Ten-Hut! Another Crowd Sourcing Request

A few weeks ago we requested constructive criticism and suggestion for a post on EverythingClimate.com.

Suggestions have been compiled and will be incorporated. Mike Dubrasich and Nick Stokes gave some of the best suggestions if someone wants to go back and see what we’d like to happen.

This week, let’s see what we can do with the article Climate Change and Crop Production – Everything Climate

Climate Change and Crop Production

Harvesting corn in the midewest. Licensed from 123RF.com

Pro: Climate Change Will Cause Food Shortages

Climate changes projected by global climate models are consistent with observed climate changes of concern to agriculture (Ch. 2: Climate).41,42,43 Climate change has the potential to adversely impact agricultural productivity at local, regional, and continental scales.44 Crop and livestock production in certain regions will be adversely impacted both by direct effects of climate change (such as increasing trends in daytime and nighttime temperatures; changes in rainfall patterns; and more frequent climate extremes, flooding, and drought) and consequent secondary effects (such as increased weed, pest, and disease pressures; reduced crop and forage production and quality; and damage to infrastructure). While climate change impacts on future agricultural production in specific regions of the United States remain uncertain, the ability of producers to adapt to climate change through planting decisions, farming practices, and use of technology can reduce its negative impact on production (Ch. 21: Midwest, Case Study “Adaptation in Forestry”).45

Risks associated with climate changes depend on the rate and severity of the changes and the ability of producers to adapt to changes. The severity of financial risks also depends on changes in food prices as well as local-to-global trade levels, as production and consumption patterns will likely be altered due to climate change.10,46 Many countries are already experiencing rapid price increases for basic food commodities, mainly due to production losses associated with more frequent weather extremes and unpredictable weather events. The United States is a major exporter of agricultural commodities,47 and a disruption in its agricultural production will affect the agricultural sector on a global scale. Food security, which is already a challenge across the globe, is likely to become an even greater challenge as climate change impacts agriculture.48,49 Food security will be further challenged by projected population growth and potential changes in diets as the world seeks to feed a projected 9.8 billion people by 2050.50,51,52

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/10/  (Fourth National Climate Assessment)

Climate change threatens our ability to ensure global food security, eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activity and livestock are a significant driver of climate change, trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere and triggering global warming.

Climate change has both direct and indirect effects on agricultural productivity including changing rainfall patterns, drought, flooding and the geographical redistribution of pests and diseases. The vast amounts of CO₂ absorbed by the oceans causes acidification, influencing the health of our oceans and those whose livelihoods and nutrition depend on them. FAO is supporting countries to both mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change through a wide range of research based and practical programmes and projects, as an integral part of the 2030 agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals.

http://www.fao.org/climate-change/en


Con: Food Production is Growing and Safe

As our planet gradually warms, global crop yields and crop yields across the planet continue setting new records almost every year. Not just global, but U.S. crop yields also continue to grow, setting new records nearly every year.

Longer growing seasons, higher temperatures, and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are creating ideal crop conditions.

As global climate modestly warms, U.S. and global crop yields are setting new records almost every year. The same is true for nearly all other nations, too. Thanks in large part to longer growing seasons, fewer frost events, more precipitation, and the fertilization effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide, farmers are producing more food on less land, allowing them to feed a growing global population.

Crop Production Facts: The 2019 global crop year brought record production of the important cereal crops; corn, wheat, and rice. This builds on previous records set nearly every year during the past decade. Almost every important U.S. crop has set record yields per acre during the past three years (latest data for when this summary went to press in February 2020), with most of the top 10 years in yields-per-acre occurring during the past decade. For example, each of the three record-high corn yields have occurred during the past three years. Each of the five record-high rice yields have occurred during the past five years. Each of the past nine years have produced top-10 all-time wheat yields.

How Global Warming Benefits Crop Production:Global warming lengthens growing seasons, reduces frost events, and makes more land conducive for crop production. Global soil moisture has maintained pace or modestly improved as global temperatures have risen modestly, with greater oceanic evaporation leading to more global precipitation, especially during summer and fall crop seasons. Further, carbon dioxide greatly benefits crop production, as atmospheric carbon dioxide works as aerial fertilizer. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels assist plant growth and resistance to drought and heat. It is for this reason that greenhouses often pump in elevated amounts of carbon dioxide.

Figure 1: Global Cereal Crop Production

Source: U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization: http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/.

More Information: Crop yields in nearly every country are growing, with many frequently setting new records. See the 25:35 mark and onward in the video linked above. The video is The Heartland Institute’s rebuttal to the United Nations’ 2019 Civil Society Conference.

4.3 8 votes
Article Rating
59 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
observa
March 27, 2021 10:34 pm

It will go right over their heads Charles as they struggle with the agony of choosing a fridge to keep the food from going off-
I tried to buy a climate-friendly refrigerator from GE. What I got was a carbon bomb. (msn.com)
Yeah I know they fancy themselves changing the world’s climate but can’t even buy a replacement fridge without pooping their pants.

Steve Case
Reply to  observa
March 28, 2021 12:52 am

From your link:

“HFC-134a, is a chemical 3,710 times more potent
than carbon dioxide at warming the planet”

This is the Global Warming Potential bullshit from
the IPCC Assessment Reports. It is a meaningless
number produced by a formula designed to yield
large scary numbers. It has no relationship to the
infrared absorption spectrum of the chemical or the
actual warming of the planet that it would produce.

Oldseadog
Reply to  Steve Case
March 28, 2021 2:49 am

3,710 times zero is still zero.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Oldseadog
March 28, 2021 6:42 am

That, and the number is actually 3,709.632…

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
March 28, 2021 7:58 am

The comment about absorption spectra is very crucial. Co2 really only had two absorption bands. They absorb and emit at only these two frequencies. Both of these have equivalent temperatures that are colder than any where on Earth.

The surface is thus always warmer than the downwelling IR from CO2 and thus the R is reflected and NOT absorbed. During the day water vapor and CO2 are saturated in their ability to absorb and emit. It is at night these “radiative gases” (their true category; greenhouse gases were made up) serve to cool the air as emitted IR is sent out to space. That is why the air chills down so rapidly after sundown.

Put another way, scientists have no been able to have CO2 warm anything. On the other hand, they have found that it is a fantastic refrigerant. It is now being used in new skating rinks and in Mercedes Benz auto air conditioners.What a great, cheap, nontoxic and environment-friendly refrigerant. However, it means that Dupont will not be making a fortune off their freons.

The freon scam is just that, because CFCs do not break down ozone. That was a Dupont ploy to push a new in-patent freon to replace the one now out of patent and which could be made freely by other people. Now that their new freon is out of patent, they are now making noises that this one also breaks down ozone and is a greenhouse gas. It’s all about the money and cash flow. I am sure they have a more expensive replacement waiting to be used.

CO2 has NO DOWNSIDES.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Steve Case
March 28, 2021 6:43 am

I agree re the formula. I have seen BS formulae before and that one tops the list. It is literally designed (with its attendant explanation) to produce the numbers you heard like 20,000. You will never a demonstration of such a number.

Steve Case
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
March 28, 2021 3:38 pm

What I’d like to know, is who came up with it. It’s been there since the First IPCC Assessment report. The guy who invented it must be laughing up his sleeve.

David Wojick
Reply to  Steve Case
March 28, 2021 7:32 am

All HFCs are now being banned in the US:

https://www.cfact.org/2021/03/27/economically-destructive-cap-and-trade-for-hfcs-is-here/

So stupid I had to laugh.

Steve Case
Reply to  David Wojick
March 28, 2021 3:33 pm

And the ozone hole is still there. It probably has always been there, and most likely will continue to be there for thousands of years.

Paul C
Reply to  observa
March 28, 2021 4:32 am

Instead of what he calls a “climate bomb” he wanted a fridge using isobutane with the potential to be a real explosive bomb.

fretslider
Reply to  Paul C
March 28, 2021 5:53 am

I one knew a guy who put iso-octane – of which isobutane is a precursor – in his motorbike.

It blew the gaskets every now and then. But then he was genuinely nuts.

Sean
Reply to  observa
March 28, 2021 4:39 am

And the new eco friendly refrigerant is Bic lighter fuel butane. So a leak of refrigerant into a closed box and a little spark from opening the door and you have a fuel air explosion. That’s what lit off the Grefell tower fire which spread to the eco friendly organic foam insulation.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Sean
March 28, 2021 9:46 am

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it” — Santayana

Early refrigerants were toxic gases such as ammonia and sulfur dioxide. People died when there were leaks. Thus the desire to find refrigerants that weren’t toxic or explosive. Re-inventing the ‘wheel’ can be expensive in terms of lives lost.

Last edited 6 months ago by Clyde Spencer
Granum Salis
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 28, 2021 11:04 am

On the other hand…
At least, the butane is in a closed loop under pressure that would not readily admit air if ruptured, whereas we merrily drive around the country atop a relatively insubstantial tank full of heptane and friends, and surrounded by thousands of others doing the same.

We also happily burn methane and propane at atmospheric pressure in our homes.

Drake
Reply to  Granum Salis
March 28, 2021 3:05 pm

Yep, electric stoves, water heaters, dryers, furnaces suck. Electrical power that is. I have a small (12 kw) back up generator because I use propane for all of these items. If not, at my altitude, I would need at least triple the size to heat the house in the winter, at 0F on windy day when power would likely to be knocked out by downed trees. Of course I have wood for heating until it runs out or I am not there. Almost out now, but it is getting to be spring. Yep, already cutting rounds of dead standing and splitting and stacking to finish drying for next winter.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  observa
March 28, 2021 5:01 am

I may have mentioned this before, i grew up without electricity. We had a mountain stream going past the house the water rarely got above 6’C. Good for keeping milk nd beer cool. We also had a small fridge that used the evapouration of water to maintain a low temperature. Basically an insulated box with a small indentation in the top where you put water which gradually evapourated keeping the inside cool.

Anyone really commited to save the planet can do it if they’re dedicated enough

Drake
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 28, 2021 3:08 pm

Pelton water wheel and a generator fed from a dam and you could have electricity.

lee
March 27, 2021 10:41 pm

“more frequent climate extremes, flooding, and drought” Something with which the IPCC disagrees.

“There was low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and magnitude of floods.”

“AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the attribution of global changes in droughts and did not provide assessments for the attribution of regional changes in droughts”
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/

fred250
March 27, 2021 11:01 pm

If we are unlucky enough to drop down into another LIA or similar, crops will certainly be badly affected, food prices will increase and food quality, and quantity available, will decrease.

On the otherhand, more warming, coincident with increased atmospheric CO2, would open up vast tracts of land that are currently too cold to sustain productive agriculture.

PhilipA
Reply to  fred250
March 27, 2021 11:10 pm

Yes in Sydney we are going to have a shortage of Turf for a while as much is grown near Windsor. LOL
Nobody seems to see the positive benefits of floods. in the years after floods the fertility of the soil is enhanced greatly by the excrement and silt deposited on the flood plains.
I can recall after the 1974 floods in Brisbane where the water was about 9 feet deep in my mother’s front yard her roses were never better than after the flood.

Climate believer
Reply to  PhilipA
March 28, 2021 3:21 am

“Nobody seems to see the positive benefits of floods.”

That’s because half the worlds population live in cities and prefer Netflix to Nature, most of them don’t know the first thing about it.

Great ancient civilisations grew and prospered because of fertile floodplains.

The huge Barotse floodplain of the Zambesi transforms the African landscape during the rainy season.

#elmaflood

Bob boder
Reply to  Climate believer
March 28, 2021 4:33 am

Floods are possibly the reason for the rise of civilization. The ease of production along the Nile flood plain and in the Fertile Crescent greatly lowered the percentage of the population needed to feed the group, leading to an explosion of builders and artisans of all sorts. Possibly also the first example of the creation of wealth.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bob boder
March 28, 2021 1:14 pm

You only need to look at the flood plains of China …and I’m reasonably sure you’ll also find a flood plain in the mix as the principle food pantry of many large cities.

Editor
Reply to  fred250
March 28, 2021 6:35 am

Climate has always changed and humanity has always had to adapt, sometimes too late to the weather events that cumulatively added up to the definition of climate.
 
Many scholars have written of this close link between human prosperity and the vagaries of the weather.
 
“Times of Feast Times of Famine “ by E Le Roy Ladurie sets out many of these changes. As do “Climate history and the modern world” by Hubert lamb and “A cultural history of climate’ by Wolfgang Behrigner which sets out the effects for humanity as the changing climate in
turn forced alterations to the way of life of  humanity, as things deviated from ‘normal,” with more or less rain, storms, heat and cold. often alternating rapidly, with often catastrophic effect on civilisations. 
 
We see fluctuating climate locally to me on upland Dartmoor, Southwest England where,
at the time of the 11th Century Domesday book, cultivation was occurring at 1500
feet but as the climate worsened, that level dropped. Nearby Torre abbey had its
cloisters and windows filled in and fireplaces installed around 1170 as the MWP
gave way to bouts of the LIA. Within a mile of that place two plaques can be seen in a Church, the first To Scoresby the first Arctic scientist who went to investigate- at the request of the Royal Society- the extraordinary melting of the Arctic sea ice around 1818. Next to it is another plaque recording the death of a Titanic passenger as the Arctic once again started to melt, around 1908, which continued to 1940.
 
I had been contemplating writing an article’ Is there such a thing as Normal climate’
as it is surely delusional to believe that the past enjoyed a steady benevolent climate which man is supposedly now taking to extremes never seen before.
 
What IS different this time round is the huge Global population, often in countries
which can’t support a doubling or tripling of their population over the last 50
years, and the interconnectedness of trade. This can work in our favour as a bad
harvest in one place can be mitigated by a good harvest elsewhere, but if the failure is widespread or consistent it will mean a scramble for available supplies. Also that enhanced CO2 allows a large global population to be fed that at a lower level of CO2 might not be possible.
 
So climate changes, caused by lots of weather events, some locally catastrophic.
How you plan for a growing population wanting ever more food and drink, whereby
a blip in the local or global climate might cause extreme hardship  is beyond my pay grade, but it is surely sensible to take measures that ensure we have enough food and water.
 
What could happen to a complacent population who focus too much on mans puny influence on climate rather than natures brutal swings at all types of life, is nicely illustrated in the poem “The curse of Akkad.”
 
“The lamentation “The Curse of Akkad” was written within a century of the empire’s
fall.

It attributes Akkad’s demise to an outrage against the gods. Angered by a
pair of inauspicious oracles, Naram-sin plunders the temple of Enlil, the god of
wind and storms, who, in retaliation, decides to destroy both him and his
people:

For the first time since cities were built and founded,
The great agricultural tracts produced no grain,
The inundated tracts produced no fish,
The irrigated orchards produced neither syrup nor wine,
The gathered clouds did not rain, the magurum did not grow.
At that time, one shekel’s worth of oil was only one-half quart,
One shekel’s worth of grain was only one-half quart. . . .
These sold at such prices in the markets of all the cities!
He who slept on the roof, died on the roof,
He who slept in the house, had no burial,
People were flailing at themselves from hunger.

For many years, the events described in “The Curse of Akkad” were thought, like the details of Sargon’s birth, to be purely fictional.

In 1978, after scanning a set of maps at Yale’s Sterling Memorial Library, a university archeologist named Harvey Weiss spotted a promising-looking mound at the confluence of two dry riverbeds in the Khabur plains, near the Iraqi border. He approached the Syrian government for permission to excavate the mound, and, somewhat to his surprise, it was almost immediately granted. Soon, he had uncovered a lost city, which in ancient times was known as Shekhna and today is called Tell Leilan.”

Climate Changes. There is nothing we can do about it but plan for the effects, good and bad
 
tonyb

Dave Andrews
Reply to  tonyb
March 28, 2021 9:19 am

tonyb
Off topic but a few years or so ago I came across a remaindered book entitled “Outrageous Waves” Global Warming & Coastal Change in Britain through two thousand years by Basil E Cracknell and have often wondered if you have heard of it. By the way the warming he is referring to is the MWP.

Editor
Reply to  Dave Andrews
March 28, 2021 9:48 am

Dave

Yes I had heard of it and read some bits from it. You have prompted me to add it to my bookshelf-I prefer physical books to use as future reference-and have just ordered it online. Many thanks for the reminder

tonyb

fred250
March 27, 2021 11:10 pm

The “Pros” are totally based on suppositions, not data.

All the comments are just regurgitations of AGW mantra, which shows no evidence of being true.

They talk about “trapping heat” … not happening

ocean acidification … not happening

rainfall patterns.. indistinguishable from natural variability

reduced crop and forrage production … the opposite is happening

Its basically a litany of ANTI-FACTS

The only real financial risk is from the implementation of greenie policies and anti-CO2 based con-jobs

Last edited 6 months ago by fred250
Derg
Reply to  fred250
March 28, 2021 5:07 am

But Fred they FEEL right. Just ask Simon, Griff, big Oil, Lyodo….

Anon
Reply to  fred250
March 28, 2021 7:40 am

I could not get past the first paragraph for that reason. Just a cursory scan of the (now forbidden and Mann debunked) historical literature indicates that the Medieval Warm Period greatly increased European food security.

The whole thing reminded me of this quotation:

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

― Theodore Dalrymple

Last edited 6 months ago by Anon
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anon
March 28, 2021 1:21 pm

That is such a brilliant and topical quote words fail me. The results of this plague are manifest everywhere with the help of social media. When we rightly embraced the wondrous communication tools of the computer and the internet, most of us failed to see that the forces of evil would be hard at work using them against us.

Ed Hanley
March 27, 2021 11:14 pm

I think everyone knows what plants use for food. Hint: it’s now a “pollutant,” and will cause all of us to die. At least we will all die well fed.

So why is any of this even up for debate? Just another chance to spew Bizaro-World indoctrination. The real debate should be:

Is the insanity of our rulers a good thing or a bad thing for our children?

Steve Case
March 28, 2021 12:18 am

“and the fertilization effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide,”

Carbon dioxide is way more than fertilizer. CO2 is a necessary component of photosynthesis. Along with water it is the feed stock of the process that we all
learned in grade school:
Carbon dioxide plus water and sunshine yields sugar.
6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2.

Simply put:
comment image

Reply to  Steve Case
March 28, 2021 6:34 am

Those plants are the life source for animals and produce all our oxygen.
Why do “environmentalists” hate the environment?

Perhaps that is not really what they are about.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Bubba Cow
March 31, 2021 10:23 am

“The thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy.”

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”

Waza
March 28, 2021 1:15 am

Whoa
Agriculture which includes livestock is far more complicated than this.
Most region s have a complex mix of agricultural products. The mix is not just due to climate. Local economics is very important.
Each product has a climate window.
A Change in local climate may just change the mix with zero economic difference.

The change in local economics, taxes or consumer tastes currently has more impact than change to climate.

Bob boder
Reply to  Waza
March 28, 2021 4:36 am

Nonsense, have a conversation a Canadian plains farmer about climates affect on their production.

Waza
Reply to  Bob boder
March 28, 2021 6:11 am

Bob
I never said climate didn’t impact crop production.

Waza
Reply to  Bob boder
March 28, 2021 6:18 am

Additionally, I am sure any Canadian plains farmer ( or any other farmer in the world) carried out a full assessment and valuation of the farms potential before buying. The value of any farm is based on its known long term production which should take into account climate.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Bob boder
March 28, 2021 6:38 am

Yes, there used to be drought, now there isn’t
Is that climate change or weather?
With slightly warmer nights the crop mix shifts, they now grow a greater variety instead of just wheat, barley and Rye

Seems beneficial to me

paul courtney
Reply to  Waza
March 28, 2021 7:45 am

Mr. Waza: “Local climate”? We are only concerned with global climate in CliSci, specifically, .001% changes in global temps. But just for fun, can you give us an example of “local climate change” that is distinguishable from weather?
Fortunately for us humans, agriculture is still driven (mostly) by real science, which includes observing the weather (Local climate), not (yet) the AGW fake science. It is complicated, even more so when you have to fight man-made changes (think central valley CA orchard farmer denied irrigation water for a minnow). But it ain’t “climate”.

Waza
Reply to  Waza
March 28, 2021 12:57 pm

Oops
Clearly I didn’t explain this very well because you guys didn’t understand.
A. Global food production is the summation of local food production.
B. Local food production is dependent on climate – temp, rainfall patterns, frost.
C. Local food production is also very dependent on many other changeable factors – consumer taste, transport costs, taxes/subsidies, environmental issues, access to irrigation.
D. The same product can be grown in different local areas. Crops are not globally grown the same way.
E. Many local area have multiple types of crops.
F. The IPCC has made some qualitative claims about change to regional climate but has not backed them up.
G. Alarmists need to quantitatively prove the negative impact on each crop in each region to be even be able to claim the climate change is bad for agriculture.
H. Even if a crop is impacted in a local region, it can be replaced with another crop more suited to that region.

Example
Dairy
Milk is produced globally in different climates using different techniques.

March 28, 2021 1:19 am

“…Many countries are already experiencing rapid price increases for basic food commodities, mainly due to production losses…”

Noooo, prices are rising because fewer and fewer corporations are monopolising the food chain, and that gives them the “right” to set prices as they please, because, you know, The Investor is a shitty little dweeb that suffers from low confidence if he sees anybody do anything without paying him his divinely apportioned “cut”.
All schools should immediately stop indoctrinating kids with the ‘supply and demand’ myth. Prices are determined by “what the market will bear”, and what market is there, when everything you buy comes from the same warehouse?
The Anarch’s Dictionary: “We want to end world hunger” and “Let us feed the world” = Bolshevik Doublespeak for : “Let’s get rid of the hungry” and “Allow us to control all sources of food”.
The first is done by killing the hungry poor. The second is done by GMOing every food organism and licensing only selected corporations to grow them.
Those without the ability to grow HERITAGE crops should urgently learn to eat insects and wild weeds, instead of writing stupid blogs about how Baal Gates wants us to ” eat worms and weeds”. Him and his fiends (sic) at Monsanto are actually doing ther best to rid the world of “wild strains that pose a sanitary risk to developed crops”.

fretslider
March 28, 2021 1:33 am

The Pro side has never got anything right.

I cannot see that situation changing before 2100

Waza
March 28, 2021 1:54 am

Hello – Seafood

The farmed seafood industry is evolving nicely.
Any talk about food shortages must include seafood.

old engineer
Reply to  Waza
March 28, 2021 4:40 pm

At least 50 years a ago I read an article in Scientific American (it was a real science magazine back then) about raising shrimp commercially. It was the author’s contention that there were enough shallow estuaries in the world’s tropics to act as nurseries, that commercially raised shrimp could provide the protein needs of the world at modest price. .

eo
March 28, 2021 4:48 am

The Malthusian pessimistic prediction has been on hold because of the tremendous energy input in modern agriculture to increase the crop out per hectare. The energy are used to power the tractors and farm machinery but to produce the fertilizer, agricultural chemicals, dryers, and infrastructure to lower wastage and spoilage such as refrigeration, roads, dams, irrigation pumps, etc. Again the difference in analysis as to the ratio of energy output to input depends on the system boundary with the pro-renewable energy from sugar and corn practically limiting the energy input to the direct energy used in the farm.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  eo
March 28, 2021 5:19 am

Word salad. It takes energy to make energy, food included. If you want to reduce the energy used in making food, convince folks to go back to oxen/mules and man power. I assure you the energy input to produce food will fall drastically. AS WILL THE WORLD’S POPULATION. An environmentalist’s dream.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jim Gorman
March 28, 2021 1:28 pm

AS WILL THE WORLD’S POPULATION. An environmentalist’s dream.

When you look at those scary quotation lists of what our prominent UN and globalist leaders have said (Maurice Strong for instance) they are solely about population reduction and or wealth redistribution.

Ben Vorlich
March 28, 2021 5:13 am

Top 10 cities by population North of 60′

  1. Helsinki, Finland 626,305 (2015)
  2. Arkhangelsk, Russia 350,985 (2013)
  3. Murmansk, Russia 307,257 (2010)
  4. Surgut, Russia 306,675 (2010)
  5. Anchorage, Alaska, USA 300,950 (2013)
  6. Bergen, Norway 277,378 (2015)
  7. Yakutsk, Russia 269,601 (2010)
  8. Espoo, Finland 267,906 (2015)
  9. Petrozavodsk, Russia 261,987 (2010)
  10. Turku, Finland 252,468 (2015)

Notice none in Canada despite its size. making this area warmer frees up a lot of land for food production or other agriculture.

I’ve seen various articles in the last year saying how terrible the greening of the tundra and sub arctic is. I always comment that lots of green lots more life friendly than permafrost and moss.

Notanacademic
March 28, 2021 6:10 am

I’m confused the first paragraph of the con talks of a gradually warming planet and record crop yields but a short time ago I read (on wuwt) about the pause in temperature rise from 1998 to 2016 and from some point in 2016 to the present (hope I have correct dates ). If temps have indeed paused then I would think the ever rising crop yields would be due to the rising co2 and not temps. There are even claims that temperatures have fallen very slightly during the pause. I apologize if this appears simplistic or if I have missed something obvious

Notanacademic
Reply to  Notanacademic
March 28, 2021 7:47 am

By the way I firmly believe cagw is nonsense and more warmth and co2 are good. I am just confused by what appears to be a contradiction.

Walter Horsting
March 28, 2021 7:13 am

The next cooling cycle will cause crop failure and famine.

Climate swings past 10K years.png
March 28, 2021 7:42 am

If we were not growing perfectly good food, such a corn, for biofuel, our food supply would be much greater and prices lower, and feeding more people. How much of our corn crop goes to wasteful biofuel when it should be food?

Biofuels are a broken window economy as they take more fuel, machinery, and time than simple gasoline or diesel. It’s a pretty good example of crony capitalism. It is important to remember that, back in the financial crisis, I think around 2008, people drove less and thus less alcohol was needed for the gasohol. Obama, responding to his cronies complaining that their sales of alcohol being down, wanted to push the alcohol content up to 15%, just to keep them rolling in money while everyone else suffered.

BIOFUELS should be eliminated. As with all engines and in the marine environment, gasohol is bad for engines. Authorities do not care if your car’s engine gets eaten by the hotter burning gasohol, because your car stops and you are stranded for a time. At seas, we have to have reliable engines, so there are some, but not a lot of docks who offer ethanol free gasoline. It makes everything run smoother and is better for all engines, including lawnmowers and other equipment.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Charles Higley
March 28, 2021 9:12 am

CH, strongly disagree with you for two different reasons.

First, ethanol in gasoline is an octane enhancer replacing groundwater polluting MBTE, itself developed to replace air polluting tetraethyl lead. Second it is an oxygenate reducing smog. The E10 blendwall was deliberately set to benefit LA in summer. And that is why pumps say up to 10%; it varies by season, location, and octane level (premium is higher E than regular).

Second, the canard about food cost shows how little you know about farming. I owned a large Wisconsin dairy farm for about 35 years. We now sell all our corn for Ethanol, and take back the resulting distillers grain. Nationally by weight corn for ethanol is 42%, and the protein enhanced (from yeast) distillers grain post fermentation is 27%. It is an ideal ruminant food supplement. That means we can grow less alfalfa and more corn on the same land. Net net, more milk and meat at lower cost from my dairy farm.

RelPerm
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 28, 2021 11:46 am

MBTE, brings back sad memories. Greenie effort to clean the air resulted in groundwater pollution catastrophe. I never liked the smell of its emission fumes either.

Roger Huff
March 28, 2021 10:11 am

I don’t have access to the details now but from paper copies of Japan Almanac (bilingual pub in Japanese/English) I remember that Japan now grows approximately twice as much rice on half of the land area that it did before modernization. In fact the significant dip in production several years ago was said to be because of abnormally LOW summer temperatures.

Mike Dubrasich
March 28, 2021 1:35 pm

I like this EC article. Well done. There could possibly be a little more rebuttal of the Pro section, along the lines of:

Food insecurity (hunger) is NOT caused by insufficient agricultural production. Both in the US and globally agriculture OVERPRODUCES food, far more than can be eaten even by gluttonous people.

In all cases, hunger results from political forces and manipulation of local economies by tyrannical leaders. Starvation is a weapon wielded by Stalin, Mao, and dozens of other dictators. War, oppression, displacement, and deliberate ravaging of farm lands are the principal causes of food shortages.

Since the Green Revolution the world has been awash in food. Farmers receive price supports to stabilize commodity prices in the face of overproduction. The poor receive food relief rather than price controls because lower food prices would bankrupt farmers. Modern ag promotes exotic foods like broccolini, ramps, and sunchokes in an effort to stuff ever more food into the population. Food waste is enormous and obesity is widespread, yet they do not affect food prices or availability. Food crops are used for transporation fuels, for gosh sakes, without any price hikes in the food market. Small farm producers who are not in farmer coops have a difficult time selling any food crops and must resort to marketing gimmicks like street vending and quasi-factual branding.

Global warming will not lead to food production shortfalls. Most food crops are tropical in origin and grow best in the tropics*. Corn yields, for instance, are highest near the Equator. Brazil’s ag sector is a leading exporter. Chances are the fruit you ate today came from a tropical or subtropical country. Global warming (and/or cooling), should it occur, affects polar regions the most, and tropical regions the least. Warming increases ag productivity.

* The top ten most important food crops in the world are plantains, yams, sorghum, sweet potatoes, soybeans, cassava, potatoes, rice, wheat, and corn. All tropical. Also citrus, grapes, cattle, pigs, etc. etc. See here.

Last edited 6 months ago by Mike Dubrasich
Editor
March 29, 2021 3:55 pm

Other than the general debunk of senseless “climate change will…” nonsense in the PRO section, I make thee wording suggestions and point out these issues:

Con: Food Production is Growing and Safe 
 
Longer growing seasons, higher  slighter warmer temperatures, and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are creating ideal better crop growing conditions for food crops.
 
Thanks in large part to longer growing seasons, fewer frost events, more precipitation, and the fertilization effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide, farmers are producing more food on less land, allowing them to feed a growing global population.

Some portions of this are not supported/supportable. I’m am not aware of any worldwide record that could support “fewer frost events” or generalized “more precipitation” for important agricultural areas.

How Global Warming Benefits Crop Production:
Global warming lengthens growing seasons, reduces frost events, and makes more land conducive for crop production.

“reduces frost events” – data? “makes more land conducive for crop production” — what data specifically says that? Maybe something like “made more land in the northern latitudes suitable for crops”. (Canada grain, for example).

Note that nothing is said in the CON about food prices. Are they on fact rising anywhere? due to “climate change”?

TheLastDemocrat
March 31, 2021 10:50 am

Crop production is rising. We continue to increasingly be efficient in producing dietary calories.

We are far beyond the ability to, on paper, provide each person on the planet with a 2,000-calorie-per-day diet.A 50-fold decrease would hardly mean anything.

Here are some numbers.

Consider 10 billion planet inhabitants need at least 2,000 calories per day, day-in and day-out.That is 10bn x 2,000 = 20,000,000,000,000 cal/day.
We need 20 trillion calories per day.
For simplicity’s sake, to determine cals per year, let’s say 350 days in a year.
20 trillion cals / day x 350 days/yr = 7,000,000,000,000,000 cals/yr.
7 quadrillion calories needed per year for a planet of 10 bn people.

In the US alone, in 2019 we produced 13,000,000,000 bushels of corn.
13 bn bushels of corn.
A pound of corn has 1500 calories, A bushel is 56 pounds.
So, a bushel of corn has 1500 x 55 = 80,000 calories.

80,000 cal/bushel x 13 bn bushels = 1,040, 000,000,000,000 calories per year.
The US produces 1 quadrillion calories per year of corn.

The planet needs 7 quadrillion calories per year.

Corn yield, alone, of the US, alone is sufficient to provide one-seventh of the entire planet’s caloric needs, for a planetary pop of 10 billion and 2,000 cal/day.

Besides corn, we produce several other grains.
We also produce fruits and vegetables and legumes, dairy, eggs, and meat.

The US alone.

Add in other countries.

We are not anywhere close to being short of food calories.

Now, go look at Google maps. Imagine a flight from one major city to another.

Imagine that we were in a food crisis, and had to press some land into crop production. Where would we find the land?

In my Google maps, it looks like we have barely touched our arable land. Where I live, corn is grown in all 4 directions. But most of the land, while arable, is not farmed.

%d bloggers like this: