The New Climate Reality

And you know what? California shut down its last nuclear reactor - chuggging away for 30 years,
providigin clean, safe, base-load power. Its removal from the CA grid was the equivalent of all the
wind and solar power of CA combined.
Solution? Call the power-outages 'Green outs" and celebrate them.
Sad thing though, businesses that got fed up with the German Greens and their 'alternative energy'
and moved to America find their problems following them.

 

Nah, this has been well studied. Extremes cold and ambient low temps are the killers. Hands down, no debate. Even if Africa. In fact more so in Africa.

If low temps were easier to mitigate low temps would not be the biggest killer everywhere.

Did you see this post?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072770256/

 

that post is ridiculous

"Despite important agricultural advancements to feed the world in the last 60 years, a Cornell-led study shows that global farming productivity is 21% lower than it could have been without climate change. This is the equivalent of losing about seven years of farm productivity increases since the 1960s."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210401112554.htm

 

megadroughts last for decades in the region. This isn't the first. To call it the "new normal" because it happened once now after 500 years since it happened before is premature.

 

Except the data are otherwise.
Sorry, Google News, Crop Yields Keep Growing, Not Shrinking
Crop production April 16, 20210
Among its top search results today for “climate change,” Google News is promoting a story published by Courthouse News Service claiming climate change has...

 

the study i posted is about total agricultural production

HIGHER CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS PROMPT MORE PLANT GROWTH, BUT FEWER NUTRIENTS

"Though carbon dioxide is necessary for plants to live, too much carbon dioxide can reduce the amount of valuable nutrients the plant produces including iron, zinc and vitamin C."

"In the short term, the additional photosynthesis spurred by higher carbon dioxide levels may bring about small gains in the amount of leaves, stem and shoots that are produced by a crop but not necessarily in the portion of the crop that can be harvested. And in the long term, it’s going to do more harm to plants than good, Cornish said.

“There’s going to be a tipping point, and that tipping point is different for each crop,” Cornish said.

Already, rice plants grown in elevated carbon dioxide have been shown to produce more tillers, which include the stems and leaves of the plant, but fewer and smaller grains."

https://cfaes.osu.edu/news/articles...vels-prompt-more-plant-growth-fewer-nutrients

 

The only crop that seems to be growing is this



So, those increased yields only about increased CO2 (which I thought denialists were still saying wasn’t rising) I mean that graph is a simple overall measure does not take into account, fertilisation, improved practice, genetic modification or even increased land use

 

Excuse-making BS to try to find a dark cloud around the silver lining of CO2-driven crop increases.

 

It's hard to reply to these kind of posts on my phone. Even on my PC I need your posts and my reply side by side because your quotes become invisible in the reply box.

If you don't mind I'll bold my replies and embed them within your post and put your quotes in italics and see if that helps.

Well, as a farmer in Australia more heat = more drought and impoverished crops. It's not so easy to adjust here as you might think. A certain level of heat and dry and everything dies. We want more cold and wet. Adjustment in the case of drought might be getting by with no income for that year. Further to this, the bush fires are horrendous and will kill and destroy far more than flood and cold. Perhaps my reply was just as relevant to our experience as yours is to your experience?

I maintain the relevance of my other comments as an overall assessment of whether a warming earth is good for humanity or not. I've simply expanded the scope of the discussion beyond mortality related to extreme temperature deaths. I don't see the point of discussing climate change if one just cherry picks one effect.

The mortality that you reference is important, however only one aspect of the effects of a warming earth on climate. There are many factors at play and a single study won't encapsulate them. For example, what about the effects of wet bulb temperature on the tropical countries? the Indians and Africans just need slightly better insulation and blankets (not even at western levels as their winters are relatively mild by any comparison to the West), however mitigating against extreme heat and humidity in, for example Bangladesh or Myanmar could be much more difficult than against cold in Indian and Africa. Certainly, in Western countries overall it's the heat waves that kill rather than extreme cold (with unexpected exceptions, such as Texas last winter) And also my initial point that a warming earth could mean cooling in some places is valid. You gave an equally valid example of how a cooling earth caused cold-related havoc to crops in the middle ages. However, we can't assume that will mean a slightly higher temperature everywhere. Studies suggest a warming earth could result in extremes of cold in some areas (pointing to Northern America and Europe), and extremes of heat (both dry and humid heat) in others.

In my opinion your view is simplistic, however, if it turns out to be true I welcome that some areas of the planet could benefit from a warmer earth with increased crop yields. I wish I could say the same for Australia.

My Canadian friends/family joke about the warming earth making Canada actually liveable over winter. However, I am not hearing any jokes this summer. Same with a right-wing mate in Denver, Colorado. The lampooning I received for over a decade! He's gone rather quiet over the last couple of sweltering record-breaking summers. I think we all underestimate how our personal situations affect our interpretations of climate change.

 

i don't take your bad habits, i posted facts, of course you don't like them

 

Another example off the top of my head. Extremes of heat leads to increased drought in Africa. Drought can kill millions due to crop loss.

Take Ethiopia for example. Here's an article and they've popped in floods as well.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2019/5235429/

The results of the standardized seasonal rainfall anomaly and EOF analysis trend show a decreasing rainfall in the JJAS season and significant variability in the FMAM season. The first mode of EOF shows that 49.6% was mostly negative with a high amount of spatial variability during FMAM and shows a general drying trend over eastern central, northern, and northeastern Ethiopia. Trends of observed precipitation extremes of annual total precipitation (PRCPTOT), consecutive wet days (CWD), and the number of heavy precipitation days (R10 and R20) show a weak and decreasing trend, while consecutive dry days (CDD) shows an increasing trend.

 

That post is also ridiculous. How does one know that farming is 21% lower than it would be without global warming? Since you have all this global warming there is no way to know what would have happened without it. You can guess but you can't put numbers on it. This is propaganda offered up by those whose income depends on global warming. Please try to refrain from posting things that aren't even logical.

 

the first step is to read the article about the study

 

Let me know when anyone wants to stop getting the increased crop yields. I am the one providing hard data. Your "facts" are researchers' projections.

 

fact aren't owned by anyone and of course you'll pretend like they aren't facts

you remind me of trump saying he knows more than doctors and scientists

"Rising CO2 concentrations are likely to have profound direct effects on the growth, physiology, and chemistry of plants, independent of any effects on climate. These effects result from the central importance of CO2 to plant metabolism. As photosynthetic organisms, plants take up atmospheric CO2, chemically reducing the carbon. This represents not only an acquisition of stored chemical energy for the plant, but also provides the carbon skeletons for the organic molecules that make up a plants’ structure. Overall, the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen assimilated into organic molecules by photosynthesis make up ~96% of the total dry mass of a typical plant (Marschner 1995). Photosynthesis is therefore at the heart of the nutritional metabolism of plants, and increasing the availability of CO2 for photosynthesis can have profound effects on plant growth and many aspects of plant physiology."

"Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. Rising CO2 over the next century is likely to affect both agricultural production and food quality."

https://www.nature.com/scitable/kno...tmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/

 

That's one of the many reasons why I voted against Trump twice.
The key word in your post is "likely," which means it's speculation. Meanwhile, I provided statistical hard data.

 

you ignore agw evidence, so does trump

 

Sorry, but yours is a false claim. I agree that human activity was responsible for about half of 20th century warming. That is a view put forward by Professor Nir Shaviv, the Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. What this means, bottom line, is that climate sensitivity is quite low and we'll achieve the Paris temperature target for 2100 without doing anything different. Meanwhile:

Fantastic Findings: German Study Shows Added CO2 Has Led To 14% More Vegetation Over Past 100 Years!

By P Gosselin on 7. May 2021

Almost everyone with even just a fraction of a science education knows Co2 is fertilizer to vegetation and that the added 100 or so ppm in our atmosphere over the past decades have been beneficial to plant growth and thus led to more greening of the continents. Yet, some alarmists still sniff at this fact, […]

 

so funny, notice how my argument isn't about increased growth from co2

you keep posting fallacious red-herrings and i'll keep posting relevant info

"HIGHER CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS PROMPT MORE PLANT GROWTH, BUT FEWER NUTRIENTS"

thanks for demonstrating the blind meme in my previous comment

 

Sure, and how far does this megadrought go? Half a continent or
the entire earth? And do you find that dry areas become permanently
dry, and wetter areas become permanently wetter? We are dealing
with numbers here, and statistics.

 

Except the "fewer nutrients" claim is speculation.
And I believe your silly meme was thoroughly refuted.

 

The evidence keeps showing up.
Global Warming Is Actually Sparing Lives …Cold Kills 17 Times More Than Heat, According To Lancet!
By P Gosselin on 13. July 2021

Share this...
Swiss journalist Alex Reichmuth reports on research that finds many more people die from cold than from heat.

“That’s why global warming may actually be saving lives, on the balance.”. . .

 

like trump, you're not telling the truth

"Declines of protein and minerals essential for humans, including iron and zinc, have been reported for crops in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations."

"When grown under field conditions at these anticipated [CO2] a significant reduction (an average of −10.3%) in protein relative to current [CO2] was observed for all rice cultivars (Fig. 1). Similarly, significant reductions in iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) were also observed (−8.0 and −5.1%, respectively) among all rice cultivars tested (Fig. 2). On the basis of [CO2] assessment per se, there were no significant site difference effects on rice grain quality between Japan and China (P = 0.26, 0.17, and 0.10 for protein, iron, and zinc, respectively)."

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/5/eaaq1012

 

Have you read the study? I’d love nothing more than to go over it with you. Can you provide a link to the actual study?

 

Not interested. Sorry.