-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
A recent article in the Daily Mail, and picked up by other media, claims an increase in Arctic ice foretells a cooling trend. The article boasts of a 60% increase in sea ice over the minimum that occurred in 2012. While the actual numbers from IARC-JAXA Information System (IJIS) show, as of yesterday, only a 50% increase, this is still a significant expansion.
Professor Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, referred to the title as melodramatic and said of the content of the article: “the ‘cooling’ aspect has been overplayed.” Last year, University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins predicted that “there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012.”
An important tool used in analyzing random data is the statistical phenomenon known as reversion to the mean, or regression to the mean. The extent of sea ice at the end of the annual melt, mid to late September, set a extreme minimum in 2012. Using reversion to the mean, it is more likely that the the extent in 2013 will be larger. Exactly what happened. The following graph indicates the variability of sea ice extent and the clear downward trend.
Cherry picking short-term results while ignoring long-term trends is a hallmark of misleading climate reporting. Long-term data needs to be analyzed to average out cyclical dependencies. There is a strong natural variability in sea ice extent and separating the natural from the greenhouse gases requires decades long timescales.
Climate science is an undertaking fraught with complex interactions and unknown cycles with unknown effects. It will take time and money to improve our understanding. However, improvement is mandatory if we are to be responsible conservators of our world.
Climate scientists estimate the amount of sea ice loss due to greenhouse gasses is between 50-70%.
H/T: Dana Nuccitelli, Steven Novella, Climate Dialogue, Alexis Sobel Fitts, Phil Plait.
Gene H:
http://reason.com/archives/2006/06/06/the-rise-and-fall-of-indian-so
They have only instituted market reforms in the last 20 years. Socialism fuked them up very badly.
But believe what you want.
bigfatmike:
I am basing my calculation on 10 people per acre. That splendid table article says 10,000 per 3 acres.
bOB:
“They’ll be housed on the arable land”
no they wont.
Population density of New York City = 26,953 people per square mile
36 billion people/26,953 ppsm = 1,335,658 square miles
land area of the US = 3,717,813 sq mi a little less than 3 times the area required for a population density the same as New York City.
That leaves the rest of the earth unpopulated.
Gene,
India’s economy has always favored the haves over the have-nots. That is the very thing Gandhi fought against. The government didn’t even permit people to make their own salt by evaporating sea water, instead forcing them to buy salt from the big multinational corporations of the time. There is fantastic wealth in India, but it is in the hands of the well to do. The millions of poor are sliding deeper into poverty. According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2010, 29.8% of the population of India lived below the poverty line.
Doesn’t sound much like socialism to me, or they would be working on fixing the problem. Additionally, one of the biggest drags on India’s economy is corruption. If you have money, you can buy just about anything you want, or get out of any kind of trouble, just like in the good ol’ U S of A.
Let me correct an obvious error in the use of Bron’s conversion factor:
Previously stated:
Using Bron’s conversion factor:
1 hectare = 2.47 acres we find that
1,365,069,800/2,47 = 552659838 acres
552659838 acres/ 1.2 acres/person = 460,549,865 persons.
The calculation should have been:
1365069800 hectares * 2.47 acres/hectare = 3364312406 acres
3364312406 acres/1.2 acres/person = 2,803,593,671.67 persons.
The corrected numbers for the estimates of carrying capacity of the earth for different diets would then be:
Bare subsistence diet = 19,500,997,142.85 persons.
World average diet 2006 = 6,204,862,727.27 persons
US typical diet = 2,803,593,671.67 persons.
Bob K,
“Don’t worry, I’m not one of those that thinks that Ayn Rand is a deranged psychopath.
She’s dead. She only used to be a deranged psychopath.”
Thanks for the big grin.
Where did you get the lunatic idea that India is a socialist country, Bron?
They’re free market capitalists.
Their population pressures just highlight the flaws in that system.
Oops.
I could not verify the quote, but there are numerous references on the internet to a UN publication [FAO 1993] quote that .07 hectares is about the minimum land to support one person.
If we use Bron’s land area suitable for cultivation we get approximately:
1,365,069,800 hectares / .07 hectares/person = 19,500,997,142.85 persons.
That would be for a bare subsistence diet.
I was able to trace to the UN “Average number of hectares of cultivated area needed to feed one person in 2006: 0.22 ha.”
If we use that number:
1,365,069,800 hectares / .22 hectares/person = 6,204,862,727.27 persons which is not far from the Wiki number for world population in 2006 of 6.569 billion.
A different quote on the internet claimed that a US style diet required approximately 1.2 acres for each person.
Using Bron’s conversion factor:
1 hectare = 2.47 acres we find that
1,365,069,800/2,47 = 552659838 acres
552659838 acres/ 1.2 acres/person = 460,549,865 persons.
So take your pick for the estimated carrying capacity of the earth:
Bare subsistence diet = 19,500,997,142.85 persons.
World average diet 2006 = 6,204,862,727.27 persons
US typical diet = 460,549,865 persons.
Note: these are all very rough estimates, in some cases based on unverified data from the internet.
Yet all in all they seem suggestive of a reasonable range.
For example does it seem reasonable the earth could maintain a billion people with a US style diet? And if a billion people were bidding on US style diet what do you think the price would be?
It seems likely the earth has already passed the 2006 population estimate. Doesn’t that suggest that average diet should decrease, or perhaps that food prices should rise to call forth more production, or perhaps other factors have changed to increase efficiency?
This is all interesting stuff with no verifiable right answer. We can only used the estimates to try reach reasonable belief about what the future holds.
Bron,
Based on your comments, I thought you must like being reeeellly close to your neighbors. In the estimate you provided, the world would look more like Calcutta (now spelled Kolkata), than say, Toledo. Population density about 63,000/sq mi., or if you prefer metric, 24,000/sq km.
Toledo is an average mid-sized American city with a population density of 3,559 inhabitants per square mile, or 1,374 /km2. You really think it will be just fine for our grandchildren and their grandchildren to live in an overpopulated world, the like of which Kolkata gives us a peek into the future.
Bron,
OK, I’ll comment on that. You can’t feed, house, and water a human population of 36 billion. They’ll be housed on the arable land, which means they aren’t growing crops on it. The earth is not actually hollow. We can’t store people there. Where would their wastes go? Where they go now?
Arable land includes pasture, as well as plantations for rubber, cotton, tobacco, and many other non-food items
I already demonstrated that you were incorrect by a factor of one-thousand, probably more. I’m not in the mood to teach you any more simple mathematics. Find the UN report that the planet can support 36 billion humans, simultaneously, and get back to me.
The human population will never reach 36 billion. Seven billion humans will destroy complex life on earth, relatively quickly. It’s obvious to everyone, save you.
Don’t worry, I’m not one of those that thinks that Ayn Rand is a deranged psychopath.
She’s dead. She only used to be a deranged psychopath.
There is a reference that appears on the internet at numerous places to [FAO 1993]:
” The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat), is 0.5 of a hectare per person. This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies. Very few populous countries have more than an average of 0.25 of a hectare. It is realistic to suppose that the absolute minimum of arable land to support one person is a mere 0.07 of a hectare–and this assumes a largely vegetarian diet, no land degradation or water shortages, virtually no post-harvest waste, and farmers who know precisely when and how to plant, fertilize, irrigate, etc. [FAO, 1993]”
I have not been able to trace that quote to the UN organization.
However, I did find “FAO Fast Facts: The state of the worlds land and water resources” at
http :// www. fao.org/ fileadmin/user_upload/newsroom/docs/en-solaw-facts_1.pdf.
(I have not put the URL together because I think there are fewer problems when I do not include URL references. However the reader can easily type in or cut and paste the URL into a browser.)
That publication gives:
“Average number of hectares of cultivated area needed to feed one person in 1961: 0.45 ha
• Average number of hectares of cultivated area needed to feed one person in 2006: 0.22 ha.”
If one accepts the credibility of the quote that I could not verify then the number of adults that could be fed from 3 acres would be:
.07 hectares = .17 acres
3acres/.17 acres per person = approximately 17.6 persons for 3 acres.
That calculation would be for a bare subsistence diet.
A different quote that I found on the internet suggest that a US style diet requires approximately 1.2 acres per person.
Note the lower, unverified number is more favorable to Bron’s position regarding the number of people the earth can support. However it is no where near the number he claims in his calculation.
BTW, previously I submitted a remark that has not appeared. In the past my remarks appear in a few hours. Therefore I will not resubmit it for a while.
However the point of that remark was that claim of 3 acres to feed 10,000 is not clear at all when one reads the interview from “Splendid Table” in its entirety. The interview mentions 10,000 individuals, 40 tons of food, 3 acres and 200 acres under cultivation in several different locations.
If 3 acres produces 40 tons of food, which seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of the interview then:
40 tons/year * 2000 pounds per ton / 10,000 people = 8 pounds/person for a year of food.
It is clear that few people can subsist on 8 pounds of food per year.
I had thought Bron’s claim was that 3 acres could supply total nourishment for 10,000 people.
Perhaps I misunderstood Bron’s claim.
OS:
why would I move to a socialist hell hole?
Bob K:
Ok, so I took it down to 10 people per acre. There is still enough arable land. I didnt think that 10,000 number seemed right.
Why dont you comment on that? You can look up the amount of arable land in the world, that is what I used.
so then 80,000/3 = 26,667 lbs per acre or 2,667 lbs of food per year per person. Do you think they could live on 2,700 lbs of food for a year? That is over 7 lbs of food per day.
So it seems to me it is possible with the amount of land we have today. That doesnt take into account land that could be put into production nor hydroponics and aquaculture.
What OS said.
Joe Blowjob,
I don’t read your comments. Is your tactic, as a paid shill for climate-deniers (Koch brothers, probably indirectly) to fill up so much space that no one will read this thread?
Won’t work. I just skip your propaganda.
Bron,
You’re not going to find any UN report that says we can feed 36 billion people.
Have you seen three acres? I know what 3 acres is. I used to grow food intensively, on a farm. Three acres cannot feed 10,000 people, even if they eat dirt. If they ate one pound of dirt per day, that’d be 3,650,000 pounds (1,825 tons) of dirt per year. I think they’d run out of topsoil, pretty quickly.
I read the article. The 3 acres in question produce 40 tons of food per year.
That’s 80,000 pounds of food per year. That’s impressive. Good on them.
For 10,000 people, that works out to 8 pounds of food per person, per year.
I know of no one who can live on 8 pounds of food per year. There’s a nutcase in India, maybe more than one, that claims to require no sustenance at all. Perhaps a large percentage of the 10,000 people are charlatans from India?
Since you brought up Kansas:
National Association of Wheat Growers says,
“Kansas produces enough wheat each year to bake 36 billion loaves of bread and enough to feed everyone in the world, over six billion people, for about 2 weeks. An acre of Kansas wheat produces enough bread to feed nearly 9,000 people for one day.”
http://www.wheatworld.org/wheat-info/fast-facts/
Now that we have over seven billion people, it’s less than two weeks worth of wheat. I remind you that you can’t just eat wheat, and live, for very long.
Yes, I’m Malthusian, much. He was right. There was just no way Malthus could know how long it would take.
He had no way of knowing about human-generated global warming, or the extent (there’s that buzzword, again) of mechanization. Which, of course, contributes greatly to global warming.
I’m a Malthusian. Are you a mathematician? Doesn’t seem that way.
Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong
Top climate scientists have admitted that their global warming forecasts are wrong and world is not heating at the rate they claimed it was in a key report.
The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.
Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at it’s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “’Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”
The 2007 report included predictions of a decline in Antarctic sea ice, but the latest document does not explain why this year it is at a record high.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html
Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong
Top climate scientists have admitted that their global warming forecasts are wrong and world is not heating at the rate they claimed it was in a key report.
The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.
Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at it’s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “’Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”
The 2007 report included predictions of a decline in Antarctic sea ice, but the latest document does not explain why this year it is at a record high.
Here’s a novel idea. If they are so worried about sea level rise why not dig a big hole in the Saharan Desert pump sea water into it and build desalinization plants to produce potable water that could be used to provide irrigation. This way the people of Africa could grow their own food and plant trees to remove excess CO2. This way they won’t have to depend on USAID for bags of rice.
Bron,
If that seems like a good idea, take a year off and move to Calcutta.