When and how bad?

[Jim Williams]

If you can work out the impact on food prices of additional climate stress in producing regions, one could then start to attempt predictions for number of countries that would enter conditions of significant social unrest, and hypothetically work out some sort of ensemble model type approach where you assign those effects to specific countries and try to assess the impacts on the rest of the world (ensemble because obviously you can't predict accurately what happens where - but can try to make statistical predictions overall, eg percentage of world in a "collapsed" or "high conflict" state - the two not being quite the same).

I think the question of bringing rigour might merit it's own topic.

The problem in attempting to base any sort of model on the current political map is that we've already seen the breakdown of the nation state in several places.  (Not that the nation state is a very good idea to begin with.)  It isn't always the case that the collapse of a Nation equals a decrease in civilization.

Political boundaries might make for convenient initial conditions, but ultimately a model built upon them will prove not to be physically based.

[Anne]

If you can work out the impact on food prices of additional climate stress in producing regions, one could then start to attempt predictions for number of countries that would enter conditions of significant social unrest, and hypothetically work out some sort of ensemble model type approach where you assign those effects to specific countries and try to assess the impacts on the rest of the world (ensemble because obviously you can't predict accurately what happens where - but can try to make statistical predictions overall, eg percentage of world in a "collapsed" or "high conflict" state - the two not being quite the same).

Certainly it's my own concern that political consequences will start to flow - arguably they already have - long before we reach the "when and how bad" in terms of SLR and so on. But how useful or even feasible might this sort of model be? Populations are dynamic too, and feedback mechanisms are unpredictable.

The problem in attempting to base any sort of model on the current political map is that we've already seen the breakdown of the nation state in several places.  (Not that the nation state is a very good idea to begin with.)  It isn't always the case that the collapse of a Nation equals a decrease in civilization.

Political boundaries might make for convenient initial conditions, but ultimately a model built upon them will prove not to be physically based.

Nation states, and to some extent supranational organisations like the EU, are usually what make policy and how people's lives are governed. Signatories to the Kyoto Protocol ("developed countries") are already paying lip-service, at least, to the threat of climate change and are formulating policies to deal with it. Whether it's enough, and fast enough is another matter. 

Background to the Kyoto Protocol

As for less developed countries, they too have been developing National Action Plans. Most are available in English, and here are some random examples. It all makes sobering reading.
China
Chile
Egypt
India
Zambia

It would take a lot of research to discover what any of these avowed good intentions amount to in practice. 

Meanwhile, last month the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation published this list of countries requiring external food assistance. Click on the country name on the chart for fuller details. I can't understand why it hasn't received wider publicity.

Edited to correct links

[ccgwebmaster]

The problem in attempting to base any sort of model on the current political map is that we've already seen the breakdown of the nation state in several places.  (Not that the nation state is a very good idea to begin with.)  It isn't always the case that the collapse of a Nation equals a decrease in civilization.

Political boundaries might make for convenient initial conditions, but ultimately a model built upon them will prove not to be physically based.

How could one do better? You're quite right nation states are simply convenient packages (although I would argue there are usually some lines of division that define them that will persist even if you remove them - that isn't to say there aren't lines of division within nations too).

Perhaps one could model with geographic blocks at a finer resolution instead? In theory it sounds better - in practice I could foresee an awful lot of work to try to set up the blocks.

[ggelsrinc]

Global patterns in the vulnerability of
ecosystems to vegetation shifts due to
climate changegeb_558 755..768

Patrick Gonzalez1*, Ronald P. Neilson2, James M. Lenihan2 and
Raymond J. Drapek2

Source: http://pgonzalez.home.igc.org/Gonzalez_et_al_2010_GEB.pdf

Climate change leading to major vegetation shifts around the world

Source: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/06/04/climate/

When you look at the vegetation change map (in the above link), 2100 worse case looks like the world could produce more food as things get worse. The map changes from 1990 to 2100 and 2100 worse case. Spain doesn't make out in the deal, but most continents and major countries do. The projected change in vegetation is consistent with changes since the last glaciation max. Notice too, Greenland makes out on the deal, but you can kiss those coastal cities goodbye. There isn't much of an ice sheet left.



Here is another link with everything except that vegetation change map.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/06/07/climate.change.linked.major.vegetation.shifts.worldwide

[Jim Williams]

How could one do better? You're quite right nation states are simply convenient packages (although I would argue there are usually some lines of division that define them that will persist even if you remove them - that isn't to say there aren't lines of division within nations too).

Perhaps one could model with geographic blocks at a finer resolution instead? In theory it sounds better - in practice I could foresee an awful lot of work to try to set up the blocks.

Drainage basins and kinship groups (i.e. Kurdistan).  Mostly, drainage basins.  Some of those even have nations associated with them at the moment.

[Bruce Steele]

It seems much of this discussion relates to terrestrial ramification of GHG emissions. I think we are missing a large part of long term( >50 - 200years) ramifications by ignoring the changes taking place and projected to take place in ocean pH. We are currently producing ~ 9 GT carbon per year and if we stay on trend we will be producing double that by 2100. That will result in a .4 decrease in ocean pH by 2100 and another .3 decease  by 2200. That rate of change has no corollary in the last 300 million years. If the same increase in Co2 were to occur over 100,000 years the ocean pH would not change from current levels due to alkalinity supplied by terrestrial sources.Heating would proceed ,acidification wouldn't. Rate of change it critically important. To imply the earth will respond like fossil records of former thermal maxima is simply wrong because the forcing involved is time dependent. We are going to seriously compromise the carbon cycle that protects our terrestrial systems from rapid changes. Maybe this thread is only about worst case projections for humans but to ignore worst case for so many other lifeforms is shortsighted at best or simply suicidal.                                                              https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/AnthropogenicCandOceanpH.pdf

   

[ivica]

Bruce, I took your "Maybe this thread is only about worst case projections for humans but to ignore worst case for so many other lifeforms is shortsighted at best or simply suicidal."

[wili]

Bruce said: " Rate of change it critically important."

Thanks you.

Rate of change is the difference between me slowly and gently turning your head with my hand, and me putting my hand in a cannon and blowing of your head off with it.

Especially for species adaptation, the faster things change the surer it is that they will be left stranded, with no possibility of adaptation.

[Vergent]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Technology/stray-dogs-master-complex-moscow-subway-system/story?id=10145833#.UXYdkaLTMSY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1JiJzqXxgxo#

V

[Laurent]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Empathy-Natures-Lessons/dp/0307407772/ref=pd_sim_b_2
Interesting book  (Your local book seller is the best place to buy)

[ccgwebmaster]

When you look at the vegetation change map (in the above link), 2100 worse case looks like the world could produce more food as things get worse. The map changes from 1990 to 2100 and 2100 worse case. Spain doesn't make out in the deal, but most continents and major countries do. The projected change in vegetation is consistent with changes since the last glaciation max. Notice too, Greenland makes out on the deal, but you can kiss those coastal cities goodbye. There isn't much of an ice sheet left.

My main issue with that paper is that it is based on modelling. I'm highly skeptical of anything that is produced from climate models, as while some of them do appear to have been able to generally predict some effects, their projected rate of change is way off in key areas (Arctic sea ice anyone?).

I'm generally aware that an increase in agricultural yields was originally predicted from climate change using modelling, and yet - observational data based papers would appear to be concluding we are already seeing a decline - even if it's only measurable through diminishing gains in yield to date (ie the negative effects of climate change are not yet greater than the general tendency to improve yields year on year).

Apart from perhaps Greenland, where they are growing things they used to not be able to grow and which was agriculturally practically useless until recently - is anyone aware of any other regions experiencing agricultural benefits due to climate change to date? Please note I am not including an ability to grow different crops as automatically a benefit, ie if it is now possible to grow better wine grapes in the south of England - by definition some crop was displaced in order to do that.

[ccgwebmaster]

It seems much of this discussion relates to terrestrial ramification of GHG emissions. I think we are missing a large part of long term( >50 - 200years) ramifications by ignoring the changes taking place and projected to take place in ocean pH. We are currently producing ~ 9 GT carbon per year and if we stay on trend we will be producing double that by 2100. That will result in a .4 decrease in ocean pH by 2100 and another .3 decease  by 2200. That rate of change has no corollary in the last 300 million years. If the same increase in Co2 were to occur over 100,000 years the ocean pH would not change from current levels due to alkalinity supplied by terrestrial sources.Heating would proceed ,acidification wouldn't. Rate of change it critically important. To imply the earth will respond like fossil records of former thermal maxima is simply wrong because the forcing involved is time dependent. We are going to seriously compromise the carbon cycle that protects our terrestrial systems from rapid changes. Maybe this thread is only about worst case projections for humans but to ignore worst case for so many other lifeforms is shortsighted at best or simply suicidal.                                                              https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/AnthropogenicCandOceanpH.pdf

I think you raise a good point in highlighting things other than direct impacts on people - since we depend upon the natural world (and the oceans are rather important).

That paper seems to be predicated on ongoing human emissions for centuries and an ultimate carbon dioxide level of 1900ppm? While I can see we may well get a significant contribution from natural feedbacks - that's a fairly big stretch from now. I certainly do not see human emissions continuing unabated for centuries (or even decades, though opinions vary).

I'm curious though to understand better the interaction between acidification and the ability of the oceans to sink carbon. I've seen things like this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090216092937.htm

But it seems to concern wind driven mixing. That article does mention carbon dioxide at depth from dead things sinking - is it possible if the productivity of the oceans were greatly reduced by lower pH in the waters nearer to the surface this would help insulate the lower water? (as less carbon would be transported down?)

Does acidification play a role in altering the ability of the ocean to sink carbon dioxide above and beyond inhibiting productivity by directly impacting on the food web? Is it reasonable to suppose the ocean would also contain potential disaster taxa likely to rapidly recolonise if it undergoes a mass extinction? (while noting they may be of limited to nil value for humans - jellyfish come to mind)

[ccgwebmaster]

I've argued that the longer term consequences of climate change could ultimately put the human race on the edge of extinction. I wanted to cite this in support of that argument:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.full.pdf+html

I'm also going to observe that while sea level rise is a serious threat - perhaps anyone looking to the longer term future should consider this aspect too? Please note I'm very much talking long term here - not within the next few years.

[Bruce Steele]

ccgwebmaster,  Co2 can dissolve into seawater if the partial pressure of Co2 in the atmosphere is higher than the oceans but the opposite is also true, carbonic acid can disassociate and the Co2 can move back into the atmosphere if the pressure difference reverses. So the oceans are currently absorbing the Co2 in the atmosphere that has built up from ~ 280ppm to ~ 400 ppm over the last 150 years. This process takes time so the oceans will continue to acidify even after we quit emitting GHG. The chart I linked shows this 100+ year lag in pH change although our  our emissions will have fallen much earlier.     Carbon sinks have different lifetimes, some short and some like calcium carbonate ( shells ) very long under certain conditions. Shell material can only build up if they settle on the bottom of the oceans at relatively shallow depths. In the deep ocean pressure and cold force the shells to dissolve so the 37,000 billion tons of carbon in the deep oceans can if moved back to the surface waters disassociate. This has been theorized as a possible trigger for the K/T extinction.    The longest sink, shells ,is currently changing because as the oceans absorb and equalize the carbon load the depth at which those shells dissolve gets shallower(shoaling). That carbon which would under " normal" conditions and the processes of tectonics would have eventually been pushed up and onto the continents as marble, diatomaceous earth ,limestone ,etc. is changing.  There are no papers that quantify the amount of ocean floor worldwide being thus transformed but I will link to a paper that does so for the Iceland Sea. From the paper " each year another 800 km2 of seafloor becomes exposed to water that have become undersaturated with respect to aragonite" ( one form of calcium carbonate)   " the saturation horizon is currently at 1710 meters and shoaling 4 meters per year.".           I realize these processes take centuries to unfold but we only need to keep emissions at our current rate for another 80 years to trigger a ocean pH change of -.7 pH worldwide( in the next century)There will be many many lifeforms go extinct should we do so and the proven fossil fuel reserves are of a  volume to accomplish this madness.                                                                                                     http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/2661/2009/bg-6-2661-2009.pdf

       

[Bruce Steele]

ccgwebmaster, I drink my chocolate milk bitter these days. Luckily my wife understands acidification so I have someone to talk to . I have spent every morning since before the GAC last summer reading on The ASIB site and trying to expand my understanding. I haven't posted on the ASIB blog because I'm way out of my element there. The ocean currents , clathrates, and ocean heating however are ocean related and more in my knowledge base. I am not in academia and the acidification subject isn't easy to start up a conversation with. I am trying to increase other peoples awareness of this subject because it plays a role in the carbon cycle and the atmosphere / oceans interaction.  In my last post I said cold and pressure lead to dissolution of shells but that is because dissolved Co2 concentrates under those conditions and makes the pH decrease. I try to explain this stuff in language other people can understand but if I am not clear, or worse incorrect, I would like to know. Thanks in advance           

[ccgwebmaster]

I realize these processes take centuries to unfold but we only need to keep emissions at our current rate for another 80 years to trigger a ocean pH change of -.7 pH worldwide( in the next century)There will be many many lifeforms go extinct should we do so and the proven fossil fuel reserves are of a  volume to accomplish this madness.                                                                                                     http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/2661/2009/bg-6-2661-2009.pdf

Thanks very much for the links and explanation. I certainly previously underappreciated the importance of this issue.

It seems to me that unless that 80 years of current emissions is taking into account likely natural feedbacks adding carbon dioxide into the system (permafrost and forest dieback for example) - we have already lost a significant chunk (worst case all) of that time in terms of changing our behaviour (notwithstanding serious effects even before falling short of the stated outcome).

A couple minor questions:

Am I right to think carbon dioxide coming back out of the oceans contributes to the "long tail" in the atmosphere?

And that anyone contemplating CDR geoengineering needs to consider that effect in their calculations, ie it is not enough to just remove x gigatonnes from the atmosphere as some portion of them will reenter from the ocean? (I appreciate that need not be strictly true until the system reaches equilibrium - so my question assumes a long term view on CDR)

In my last post I said cold and pressure lead to dissolution of shells but that is because dissolved Co2 concentrates under those conditions and makes the pH decrease. I try to explain this stuff in language other people can understand but if I am not clear, or worse incorrect, I would like to know. Thanks in advance   

Since lower temperatures usually slow rates of reaction I wasn't sure how cold would play a role, though I presume the variation in water temperature is minor once you get into deep water? (ie pressure would be the major factor?)

Otherwise I think my understanding/awareness of ocean acidification just took a big jump thanks - I'd have previously pegged it as "something rather bad but not sure how bad", and now it seems to me the scenario I would have previously taken as "absolute worst case" is actually rather probable - and my hopes that the oceans would recover and regain long term productivity on human timescales (in the absence of much more human pressure) perhaps rather optimistic.

Regarding acidification I'm particularly curious to know if there is anything that describes how the marine ecosystem looks in the longer term view (ie what species remain? how does the food web arrange itself?).

I can sense parts of my world view trying to rearrange themselves, that might take a little while...

[Bruce Steele]

ccgwebmaster, The graphs linked were for projected changes as a result of fossil fuel emissions .they did not include the clathrate bomb scenario ( although they understand it ) because the magnitude of the methane issue is unresolved.   Re. The long tail. - because Co2 is a two way road several things come into play. Heat +  the expansion of sea-water reduces the strength of the thermal/pressure differential that keeps all that carbon at depth.  The Eastern Pacific equatorial region is monitored with a set of buoys stretching  east to west across the Pacific. Surface waters of the easternmost TAO buoy record+ 500 umol/mol year round and surface atmospheric concentrations approaching 400 umol/mol . As you proceed west both dissolved Co2 and atmospheric Co2 go down the farther west you go.          Yes pressure is the dominant force for the extra Co2 at depth but Co2 dissolves more readily in cold water. Think of a cold verses hot soda can. Pop the lid on a hot soda and you may get a little geyser. Re. The biological ramification... There has been a lot of work to find an answer and there is a lot of variability in different species responses. Here too degree and rate of change will play their part.    Should we actually proceed with BAU the resultant 7.5 average ocean pH next century will result in    extinctions of branching corals, some mollusks,foraminifera , and a damn big list. I know everyone    says the PETM is the best parallel to our current emissions path but if you'd like to look way  back into      the End Permian event I suggest Andy Knoll's work.                                                                                                                                                http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/Qj2TXCwagujI7kjESbJR/full/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105329


                                                                                           http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/2661/2009/bg-6-2661-2009.pdf

             

[wili]

cgg wrote:

"I certainly do not see human emissions continuing unabated for centuries (or even decades, though opinions vary)."

Vary, indeed.

It does not take a very advanced civilization to extract fossil fuels. The Greeks probably were doing it.

FF provide power, and humans are driven to maximize their own power.

As we have seen with tar sands, price is not a barrier to extracting these things. Once the price gets high enough, every dirty, low-EROEI source will be exploited.

Coal plants have been shut down, but have any still fully producing coal mines, or still rich oil wells, or gas fields been abandoned because the companies or countries decided it was bad for the planet?

I know of no such case, and I have heard of no such calls (except for new ventures, like tar sands) to shut down mines and wells that are still producing at a good rate over GW concerns.

I would be happy to be shown otherwise.

So I think it is highly likely that every molecule of extractable ff will eventually be dug up, pumped out, or fracked away, and we will see resulting gw eventually that are worse than nearly anyone is predicting at this point.

When that happens is always hard to say exactly, but things are spinning pretty rapidly out of kilter in the Arctic, and that is the area where many of the strongest feedbacks are primed to erupt.

[ccgwebmaster]

cgg wrote:
It does not take a very advanced civilization to extract fossil fuels. The Greeks probably were doing it.

It takes a considerable amount more effort and technology to scavenge into ever deeper mines/wells and more marginal sources though. The easiest resources are largely all gone now - exploited to oblivion. The rising price and diminishing returns (and flow rate...) of ever harder resources place an increasing brake on economic activity long before they actually run out, additional to the rising technological bar.

The Greeks couldn't have drilled deep water wells or blown up mountains to get their cheap fix though I grant that a small portion of the resources might still be accessible at a substantially lower technological level.

I think that the demand for such resources would also fall substantially (if not almost entirely) in a collapsed or regressed world. It isn't just about supply.

I know of no such case, and I have heard of no such calls (except for new ventures, like tar sands) to shut down mines and wells that are still producing at a good rate over GW concerns.

I would be happy to be shown otherwise.

So I think it is highly likely that every molecule of extractable ff will eventually be dug up, pumped out, or fracked away, and we will see resulting gw eventually that are worse than nearly anyone is predicting at this point.

When that happens is always hard to say exactly, but things are spinning pretty rapidly out of kilter in the Arctic, and that is the area where many of the strongest feedbacks are primed to erupt.

I think your observation that nobody has really stopped exploiting these resources to date over climate change concerns is a strong argument against us stopping so of our own volition. However I think the aforementioned rapid changes in the Arctic will be so serious for our civilisation (in combination with other factors noted previously) that we will have the decision made for us.

If one makes the assumption civilisation can continue for many more decades - then yes, I'd have to agree a significant quantity of additional human emissions needs considered as probable.

[Vergent]

Tar pits were used at least 9,000 bp. Per the Page museum.

347 AD Oil wells are drilled in China up to 800 feet [240 m] deep using bits attached to bamboo poles.

http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/D02/to1899_index.html

They are still drilling wells this shallow in the LA area.

The only  way to stop the mining/pumping is to tax the products to the point where the green alternatives are much cheaper. The tax should be ramped up over a long enough period to build a renewable replacement. The money from the tax would be used to pay for the green infrastructure. If you knew that gas was going to be $10/L in 10 years, no one would buy a new gas car. All car production would switch to electric.

Vergent

[JimD]

Here is a interesting PEW poll on American opinions on priorities.  I expect the results would be similar in many other countries.  Until these priorities change the politicians are not going to change either so policies will remain largely the same for some time to come.

American public priorities:
1.   Strengthening nation’s economy 86%
2.   Improving job situation 79%
3.   Reducing budget deficit  72%
4. Defending against terrorism 71%
5. Securing Social Security 70%
6. Improving education  70%
7. Securing Medicare 65%
8. Reducing health care costs 63%
9. Helping poor and needy 57%
10.  Reducing crime 55%
11. Protecting environment 52%
12. Dealing with nation’s energy problem 45%
13. Strengthening the military 41%
14. Dealing with illegal immigration 39%
15. Strengthening gun control laws 37%
16. Dealing with global trade 31%
17. Improving infrastructure 30%
18. Dealing with global warming 28%

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/04/22/earth_day_pew_research_poll_shows_how_little_americans_care_about_the_planet.html

[TerryM]

JimD


I think you'll find that the US is an outlier when it comes to concerns over global warming. In this case American Exceptionalism is real, but not much of a help to anyone. Faux News & Heartland have been very successful in spreading doubt.


Terry

[theoldinsane]

JimD and Terry

A similar survey in Sweden showed the following results:
http://www.som.gu.se/digitalAssets/1447/1447202_som-seminariet-2013.pdf

Which issue or social problem do you think is most important in Sweden today?

1 Labour 38 %
2 Education  24%
3 Health care 23%
4 Integration / immigration 20%
5 Elderly issues 16%
6 Social Issues / problems 14 %
7 Environment / Energy 14%
8 Financials 11 % [/b]
9 Law and order 7%
10 Family Policies 4 %

It's sad, but I do not think Sweden is an outliner globally. But perhaps the US?

[Anne]

Globescan polled citizens from 22 countries about their attitudes to environment and climate change. It reveals a dismaying downturn in concern, but this was before Sandy.
http://www.globescan.com/commentary-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases-2013/261-environmental-concerns-at-record-lows-global-poll.html

YouGov here in the UK found that the wording "climate change" produced a more concerned response than "global warming" - not surprising when you consider people's woeful tendency to assume their local weather is representative of the world at large.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/04/03/climate-change/

One of UK's major polling companies doesn't even seem to have a category for it. The nearest thing is "Countryside/Rural life", which hardly begins to cover the issues, and which has rated as a very minor issue in polls over the last 30 years.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2905/Issues-Index-2012-onwards.aspx?view=wide

[ccgwebmaster]

I think you'll find that the US is an outlier when it comes to concerns over global warming. In this case American Exceptionalism is real, but not much of a help to anyone. Faux News & Heartland have been very successful in spreading doubt.

I'm not sure America is exceptional in this respect. In Russia (anecdotally only I'm afraid to say) my experience is that climate change is a total non issue or a little joke - "yes, we'd love to be warmer". The degree of denial and disregard may vary a bit by nation, but almost nowhere is remotely near being a bastion of enlightenment.

I think people only really "get" local issues. When your own crops fail, your own village is flooded and destroyed by the sea, etc - then you perhaps start to be concerned. Even here a lot of environmental issues are more complex, with factors other than climate change playing a role (eg deforestation, weather variability, etc).

Consequently my impression is that climate change is mostly a vague concern to western middle classes at best (the rich patently do not care, and the poor struggle to survive days ahead, never mind years or decades) and a real concern only for those people already being crushed by the hammer (who may not always realise the wider context of what is happening to them...).

Plenty of western middle class people might protest this - but actions speak a lot louder than words. Meaningful actions seem rather thin on the ground.

With respect to Sandy as mentioned by Anne - that I saw - it registered as a little blip in the US - people sailing from that area talked about climate change for a few weeks afterwards (and it got a little lip service from Obama). I'm pretty sure it has now just become another fact of life and the climate change element has faded away from peoples minds - just as with:
- European heat wave 2003
- UK flooding 2007
- Russian drought 2010, Pakistan floods
- US drought 2012
etc

I see no basis in reality for a "grand awakening" as some people seem to think (or hope...) will occur.

[JimD]

Terry,

A valid point.  There are a number of countries that are much more cognizant of the issues than the US.  But I see the aggregate as the driver of the situation.

My impression is that the US poll results would largely hold for China, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.  In other words for a majority of the world population.  Places like India have a fair complaint about being pressured to restrain CO2 emissions when they say that they will limit themselves to the same Per Capita emissions that the US is responsible for.  Since the US is politically incapable of meeting such a goal we are not likely to make meaningful progress until that changes.  I think.

[OldLeatherneck]

Here is a interesting PEW poll on American opinions on priorities.  I expect the results would be similar in many other countries.  Until these priorities change the politicians are not going to change either so policies will remain largely the same for some time to come.

American public priorities:
1.   Strengthening nation’s economy 86%
2.   Improving job situation 79%
3.   Reducing budget deficit  72%
4. Defending against terrorism 71%
5. Securing Social Security 70%
6. Improving education  70%
7. Securing Medicare 65%
8. Reducing health care costs 63%
9. Helping poor and needy 57%
10.  Reducing crime 55%
11. Protecting environment 52%
12. Dealing with nation’s energy problem 45%
13. Strengthening the military 41%
14. Dealing with illegal immigration 39%
15. Strengthening gun control laws 37%
16. Dealing with global trade 31%
17. Improving infrastructure 30%
18. Dealing with global warming 28%

The disturbing fact about seeing dealing with global warming relegated to #18 on this list is that if we do not curb global warming it will have a direct impact on many of the other problems identified as higher concerns.

Not dealing with global warming will:
1.  Cause destruction of infrastructure (#17)
2.  Continue our dependence on fossil fuels (#12)
3.  Continue the destruction of the environment (#11)
4.  Place an exponentially increasing burden on the economy (#1), thereby reducing the government's ability to properly fund the following:
     a.  Social Security (#5)
     b.  Education (#6)
     c.  Medicare (#7)
     d.  Health Care (#8)

This should indicate that we, in the US, have our priorities all confused.  The misinformation campaign by the "Denialist Industry" has been very effective.  Until dealing with AGW/CC becomes at least #3 on the list of priorities for policy makers, nothing will be done of a preventive measure.

[ccgwebmaster]

The disturbing fact about seeing dealing with global warming relegated to #18 on this list is that if we do not curb global warming it will have a direct impact on many of the other problems identified as higher concerns.

I think you just nicely articulated why there will be no grand awakening where people suddenly decide to get together and tackle global warming. Other problems may always be perceived as more severe (though education and increasing numbers of weather disasters may gradually move climate change higher).

This should indicate that we, in the US, have our priorities all confused.  The misinformation campaign by the "Denialist Industry" has been very effective.  Until dealing with AGW/CC becomes at least #3 on the list of priorities for policy makers, nothing will be done of a preventive measure.

I don't think it can all be laid at the feet of the denialist industry. While many people bought what they are selling (and I hold that belongs at the feet of those people as well as the denialist industry - we all have choices) even those who know better largely fail to act appropriately to the magnitude of the problem.

An awful lot of this smacks of "just following orders" in the Milgram style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). In the same way - almost everyone remains happy to try to devolve their personal responsibility to the collective or leadership.

We may be protesting a little as we murder current and future generations by our actions, but we are not fundamentally changing our actions.

[wili]

"We may be protesting a little as we murder current and future generations by our actions, but we are not fundamentally changing our actions."

Nicely put, ccg.

Sorry to be late getting back to you on the civilization collapse thing. I used to be quite convinced that peak oil would bring about pretty instantaneous civilization collapse. But it looks like it hasn't. Instead, it has priced oil at a high enough price that really dirty sources, such as tar sands, are now economically viable.

I expect that something like this is how it will go all the way down, though 'civilization' may more and more devolve into merely the industries that extract and refine oil, and the military that protects their oil (and of course the industries that support the military--MIC...)

All the rest of us, with perhaps the exception of some .1% folks, will more and more be excluded from access to any sort of power (in any sense).

To what extent such a configuration could be considered 'civilization' is I guess a matter of definition. And we may well have a more universal type of civilization-wide collapse soon, for any number of reasons. The political and financial realms do not seem to have a strong ethic of self preservation (except to come to each others aid when needed). But the military and most of the ff industry do (though not a long-term enough sense when it comes to global warming). Essentially, the MIC will do whatever it needs to do to survive, including taking over the ff industries. The rest of us will have to fend for ourselves.

[Bruce Steele]

Wili, I have to agree with you about price not being an impediment to continuing BAU. I don't think 1000 ppm is an unlikely outcome. Most of the forecasts seem to stop there although everyone seems to understand the likelihood that  extra methane will kick things into high gear should we broach the 1000 ppm milestone. If 1.5 C above preindustrial is  a threshold we will see methane playing a larger role before we cross 1000.  I have posted about what changes are expected for ocean pH, temperature , bioproductivity , and O2 at the 1000 ppm threshold. I haven't ever heard of ocean temperatures above 100 F but studies of end Permian ocean temperatures seem to point to the possibility.   I still don't think society will continue to turn a blind eye although I suppose methane pushing higher each year over the Arctic and Antarctic will scare me a lot more than your average duck.   So here is the end Permian article.                                                                                      http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112716258/permian-extinction-hot-101912/

[JimD]

Here is a great post on Skeptical Science concerning what our ultimate temperature rise will be.  It is great for throwing out one's best gut feeling and then seeing where we end up.  Sobering.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ClimateForks.html

Taking my predictions up thread on when I think we will start taking serious action in the future I get a number somewhere in the 4-5C range.

[ritter]

Taking my predictions up thread on when I think we will start taking serious action in the future I get a number somewhere in the 4-5C range.

If we get to that point, humans go extinct and we take most of the current life forms with us.  We've got to turn this thing around now or we have no chance. It should have been turned around decades ago so that our children could enjoy a life.

[fishmahboi]

Taking my predictions up thread on when I think we will start taking serious action in the future I get a number somewhere in the 4-5C range.

If we get to that point, humans go extinct and we take most of the current life forms with us.  We've got to turn this thing around now or we have no chance. It should have been turned around decades ago so that our children could enjoy a life.

Is it still even possible for us to turn this thing around before things get even worse? From what I have read on this thread and others, I believe that we have already passed the point where action is possible.

[ritter]

If we get to that point, humans go extinct and we take most of the current life forms with us.  We've got to turn this thing around now or we have no chance. It should have been turned around decades ago so that our children could enjoy a life.

Is it still even possible for us to turn this thing around before things get even worse? From what I have read on this thread and others, I believe that we have already passed the point where action is possible.

This is my fear as well. And since it is unrealistic to expect any sort of concerted political action within the next 5-10 years (based on past and current efforts), we'll keep on keepin on with BAU until the wheels fall off. I think I just heard three of the four lug nuts go flying....

When I catch myself with pleasant daydreams of the future or planning something several years in advance, I always get a bit depressed with the realization that we may not have several years and if we do, they may very well be hungry, brutish and cruel.

[ccgwebmaster]

Wili, I have to agree with you about price not being an impediment to continuing BAU. I don't think 1000 ppm is an unlikely outcome. Most of the forecasts seem to stop there although everyone seems to understand the likelihood that  extra methane will kick things into high gear should we broach the 1000 ppm milestone.

I think peak oil is a more significant social stressor already than perhaps people realise. It was never likely to cause "instant" collapse (very few things indeed can do that...). I do not think BAU is viable for a lot longer even just looking at peak oil.

The reason is that modern civilisation is predicated on a cheap energy source. The zone of profitable financial extraction of fossil fuel resources is narrowing rapidly. That is - it's expensive to get this exotic stuff and only a price per barrel above a certain threshold makes it pointful.

The market can chase the price per barrel high enough to make extraction profitable but at that point the cost of fuel is so high it sucks life out of other portions of the economy (much as high food prices can also).

That is not sustainable, because the next thing you get is demand destruction. The more disposable sections of the economy start to fold and the demand for oil drops, allowing the price to fall back down. At this point it ceases to be profitable to extract or develop options for the more exotic options and projects start to be shelved.

I think rising food and fuel prices (bear in mind almost everything is affected by the price of oil) were a factor in triggering the economy collapse originating from subprime mortgages. The people who took out the most marginal financial products were also the most vulnerable to a price rise in the necessities of life.

All that said - if peak oil was our only concern - I think in theory we could muddle through while the market found alternative sources of energy that could start to fit in from a cost effectiveness point of view. Peak oil is only one of many stressors - and one that may be relatively gentle compared to weather impacts on agriculture.

I don't see us getting anywhere near 1000ppm from human activities but natural feedbacks are a real unknown. Still, at least one must keep doubling carbon dioxide to see each increment of effect (this ultimately works in our favour)...

[ccgwebmaster]

If we get to that point, humans go extinct and we take most of the current life forms with us.  We've got to turn this thing around now or we have no chance. It should have been turned around decades ago so that our children could enjoy a life.

Is it still even possible for us to turn this thing around before things get even worse? From what I have read on this thread and others, I believe that we have already passed the point where action is possible.

This is my fear as well. And since it is unrealistic to expect any sort of concerted political action within the next 5-10 years (based on past and current efforts), we'll keep on keepin on with BAU until the wheels fall off. I think I just heard three of the four lug nuts go flying....

When I catch myself with pleasant daydreams of the future or planning something several years in advance, I always get a bit depressed with the realization that we may not have several years and if we do, they may very well be hungry, brutish and cruel.

I'm not a big fan of people saying we'll go extinct. I'm not yet aware of any empirical evidence that extinction is inevitable (and as soon as I find time I'm going to write a blog article dedicated to exactly this issue that tries to bring a little science to bear on the matter). It's a clarion call to defeatism and inaction, while not wanting to detract from the incredibly ugly and hostile future we face.

I do not believe any "turn-around" is possible now, but there are still things to play for taking the long view. It ain't over till it's over.

[ritter]

I'm not a big fan of people saying we'll go extinct. I'm not yet aware of any empirical evidence that extinction is inevitable (and as soon as I find time I'm going to write a blog article dedicated to exactly this issue that tries to bring a little science to bear on the matter). It's a clarion call to defeatism and inaction, while not wanting to detract from the incredibly ugly and hostile future we face.

I do not believe any "turn-around" is possible now, but there are still things to play for taking the long view. It ain't over till it's over.

All species go extinct given a long enough timeline and mass extinctions tend to be associated with "grand events" similar to what we are in the early stages of. This is especially true of large, resource hungry species. What makes us unique in being exempt from this?

And I never said give up, go crawl under a rock and wait to die. I don't, however, have much hope in a government-based solution. Individually, we'll all give it a go, till it's over.   

[ccgwebmaster]

I'm not a big fan of people saying we'll go extinct. I'm not yet aware of any empirical evidence that extinction is inevitable (and as soon as I find time I'm going to write a blog article dedicated to exactly this issue that tries to bring a little science to bear on the matter). It's a clarion call to defeatism and inaction, while not wanting to detract from the incredibly ugly and hostile future we face.

I do not believe any "turn-around" is possible now, but there are still things to play for taking the long view. It ain't over till it's over.

All species go extinct given a long enough timeline and mass extinctions tend to be associated with "grand events" similar to what we are in the early stages of. This is especially true of large, resource hungry species. What makes us unique in being exempt from this?

And I never said give up, go crawl under a rock and wait to die. I don't, however, have much hope in a government-based solution. Individually, we'll all give it a go, till it's over.   

Well, to be fair - nothing. I ought to have more carefully phrased what I said as an argument that extinction is not inevitable as a result of climate change (note that saying it is not inevitable is not the same thing as saying it is unlikely!). Of course everything dies in the end, taking a long enough view.

And no, you didn't say anything about said rock - too many people effectively cultivate the "do nothing as its pointless" attitude in a wider sense though, to my mind.

[fishmahboi]

@CGSWebmaster

I am with you with regards the pointlessness of giving up, but it is pretty depressing that at some point within the decade, society is just going to disappear with most of the plans that people have made just being smashed to nothing. The hopes for the future being the main focus, as the certain bleak future creeps in from the blind spot.

There is hope for survival at least and there is hope for society to restore itself in the long run, but to see it collapse so soon, leaving a barren world to the new generation.

[ggelsrinc]

When you look at the vegetation change map (in the above link), 2100 worse case looks like the world could produce more food as things get worse. The map changes from 1990 to 2100 and 2100 worse case. Spain doesn't make out in the deal, but most continents and major countries do. The projected change in vegetation is consistent with changes since the last glaciation max. Notice too, Greenland makes out on the deal, but you can kiss those coastal cities goodbye. There isn't much of an ice sheet left.

My main issue with that paper is that it is based on modelling. I'm highly skeptical of anything that is produced from climate models, as while some of them do appear to have been able to generally predict some effects, their projected rate of change is way off in key areas (Arctic sea ice anyone?).

I'm generally aware that an increase in agricultural yields was originally predicted from climate change using modelling, and yet - observational data based papers would appear to be concluding we are already seeing a decline - even if it's only measurable through diminishing gains in yield to date (ie the negative effects of climate change are not yet greater than the general tendency to improve yields year on year).

Apart from perhaps Greenland, where they are growing things they used to not be able to grow and which was agriculturally practically useless until recently - is anyone aware of any other regions experiencing agricultural benefits due to climate change to date? Please note I am not including an ability to grow different crops as automatically a benefit, ie if it is now possible to grow better wine grapes in the south of England - by definition some crop was displaced in order to do that.

I don't put faith in computer models for the Earth's climate, but I do put faith in science and common sense. A warmer Earth is a wetter Earth and the Earth has the most deserts during the height of glaciation. Even with global warming, the fact is the Earth is in an Ice Age. There is data about past interglacials which shows if the Earth warms more we can kiss our coastal cities goodbye and that includes cities like London and Washington DC. The data also shows the Earth will not lose net areas to produce food, but the areas will change, because major climate patterns will change. Consider the Neolithic Subpluvial which lasted about 4,000 years and the Abbassia Pluvial which lasted about 30,000 years. Obviously turning the Sahara green requires major changes in climate patterns, so if the Earth did so during the Holocene thermal maximum and the Eemian, why wouldn't it eventually happen again? The best model for a warmer Earth is the past Earth that was warm.

We don't have a problem with agriculture or technology, but we have a problem with economics and politics. Mankind hasn't wised up enough to feed starving people in the past, so why would they wise up in the near future as areas designed to produce food for past climates are changed. People aren't able to migrate away from bad areas like they were allowed in the past. As the climates change in various areas of the world, there will be unfortunate people who will benefit, but history tells me mankind will let the people who don't have something of monetary value to offer die of starvation, even with a world capable of producing enough food.

Agricultural production is based on marketing and not the ability to grow a crop. I'm sure vast areas in Canada and Russia have become more productive for wheat, because the wheat belt is traveling northwards. The farmers around here grow winter wheat and soybeans to build up nitrogen for a switch to corn. The climate in my area is better now than it was in the past and plenty of farmers are paid not to grow crops in America. Many American farmers have expanded operations in Brazil, because the land prices are cheaper. Farmers work to get paid for the crops they grow and they adjust production to the demand of the market.

There definitely should be concern about making rapid changes and the fact is we don't know how sensitive the Earth is to the ways we have changed it. There is no past model of a 400 ppm CO2 ice age Earth, let alone all the other contributions mankind has done to change things. As a country develops, it isn't going to want the aerosol pollution which masks greenhouse gas warming.   

[crandles]

This is not to say there aren't constantly problems with the weather/climate in various places, and many people going hungry.  But overall, at the moment, the trend is to greater food production and more stable supply.

http://earlywarn.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/global-crop-production.html

[Laurent]

Should we be happy that is does follow the trend of C02 in the atmosphere.
 

[fishmahboi]

I am not sure. I could interpret what you're saying as a joke, but just to put my views forward, I feel that sooner or later food production will decrease and will detract from the increase in CO2 as food production declines.

[crandles]

I am not sure. I could interpret what you're saying as a joke, but just to put my views forward, I feel that sooner or later food production will decrease and will detract from the increase in CO2 as food production declines.

How much of a decline do you expect before we start making efforts to minimise food waste, and throwing more labour and land at the food problem?

How do cities get fed? They clearly aren't self sufficient. How is all the transport arrangements made? The answer is the market mechanisms of supply and demand. Why should anyone think that will all fall apart? Why not a steady increase in prices if/as weather causes more disruption and falling food production causing more effort to minimise food waste and bring more land into food production? Markets sometimes have shocks but they seem to react and cope after a shock rather than completely falling apart.

[ccgwebmaster]

I don't put faith in computer models for the Earth's climate, but I do put faith in science and common sense. A warmer Earth is a wetter Earth and the Earth has the most deserts during the height of glaciation. Even with global warming, the fact is the Earth is in an Ice Age. There is data about past interglacials which shows if the Earth warms more we can kiss our coastal cities goodbye and that includes cities like London and Washington DC. The data also shows the Earth will not lose net areas to produce food, but the areas will change, because major climate patterns will change. Consider the Neolithic Subpluvial which lasted about 4,000 years and the Abbassia Pluvial which lasted about 30,000 years. Obviously turning the Sahara green requires major changes in climate patterns, so if the Earth did so during the Holocene thermal maximum and the Eemian, why wouldn't it eventually happen again? The best model for a warmer Earth is the past Earth that was warm.

To me it isn't a safe assumption that a warmer planet - even if able to support a similar or greater vegetated area - will have exactly the right climatic regions for the crops we've spent thousands of years matching to existing locations and conditions?

America - being both large and agriculturally important - is demonstrating the sort of issues already, even before the sea ice has started to melt out in the summer. With a persistent jet stream part of the country appears to be dry and hot - and the other damp and cool. In neither side are the farmers especially happy with their lot - and yet (ironically) if you just added up the annual data for rainfall or temperature and smoothed it out enough, you probably wouldn't even see any effect in the figures. Overall - it isn't necessarily hotter or colder or wetter or dryer - but each condition is becoming more extreme. If you measured the increase in extremes, you might start to see something (as Hansen did for extremes of heat).

We don't have a problem with agriculture or technology, but we have a problem with economics and politics. Mankind hasn't wised up enough to feed starving people in the past, so why would they wise up in the near future as areas designed to produce food for past climates are changed. People aren't able to migrate away from bad areas like they were allowed in the past. As the climates change in various areas of the world, there will be unfortunate people who will benefit, but history tells me mankind will let the people who don't have something of monetary value to offer die of starvation, even with a world capable of producing enough food.

Yes, I think economics and politics definitely have issues. As illustrated earlier - agricultural decline hasn't demonstrably started yet (however strong the suspicions in some quarters (including mine) that it will soon).

Agricultural production is based on marketing and not the ability to grow a crop. I'm sure vast areas in Canada and Russia have become more productive for wheat, because the wheat belt is traveling northwards. The farmers around here grow winter wheat and soybeans to build up nitrogen for a switch to corn. The climate in my area is better now than it was in the past and plenty of farmers are paid not to grow crops in America. Many American farmers have expanded operations in Brazil, because the land prices are cheaper. Farmers work to get paid for the crops they grow and they adjust production to the demand of the market.

I'm somewhat confused how production is based on marketing? I'm also not sure large areas in Canada and Russia have opened up - it's about a lot more than just average temperature in those locations. Is the growing season long enough? Are the plants photosensitive? Is the soil suitable - and easy to cultivate? (or do you need to cut down a bunch of trees...?) Etc.

I seem to recall the idled farmland in the USA as a proportion of harvested cropland was around 10%? That's not a massive amount to bring back into play considering the growth of per capita demand and population every year competing for the food.

[ccgwebmaster]

I am not sure. I could interpret what you're saying as a joke, but just to put my views forward, I feel that sooner or later food production will decrease and will detract from the increase in CO2 as food production declines.

How much of a decline do you expect before we start making efforts to minimise food waste, and throwing more labour and land at the food problem?

How do cities get fed? They clearly aren't self sufficient. How is all the transport arrangements made? The answer is the market mechanisms of supply and demand. Why should anyone think that will all fall apart? Why not a steady increase in prices if/as weather causes more disruption and falling food production causing more effort to minimise food waste and bring more land into food production? Markets sometimes have shocks but they seem to react and cope after a shock rather than completely falling apart.

Let's look at the present day?

Food prices trending towards historic heights in general - have been intermittently exceptionally high from 2007/8 onwards (when the first big round of food riots occurred - though at that time it didn't result in regimes being overthrown like the second round did a few years later).

OK - so where is the big effort to reduce waste shown itself in the last 5-6 years? Except by those unable to afford to waste food - who are getting hungrier and hungrier, even as the rich waste food as usual? Food still being burned in car engines in a big (increasing!) way and rich people still eating lots of meat every day grown on land that could've fed far more people as crops.

Where is all the extra farmland and labour? Why - after 5-6 years of persistently high food prices - are a billion people still going hungry every day? Why are food prices still at the edge of conflict triggering levels with plenty of potential for shocks to push them up sharply?

You seem to be voicing the opinion that "the market will fix it" and that is something I associate with those who have enough money to be certain they will be eating next month. I do not have that certainty and the more I hear people say that "poorer nations or people will bear the suffering" or "the market will fix it" the more certain I become that if I run out of options my conscience isn't going to be overly troubled by whatever I might have to do to eat.

In my opinion casual complacency in belief in the market is dangerous. How many poor people do you think can suffer numerically before they rise up and demand change by any means that presents itself? How high can prices rise before nations start to fall and social cohesion starts to break down?

Do you think the Arab spring was about a sudden spontaneous lust for democracy that somehow got hijacked by the Islamists? Or do you think those regimes (previously largely stable for decades!) were overthrown in a contagious spread of violence and fury because those societies finally reached a point where enough members of the population became disillusioned with the ability of the established order to provide for their needs? (as a result of high food prices and general economic malaise)

The number of initially angry people in a society you need to overthrow the order really isn't as big as one might think... although I grant that it helps if they're young, angry and male.

[crandles]

Where is all the extra farmland and labour? Why - after 5-6 years of persistently high food prices - are a billion people still going hungry every day? Why are food prices still at the edge of conflict triggering levels with plenty of potential for shocks to push them up sharply?

I think it makes sense to check the information before using language like 'at the edge of conflict triggering levels'.

The graph I posted doesn't quite do the job. It should be quantity of food per person. World population in 1961 was 3.08 billion and in 2011 6.97 billion. So if the data I used is about right, there is roughly 25% more food per person. I am pretty sure fewer people are employed in agriculture. So what is causing a billion people to go hungry?

[Laurent]

Well, I am joking, yes and no, I had hope that somebody jumped on this idea that the food production is following the trend in oil production (and consumption).
Many people are talking about peak oil, they are certainly right, it is there, but the oil production may last for long (I would say 30 to 100 years), except that the production/demand is upon us, may be a max within the next ten year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
What are we doing without machinery, neven did not plough is field by hand.
Mine either, I still did remove the weeds by hand (not finished), what a job, If I want to be carbon free, I would have to abandon the machinery, it is possible but it won't be easy and it will take time to grow some perennials and manage the light to limit the weeds growth for some annuals.
I stand no chance in a market where the farmer are subsidized and using big tractors !
The number of people on this earth is also following the oil production, happily most of the people think twice before making a baby so the tendency in birth is going down globally (I think).
My point is because of global warming we have to stop producing food as we are doing now otherwise the catastrophe is sure to come soon. We may do produce for as much as 7 billion people only if we stop producing there for some people other there, that mean stopping the main actors in that game “Morgan chase”, “Goldman sachs”... !!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/may/10/stop-banks-gambling-food-prices
We have to reconsider the way the society sees small farmers, I don't know how exactly, if you have some ideas... 

[Bruce Steele]

So long as the oil holds out we can overcome weathers inconsistencies but there will be a long term cost to the climate system. Greenhouses,refrigeration,transcontinental shipping,fertilizers,deep water pumping,and luxury foods all depend on our Faustian bargain . We can redirect some luxury,corn ethanol production, and general food waste as oil and food prices rise but restructuring the entire food production system to feed 7-8-9 billion people will take more than a new bargain with the devil and it's going to have to happen while  climate instability increases.     As a personal note I have switched from fishing to farming( a crappy financial decision ) partly because I can run all my farm tractors and rototillers for a year ( 50-60 gallons ) for what it takes to run my boat for one day. I know what Co2 will do to the oceans and I may fail as a farmer but I have to try to figure out how to decarbonize my footprint or I will drive myself nuts. My customers don't pay me extra for sweat equity but if there is anything I can do for future generations it is figuring how to reduce my carbon inputs to near zero while still producing tons of produce for market. Solar water pumping, solar powered tillers, electric transportation to market and lots of hand labor can get me most of the way there. If I ever pull it all together I will be able to die contented but until then I know I have contributed my share to the oncoming catastrophe. Trying to pull it off gives me the extra energy it takes to crawl around and pull weeds, the money part I will ignore until the bankers want the farm back.   

[ccgwebmaster]

Where is all the extra farmland and labour? Why - after 5-6 years of persistently high food prices - are a billion people still going hungry every day? Why are food prices still at the edge of conflict triggering levels with plenty of potential for shocks to push them up sharply?

I think it makes sense to check the information before using language like 'at the edge of conflict triggering levels'.

The graph I posted doesn't quite do the job. It should be quantity of food per person. World population in 1961 was 3.08 billion and in 2011 6.97 billion. So if the data I used is about right, there is roughly 25% more food per person. I am pretty sure fewer people are employed in agriculture. So what is causing a billion people to go hungry?

Well OK - to be more precise at this very moment they are "close to the edge" rather than right at it, depending exactly where the edge is (it's a little woolly). Inasmuch as I wonder if the edge tends to get higher each time (acclimatisation effect, plus you can only have so many revolutions or civil wars in a given time before it becomes a continuous event), perhaps they can go a little higher than before without automatically causing conflict, in which case they're not even that close (but that's speculative - the 2008 peak shows conflict around 220, vs perhaps 235 for 2011).

As per the necsi research mentioned earlier in this thread (food prices vs conflict):
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Z4flZghGr7k/TlKips2LWHI/AAAAAAAAAuY/Gr6yu7gIZts/s1600/Food+price+vs+riot+01.png

UN says averaged 212 points in March 2013:
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/

If you look at the longer view graph on the first link - we have been substantially above the decadal norm for years now (the main thrust of my case).

With respect to food per capita - are you dividing tonnes by population? I'm not convinced that's a good measure - total calorific value would be better. I can't see meat/dairy in there - or fish - both of which would be needed for an accurate view.

As to what is causing so many people to go hungry - I can only assume they have insufficient access (wealth) to the "market" to participate, and have been priced out by increasing affluence and changing patterns of usage by richer consumers. I'm well aware that right now the world produces enough food to feed itself - if it were equitably distributed and sensibly used. To me that would be a pretty persuasive argument that there is no evidence for a market based solution.

In the real world - even if food production is still rising (to date at least) - the supply/demand equation isn't conspiring to provide food at a price everyone can afford. Is that because supply is constrained versus demand (which includes wastage and biofuels)? Or because the optimum profitability in balancing the equation is found where people starve to death? Does it even matter why food prices are under such pressure in recent years, if nobody is willing to intervene to save lives and stabilise nations?