Well, it’s a mixed bag of results in actual climate, I.e. what you find in papers, vs what you find in public statements. It doesn’t have to "we're doomed" vs "it’s a hoax". Science is complicated, especially climate science. Read on, my friend, read on.
Check out, via Google Scholar, "Greening of the Earth and its drivers", Zaichun Zhu and co authors in Nature Climate Change 2016.
"…We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization eects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.."
This paper isn’t in dispute as far as I can tell. Almost 2000 citations last time I checked and the first 30 I looked at just referenced it as a given. Working group 2 - Impacts - of IPCC AR5 mentions the greening of the earth many times.
"Climate change" here means rising temperatures.
Good news isn’t popular. No need to mention it in press releases.
My last comment on this thread unless anyone unhinged wants to jump in or ask a sensible question .. "Nature" is the highest ranked science journal in the world. "Nature Climate Change" is one of the family of journals under the "Nature" umbrella. Climate scientists, and any scientists, dream of publishing in this auspicious journal. It is indeed a legitimate citation. If it doesn’t contain bad news, it maybe fails your test.
I am not disputing the claims. I am telling you that you have presented it completely out of context and you are an intentionally disingenuous jerk wad.
Yes, carbon dioxide is accelerating plant growth. But there is also a risk of (at least regional) dessication and wide areas being increasingly hostile to human life (unless you can spend 24/7 in an air-conditioned cocoon, but what about construction workers etc.?)
You need to furnish a legitimate citation to have any credibility whatsoever. Fellating fossil fuel planet rapers is the act of a feces filled skin bag.
A look at the findings in this article adds to the evidence that increasing CO2 is a boon, not a burden. So, no, not satire, reality for those not under the spell of climate catastrophism.
> The first thing to note is how low sorghum and millet yields are compared to corn and rice. These are key crops across Sub-Saharan Africa, but unfortunately, haven’t had the same development and investment as other cereal crops.
Are these crops just bad or is that Africans aren't good at agriculture? If it's the former why haven't transferred to other cereal crops like rice and wheat?
Recently Zimbabwe and Ethiopia have dramatically increased crop yields. Can you do a piece on what they did right and their neighbours can learn?
The whole continent of Africa has less arable land than India, and it is generally of much lower quality.
It is a mixture of poor quality land (good land will be used for rice etc.), lack of water, lack of access to knowledge, technology and capital, and these crops receiving far less investment.
1) Do you have any sources for the first argument?
2) Africa also has far fewer people than India. Most of them except Nigeria have much lower population density than most Asian countries. So it should still be possible to be food secure.
3) Even arable rich countries like the Congo are not food secure.
4) When measuring yields per hectare they're not measuring non arable but the land being used for agriculture. So just because you have poor quality land doesn't mean your yields wouldn't increase as it has happened so every country since the 60s.
It worries me that you care about food production and agriculture, but didn't mention soil health even once in your post! It seems like you don't know that our current agriculture system is unsustainable in its soil use, and that the higher yields that you cling to do come with a cost, that of sterilizing the soils faster. If we don't either implement a healthier agriculture (for the soils) or learn how to regenerate soils faster, we are doomed. UNESCO's prospects are that 90% of soils will be degraded by 2050. I'd very much like to see a good analysis from your part on this subject. Regards!
Pre-industrial agriculture also degraded the soil, but they had far fewer means of supplementing the nutrients in the soil than we do today. This is why farmers were constantly moving to new fields, destroying far more wild habitat. Modern agricultural techniques are far more “sustainable” for high population densities than traditional agriculture.
Production has been increasing for decades, how is this possible if soils are being sterilized. What is the mechanism of fertilization causing soil sterilization?
Thanks for this. It is clear that the long-term trend in increasing agricultural productivity overcomes whatever negative trend there might be due to climate change.
Why do you advocate for more fertilisers and pesticides when these are part of the problem. We need agro-ecology. It sounds like good news that crops this year may be ok - but we need to think about future years!
Interesting take. My take is that they are part of what is destroying soil and biodiversity so they are the very things we need to stop in order to survive.
It’s interesting that, for many decades, malnutrition fell as crop yields rose. But starting around 2015, the correlation broke.*
That might suggest that aggregate global yields aren’t the best indicator of climate impacts. Could it be that high production in temperate breadbaskets masks declines elsewhere? (Such as the Central American Dry Corridor, where I’m writing this from.)
And in addition to including soil health in an analysis, what about biodiversity? Increasing yields to avoid deforestation is critical, but how long can we continue increasing a chemical-intensive approach without accelerating the decline in insects and other animals essential for pollination, recycling nutrients, soil aeration, and overall ecosystem health?
Commodities are not food. The best policy practice to feed the world is #CertifiedOrganic and #Regenerative. The current GMO technology is killing the soil, endless species and eventually, humans.
Thank goodness for increased carbon dioxide, i.e. plant food.
Satire, right?
Well, it’s a mixed bag of results in actual climate, I.e. what you find in papers, vs what you find in public statements. It doesn’t have to "we're doomed" vs "it’s a hoax". Science is complicated, especially climate science. Read on, my friend, read on.
Check out, via Google Scholar, "Greening of the Earth and its drivers", Zaichun Zhu and co authors in Nature Climate Change 2016.
"…We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization eects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.."
This paper isn’t in dispute as far as I can tell. Almost 2000 citations last time I checked and the first 30 I looked at just referenced it as a given. Working group 2 - Impacts - of IPCC AR5 mentions the greening of the earth many times.
"Climate change" here means rising temperatures.
Good news isn’t popular. No need to mention it in press releases.
My last comment on this thread unless anyone unhinged wants to jump in or ask a sensible question .. "Nature" is the highest ranked science journal in the world. "Nature Climate Change" is one of the family of journals under the "Nature" umbrella. Climate scientists, and any scientists, dream of publishing in this auspicious journal. It is indeed a legitimate citation. If it doesn’t contain bad news, it maybe fails your test.
I am not disputing the claims. I am telling you that you have presented it completely out of context and you are an intentionally disingenuous jerk wad.
Yes, carbon dioxide is accelerating plant growth. But there is also a risk of (at least regional) dessication and wide areas being increasingly hostile to human life (unless you can spend 24/7 in an air-conditioned cocoon, but what about construction workers etc.?)
You need to furnish a legitimate citation to have any credibility whatsoever. Fellating fossil fuel planet rapers is the act of a feces filled skin bag.
It’s not relevant. The “greening” isn’t trees, native bioregional ecosystem species, or relevant to the environmental dynamics of our planet.
shut up, sit down
A look at the findings in this article adds to the evidence that increasing CO2 is a boon, not a burden. So, no, not satire, reality for those not under the spell of climate catastrophism.
Fossil fuel cocksleeve is NOT going to look good on your resume……
Fuck you, douche canoe….
Science.
> The first thing to note is how low sorghum and millet yields are compared to corn and rice. These are key crops across Sub-Saharan Africa, but unfortunately, haven’t had the same development and investment as other cereal crops.
Are these crops just bad or is that Africans aren't good at agriculture? If it's the former why haven't transferred to other cereal crops like rice and wheat?
Recently Zimbabwe and Ethiopia have dramatically increased crop yields. Can you do a piece on what they did right and their neighbours can learn?
The whole continent of Africa has less arable land than India, and it is generally of much lower quality.
It is a mixture of poor quality land (good land will be used for rice etc.), lack of water, lack of access to knowledge, technology and capital, and these crops receiving far less investment.
1) Do you have any sources for the first argument?
2) Africa also has far fewer people than India. Most of them except Nigeria have much lower population density than most Asian countries. So it should still be possible to be food secure.
3) Even arable rich countries like the Congo are not food secure.
4) When measuring yields per hectare they're not measuring non arable but the land being used for agriculture. So just because you have poor quality land doesn't mean your yields wouldn't increase as it has happened so every country since the 60s.
5) Geography doesn't differences in yields. https://voxdev.org/topic/agriculture/can-geography-explain-agricultural-productivity-differences-across-countries
6) African farmers simply don't use fertiliser in many cases. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2022-08/Nudging%20Farmers%20to%20Use%20Fertilizer.pdf
It’s about access to WATER…..ffs
It worries me that you care about food production and agriculture, but didn't mention soil health even once in your post! It seems like you don't know that our current agriculture system is unsustainable in its soil use, and that the higher yields that you cling to do come with a cost, that of sterilizing the soils faster. If we don't either implement a healthier agriculture (for the soils) or learn how to regenerate soils faster, we are doomed. UNESCO's prospects are that 90% of soils will be degraded by 2050. I'd very much like to see a good analysis from your part on this subject. Regards!
Pre-industrial agriculture also degraded the soil, but they had far fewer means of supplementing the nutrients in the soil than we do today. This is why farmers were constantly moving to new fields, destroying far more wild habitat. Modern agricultural techniques are far more “sustainable” for high population densities than traditional agriculture.
Production has been increasing for decades, how is this possible if soils are being sterilized. What is the mechanism of fertilization causing soil sterilization?
Thanks for this. It is clear that the long-term trend in increasing agricultural productivity overcomes whatever negative trend there might be due to climate change.
Yep. That’s actually a conclusion of the IPCC assessment reports: https://open.substack.com/pub/debunkingthedebunkers/p/more-climate-cherry-picking.
Why do you advocate for more fertilisers and pesticides when these are part of the problem. We need agro-ecology. It sounds like good news that crops this year may be ok - but we need to think about future years!
Look at what happened to Sri Lanka when they took the suggestion that crops can be produced without fertilizer and pesticides. It was very bad.
Buzen, you are my pal!
For 50+ years, people have cried wolf about "chemicals." Yet food production goes up and up and fewer people starve.
Yet still: "WOLF WOLF WOLF!"
My understanding is that it was due to the sudden ban. What we need is a careful transition.
No, we need to continue increasing agricultural productivity. That frees up land for natural habitat and increases human material standard of living.
A “careful transition” will have the same negative results as Sri Lanka. It will just happen slower.
Agri-technology, including fertilizers and pesticides, are key to the survival and prospering of the human species.
Interesting take. My take is that they are part of what is destroying soil and biodiversity so they are the very things we need to stop in order to survive.
My guess is that you are not a farmer…
I know right. All these urban dwelling assholes think they know more about agriculture than farmers and agro scientists.
It’s interesting that, for many decades, malnutrition fell as crop yields rose. But starting around 2015, the correlation broke.*
That might suggest that aggregate global yields aren’t the best indicator of climate impacts. Could it be that high production in temperate breadbaskets masks declines elsewhere? (Such as the Central American Dry Corridor, where I’m writing this from.)
*Deep dive into malnutrition data here: https://toughgrowing.substack.com/p/progress-against-global-hunger-has
Interesting as always! I think the data also should track not only tonnage but how nutritious the crops are since that seems to be a problem now.
Soil depletion https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
Carbon dioxide https://environment.harvard.edu/news/climate-change-sapping-nutrients-our-food-%25C3%2594%25C3%2587%25C3%25B6-and-it-could-become-global-crisis
The law of the planet, the more food produced the greater the population. A variant of the predator-prey dynamic.
We all need to go back to herding sheep.
And in addition to including soil health in an analysis, what about biodiversity? Increasing yields to avoid deforestation is critical, but how long can we continue increasing a chemical-intensive approach without accelerating the decline in insects and other animals essential for pollination, recycling nutrients, soil aeration, and overall ecosystem health?
There is no “agriculture” in the conventional system. It’s “agribusiness” toxic AF.
Why the hell are you referring to anything “sustainable”?
Commodities are not food. The best policy practice to feed the world is #CertifiedOrganic and #Regenerative. The current GMO technology is killing the soil, endless species and eventually, humans.
Please give one example of a GMO crop that destroyed soil or species.