Congratulations Sask on achieving number 1

[BreadWinner]

How come CO2 emissions are figured on a per capita basis. When your producing food for millions maybe the system should figure on a per area basis instead. We are supposedly the worst climate polluters in the world but it seems we live in one of the cleanest environments.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Really though? you post some of the smartest things on here and seem to have a very good understanding of things scientific - yet you seemingly don't believe there is any upper level on the amount of C02 we can have in the atmosphere before it has detrimental effect. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Quite the opposite, I understand full well that the benefits of CO2 do not increase linearly, ( neither do any potential negative unintended consequences). Which is to say that increases in the level of atmospheric CO2 have diminishing returns, and by that logic, it does make sense to ration our release of this vital gas, to reap the maximum benefit from it over the longest possible period of time. When we no longer burn fossil fuels ( for whatever reason) all the additional CO2 we have released will eventually be sequestered( gone from the atmosphere in only 4 years, much longer to end up back in rocks), and the slow decline in CO2 levels will once again continue its relentless march downwards. As will crop yields, grass yields, and the health and vigor of everything that performs photosynthesis, or anywhere else in the food chain above them( which incidentally includes virtually all living things). At that time, humanity will wish they would have had the foresight to release just enough to maximize both the benefits and the duration of those benefits.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Really though? you post some of the smartest things on here and seem to have a very good understanding of things scientific - yet you seemingly don't believe there is any upper level on the amount of C02 we can have in the atmosphere before it has detrimental effect. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

You failed to address my comment regarding those with dissenting opinions not being allowed to voice their opinions. Perhaps I could recommend reading some history about regimes where this ideology towards open discussion was the status quo, and how that typically ended up.

[grassfarmer]

You failed to address my comment regarding those with dissenting opinions not being allowed to voice their opinions.

I never said you weren't allowed to voice an opinion, I implied that if you didn't grasp this basic principle you wouldn't have much to bring to the discussion table. As I suspected from your reply you do understand the implications of too much C02 and see the need to ration it's release.

Fjlip, those are nice graphs you posted. I wonder though why someone who doesn't believe that man could accurately record the earth's temperatures over the last 100 years believes that they could accurately record atmospheric C02 levels 570 million years ago!

[SASKFARMER3]

"I implied that if you didn't grasp this basic principle you wouldn't have much to bring to the discussion table."

Wow Grass you must think your some high and mighty Expert from Scotland.

Your a expert on weather in Canada with no real knowledge of what has happened in this country over the last 100 years.

[Hamloc]

Come on, you're smarter than that. You know that C02 % in the atmosphere is the controller of temperature and that we can not warm the earth too much without having catastrophic effects. Grow extra plants is fine but how does that work for you when we get into a severe drought? Oops, not enough growth to sequester the increased C02 so the warming accelerates and creates more drought. If you can't acknowledge that basic fact you really don't have a part to play in the discussion.

Why is it that the proponents of catastrophic climate change always have this attitude? My personal thought is there is no point in debating climate change because dissenting opinions aren't allowed(which doesn't mean I believe that humans aren't influencing the planet). What is worth debating is how we are going to adapt to higher C02 levels in the atmosphere and the possibility of increasing temperatures. If you are a disciple of climate change you realize that the amount of C02 being produced combined with what is in the atmosphere already has locked in a temperature increase even if all fossil fuel consumption stopped tomorrow. Until a cost competitive energy source is discovered fossil fuel use will continue. So let's not pretend that giving more tax money to Trudeau and Notley et al is going to change the world's temperature curve. Instead let's spend money on research into new energy sources, adapting food production systems to a potentially warmer environment, decide how best to protect coastal populations that could be affected by a potential increase in ocean levels. My thought is pretending that putting solar panels on a few thousand homes and shutting down pipeline construction is going to save the world is foolhardy, it will only put a lot of Canadians out of work imo.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Why is it that the proponents of catastrophic climate change always have this attitude? My personal thought is there is no point in debating climate change because dissenting opinions aren't allowed(which doesn't mean I believe that humans aren't influencing the planet). What is worth debating is how we are going to adapt to higher C02 levels in the atmosphere and the possibility of increasing temperatures. If you are a disciple of climate change you realize that the amount of C02 being produced combined with what is in the atmosphere already has locked in a temperature increase even if all fossil fuel consumption stopped tomorrow. Until a cost competitive energy source is discovered fossil fuel use will continue. So let's not pretend that giving more tax money to Trudeau and Notley et al is going to change the world's temperature curve. Instead let's spend money on research into new energy sources, adapting food production systems to a potentially warmer environment, decide how best to protect coastal populations that could be affected by a potential increase in ocean levels. My thought is pretending that putting solar panels on a few thousand homes and shutting down pipeline construction is going to save the world is foolhardy, it will only put a lot of Canadians out of work imo.

Not arguing with you at all, very good points, but the evidence does not point to any catastrophic effects of an increasingly benign climate, regardless of what the cause of improved climate might be. I challenge posters here to find me an example of long term food production declining due to increased CO2, or increased temperatures, at any time in history, recorded or otherwise? Farmers have proven to be very adept at adjusting to warming temperatures, and hopelessly helpless against cooling temperatures, on any time scale.

[farmaholic]

Not arguing with you at all, very good points, but the evidence does not point to any catastrophic effects of an increasingly benign climate, regardless of what the cause of improved climate might be. I challenge posters here to find me an example of long term food production declining due to increased CO2, or increased temperatures, at any time in history, recorded or otherwise? Farmers have proven to be very adept at adjusting to warming temperatures, and hopelessly helpless against cooling temperatures, on any time scale.

If rising temperatures are accompanied with increased precipitation, or at the minimum, average precipitation.... affects of minor increased temps can/may be mitigated. But if higher temps come with lower precip....we are somewhat screwed where I farm. Soils zones are the way they are for a reason.... and a good part of that is a result of average yearly precipitation. .....Just move the boundaries of each further north and east.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

If rising temperatures are accompanied with increased precipitation, or at the minimum, average precipitation.... affects of minor increased temps can/may be mitigated. But if higher temps come with lower precip....we are somewhat screwed where I farm. Soils zones are the way they are for a reason.... and a good part of that is a result of average yearly precipitation. .....Just move the boundaries of each further north and east.

More importantly, and evidence based, what trend have your yields shown during these recent decades of unprecedented Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Cherry pick any time frame and show me how they have been declining due to climate change.

[farmaholic]

More importantly, and evidence based, what trend have your yields shown during these recent decades of unprecedented Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Cherry pick any time frame and show me how they have been declining due to climate change.

As I mentioned(somewhere) 2015 and 17 weren't very good here. 2016 was stellar. And before that when other areas were drowning we were actually doing quite well. I've been on this farm long enough to know hot dry conditions aren't good for crop production. May be somewhere else, but not right here.

My yield trends have likely improved more because of farming practices than anything else..... and that proves one of your points. But common sense dictates that there is only so much I can do and Mother Nature plays the last card. Of the three years mentioned..... my same recipe..... different results.... because of Mother Nature's contribution or lack there of. Hot and dry doesn't work here. Semi arid.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

As I mentioned(somewhere) 2015 and 17 weren't very good here. 2016 was stellar. And before that when other areas were drowning we were actually doing quite well. I've been on this farm long enough to know hot dry conditions aren't good for crop production. May be somewhere else, but not right here.

My yield trends have likely improved more because of farming practices than anything else..... and that proves one of your points. But common sense dictates that there is only so much I can do and Mother Nature plays the last card. Of the three years mentioned..... my same recipe..... different results.... because of Mother Nature's contribution or lack there of. Hot and dry doesn't work here. Semi arid.

But, if you listen to the media narrative, we are already decades into this catastrophic global warming, with dire consequences for all. In your climate and soils, you should be the canary in the coal mine, yet you are either being very effective at adapting, or else the climate has been more beneficial than not, even in your situation.

[grassfarmer]

As I mentioned(somewhere) 2015 and 17 weren't very good here. 2016 was stellar. And before that when other areas were drowning we were actually doing quite well. I've been on this farm long enough to know hot dry conditions aren't good for crop production. May be somewhere else, but not right here.

My yield trends have likely improved more because of farming practices than anything else..... and that proves one of your points. But common sense dictates that there is only so much I can do and Mother Nature plays the last card. Of the three years mentioned..... my same recipe..... different results.... because of Mother Nature's contribution or lack there of. Hot and dry doesn't work here. Semi arid.

Hot and dry (and they do tend to go together) isn't conducive to growing crops anywhere. Look how good yields were in the 1930s, the dry years in the 80s, 2002/3 in the western prairies, the dry areas of SK and AB last year. Bad as these may seem shit gets real a lot quicker in other countries that are hotter to start with and have hundreds of millions for a population already living close to food shortage situation.
No one in their right mind would consider the climate getting hotter and drier as a good thing.