Discussion on:

Will coffee soon be a thing of the past?

This sounds like a tea drinkers conspiracy COUGH scientific report from the United Kingdom COUGH

... and the Planet will stop spinning in December .....

The clergy of the Church of Man Made Climate Change simply don't give up do they? [;>}

...and go buy some beach front property.

There is no science for "man made". Climate change has happened over and over again in the past. The idea that human-caused CO2 increase is ludicrous. The pacific rim is heating up. Volcanic action belches more gasses in a second than all of mankind could make in a year. I'm guessing I'm literally far more connected to the science than you could even imagine.

Volcanic action belches more gasses in a second than all of mankind could make in a year.

It's not even close. In an average year all volcanoes together emit about 1% of the CO2 that human emissions do. Even the biggest eruption in the past century, Pinatubo in 1991 only emitted around 42 million tonnes of CO2 compared to 23 billion tonnes by humans in that year. Lately human emissions have been hovering around 30 billion tonnes/year.

in order to keep trying to get the ignorant to believe your version of "science".

So, tell me, which scientist or researcher has ever stood at the mouth of a volcano and measured the actual amount of CO2 emitted? I would say: NONE! What can't be measured, can only be guessed at, and, the guessing always favors the one who needs to make a point in his direction.

Try your beliefs when the science is not part of an agenda, and when your science is open to scrutiny and doesn't massage the data in order to fit your pre-defined results/conclusions.

Are you truly that scientifically illiterate?

Vulcanologists can use remote sensors and sampling to measure the level of different gases and the rate of release. They don't have to personally be there. Of course they're not getting exact measurements but "in the ballpark" estimates but since volcanic emissions are 2 orders of magnitude less than human emissions even if they're off by half volcanoes still don't come close to human emissions.

and major errors in measurements.

Vulcanoes exist everywhere on the planet, and most are even underwater, which makes it virtually impossible for vulcanologists to take accurate measurements, and which also means that, most volcanoes will go "unmeasured" ,which again brings up the question about the accuracy of any estimates. Estimates are prone to major errors. That's why estimates don't enter into the requirements of good scientific research.

The estimate that volcanic emissions are 1% of human emissions would have to be off by a factor of 100 to even equal let alone outstrip them. Do you really think vulcanologists are that clueless?

They really do know where most of the underwater volcanoes are located, along the mid-Atlantic rift and other rift zones around the world. There's a new Hawaiian island forming south of the Big Island that will break the surface in 5,000-10,000 years. Any major underwater volcanic activity is likely to produce enough effects that we'll notice it sooner or later.

and miscalculations.

There are not enough sensors to accurately calculate emissions of volcanoes, and certainly, not enough accurate research to draw accurate conclusions from the data. The research that attempts to draw conclusions from the "gathered data", has major flaws in the capture of the data, and in the picking and choosing of the data, and in the models used to analyze the data, and in the methods used by those researches to attempt to massage all of the above in order to arrive at their predefined set of conclusions that they were after to begin with.

IOW, the science is corrupt from beginning to end, and the analysis from volcanoes is part of that flawed research.

It sounds like you think the vulcanologists don't know a damned thing about their science. I tend to think they do know a thing or two and unless I get real evidence to the contrary I'll continue to believe what they say. When I use the term "ballpark" I'm never talking about something that is off by a factor of 100.

What can't be measured, can only be guessed at, and, the guessing always favors the one who needs to make a point in his direction.

Yes the guessing will always favor the government sponsored climate change scientists that needs to keep proveing that man causes climate change (NOT) so that he can keep his government sponsored grants to research climate change coming.

The same government that is going to impose regulation on us all in the name of "climate change" is soon going to spend billions restoring property along the Jersey and New York shores.

If "climate change" is to be taken seriously, all property destroyed by the storm should be condemned. Doing anything other would be a joke.

Agreed, the coast line should be abandoned by government support. Only private money should choose the risk.

In 1788, a hurricane hits the Jersey and New York coast, laying waste to what was then Manhattan. Preachers pronounced it as an "act of God" in retribution for man's misbehavior.

In 2012, a hurricane hits hits the Jersey and New York coast, laying waste to New Jersey and New York. "Experts" pronounced it as an "act of nature" in retribution for man's misbehavior.

Very little has changed.

.

extinct in the wild. and like the one guy said and the earth will stop spinning. right

This totally ignores breeding creating varieties that produce even better in the same locations even if the environment changes Not many wild varieties of wheat and corn being produced the world would starve if that was the choice

If the storms hitting NYC and NJ haven't caused alarm, this should scare the **** out of any coffee drinking conservative. Can you imagine a street full of non caffeinated New Yorkers trying to navigate their daily commute without ripping of the heads of those around them.

You can shrug off the flooding of Bengal, but don't mess with the coffee supply.

As long as it is New Yorkers ripping the heads off of other New Yorkers then this means thaey are doing their part to reduce CO2 emissions.

I think coffee can easily be replaced over the next 50 years! We have electronic cigarettes.

Add rice to the wheat and corn list -- breeding & innovation there is even greater

In order to achieve Scalosian levels of acceleration.

...that SmartPlanet would cease to exist if we didn't have our morning coffee.

Uh oh.

all over the world.

... why do you keep coming here and giving them your clicks?

It's a dirty job, but, somebody has to keep an eye on you fabricators of nonsense.

Sadly, way too many educated (college eds, yah you) will just believe things like this and commit it to memory without a challenge of any kind. Don't feel bad, you've been programmed to do that. That's how you pass exams. Now then, if you want real education, take your professors to task on these issues. Sure, they may have 100 facts to baffle your mind with, but that is because they've been programmed much longer than you have. (and their paychecks depends on it) All of you college kids (there are exceptions) are all being trained to go with the flow, through intimidation and coercion. (and your grades/future job/social status depend on it)

I disagree with most of all of Smart Planet's stances, respectfully, to show others that just because 100 people say it's right doesn't make it right.

How many inventions that shaped our world today were created by people that were told by their peers and educators that they were wrong or didn't understand? How many were told "that will never work - you don't know what you're doing"? How many of them proved those 100 other naysayers wrong?

Climate Change will go down in history as a political crow-bar. A lot of you will have a lot of shame to deal with.

As you all have been arguing, truth is what you believe. If enough people believe in something and act on it, that's the truth. But truth changes over time, and we don't seem to learn from what we call truth anyway. What we think is the truth is proven wrong over time, but if we didn't act on something we think is true, what would we do every day. Science is the best process we have to define truth and peer review is the best way to try to get enough agreement to do something, instead of complaining and calling each other names that degrades our integrity as a species. Can love be truth?

(filler)

Wasn't the over killing of whales going to produce a world wide shortage of lamp oil and the world would be in the dark? Wasn't the US going to be over populated when it hit 100 million people?

I think we have more to fear about people change than climate change.

OK, so conditions in the existing coffee-growing regions change enough to render the current varieties of Arabica untenable. There are several possible responses to this. For instance, begin research to develop varieties of the bean that are more tolerant of the new conditions of these regions. Begin planting Arabica plants at higher latitudes, where presumably the warming happening at the lower latitudes would be less severe. Research modification of the Robusta plants to improve their taste, yield, caffeine content, etc.

Hand-wringing at this stage is hardly the response I would expect from die-hard coffee drinkers.

One thing that is happening is that crops previously grown in southern Canada like potatoes are starting to be grown in the Arctic. As the planet warms the bands of best growing temperatures are moving north and south. Horticulturalists will find a way if there is money to be earned, and there is. Life is not over as we know it just yet.

Adaptation is a trait built into virtually all forms of life, and, if a climate is not conducive to a good environment for any particular species, that species tends to find a route to other environments which are better suited. The environmental movement will always disregard those points.

Also, when anything becomes extinct , other, perhaps more suitable, replacements spring into existence.

So, how much damage was caused to the environment when the dodo bird disappeared from the planet? What about the dinosaurs and the sabre-tooth tiger and mammoth? Did the world cease to exist? Was it harmed beyond repair?

Unless I manage to somehow clone myself in the next few years, this is yet another one of those things that the younger generation who are kicking and screaming their way along much like we did at that age can be concerned about. I'll be scattered ashes by the time coffee may or may not be around. However it would be fun to see my ex wife try to get up and get herself together without that cuppa Joe she so desperately requires upon waking up. One more thing for me to smile about today. LOL

Find something else to write on.

I don't drink coffee. You can have my share.

Tom

climate change/global warming crowd.

None of their previous predictions have ever come true, and this one will, undoubtedly, also be proven to be more insanity from those groups with an agenda to get more government control over our lives.

None of their previous predictions have ever come true ...

Actually many of the predictions have been coming true, and faster than originally predicted. Perhaps you'd care to list some of those predictions you don't think have come true so we can discuss them.

What predictions have come true? Name them, and give details.

I could predict that, it's going to rain sometime next month, and chances are that, I'll be right. I could also predict that, we're going to have a very warm next summer, and, I could turn out to be right. Likewise, I could predict a very cold and snowy winter in about 3 years, due to "global warming", and, if I turned out to be right, I could claim that I was right about a "global warming prediction".

"Global warming" had to be changed to "climate change" when the predictions that were made about consequences, didn't happen, and instead, we got some 13 years of cooling, which was the complete opposite of the predictions. Now, there are researches and scientists predicting that, we're entering a period of cooling that will last some 30 years or more. Fact is that, a "science" which is prone to so many errors, is no science at all.

Denial is more on the part of those who wish to convince people about a disaster, which fails to materialize. Long range climate change is difficult, even for the best scientists and for climatologists, and, astrologists probably have better records for predicting the future than the doom-and-gloom fraudsters.

I could predict that, it's going to rain sometime next month, blah, blah, blah...

If you think climate scientists even try to predict things like those you mentioned you really don't know much. Those things are weather not climate.

Climate scientists have predicted that the 30 year running mean of temperature would continue to rise and it has. Here's a link to a comparison of climate model projections to observed data up to 2011.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

But as scientifically illiterate as you sound to me it's probably above your comprehension level.

Cryologists have predicted that late summer Arctic sea ice could disappear around 2040-2050. At the rate it's going lately that could happen by 2020. They've also predicted that land ice in the form of glaciers and ice sheets would continue to melt off and that is happening.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/sea_ice.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-sea-ice-loss-implications
http://www.colorado.edu/news/features/earths-glaciers-and-ice-caps-are-shrinking

They predicted that sea level would rise and it has, faster than many of the predictions.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6.html

Climate scientists have predicted the expansion of the subtropical zones away from the equator and that appears to be happening.

http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121003/srep00702/full/srep00702.html

They have predicted increased humidity because of global warming which has happened and that would lead to heavier rainfall events and that appears to be happening but it may be a bit early to say that definitively.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/national-climate-change

I could go on but those are enough for now.

"Global warming" had to be changed to "climate change"...

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988, long before the supposed change from GW to CC. I've seen papers from the 1950's that used both terms. To be accurate Global Warming is a subset of Climate Change which covers more than just warming.

Here's your "13 years of cooling":

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/TempEscalator.gif

You are right that long range climate prediction is difficult but I'll bet you can't find another method that's been more accurate.

who have given us the massively flawed "science". That would be like me, pointing to the "fact" that, if a certain losing football team, where to have some of the best football players from the other football teams, that, it would probably be the best or one of the best teams out there. Graphs from the faux science are not credible, and are completely worthless.

The IPCC group itself is part of the agenda to try to convince people that, global warming is being caused by man. But, the measurements and science are flawed and therefore, the whole "science" falls apart.

Global warming periods are a fact of climate change, and so are cooling periods. The planet has had warming periods in the past, before man had any kind of effect on the conditions of the planet. Climate happens, and the effect from human consumption is irrelevant to the greater causes that occur naturally. Greenland was named so because, global warming in the medieval times was such that, what is now essentially a frozen land, was warm enough back then to actually turn the land to lush greenery. And, man didn't have the large factories or SUVs or AC/Heat systems to effect nature back then.

You are again committing the same mistakes that the researchers and global warming shysters have been doing for the last several decades, and that is that, you are conveniently picking and choosing the data and "facts" that fit your desired "global warming" indicators.

Your methods and those of the global warming junk scientists aren't any different, and you're just as much a part of the junk science agenda as they are.

Global warming "science" is NOT POSSIBLE, because, there is no way that any researcher or scientist can develop a model that can take into consideration the many millions of variables that go into the entire climate system of the planet. But, it's not just about the variables or the faulty models; it's about the agenda, which is to create a narrative that, no matter what the opposing data and research might say, is always to try to convince the people that, the "science" is settled and unquestionable and without faults. But, no real scientist would ever do that kind of science and still maintain any kind of credibility with the "real scientific community". Junk science can never stand up to scrutiny, and global warming has failed that test miserably, time and again.

You asked for predictions with details. I gave them to you (not that I expected you to read them, like I said they're probably above your reading comprehension level). In turn you offer no evidence to back up your positions, just a lot of hand waving. Excuse me but I can't give a lot of credence to you if you won't cite actual scientific research to support your position.

Regarding your little point about Greenland, well over 90% of the ice that is currently on Greenland was there during the medieval times. If it wasn't it would be obvious because sea level would have been significantly higher. There is enough ice on Greenland to raise sea level by over 20 feet and there wasn't even a 1 foot difference between sea level then and the 20th Century average. Greenland was never a land of lush greenery, just slightly less cold and greener at the southern end of the island.

Yes, there are a myriad of factors that affect climate but not all are of equal effect. For example the single biggest thing that affects climate is the incoming solar radiation. Without that the Earth's temperature would be near absolute zero. Probably the second biggest factor is the Earth's albedo which determines how much of that incoming radiation is retained and converted to heat energy. Probably the third most important factor is the levels of the various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. All in all if you select the 10 most important factors in climate you can probably account for over 99% of the effect and the thousands of other factors are just tweaks on the major effects.

No matter what you think science is never perfect. All it can do is describe reality as best it can, adjusting the explanations as new evidence comes along. There is still lots of work to do in improving our understanding of Earth's climate but that doesn't mean what we currently know is useless until we know everything. If you want to overturn the current understanding of climate it's not enough to just try and tear down the existing research, you have to offer something that does a better job than the current theory.

But, I suspect as I surmised before that you are simply scientifically illiterate and unqualified to really judge the validity of climate (or any) science. You probably get your talking points from places like WattsUpWithThat and ClimateDepot and from people like Lord Christopher Moncton. And you will continue to be frustrated because real world events will continue to support their climate theory.

.

Among other things, you are completely wrong about the naming of Greenland. The name "Greenland" was basically a marketing ploy by Erik the Red. He gave it that name in the hope that it would make it sound appealing to potential settlers, not because it was lush and green (which it was not).

Climate Change caused by man = Strychnine laced Koolaid

These people will never wake up.

Assuming the possibility (after all, no one knows) that in 80 years coffee will be no more, it's possible too that those future generations could prefer other drinks, drinks unknown to us now.
80 years is almost a century, look back 80 years and see the enormity of changes in society, the same thing will happen 80 years from now.

If you think in the next 80 years which of course no one here will still be alive is why people joke about it like frighten children, but long before all this goes south we will be feeling the prices of food and given the state of affairs I think we should be seen bad times in just 3 decades. Its all good believe or not you are all going to feel the fun.

Suppose the climate does all but go to... It would be yet another opportunity to exercise the few brain cells that we, as a species, have... There are other mountain ranges, e.g. The Himalayas, that just might remain above water... Also, genetic (re)engineering should be up to the task of producing sea level coffee plants more than soon enough regardless of whether the oceans rise or fall... Even if nothing happens with the environment, we should figure out how to deal with it, anyway--just in case... LOL.

What a bunch of crap...........they can't even be accurate with tomorrows weather forecast

Its going to be so fun to watch society hit rock bottom, does not matter who believes or not in the end the next 3 decades will shows us how far down the rabbit hole we are going to go, its all going to be so much fun one way or another.

... and they aren't. (They're paid for political leverage, so they're biased already).

Starbucks Yukon blend may be grown there.
All of America's problems would be underwater.
Our use of the sun for electricity via solar panels will be taxed. (gasoline won't exist)
And Princess Cruises will offer a cruise deemed "The Polar Express" each holiday season.

"as locations where arabica is currently grown will become unsuitable"

They'll grow it somewhere else. If the planet warms, then lands formerly unsuitable to grow crops will become suitable.

Cold weather areas are unsuitable for human life, yet, there we are, all over the cold and frozen areas on the planet, We can adapt, and so can other creatures and plant life. Where other life forms can't adapt, we help them along, and we've done that too.

The Russians got it made! They should be promoting global warming.

When large coffee fields pop up outside of Moscow?

Russia and Canada will be the big 2 in the new coffee cartel.

When our java comes from Afghanistan, then that's time to worry.

From Genetic modification to Hybrid plants we're probably safe on this , and don't forget other areas of our weird wonderful world will more than likely be suitable for growing coffee as their temps/conditions change .

so this coffee bean will become extinct in the wild, so they assume that all the planted coffee will become extinct? Last time I looked, my coffee was planted and harvested in plantations in Mindanao, (I live in the Philippines and try to eat and drink only local foods)...so it is not harvested from wild bushes in Arabia or Ethiopia.
Just like men devised wheat to grow in the steppes of Ukraine that later made Kansas into a breadbasket, don't you think they can do the same with coffee?
It's articles like this that are so silly that it makes global warming sceptics.