If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Daily)   You think you have Java problems now? By 2080, arabica could be extinct in the wild, commercial production severely reduced by changes in rainfall and temperature   (sciencedaily.com) divider line 55
    More: Scary, extinct in the wild, temperatures, Java, music production, botanic gardens, South Sudan, seedlings, genetic diversity  
•       •       •

1390 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Jan 2013 at 7:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-14 07:46:35 AM  
Will Larry Ellison be blamed for that?
 
2013-01-14 07:51:57 AM  
Alright, you neocon, derp-tarding "Climate change is a lie" bastards. This has gone TOO far.

Look. I wasn't too bothered when you used chicken to put buttsex people to death in Uganda. I wasn't TOO bothered when you decided to try to teach the idea that some grey aliens created humans and put them in Kentucky in 7 days because of Hayseus. I didn't get my jimmies rustled when you made "Don't mess with Texas" an official part of their education curriculum.

But you've gone too far now. You've farked with my coffee. And you do that, the torches and pitchforks come out.

farm2.static.flickr.com
 
2013-01-14 07:54:08 AM  
Will we still have chocolate?
 
2013-01-14 08:05:18 AM  
So global warming may now be responsible for less coffee in the world? The implications were bad enough before, but this is over the line. I'm sharpening the points of my pitchfork as I type, and the consummation of my percolated rage will be many an oil tycoon meeting their demise in a stabby fury.
 
2013-01-14 08:10:30 AM  
Arabica Coffee Could Be Extinct in the Wild

Your cup of joe is not from coffee found in the wild.
 
2013-01-14 08:11:18 AM  
Monsanto will fix this by engineering its own Franken-Arabica that can only be grown by using their biocides.
 
2013-01-14 08:14:13 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Arabica Coffee Could Be Extinct in the Wild

Your cup of joe is not from coffee found in the wild.


RTFA, the wild plants make up the genetically diverse pool from which the commercial plants are derived.

What corn used to look like:
kkwantum-mekhannix.org
 
2013-01-14 08:26:09 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Your cup of joe is not from coffee found in the wild.


Because nothing bad happens to plants that lack diversity. Like bananas. Nope, nothing bad at all.
 
2013-01-14 08:27:40 AM  

Insatiable Jesus: Monsanto will fix this by engineering its own Franken-Arabica that can only be grown by using their biocides.


Well All-righty then...crisis averted.

/Since I'll be long gone by then y'all can use my ashes to perk a cup of Joe.
 
2013-01-14 08:31:48 AM  
When you're talking about more funding for climate change research, just remember that most of it is being spent on this kind of nonsense, not on proper scientists doing actual science.
 
2013-01-14 08:38:19 AM  

Copper Spork: When you're talking about more funding for climate change research, just remember that most of it is being spent on this kind of nonsense, not on proper scientists doing actual science.


I'm certain this is true, lol. I don't recognize your handle, but I do have you fav'd as Shoe Labeller, which is my shorthand for people so intellectually dysfunctional that they have to label their shoes L and R.

Perhaps you could give us a citation which proves "most" climate research money is being used like this - or that using money like this is not good science. Any chance of that?

Thought so.
 
2013-01-14 08:42:47 AM  

Insatiable Jesus: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Arabica Coffee Could Be Extinct in the Wild

Your cup of joe is not from coffee found in the wild.

RTFA, the wild plants make up the genetically diverse pool from which the commercial plants are derived.

What corn used to look like:
[kkwantum-mekhannix.org image 500x500]


Actually, that is what corn looked like after the Indians/Native Americans selectively bred it.

History of Corn
Also, bananas were supposed to be extinct by 2013.
 
2013-01-14 08:45:48 AM  
You mean that changing temperature and climate patterns will make it more challenging to reliably grow food crops we're all accustomed to? And that a frighteningly large percentage of the people in this country are actively trying to exacerbate the problem?

NO WAY!
 
2013-01-14 08:47:13 AM  
 
2013-01-14 09:02:09 AM  
The deniers will start falling in line once Kentucky Bourbon is no longer able to be produced in Kentucky due to climate change.
 
2013-01-14 09:02:28 AM  
See, humanity, this is why we can't have nice things.

First we cultivate a very effective birth-control herb to extinction (I'm looking at you, Roman Empire)... and now this.

If you kill off the avocado tree, I'm outta here.
 
2013-01-14 09:08:55 AM  
Yes, there be Java problems...

US government tells computer users to disable Java
Department of Homeland Security advises computer users to disable Java because of security bug

Associated Press - 30 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is advising people to temporarily disable the Java
software on their computers to avoid potential hacking attacks. The recommendation came in an advisory issued late Thursday, following up on concerns raised by computer security experts. Experts believe hackers have found a flaw in Java's coding that creates an opening for criminal activity and other high-tech mischief.
 
2013-01-14 09:47:10 AM  
I plan to be dead by then, so no biggie.
 
2013-01-14 09:51:00 AM  
I thought we had to disable Java anyway, according to this thread. We might just be able to find a replacement by 2080.
 
2013-01-14 10:04:56 AM  
Ban coffee!
 
2013-01-14 11:05:55 AM  
If you got Java problems, I feel bad for ya' son. I got 99 problems, but the coffee ain't one.
 
2013-01-14 11:16:51 AM  
I post something else but won't because Mr. Larson's work is awesome.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-14 11:39:50 AM  
Yeah, look at it warm. Here's the last 15+ years of "warming":

www.woodfortrees.org

How will anything survive warming like this?
 
2013-01-14 12:36:01 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, look at it warm. Here's the last 15+ years of "warming":

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

How will anything survive warming like this?


They live in Canada?
 
2013-01-14 12:44:08 PM  

phaseolus: Will we still have chocolate?


Short answer:  No. Long answer, yes, if you can afford to pay for a luxury good on a par with beluga caviar and white truffles. Chances are good that the waxy crap you're eating now is not considered chocolate by a European any way. Chocolate is probably less vulnerable than coffee.

The main threat to chocolate at the moment is political turmoil and violence in the Ivory Coast, where most of the world's cocoa beans are grown by small farmers. Chocolate may not be as vulnerable to climate change as coffee, which needs alternating rain and dry spells at several stages of its development, including foliage growth, flowering, budding and berry growth and ripening. Since it's very easy to disrupt rainfall amounts and timing, water being a fickle element easily affected by heat and air movements, coffee is especially vulnerable to drought and rain storms, also to pests which can move up mountains with warmer climates.

A lot depends on things like deforestation, forest fragmentation, soil, and other factors as well. Coffee doesn't like direct sun. The best coffee is shade-grown. If the coffee-growing climate zones moves to a place where extensive deforestation has occured, proper sun and rain won't help much.

Ethiopia is the homeland of coffee and wild coffee is already under pressure. Since commercial coffee is descended from a small number of plants (arabica and robusta varities) that were transplanted to Yemen centuries ago, they have little genetic variety and are even more vulnerable.

It is important to protect wild coffee and to use its genetic riches to ensure the protection of commecial coffee. Hence the results of this study by the Royal Gardens at Kew, England's most extensive collection of rare plants--some of which are now extinct except at Kew (in the Greater London Metropolitan area).

I have a couple of coffee plants in a pot at work. They have lovely shiney dark leaves. It would be cool to have blossoms and coffee berries.

Fun fact: it takes 16 coffee trees to supply one average American coffee drinker for a year. Despite being vulnerable in the wild and as a crop, they are among the most plentiful trees on Earth for this reason.
 
2013-01-14 12:57:22 PM  
I started to uninstall Java, then a pop-up from my antivirus told me everything was okay. At least, I think it was my anti-virus. I don't know why it wanted my Facebook login info... ;)
 
2013-01-14 12:59:49 PM  
travel.sndimg.com

C'mon Hollywood! We got to get the beans before they're gone!
 
2013-01-14 01:48:48 PM  
The study, which uses computer modelling

aaaand we're done
 
2013-01-14 01:49:44 PM  

brantgoose: Fun fact: it takes 16 coffee trees to supply one average American coffee drinker for a year. Despite being vulnerable in the wild and as a crop, they are among the most plentiful trees on Earth for this reason.


Sounds like they can thank humans for their survival.
 
2013-01-14 02:11:24 PM  

SVenus: The study, which uses computer modelling

aaaand we're done



Why?
 
2013-01-14 02:16:50 PM  
starwars.com

What Jawas might look like.

/love me some Star Trek
 
2013-01-14 02:29:07 PM  

phaseolus: Why?


Because garbage in, garbage out, that's why.
 
2013-01-14 02:30:38 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, look at it warm. Here's the last 15+ years of "warming":

 
2013-01-14 02:31:55 PM  
www.skepticalscience.net
 
2013-01-14 02:36:50 PM  

SevenizGud: phaseolus: Why?

Because garbage in, garbage out, that's why.



No. That's name-calling combined with a "hand wave". All you've told me is you know a clever four-word phrase.

Tell me what's wrong with the particular model or data used by the scientists in tfa's study. Please be specific.
 
2013-01-14 03:02:10 PM  

bingo the psych-o: [starwars.com image 469x442]

What Jawas might look like.

/love me some Star Trek


Dude those are Reavers and they are from Firefly not Star Trek.
 
2013-01-14 03:07:32 PM  

chimp_ninja: [www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]


phaseolus: SVenus: The study, which uses computer modelling

aaaand we're done


Why?


i.imgur.com

The climate muckedy mucks in Britain revised future warming down perhaps as much as 20% over the short term with a new model.

20% is a fairly large difference if you're basing anything off of a computer model.

/if you're freebasing with a super model, different story.
 
2013-01-14 03:12:52 PM  
BalugaJoe: Will Larry Ellison be blamed for that?

If you're havin growth problems I feel bad for you Ellison, I got 99 problems but arabica ain't one.
 
2013-01-14 03:30:11 PM  

SVenus: The climate muckedy mucks in Britain revised future warming down perhaps as much as 20% over the short term with a new model.



Okay, fair enough, but after reading the article you screencapped I'm thinkin' the appropriate response is "hey, plug the numbers into the new model and get back to us" rather than "aaaand we're done".

From that article: "It says the average temperature is likely to be 0.43 C above the long-term average by 2017, as opposed to an earlier forecast suggesting a difference of 0.54C. ... It says it still stands by its longer-term projections that forecast significant warming over the course of this century."

So rather than going extinct in the wild by 2080, the new date should be ... 2085? 2090? I'd be amazed if this changes the date more than a few years, like all the way to 2525.
 
2013-01-14 04:05:02 PM  
I believe in manmade warming, I really do. But for fark's sake, can we stop with the weekly articles tying every possible malady affecting the world to global warming? And can we stop forecasting the end of all life as we know it due to global warming? It's nonsense. Utter horseshiat. Like when the WWF published their list of "Ten Most Endangered Mammals" and said that the main threat facing them was global warming and not habitat destruction.

It really discredits the entire movement. Focus on concrete, immediate facts. Tying the whole anti-air pollution to global warming means that half the country can just ignore it every time a cold front rolls through.
 
2013-01-14 04:12:29 PM  

phaseolus: SevenizGud: phaseolus: Why?

Because garbage in, garbage out, that's why.


No. That's name-calling combined with a "hand wave". All you've told me is you know a clever four-word phrase.

Tell me what's wrong with the particular model or data used by the scientists in tfa's study. Please be specific.


Specifically eat me, loser. In modeling, you just have some "scientist" input garbage designed to produce the output they want to see. It has nothing to do with science. That's the "hand wave".  It is bias, and nothing more.
 
2013-01-14 04:12:40 PM  

phaseolus: From that article: "It says the average temperature is likely to be 0.43 C above the long-term average by 2017, as opposed to an earlier forecast suggesting a difference of 0.54C. ... It says it still stands by its longer-term projections that forecast significant warming over the course of this century."

So rather than going extinct in the wild by 2080, the new date should be ... 2085? 2090? I'd be amazed if this changes the date more than a few years, like all the way to 2525.


The acceptance of this new model forces the last model(s?) to be shown to have a really large margin of error, and any study that bases a prediction on any model with such a large apparent margin of error is probably not worth very much as a study. I'm not a math/statistics guy, so, it's just my opinion here.
 
2013-01-14 05:22:34 PM  

SVenus: The acceptance of this new model forces the last model(s?) to be shown to have a really large margin of error, and any study that bases a prediction on any model with such a large apparent margin of error is probably not worth very much as a study. I'm not a math/statistics guy, so, it's just my opinion here.



Previous comment was just my own layman's opinion as well. I'm thinking the revised short term estimate doesn't say anything about a margin of error, which both models are going to have, so much as it's going to slide the date around, but I'm not a math/statistics guy either.

After reading the article you pointed out it seems obvious to me that the original study needs a little revising now and I'm guessing we'll agree on that point. Exactly how much the updated model's going to change the estimated date of wild C. arabica extinction is now up to the original authors to tell us.

It's a pleasure kicking ideas around with a rational adult, by the way. In contrast, there's this guy:


SevenizGud: Specifically eat me, loser. In modeling, you just have some "scientist" input garbage designed to produce the output they want to see. It has nothing to do with science. That's the "hand wave". It is bias, and nothing more.



In other words you got nothing and you're either unwilling, too lazy, or not bright enough to debate like a grownup. You add nothing of value to these threads, only assertions and "no YOU" replies like you just threw at me and that same damn graph that doesn't go further back than 1996 that you've been called on 6 or 7 times already.

The only thing I've learned from you is that I won't miss anything worthwhile after I put you on my ignore list.
 
2013-01-14 05:49:02 PM  

phaseolus: It's a pleasure kicking ideas around


I treat the CAGW threads as entertainment for me. I try to read both sides, but I tune out the ad hominem crap.
I don't think there's a catastrophe inside every biome. Others will have different opinions for different reasons.
Probably because talk of catastrophe sells.

/ That said, I help sell oil and gas prospects based on biologic dead zones that existed for about 8.6 million years from start to finish.
// THEIR catastrophe, the Cenomanian-Turonian extinction event, is OUR profit.
 
2013-01-14 06:08:40 PM  

phaseolus: The only thing I've learned from you is that I won't miss anything worthwhile after I put you on my ignore list.


[tarder_sauce.jpg]
 
2013-01-14 08:39:55 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, look at it warm. Here's the last 15+ years of "warming":

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

How will anything survive warming like this?



This again? We know you already acknowledge the problem inherent in making inferences from such a short period of time relative to short-term variability, so we might as well skip ahead:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?
[/socratic]

Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.


So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation.
 
2013-01-14 08:45:03 PM  

SevenizGud: phaseolus: The only thing I've learned from you is that I won't miss anything worthwhile after I put you on my ignore list.

[tarder_sauce.jpg]


You have to admit that responding to someone trying to get you to simply clarify your vague assertions with even more vague assertions probably isn't worthwhile from the questioner's point of view. Much like repeatedly posting a graph that you know to be problematic, it reflects badly on your ability to rationally discuss a topic. I still think you can do better.
 
2013-01-14 08:48:25 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: SevenizGud: phaseolus: The only thing I've learned from you is that I won't miss anything worthwhile after I put you on my ignore list.

[tarder_sauce.jpg]

You have to admit that responding to someone trying to get you to simply clarify your vague assertions with even more vague assertions probably isn't worthwhile from the questioner's point of view. Much like repeatedly posting a graph that you know to be problematic, it reflects badly on your ability to rationally discuss a topic. I still think you can do better.


Whatever. Fifteen plus years of no warming is still 15+ years of no warming. Hate to break it to ya....
I am glad you find the last 15+ years of HADCRUT data problematic, though.
 
2013-01-14 09:23:23 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: SevenizGud: phaseolus: The only thing I've learned from you is that I won't miss anything worthwhile after I put you on my ignore list.

[tarder_sauce.jpg]

You have to admit that responding to someone trying to get you to simply clarify your vague assertions with even more vague assertions probably isn't worthwhile from the questioner's point of view. Much like repeatedly posting a graph that you know to be problematic, it reflects badly on your ability to rationally discuss a topic. I still think you can do better.

Whatever. Fifteen plus years of no warming is still 15+ years of no warming. Hate to break it to ya....
I am glad you find the last 15+ years of HADCRUT data problematic, though.



Swing and a miss. The data isn't problematic, while your cherry-picking is. Even worse, you know it's a problem and apparently don't have enough honesty to fess up to it. Again, it reflects badly on your ability to rationally discuss a topic.
 
2013-01-14 11:03:29 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation.


Perhaps you can interpret this for us then:

From
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2008/chapter2.pdf

Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?

Near-zero
and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or
less in the simulations, due to the
model's internal climate variability.
The simulations rule out (at the
95% level) zero trends for intervals
of 15 yr or more
, suggesting that
an observed absence of warming of
this duration is needed to create
a discrepancy with the expected
present-day warming rate.


The latest Met Office model newly proposed as seen in the screen grab above predicts a slight warming over the next three or four years. This would put the warming trend at within or nearly within a zero trend line bracket for considerably more than 15 years.

I interpret the above statement, still available on the NOAA website, as saying that, from a statistical standpoint, modeling has trouble with a zero trend that's longer than 15 years, essentially ruling it out. I don't think it's just James Hansen's testimony in 1988 alone that addresses this issue. If it's been shown the deep Pacific can store up heat over 30 years and then disgorge that as a super El Nino with a new baseline trend, great. Love the theory. Can't wait for the science part of that (i.e., hard data).

Again, not a modeling or numbers guy -- so if someone says "hey, it's 25 years, we can model 25 years and still have very little change in the temps and still make the existing GCM work" I can't argue.

But for the last 15-17 years, it's been warm, but not warming, and having article after article come out about the next bio-catastrophe is rather silly, seeing how, you know, it hasn't warmed all that much in a decade and a half. LAND USE has changed far more in the same amount of time than the temperatures have.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report