Interesting graphs and charts department

[Gravdigr]

I tried every way I know to get this flow chart down to a postable/readable size...but, I can't get it smaller than 300kb and still be legible.

The Stephen King Universe (less The Dark Tower)

(May have to fiddle with that link, it doesn't want to play nice)

[classicman]

This one

[Gravdigr]

It happens frequently, and, it's easy to do, but...

I'm confused.

[Gravdigr]

[jimhelm]

spode had this on fb the other day

[Ibby]

yeah, you're reading that right. plants prettymuch stop being able to photosynthesize at around Fahrenheit 100.


and that's a graph from a study titled "When can we expect extremely high surface temperatures?" predicting the rise of extreme temperatures worldwide.

see the bit where the midwest gets hot enough to kill crops more and more often, hotter and hotter, starting like... pretty damn soon?

after the recent heatwaves across the US, supposedly less than half of US corn is judged to be in "good" condition by the USDA and 22% is considered "bad", when just months ago, with record planting, the USDA predicted a record crop this year. The price of corn has risen 30% since June, after the same record temperatures hammered farms in South America.

At least, assuming this well-written and highly-recommended article is right. sounds pretty damn dire.

[ZenGum]

I think that article is three fifths true, makes two significant lapses, and is written poorly and more alarmist than necessary.

True: the planet is warming.
True: plants suffer a lot in heat and eventually stop photosynthesising (and soon die).
True: we need these plants.

Important lapse 1: the graph of photosynthesis and temperature, a key piece of the article, fails my epistemological tests.
All their other graphs are derived from the article you link to, are well labeled and show the sort of scattered data one expects. The photosynthesis/temperature graph is not well labeled (units for photosynthesis?), is never attributed to a source (and I followed the links to other Kos articles) and IMHO has data points that fit the required curve too damn neatly to be real. The kicker for me, though, is that it does not say which species of plant this is for - different species would have different levels of tolerance. For example, equatorial regions are covered in forests. There might be truth in this, but that graph is IMHO not up to it.


Important lapse 2: Now consider the other graph you have shown. It is not a forecast of average annual temperature, nor even the highest temperature expected each year. It is the T100. It is well explained here:

http://texasclimate.org/ClimateChang...8/Default.aspx

When assessing the consequences of climate change for human health and most ecosystems, very high temperatures are much more important than average temperatures. Earlier studies have shown that cold extremes will warm faster than warm extremes and that warm extremes will warm faster than average temperatures. European scientists have published a study focused on extremely high air temperatures, represented by the 100-year return temperature (T100). (T100 is a specific statistical expression that means that every year you have a 1% chance of getting that temperature.) Their results show a projected global-mean temperature increase of 3.5°K by 2100, which is at the upper end of the range given by the models analyzed in the 2007 IPCC-AR4. The authors acknowledge that the present generation of climate models, including the one used in this study, tends to overestimate extreme temperature values. However, even after correcting for this bias, they found that by 2090-2100, projected T100 far exceeds 40°C in Southern Europe and the U.S. Midwest and even reaches 50°C in large parts of the area equatorward of 30°, notably in India and the middle East, and also in most of Australia. The projected T100 values, the authors note, should be taken seriously, since they indicate that potential for dangerously high future temperatures in densely populated areas.

So those temperatures you are looking at on that graph are 99% likely higher than any you would actually experience even once each year.

Poorly written and alarmist? IMHO, yes. It jumps around from photosynthesis to human heatstroke, and throws various examples around in jumbled order, and I believe has misused one respectable graph and used one that is suspect.

That said, cereal crops are crucial to human civilisation, they are harmed by heatwaves, heatwaves are expected to become more common, this is bad. It's not quite as dire as that article makes it look.

[Undertoad]

Plants love CO2. Warming is about one degree. I'm sure we'll be fine.

[ZenGum]

I refer you, sir, to my post in your "Insult me" thread.

The research behind Ibby's article indicates that peak temperatures are expected to increase by more than average temperatures, and it is the peaks that mess things up for us.

[Undertoad]

Mine is not a righty position. Inherent in my statement is that warming is happening and likely to continue. (After the current pause.)

I just don't have the alarm that others have. For one thing, I notice there are both winners and losers in climate change and everyone is ignoring the winners for some dumb reason. Some places will become dust bowls, other places will become the new fertile territory. And this has already happened over and over again, even in recorded history.

I notice that climate scientists are not botanists. Problems with plants are now easily solved through genetic engineering (or the old slower style of genetic engineering where plants and animals are bred for traits). We need corn that can take an extra few degrees of summer heat -- and they say the price for that kind just went up 30%? Then we will have that corn, period. Any problem worth an additional third will suddenly have a lot of energy thrown at it, that's how markets tend to solve these things.

[Undertoad]

I mean, just imagine: the Sahara, largest desert in the world, was entirely fertile green grassland ONLY 6000 years ago. It was the "loser" in some round of climate change that happened just before mankind was taking notice and measuring shit and writing shit down. They figure its complete conversion to desert was ONLY 1100 years ago. But now, shortly* after this loss of fertile land, the planet has the capacity to feed 7 billion people.

We'll be fine.



*"shortly" in geologic time.

[Lamplighter]

Look out, Canada. Here we come.

[jimhelm]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I mean, just imagine: the Sahara, largest desert in the world, was entirely fertile green grassland ONLY 6000 years ago. It was the "loser" in some round of climate change that happened just before mankind was taking notice and measuring shit and writing shit down. They figure its complete conversion to desert was ONLY 1100 years ago. But now, shortly* after this loss of fertile land, the planet has the capacity to feed 7 billion people.

We'll be fine.



*"shortly" in geologic time.

Many years ago, Chuck Norris lit a fart in the Sahara Forest.....

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I mean, just imagine: the Sahara, largest desert in the world, was entirely fertile green grassland ONLY 6000 years ago. It was the "loser" in some round of climate change that happened just before mankind was taking notice and measuring shit and writing shit down. They figure its complete conversion to desert was ONLY 1100 years ago. But now, shortly* after this loss of fertile land, the planet has the capacity to feed 7 billion people.

We'll be fine.

I totally agree that, as a species, this is neither our biggest nor most immediate problem.

But dammit, I don't want to have to move to Greenland. Shit, do you know how many boxes of books we own? And we just refinanced the house!

[Ibby]