The Guardian, a British newspaper with an intensive focus on global warming has published a well crafted climate disaster propaganda piece "Food production shocks will happen more often because of extreme-weather". I've written this post to show you the link between the IPCC decision to create the exaggerated RCP8.5 projection, and the proliferation of papers, reports, and magazine articles discussing climate change, all of them based on what amounts to bogus science.
The article quotes a study published by the "UK-US Task Force on Global Extreme Weather and Global Food System Resilience". From what I gather this study was financed by the UK government. The leading authors are Tim G. Benton, Leeds University, Rob Bailey, Chatham House, Joshua Elliott, University of Chicago, Aled Jones, Anglia Ruskin University, and Kirsty Lewis, Met Office UK. The full report is here: http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/assets/pdfs/extreme-weather-resilience-of-global-food-system.pdf
The article quotes a study published by the "UK-US Task Force on Global Extreme Weather and Global Food System Resilience". From what I gather this study was financed by the UK government. The leading authors are Tim G. Benton, Leeds University, Rob Bailey, Chatham House, Joshua Elliott, University of Chicago, Aled Jones, Anglia Ruskin University, and Kirsty Lewis, Met Office UK. The full report is here: http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/assets/pdfs/extreme-weather-resilience-of-global-food-system.pdf
The study appears to be pretty professional. It does use subliminal messages, such as two men chopping dried out ground, like this:
Salt harvesting in the Danakil depression, Eritrea,
In the Horn of Africa (from avaxnews.net)
The study uses a climate model ensemble. They don't go into any detail, but they provide a reference (#16). If we search that reference we get to this webpage ("Agricultural Model Intercomparison Project") https://www.agmip.org/ag-grid/ggcmi/. This Project is described in more detail in this brochure: http://www.agmip.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GGCMI-Flyer2013417.pdf
The brochure explains this effort uses the future climate data prepared for the UN's IPCC 2014 report (known as AR5). The climate model data they use is the CMIP-RCP8.5. And there's the rub. The IPCC invented an extreme case, with CO2 and methane emissions way above what's reasonable. Their propaganda system calls this extreme case "Business as Usual", but I think it should be known as "Bullshit as Usual".
I've written quite a bit about the RCP8.5 problems, but rather than repeat my verbiage I am linking an excellent overview you really ought to read:
I've written quite a bit about the RCP8.5 problems, but rather than repeat my verbiage I am linking an excellent overview you really ought to read:
As I mentioned at the top, I've written this post to show you the link between the IPCC decision to create the exaggerated RCP8.5 projection, and the proliferation of papers, reports, and magazine articles discussing climate change, all of them based on what amounts to bogus science.
The take away message: when you read ANYTHING about climate change impacts or costs drill down into the sources and find out if it's based on RCP8.5. If it is, discard it.
PS: I also noticed the report authors ignored information such as the observed greening of the African Sahel, as reported in this National Geographic article "Sahara Desert Greening due to climate change?"
Even if new land becomes farmable, the disruption to food supply due to the lack of distribution infrastructure in New farming areas is still highly problematic. We already grow enough food to feed everyone as much as they would like to eat, but the distribution system is flawed as it is. Construction of new carrying capacity, especially for the more nutritionally valuable fresh vegetables and fruits, is expensive and time-consuming. Ignoring the friction of systemic shifting and the disruption to economies and civilization is dangerous. Surely you're not saying that climate change isn't happpening, and even minor disruptions on a wide scale can trigger devestating feedback loops and oscillations. People need to eat pretty often, playing dice with their food supply seems ill considered.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por un administrador del blog.
ResponderEliminar"the disruption to food supply due to the lack of distribution infrastructure in New farming areas is still highly problematic", sure, but that has nothing to do with climate change.
ResponderEliminarClimate has been changing forever (there's no need to focus on the reasons for this particular debate, because plants don't really care why it happens). What the IPCC did was create a bogus case which, ARBITRARILY, puts gobs of CO2 and methane in the air. This accelerates the changes, which when coupled with a population growth explosion (mostly taking place in Africa) leaves the food system unable to cope.
The key is to understand how the IPCC came to invent the RCP8.5 forecast, and how it's always used for almost all follow up work, research and articles you are seeing. In other words, they built a bullshit foundation to pile more bullshit on their bullshit.
The global warming issue is a concern, but it's being overhyped, used for political ends, and heading the world in the wrong direction. It's a massive "Iraq WMD" story. You know very well how things are subverted and distorted. This is just another more of the same bullshit. Take the pill, copper top.