It’s hilarious how gleefully you guys tackled the “real” trolls in this thread. With your “climate change internet warrior kit” of links and Ah-ha gotcha’s ready to bat them away.
Yet faced with inescapable logic that disproves, at the very least, the association between CC and a host of things that are nothing to do with it- you have to shut the debate down 🤣🤣
That’s why Oliver’s illustration about the obvious dissonance on display by the heads of the Cult is so clever 🤣🤣
Of course (and crop genetics too). Another huge benefit of fossil fuels 😀 😉
I’m not sure about non farming biomass. Clearly there has been global greening on unfarmed land too? Presumably with winners and losers in terms of species that live there.
Nothing to do with CO2. A lot to do with development of cereal varieties with higher yield, pesticides, herbicides, better irrigation, the use of satelite images and drones to optimise the use of forementioned.
2022 was a good year for the UK but a poor year for many parts of France due to a long period of drought and three heat waves. Locally farmers are changing crops in some of their fields to cope with drier conditions. A strategy being seen country wide as high water demand varieties are no longer viable. We've seeing more soja for example, in the 6 years up to 2021 a 50% increase. Maize which enjoyed a lon boom with impressive gains in yields is now staganting and in some areas it is being abandoned for less water intensive crops.
Crosshair you need to read some peer reviewed published papers rather than people with no track record in science potificateing on the internet.
It was quite funny in the farm meeting this spring when the Land Owner (prob been listening to too much Radio 4) was spouting off all his latest ideas to cope with our “new hot dry summers” 🤣🤣🤣🤣
As he was saying it, I just knew I’d be spending all Summer in wellies puddling though mud. And lo!!!
The effect of increased atmospheric co2 on wheat alone is like 12%…
That means every 100 acre field can have a 10 acre wild bird mix plot 🎉
TJ used the word shill… an appropriate word when considering whether to outsource ALL your thinking to ‘peers’ 😉
The effect of increased atmospheric co2 on wheat alone is like 12%…
You didn't follow up that quote I made from NASA did you. I'll reapeat it. 12% increase at 420ppm (now) is rubbish. This time read and think.
According to the study, the impact of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations on crop water productivity and yield varies regionally. Results show that maize suffers yield losses with doubled carbon dioxide levels, due in large part to the plant’s already greater efficiency at using carbon dioxide for photosynthesis compared with the other crops. Maize yields fall by 15 percent in areas that use irrigation and by 8 percent in areas that rely on rain. Even so, losses would be more severe without the carbon dioxide increase: yields would decrease 21 percent for irrigated maize and 26 percent for rainfed maize.
Having read that thoroughly try this:
Your quote refers to maize- I was talking about wheat?
As for the NASA link ‘model’ this, ‘projection’ that ‘simulation’ the other 🤷🏻♂️
while wheat could potentially see growth of about 17%
🧐
bunnyhop
Every insect, bird, mammal, fish and amphibian has its place on this planet and is needed in its true environment (not invasive species).
No wonder people turn to Neal Oliver... if you define an environment as/around a specific species then you can claim its "needed" simply by definition but that doesn't mean its presence or absence has any other consequence.
We are back to Red Squirrels as an example... so by verbal wordplay "Red squirrels are absolutely needed in the Red Squirrel Environment" but if they all get a squirrel pox virus and die they will just be replaced by grey squirrels and life will go on. Even the virus will continue in a species that have evolved to be mostly unaffected.
The replacement of red with grey will have no measurable affect on the existential threat of climate change.
Every child born in the western world needs, nappies that take decades to decompose, plastic tat from China,various pieces of equipment, food, clean water and fresh air, clothes, all of these things are going to be harder to get hold of.
How does a child NEED nappies that take decades to decompose or plastic tat from China?
You seem to have a very casual use of the word NEED...
Greentricky
ecological collapse is probably the bigger existential threat than climate over the long term
Over the long term (millions of years) the two are linked.
Over the short term climate change is going to kill millions to tens of millions to hundreds of millions.. depending how quickly and how thoroughly we act.
There isn't an option anymore for only a few hundred or a few thousand dying, barely an option for millions...
🤣🤣🤣🤣
It just doesn’t even pass the sniff test though does it. There’s already technical solutions to exist in a 100 degree range of temperatures.
As I said in my previous post farmers are replacing water intensive crops with crops that need less water, notably wheat and soja. **** all to do with CO2 aiding wheat crowth and a lot to do with climatic change induced drought
Try reading again, perhaps as far as:
“You can think of plants as collecting sunlight over the course of the growing season,” said Ruane. “They're collecting that energy and then putting it into the plant and the grain. So, if you rush through your growth stages, by the end of the season, you just haven't collected as much energy.” As a result, the plant produces less total grain than it would with a longer development period. “By growing faster, your yield actually goes down.”
I remember seeing your 12% somewhere, IIRC it was based on doubling CO2 without taking into account water availability, so 840ppm which would take us back to the late Cretaceous and you really don't want to be on the planet in late cretaceous conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous_Thermal_Maximum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenomanian-Turonian_boundary_event
Edukator - don't feed the troll? His mind is clearly closed. Waste of good electricity trying to convince someone who thinks Neil Oliver is an authority.
"non so blind as those who will not see"
It's not just feeding the troll, TJ. With a bit of luck other people will be reading the links. I've been reading the insect/bird stuff with interest, it's not my speciality so I'm just following with interest.
However geology, paleoclimate, Humbolt zones and pollution are fields I've studied/worked in and even if I don't know everything about every aspect of research I have an overall view that means I have a feel for what's rubbish or not and know where to look for the detail. Hope people find it interesting, not just crosshairs.
Who said he’s an authority? He just made an observation that resonates with the rank illogical hyperbole in this thread.
Abstract
Climate change effects on UK winter wheat grain yield are complex: warmer temperature, negative; greater carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, positive; but other environmental variables and their timing also affect yield. In the absence of long-term experiments where temperature and CO2 concentration were manipulated separately, we applied the crop simulation model Sirius with long-term daily meteorological data (1892–2016) for Rothamsted, Hertfordshire, UK (2007–2016 mean growing season temperature 1.03°C warmer than 1892–1991), and CO2 concentration over this period, to investigate the separate effects of historic CO2 and weather on simulated grain yield in three wheat cultivars of the modern era. We show a slight decline in simulated yield over the period 1892–2016 from the effect of weather (daily temperature, rainfall and sunshine hours) at fixed CO2 (294.50 ppm, 1892 reference value), but a maximum 9.4% increase when accounting for increasing atmospheric CO2 (from 294.50 to 404.21 ppm), differing slightly among cultivars.
Around 10% benefit to the UK wheat yields in the past 125 years according to this study 🤷🏻♂️
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2021.0250
Fair enough Edukator.
Same as me countering the lies of the religious fundamentalists
Ten percent is often touted as a nice round figure for ‘land sparing’. Ie farmers should ‘give back’ 10% of their productive land to nature.
That’s literally only possible with no reduction in yield V how much land we would have needed in 1892 thanks to atmospheric co2 increases 🎉
Fossil fuels- turning dead dinosaurs into wildlife 👏🏻🤣🤣🤣
Come on crosshairs, you can do better than that. You've cut off the quote just when it got interesting and they said the model didn't work because, I'll finish for you:
but the positive yield trend with actual CO2 values does not match the recent stagnation in UK wheat yield.
It's a model and fails to take into account some of the factors identified by Nasa such as faster growth early season leading to lower yield overall.
Fact is ther hasn't been an icrease in yields due to CO2 even in the UK which is one of th eareas of the globe which may benefit from warmer temperatures due to global warming (which are real and recorded) . I linked a graph of yields at the top of the page. There's more variation from year to year now but the moving average has moved very little over 20 years - especially considering all the technological gains over the period.
But it highlights the ignorance of the ‘co2 bad!’ argument.
We are feeding twice as many people with **less** land than we did in 1875. Even if we can’t untangle the exact number it seems obvious co2 has played a part in that.
Whatever ‘war of the models’ we want to engage in- none of them are reliable enough to destroy human progress for!
Uk wheat yields doubled 1926-2015.
This work suggests that on average, at the regional scale, climate change is likely to have more positive impacts on UK wheat yields than previously considered.
And in the future it’s all about ‘weather’ not ‘climate’ 😉
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/13/1377/2022/
Have you never heard of "the green revolution" which has nothing to do with being ecological. On the contrary, it's the agricultural revolution base on improving yields through mechanisation, varity selection, GM, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides, irrigation and high tech.
Dig out some photos of wheat production techniques in 1926 and compare with now. France after the Great War:
The green revolution India
https://www.javatpoint.com/green-revolution-in-india
Of course. My grandfather took great delight in attaching an early tractor to his father’s horse drawn cultivator and pulling the tines out straight in order to settle an argument about horse power v ICE power 🤣
But atmospheric co2 has added a useful Brucey Bonus
You obviously aren't reading my links but I'm reading yours, crosshair. Again you cut off the quote when it gets interesting:
This work suggests that on average, at the regional scale, climate change is likely to have more positive impacts on UK wheat yields than previously considered. Against this background of positive change, however, our work illustrates that wheat farming in the UK is likely to move outside of the climatic envelope that it has previously experienced, increasing the risk of unseen weather conditions such as intense local thunderstorms or prolonged droughts, which are beyond the scope of this paper.
In France farmers have long known that climatic zones are changing and are adapting to new conditons. What wasn't anticipated was the rapid increase in extreme events: fire, drought, floods, hail, storms, tornados, insect swarms, mildew, fungus... . "beyond scope of this paper". That's why my farmer friend has had to take out insurance.
Or not….. it’s a model after all.
It reads to me like they have to say that at the end not be ostracised by their doomsday culture peers.
It’s all the same:
“The world is getting greener but…”
“Climate change will be good for the UK wheat crop but….”
“Co2 has increased yields but….”
“Less people are dying from natural disasters but….”
🤣 right on cue comes the ‘fact checker’ site link
Edukator
You obviously aren’t reading my links but I’m reading yours, crosshair. Again you cut off the quote when it gets interesting
The problem here is you are arguing over secondary information sources in an area crosshair isn't specifically educated for that at either side are demonstrably lying and deliberately misleading AND neither side between "the authorities" OR "the Greens" seem particularly bothered about climate change or more specifically so bothered about it that it is the main and overwhelming priority. Both are at best giving "spin" on science... Richie is selling "sustainable jet fuel" (that magically will power jets without burning) the green organisations are selling their own ideals and conflating them with climate change...
So then you have a subject on which someone is well educated and knowledgeable (in this case UK agriculture) AND has their own experience on top.
Then you get someone on YT who say's "this is what I can see with my own eyes and they are lying, what can you see"
This works for Flat Earth, Covid deniers and Michael Gove... and more relevant to this thread climate change.
This grift isn’t new that’s the trouble. None of my generation were supposed to know what snow looks like. Let alone have any oil left.
And polar bears were supposed to have vanished, not doubled or trebled or whatever their true population is now.
If team Armageddon can’t explain why the climate change mafia are happily still buying houses and building properties at sea level then I don’t need to know anything more scientific. It’s failed a basic logic test.
Likewise someone flying to a conference to tell me not to fly somewhere can do one.
I hear the liberal elite are droning Russian oil tankers to the bottom of the sea now- sounds like they’re really concerned about pollution, climate change, peak oil, the health of our oceans etc etc etc.
It’s an incoherent mess.
Good to see the liberal elite are involved as well now. I suppose they do read the Guardian so we already knew it.
First use of the term 'climate change mafia' too, well done.
7/10
If team Armageddon can’t explain why the climate change mafia are happily still buying houses and building properties at sea level then I don’t need to know anything more scientific. It’s failed a basic logic test.
I'm sure the "mafia" isn't quite so organised as you think. The actual SCIENTISTS aren't buying beach property if only because they don't get paid to buy that strip in Florida. Of course the superrich (including those making money out of greenwashing) are super rich and can buy the property anyway... if and when it goes tits up they won't be there.
I don't know if you count Elon Musk as being part of them... I mean he's raking it in through Tesla...?
It doesn't matter really... he can buy a £100M beachhouse in Florida Keys and use it once. If its under water before the second time he's not losing sleep over the investment.
Let's face he he paid $44 billion for Twitter...
It’s an incoherent mess.
Sure .. nothing in the first 2m20s of that video you posted I disagree with but its just opinion not the actual science.
2min 20s to 3m17 sec ... basically a load of fluff... "some scientists said some stuff but it turns out they are the wrong ones" I mean they may or may not have been but that's just "I'll interpret this for you"
3min17-3min43s .. false premise that one side or the other must be totally wrong.
3min 43 to 4min47 ... more fluff
I'm nearly 5 mins in and no actual science yet.
What there is plenty of is trying to conflate some "mafia" or "liberal elite" however you want to put it with science and what there isn't as he wouldn't understand it is the actual science.
So who are you and who pays you, crosshair? You can't be a farmer, our drummer is a farmer, even when it's dark in the middle of Winter he calls to cancel rehersals and we can hear the tractor running in the background. There's so much to do during the long Summer days that even Welsh Farmer of this parish is too busy to post in the middle of the day.
I'm retired and recovering from being out on an MTB all morning, don't you have anything to do,you know, cut verges, maintain hedges, treat crops, maintain machines, fix the roof, fil in holes, work towards complying with environmental normes... ?
Your last post reads like something out of a Russian troll farm.
Yes my last link was as lazy as the post before it that inspired it.
Crosshair, you clearly understand the science because you are cherry picking and selectively quoting your own links when you find that they don't fit your agenda. Using them despite the fact they destroy your own made up facts. The real question is why. It's a bit like Jambalaya and Ernie on the Brexit threads, the first living between London and Paris without a French passport and the second living in the UK on a French passport; the people most threatened by Brexit arguing in favour.
Here we have someone who purports to being a farmer claiming CO2 and climatic change are good for him whilst a glance at his insurance premiums will tell him it's not.
If team Armageddon can’t explain why the climate change mafia are happily still buying houses and building properties at sea level then I don’t need to know anything more scientific. It’s failed a basic logic test.
I'll repeat my last post that you ignored, which unlike yours has a reference:
Guess we’re ingoring the super-rich buying their underground bunkers in New Zealand then
They started out innocuously and predictably enough. Bitcoin or ethereum? Virtual reality or augmented reality? Who will get quantum computing first, China or Google? Eventually, they edged into their real topic of concern: New Zealand or Alaska? Which region would be less affected by the coming climate crisis? It only got worse from there. Which was the greater threat: global warming or biological warfare? How long should one plan to be able to survive with no outside help? Should a shelter have its own air supply? What was the likelihood of groundwater contamination? Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system, and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” The event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, solar storm, unstoppable virus, or malicious computer hack that takes everything down.
Likewise someone flying to a conference to tell me not to fly somewhere can do one.
A few pages back you said you wouldn't listen to anyone that isn't living off grid in a mud-hut wearing hemp, or something along those lines; now you're backtracking to try and sound more reasonable
It’s an incoherent mess.
Welcome to society -- if you've found a bit that isn't like that please let me know where
I haven’t said I’m a farmer?
I literally google stuff in about two mins when I need backup 💻 🤷🏻♂️
I’m indoors on a Saturday because it’s cold and raining 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Although back to work for evening checks round the farm in a minute.
And we have 4g everywhere so can argue and work at the same time anyway 😎
If team Armageddon can’t explain why the climate change mafia are happily still buying houses and building properties at sea level then I don’t need to know anything more scientific. It’s failed a basic logic test.
Better still, find me a shred of evidence that climate scientists are snapping up properties in areas that models predict are exposed to sea level rise
I did skim that ‘super rich prepper’ article but there’s poor, right wing preppers too so 🤷🏻♂️
I'm in France in a region with a maritime climate, low winds, 176m above sea level with high mountains nearby. I was tempted by but didn't buy a flat on the coast. Though that was mainly because the coast is a traffic snarled tourist infested nightmare for the months of the year we'd have been free to live in it.
As for preppers, I really wouldn't want to survive any of those events. I'm a softy accustomed to a life of comfort and pleasure me.
Edukator
So who are you and who pays you, crosshair?
Crosshair, you clearly understand the science because you are cherry picking and selectively quoting your own links when you find that they don’t fit your agenda.
You don't need to understand "the science" because all this is easy copy/paste scripts.
Do a private browser session and don't log in and just watch some Flat Earth videos'...rebuttals and rebuttals of rebuttals.
Most will use the lies we get told at school... and use this as proof in a non sequiter as "so everything you got told about science is a lie".
In this case we have 2 sides lying AND they are relatively easy to debunk. The video I watched 5mins of spends the first 5 minutes establishing "you are being lied to" and I can only assume (I accidentally closed the tab when writing the post) the rest just goes on to build on "you are being lied to".
The real question is why. It’s a bit like Jambalaya and Ernie on the Brexit threads, the first living between London and Paris without a French passport and the second living in the UK on a French passport; the people most threatened by Brexit arguing in favour.
In the words of Michael Gove, the country is sick of experts (or whatever his exact words were)
The same thing happened with Covid... The Government lying repeatedly and either ignoring the science or telling the scientists what questions they could answer and what questions they weren't asked so an answer isn't required so STFU.
It doesn't provide any proof Covid wasn't and isn't real... it just proves (and this can hardly be a surprise) our politicians lie to us as a matter of course (OK Boris was even exceptional in that)... BUT it's very easy for anti-vax types to hijack the "they are lying to you" and extrapolate that "therefore Covid isn't real".
Obviously when friends and loved ones died of Covid it's less convincing but for a whole load of people it's easy to see that as proof.
Interesting. May late grandfather was a farmer, worked from 14 until early 90s.
He was very much aware of the change in climate is recent decades, the change in seasons, the reduced wildlife and fauna, the increased amount of weather phenomenons too. He’d loved to be in doors on a wet Saturday too but that was no excuse.
I think I’ve explained why I’m still posting- I’m sick of the disingenuous doublespeak where the threat of climate change is explained using examples of unrelated issues. I’m sick of propaganda. People telling me things I can see with my own eyes aren’t true.
Why? Why is everyone so desperate to live this regressive, damaging lie? 🤷🏻♂️
My favourite political porky was:
Theresa May commits to net zero UK carbon emissions by 2050 .
If you're gonna tell a porky make it a really big fat smelly disgusting one.
My father *was* a farmer. And my grandfather. And at least his father too.
My grandfather loved telling stories of how every dodgy growing season we had or delayed harvest was worse in his day or worse in his Father’s Day 🤷🏻♂️
Cool! If we’re going that far back I can trace my roots to the 1800s of farming across the borders and Northumberland. Notice how I didn’t claim delayed harvest is a new thing
Theresa May was an idiot. Maybe on that we can all agree.
She had her order from on high and sure enough it got waved through “for the greater good” 🙄
Probably diverge from there over whether the lie is that it’s needed, desirable or achievable of course….
I can trace my roots to farmers in 1600s - what do I win?
crosshairFree Member
I think I’ve explained why I’m still posting- I’m sick of the disingenuous doublespeak where the threat of climate change is explained using examples of unrelated issues. I’m sick of propaganda.
However that's exactly what you've been doing yourself. Now check out what what I've been doing - links to paleo-climates corresponding to CO2 levels proposed by yourself in your claims CO2 improves crop yields (whilst your own sources says yields are stagnating and that isn't proven).
If anybody is confusing the issue it's the deniers of which you are one.
I've talked about sources of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ( CO2 and methane), the correlation with temperature and climate in the geological record and what we can expect from current and projected levels.
I've lost count of the number of times I've posted this:
If you understand the science you know what the consequences will be; it's in the geological record.
