for it to be too bad for us as a specie to survive as we are.
By definition, it does. Else, it wouldn't be called "catastrophic". Doh! :)
We're already in an unsustainable position, with incredible population growth and ridiculous food consumption.
Ahhhh ... no.
Any arable land we lose to the effects of climate change /at all/ means we're that much more ****ed.
There will be (obviously) climate winners and losers. In a global warming scenario it is quite likely we would see Russia rising as a major agricultural power in the world. There is not enough evidence to tell us that the total arable land in the world would diminish. Food supplies depend much much more upon human activities than what the climate will dictate in the foresseable future.
-
Ahhhh ... no.
What planet do you live on?
If it were not for the fact that a great proportion of humanity lives on a day to day basis not eating the caloric requirement for their bodies every day, we would be fecked.
If everyone ate like an american, or even a western european (who, aren't anywhere near as bad, but are bad enough) then we would require more than two planets the size of earth in terms of eco system to sustain our population BEFORE you throw in living space.
Talk about appropriate matter for my sig.
And do not dissect my posts into sound bytes, it's detestable.
-
I tend to disagree with needing two Earths to feed the population, though I agree that the amount of food being wasted is atrocious and unneeded. If farmers were to be encouraged to produce more staple foods and received more (fertile) soil, instead of being bullied by big agrarian businesses, it would greatly help. Then there's other elements that cause trouble such as Monsanto and their GMO terminator seeds.
Encouraging people to have their own gardens and make sure people are able to have such gardens (by improving zoning) could help a lot as well. A few city ordinances could greatly assist with that as well.
Quite some parts of the planet aren't being used for production or to live on, which does limit the total capacity we're able to use. If such could be expanded in a careful manner without hurting the local ecologies that could sustain another few percentages of the population.
I tend not to expect things to improve much with the current leadership in the world though. Until monopolists and power brokers are kicked out of places of power you can expect food, water and even air to be used as a weapon against people, if not now, then in the future.
I also want to add that we're more likely to see lack of food due to distribution and supply rather than actual production. The moment people start panick buying food because of an imminent crisis, for instance, is when the stores suddenly will be emptied, and that supply cannot keep up.
-
Ahhhh ... no.
What planet do you live on?
If it were not for the fact that a great proportion of humanity lives on a day to day basis not eating the caloric requirement for their bodies every day, we would be fecked.
If everyone ate like an american, or even a western european (who, aren't anywhere near as bad, but are bad enough) then we would require more than two planets the size of earth in terms of eco system to sustain our population BEFORE you throw in living space.
Talk about appropriate matter for my sig.
Of course, most of what you speak of is just metaphysics disguised as "science" used extensively in greenpeace banners. Mostly the people who are starving right now live on the most fertile land unused in the world, and the reasons for their plight have nothing to do with climate nor with natural limitations, but rather with the political devastation that the continent is going through.
Over population was a big mantra in the seventies, but has been thoroughfully disproven as a malthusian shenanigan by the decades that followed.
-
I tend to disagree with needing two Earths to feed the population, though I agree that the amount of food being wasted is atrocious and unneeded. If farmers were to be encouraged to produce more staple foods and received more (fertile) soil, instead of being bullied by big agrarian businesses, it would greatly help. Then there's other elements that cause trouble such as Monsanto and their GMO terminator seeds.
Encouraging people to have their own gardens and make sure people are able to have such gardens (by improving zoning) could help a lot as well. A few city ordinances could greatly assist with that as well.
Quite some parts of the planet aren't being used for production or to live on, which does limit the total capacity we're able to use. If such could be expanded in a careful manner without hurting the local ecologies that could sustain another few percentages of the population.
I tend not to expect things to improve much with the current leadership in the world though. Until monopolists and power brokers are kicked out of places of power you can expect food, water and even air to be used as a weapon against people, if not now, then in the future.
I also want to add that we're more likely to see lack of food due to distribution and supply rather than actual production. The moment people start panick buying food because of an imminent crisis, for instance, is when the stores suddenly will be emptied, and that supply cannot keep up.
'tis a good suggestion, JCDN, but another large problem of the food problem is the infrastructure: In the case of a humanitarian crisis, the troubles are not in obtaining the food (strangely enough?), but most of the troubles are getting it to the right location. How do you propose we fix that?
Of course, most of what you speak of is just metaphysics disguised as "science" used extensively in greenpeace banners. Mostly the people who are starving right now live on the most fertile land unused in the world, and the reasons for their plight have nothing to do with climate nor with natural limitations, but rather with the political devastation that the continent is going through.
Over population was a big mantra in the seventies, but has been thoroughfully disproven as a malthusian shenanigan by the decades that followed.
Really? The food prices have been rising for a while now. Indeed, some have said that there is a world food problem. If not caused by a massive increase in demand, what would explain the current food shortages?
-
Faster planes.
-
At which point, he should have wiped out everything he just wrote, or perhaps asked for a split.
Yep, that was exactly my point of view. Especially considering Joshua answered him making it look like Joshua was somehow the one at fault for driving the thread off-topic.
-
'tis a good suggestion, JCDN, but another large problem of the food problem is the infrastructure: In the case of a humanitarian crisis, the troubles are not in obtaining the food (strangely enough?), but most of the troubles are getting it to the right location. How do you propose we fix that?
Well, that's something to be considered. When there's a crisis, the infrastructure may be in ruin, and many people will not be able to find food locally because of that. It's why stocking up on food seems to be a good idea to not be caught in the cycle(s) between supply and demand that will then occur.
-
'tis a good suggestion, JCDN, but another large problem of the food problem is the infrastructure: In the case of a humanitarian crisis, the troubles are not in obtaining the food (strangely enough?), but most of the troubles are getting it to the right location. How do you propose we fix that?
Well, that's something to be considered. When there's a crisis, the infrastructure may be in ruin, and many people will not be able to find food locally because of that. It's why stocking up on food seems to be a good idea to not be caught in the cycle(s) between supply and demand that will then occur.
Hmm. In a food crisis, aren't food stockpiles the first thing to go? Or indeed, the nasty habit of the food stockpiles going down is usually the start of a crisis.
Faster planes.
Right. The current planes can cross the world in 24 hours. You die from starvation in a month. The areas affected by food crisis are also the ones without airfields, or far away from airfields, or hard to reach from airfields (or ports). That is one of the infrastructural problems. Faster planes simply will not work and would be a waste of money.
(Unless you mean that faster planes would be the reason for the rising food prices or where not even replying to me. In that case, please quote).
-
I was joking. What do I know about food management in crisis?
-
I was joking. What do I know about food management in crisis?
Well, I do not know the extend of your knowledge, but I was asking JCDN (As could hopefully be seen by my usage of the quote). I did ask you a different question at the bottum of the second page. Could you answer that one?
-
What would explain the rise? Ah. You'd be surprised. Pure speculation.
The rise of food prices skyrocketed shortly after the banks started coughing in 2008. Two major markets spiked, the oil futures and the food. Basically, the hedge betters started to panic and infuse their money in all the bubbles they could find / create, turning the whole game into a "last man standing". This had terrible consequences to the food market, because this infusion of capital didn't exactly "trickle down" to the farmers themselves, but made the whole market fluctuate wildly. The market was no longer "functional" so to speak, to its purpose of mediating between producers and distributers, but was turned into a ****ing casino.
Many other reasons gathered to build up the perfect storm happening now:
- The obvious connection to the energy price is obvious. Oil is rising and so will agriculture.
- Staggering rise of human conditions throughout the world. Yeah, the rising food price is also a symptom of something remarkable happening in the world, namely the fastest decade of economic growth the world has ever seen, driving hundreds of millions out of poverty.
- Really bad weather in the worst places. Many people blame environmental hazards that stroke the world in 2010 in the exporting countries. This also contributed.
- Biofuels. ****ing biofuels.
-
What would explain the rise? Ah. You'd be surprised. Pure speculation.
The rise of food prices skyrocketed shortly after the banks started coughing in 2008. Two major markets spiked, the oil futures and the food. Basically, the hedge betters started to panic and infuse their money in all the bubbles they could find / create, turning the whole game into a "last man standing". This had terrible consequences to the food market, because this infusion of capital didn't exactly "trickle down" to the farmers themselves, but made the whole market fluctuate wildly. The market was no longer "functional" so to speak, to its purpose of mediating between producers and distributers, but was turned into a ****ing casino.
Many other reasons gathered to build up the perfect storm happening now:
- The obvious connection to the energy price is obvious. Oil is rising and so will agriculture.
- Staggering rise of human conditions throughout the world. Yeah, the rising food price is also a symptom of something remarkable happening in the world, namely the fastest decade of economic growth the world has ever seen, driving hundreds of millions out of poverty.
- Really bad weather in the worst places. Many people blame environmental hazards that stroke the world in 2010 in the exporting countries. This also contributed.
- Biofuels. ****ing biofuels.
I agree with that assessment. By ensuring elements such as biofuel, improving infrastructure around the world and limiting the damage you take due to environmental hazards and bad weather, could help a great deal to support many more people in the world. There's many places in the world such as Africa where with proper assistance and keeping track of development, you could capitalize on improved food production in poorer parts of the world, so they become more self-sufficient nationally.
Also -Joshua-, I meant with stockpiling food, for people themselves to stock up in the times where food is still affordable in larger quantities than necessary for day-to-day survival. That could greatly help reduce the biggest problems such as famine in the first weeks or months of a (sudden) economic crisis.
-
I agree with that assessment. By ensuring elements such as biofuel, improving infrastructure around the world and limiting the damage you take due to environmental hazards and bad weather, could help a great deal to support many more people in the world.
By ensuring (biofuel) you mean eliminating, right? :confused:
-
if by that you mean corn based ethanol.
-
Most biofuel nowadays is made from crops IIRC.