Congratulations Sask on achieving number 1

[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.

[RWT101]

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.

'CO2 is the CONTROLLER of temperature'

Wow, where did you ever get THAT from??

We may soon see how much the data was bent spindled and mutilated by the AGW supporters to get the results they wanted.

[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/08/winning-ua-ordered-to-surrender-emails-to-skeptics-of-human-caused-climate-change/"]https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/08/winning-ua-ordered-to-surrender-emails-to-skeptics-of-human-caused-climate-change/[/URL]

And there were also the hidden emails and data in the UK that AGW supporters did not want to release also.
In fact public data was even destroyed to keep AGW sceptics from seeing it.
The reason that the AGW (like Prof Mann) hid their data and emails is because the data they were collecting DID NOT SUPPORT THEIR THEORY OF CO2 WARMING THE EARTH.

Why else would they hide their work if it showed they were right?

Don't forget that it even took world leading NASA 20 years to finally admit/realize that water vapour was the major part of weather and temperature on earth.

CO2 is statistically insignificant in the world's weather.

WATER VAPOUR IS THE BIG DOG.

[farmaholic]

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.

[Guest]

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.

and where I farm we are screwed with increased precipitation . that why we each get our turn and has been that way for a long time . don't think anything will change . we have only lost one crop here to to dry ,but couldn't begin to count the ones lost to to wet

[Guest]

'CO2 is the CONTROLLER of temperature'

Wow, where did you ever get THAT from??

We may soon see how much the data was bent spindled and mutilated by the AGW supporters to get the results they wanted.

[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/08/winning-ua-ordered-to-surrender-emails-to-skeptics-of-human-caused-climate-change/"]https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/08/winning-ua-ordered-to-surrender-emails-to-skeptics-of-human-caused-climate-change/[/URL]

And there were also the hidden emails and data in the UK that AGW supporters did not want to release also.
In fact public data was even destroyed to keep AGW sceptics from seeing it.
The reason that the AGW (like Prof Mann) hid their data and emails is because the data they were collecting DID NOT SUPPORT THEIR THEORY OF CO2 WARMING THE EARTH.

Why else would they hide their work if it showed they were right?

Don't forget that it even took world leading NASA 20 years to finally admit/realize that water vapour was the major part of weather and temperature on earth.

CO2 is statistically insignificant in the world's weather.

WATER VAPOUR IS THE BIG DOG.

wasting your breath , if you disagree you are ill informed , a denier , fake news , etc. , etc. etc. ......
until it hits the climatards real hard in the pocketbook , we are all wasting our breath......

[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!