Cool! Hey I wonder why potato is rarely included in these. At some 400 MT, it is a far more important source of calories than Sorghum or Millet, though not a cereal.
Cool. Also water content is higher in potato than grains, I think we must divide by 2 or possibly 3 to get actual calories. But still an important crop.
i would love to see the productivity rather than just the size of the harvest. the thought leapt out at me when i saw the chart for Palm oil. common knowledge (i.e. I'm not going to look up sources at this point) say that the increase in palm oil production comes at the cost of hectares of primary rainforest. there's nothing good in that and it would useful to see if there is any increase in the production per hectare and whether that increase plays out in the same way across this whole dataset.
Not for palm oil though, and tropical rainforest is still being clearfelled. We are losing the real option value we would have from retaining tropical forest.
Not so in the UK. For example, Church Field gave 95 bales last year, 25 this year. The price of feed is very high, and one farmer is taking about having to slaughter cows. Climate Chaos has caused huge problems that will be felt for a long while.
When debating climate and food, dairy does tend to get forgotten (at least by me). It’s impact is supposed to be around the same level as pork, and a fifth of the impact that beef cattle have.
Are we maintaining/growing output? I can’t imagine that plant-based substitutes are having a massive effect.
Plant based totally is having now recognized impacts as well. Animal fats are now said to be protective of the vagus nerve system though I haven't researched any study confirming that.
some studies have estimated that climate change since the 1960s has already reduced global agricultural productivity by a significant amount (e.g., a 21% reduction according to one Cornell University study), effectively "wiping out" years of technological improvements.
Conclusion
The data from the scientific community is clear: while rising CO2 levels do have a positive fertilization effect on certain crops, it is a secondary contributor to the massive increase in global crop yields since 1960. The primary driver has been the Green Revolution, fueled by breakthroughs in breeding, fertilizer use, irrigation, and other technological and management innovations. The positive CO2 effect is also being increasingly challenged and even outweighed by the negative impacts of climate change on agriculture, such as heat stress and extreme weather.
On the other hand a large fraction of the maize crop is being used to make biofuel.
Another "green" initiative that is causing massive soil erosion and buildup of pesticides and toxins, and killing rivers and coastal waters with excess nitrogen.
George W. Bush Administration. That would be ah of course, a Republican. It was a bipartisan bill though, but one must ask "Was it acceptable to the wider environmentalist community as a viable solution?"
No, the original RFS and its subsequent expansion were ultimately rejected by most major environmental groups as a viable, long-term climate solution.
So labelling that initiative as "green" is more than a little off base.
Bush used the RFS to pretend he was solving climate change after failing to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
PS: I have no time for either political party, they are both obviously captured by corporate interests it's a wonder the country still functions at all.
In the UK, we tend to use wheat for biofuels. Much of that is used to power vehicles.
The same land used for photovoltaics would provide 40 to 70 times as much mileage for vehicles, with no build up of pesticides and toxins and a significant improvement in biodiversity.
Coming from the UK I would say the current generation of farmers is the first to really worry about soil quality. You cannot get long term improvement in productivity if your soils are being degraded; the evidence is that we do have long term improvement in productivity, which can only mean that soil quality is being maintained or improved. As so often in farming, political theory says one thing but practice shows the opposite.
I just couldn't let this one pass "the current generation of farmers is the first to really worry about soil quality". It's as though history isn't a thing in your world. The best resource I can offer you right now is this.
But the whole of the above article shows that the studies you refer to are wrong. Maybe in some regions, and under some production methods, climate change has reduced productivity. In theory wheat yields per acre should be falling. Experience shows that they are not. Either the theory is right, but the losses have been offset by incredibly successful levels of innovation, or else we should reassess those predictions of falling production.
What an absolute shocker that we see increasing crop yields at a time of milder, warmer weather, in combination with an increase in airborne plant food!
The greater threat is from soil degradation, not an increase in Co² and conditions being a bit warmer. Plus, in the UK, eco zealots in government with little to no understanding of agriculture actually legislate to prevent farmers from keeping the soil in good condition by the restrictions placed on spreading muck. Often referred to by the term "putting heart in the land"
There appears to be a generalised attack on farming across the West, so when the famine comes, it will be owing to government delusion and incompetence and not an increase in Co² with some general warming. In fact, the warming and the extra Co² will help to mitigate the disastrous agricultural policies of the UK government.
and why is it that you don't take the time to simply do some research on your own beliefs, ideas, and statements, BEFORE posting them?
Oh wait, this is rhetorical bias playing out before our very eyes.
As an exercise, try putting your post through an AI to assess the bias. That is if you somehow believe what you're saying is actually true.
You missed a really critical aspect of your "farming is under threat" claims.
In the relatively water-rich UK, agriculture is facing both immediate water stress and long-term supply challenges. The "milder, warmer weather" narrative completely ignores these realities that UK farmers are already dealing with. Put simply:
More intense winter rainfall (flooding) but drier summers when crops actually need water
Rain falling as heavy downpours rather than steady, absorbable amounts.
Can I refer you to a response I made to another climate alarmist on the SS, it will save me the time to rewrite for you, as I doubt you will bother to read and absorbe. Plus, your understanding of farming is a bit one-dimensional and makes the assumption that any changes in rain patterns is only attributable to an increase in Co²!
“The saturation argument… not accurate/oversimplification although there is a grain of physics in it.”
The saturation argument isn’t just a “grain of physics”—it’s rooted in hard data. The Schwarzschild equation, as graphed, shows CO2’s warming effect diminishes logarithmically at ~420 ppmv, with ~85% saturation already reached. Doubling to 840 ppmv adds a negligible ~1% warming, per Happer and Lindzen’s analysis. You claim it’s an oversimplification, but where’s the lab experiment proving CO2’s back-radiative effect drives significant warming? No such test exists, as noted in the sources. The physics is clear: CO2’s thermal conductivity is half that of nitrogen or oxygen, so a 0.03% change in atmospheric conductivity is within measurement error—hardly catastrophic. If you’ve got evidence showing otherwise, produce it. Science demands proof, not assumptions.
“Problem of making consistent model… scientific method can do it, while side trying to neglect the evidence cannot.”
Consistent models? The IPCC’s radiative forcing models, cited in Ref. [27], assume “radiative equilibrium” but consistently overpredict warming, as Happer’s table of model failures versus observed data demonstrates. That’s not science—it’s speculation dressed up as fact. The scientific method requires falsifiable predictions, yet climate models fail this test. Meanwhile, Milankovitch cycles, evident in EPICA Dome C ice core data, explain historical climate shifts far better than CO2. My side isn’t neglecting evidence; we’re questioning unproven claims. Science isn’t a popularity contest—geocentric models held sway for centuries until evidence overturned them. Show me a model that matches reality without cherry-picking, and I’ll listen.
“Don’t like talking about abstract—prefer solid examples.”
You want solid examples? Here they are. The 33°C greenhouse effect (80% water vapour, 20% CO2) is a theoretical construct, not a measured phenomenon. Lab tests show no “superinsulation” from CO2, as claimed in the sources—unlike a real greenhouse, where glass traps heat. NOAA’s South Pole ice records show natural variability, not CO2-driven meltdown. On the flip side, experiments like FACE show 800-1200 ppm CO2 boosts crop yields by 20-40%. Why obsess over abstract warming risks when tangible agricultural gains are clear? If warming’s so dire, explain why the Medieval Warm Period saw thriving agriculture, while the Little Ice Age brought starvation.
“You say CO2… cannot influence significantly climate… how important that and future increase is for agriculture.”
You’re misrepresenting my stance, but I’ll clarify. CO2’s climate impact is minimal at current levels—doubling to 840 ppmv adds ~1% warming, per the Schwarzschild data. Yet its agricultural benefits are undeniable: greenhouse growers use 800-1200 ppm because it drives plant growth, backed by studies showing significant yield increases. You can’t claim CO2’s a climate villain while ignoring its role as plant food. If it’s so dangerous, where’s the data linking CO2 to specific weather events like hurricanes? NOAA records show no clear trend. Science demands evidence, not contradictions.
“Sticking to scientific method, with proper dose of skepticism (not cynicism) is the best way…”
Absolutely agree—scepticism is key, but it cuts both ways. The scientific method exposes alarmist claims as flimsy. The “97% consensus” is a political term, not a scientific one, as your sources note—countless historical “truths” (e.g., the flat Earth theory) were once “consensus” but fell apart. You rely on models and experiments, but where’s the reproducible proof of CO2-driven catastrophe? Happer and Lindzen show models fail against real-world data. Meanwhile, Montford’s “Costing the Green Grid” PDF highlights the astronomical costs of net zero—trillions for negligible impact. Why impoverish ourselves when CO2’s benefits are measurable and its climate role is dubious?
Addressing Your Broader Questions
Your alarmist narrative sidesteps critical questions. Is warming negative? No evidence proves it’s universally harmful—some regions benefit. Can we mitigate better than net zero? Practical measures like flood defences or forest management are cheaper and more effective than emission cuts. Is CO2 the main driver? Natural cycles have driven climate for millennia. Why dismiss CO2’s agricultural upside? Shifting emissions to other countries just enriches them while we pay the price. What’s the ideal temperature? No one knows, and controlling it to a hundredth of a degree is a fantasy. Science demands we question these gaps, not bow to “experts.”
And finally
They claim UK agriculture is "facing both immediate water stress and long-term supply challenges" as if this is a settled fact tied straight to climate change. But this is an overreach—it's an assumption based on cherry-picked trends, ignoring that weather variability has always been part of the UK's climate. Attribution studies show we can estimate how much more likely certain events are under warming, but we can't say with certainty that today's stresses are caused by it. For instance, while models suggest a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture (potentially leading to heavier rain), the signal for "long-term supply challenges" is drowned out by natural variability like the North Atlantic Oscillation.
Bias alert: This phrasing implies inevitability, shutting down debate. It's rhetorical sleight-of-hand—why not say "potential risks" instead of "facing these realities"?
I'm not even going to provide a summary. Read it or not. I care little whether you are able to at this point.
It's incredible that you might honestly think that someone of my calibre would be fooled for a moment by your outrageously out-of-date information. I didn't even need to look up many of them to know they were invalid.
In summary virtually every major scientific claim in the post is either a misrepresentation of the current scientific literature or a long-debunked argument that has been repeatedly addressed in peer-reviewed journals.
Do you even internet?
Try this: Paste your post into any AI and ask honestly whether any of it is still valid or has not been debunked.
I'm not even going to wait for you to realise your mistakes.
This is really sad to see. Supposedly intelligent humans, still stuck in the 90s.
Truth is I don't often spend time trolling morons like you two.
Still the challenge of facing reality lays right there before you.
I double dare you to try that AI question and maybe learn a thing or two about the misinformation you've bought hook line and sinker.
As a follow up, consider learning about how climate denial arises as a perfectly understandable fear reaction and how you can overcome that.
So, I'm done here. It's been kinda fun watching you twist and turn like cockroaches with the lights turned on.
How reliable are these data, considering the politicisation of US government data? Are there not other reliable non- (or less-) politicised data sources, eg FAO?
There is also the obvious "cherry picking" of data, as though a single year's data in one region are sufficient to ignore the IPCC reports and everything related to climate change.
Ah. Thank you for implicitly noting the strong regional bias in some of the commentary. For some the rest of the world is an amorphous blob of "other people and places that are not here".
"Global cocoa production in the 2024/25 season was significantly impacted by declining yields in West Africa, with Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana experiencing substantial drops. While the precise total 2025 global production is not available, forecasts indicated a continued decline due to factors like the cocoa swollen shoot virus and challenges with aging cocoa trees. In contrast, some Latin American regions were showing emerging potential, though not enough to offset the sharp decline in the West African market"
There is a bit of confusion with "seasons" - I suspect it's more around monsoons than annual winter. Hopefully the 25/26 season will be better.
Do record harvests imply low prices for farmers? Can this be correlated with farm profits? The farmers need to “feed” their employees too. Financial sustainability may differ from ecological sustainability.
Well done. The pity is that the evidence will be completely ignored by those who insist that capitalism and intensive farming are destroying agriculture and farmers. There was a move a few years back to boost the breeding of tropical crops. I guess that like all plant breeding it takes several years to get new varieties out in the field, and the less profitable a crop the lower the incentive to enhance it, and the poorer the country the greater the likelihood that politicians will listen to anti-science voices from the West.
On climate, I am coming to doubt the prophecies of doom. The climate has changed and so far it has not cut productivity. In many areas we must have passed the temperature limits for wheat, but the farmers keep it growing. We only need to maintain the current trajectories for a decade or so before the population flattens out and starts to fall.
One final point. All this is about primary production. Do we have data on meat production and the quantity of crops diverted to raising animals rather than going to people? My understanding is that beef consumption may be flattening out, or that just wishful thinking?
Yeah sugar shouldn’t be as a compared as one category. It’s an mixed family of crops as in Europe it’s mainly refined from suger beet, in the US from corn and cane (and rarely from beet) and in Asia mainly from sugar cane (as well in the Caribbean, fiji, Brazil and Cuba). Pakistan and Brazil use GM varieties.
The hopium, misinformation, RWNJ talking points, and so on are really bothersome on this thread.
I've taken the time to engage with some of it, but of course Dunning-Kruger effect and the relative number of people who can think vs those who can't or don't bother is a overwhelming at times.
Good luck with ah whatever it is you "think" you're doing.
I live in rural North Carolina and have corn and soybean fields all around me. I know my anecdotal observations of the area in which I live do not a real data point make, but interestingly enough, I have been predicting a bumper crop this year. Mind you, I know nothing about farming, but the weather this year was perfect for growing. Hot and rainy- everything grew like weeds. Just wanted to check in and say this tracks with what I’ve seen in my area.
Cool! Hey I wonder why potato is rarely included in these. At some 400 MT, it is a far more important source of calories than Sorghum or Millet, though not a cereal.
I can only assume because it is not a staple in any one region?
Your post made me search and I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_potato_production
The biggest potato producers are China, India, Ukraine and Russia. Not bad for something from South America.
According to Google AI: "Europeans are the heartiest potato consumers, with a per capita consumption of about 87.8 kg in 2005."
Cool. Also water content is higher in potato than grains, I think we must divide by 2 or possibly 3 to get actual calories. But still an important crop.
A staple in Belgium only?
i would love to see the productivity rather than just the size of the harvest. the thought leapt out at me when i saw the chart for Palm oil. common knowledge (i.e. I'm not going to look up sources at this point) say that the increase in palm oil production comes at the cost of hectares of primary rainforest. there's nothing good in that and it would useful to see if there is any increase in the production per hectare and whether that increase plays out in the same way across this whole dataset.
I believe total global farm land is dropping, so increased productivity must account for the increase.
Not for palm oil though, and tropical rainforest is still being clearfelled. We are losing the real option value we would have from retaining tropical forest.
True. I was referring to staple crops.
Also shows that overpopulation concerns are exaggerated
Not so in the UK. For example, Church Field gave 95 bales last year, 25 this year. The price of feed is very high, and one farmer is taking about having to slaughter cows. Climate Chaos has caused huge problems that will be felt for a long while.
Land used for cows, whether silage, hay or grazing, is land that is not used for growing crops. We need to see meat production as a a luxury trade.
Perhaps, but this is dairy.
When debating climate and food, dairy does tend to get forgotten (at least by me). It’s impact is supposed to be around the same level as pork, and a fifth of the impact that beef cattle have.
Are we maintaining/growing output? I can’t imagine that plant-based substitutes are having a massive effect.
Plant based totally is having now recognized impacts as well. Animal fats are now said to be protective of the vagus nerve system though I haven't researched any study confirming that.
Why free trade / economic integration is important.
(And you might not want to extrapolate one field to the world. ;-)
The whole farming area around me is as this. That was simply one example, Matt.
And… https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/harvest-2025/harvest-2025-brings-extreme-variability-in-yields-and-falling-grain-prices/
some studies have estimated that climate change since the 1960s has already reduced global agricultural productivity by a significant amount (e.g., a 21% reduction according to one Cornell University study), effectively "wiping out" years of technological improvements.
Conclusion
The data from the scientific community is clear: while rising CO2 levels do have a positive fertilization effect on certain crops, it is a secondary contributor to the massive increase in global crop yields since 1960. The primary driver has been the Green Revolution, fueled by breakthroughs in breeding, fertilizer use, irrigation, and other technological and management innovations. The positive CO2 effect is also being increasingly challenged and even outweighed by the negative impacts of climate change on agriculture, such as heat stress and extreme weather.
On the other hand a large fraction of the maize crop is being used to make biofuel.
Another "green" initiative that is causing massive soil erosion and buildup of pesticides and toxins, and killing rivers and coastal waters with excess nitrogen.
George W. Bush Administration. That would be ah of course, a Republican. It was a bipartisan bill though, but one must ask "Was it acceptable to the wider environmentalist community as a viable solution?"
No, the original RFS and its subsequent expansion were ultimately rejected by most major environmental groups as a viable, long-term climate solution.
So labelling that initiative as "green" is more than a little off base.
Bush used the RFS to pretend he was solving climate change after failing to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
PS: I have no time for either political party, they are both obviously captured by corporate interests it's a wonder the country still functions at all.
In the UK, we tend to use wheat for biofuels. Much of that is used to power vehicles.
The same land used for photovoltaics would provide 40 to 70 times as much mileage for vehicles, with no build up of pesticides and toxins and a significant improvement in biodiversity.
https://alexterrell.substack.com/p/farmland-for-solar-and-not-biofuels
Or maybe just buy an Aptera when production comes and keep photovoltaics on your carports.
Coming from the UK I would say the current generation of farmers is the first to really worry about soil quality. You cannot get long term improvement in productivity if your soils are being degraded; the evidence is that we do have long term improvement in productivity, which can only mean that soil quality is being maintained or improved. As so often in farming, political theory says one thing but practice shows the opposite.
I just couldn't let this one pass "the current generation of farmers is the first to really worry about soil quality". It's as though history isn't a thing in your world. The best resource I can offer you right now is this.
https://www.ecofriendlyhomestead.com/sustainable-garden/learn/the-time-travelers-guide-to-regenerative-agriculture-42-time-tested-sustainable-solutions
But the whole of the above article shows that the studies you refer to are wrong. Maybe in some regions, and under some production methods, climate change has reduced productivity. In theory wheat yields per acre should be falling. Experience shows that they are not. Either the theory is right, but the losses have been offset by incredibly successful levels of innovation, or else we should reassess those predictions of falling production.
Indeed. How do those warnings on financial advice go?
> Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Quelle surprise; who would have 'thunk it!
What an absolute shocker that we see increasing crop yields at a time of milder, warmer weather, in combination with an increase in airborne plant food!
The greater threat is from soil degradation, not an increase in Co² and conditions being a bit warmer. Plus, in the UK, eco zealots in government with little to no understanding of agriculture actually legislate to prevent farmers from keeping the soil in good condition by the restrictions placed on spreading muck. Often referred to by the term "putting heart in the land"
There appears to be a generalised attack on farming across the West, so when the famine comes, it will be owing to government delusion and incompetence and not an increase in Co² with some general warming. In fact, the warming and the extra Co² will help to mitigate the disastrous agricultural policies of the UK government.
and why is it that you don't take the time to simply do some research on your own beliefs, ideas, and statements, BEFORE posting them?
Oh wait, this is rhetorical bias playing out before our very eyes.
As an exercise, try putting your post through an AI to assess the bias. That is if you somehow believe what you're saying is actually true.
You missed a really critical aspect of your "farming is under threat" claims.
In the relatively water-rich UK, agriculture is facing both immediate water stress and long-term supply challenges. The "milder, warmer weather" narrative completely ignores these realities that UK farmers are already dealing with. Put simply:
More intense winter rainfall (flooding) but drier summers when crops actually need water
Rain falling as heavy downpours rather than steady, absorbable amounts.
Can I refer you to a response I made to another climate alarmist on the SS, it will save me the time to rewrite for you, as I doubt you will bother to read and absorbe. Plus, your understanding of farming is a bit one-dimensional and makes the assumption that any changes in rain patterns is only attributable to an increase in Co²!
“The saturation argument… not accurate/oversimplification although there is a grain of physics in it.”
The saturation argument isn’t just a “grain of physics”—it’s rooted in hard data. The Schwarzschild equation, as graphed, shows CO2’s warming effect diminishes logarithmically at ~420 ppmv, with ~85% saturation already reached. Doubling to 840 ppmv adds a negligible ~1% warming, per Happer and Lindzen’s analysis. You claim it’s an oversimplification, but where’s the lab experiment proving CO2’s back-radiative effect drives significant warming? No such test exists, as noted in the sources. The physics is clear: CO2’s thermal conductivity is half that of nitrogen or oxygen, so a 0.03% change in atmospheric conductivity is within measurement error—hardly catastrophic. If you’ve got evidence showing otherwise, produce it. Science demands proof, not assumptions.
“Problem of making consistent model… scientific method can do it, while side trying to neglect the evidence cannot.”
Consistent models? The IPCC’s radiative forcing models, cited in Ref. [27], assume “radiative equilibrium” but consistently overpredict warming, as Happer’s table of model failures versus observed data demonstrates. That’s not science—it’s speculation dressed up as fact. The scientific method requires falsifiable predictions, yet climate models fail this test. Meanwhile, Milankovitch cycles, evident in EPICA Dome C ice core data, explain historical climate shifts far better than CO2. My side isn’t neglecting evidence; we’re questioning unproven claims. Science isn’t a popularity contest—geocentric models held sway for centuries until evidence overturned them. Show me a model that matches reality without cherry-picking, and I’ll listen.
“Don’t like talking about abstract—prefer solid examples.”
You want solid examples? Here they are. The 33°C greenhouse effect (80% water vapour, 20% CO2) is a theoretical construct, not a measured phenomenon. Lab tests show no “superinsulation” from CO2, as claimed in the sources—unlike a real greenhouse, where glass traps heat. NOAA’s South Pole ice records show natural variability, not CO2-driven meltdown. On the flip side, experiments like FACE show 800-1200 ppm CO2 boosts crop yields by 20-40%. Why obsess over abstract warming risks when tangible agricultural gains are clear? If warming’s so dire, explain why the Medieval Warm Period saw thriving agriculture, while the Little Ice Age brought starvation.
“You say CO2… cannot influence significantly climate… how important that and future increase is for agriculture.”
You’re misrepresenting my stance, but I’ll clarify. CO2’s climate impact is minimal at current levels—doubling to 840 ppmv adds ~1% warming, per the Schwarzschild data. Yet its agricultural benefits are undeniable: greenhouse growers use 800-1200 ppm because it drives plant growth, backed by studies showing significant yield increases. You can’t claim CO2’s a climate villain while ignoring its role as plant food. If it’s so dangerous, where’s the data linking CO2 to specific weather events like hurricanes? NOAA records show no clear trend. Science demands evidence, not contradictions.
“Sticking to scientific method, with proper dose of skepticism (not cynicism) is the best way…”
Absolutely agree—scepticism is key, but it cuts both ways. The scientific method exposes alarmist claims as flimsy. The “97% consensus” is a political term, not a scientific one, as your sources note—countless historical “truths” (e.g., the flat Earth theory) were once “consensus” but fell apart. You rely on models and experiments, but where’s the reproducible proof of CO2-driven catastrophe? Happer and Lindzen show models fail against real-world data. Meanwhile, Montford’s “Costing the Green Grid” PDF highlights the astronomical costs of net zero—trillions for negligible impact. Why impoverish ourselves when CO2’s benefits are measurable and its climate role is dubious?
Addressing Your Broader Questions
Your alarmist narrative sidesteps critical questions. Is warming negative? No evidence proves it’s universally harmful—some regions benefit. Can we mitigate better than net zero? Practical measures like flood defences or forest management are cheaper and more effective than emission cuts. Is CO2 the main driver? Natural cycles have driven climate for millennia. Why dismiss CO2’s agricultural upside? Shifting emissions to other countries just enriches them while we pay the price. What’s the ideal temperature? No one knows, and controlling it to a hundredth of a degree is a fantasy. Science demands we question these gaps, not bow to “experts.”
And finally
They claim UK agriculture is "facing both immediate water stress and long-term supply challenges" as if this is a settled fact tied straight to climate change. But this is an overreach—it's an assumption based on cherry-picked trends, ignoring that weather variability has always been part of the UK's climate. Attribution studies show we can estimate how much more likely certain events are under warming, but we can't say with certainty that today's stresses are caused by it. For instance, while models suggest a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture (potentially leading to heavier rain), the signal for "long-term supply challenges" is drowned out by natural variability like the North Atlantic Oscillation.
Bias alert: This phrasing implies inevitability, shutting down debate. It's rhetorical sleight-of-hand—why not say "potential risks" instead of "facing these realities"?
Says the person with massive bias and zero critical thinking or research skills.
https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Updated-projections-of-future-water-availability_HRW.pdf
I'm not even going to provide a summary. Read it or not. I care little whether you are able to at this point.
It's incredible that you might honestly think that someone of my calibre would be fooled for a moment by your outrageously out-of-date information. I didn't even need to look up many of them to know they were invalid.
In summary virtually every major scientific claim in the post is either a misrepresentation of the current scientific literature or a long-debunked argument that has been repeatedly addressed in peer-reviewed journals.
Do you even internet?
Try this: Paste your post into any AI and ask honestly whether any of it is still valid or has not been debunked.
I'm not even going to wait for you to realise your mistakes.
This is really sad to see. Supposedly intelligent humans, still stuck in the 90s.
Truth is I don't often spend time trolling morons like you two.
Still the challenge of facing reality lays right there before you.
I double dare you to try that AI question and maybe learn a thing or two about the misinformation you've bought hook line and sinker.
As a follow up, consider learning about how climate denial arises as a perfectly understandable fear reaction and how you can overcome that.
So, I'm done here. It's been kinda fun watching you twist and turn like cockroaches with the lights turned on.
Byey
How reliable are these data, considering the politicisation of US government data? Are there not other reliable non- (or less-) politicised data sources, eg FAO?
There is also the obvious "cherry picking" of data, as though a single year's data in one region are sufficient to ignore the IPCC reports and everything related to climate change.
Higher temperatures in already hot countries have potential to reduce agricultural yields. The concern is not with yields in temperate countries.
Ah. Thank you for implicitly noting the strong regional bias in some of the commentary. For some the rest of the world is an amorphous blob of "other people and places that are not here".
Now for the bad news, as delivered by Google AI:
"Global cocoa production in the 2024/25 season was significantly impacted by declining yields in West Africa, with Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana experiencing substantial drops. While the precise total 2025 global production is not available, forecasts indicated a continued decline due to factors like the cocoa swollen shoot virus and challenges with aging cocoa trees. In contrast, some Latin American regions were showing emerging potential, though not enough to offset the sharp decline in the West African market"
There is a bit of confusion with "seasons" - I suspect it's more around monsoons than annual winter. Hopefully the 25/26 season will be better.
Do record harvests imply low prices for farmers? Can this be correlated with farm profits? The farmers need to “feed” their employees too. Financial sustainability may differ from ecological sustainability.
Well done. The pity is that the evidence will be completely ignored by those who insist that capitalism and intensive farming are destroying agriculture and farmers. There was a move a few years back to boost the breeding of tropical crops. I guess that like all plant breeding it takes several years to get new varieties out in the field, and the less profitable a crop the lower the incentive to enhance it, and the poorer the country the greater the likelihood that politicians will listen to anti-science voices from the West.
On climate, I am coming to doubt the prophecies of doom. The climate has changed and so far it has not cut productivity. In many areas we must have passed the temperature limits for wheat, but the farmers keep it growing. We only need to maintain the current trajectories for a decade or so before the population flattens out and starts to fall.
One final point. All this is about primary production. Do we have data on meat production and the quantity of crops diverted to raising animals rather than going to people? My understanding is that beef consumption may be flattening out, or that just wishful thinking?
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production
sugar can be made from corn (maize), sugarbeet and sugarcane ... so what is meant here?
Yeah sugar shouldn’t be as a compared as one category. It’s an mixed family of crops as in Europe it’s mainly refined from suger beet, in the US from corn and cane (and rarely from beet) and in Asia mainly from sugar cane (as well in the Caribbean, fiji, Brazil and Cuba). Pakistan and Brazil use GM varieties.
why is sugar and coffee and cotton named as oilseed crops ...
I'm guessing it is simply a mistake
Is there a metric that tracks the diversity in crops? I read somewhere that the more we go deep into a few crops that worst it is for the soil.
And for organics???
Which, if history’s any guide, means a record year for spoilage, surplus, and squandering the bounty.
because capitalism…
Bye bye for now @misterandmaster and assorted RWNJ keyboard warriors.
I may visit you when I have some spare time to school you again.
A final quote: "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Stephen Hawking
The hopium, misinformation, RWNJ talking points, and so on are really bothersome on this thread.
I've taken the time to engage with some of it, but of course Dunning-Kruger effect and the relative number of people who can think vs those who can't or don't bother is a overwhelming at times.
Good luck with ah whatever it is you "think" you're doing.
I live in rural North Carolina and have corn and soybean fields all around me. I know my anecdotal observations of the area in which I live do not a real data point make, but interestingly enough, I have been predicting a bumper crop this year. Mind you, I know nothing about farming, but the weather this year was perfect for growing. Hot and rainy- everything grew like weeds. Just wanted to check in and say this tracks with what I’ve seen in my area.