Global warming will increases grain production

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Global warming will increases grain production

Page 1 of 2

Global warming will increases grain production26-01-2019 17:01
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	A number of university researchers have presented model calculations which show that global warming will do considerable damage to wheat production. One of them is Professor Jørgen E. Olesen from the University of Aarhus in Denmark. He and his colleagues have made a number of model calculations, which are based on wheat, where the result has been, that global warming will do considerable damage to wheat production. Here they have made 2 serious mistakes. The first is that wheat is only one of many plant products. In other words, it is not the wheat production that is important. It is the total plant production, which is important. The facts is, that wheat can easily be replaced by other plant products such as corn, rice, barley, rye, oats and potatoes. The second mistake they have made is, that they have not taken the historical facts intro consideration. As the figure below shows, there has been a very sharp increase in the global production of both corn, wheat, rice and soybeans from 1961 until now. During this period, the global average temperature has increased by approximately ½ degree Celsius. As the figure show, there has been a 5½-fold increase in global corn production from 1961 to 2017. During the same period, a 3½-fold increase in both wheat and rice production has occurred. At the same time, there has also been a 13-fold increase in the global production of soybeans. Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:03
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	For corn and soybeans, there has been a remarkable expansion of the cultivated area. This is a major to the large increase in the production of these crops. This area expansion has to a large extent occurred in northern countries where the climate 50-60 years ago was not warm enough to grow corn and soybeans. This is as an example the case is in Denmark, Germany, southern Canada, in Ukraine, in southern Russia and in northern China. In these northern farming areas, the warming that has taken place here in the last 50 to 60 years, has allowed corn to grow to a considerable extent. A similar movement to the north has occurred in the cultivation of soybeans. This has had a very positive effect on the total production of corn and soybean. It should be noted that corn yields is significantly higher than wheat and barley yields. Similarly, the price of soybeans is significantly above the price of wheat and corn. For these reasons, it is relevant to replace wheat and barley with corn or soybeans if the climate permits that. The figure below shows the harvest yields in wheat and corn per hectare in the USA and Canada. As the figure show, the harvest yields are significantly higher in corn than in wheat. Therefore, it is highly relevant to replace wheat with corn if the climate permits that. In addition, it can be seen that harvest yields in both corn and wheat are generally a little bit higher in the United States than in Canada. Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:04
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	The figure below shows the increase in the production of corn and soybean in Canada from 1961 to 2017. The figure show, that the increase in temperature from 1961 until now, has had a very clear positive impact on the production of corn and soybeans in Canada. 60 years ago and earlier, it was not warm enough to grow corn and soybeans in Canada. Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:05
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	Growing corn and soybeans occurs in the southern parts of Canada. Now the climates here have become warm enough for cultivation of corn and soybean with good results. Wheat, barley and rapeseed are to day growing further north, as corn and soybeans in the south of Canada to a considerable extent have displaced traditional agricultural crops. The figure below shows the production of barley, canola, wheat, soybeans and corn in Canada. This is the 5 absolute most important crops in Canada except from grass. It should be noted here, that the total production of these 5 crops has increased from just over 10 million tons in 1961 to over 80 million tonnes in 2017. This sharp increase in production has occurred as a result of the fact, that it is now possible to grow barley, wheat and oilseed rape far further north than it was possible 50-60 years ago. The total area with these 5 crops has as a result increased remarkably in the period from 1961 to now. Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:06
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	The figure below show the production of soybean, corn and wheat in the United States. Here it is especially the production of soybeans and corn, which has risen sharply. It should also be noted that the total production of these crops in the United States is well above the level in Canada, although Canada is slightly larger than the United States in terms of area. Attached image:

26-01-2019 17:07
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	Similarly, in Mexico there has been a sharp increase in the production of corn in the period from 1961 until now. According to FAOSTAT, corn production has increased from 6.2 million tonnes to 27.8 million during this period. That is, approximately a 4½-fold increase in production. Based on that, we can conclude, that the positive development that has been in the production of agricultural crops in Canada as shown above have not occur on the basis of declining production in the US and Mexico. If all what happened was, that the production of agricultural crops have moved to the north, this would have had a negative impact on the production in the southern US and Mexico. This is not seen to be the case. Based on that, we can conclude, that it is of crucial importance that agricultural crops, can be cultivated further to the north today than previously. The figure below show where wheat is cultivated in North America today, and where it is expected to be cultivated wheat in the year 2050. As it can be seen, it is expected that due to global warming, it will be possible to grow wheat far further north in the year 2050 than is possible today. Attached image: Edited on 26-01-2019 17:08
26-01-2019 17:09
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	Similarly, the figure below shows that the production of heat-demanding crops such as corn, sunflowers and soybeans in Ukraine has increased significantly during the period from 1992 to 2017. In FAOSTAT there is only data for Ukraine from 1992 and forwards. Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:10
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	In Russia, there is the same development as in Canada and Ukraine. Here, in the same way, there has been a large increase in both the crop yields and in the cultivated area with corn and sunflowers. Here again it is the rising temperatures that have allowed the cultivation of heat-demanding crops such as corn, sunflowers and soybeans. The figure below show where corn is grown in Russia today. Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:11
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	The figure below shows the the increase in the production of soybeans, sunflowers and corn in Russia. Here too, the heat-demanding crops have benefited greatly from the temperature rise that has been. Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:12
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	In addition, Russia has had a significant increase in their production of wheat. According to FAOSTAT, it has increased from approximatly 46 million tonnes in 1992 to approximately 86 million tonnes in 2017. In FAOSTAT there is only data from 1992 and forwards for Russia. The figure below shows where wheat is grown in Russia today. If further temperature increases will occur in Russia, then there can be no doubt, that wheat cultivation in Russia will move towards the north. Based on the very large areas that exist in Russia, a warmer climate will have a major positive impact on wheat cultivation and production in Russia. Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:13
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	The figure below shows the production of rice, maize and wheat in China. Here, there has also been a sharp increase in the production of the heat-demanding crops, such as rice and corn. Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:14
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	The figure below shows where corn primarily is cultivated in China. Since corn in China primarily is grown in the northern part of the country, corn production here, as in many other countries, has benefited greatly from the warming that has taken place in the last 50 to 60 years. In southern China, rice is primarily cultivated. The rice cultivation has also benefited from the increase in the temperature that has occurred since 1961. The sharp increase in the production of corn and rice speaks for itself. Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:15
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	The figure below shows the increase in the area with corn in Denmark from 1982 to 2010. In Denmark, the area with corn has as seen in many other countries has increased significantly. This has happened because it is now warm enough for growing corn in Denmark. It should be noted, that in Denmark there is primarily grown feeding corn or green corn. Feeding corn is corn, which is harvested in a more or less green state. This corn is used as cattle feed. In countries with a warmer climate, corn is usually harvested in mature state. This is called grain corn or grain maize. Grain corn is typically used as a feed for pigs and chickens. Source: Statistics Denmark Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:16
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	In Germany, there has been the same sharp increase in the area with corn as many other places. The figure below shows the rise in the area with corn in Germany from 1949 to 2013. (Entwicklung der Maisanbaufläche in Deutschland seit 1949) Here it is both the area with feeding corn (Grün- und Silomais) and grain corn (Körnermais) which has increased sharply. Again, it is the increase in temperature that has been of major importance for corn cultivation. Since the yield in corn generally is significantly higher than in cereals, it is relevant to grow corn, when the temperature becomes high enough. Source: Destatis; Stand 2-2015 Attached image:
26-01-2019 17:17
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	Claiming that global warming will do considerable damage to grain and plant production is obviously wrong. The actual increases in both production and cultivated areas speak for it selves.

26-01-2019 20:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	jørgen petersen wrote: A number of university researchers have presented model calculations which show that global warming will do considerable damage to wheat production. One of them is Professor Jørgen E. Olesen from the University of Aarhus in Denmark. He and his colleagues have made a number of model calculations, which are based on wheat, where the result has been, that global warming will do considerable damage to wheat production. Here they have made 2 serious mistakes. The first is that wheat is only one of many plant products. In other words, it is not the wheat production that is important. It is the total plant production, which is important. The facts is, that wheat can easily be replaced by other plant products such as corn, rice, barley, rye, oats and potatoes. The second mistake they have made is, that they have not taken the historical facts intro consideration. As the figure below shows, there has been a very sharp increase in the global production of both corn, wheat, rice and soybeans from 1961 until now. During this period, the global average temperature has increased by approximately ½ degree Celsius. As the figure show, there has been a 5½-fold increase in global corn production from 1961 to 2017. During the same period, a 3½-fold increase in both wheat and rice production has occurred. At the same time, there has also been a 13-fold increase in the global production of soybeans. The 1st mistake (and the most egregious) is the use of models as data. Models are not data. Simply assuming global warming is happening, then making some consequence of it in models is absolutely meaningless. This is not science. I don't care who it is, or what their credentials. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That means they must be tested using a specific test that produces a specific result that uses tests to try to break a theory. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2019 20:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	jørgen petersen wrote: Claiming that global warming will do considerable damage to grain and plant production is obviously wrong. The actual increases in both production and cultivated areas speak for it selves. Yes. It is wrong. You have adequately demonstrated why. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2019 23:19
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	I am deeply surprised at what happens to these so-called scientists. I have a lack words to describe it. To prove that global warming so far have been a great benefit for plant cultivation is as easy as nothing.
26-01-2019 23:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	jørgen petersen wrote: I am deeply surprised at what happens to these so-called scientists. I have a lack words to describe it. To prove that global warming so far have been a great benefit for plant cultivation is as easy as nothing. What global warming? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2019 05:16
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Plants like a warmer climate, they also like a much higher level of CO2. It's a common practice to augment CO2 in a greenhouse to 1200-2000 ppm. Plants grow faster, stronger, with much more than the 400 ppm level the IPCC is claiming to be too high already. Seems like what is best for plants, is a good thing for all other life, since we need food. No matter your prefered diet, it starts with plants. I strongly believe that we still haven't hit the peak, recovering from the last, great ice age. The warming trend has nothing to do with man-made CO2. As far as food crops, I don't think it's just the warmer temperatures, been a lot of improvements in farming techniques, hybrids, and GMOs. I prefer a warmer climate anyway, think it's insane to want to keep us in the cold, and starving.
27-01-2019 10:58
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	@ Into the Night Global warming is the warming that has happened in the last 50, 100 or 200 years. I have not said anything about how much (or a little) is man-made.
27-01-2019 11:16
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	@ HarveyH55 I very much agree with you. There are many other reasons why there has been an increase in harvest yields and production than warming. It including also an increased atmospheric CO2 level. It is still very easy to prove, that today we can grow barley, wheat, corn, soybeans and other crops significantly farther to the north than earlier. The tree line has moved to the north, and the limit for grain cultivation has also moved to the north. This has given a considerably expansion of the total area of cultivation of agricultural crops. The interesting thing is, that no setback can be seen in plant-production in countries with a hot climate in the statistics. Here can be seen the increase in wheat production in a number of countries with a warm climate and a large wheat production. Attached image:
27-01-2019 19:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	jørgen petersen wrote: @ Into the Night Global warming is the warming that has happened in the last 50, 100 or 200 years. I have not said anything about how much (or a little) is man-made. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. How do you know it's been warming the last <insert random number here> years? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2019 19:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	jørgen petersen wrote: @ HarveyH55 I very much agree with you. There are many other reasons why there has been an increase in harvest yields and production than warming. It including also an increased atmospheric CO2 level. It is still very easy to prove, that today we can grow barley, wheat, corn, soybeans and other crops significantly farther to the north than earlier. The tree line has moved to the north, and the limit for grain cultivation has also moved to the north. This has given a considerably expansion of the total area of cultivation of agricultural crops. The interesting thing is, that no setback can be seen in plant-production in countries with a hot climate in the statistics. Here can be seen the increase in wheat production in a number of countries with a warm climate and a large wheat production. The tree line hasn't moved. Trees need light, even evergreen trees. They don't grow where there is too little light. Plants are not sensitive to temperature. Farm production has increased because farming practices are more efficient and automated. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2019 20:00
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	jørgen petersen wrote: @ HarveyH55 I very much agree with you. There are many other reasons why there has been an increase in harvest yields and production than warming. It including also an increased atmospheric CO2 level. It is still very easy to prove, that today we can grow barley, wheat, corn, soybeans and other crops significantly farther to the north than earlier. The tree line has moved to the north, and the limit for grain cultivation has also moved to the north. This has given a considerably expansion of the total area of cultivation of agricultural crops. The interesting thing is, that no setback can be seen in plant-production in countries with a hot climate in the statistics. Here can be seen the increase in wheat production in a number of countries with a warm climate and a large wheat production. While we are on the same side as far as AGM is concerned your models of what is happening assume that there has been signicant warming in the last 40 years which there hasn't been. And it also assumes that the "warming" has caused the increase in production. There are a couple of things going on here: far more fossil fuels are being produced so the supply of energy has greatly increased. This means that automated farming methods are becoming more and more available especially in the second and third world countries that were once the centers of the world's starvation. Also the increase in CO2 which Ice Core surveys show occur AFTER warming gives plants and hence animals more food. So, there needn't be any warming outside of the normal temperature recovery after the inter-warm period cooling, to account for the increasing crops.
27-01-2019 21:32
jørgen petersen ☆☆☆☆☆ (19)	Dear Wake I just want to say, that we should not consider global warming as distinctly negative. Here I point out the positive aspects of warming. This is whether it is natural or man-made.
27-01-2019 22:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Wake wrote: jørgen petersen wrote: @ HarveyH55 I very much agree with you. There are many other reasons why there has been an increase in harvest yields and production than warming. It including also an increased atmospheric CO2 level. It is still very easy to prove, that today we can grow barley, wheat, corn, soybeans and other crops significantly farther to the north than earlier. The tree line has moved to the north, and the limit for grain cultivation has also moved to the north. This has given a considerably expansion of the total area of cultivation of agricultural crops. The interesting thing is, that no setback can be seen in plant-production in countries with a hot climate in the statistics. Here can be seen the increase in wheat production in a number of countries with a warm climate and a large wheat production. While we are on the same side as far as AGM is concerned your models of what is happening assume that there has been signicant warming in the last 40 years which there hasn't been. And it also assumes that the "warming" has caused the increase in production. This is a paradox, Wake. Wake wrote: There are a couple of things going on here: far more fossil fuels are being produced so the supply of energy has greatly increased. This means that automated farming methods are becoming more and more available especially in the second and third world countries that were once the centers of the world's starvation. Which is great! Wake wrote: Also the increase in CO2 which Ice Core surveys show occur AFTER warming gives plants and hence animals more food. Ice cores do not indicate historic CO2 at all, Wake. Ice is permeable to CO2. They also don't indicate global temperatures for the same reason it is possible to measure the temperature of the Earth today. There aren't enough cores. Wake wrote: So, there needn't be any warming outside of the normal temperature recovery after the inter-warm period cooling, to account for the increasing crops. Yes you say CO2 is capable of warming the Earth. You are locked in paradox, Wake. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2019 22:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	jørgen petersen wrote: Dear Wake I just want to say, that we should not consider global warming as distinctly negative. Here I point out the positive aspects of warming. This is whether it is natural or man-made. What warming? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2019 22:55
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Into the Night wrote: jørgen petersen wrote: Dear Wake I just want to say, that we should not consider global warming as distinctly negative. Here I point out the positive aspects of warming. This is whether it is natural or man-made. What warming? At what point in time, did we stop warming from the great ice age? What global temperature is considered 'normal'? What are you using for a reference, since we don't seem to have any pre-ice age records to compare with?
27-01-2019 23:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Into the Night wrote: jørgen petersen wrote: Dear Wake I just want to say, that we should not consider global warming as distinctly negative. Here I point out the positive aspects of warming. This is whether it is natural or man-made. What warming? At what point in time, did we stop warming from the great ice age? What stop in warming? The problem is, it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, and you haven't define a starting and ending time to describe a 'warming'. HarveyH55 wrote: What global temperature is considered 'normal'? There isn't one. HarveyH55 wrote: What are you using for a reference, I'm not. I'm not the one trying to declare a global temperature. YOU are. HarveyH55 wrote: since we don't seem to have any pre-ice age records to compare with? What records? Who kept them? Ice cores? They do not describe the temperature of the Earth any better than today's numerous thermometers do. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

28-01-2019 00:56
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	jørgen petersen wrote: Dear Wake I just want to say, that we should not consider global warming as distinctly negative. Here I point out the positive aspects of warming. This is whether it is natural or man-made. I think that there has been some warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (circa 1850) but how much has been completely hidden in an attempt to build a World Government. Certainly the warming that has occurred is almost entirely beneficial and the increases in CO2 are as well. But at the moment we simply do not know that much of what has been going on because of interference by world governments in an attempt to increase their power. Science has been downgraded to hearsay and most of the "research" has been accomplished by groups willing to prostitute themselves for very large research grants.
28-01-2019 03:22
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Ever notice how the IPCC avoids water vapor, and quickly changes the subject when it comes into play? I truly believe that it plays a very key role in regulating the temperature down here on the surface. I guess here in Florida, we tend to notice the humidity, more than the northern folks. Another effect of our warm climate, is the storms. Fortunately, during our 'rainy' season and hurricane season, the storms don't usually last long. When we do get the bad storms though, the clouds darken the sky pretty good, most definitely feels like a cooler climate too. Sure, a rather small area, compared to the entire planet, but most of the planet it covered with water, and with sufficient heat, it can become water vapor, and clouds. Seems like CO2 can't do much, if there is no infrared to get it excited, and do it's evil work. Water evaporating also carries off heat from the surface, heat rises, so does the water vapor. We really haven't had a chance to observe everything the atmosphere does, because it hasn't happened in our existence. It's entirely possible there are other cooling mechanism, some much more powerful than man-made CO2, since we the planet gets brutally cold occasionally, for long periods of time. I really don't see a few degrees increase as an issue to argue about, and I've seen some mighty hot days. A few hundred parts per million is a none issue as well, since there are a lot of volume in the atmosphere, it's not contained either, it expands and contracts.
28-01-2019 08:45
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	HarveyH55 wrote: Plants like a warmer climate, they also like a much higher level of CO2. It's a common practice to augment CO2 in a greenhouse to 1200-2000 ppm. Plants grow faster, stronger, with much more than the 400 ppm level the IPCC is claiming to be too high already. Seems like what is best for plants, is a good thing for all other life, since we need food. No matter your prefered diet, it starts with plants. I strongly believe that we still haven't hit the peak, recovering from the last, great ice age. The warming trend has nothing to do with man-made CO2. I don't see how you can be sure that the projected increased droughts and floods will not wipe out any effect that CO2 fertilization will have. If your plants die because of a flood you're back to square one. There are all kinds of other limiting factors for plant growth like ground minerals available, water, sun etc which lead to the prediction by experts that the CO2 fertilization will have only a limited positive effect. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/ As far as food crops, I don't think it's just the warmer temperatures, been a lot of improvements in farming techniques, hybrids, and GMOs. I prefer a warmer climate anyway, think it's insane to want to keep us in the cold, and starving. You can choose to believe that and I hope you're right, but there is real cause for concern. Edited on 28-01-2019 08:46
28-01-2019 08:49
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Yes, water in the atmosphere is the biggest player in the greenhouse gas game. However, it is very volatile and varies strongly. CO2 is a more "consistent" player in that game, albeit its effect being smaller than water vapor, its effect still being significant. Of course changing average temperatures through CO2 will have an effect on water in the atmosphere. Edited on 28-01-2019 08:51
28-01-2019 10:35
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	littleendian wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Plants like a warmer climate, they also like a much higher level of CO2. It's a common practice to augment CO2 in a greenhouse to 1200-2000 ppm. Plants grow faster, stronger, with much more than the 400 ppm level the IPCC is claiming to be too high already. Seems like what is best for plants, is a good thing for all other life, since we need food. No matter your prefered diet, it starts with plants. I strongly believe that we still haven't hit the peak, recovering from the last, great ice age. The warming trend has nothing to do with man-made CO2. I don't see how you can be sure that the projected increased droughts and floods will not wipe out any effect that CO2 fertilization will have. If your plants die because of a flood you're back to square one. There are all kinds of other limiting factors for plant growth like ground minerals available, water, sun etc which lead to the prediction by experts that the CO2 fertilization will have only a limited positive effect. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/ As far as food crops, I don't think it's just the warmer temperatures, been a lot of improvements in farming techniques, hybrids, and GMOs. I prefer a warmer climate anyway, think it's insane to want to keep us in the cold, and starving. You can choose to believe that and I hope you're right, but there is real cause for concern. Floods and droughts, and all of the other doomsday prophecies, are fortune-cookie predictions. Just one of those threats used, to encourage people to join up, and take action, without thinking about it too much. There isn't enough data to feed the computer models, to make such predictions. It's the difference in temperature that drives weather. Shouldn't be much difference, than what we already have seen. Plants draw nutrients from the soil through roots, which can grow a long way to reach what the plant needs. Farms have had to fertilize their lands for a long time. Why would they suddenly stop the practice? Lack of fuel for farm equipment? Floods? Crops aren't wiped out as often from floods, do to storm water management (drainage). Problem with a lot of places, they don't want to spend the money on maintenance and upgrades, until after a flood. Really understable though, between insurance, and emergency disaster relief funds, most people come out better financially, anyway. Personally, I'd prefer to keep what I have, and protect it, rather than rebuild and get all new stuff occasionally. Too much 'free' money, too little responsibility and accountability.
28-01-2019 10:56
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	HarveyH55 wrote: Floods and droughts, and all of the other doomsday prophecies, are fortune-cookie predictions. No, they are a very real scenario under present climate change: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05256-8 I know you guys are really not fond of those damn scientists and their conclusions. I've heard nothing so far that makes me think that these doubts are founded on real issues in the science. I suspect it is because you are resisting being inconvenienced by lifestyle changes.
28-01-2019 12:01
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	littleendian wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Floods and droughts, and all of the other doomsday prophecies, are fortune-cookie predictions. No, they are a very real scenario under present climate change: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05256-8 I know you guys are really not fond of those damn scientists and their conclusions. I've heard nothing so far that makes me think that these doubts are founded on real issues in the science. I suspect it is because you are resisting being inconvenienced by lifestyle changes. A scenario is a subjective interpretation, it's not a fact, it's a belief. The bible is full of scenarios, and there is a huge consensus of people who have faith in them. Does that mean the bible is entirely factual and true? It does, if you have faith in it, many experts in that field as well. I don't have a problem with science or scientist, it's a study, a search for answers. I don't have a problem with religion either, it serves a purpose, fills a need. I do have a problem with politics and greed though. A scientist only reports the findings of a study, and anybody is free to use the results , interpret them differently, draw their own conclusions. Most research has a very narrow scope, usually to keep the cost down, keep thing simple and manageable, better more precise results.
28-01-2019 17:47
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	littleendian wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Floods and droughts, and all of the other doomsday prophecies, are fortune-cookie predictions. No, they are a very real scenario under present climate change: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05256-8 I know you guys are really not fond of those damn scientists and their conclusions. I've heard nothing so far that makes me think that these doubts are founded on real issues in the science. I suspect it is because you are resisting being inconvenienced by lifestyle changes. Excuse me but you are obviously young and are using your personal experiences to judge extreme weather events. I live in California and droughts and forest fires have throughout history been a part of the landscape. Two or three or even five years of drought are not just in the geological record but are actually in the historical records. Forest fires 10 times larger than the latest ones last year were common and would run until the rains came in the winter. This is why the Redwoods were the major tree variety in California - their thick and insulating bark protected them in large part from fires. They also have the ability to regenerated from rootstock which most last trees will not do. We just had a couple of Earthquakes the other day and it wasn't even on the news because they are common enough. But if you haven't lived through them 50 times before they might seem remarkable. Major weather events over the entire world have been going down over the last 50 years and this has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change but is just happenstance. Weather is a chaotic event and hence you can have long periods of bad weather and equally long periods of good weather. I think that you should study the history of the world a great deal more and pay a whole lot less attention to people who claim things like "The BIGGEST EARTHQUAKE EVER." Or whatever.
28-01-2019 19:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Ever notice how the IPCC avoids water vapor, and quickly changes the subject when it comes into play? I truly believe that it plays a very key role in regulating the temperature down here on the surface. I guess here in Florida, we tend to notice the humidity, more than the northern folks. Another effect of our warm climate, is the storms. Fortunately, during our 'rainy' season and hurricane season, the storms don't usually last long. When we do get the bad storms though, the clouds darken the sky pretty good, most definitely feels like a cooler climate too. Sure, a rather small area, compared to the entire planet, but most of the planet it covered with water, and with sufficient heat, it can become water vapor, and clouds. Seems like CO2 can't do much, if there is no infrared to get it excited, and do it's evil work. Water evaporating also carries off heat from the surface, heat rises, so does the water vapor. We really haven't had a chance to observe everything the atmosphere does, because it hasn't happened in our existence. It's entirely possible there are other cooling mechanism, some much more powerful than man-made CO2, since we the planet gets brutally cold occasionally, for long periods of time. I really don't see a few degrees increase as an issue to argue about, and I've seen some mighty hot days. A few hundred parts per million is a none issue as well, since there are a lot of volume in the atmosphere, it's not contained either, it expands and contracts. Water vapor does indeed absorb infrared light just like CO2 does. There is a lot more of it too. However, absorption of surface infrared light does not warm the Earth. It actually cools the surface. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-01-2019 19:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	littleendian wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Plants like a warmer climate, they also like a much higher level of CO2. It's a common practice to augment CO2 in a greenhouse to 1200-2000 ppm. Plants grow faster, stronger, with much more than the 400 ppm level the IPCC is claiming to be too high already. Seems like what is best for plants, is a good thing for all other life, since we need food. No matter your prefered diet, it starts with plants. I strongly believe that we still haven't hit the peak, recovering from the last, great ice age. The warming trend has nothing to do with man-made CO2. I don't see how you can be sure that the projected increased droughts and floods will not wipe out any effect that CO2 fertilization will have. If your plants die because of a flood you're back to square one. There are all kinds of other limiting factors for plant growth like ground minerals available, water, sun etc which lead to the prediction by experts that the CO2 fertilization will have only a limited positive effect. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/ As far as food crops, I don't think it's just the warmer temperatures, been a lot of improvements in farming techniques, hybrids, and GMOs. I prefer a warmer climate anyway, think it's insane to want to keep us in the cold, and starving. You can choose to believe that and I hope you're right, but there is real cause for concern. There is no cause for concern. You are just preaching your doom and gloom predictions again, and ignore the science and mathematics again. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using surface emitted infrared light. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate Global warming will increases grain production:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Project for the production of electricity	1	23-04-2024 07:41
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?	5	08-10-2019 19:13
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature	29	17-09-2019 22:35
There is no evidence CO2 increases temperature	1	28-06-2019 05:22
There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.	3	12-03-2019 13:23