Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by billvon, Jan 28, 2020.
can imagine Canadians wont be to happy about the invasion on their newly arable land.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Actually this was artificially done by placing dams in the Nile river, which detroyed the entire downstream agriculture of the Nile delta. Thousands of acres of once fertile agriculture lands along the river were destroyed because those lands were deprived of the silt picked up by the river as is ran down to the ocean. The dam stopped those deposits and ruined an entire regional agriculture. Electricity , but no food!
I name the guys who study scientific questions related with the climate "climate scientists". It seemed to me that "AGW researchers" is simply another word for this which you prefer. But it seems that these are completely different groups of people doing very different things. It looks like I would name those you name "AGW researchers" "alarmists". Whatever, once you do not make any references to particular papers of that species one cannot know.
LOL. Of course, for alarmists everything will be negative. Even more rain in the average will be negative. (Of course, there will be some crops used today in arid regions because they don't need much water, and for those particular crops more rain will be harmful. And for alarmist, all people are far too stupid to switch in this case to other crops which require more water, so, more rain will be harmful because it is harmful for the crops actually used.)
Because you say so.
Its you who is ignorant. You have been unable to present even a single bit of evidence in this post as well as most of others.
Of course, without agriculture around there can be only some small villages. Towns like this one:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
are simply impossible. There has to be at least as much agriculture around as in this town, where you can easily see the large green agricultural areas in its environment: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Riyadh Saudi Arabiafirstname.lastname@example.org,46.9570676,144715m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x3e2f03890d489399:0xba974d1c98e79fd5!8m2!3d24.7137767!4d46.675415
Exercise: Find some differences between those climate changes in the past and the situation now in the economy. Hint: Think about the role of global trade and its ability to transfer food to such towns.
But I have forgotten that global trade is evil and has to be stopped immediately to prepare the world for climate change. And this classical alarmism is worth to be preserved:
Don't forget that modern agriculture does not need more than 2% of the workforce, so even if all these new areas will be used, they will be used by modern firms with sufficient capital to make something out of these new lands, no chance for the poor peasants. Like the 40% of the Chinese rural population which have moved during the last 60 years to Chinese towns, where they have probably starved to death.
By the way, there is always a region where farming is already possible but difficult. In such regions, there is already some, but not much agriculture. If the climate improves, farming becomes less difficult in these regions immediately.
And there will be none. The large new usable land will be used by some 2-3% of the Canadian population in highly productive agrarian firms. Actually there are 1.5% of the Canadian workers working in agriculture, so 3% would be sufficient for a doubling of the area. So they certainly don't need any immigration for using the new agricultural areas. They will produce a lot and sell it to the towns with no agriculture in the environment.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They aren't all climate scientists. The biologists and ecologists and agronomists, for example, who have done key research into the likely and possible effects of AGW, are not climate scientists.
Searching for sense and meaning in that post, making the usual allowances for your inability to handle English in these circumstances, I end up assuming you mean to compare past warmings with the likely or predicted nature of AGW.
AGW is ten times as fast, for starters. That makes significant differences in the mechanical feedbacks, as well as the adjustments of affected living beings etc. ( One example: Atmospheric methane degradation in the past prevented buildup from thawing, so the "methane bomb" disaster was never a serious risk back then. The AGW thaw is too fast - the natural degradation is not keeping up, methane buildup has begun, and the "methane bomb" consequence is far more of a risk now than in those earlier warmings).
And if it gets worse, as predicted by the knowledgable, they will have to move or die.
Long severe droughts punctuated by ill-timed torrential rains destroy terraces like those in your photo - they lose structural integrity in the droughts, and then wash out rapidly in the rains. One can prevent that by putting continual and expensive effort into maintenance during the droughts - but very few farmers who have been forced to terrace such steep slopes have the spare time or the surplus cash necessary, and there's no guarantee the rains that finally do come will moderate and extend enough to bring a crop to maturity.
As in the dry lands of eastern Africa? Global trade can't even feed them now.
Yet another risk - the necessary infrastructure of global trade is concentrated in the regions most vulnerable to AGW (coastlines, ports, large rivers, low and level terrain, areas capable of supporting dense populations). Anyone dependent on the fringes of global trade - in the more expensive or difficult regions to reach, say - will have to move or die.
Modern firms will not be able to grow crops on thawing permafrost or newly fire-cleared mineral soil under former boreal forest any more than anyone else could - even if they do get well-timed rain in usable amounts, which the researchers say few will.
And of course the wealthy will have far more productive - or at least pressing - uses for their capital than feeding people who have no money.
But all in all the farmers you focus on may have an easier time than the townsfolk - they will at least have some possibly useful skills, subsistence farming resources, in their new homes. And unlike the climate change refugees of the past, from the Dust Bowl of the US say, they might have military grade weapons.
I am simply relaying the findings of AGW researchers - you should check them out some time.
Earth to dumbass: it doesn't matter where the farms and small towns are that feed the city: If AGW destroys them, and the city can find no replacements, the people in the city will have to move or die. Likewise if AGW makes the city itself uninhabitable, as found to be likely for several cities by AGW researchers.
You failed. Take into account the hint given.
The walls of the terraces themselves are made out of stones. Stones loose integrity in the droughts? LOL.
Of course, the crop has to be chosen appropriately, in dependence of the average rain coming down. This average rain will be, as you know, in the average more than now.
It can. If it doesn't, look for political reasons.
Show me a town where you cannot buy a coke it you want to. There may be, of course, some fringes where you cannot. But all you have to do in this case is to move to the nearest town. As explained, one can reasonably expect billions of rural people moving to towns during the next 60 years without any climate change, simply by the continuation of normal development. That towns are, indeed, often localized near coastlines, large or small rivers and so on is correct but not a problem.
Modern firms will do what is efficient, and they will have the capital necessary to realize such things. Whatever it is what can be done - forestry, reindeer breeding - it will be done. They will be able to extend the areas where we have today some marginal agriculture. They don't have to wait centuries for doing this. Which is what matters.
In Europe the poor get so much money for feeding that with that amount they would be rich almost everywhere else.
You claim so. In fact, you only distribute alarmist fantasies. (Feel free to provide counterevidence by reference to serious scientific research. You cannot, and you know that.)
So Riyad has found a replacement. What's the problem? The farms which feed the city may be in Canada or Russia, who cares. Anyway the citizens of the city have to find money to buy the food, even today. So, all this argument gives is to present your level of civilized behavior in a discussion.
I find Riyad uninhabitable even today, too hot. But many people live there and find nothing to object. In fact, they are not obliged to run around outside their buildings if it is too hot. And inside they have air condition.
Moreover, don't forget that a few uninhabitable regions are not a problem at all. What matters are the size of the regions which are inhabitable. They become larger with warming, given that a lot of regions are essentially uninhabitable because they are too cold or too arid. A rough expectation is that around the optimum the size of the regions uninhabitable because they are too cold, or too arid, should be of the same order of magnitude than those uninhabitable because they are too hot or too wet. We are yet far away from this.
You never research anything, apparently.
Stone walled terraces holding back dirt, like the ones in your photo, lose integrity during long, severe droughts. They spring leaks, shift a bit, etc. Torrential rains on steep slopes can then wash them out.
Hand laid dry stone retaining walls holding back dirt on steep slopes need maintenance even in ordinary weather, and even without the freeze/thaw cycles common at higher altitudes - in long droughts this maintenance would be unrewarded, a straight overhead cost, a bet on a distant and uncertain future. Consider what would be involved in years of maintaining a stone retaining wall at the top of a mountain for free.
And it's "lose", not "loose".
When they fail under AGW, Riyadh's inhabitants will care.
Tell it to the Sudanese. Or the Syrians. Or the Haitians. Or the Inuit et al.
The ignorant always have recourse to magic, when imagining the future - it's one of the advantages of ignorance.
Depends on where they are, how large they are, how rapidly they become uninhabitable, and why. The AGW researchers say they are most likely in the current regions of greatest agricultural productivity and densest human population, that they are likely to encompass large fractions of those areas, that the onset or transition will most likely happen over a couple of decades or less in any given region, and that the cause will most likely persist for centuries.
That would be a problem.
The wealthy will always - as now - have more pressing demands on their capital than feeding distant refugees who have no money. Counting on the rich to feed AGW refugees out of the charity of their hearts is probably not an adequate plan for AGW response.
That's irrelevant. The question made significant and central by AGW is what happened to the people who used to live in the towns.
Of course, if completely left without maintenance, they will destroyed after some time. But this will happen only if they have been left.
Who cares about alarmist fantasies where the whole world fails?
I need no magic at all. All I need is normal modern agricultural firms. That the Syrians had to fight a long war against US-paid terrorists is off-topic here.
According to some alarmist, indeed the whole world becomes uninhabitable. The thing closest to some scientific research in support of such alarmist claims simply compared the actual productivity if the weather becomes extreme now. As one has to expect if one thinks people are now using crops optimal for the actual climate, extreme weather events are bad now. But extrapolating such data to a changing climate makes no sense, because it does not (and cannot) take into account that people adapt to climate changes and will change the crops optimal to the climate today to crops optimal for the new climate. If you can present something better, present it.
I don't. I count on simple capitalism, and competition on free markets to drive the prices down. It will reduce the rural population anyway, together with the inefficient techniques they have to use today by the poor because they have not enough capital to invest and not enough land to do start a modern agricultural firm there.
Nothing happens to them. They will buy their food in supermarkets, and the food will be produced where it can be produced efficiently. There will be sufficient areas for this, the Earth is actually becoming greener because of the actual climate change.
Cease attempting to change the subject: Nobody said anything about the "whole world".
The AGW researchers's expected and most likely events are calculated from evidence and theory, with error ranges and estimated probabilities so forth - it's called "science".
That's when, not if, they will be left. Those are not rich farmers with lots of leisure time for years of recreational stonework repair - they have families to feed.
You should pay attention to the AGW researchers instead. They are more likely to be correct.
There will not be a stable "new climate" for centuries. There are no crops adapted to the intervening transition, and nobody has any idea how to create any - far less any idea of how to farm as productively as with the crops we ahve now, produced by thousands of years of domestication and adjustment.
Modern agricultural firms can do only the physically possible, and will do only the economically profitable. Converting half-thawed permafrost and mineral soil under former boreal forest into productive farmland is neither.
Again: tell it to the Sudanese, the Syrians, the Haitians, and so forth. No free market is going to feed distant refugees who have no money, and no capitalist is going to cover the enormous cost and meager returns of farming places without water or fertile soil or a decent growing season or reliable weather. Why would they?
Feel free to give references to this "science". If it is not the whole world which fails, then there will be food to buy in Riyad.
And part of the family feeding is to care about the maintenance of what feeds them.
Feel free to refer to particular papers showing that I'm wrong about particular questions.
The climate will always be stable enough to gain by changing crops to those best for the actual climate. Your fantasies about humanity having no crops for large ranges of climates which exists today too, only at other places (climate zones shift) only show your extreme alarmism. Again, no hiding between unproven claims that some "science" supports your alarmism.
Feel free to list the climates where humanity has no crops to raise. There are, of course, some - extreme aridity, so that we have deserts, or too cold. Both will decrease, given that in the average there will be more precipitation and higher temperature.
Nonsense. Physically you can raise crops on every soil, if it is warm enough and sufficient rain. The technology is named fertilization. Then, again, the agricultural firms start this when the regions where even today exists some marginal agriculture, which is marginal because it is yet too cold. If the natural result of thawing permafrost would be a swamp, so what, the technologies to transform swamps into agricultural land are also ages old and well-know.
The victims of US aggression are not relevant here. Of course, the free market is going to feed even distant refugees by giving them jobs so that they can get some wages to feed themselves. The typical problem of refugees is that they are not allowed to take jobs. So, it is the opposite to a free market which is their problem.
Alarmist fantasies about no water given that AGW predicts more precipitation aside: A classical way to handle poor soil is, by the way, to use it for grass. To be eaten by cows and other livestock. This is, of course, evil agriculture to be destroyed, so only evil deniers can think about such evil use.
And it's the Republican media feed vs the AGW researchers, once again:
There will be food somewhere, but not necessarily enough for sale to Riyadh - in which case we note that the city of Riyadh has no good military or other means of seizing food from distant regions. But others do - war will be cheaper and easier than agriculture for an increasing number of societies.
Exactly. There will be no time or money for what doesn't feed them.
No crops? None. Nuclear powered greenhouses can grow food on Mars.
Not enough to feed a city? More than half the landscape - all the climates, essentially, when mismatched with soil or other key factors.
Too hot, as well - most deserts are either too hot or too cold or both at different times.
According to AGW researchers extreme aridity will afflict more of the landscape than it does now, not less. Likewise: extreme heat, extreme precipitation, and even more significantly extreme variability in these factors, will affect more land rather than less. And these factors will be most prominent and most damaging and most difficult to either predict or adapt to during the centuries of AGW, before a new climate regime has settled in.
According to the AGW researchers, most of the currently unfarmable land probably will not be productively farmable for many dozens - most often hundreds - of years after AGW hits hard. If ever.
AGW predicts more drought, and more severe drought, as well as more precipitation.
The victims of climate change are. Many Syrians are both - as are the Haitians, Sudanese, etc.
And that's just US aggression - add in the Russians and Chinese and Israelis and various African regional powers and the internal politics of India or Brazil etc, and so forth, and it's clear AGW will often hit where people cannot ready themselves even if they want to.
The technology for that is named hydroponics. You can of course grow food hydroponically anywhere - but not cheaply.
That's not nearly as productive as the farming AGW is predicted likely to destroy. And it's not possible on thawing permafrost. And it doesn't work on all poor soils. And it is vulnerable to fire during heat waves. And it's not cheap to establish. And so forth.
It never has before.
It won't this time either, according to AGW researchers who have focused on that matter.
The AGW researchers say it probably won't be, in lots of places - including large areas of productive agriculture now.
And of course if it is, sometimes and some places, it still won't match the higher productivity possible with more stable climate - adaptation to extreme variability is costly.
The AGW result, not the "natural" one, is relevant.
There are no established techniques for transforming thawing permafrost into farmland - which would take many years regardless (AGW researchers say centuries, even if the local weather cooperates).
And so forth.
The two mystical entities from iceaura's fantasy. The "Rep media feed" is simply the usual boring defamation, and the "AGW researchers" are simply alarmists. If there would be real researchers among iceaura's sources, he would have given references. But so to present the sources would be too shameful.
Because alarmists say so. Up to now, the warming and the increasing CO2 has made the Earth greener.
This sound like from some B-movies from Hollywood, not even from alarmists.
Because the alarmists say so.
Most of bad soil problems can be solved with those evil fertilizers.
Who cares about deserts, which are anyway too arid?
As I have mentioned many times, increasing volatility with increasing temperature has to be expected, and the size of the effect can be seen today if one compares different climate zones. Are there "severe droughts" in regions which are warmer than Europe? Yes, certainly. There are usually dry seasons in tropical climate. If there would be such a dry season in Europe - several months no rain - this would be named extreme drought. Nonetheless, people somehow manage to survive in the tropical climate zone. So I see no reason to fear for survival of Europeans even if it becomes tropical.
Nobody cares if the climate has settled in or not. People will adapt to the actual climate around them.
References please. Claims about what alarmists claim do not count.
Fertilizers are cheap enough.
And alarmists will invent even more problems. In real life, there will be, of course, a lot of real problems, but these problems have solutions, most of which have been well-known already centuries ago. But modern technologies will help to solve those problems too.
About jobs in the towns created during urbanization in a free capitalist market:
All the 40% Chinese which have left left the rural areas and have moved into Chinese towns have been starved to death by evil Chinese capitalism, but the truth about this is yet hidden.
Feel free to give some references. You give none because these are your fantasies, supported only by some extreme left-wing alarmists writings which even you would feel ashamed to link here.
References please. Changing crops is something which can be done very fast, so one does not need long time stability of the climate.
It may be costly. It depends on the actual circumstances. In the picture I have presented you can improve the stability with an investment of some bags of cement. In fact, these structures already survive quite heavy rains.
LOL, References please. Really, I want to read this, it should be funny.
I'm glad you recognize the defamation. The next step would be extricating yourself from dependence on the Rep media feed.
The actual predicted circumstances - what the AGW researchers have calculated as most likely - would in many cases require very costly adaptations (to the point of hydroponics or some similar arrangements).
Many bags, schlepped in by hand. And a lot of work.
Severe drought, punctuated by unprecedented heavy rain. Do try to pay attention.
They are well maintained, because they produce food. If they quit producing food, they won't be. They will be abandoned, and the farmers will move or die. Again - those farmers don't have time for years of recreational mountaintop masonry.
One needs to predict next year's weather with reasonable accuracy, and it needs to be within a certain range. That is especially true of modern industrial agriculture, with its large and long term investments in monoculture and specialization - what you were counting on for productivity, remember?
The AGW researchers say that probably will be difficult or impossible for large areas of the planet, including some areas that now produce lots of food.
Hydroponic agriculture, and similar adaptations to marginal circumstances, is not.
It has not increased agricultural productivity overall - even in its mild early stages, before the serious troubles hit. The AGW researchers say it probably won't.
Tell it to the Hutu and Tutsi, the Sudanese, the Syrians, etc. They have lived that B movie. From the looks of things India and Bangladesh and Pakistan may be next in line for that subplot of AGW - or maybe the African tribal nations being armed by capitalist corporate interests for various reasons, just in time to give them options for dealing with AGW effects and empty granaries.
This is what one has to expect from alarmists.
Over the next 100 years or so.
Why paying attention to alarmist fantasies? The real AGW prediction is some higher volatility, comparable to what we already see in different climate zones.
As explained many times, a billion will move to the towns anyway. Usual urbanization. Why they would stop producing food, except alarmist fantasies, is not clear. The average location gets more precipitation, thus, locations getting less than now will be rare exceptions, which are irrelevant for predictions about average food production. Some months without precipitation is something they are used to, it is the dry period.
And it will be predictable during climate change. Remember, the climate change is already happening, not? Any problem with this worldwide?
And it is not necessary. BTW, I have heard about plans to actually use such techniques today -- in polar regions if energy is cheap (say, near places where they pump up oil or gas) but transport of food is expensive.
Nice that you present at least some sources of your "AGW research". I asked for scientific sources. You present what you have, alarmist source. As expected.
Of course, the Sahel zone is one of the typical critical regions where it is difficult to predict something, but non-alarmist sources would mention that while there was a serious problem during the 70-80's the precipitation has returned to the normal level. http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data/sahel/
1, 2, 3, 4, - - - (I'll explain later)
All of them AGW researchers, in this case.
Three consecutive years of severe drought followed by one unprecedentedly heavy rain probably would take out that entire photo's terraces. The farmers wouldn't be around by then - nothing to eat.
1) How would you know? You clearly haven't been following the research.
2) And higher average temperatures, higher evapotranspirative deficit, heavier rainfall and phase changes in precipitation, large shifts in the boundaries of the zones involved, etc and so forth.
3) Which will also exhibit higher volatility in many places - thereby destroying the agriculture in those places as well.
The topic was climate change refugees - most will come from the towns, for the simple reason that most of the affected people will be in towns in the first place, as noted above.
Climate change is not predicted to end all the other factors of human life. Just make things harder and worse.
The AGW researchers say it will be less predictable. That's what more "volatility" means - less predictable, except the volatility itself. And the overall global trend - hotter, drier, heavier precipitation, etc.
1,2,3,4, - - - (later).
AGW researchers say. In published, peer reviewed journals.
When the best informed scientists all say alarming things, maybe you should listen to them.
Nope. Just some stuff at your level of comprehension, from page one of a Google, not paywalled.
The AGW researchers have made some predictions - so far, spot on.
The continuing drought persists in the Sahel, and has spread west, instead - it now includes the regions that have produced the famous refugee waves across the ocean in little overcrowded boats, into Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. Your link shows that.
Notice the pockets of heavy rain, scattered around - remember "volatility", the "real AGW prediction" above? That's what it looks like on spatial scale, all mapped out for you.
Meanwhile, even summarized by the authors ( "Sahel precipitation was above the long-term mean from 1915 through the late 1930s and during the 1950s-1960s, after which it was persistently below the longterm mean, with the largest negative anomalies in the early 1980s." ) you can't get it right.
That's you misreading your own links, unable to interpret ordinary graphs, etc - and you want other people to do your work for you?
Yes. And this is just the beginning. It's likely a logistic curve, just hitting the acceleration stretch between incremental phases (keyword search: "The Blob", Mongolian steppe desertification, sea level rise Bangladesh, methane release permafrost melt, boreal forest invasive species fire, heat wave predictions for China's Seven Ovens and the lower reaches of the Yangtze, heat wave predictions Persian Gulf, ocean warming acceleration, etc.).
If things continue to get worse in these critical regions, cross the predicted thresholds, and hit as hard as the AGW researchers report is most likely, there will be no more resources - let alone time - to react.
example: In Science Magazine, issue published 14/2/2020, we read that there are apparently three major thresholds in increasing aridity, (at .54, .7, and .8 iirc), after which crossings the entire supported ecosystem changes abruptly - in soil biome and chemistry, vegetation cover, faunal community, etc - but between which the changes are small and incremental.
The bad news is that about 20% of the land surface of the planet will likely cross one or more of those thresholds before 2100 CE - that's the AGW researchers's data supported most likely prediction, given current trends - and there will be little warning - the thresholds are apparently fairly sharp.
The good news is that desertification leads to higher albedo - so the planet as a whole may heat up a bit more slowly as more of the land becomes arid and unfarmable.
Prove it, with quotes and references. I would be interested to read what they write. But I simply don't believe empty claims from alarmists like you.
Of course, 100 years severe drought and then Noah's flood would have this effect too. But why I should care about such alarmist possibilities?
You cannot know what I follow. In fact, it is easy. I have looked at how the higher volatility is explained. The explanation is higher temperature. What follows from higher temperature we can see today too, it is sufficient to look at other climate zones. And, indeed, we see higher volatility there. Feel free to refer to scientific papers which, beyond higher temperature, gives an additional independent cause.
And all this makes everything worse, instead of simply shifting most climate zones, so that we can simply use the crops optimally adapted to such climate.
Of course, in those places where the climate warms, the warmer climate will be also more volatile, as it is today too. If people would be stupid changing nothing, their agriculture would be destroyed. But people will adapt too.
Means, these are all alarmist fantasies. Just for information, in your alarmist horror scenario, if the world markets collapse, borders will be predictably closed anyway. So, there will be no refugees coming to other countries.
Some harder, some better. And only in alarmist fantasies, only worse.
No. A regular pattern will well-defined dry seasons and well-defined rainy seasons where it is raining every day is very volatile and completely predictable. A climate with the same average rain all the months but where the weather during the next day is essentially unpredictable, except that there will be two hours rain and two hours Sun, is much less volatile and essentially unpredictable.
So you have nothing beyond page one from google, which gives the usual alarmist nonsense? Ok, this was what I have expected.
Feel free to refer to details. I want to have something to laugh at from the first page of google.
https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/greening.php shows indeed that the Sahel zone is nonetheless among the few losers.
That's the picture one has to expect for sufficiently short time data.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I simply look at the last years in the picture. That's more relevant than the informal verbal description you prefer because it sounds more alarmist.
It is your job to present scientific evidence for your alarmist claims. You presented none up to now. But, ok, here comes the first one:
Fine, at least something. The way to refer to the paper in a civilized scientific way would have been
Berdugo M. et al. (2020). Global ecosystem thresholds driven by aridity. Science 367, 787-790, DOI 10.1126/science.aay5958
Behind a paywall, but fortunately somebody has made it accessible for free. It contains nothing unexpected. Thresholds work in both directions, btw. Given that the overall precipitation increases, I see no base for expecting an overall increase in aridity, even if volatility increases. Moreover, don't forget that the aridity is not a constant in space, but usually quite continuous in space. In this case, there is a border between the different regions below and above the threshold, and this border changes continuously even with however sharp thresholds. So, no cheap alarmist tricks, please.
You really need to research your stuff before you post. You've cherry picked the unusual climate Sahel region with out knowing the detail. If you knew the details you may have been more honest in your approach.
Quoting an extreme region,, in ignorance to justify a global position is disengenious to say the least.
The accusation of cherrypicking is completely unbased. The cherry was picked by iceaura who has posted a typical media (=alarmist) link https://time.com/5324712/climate-change-nigeria/ related to Sahel. If you have something to object, make the objections about the content, and show that you have researched some scientific (not alarmist) sources. That would be a much better way to show that your position is better than usual alarmist nonsense, a blatant accusation of "you should study" type does not do this job, it only discredits you.
Then go read them. You are already posting on the topic - it's long past time you read up on the research.
Of course I can. You post from it.
The AGW researchers predict lots of refugees, due to the effects of AGW.
You misread your own link.
That's not what "volatility" refers to, in the AGW research reports. You claimed to have read at least the one - ?
Your incompetence at statistical reasoning is familiar. In this case, however, you have lots of resources available to help you - the AGW researchers explain their predictions well, with lots of data and peer-reviewed applications of theory and so forth, and you claim to have read at least the one article.
There aren't any crops optimally adapted to the predicted most likely climate changes during AGW.
The direction involved is toward increasing aridity, predicted to affect 20% of the land area of the planet strongly enough to cross one or more of those three thresholds.
That contradicts your various assertions, above. Whether or not you expected such contradiction I do not know.
Actually there is one crop which is perfectly suitable for a hot climate airborne CO2 scrubber. Even more effective than trees.
Check out the properties and benefits of Hemp. I am not kidding, the science has proven this to be a wonder crop in so many respects its really unbelieveable why it was outlawed for such a long time, due to false allegations.
Here are just a few of the ecologica; benefits of Hemp
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF HEMP
Hemp is the #1 producer of biomass per acre in the world. Biomass energy expert Lynn Osburn estimates that 1 1/2 to 3 1/2 million acres of hemp would replace all of Canada's fossil fuel demands.
From 75°/O to 90% of all paper was made with hemp fiber until the late 1800's.
U.S.D.A. bulletin #404 outlined a process for the production of paper using pulp and demonstrated that hemp could replace 40% to 70% of all tree pulp paper, including corrugated boxes, computer paper and paper bag.
An acre of hemp will produce as much pulp for paper as 4,1 acres of trees over a 20 year period.
The hemp paper-making process requires no dioxin-producing chlorine bleach and uses 75% to 85% less sulphur-based acid.
Hemp paper is suitable for recycle use 7 to 8 times, compared with 3 times for wood pulp paper.
By utilizing hemp pulp for paper, we could stop the deforestation of our country and produce stronger, more environmentally sound paper for less than 3/: of the price of wood pulp paper. The paper mills now in place would need almost no conversion in order to switch from wood to hemp pulp.
Hemp produces the strongest, most durable natural soft-fiber on earth. Until the 1 820's, up to 80% of all textiles and fabrics for clothes, canvas, linens and cordage were made principally from hemp.
Hemp cloth is stronger, more durable, warmer and more absorbent than cotton. Best of all. ' grown in Canada, cotton cannot.
An acre of land will produce 2 to 3 times as much fiber as cotton, about 1,000 Ibs. of fiber per acre.
Hemp grown in most parts of Canada will require no herbicide, fungicide or insecticide applications. Up to ½ of all agricultural pesticides used in North America are applied to the cotton crop.
And it is the most effective CO2 scrubber in the world. !!!!
Separate names with a comma.