Of interest:
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/coffee-prod...te-change/

Agence France-Presse wrote:Coffee producers say they are getting hammered by global warming, with higher temperatures forcing growers to move to prized higher ground, putting the cash crop at risk.

"There is already evidence of important changes" said Nestor Osorio, head of the International Coffee Organization (ICO), which represents 77 countries that export or import the beans.

"In the last 25 years the temperature has risen half a degree in coffee producing countries, five times more than in the 25 years before," he said.

(cont'd)

Half a degree? That will really make that much of a difference? I am a sceptic at heart.

OK,
this is interesting since it may lead to higher coffee prices.
But this Quote is from the International Coffee Organization website, whoever they are:

Coffee trade statistics: World coffee exports amounted to 7.2 million bags in January 2010, compared with 7.81 million in January 2009. Exports in the first 4 months of coffee year 2009/10 (Oct/09 to Jan/10) have decreased by 9.2% to 28.4 million bags compared to 31.3 million bags in the same period in the last coffee year. In the twelve months ending January 2010, exports of Arabica totaled 60 million bags compared to 63.4 million bags last year; whereas Robusta exports amounted to 34 million bags compared to 34.1 million bags. Coffee trade statistics January 2010

So, maybe down 5-10% in one year. The French news article also reported this:

In Colombia, one of the world's largest producers, production slumped 30-35 percent while Costa Rica and El Salvador still struggled to recover from poor harvests in 2000-2005.

The National Coffee Association of Guatemala -- a regional leader -- said production in nine Latin American countries was expected to fall 28 percent in the first three months of this season.

Were there poor harvests in 2006-2009 in Costa Rica and El Salvador?
No snow in Vancouver may be El Nino, but in light of all of the data falsification coming forth, and in light of some experts saying there has been no increase in global temps recently, I would put little stock in man made climate change. And if coffee production starts falling dramatically for whatever reason, I would expect to hear from Sweet Maria's etc. for more concrete data, not a French newspaper.

Dave

Even a fairly dramatic global level climate change will be less than year to year temperature variations at any given location. So that some sort of data filtering needs to be used to detect it. For the hair spray heads, that means a high ratings narrative of "villain" researchers using demonic moving averages, and "hero" researchers using godly ones.

Oddly enough, nobody seems to be making the much more obvious point about global warming. If this warming episode is like every other one in the last 500 million years (except meteor impacts and flood basalt eruptions), it will produce global party time with many more winning than losing species and ecosystems. However, that is cold comfort if you live in the wrong place (e.g low lying coasts) or rely on the wrong crops (e.g coffees since it grow best at just the right combination of altitudes and latitudes, so that the entire coffee topology may migrate away from the equator).

another_jim wrote:Oddly enough, nobody seems to be making the much more obvious point about global warming. If this warming episode is like every other one in the last 500 million years (except meteor impacts and flood basalt eruptions), it will produce global party time with many more winning than losing species and ecosystems.

Actually, some have, including the late Michael Crichton in State Of Fear (2004). Not a great book, either as fiction or nonfiction, but in hindsight it provided an eerie premonition of the global warming email scandal of last November. Reading this book changed my reaction to all the !!!GLOBAL DISASTER!!! headlines in the media.

Speaking of global warming: read this and weep.

I should change my sig to:
Living on the edge (of the civilized world).

The law is silly; the opinion piece you cite is toxic.

When some scientist/fundraiser jumps on a drafting mistake (i.e. the text is supposed to read "astronomical" and "thermodynamic"), to prove how ignorant they are; it simply confirms regular people's suspicions that scientists are no longer truth tellers, but just another interest group looking for a hand out. The professional ethical obligation of a scientist is to tell the truth; not to save the world. Scientists who become dishonest like this writer has (does he really believe the legislature really meant astrology, rather than astronomy?), in order to save the world, quickly lose their credibility.

And even more quickly than their credibility, being dishonest seems to ruin their common sense. Would the problems created by global warming, and the measures that need to be taken to correct them, differ if the cause is human or natural or some combination of both? Obviously not. This simple and self evident statement would have been a far more effective critique of this law.

another_jim wrote:a drafting mistake

Drafting mistakes, as applied to scientific reports are significant. Depends on whether the error is in the science or the reporting, and that's not entirely clear.

Would the problems created by global warming, and the measures that need to be taken to correct them, differ if the cause is human or natural or some combination of both? Obviously not.

I think it does matter. Depending on the proportion assigned to "human or natural," assignment of responsibility and arenas of mitigation could have substantial importance.

But you are correct in pointing out the error of the "gotcha" element, which is a feel-good, but unproductive, argument..

The media does love a scandal. But in this case, I'm afraid it is well deserved. Don Kopp (bill sponsor and rabid right-wing Republican) got his knickers in a twist because some professor dared to show An Inconvenient Truth in a college class on climate change. According to my colleagues, the only agenda is critical thinking. Apparently Don did not agree.

IDIOT, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. (Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary)

Martin wrote:I think it does matter. Depending on the proportion assigned to "human or natural," assignment of responsibility and arenas of mitigation could have substantial importance.

I don't understand this. For instance, if the ocean rises, low lying coastal stretches will need to have their seawalls raised. Will assigning responsibility to man rather than nature shift who funds this work?

In developed countries, the work will be payed for by each affected country in any case. In underdeveloped countries, it will also be paid for by them, along with contributions by those who don't want to get refugees (i.e. India and China for Bangladesh), plus the regular aid and disaster relief grants already being paid. I doubt even an authoritative finding that, for instance, it's US commuters who are 100% to blame for global warming, will have the Congress cutting any extra checks beyond that.

Finally, if we need to change our habits, e.g. in energy use, would it be easier to get the legislation done if it was our fault and fair, or if it was nature's fault and unfair? I really don't think it matters.