from the climate-needs-some-serious-debugging dept.
Pests to eat more crops in warmer world
Insects will be at the heart of worldwide crop losses as the climate warms up, predicts a US study. Scientists estimate the pests will be eating 10-25% more wheat, rice and maize across the globe for each one degree rise in climate temperature.
Warming drives insect energy use and prompts them to eat more. Their populations can also increase. This is bound to put pressure on the world's leading cereal crops, says study co-author Curtis Deutsch.
"Insect pests currently consume the equivalent of one out of every 12 loaves of bread (before they ever get made). By the end of this century, if climate change continues unabated, insects will be eating more than two loaves of every 12 that could have been made," the University of Washington, US, researcher told BBC News.
Increase in crop losses to insect pests in a warming climate (DOI: 10.1126/science.aat3466) (DX)
(Score: 4, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 09 2018, @05:36PM (3 children)
Pesticides to the rescue! Organophosphates for everyone!
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @09:17PM
Monsanto: "Miss us yet?"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @09:43PM (1 child)
And the reason they only report this happening in Germany? They're the only country that bothers to monitor their insect population. Maybe to time to squeeze the science budget some more.
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html [cnn.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 11 2018, @02:36AM
We got a robot lawnmower, it keeps 90% of our lawn "well groomed" like the suburban fantasy. The other 10% I let go much more natural - weeds 2 meters tall, everything allowed to bloom, etc. The contrast in flying insect density is amazing. Bugs love thick weeds with flowers, and what do we systematically destroy just about everywhere we go?
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Hartree on Sunday September 09 2018, @05:43PM (2 children)
Most agree that a hot lunch tastes better than a cold one.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @06:08PM (1 child)
Unless you're having revenge for lunch. Because revenge is a dish best served cold.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @08:11PM
Personally I prefer revenge at dinner with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by XivLacuna on Sunday September 09 2018, @05:55PM (30 children)
Liberal types think global warming is man made. Conservative types think it is either natural or not real.
With the man made variant, we could go back to living like we did before the 1900s. But this won't do anything if it is the Sun that is heating us up.
A better option that'll cover both of those is a solar shade of some sorts at L1 to block some of the light from the Sun from hitting the Earth. This way we can continue to make use of technology. If global warming is a complete lie then we can just deorbit the solar shade or salvage the materials for something else.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @06:05PM (13 children)
Well, we really need to determine if warming really is caused by humans or not. To settle the question, the only real way to decide is to exterminate the entire human race. Then our automated weather recording devices, which we'll leave behind, can determine if we were truly the cause.
I'm sure those who are against science will say this is a horrible idea, but science should not be limited by those without vision and daring.
(Score: 3, Touché) by XivLacuna on Sunday September 09 2018, @06:12PM (12 children)
Such a grim way to test. Another way is to evacuate all humans off of Earth and put them into rotating space colonies.
(Score: 3, Funny) by BsAtHome on Sunday September 09 2018, @06:38PM (4 children)
Yes, put 'm all in space. Then nuke the place, wait for many years and send 100 juveniles back to see if they can survive on the surface. Or was that some fiction I saw on the telly?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Sunday September 09 2018, @06:42PM (2 children)
Wall-E?
:)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Sunday September 09 2018, @07:17PM (1 child)
Yes, the last one always gets stuck with the cleaning bill. Can we convert the Wall-E compacter to a process gasses? Then that should be fine and we're all off to roam the universe in a chair getting fat.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @04:18AM
As opposed to now, when we're all roaming the internet in a chair getting fat.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 09 2018, @07:37PM
By the end of Season 4 it gets even worse...
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Sunday September 09 2018, @06:44PM (5 children)
Put them on the moon in a base and then with our nuclear waste there exploding, it sends the moon out of Earth orbit, through some 'space warps' and off exploring.
Should happen sometime around 1999 if the documentary i watched is true.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Sunday September 09 2018, @07:19PM
Memories... Boy, that documentary was on acid!
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday September 09 2018, @07:22PM (3 children)
Wrong documentary, the best solution is evacuate to a new planet via the wormhole gates the Egyptians left behind. Much cleaner. Plus the documentary said we already have one in storage.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday September 09 2018, @08:36PM (2 children)
I'll take Samantha Carter with me...you can have T'ealc(sp?).
*Droooooooool*
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Monday September 10 2018, @02:45AM (1 child)
Ah damn. I knew I should'a called dibs....
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Funny) by suburbanitemediocrity on Monday September 10 2018, @05:12AM
Maud dibs?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday September 10 2018, @04:30PM
I'm watching a dystopian post apocalyptic show with a very similar premise. It's quite interesting. So far, they've managed to destroy the earth twice.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @06:12PM
And I don't care either way
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @07:27PM (1 child)
Let me propose another alternative. We can simply wait until there is no more oil that can be profitably pumped out of the ground.
I just hope we have some alternative way of meeting baseline power generation requirements without dino juice when that happens. That way we can continue to make use of technology after the dino juice runs out.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday September 10 2018, @04:49PM
You're going to be waiting a stupendously long time. Sure, there's a finite amount of oil on the planet Earth. But, what does it matter to current generations, if we run out of oil in 2,000 years? Yes, profitability matters, and will more likely instigate a change than some true scarcity of the resource. I'm still waiting on affordable solar panel for my house. We'll cross the affordable electric car bridge when I can get affordable electric to power my electric car.
"Why We'll Never Run Out of Oil"
http://discovermagazine.com/1999/jun/featoil [discovermagazine.com]
"The Earth is not running out of oil and gas BP says"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11971280/The-Earth-is-not-running-out-of-oil-and-gas-BP-says.html [telegraph.co.uk]
"What if we never run out of oil?"
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/ [theatlantic.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @08:28PM
Wrong. If the sun isn't the cause you'd be destroying the photosynthesis cycle and killing our crops. Besides, environmental damage isn't limited to just climate change so you'd never be able to turn back the clock on industrial regulations.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by julian on Sunday September 09 2018, @08:42PM (10 children)
That's not exactly true. I'm a "liberal type" and it's no secret that your average clueless liberal knows about as much climate science as your average clueless conservative. The crucial difference is liberals don't usually have an attachment to a supernatural explanatory framework which is also a core part of their personal and political identity. Only conservatives cite the Bible [littlegreenfootballs.com] as if it has any authority on matters of science such as climate change. I'm not personally or politically attached to any specific explanation of climate change except that I want to hold the correct one. I accept that my best shot at being correct is to seriously consider the explanations offered by the relevant experts. I also accept that this explanation can and will change as new information is discovered.
Liberals are thus more open to having their ideas corrected. It's often a long, painful, and imperfect mechanism of correction but it does work. The contemporary religious (Evangelical Christian) conservative has had this faculty of their mind disabled by their culture. The good news is that cultural flaws can be corrected after a single generation, and even some lucky people within a generation are capable of overcoming their programming and adopting better epistemology.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by deimtee on Sunday September 09 2018, @09:34PM (8 children)
I mostly agree with you.
I don't cite religious claptrap, and I also would prefer to hold the correct opinions rather than the convenient ones.
However, too much current 'climate science' and its baggage doesn't pass the smell test.
- The alarmists want to use the scary 'climate change' to change peoples' behaviour. That isn't science, it's social engineering.
- Science doesn't violently suppress opponents, it shows where they are wrong, and laughs at them.
- Anyone proposing a solution is shouted down. They don't want to fix it, it is too useful as a political tool
- Too much of what they claim ignores other sciences.
- The 97% concensus figure is made up bullshit, and most of the loudest proponents are not scientists at all.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 4, Informative) by julian on Monday September 10 2018, @12:32AM (5 children)
To the extent that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and incapable of being handled through market-based solutions, then some degree of "social engineering" is called for. This is more commonly called public policy, and good public policy is always well-informed by the relevant scientific experts. One of our political parties rejects the counsel of scientists, engineers, and experts when their advice is inconvenient to their donors, or opposed to their system of pre-Enlightment philosophy.
Another thing this party does is slander the other as, "alarmists."
This is exactly what happens in academia; it would also be what happens in politics too but one of our major political parties elevates a fringe minority of scientists to equal status to their peers who are respected and trusted in their disciplines. A debate between an actual scientist and a crank isn't a debate, even if Republicans insist both sides are valid.
By Republicans.
Doubtful, as scientists are usually the first people to tell you that they've reached the limit of their understanding or expertise.
Doesn't seem like mad up bullshit to me. [skepticalscience.com] And the second point is irrelevant; true information is true even if it's spread by someone who doesn't fully understand it.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @04:17AM
>> The 97% concensus figure is made up bullshit, and most of the loudest proponents are not scientists at all.
> Doesn't seem like mad up bullshit to me. [skepticalscience.com] And the second point is irrelevant; true information is true even if it's spread by someone who doesn't fully understand it.
That's John Cook's site, the author of the paper that started the 97% lie! Messages from their private forum were leaked to the Internet, showing how they decided the conclusion before they started the research, and designed the methodology to show it! The whole thing was a farce and a lie. You're on the Internet--do your homework! Read about it on Anthony Watts' and Judith Curry's sites.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @04:28AM
> To the extent that climate change is real, anthropogenic, and incapable of being handled through market-based solutions, then some degree of "social engineering" is called for. This is more commonly called public policy, and good public policy is always well-informed by the relevant scientific experts. One of our political parties rejects the counsel of scientists, engineers, and experts when their advice is inconvenient to their donors, or opposed to their system of pre-Enlightment philosophy.
It was publicly said, decades ago, that "climate change is a vehicle for policy." The policy is driving the science. Gullible people like you buy into it. Science is your religion, and you're more fundamentalist than Christians who unquestioningly accept the literal 7-day creation story.
> This is exactly what happens in academia; it would also be what happens in politics too but one of our major political parties elevates a fringe minority of scientists to equal status to their peers who are respected and trusted in their disciplines. A debate between an actual scientist and a crank isn't a debate, even if Republicans insist both sides are valid.
And what about the respected scientists who dissent from the alarmists? You know, like Richard Lindzen, and former UNIPCC heads who quit the IPCC because of internal corruption, etc. Oh, well, they disagree with you, so they must be cranks. Nevermind their advanced degrees in the field, decades of work in it, and many peer-reviewed papers they've published in it.
> Another thing this party does is slander the other as, "alarmists."
The alarmists accuse everyone who is merely skeptical of being "denialists" and ACTUALLY say that "climate denialism" should be a CRIME. They're literally attempting to prosecute companies for not toeing the party line. And you'd better not claim ignorance of this, because if you do, it shows that you're either a liar, or willfully ignorant, yet you still spout this propaganda.
You are either a very gullible fool, or a liar in service of their agenda. History will look back on people like you as being as foolish as those who doggedly clung to the belief that the earth was flat.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Monday September 10 2018, @06:11AM (2 children)
"To the extent". I like also how you rationalize lying and fraud on the basis that market-based solutions are inadequate somehow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @09:44AM (1 child)
I like how you suggest market-based solutions exist without showing any.
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Monday September 10 2018, @12:26PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @04:53AM
According to "science", julian assange is some kind of identical clone of john g trump (POTUS uncle).
(Score: 2, Redundant) by FatPhil on Monday September 10 2018, @09:27AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @05:16AM
But they do hold attachment to a supernatural explanatory framework which believes the universe is not fated and there is something they or anyone else can do something about it. But then they were fated to believe that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @04:21AM
If only there was some way to find out, like science...
--best regards, liberal type
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @07:10PM (9 children)
I hope not because that was disproven 50 years ago when the "population bomb" was published. That book is now wholly and fully discredited and we will not have food shortages. /s
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday September 09 2018, @09:09PM (8 children)
I believe it was Bertrand Russell that would read a book until the first logical mistake. At which point he quit reading since everything after that was invalid.
I wonder if the Population Bomb got past the initial premises.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 10 2018, @12:18AM (7 children)
Whoever has done this is stupid.
False premises with correct rationing can lead to true conclusion. Yes, it can lead to false conclusion as well.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday September 10 2018, @09:42AM (4 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 10 2018, @09:56AM (3 children)
Nobody said I'm going to automatically accept the conclusion derived from false premises. Not going to reject it either, just classify it as 'Maybe interesting, too bad it wasn't demonstrated'
Here are examples in which stopping short at the first error drives to lost opportunities.
Analogies are false premises, and yet they do have suggestive powers to generate new ideas that may/will be demonstrated true.
Stopping at the first logical error may also prevent you from finding the second ones - which, if both/all corrected can demonstrate the conclusion as true.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 10 2018, @12:40PM (2 children)
And yet in the case of The Population Bomb, we have 50 years of evidence that the stopping short at the first error would allow us to skip a lot of faulty reasoning.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 10 2018, @10:52PM (1 child)
ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 11 2018, @04:07AM
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday September 15 2018, @03:32PM (1 child)
"False premises with correct rationing can lead to true conclusion."
There is no surety in this. How can you trust it?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday September 15 2018, @09:30PM
You don't trust it.
But it has its value - take analogies, by example.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 09 2018, @07:14PM (3 children)
Who gives a shit how many loaves of bread they eat? Call me if they start causing shortages of donuts or biscuits and gravy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday September 09 2018, @07:29PM (2 children)
Donut shortages! Homer is gonna be pissed.
Although a biscuits and gravy shortage will certainly result in the south rising up, resulting in Civil War 2.0, the B&G Crisis.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @10:37PM
Make America Gravy Again?
Suspiciously close to the hippies and their "groovy".
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday September 15 2018, @03:54PM
"We's just layin' for 'em" - Granny
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday September 09 2018, @07:16PM
This assumes that the only factor that might change within the next 80 years is average temperature of grain fields.
That's stunningly unlikely to be the only factor influencing crop loss to insects (or to rats, who represent a bigger threat).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Sunday September 09 2018, @07:23PM (3 children)
Well champ, just turn that frown upside down and start eating the bugs. Cornfields and double as insect harvesting centres.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 09 2018, @07:39PM
Better source of protein, anyway.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday September 09 2018, @08:38PM
I just came to say that: more food to eat!
I can't eat wheat anyways.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @09:05AM
Another me too post. I'm vegetarian but would rather eat bugs than glyphosate wheat anyway
Industrialized agriculture is a big part of the global warming problem in the first place
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 09 2018, @08:59PM (1 child)
But, we can't just get rid of the democrats!
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 1) by nnet on Sunday September 09 2018, @09:23PM
Insects don't care. Nor should you. Get your crunchy protein on and move forward with your life.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09 2018, @09:21PM
I for one welcome our new insect overlords. Better than das drumpfenfuhrer.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 10 2018, @04:32AM (1 child)
We'll run out of food, and then the bugs will eat us, and then the earth will return to "normal," and the temperature will go up and down on its own like it has for millions of years, and some of the bugs will go extinct, and then some more will evolve, and then the sun will expand and eat the earth, and then none of it will matter, anyway.
So what are we worried about? Humans are just an anomaly, and the planet would be better off without us, so just let us cook ourselves to death, and then the planet can get back to normal! The sooner the better, right?
Oh, but then some species would go extinct, and we can't have that, because they're holy and must be preserved.
And they say scientarians aren't religious.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Monday September 10 2018, @08:28AM
On the great scale of things, what does matter? Why do you care about eating today, if I may ask?