Global warming and its effects on agriculture

Yes - past climate cycles that occurred during the time of humans tended to be handled by humans moving - or dying, for that matter.

Today, neither of those options is considered desirable.

We have billions of humans, and we can't handle a few million who need to leave Syria. Think what it would mean for Bangladesh, India or other areas where there is significant population. Also, Syria shows the direct connection between climate affects and global national security issues.


And, none of that suggests that humans aren't changing earth's temperature through CO2 and other emissions.

As a matter of science, the fact that there have been cycles doesn't mean that there can be ONLY non-human causes! Scientists point out that we're making things worse than they would have been without our contribution. And, suggesting we shouldn't care about that is ridiculous.

 

They aren't feeding those countries today.

The main issues with feeding the world don't have to do with surpluses that happen to be available in the US.

 

Woops - Obviously, plowing allows oxidation of the carbon in the soil as it gets exposed to air, adding co2 to the atmosphere.

 

The issue of feeding starving populations have more to do with governments than production. In some countries the starving live next to agriculture that is exported for profit.

 

China represents a 26 billion dollar market for food and fiber from the U.S. alone. I am sure they import from other countries as well. I just haven't looked up the numbers yet. China is also buying up farmland all over the world. I have heard Australians complaining about it on this very forum. Toyki Kazai of Japans Chiba University states that vertical production of tomato or potato crops consumes 1,200 kW hours of electricity for evey kilogram of edible tissue produced. This is using the modern LED lighting in a clear glass building. This does not consider that for every 10 pounds of vegetables 8 to 9 1/2 pounds is water. You would do better growing your potatoes in a barrel of sawdust.

 

And yet the population of the globe continues to increase.

The worst case of computer programs which cannot predict the past are claimed to prove that humans will be responsible for the destruction of mankind due to CO2 emissions. Ridiculous.

 

Yes. Your first sentence is a rephrase of what I said earlier.

Your second sentence is not the usual issue, but i'm sure you can find cases of governments behaving like that.

Even in the US we have large food exports as well as people who ard hungry.

 

Wow! Maybe I don't want to know where you dredged that up that stuff.

 

The only way people go hungry in the US is because they either are spending everything they can on drugs or buying crap food. There are over 200 welfare programs to help people from food to housing.

 

You should read more including the suggestions in this and other posts in this sub forum. You will find that all predictions of doom and gloom are based on the upper limits of the predictions of computer models which cannot "predict" the past. A technical education and background which I have helps understand this but the well read layman can certainly understand this if he has an open mind.

The controversy over global warming can be reduced to those (alarmists) who believe in the upper limits of the computer models to those (labeled denialists by the alarmists) who believe in the real world data which shows a much lower climate sensitivity to CO2 and indicates beneficial results of this slow warming trend.

 

Some have predicted the outer limits of warming. For example, Gore did that. He tried to make a point that warming is serious by including worst case understandings of a decade ago, and the result was a problem in communication.

But, we have made a lot of progress over that decade, and one certainly doesn't have to look at worst cases to see that climate change is serious.

Also, there is this idea that models don't pass the hindcasting test. But, that isn't actually accurate, either. There are certainly models that don't do well.

But, we should be looking at the models that do a good job.

And, let's remember that there is no model that passes the hindcasting test without including human contribution.

 

This idea of "beneficial results" is nonsense.

The catch is that we have a world population distributed as it is distributed today.

So, the mere fact of change is serious.

For example, Syria hit a years long drought that is consistent with climate change predictions. That caused farmers to leave their farms, moving into cities where the Syrian government had no way of dealing with the problem. What we see in Syria today came in part due to the drought and that inability to respond.

Whether Canada can produce more food, or whatever, is 100% irrelevant. No "beneficial results" solved that problem in Syria, nor could it have.

This is true in the US, too, as we see drought conditions become more common. California's water shortage, coming from drought, could not possibly be overcome by some "beneficial effect". When you can't water your crop it makes NO difference how much CO2 you supply.

 

As usual the climate alarmists are confusing climate variation with global warming. The normal variations is climate far exceed the predicted changes attributable to the climate sensitivity to CO2. Droughts (including those in Syria and California) are normal variations and are not attributable to global warming. And the frequency and magnitude of droughts and other severe weather events has not increased with global warming.

The beneficial aspects of increasing global average temperature have been well documented in many sources including this sub forum.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no model that passes the hindcasting test.

 

The vast majority of scientific agencies have clearly stated the downside of AGW far outweighs the upside. And no model for anything on the planet surpasses the hindcasting test

 

The models are poor at hind casting. They have to adjust parameters to fit the curve.

 

For warming in excess of 3 deg C. But that won't occur for the next 300 years. Meanwhile economically viable alternative energy sources will be developed which will compete with fossil fuels in price and be available 24/7/365.

If a model cannot hindcast accurately then it there is very little chance that it can forecast accurately, no ?? So the alarmists suggest that the inaccurate model worst case scenarios be used in conjunction with the precautionary principle to eliminate fossil fuel energy and reduce economic growth which consequently reduces the ability of those countries implementing such precautionary policies from adapting. This makes no sense ??

 

Because they didn't have the knowledge to adapt to it.

Nor are they necessary.

We can handle a few million who need to leave their countries for climate reasons or other reasons. What we can't handle is a few million who intend to destroy the countries they move to.

If they could be expected to behave like civilized human beings, it wouldn't be an issue. But they can't.

But again, that has been the same for millennia. Rome fell when climate change forced mass migrations out of Central Asia.

In fact, improving it.

Of course. But it should be the first place one looks, not the last -- let alone a place to try to stop people from looking.

Some may have made such claims, but the evidence is equivocal at best. Certainly increased CO2 and warmer climate are good for agriculture. Anyone who denies that is just lying or delusional.

I suggest we should care about real problems, not phony ones.

 

Do you know why?

Indeed they do not. They have to do entirely with harmful and unjust institutions based on false and evil beliefs.

 

But cannot defend that claim with empirical evidence. All the actual evidence is on the other side. That's why climatologists used to call warm periods "optimums," before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

What are you talking about? A simple climate model that includes solar variation and doesn't overestimate CO2 sensitivity can hindcast better than the AGW models.

 

No it's not. It was perfectly well known climate science before it was ruled politically incorrect. That's why climatologists used to call warm periods, "optimums."

Which you might notice is overwhelmingly situated in warm countries because WARM IS BETTER.

Indeed. But the notion that we can somehow STOP climate change by not burning any more fossil fuels is not serious, and cannot be taken seriously.

And also with its pre-industrial climate history.

Because the government is an evil, megalomaniac dictator with no regard for his people.

It came from politics. In a democracy -- or even in a more responsible dictatorship, like China -- that would be highly unlikely.

Wrong. Syria's main problem is dictatorship, not drought.

It most certainly could. CA has had many droughts in the past, none of which had anything to do with CO2 or global warming. Warmer climate accelerates the hydrological cycle, leading to more rainfall. It's unfortunate that so far it has been falling in places like Louisiana and North Korea, but that's the chaotic nature of the system. There is no way of knowing if the drought would have been just as severe in the absence of anthropogenic CO2, less severe, or even MORE severe. You have no evidence, and no way of arguing, that CA would not now have been a desert but for human fossil fuel use.

Warmer climate --> more water. We can't say exactly where that additional water will go, and it's absurd to think it would only go where we want it, but it is certainly there.

 

Will he? Do open range ranchers make more profit than feedlot ranchers?

You need to stop typing and start thinking.

Unlikely.

You are incorrect. It is already feeding whole countries, and getting better and cheaper as technology improves.

But relentlessly declining.

$#!+ makes good fertilizer with which to grow that lunch.

GET IT???

 

Feedlot ranchers buy the livestock and the feed from open range ranchers or farmers. And please inform me of one country that is being fed by indoor farms. Even the best indoor farmers will be the first to admit they will not produce enough to replace outdoor farms. It takes 1,200 kW hours of electricity to provide enough lighting to produce one kilo of edible food from potatoes or tomatoes. This was stated in an earlier post. S*"t makes good fertilizer but if you wish to eat it go ahead.

- - - Updated - - -

Sunlight is free but if anyone wishes to buy lighting go ahead.

 

Maybe we're going to need to place solar reflectors in space to force sunlight into areas where we need to grow more foods? Maybe we need enormous greenhouses with affordable and alternative energy sources? When will we have domed cities? Or perhaps we figure out how to produce foods underground? IMO we will need to produce lots of food in lots of places...decentralized farming...

 

Why not just put the carbon bacback in the soil where it belongs?

 

From farmers. Not open range ranchers.

South Korea.

Not yet. But look at the tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers in your local greengrocer. Most are produced in greenhouses. 30 years ago, almost none were. The trend is relentless.

No it doesn't. They grow just fine on natural sunlight. You must be thinking of UNDERGROUND farming, not greenhouse farming that uses natural sunlight.

Greenhouses use sunlight, duh.