Hi eclipse, my point was to show that it's possible to grow food crops at high latiudes if the temperature and soil conditions are right. Solar insolation is a factor too, but it doesn't seem overly significant. Of course plants need light, the question is how much. Yields are not only limited by external factors such as insolation or nutrient availibility, but plant physiology itself. Perhaps genetic engineering will allow us to design crops perfectly adapted to near-polar summers?
This map shows us that some of the world's highest grain yields are reached in cloudy Britain and Denmark. Thanks to the balmy European climate we tend to forget that Britain and Denmark lie at the same latitude as the Canadian subarctic, a region which could become a major grain producer once it gets warmer!
Post by Roger Clifton on Jan 1, 2013 20:22:49 GMT 9.5
DBB @ today - thanks for the link. It sketches some of the disasters looming and the horror of a public too complacent to react.
I wonder whether the willful ignorance of the public is because the timescale between prediction and event is that to which we traditionally ascribe Acts of God.
For example, property speculators can gamble comfortably on the expectation that any climatic disaster - even if long predicted - can be ascribed to an Act of God and therefore the government can be bullied into paying for its effects. Similarly the elected government may consider that preparing for future Acts of God is the responsibility of future governments.
The city of Brisbane, Australia is built on a floodplain. When a particularly severe flood (2011) damaged a large number of properties, the owners/speculators were able to shout down suggestions that climate change is worsening their risk. God does it, so the government gotta cough up.
Of course the owners of property and infrastructure should take responsibility for preparing for events that are predicted decades in advance. Perhaps it is that denial of responsibility that is at the heart of the climate denial movement.
Post by Roger Clifton on Feb 2, 2013 19:30:28 GMT 9.5
Current images from the east Australian floods bring to mind the question, how well will our future power supply lines survive the consequences of climate change?
In floods, underground powerlines must surely get washed away. Increased peak wind speeds in hurricanes would bring down overhead power lines.
Plans for decarbonisation lend heavily on the expansion of our electricity grid. It would be ironic if our preparations for averting climate change were not themselves climate change proof.
If generation of power were distributed throughout the grid, its interconnectivity would be less critical. That should be an argument for wind or solar, but it would require major energy storage, which is so far mythical.
Overhead power lines can be replaced in days. (That is one of the advantages of them).
And most flooding conditions, such as those recently experienced in the United Kingdom, do not do significant damage to sealed underground power cables, only doing damage via water ingress at manholes et al.
Polymer type HVDC "Light" Cables would enable large scale power distribution even in waterlogged conditions with no risk of oil leakage or similar problems.
Hi all, anyone here been following this Arctic News group? They're real, peer-reviewed climate scientists that are freaked out about a new understanding of the 'methane bomb' hiding off the Arctic. It's very scary stuff that seems misunderstood by other more mainstream climatologists. Have a look at their major summary papers down the side of the blog and let me know what you think. arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 26, 2019 17:48:35 GMT 9.5
Roger Clifton --- look at the article just above about the Climate Demography Vulnerability Index. As I understand it, Africa becomes uninhabitable and the regions colored yellow, such as South Asia, hardly better. So I can easily imagine catastrophe as those peoples attempt to escape the heat. Not to mention that it will be too hot to grow crops.