Custom Search
Switching from Coffee to Cocoa
Submitted by fyl on Tue, 2009/12/08 - 11:25.
An Reuters AlertNet article says that Nicaraguan coffee farmers are switching to growing cocoa because of climate changes. Che will tell is there is no global warming. The article says there is but it also mentions deforestation which is a man-made problem that could be significantly contributing to the warming.
Coffee farmers in the small Central American country first noticed erratic weather, linked to global warming and deforestation, about ten years ago. Hurricanes, rising temperatures, drier spells and heavier rains have become more common.
follow jon stewart....
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/02/video-jon-stewart-dumps-on-climate...
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson-
no comment?
no comment on the jon stewart piece? oh, oh, the irony.....
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson-
follow the money....
the oceans have been rising for 11,000 years. we are between ice ages. in the middle ages it was warmer than now. then, 1450 - 1750 there was a mini ice age. the wizards of oz were caught fudging the numbers in climategate. and they threw out the raw data. the emails are replete with "trick" and "hide the decline." if you are like me, a little guy, just follow the money....
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-techno...
Jon Stewart says, 'Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!"
Follow the money
Yes, let me see...a museum with tax-free status? Some scientists making less than $100,000/year? Or oil tycoons and businessmen raking in millions upon billions of dollars?
Yes, I agree. Follow the money. It just doesn't lead where you want it to lead.
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
scientists makeing less than
$100,000 a year..and most of that is on government handouts..a lot of them might write good for begging for money..but im sure a scientist wouldnt lie..so my tax $$ are well spent
Government handouts?
Actually, no. Do you actually know any scientists, or know anything about how scientific funding works? Apparently not.
Most scientists are employed at universities. Many of these universities - such as mine - are private. Even amongst state schools, only a small portion of the funding comes from the state or federal government. Most funding comes from tuition and endowments.
Beyond that, research funding has to be obtained independently - the schools give very little research money. Most of this also comes from private sources. Some comes from federal sources, e.g., NSF. But NSF's budget is tiny and spread across multiple disciplines. Meanwhile, the oil industry receives tens of billions of dollars of subidies - this on top of the gigantic profits they're reaping.
Try checking some facts next time before making baseless accusations. You already tried this line of reasoning once and it didn't work - it's not working any better this time.
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
it might not be
working for u,but it works for me..what would u do with out oil and gas
hi che..
i agree with u..global warming is a lot on bunk..the world has been doing this for millions of years..
I don't know about warming....
Its the coldest December in many years in Southern California! I hope the "climate change"(formerly "globalwarming") scientists don't delete my email!
The U.S. and Canada have been cooler for the last two years
The U.S. and Canada have been cooler on average for the last two years while most countries have been warmer. That's just one of many reasons to rename it climate change.
The link below has an excellent video response to the assertions that followed the release of the climate change scientists' private email. It's entertaining too.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/febrile_nitwits_and_the_hacke...
Weather # Climate
Guys, if you're going to use a word at least understand what it means! Climate = "the weather in some location averaged over some long period of time." Two years or one winter does not equal a "long period of time".
We're talking about climate change over the long-term. The climate is significantly warmer now than it has been in hundreds of years. And no, Che, it was *not* warmer from 1450-1650. In fact, that was during the Little Ice Age (1400-1850), when most of Europe was frozen and temperatures were 4-6C lower than they are today!!!
There is absolutely *no doubt* amongst scientists about whether climate has and is changing. We've known about this for nearly a HUNDRED YEARS, folks!! There's no controversy!!! It's only the people who profit from the status quo who argue otherwise.
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
RSJ, Let me clarify
I re-read my posts and saw how you could take them wrong. Let me clarify. It has been obvious for over a decade to casual observers that our climate has been warming in Canada. It has been obvious for much longer to the scientists who actually record the temperatures.
I should have said we had the statistical anomaly of two cooler than normal years despite the well known temperature warming trend. I was commenting on the erratic weather being caused by climate change.
You really should check out the video in my last link. It was defending the climate change scientists, showing and explaining their e-mails in context, and poking fun at the climate change deniers. I found it on a scientist's website.
sball
sball, sorry - I should have posted that under some of the other posts, not yours. That is a good link - I've followed PZ Myers' work for years now and he's an excellent scientist and writer. You're right about "climate change" being a better term than "warming", because the effects will be both a) unpredictable in some of the details, and b) variable in different parts of the globe. Hence we see parts of Greenland receiving greater snowfall while other parts are melting, and so on. Apologies!
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
Nice Video!
Nice video! I wonder if it will have any influence at all on this public debate. This Climate Change debate is abused by all kind of politicians and lobbyists and spun in their favor, while the scientific data and proof is already ubiquitous for many years. This debate is leading to all kind of clumsy regulations that are leading to nowhere. By example the CO2 emission targets as defined by the Kyoto protocol that are leaving out all the CO2 produced by international aviation and shipping and not taking into account the historically produced CO2 by each country. Also, these Kyoto CO2 emission targets time schedule do not take into account other effects that abundant CO2 emissions are causing, like the acidification of the oceans that is destroying all kinds of marine life already. The emissions of another even more serious greenhouse gas methane is not even measured correctly. National inventories of methane emissions in industrialized countries are underestimated when inventory totals are compared with recent atmospheric measurements. Kyoto and Copenhagen are a nice try, but not effective (in time) and this is all just about greenhouse gases. What about all other environmental disasters that the Human race is responsible for?
I am more into introducing "Planets Rights" in constitutions, just like "Human Rights". Ecuador made a small attempt in 2008. The new Ecuadorian constitution gives nature the "right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution" and mandates that the government take "precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles."
Kyoto
Kyoto is far from perfect. It's outdated, and even at the time it was a watered-down compromise in order to get as many countries as possible to sign it. Which is precisely why we need an updated and stronger protocol implemented, which is exactly what many people and governments are working towards in Copenhagen as we speak (err type). Something is better than nothing - we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater just because it's not absolutely perfect.
Humans are causing all sorts of disasters, but they're all interrelated, and further climate change is going to have the most dramatic effects in both the near and distant future. Tropical deforestation, for example, results in increased CO2 emissions and in decreased cloud cover, further accelerating climate change, in addition to the direct and indirect effects of habitat loss.
Climate change is a global problem, and as such it needs to be addressed with an integrated, global solution. I just can't see piecemeal statements of rights inserted into individual constitutions - even in an ideal (and extremely unlikely) world where all countries were able to install and defend them - being sufficient. This is a classic Tragedy of the Commons situation, and all countries must work together to reduce and regulate emissions in order to slow climate change, or even one or two countries (e.g., China, India, the US, Brazil) could ruin it for everyone.
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
Are you referring to
Are you referring to the Bolivian ambassador's speech at the UN last month?
"Mr Solon’s proposal, supported by the 22 nations, for “a possible declaration of ethical principles and values to a life in harmony with Mother Earth” signals a growing momentum for recognition of what the Bolivian indigenous peoples term ‘buen vivir’ or ‘living well’ and in harmony with nature - a vision shared by many others throughout the world. The new paradigm is starting to take shape."
Sagrada Madre Tierra
I am not especially referring to Mr. Solon's speech to the UN, but it is nice that you mention it. "Mother Earth" is important to the Bolivians. Evo Morales said on September 23rd to the General Assembly of the UN: "I’ve concluded that in this new twenty-first century, defending Mother Earth will be more important than defending human rights. If we do not defend the rights of Mother Earth, there is no use in defending human rights." Bolivia also made a call upon "Mother Earth" to the UNFCC/AWGLCA in its "The need of a Universal Mother Earth's Rights Declaration" 2009 proposal. Unfortunately there is no article in Bolivia's 2009 constitution about respecting "Mother Earth's Rights". The constitution's preamble is speaking about "sagrada Madre Tierra" and that's about all. I find the Ecuadorian constitution article very cool and courageous. Governments and presidents who don't protect the environment in Ecuador can be impeached/prosecuted for infringing the constitution. This is in sharp contrast with the UNFCC treaties that are all volontarily and without any sanctions.
I don't know exactly who invented the term "Earths Rights". Some NGO/NPO's are spreading the word for some time now. The term is new, it's meaning not. As Juanno is saying all kind of ancient civilizations respected and worshiped Mother Earth. Maybe we can learn something from this, as "civilized countries".
Indigenous People
If they had ruled the world, it may well have been a better place. From the North American Indians to the Aboriginals of Australia. Their culture is now being sold in self help books and retreats by the "touchy feelies" as therapy......i.e something we do after we screwed up. They did it as a preventative measure...until the white man came along and took it all away and gave them booze instead.
i would like to know
how much illegal logging is going on in ecuador..i have lived in guate.,el salvador,hond. and here in nica. and there is a lot of illegal logging gone on in all these countries..so it might sound nice what ecuador puts on a piece of paper,but,what are they really doing to stop it..and it needs to be stopped..but all the hot air these people are putting out isnt doing anything to stop it
RIGHT ON bro!
Eom.
climate change
Based on what I see around here I would say that it has not been cooler during the last two years. Today is December the 8th and the grass is still green and some plants in my garden resist to go dormant, on top of that we don't have a centimeter of snow yet. Twenty years ago when I inmigrated to this land the landscape by this timeof the year was completely different to what it is today.
I'm in Ottawa
Hard to believe, isn't it? I'm in Ottawa, same here, light jackets in November, 3 tiny sprinkles of snow. Winter is coming later and spring is coming earlier. Do you remember when it made the news that the Niagara cherries were blooming in winter? Last year Stratford, in the traditional snow belt, even had its first green Christmas - my first in 50 years. We can see the climate has changed but overall, the average temperature here was actually cooler. Our hot summers used to bring up the average - where did they go?
coffee to cacao
i dont know about the climate change stuff.but,we are switching our coffee to cacao on my place in waslala.becuse there is more money in cacao.and cacao is a year around money crop..where as coffee is seasonal..climate change for me has nothing to do with it..but they are cutting down a lot of the original forest
The ones I know of
in the Apanas Area,are staying with coffee since their land is naturally forested,it has not affected the Jinotega highlands as of yet.
I know 4 growers in said region, that have had minimal impact from climate changes thus far.
jinottega elevation
wise is higher than waslala..they get a better grade of coffee up there..than we do..thats why im switching
Tropical deforestation and climate change
Yes, there's actually quite an extensive body of literature on this very topic. We're already seeing drastic changes in local weather patterns due to regional deforestation, above and beyond the changes to global climate cycles. For example, the extinction of the golden toad in Costa Rica is linked to the decreased number of misty days, which in turn is linked to deforestation in nearby lowland forests.
See, for example (and this is just a very small and recent selection from a large body of peer-reviewed literature):
Climatic impact of tropical lowland deforestation on nearby montane cloud forests. Lawton et al. 2001 Science http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/294/5542/584?ck=nck
Shallow clouds track deforestation (lay summary of a 2009 PNAS article): http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/38055
Positive feedbacks among forest fragmentation, drought, and climate change in the Amazon. Laurence and Williamson 2001, Conservation Biology http://www.jstor.org/stable/3061252
Predicted regional impacts of climate change on the geographical distribution and diversity of tropical forests in Costa Rica. Enquist 2002 Journal of Biogeography http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13822052
Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain. Pounds et al. 1999 Nature http://biolambiental.posgrado.unam.mx/pdf/Pounds199.pdf
These farmers are being smart. They're seeing changes, and they're responding to them. Global climate change is happening already, and has been for 100 years. You can refuse to believe it, but that won't stop it coming. Regardless of what you'd like to believe, what would be more comfortable for you, the intelligent response is to begin to adapt now, so you're ready when the changes really begin to kick in. Good for them for responding to what they're really seeing instead of what they're told to believe!
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans
Contrarian and /or healthy skepticism
You know RSJ, normally I am Cartesian and believer in empirical methodology , therefore a strong advocate for science, but there are moments when one has to consider all of what science doesn't know. Now, of course asking a scientist what he doesn't know-it's a bit like asking a politician the same question. So you have weathermen, decades of scientific study, and contending schools of thought on climate change in several different brances of the geosciences, and co-related disciplines. They have this overwhelming mass of data that they feed all these supercomputers and it grinds and churns and spits out different prognostications of impending doom. Now of course the computer is making it's predictions based on what the human interlocutors are parsing in.
Therewithin is the kernal of my distrust because when humans make mistakes so do machines that they are using. For me it is not a question of the climate changing-it has done that for eons since the day earth was created, but are the present changes taking place man-made, or natural or a little of both.
I don't know if the biosphere on planet Earth is really reducible to what the scientists are trying to encapsulate. The terrestrial biosphere system is much too complex to extrapolate more than a little(say local weather conditions) whereas all these contending scientists are extrapolating a lot. If you then also factor in extraterrestrial forces that also play on the changes to the earth's biosphere, I get even more skeptical on science's ability to predict the course of events, whether they be natural or man-made
. As far as using fossil fuels, I am opposed because in the long run it doesn't make economic sense and they do pollute which is never a good thing.
Policing population growth and reversing mismanagement of natural resources make sense -we were originally born into a garden and we should keep it that way
As any farmer or herdsman will tell you overproduction will kill your land and your fortune.
In looking to the future the one result that I am sure of is a human population collapse, how far off that might be is something science can try and predict but one way or the other it is inevitable and the planet will renew itself from whatever damage we have done-as the old syllogistic touchstone of geoscience states in it's major premise "Earth Abides". I take comfort in that and that in the end science does not know everything .
Contrarians
Now it's my turn to be a contrarian, as I need to address problems with several of your arguments given above.
"Now, of course asking a scientist what he doesn't know-it's a bit like asking a politician the same question."
Actually, no. The very nature of the scientific method, aka the hypothetico-deductive method, is inherently based upon doubt. You can not, in science, ever prove anything, because you can never know if the next test of the hypothesis will refute it. All you can do is refute null or alternate hypotheses, and accumulate evidence in support of a given hypothesis. This is precisely why it is often so difficult to translate science into political action, because politicians require certainty, and scientists cannot offer that. Scientists always know that there is much they do not know, and most would be happy to
"The terrestrial biosphere system is much too complex to extrapolate more than a little"
Yes, but you're conflating two different lines of research here. First, we have extensively documented, multiple lines of research (including air temperature, water temperature, ice cores, glacial extent, pollen data, &c. &c.) demonstrating - without a doubt - that climate, including temperature and CO2 levels, have changed directionally and dramatically from all previous cycles. The temperatures and CO2 levels that we're seeing today are higher than they have been in over 15 million years, and the deviation from the long-term means is significantly and substantially greater than natural cyclic variation. In short, amongst 99.9% of scientists across all disciplines (i.e., those who are not paid by GE or Shell to say otherwise), there is absolute agreement about the fact that the climate has warmed and it is due to human actions. The IPCC stated this in no uncertain terms: "The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries.... The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame." See this Wikipedia page for an excellent summary of the scientific consensus on climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.
Now, that said, what scientists do *not* agree upon is precisely what will result from the climate change. We know there will be effects, we know they will be dramatic and negative, but we can't state exactly what those effects will be. For precisely the reasons you stated - the cycles are too complex, and there are too many opportunities for synergisms and feedback loops. For example, one of the main controversies today revolves around the role of clouds. Warming temperatures are likely to result in more evaporation forming more clouds. Those clouds could hold in heat, further contributing to warming. Or they could reflect more sunlight, resulting in cooling. Or, more likely, some of both, depending upon the size and composition of the particles in the clouds. Further, the increased evaporation is leading to increased snowfall in some places, e.g., parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet, while other parts are melting rapidly. One of the biggest concerns of many scientists is that warming could (or even already has) reached a tipping point, where dramatic and irreversible changes to major earth and atmospheric processes will occur, e.g., reversal of major ocean and air currents, and/or breakup of massive ice sheets.
See these two sites for excellent summaries of the current state of climate research: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462 and http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp. RealClimate.org is probably the best go-to source for the latest news and information.
So yes, scientists will readily admit that we can not predict exactly what will happen. But we do know that the last time that CO2 levels were this high - approximately 15 million years ago - sea levels were at least 25m higher than they are today. 25 meters! Say goodbye to New York, New Orleans, the entire state of Florida, much of San Francisco, Venice, many islands, and even your current hometown of Vancouver.
Yes, you're right - the Earth will abide. There's nothing much we can do to eradicate all life - even a major nuclear holocaust wouldn't wipe out all species. But the Earth will be dramatically different from what it is today. We will and are taking many other species down with us, through no fault of their own. Yet we're supposed to be the intelligent ones???
-------
Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans