Coby Beck wrote:

> I don't think this is a fair criticism, it is simply noting that part of the
> solution should be quite straightforward.  This report surely can not make
> assessments based on all kinds of possible realities exist today, it must
> assume that all else is equal and then apply a climate change to the
> situation.

No, if an assumption is made that "all else is equal" in a situation 
where all, in fact, is not equal and moreover where the unaccounted-for 
changes are likely to hugely outweigh the effect under consideration, 
then the outputs can hardly be considered as a useful prediction. It may 
be possible sometimes to dress up the extra effects as some uncertainty, 
but if they are likely to dominate the final result then the initial 
calculation seems rather futile (again, in terms of predictions - I've 
no beef with people trying to understand components of complex systems 
via standard reductionist techniques).

Time for another example: ocean acidification. There have been a few 
papers (maybe several - here is the first I found 
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v407/n6802/full/407364a0.html ) 
where people basically put organisms into an acid bath (equivalent to 2 
or 3x CO2 levels, in this case) to see how they like it.

Not surprisingly, the answer is "not very much at all, especially if 
they have a carbonate skeleton (which is eroded by acid)".

However, I think one might reasonably expect that 100 years of selective 
pressure (increasing at ~1% per year) would result in a substantial 
adaptation. Indeed it would be truly remarkable if this did not occur 
(and would strongly indicate that the effect did not actually represent 
a selective pressure at all). I know for sure that if someone suggested 
wiping out a pest or disease by gradually ramping up the ambient 
concentration of some antibiotic or pesticide by 1% per year, they would 
be laughed off stage - and rightly so.

Of course, that Nature paper itself is couched in suitably moderate 
terms - lots of "could" and "might". But the scary picture of deformed 
coccolithophorids has been printed far and wide...

My attention was also caught by an article in NewScientist some time ago 
about the rapidity of adaptation in respnse to human pressures. The 
point of interest seemed to be that this adaptation was much faster than 
people had previously thought:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg18725071.100-evolution-blink-and-youll-miss-it.html


>> Incidentally, according to the paper, the reduction in yield and
>> accompanying increase in hunger should be roughly linear with time/CO2
>> concentration, which suggests that it should perhaps be visible by now
>> if it is a real effect (I don't know about interannual variability or
>> quality of data collection though). Anyone know if there are data
>> supporting this?
> 
> I would think that the Green Revolution would hide any such effect over the
> half century at least.

And what are the implications of this for the "millions" who are "facing 
starvation"? Are they actual people, or merely an abstract mathematical 
artefact arising from a particular calculation? Is it unreasonable to 
expect that the "green revolution" would be (marginally) accelerated by 
the hint of rising food prices in the event of (barely detectable) 
climate changes? Remember, the cherry-picked results from the UNDP 
report were still only of the order of 0.5% pa reduction in potential 
yields in the *worst affected* areas.

James

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated 
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of 
global environmental change. 

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the 
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not 
gratuitously rude. 

To post to this group, send email to [email protected]

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to