Congratulations Sask on achieving number 1

[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????

[fjlip]

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!

I said "apparently", all the data is suspect and hard to swallow for many of us. None can be proven.
All could be a fairy tale.

[grassfarmer]

Time to look beyond your own backyard. The prairies are an insignificant part of the world in terms of population and food security. Google "India droughts" and see how hundreds of millions are affected when temperatures soar and crops fail. Or is it a "who cares as long as we are OK" attitude?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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????

All of those articles deal with potential future scenarios, Based on Models which have proven to be grossly unreliable so far . We are supposedly decades into this catastrophic global warming, if the fear mongers were correct, We should be seeing some sort of trend by now. Instead world food production continues to climb, Outpacing demand which in itself is growing at an exponential pace.
Someone find me a real time example Of food production falling due to global warming, Or incidents of droughts floods other natural disasters increasing affecting food production to the negative. We hear on the news every day how global warming is causing all of these Extreme weather events. How come this never translates into Reduced food production. We have spent most of 30 Years listening to the Dire predictions of what will happen when the models come true. And during that same time the on the ground evidence has been completely the opposite how long should we continue to disregard reality?

[dmlfarmer]

AF5, How much more land has come into production in the last 30 years that now adds to the food supply. Consider how many acres in Brazil and Argentina have been added alone. Then we have the addition of Russia and the stan nations given the end of the state farming in the old SU. Fertility rates continue to increase and not just here but around the world. We have better weed control and new varieties. All of these factors have increased supply and more than offset any detrimental climate change effects until now.

And if you want real data that shows wheat and barley production goes down with higher tempertures, here is a study from France with real yields from 1950 to 2014 which shows higher tempertures do decrease yields. You will also find links within the study to 4 more studies which are not model based and which confirm higher tempertures result in lower yields.

[URL="http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/236322/2/GammansMerelOrtizBobea_AEAA2016SelectedPaper.pdf"]http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/236322/2/GammansMerelOrtizBobea_AEAA2016SelectedPaper.pdf[/URL]

[mustardman]

Areas close to the equator will see many more droughts than now , So millions of People will be On the Move as they are not going to sit and watch their children starve.
It's Ironic that Some of the biggest GHG contributors per capita like some of the posters here, also Don't like Refugees.

You best change your attitudes as there will be mass migrations like no other

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Time to look beyond your own backyard. The prairies are an insignificant part of the world in terms of population and food security. Google "India droughts" and see how hundreds of millions are affected when temperatures soar and crops fail. Or is it a "who cares as long as we are OK" attitude?

Thanks for bringing up India that's a prime example to support my case. During this supposed Era of catastrophic global warming they have gone from a net food importer enduring regular starvation events to a net food exporter. They have adapted quite successfully to the improving climate. And they are so worried about starving in the future that they have basically banned imports of food Well food is at record low prices. If anyone in the world truly believed we're on the cusp of mass starvation due to global warming, Don't you think that people who still remember mass starvation would be taking this opportunity to stockpile food For the imminent disaster? Instead they are doing everything they can turn away cheap food imports. The narrative and the reality are so far apart That the story loses all credibility.

This should not be possible according to the scenarios Foisted upon us over the past few decades.

At some point we need to either admit that the pre. dictions based on the models were wrong, or reality is wrong

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Areas close to the equator will see many more droughts than now , So millions of People will be On the Move as they are not going to sit and watch their children starve.
It's Ironic that Some of the biggest GHG contributors per capita like some of the posters here, also Don't like Refugees.

You best change your attitudes as there will be mass migrations like no other

You use the word will. We keep hearing what will happen Meanwhile farmers the world over keep producing more and more for cheaper and cheaper. Perhaps they didn't get the memo. How many more decades will you wait for this inevitable catastrophe, While ignoring all the evidence that there is no catastrophe.

[grassfarmer]

Thanks for bringing up India that's a prime example to support my case. During this supposed Era of catastrophic global warming they have gone from a net food importer enduring regular starvation events to a net food exporter. They have adapted quite successfully to the improving climate. And they are so worried about starving in the future that they have basically banned imports of food Well food is at record low prices. If anyone in the world truly believed we're on the cusp of mass starvation due to global warming, Don't you think that people who still remember mass starvation would be taking this opportunity to stockpile food For the imminent disaster? Instead they are doing everything they can turn away cheap food imports. The narrative and the reality are so far apart That the story loses all credibility.

This should not be possible according to the scenarios Foisted upon us over the past few decades.

At some point we need to either admit that the pre. dictions based on the models were wrong, or reality is wrong

Yep, food coming out their ears lol. Latest report shows 38.5% of Indian children under 5 are stunted due to lack of nutrients. Only 47.5 million kids - nothing to worry about. Improved climate? tell that to the families of the thousands that died in heatwaves of recent years - failed crops, lack of potable water, livestock dying. Yep, all is good, bet they can't wait for it to warm up even more.

[dmlfarmer]

Thanks for bringing up India that's a prime example to support my case. During this supposed Era of catastrophic global warming they have gone from a net food importer enduring regular starvation events to a net food exporter. They have adapted quite successfully to the improving climate. And they are so worried about starving in the future that they have basically banned imports of food Well food is at record low prices. If anyone in the world truly believed we're on the cusp of mass starvation due to global warming, Don't you think that people who still remember mass starvation would be taking this opportunity to stockpile food For the imminent disaster? Instead they are doing everything they can turn away cheap food imports. The narrative and the reality are so far apart That the story loses all credibility.

This should not be possible according to the scenarios Foisted upon us over the past few decades.

At some point we need to either admit that the pre. dictions based on the models were wrong, or reality is wrong

You are ignoring the impact of increased irrigation in India

And the fact that India has built over 3200 dams (as of 2012) which supply irrigation water to increase production in a hot, and for most of the year, dry country. (Meanwhile farmers here are opposed to a carbon tax which could actually go to a project like dam construction for irrigation)

You are ignoring the mechanization which is happening, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and the commercialization of farms into larger, viable units

You claim they should be stockpiling grain now, yet they do not have the infrastructure to safely store grains in country and protect it from insects, rats, and especially the monsoon season.

And the real reason for the tariff is to protect their farmers from low prices rather than secure cheaper food.

[furrowtickler]

Could it be that farmers in those countries have been stripped of the little wealth they had by corrupt governments who hide wealth ? Treat their local farmers like peasants then wonder why their general population and its children are starving?
You watch China , they are investing huge in agricultural lands in Africa and they will make it productive . The hunger in some of those countries is self inflicted by ignoring the primary producers of food .
Using the climate change excuse is a cop out.