Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday May 06 2020, @02:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the waste-not-want-not dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The area of agricultural land that will require irrigation in future could be up to four times larger than currently estimated, a new study has revealed.

Research by the University of Reading, University of Bergen and Princeton University shows the amount of land that will require human intervention to water crops by 2050 has been severely underestimated due to computer models not taking into account many uncertainties, such as population changes and availability of water.

The authors of the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, argue forecasters and policy-makers need to acknowledge multiple future scenarios in order to be prepared for potential water shortages that would have huge environmental costs.

[...] "If the amount of water needed to grow our food is much larger than calculated, this could put severe pressure on water supplies for agriculture as well as homes. These findings show we need strategies to suit a range of possible scenarios and have plans in place to cope with unexpected water shortages."

[...] The new research suggests that projections of irrigated areas made by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation and others have always underestimated the amount of irrigation required in future by basing them on other assumptions.

The study highlights that the potential global extension of irrigation might be twice, or in the most extreme scenario, even four times larger than what has been suggested by previous models.

[...] Agricultural land where crops cannot be supported by rainwater alone is often irrigated by channelling water from rivers or springs, sprinkler systems, or by controlled flooding. Increased irrigation in future would mean more water consumption, machinery, energy consumption and fertilisers, and therefore more greenhouse gas emissions.

Journal Reference
A. Puy, S. Lo Piano, A. Saltelli. Current Models Underestimate Future Irrigated Areas, Geophysical Research Letters (DOI: 10.1029/2020GL087360)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by driverless on Wednesday May 06 2020, @04:58AM (4 children)

    by driverless (4770) on Wednesday May 06 2020, @04:58AM (#990979)

    You didn't read the title carefully enough, they're discussing irrigatation, for which their assumptions are accurate. If it was irrigation then that's another story.

    For those who don't know, irrigatation is the feeling you get when your boss comes up to you and begins a sentence with "Mmmmm, I'm going to have to ask you to ...".

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=1, Funny=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday May 06 2020, @01:11PM (3 children)

    by RS3 (6367) on Wednesday May 06 2020, @01:11PM (#991043)

    That was supposed to be funny, right? If so, I got it, but many here often don't grasp the subtle humor (which seems obvious to me).

    • (Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday May 06 2020, @01:24PM (2 children)

      by driverless (4770) on Wednesday May 06 2020, @01:24PM (#991044)

      I was wondering how it could possibly be rated "Informative" when it's a bunch of tongue-in-cheek nonsense...

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 06 2020, @01:45PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 06 2020, @01:45PM (#991048) Journal
        Maybe someone else has a tongue and a cheek in which to ensconce it?
      • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday May 06 2020, @04:26PM

        by RS3 (6367) on Wednesday May 06 2020, @04:26PM (#991091)

        Seemed obvious. I've been modded "troll" for similar humor. (Personally I think the mod system is badly broken.) I was going to mod it "funny" but I wanted to be sure. Someone did, so all is well in Soylentry.

        And thanks for the laugh!