To: North American Fruit Explorers <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [NAFEX] California's screwed tree crops
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
The Transition movement is looking to make communities more self sufficient in terms of all basic needs. This is a reaction to "peak oil" rather than global warming. Whether you admit to the fact that oil reserves are more than half gone and use is increasing geometrically or not, the Transition process produces many beneficial effects on local communities, not the least of which is self sufficiency in organic food and clean energy. As far as climate zones moving south, That is pure PR spin. There may be some areas where this is true because of shifts in the global air and ocean currents, but the trend overall is clearly warming. Certainly here in Southern Louisiana we're a full zone warmer than the USDA map indicates. My reaction to low chill hours is to grow other species that are
adapted to warmer climates such as substituting Equadoran Cherries for Prunus avium etc. The likeliest causes of famine in the US will be short supplies of fossil fuels and extreme drought/flooding. Predictions are fallible, but with any large enough group, actuarial science is able to predict trends very accurately. This applies to years and climate change as much as it applies to people and life spans.
From: Mark Angermayer <hangermayer@isp.com> To: Ginda Fisher <list@ginda.us>; North American Fruit Explorers <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:13:00
AM Subject: Re: [NAFEX] California's screwed tree crops
I've no opinon on global warming, but do have an opinon on predictions. They tend to be extremely fallable, even by learned folks. I thought an article in the last Pomona illustrated this remarkably. The article was written by an educated man, Dan Henenway, who used to participate on this forum. The original article was written in 1983, and was reprinted by permission in the last Pomona. The article is a call to action for urban communities to grow their own food. Agricultural errors aside, the article makes two predictions illustrating man's non-niscience.
First, the article states that although California provides nearly two thirds of our vegetables today (1983) by the year 2000, California "will be barely self-sufficient in food for its own people." This did not come to pass. California' is still the number one state exporter of most fruits, and virtually all
vegetables. California has also become the number one producer of milk, surpassing Wisconsin.
The article further states, "And bear in mind that the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that by 2000 a loaf of bread will cost you well over $7.00." Here we are a decade later, and a loaf of bread in these parts costs about 2 bucks.
I've come to take these type of predictions with a grain of salt.
If there's a food shortage in the U.S, I doubt it will be caused by drought, climate change, or pests. War, economic collapse, and corrupt governments are generally the cause in the modern era.
Mark KS
P.S. Although I disagree with much of what Mr. Hemenway wrote, I agree its a good idea for folks to be more self-sufficient when it come to growing food.
----- Original Message ----- From: Ginda Fisher To: North American Fruit Explorers ; nafex@lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [NAFEX] California's screwed tree crops
Sure, I don't want to fight about global warming today. I do want to elaborate a little on the prior post, from Richard Harrison, asserting an increase in hill hours in some warmer states.
That's not inconsistent with global warming. My understanding is that chill hours are not hours when it's really cold, but are only hours when it's sorta chilly (near or above freezing, up to 40 or 50F), when the trees are metabolically active but 'feel cold'. I gather that in very cold places the native trees don't need a lot of chill hours, since they have to come out of dormancy quickly and do their thing. It's places with long bumpy springs and late frosts where the local trees have adapted by
needing a lot of chill hours.
So if global warming is linked in some areas with a longer spring, you could easily get both higher average temps and more or similar chill hours.
Also, the US is a large country with lots of climate zones, some quite chilly. Surely agricultural plantings can move north if we get even quite a lot of global warming. Concurrant disruption of rainfall patterns is a more serious agricultural threat, but I'm sure the US will continue to be able to grow food _somewhere_, however cliate change plays out.
-- Ginda
Alan Haigh wrote:
Please members, can we refrain from another fruitless debate on global warming? _______________________________________________
Reproduction of list messages or archives is not allowed. This includes distribution on other email lists or reproduction on web sites. Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so don't claim you have permission!
**YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!** Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are discarded. No exceptions. ---- To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be used to change other email options): http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
File attachments are NOT stripped by this list. TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES! Please do not send binary files. Use plain text ONLY in emails!
Reproduction of list messages or archives is not allowed. This includes distribution on other email lists or reproduction on web sites. Permission to reproduce is NEVER granted, so don't claim you have permission!
**YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!** Posts from email addresses that are not subscribed are discarded. No exceptions. ---- To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be used to change other email options): http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
File attachments are NOT stripped by this list. TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM
COMPUTER VIRUSES! Please do not send binary files. Use plain text ONLY in emails!