We grow the same amount of food on 30% of the land area

[mrjurrs]

Today we grow food very well.

The amount of food a particular piece of land produced in 1961 is now producing 3 to 4 times as much food. Generally.

Not so much a debate thing just an interesting thing to understand.

View attachment 67287777

From;
Crop Yields - Our World in Data

You're right, but that's currently.

Chapter: Factors Affecting Yield of Crops

A good understanding of dynamics involved in food production is critical for the improvement of food security. It has been demonstrated that an increase in crop yields significantly reduces poverty. Y

www.intechopen.com

 

[Tim the plumber]

You're right, but that's currently.

Chapter: Factors Affecting Yield of Crops

A good understanding of dynamics involved in food production is critical for the improvement of food security. It has been demonstrated that an increase in crop yields significantly reduces poverty. Y

www.intechopen.com

Care to quote from it so we know what your point is?

 

[mrjurrs]

Care to quote from it so we know what your point is?

General point. Current food yield is tremendous, future food yield is under pressure from population growth, climate change, overuse of chemical fertilizer, and expanding areas of 'pests'. This one is particularly bothersome.

Spotted Lanternfly Alert

www.agriculture.pa.gov

 

[Tim the plumber]

General point. Current food yield is tremendous, future food yield is under pressure from population growth, climate change, overuse of chemical fertilizer, and expanding areas of 'pests'. This one is particularly bothersome.

Spotted Lanternfly Alert

www.agriculture.pa.gov

Then expand on it and tell us what the actual mechanism for this supposed trouble is.

Just posting a too long to read DOOMM!! message is not going to impress anybody here.

 

[mrjurrs]

Then expand on it and tell us what the actual mechanism for this supposed trouble is.

Just posting a too long to read DOOMM!! message is not going to impress anybody here.

I'm not looking to impress. If someone is interested, enjoy. If not, scroll on.

 

[Waddy]

I applaud your sensable view of the plus side.

But I ask (hopefully very politely) about the bad side.

The idea that insect infeststions are going to be trouble is silly. They will be as much trouble as they are in the warmer places today. It is always the case that with all other factors being equal the warmer the area the more food you can grow there and the easier it is for humans to live there.

Melting ice will only impact humans in terms of sea level rise. The worst case predictions in the 4th report were for a 59cm ( 2 feet ) rise by 2100 and with no change in the settled science the 5th got it to 1m ( 3 feet ). The actual rate is at 3.2mm/yr or 10 inches more than now by 2100.

Persoanlly I don't see that as at all bad.

We have many thousands of years worth of fossil fuels. They will never run out as we will have long since found better ways of making power. The idea that we should guess what will be needed in 300 years from now is more stupid than expecting the poeple of 1720 to know how our industries would be powered now. The entire question is mad. In 1720 they used to best resouces they could. Those resources would not be useful today.

Insect infestations aren't a future problem, they are right now. Northern forests are seeing insect problems that once only effected forests farther south, and the trees don't have any natural defenses.
I agree that we have lots of fossil fuel left. But it is getting progressively harder and more costly to extract. The economy doubles about every 30 years. We are going to need, and use, all the fossil, renewables and anything else we can get our hands on to meet future demands.
What I object to is government picking winners and losers. Let the market operate. It will sort it out.

 

[Jack Hays]

Insect infestations aren't a future problem, they are right now. Northern forests are seeing insect problems that once only effected forests farther south, and the trees don't have any natural defenses.
I agree that we have lots of fossil fuel left. But it is getting progressively harder and more costly to extract. The economy doubles about every 30 years. We are going to need, and use, all the fossil, renewables and anything else we can get our hands on to meet future demands.
What I object to is government picking winners and losers. Let the market operate. It will sort it out.

Please see the work of Julian Simon. The more we use the more we find.

 

[Waddy]

Please see the work of Julian Simon. The more we use the more we find.

That is true. But it doesn't make it any more than a finite resource. One day we simply won't be finding more. And, like I said, future energy needs means we will use every type of energy we can get hold of. So a slow, measured inclusion of other energy sources, hopefully renewable, just makes sense. And let the market decide how that gets structured. I just don't see why I have to take sides on this issue. We need all forms of energy.

 

[Jack Hays]

That is true. But it doesn't make it any more than a finite resource. One day we simply won't be finding more. And, like I said, future energy needs means we will use every type of energy we can get hold of. So a slow, measured inclusion of other energy sources, hopefully renewable, just makes sense. And let the market decide how that gets structured. I just don't see why I have to take sides on this issue. We need all forms of energy.

Resources are economically indefinite. We will never run out.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I'm not looking to impress. If someone is interested, enjoy. If not, scroll on.

You obviously have not actually read it then.

Thought so.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Insect infestations aren't a future problem, they are right now. Northern forests are seeing insect problems that once only effected forests farther south, and the trees don't have any natural defenses.
I agree that we have lots of fossil fuel left. But it is getting progressively harder and more costly to extract. The economy doubles about every 30 years. We are going to need, and use, all the fossil, renewables and anything else we can get our hands on to meet future demands.
What I object to is government picking winners and losers. Let the market operate. It will sort it out.

You say that the trees have no defense.

How so if those further south are OK?

I mean the range of the species will shift North a bit but that is not going to reduce the number of trees, there will be different trees is all.

 

[Tim the plumber]

That is true. But it doesn't make it any more than a finite resource. One day we simply won't be finding more. And, like I said, future energy needs means we will use every type of energy we can get hold of. So a slow, measured inclusion of other energy sources, hopefully renewable, just makes sense. And let the market decide how that gets structured. I just don't see why I have to take sides on this issue. We need all forms of energy.

When I went to school in the 1970s I was taught that oil would run out in 15 years.

This was bollocks. Obviously. The Oil industry prospects 15 years ahead of its' self.

Now, with as you say increased difficulty of extraction, they prospect 20 years ahead.

Thus we have increased reserves.

Coal can be converted to oil. There is many thousands of years of coal under the ground.

 

[Waddy]

You say that the trees have no defense.

How so if those further south are OK?

I mean the range of the species will shift North a bit but that is not going to reduce the number of trees, there will be different trees is all.

The southern trees have evolved to fight off the pests, but the northern forests haven't needed to; the cold weather protects them. If the weather warms, the pests expand north and do massive damage. In fact, that's why lumber has been so cheap until recently; they were selling off that damaged lumber. But it's pretty much cleared out now, and prices are going up fast.

And yes, I do agree that there is lots of fossil fuel left; it's a matter of cost to extract and process. The energy demands of the future will include fossil fuels, but renewables will be lots cheaper. Turning coal into gas can be done, the Germans did it during WWll, but it ain't cheap.

 

[Tim the plumber]

The southern trees have evolved to fight off the pests, but the northern forests haven't needed to; the cold weather protects them. If the weather warms, the pests expand north and do massive damage. In fact, that's why lumber has been so cheap until recently; they were selling off that damaged lumber. But it's pretty much cleared out now, and prices are going up fast.

And yes, I do agree that there is lots of fossil fuel left; it's a matter of cost to extract and process. The energy demands of the future will include fossil fuels, but renewables will be lots cheaper. Turning coal into gas can be done, the Germans did it during WWll, but it ain't cheap.

I am not at all upset about a change in tree specise over a small amount of the range of any speciecs. Just find somebody who cares.

The process of cracking of coal into oil can be done underground in the seams of coal which are too small or brown to work. The research into this has been stopped (or more realistically made secret). Odd that. See the secret thing.

 

[longview]

What doesn't make sense? This is a perfectly logical statement that none of you have been able to refute. Now you are not making sense.
And I never said that you said this. What I have been saying over and over again is that Climaterealism has been saying this. And Jack has been C&Ping Climatrealism's garbage repeatedly. If you go back and read my posts #241 and #242 you can see my review of what I was saying that I wrote because Jack, Tim, and Lord were being equally as hardheaded as you are. And if you check out the first link to when I first brought this issue up about Climaterealism and read the debate you and I had you might remember defending Climaterealism's lies.
And if you go to the last page of that earlier debate you will see that I quoted a part of an IPCC report that cites science that says some crop yields are starting to fall because of climate change. Here is that quote for you again:

The IPCC is attempting to make hay from straw, The stated decreased global mean yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans, seems to be lost in the massive yield increases!

 

[Lord of Planar]

The IPCC is attempting to make hay from straw, The stated decreased global mean yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans, seems to be lost in the massive yield increases!

They need to be able to spin gold from straw before they can be cost effective with any of their other fairy tales.