2014 was World's Warmest Year on Record

[The Barbarian]

It might be someday possible. But warming, desertification, and droughts are coming faster than food factories. Not that I'm scoffing at technology. Technology will be the only hope we have, I think.

But the impending general drought in the American West is real and of deep concern. And yes, the aquifer we're using to alleviate some of that, is dropping, and will run out sooner than most people realize.

Then what?

 

[Delmar]

We're set for lettuce, then. But corn and wheat, or rice? Show us that. Remember, competitive with normal farming. The world survives mostly on grains.

Corn would not be ideal for indoor farming, but there is no reason why wheat rice and soy would not work well. Another advantage to this kind of farming is that it would seem the need for herbicides and pesticides would be less.

 

[The Barbarian]

Corn would not be ideal for indoor farming, but there is no reason why wheat rice and soy would not work well. Another advantage to this kind of farming is that it would seem the need for herbicides and pesticides would be less.

Some advantages, yes. But at best, wheat can be harvested in 3 months, so only 4 harvests a year. Not like lettuce. And the cost would be accordingly greater for the nutrition involved.

Problem is, wheat takes at least 3 months. So only 4 harvests a year, not enough currently to be economical. There are some interesting ideas here:
http://www.plugablefuture.com/farm/greenhouse.shtm

I'm a little skeptical of a Harkonnen-style planet, though.

Edit: Wouldn't it work better to just learn to live with the world He gave us?

 

[Alate_One]

The elephant in the room as far as indoor farming goes is light. You need energy for light production and where is that energy coming from? So suddenly you need enough energy to power food production as well as the rest of our technology.

So what you're going to burn more fossil fuels to make climate worse so you can continue to grow crops in areas made inhospitable to agriculture because you were burning fossil fuels? :dizzy:

Outdoors, light is free, it's called the sun. Now you can build greenhouses, but the glass cuts down on the intensity of the sun considerably and you can have a real problem with heat buildup if you try to do it in the summertime. This usually means you have to shade your greenhouse, run swamp coolers and fans (more energy needed).

The reason greenhouses are used in most cases is to produce food locally in the winter time (yes there is still winter with climate change) or to extend the season in cold areas. So greenhouses are generally great for cold areas, not so much hot ones. You don't deal with an enhanced greenhouse effect by building . . . greenhouses. :nono:

Other parts of the world will become more productive in terms of agriculture. The biggest problem as far as we are concerned may be that these areas may not be within the USA (or western europe). Also agricultural output as a whole may go down due to erratic weather conditions. All great news for a world that's going to get another 2 billion people in the next 35 years.

You sure you don't want to just pay a little more for gas?

 

[Delmar]

Some advantages, yes. But at best, wheat can be harvested in 3 months, so only 4 harvests a year. Not like lettuce. And the cost would be accordingly greater for the nutrition involved.

Problem is, wheat takes at least 3 months. So only 4 harvests a year, not enough currently to be economical. There are some interesting ideas here:
http://www.plugablefuture.com/farm/greenhouse.shtm

I'm a little skeptical of a Harkonnen-style planet, though.

Edit: Wouldn't it work better to just learn to live with the world He gave us?

I grow wheat grass indoors. very nutritious fast and easy. It requires a good juicer though.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why wheat grass? If it grows more slowly than other grasses, what's the benefit?

 

[User Name]

The elephant in the room as far as indoor farming goes is light. You need energy for light production and where is that energy coming from? So suddenly you need enough energy to power food production as well as the rest of our technology.

Traditional farming is extremely energy intensive.

LED lights are very energy efficient. They can be powered or augmented with green energy (solar, wind, etc).

So what you're going to burn more fossil fuels to make climate worse so you can continue to grow crops in areas made inhospitable to agriculture because you were burning fossil fuels? :dizzy:

There has always been, and there always will be, areas that are inhospitable to agriculture. Alternative farming methods make it possible to grow crops in areas that are already inhospitable to agriculture.

Outdoors, light is free, it's called the sun. Now you can build greenhouses, but the glass cuts down on the intensity of the sun considerably and you can have a real problem with heat buildup if you try to do it in the summertime. This usually means you have to shade your greenhouse, run swamp coolers and fans (more energy needed).

We're not talking exclusively about greenhouses here. Some methods of hydroponics and aquaponics are open-air systems. Other forms of vertical farming are completely enclosed.

Sunlight includes spectra of light that actually impede plant growth, but energy-efficient LED lights have been optimized for plant growth. Also, researchers have found that altering the day-night cycle further encourages plant growth.

Also take into consideration the various extremes of weather that destroy crops (excessive rain, drought, frost, etc). These problems become irrelevant with enclosed systems.

The reason greenhouses are used in most cases is to produce food locally in the winter time (yes there is still winter with climate change) or to extend the season in cold areas. So greenhouses are generally great for cold areas, not so much hot ones.

There will always be traditional farming. Alternative farming methods are a partial solution, not necessarily a whole one.

The biggest problem as far as we are concerned may be that these areas may not be within the USA (or western europe). Also agricultural output as a whole may go down due to erratic weather conditions.

All the more reason for us to consider these alternative farming methods.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The elephant in the room as far as indoor farming goes is light. You need energy for light production and where is that energy coming from? So suddenly you need enough energy to power food production as well as the rest of our technology.

So what you're going to burn more fossil fuels to make climate worse so you can continue to grow crops in areas made inhospitable to agriculture because you were burning fossil fuels? :dizzy:

We only have to burn fossil fuels because liberal idiots have been dismantling hydroelectric plants (dams) which provide the cheapest and cleanest energy, and liberal idiots have also blocked the construction of nuclear power plants (another source of cheap electricity).

Technology has the answer as long as politics do not get in the way.

 

[Alate_One]

We only have to burn fossil fuels because liberal idiots have been dismantling hydroelectric plants (dams) which provide the cheapest and cleanest energy,

Almost every river that is capable of producing a reasonably amount of electricity is already in production. Hydroelectric isn't going to solve our problem.

and liberal idiots have also blocked the construction of nuclear power plants (another source of cheap electricity).

Technology has the answer as long as politics do not get in the way.

Nuclear power does have potential, but it is not as economical as one might expect considering the potential for catastrophic accidents, no company wants to fund one. So governments have to foot the bill, and they're quite expensive.

A big problem is cost. The construction of large nuclear power plants requires a lot of money to ensure safety and reliability. For example, for the U.S. to derive one quarter of its total energy supply from nuclear would require building roughly 1,000 new reactors (both to replace old ones and expand the fleet). At today's prices for the two AP-1000 reactors being built in Georgia, such an investment would cost $7 trillion, although that total bill might shrink with an order of that magnitude.

Nuclear Power - Scientific American

Add the problem of what to do with the waste and nuclear power isn't so hot. Still, it's probably better than the alternatives especially as a dispatchable source of electricity.

The key there is research though, our current reactors are still fueled by the production line of nuclear weapons. There are other reactor types that are less dangerous and use easier to obtain fuels. But it will require a lot of investment at the start, investment the fossil fuel industry doesn't want government to make.

 

[Totton Linnet]

....I believe winter has just struck...the worst for years, although I thought last year was pretty grim.

 

[Alate_One]

....I believe winter has just struck...the worst for years, although I thought last year was pretty grim.

 

[The Barbarian]

...I believe winter has just struck...the worst for years, although I thought last year was pretty grim.

Hmmm... the December/January/February anomaly for last year was 57, which was the 6th hottest ever, with only one DJF being hotter before 2000.

Looks like Alate_One's cartoon was spot on.

 

[Delmar]

Why wheat grass? If it grows more slowly than other grasses, what's the benefit?

I like to juice it. It tastes better than most wild grasses I have tried juicing. It grows pretty fast by the way

 

[The Barbarian]

Just use regular wheat seed? I'm curious now.

 

[Delmar]

Just use regular wheat seed? I'm curious now.

I use organic wheat, but yes.

IL0URJcZF8w

Edit: on further review I seem to have shot my mouth off on this one just a bit. Wheat grass juice, while it is an excellent source of vitamins and minerals, is not a good source of calories. Something we Americans don't tend to consider all that much. I started a batch of pea shoots yesterday, which might fit what we are talking about a lot better. Though their practicality for such indoor growing would depend on how many cuttings you can take off a crop before replanting.

 

[The Barbarian]

I figured that. Unless we evolve an extra stomach or hindgut fermentation, grass won't provide much in the way of calories. Of course, calories are cheap, while vitamins and minerals are often not. You use a grow light?

If so, watch your back.
http://www.examiner.com/article/growing-greens-home-police-raided

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/12/07...r-a-grow-light-wheres-the-probable-cause-now/

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/harte-family-raid/

Apparently, being seen going in and out of a hydroponics shop is sufficient evidence to raid your house, in the minds of some police officers.

I mean, if you're growing stuff in your house, you must be doing something illegal, right?

 

[Delmar]

I figured that. Unless we evolve an extra stomach or hindgut fermentation, grass won't provide much in the way of calories. Of course, calories are cheap, while vitamins and minerals are often not. You use a grow light?

Window box.

 

[The Barbarian]

[hijack]Might give that a try.[/hijack]

And let's get back to to why this was the warmest year on record. (Yes, for the deniers, I know, it was "not warmest enough."

 

[resodko]

a real scientist would be interested in knowing how far back those records go and how reliable they are

 

[tetelestai]

And let's get back to to why this was the warmest year on record.

It wasn't the warmest year on record, and there is no warming.

"With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade" - Judith Curry, Climate Scientist