Congratulations Sask on achieving number 1

[AlbertaFarmer5]

My narrative of my experience of a "nano second of time of weather history" hardly supports or detracts from the argument of climate change in the AGW debate.

I just know the weather conditions that are conducive to successful crop production where I live....and hotter and drier aren't them.

Exactly, but the nanosecond between roughly 1970's to present is is considered to be a valid proxy for forecasting temperature centuries into the future according to the AGW theory, as absurd as that may be.

And while your second statement is undoubtedly true, the prairies grew a record crop of most things last year while a large area was much too hot and dry. Your goldilocks is my nightmare, and vice versa. But a huge area benefits from warmer and drier, as evidenced by this year. Is there a limit, of course, but I expect most here have lost more dollars to water and frost than to dry and hot( although I may be wrong).

[Hamloc]

Exactly, but the nanosecond between roughly 1970's to present is is considered to be a valid proxy for forecasting temperature centuries into the future according to the AGW theory, as absurd as that may be.

And while your second statement is undoubtedly true, the prairies grew a record crop of most things last year while a large area was much too hot and dry. Your goldilocks is my nightmare, and vice versa. But a huge area benefits from warmer and drier, as evidenced by this year. Is there a limit, of course, but I expect most here have lost more dollars to water and frost than to dry and hot( although I may be wrong).

AbF5, what I would like quantified is how much the imposition of the carbon tax within Canada is going to lower the world's temperature! The climate alarmists(certainly examples of that on here) keep predicting rising temperatures and drought but when I ask them to quantify how penalizing Canadians with the carbon tax will lower the world's average temperature, crickets!!!!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AbF5, what I would like quantified is how much the imposition of the carbon tax within Canada is going to lower the world's temperature! The climate alarmists(certainly examples of that on here) keep predicting rising temperatures and drought but when I ask them to quantify how penalizing Canadians with the carbon tax will lower the world's average temperature, crickets!!!!

Mainly because it is not even quantifiable. If you start with the margin of error in the current records, compounded with the uncertainties, unknowns and unknowables in the future temperature models, then multiply that by the 1.54% of world emissions that is Canada's share, now figure out how Canadians and businesses will respond to a punitive tax, and what miniscule percentage of the 1.54% we will be able to trim and still survive in this climate. The answer will be in the thousands of a degree, with an uncertainty of multiple degrees( the uncertainties will be thousands, likely tens of thousands) of times greater than the predicted effect of temperature by lowering our CO2. And back to the original post, it is not in our best interests to lower CO2 levels.

[dmlfarmer]

...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. .

AF5, where did you get the 4 years from. I have never seen this claim before.

And while I agree that global warming may increase grain production in parts of Canada, I would refer you to this study to see expected yields on a global basis [URL="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21082017/rising-temperature-agriculture-crop-yields-climate-change-impact"]https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21082017/rising-temperature-agriculture-crop-yields-climate-change-impact[/URL]

National geographic also refutes your claim of increased yields in a warmer world and has a great map showing expected winners and losers from climate change [URL="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/crops.html"]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/crops.html[/URL]

And here is a current, 2017 NASA study which also predicts global grain yield declines due to climate change[URL="https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/zh09200d.html"]https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/zh09200d.html[/URL]

[dmlfarmer]

[ATTACH]2351[/ATTACH]

I love this chart fjilip posted. It reminds me so much of the hockey stick graph that is used to bash climate change arguments. Note the horizontal axis is not to scale. It it was, there would not be that nice trend line. But the first cm of the scale represents roughly 60 million years. The last cm of the chart represents only 1.5 million years. Talk about fake news!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AF5, where did you get the 4 years from. I have never seen this claim before.

And while I agree that global warming may increase grain production in parts of Canada, I would refer you to this study to see expected yields on a global basis [URL="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21082017/rising-temperature-agriculture-crop-yields-climate-change-impact"]https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21082017/rising-temperature-agriculture-crop-yields-climate-change-impact[/URL]

National geographic also refutes your claim of increased yields in a warmer world and has a great map showing expected winners and losers from climate change [URL="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/crops.html"]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/crops.html[/URL]

And here is a current, 2017 NASA study which also predicts global grain yield declines due to climate change[URL="https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/zh09200d.html"]https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/zh09200d.html[/URL]

I prefer to believe what the market is telling us. I see no panic in world food markets. Quite the opposite, markets seem to believe that there is no threat whatsoever to our food supply for the foreseeable future. And it has good reason to be apathetic, just look at yields. Another case of the media story not in any way reflecting the reality. Investors who stand to make or loose billions are putting their money where their mouths are.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AF5, where did you get the 4 years from. I have never seen this claim before.

Do a google search of any of the sites friendly to the AGW theory, all use between 4 and 5 years residence time in atmosphere before dissolving into ocean etc.

[dmlfarmer]

Do a google search of any of the sites friendly to the AGW theory, all use between 4 and 5 years residence time in atmosphere before dissolving into ocean etc.

The closest reference I could find that seems to be what you have based your argument on states that plants absorb just over 1/4 of the carbon produced by man, oceans another quarter, and 50% ends up in the atmosphere. So I can see where you probably get the 4 to 5 year residency time.

However, if man was to quit using fossil fuels tomorrow, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would not drop back down to pre industrial levels in 4 years. The atmosphere has stockpiled CO2 and it will still only be reduced at a same rate as the oceans and plants are taking it up now - not at 25% of the amount in the atmosphere. So the 4 year term you state is irrelevant.

Second, man will always generate some carbon. Man will never completely give up fossil fuels, or burning, or manufacturing so we will always be putting some carbon out. Therefore if man is adding any at all, it will reduce the amount that can be sequestered.

Third, there is a finite amount that can be absorbed in oceans and as more is absorbed, the absorption rate slows.

Finally, and most important, global warming increases the release of other greenhouse gasses like methane from the permafrost and oceans. Therefore even if the CO2 is sequestered, other greenhouse gasses are released nullifying increased sequestration.

For these reasons I do not feel your statement of 4 years to remove manmade CO2 is at all accurate.

[fjlip]

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.

WRONG, our area's biggest crop failures were from COLD/WET/FROST!
Hoping for warmer drier bias. Canada as a whole is COLD 6 months of the year, SFA grows then.

[dmlfarmer]

I prefer to believe what the market is telling us. I see no panic in world food markets. Quite the opposite, markets seem to believe that there is no threat whatsoever to our food supply for the foreseeable future. And it has good reason to be apathetic, just look at yields. Another case of the media story not in any way reflecting the reality. Investors who stand to make or loose billions are putting their money where their mouths are.

The markets timeframe is short term. Most markets price out a year, and long term is 2 or 3 years. They don't reflect climate change, they reflect weather, and supply and demand.

You challenged the list to provide evidence that warmer climates lower yields. Well, I gave 3 examples based on over 70 scientific studies which shows global yields would be harmed by warmer tempertures by mid century yet you deny those papers based on current market prices????