Thread Reader
โœ๏ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Dave Burton

โœ๏ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Dave Burton
@ncdave4life

Oct 31, 2023
10 tweets
Twitter

1/9. You're right, Jim. BBanana wrote, "Temperature increases have already reduced global yields of major crops." That's false. It's long been known that warming generally improves agricultural productivity. Here's a CIA study which summarized the relation: climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uplโ€ฆ

2/10. Fig.7 from that study shows the number of people who could be supported per hectare of arable land, vs. temperature. The 7 curves represent varying precipitation rates. In each case, higher temperatures allow the support of higher populations, due to better crop yields. sealevel.info/CIA1974Climateโ€ฆ
3/10. Also, elevated CO2 directly improves crop yields, and mitigates drought impacts. That's helping make famines rare for first time in history. twitter.com/ncdave4life/stโ€ฆ Those too young to grok how revolutionary that is should count themselves blessed! Famine used to be a scourge comparable to war & disease.
โœ๏ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Dave Burton

โœ๏ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Dave Burton
@ncdave4life

Ending famine is a VERY Big Deal, comparable to ending war and disease. Compare: โ— 1918 flu pandemic killed 2% of world population. โ— WWII killed 2.7% of world population. โ— The global drought & famine of 1876-78 killed 3.7% of world population.
4/10. Climate change is real, but there's no scientific evidence it's harmful. Scientists call warm climate periods "climate optimums." The benefits of CO2 emissions are so enormous that Scientific American once called CO2 "precious air fertilizer." ourworldindata.org/famines ourworldindata.org/famines
5/10. In support of BBanana's erroneous claim he cited Zhao et al 2017. But Zhao et al admitted that their study was about what WOULD happen to crop yields "without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement." sealevel.info/learnmore.htmlโ€ฆ sealevel.info/learnmore.htmlโ€ฆ
6/10. Of course "without CO2 fertilization" means they ignored the beneficial effects of higher CO2 levels. That obviously divorces the paper from any pretense of representing reality. sealevel.info/learnmore.htmlโ€ฆ sealevel.info/learnmore.htmlโ€ฆ
7/10. And it gets worse. Do you know what "effective adaptation" to a warming climate means? For annual crops, it just means adjusting spring planting dates and/or cultivar selection.
8/10. It's not rocket science. In America's breadbasket, moving up planting date by about six days fully compensates for 1ยฐC of warming, as you can see:
9/10. To assume that farmers won't do that, as these 29(!) authors did, is to assume farmers are idiots, who can't figure out when they should plant their crops. That seems like "projection," to me.
Jim Brown-Green

Jim Brown-Green
@JimBlack48

Temperature increases are irrelevant to this thread. CO2 is plant food and unquestionably increases crop production.
10/10. The reality is that most farmers are not idiots, and the higher CO2 levels go the more productive our farms will be. That's not speculation, that's the measured conclusion of thousands of rigorous agronomy studies. sealevel.info/negative_sociaโ€ฆ sealevel.info/negative_sociaโ€ฆ
โœ๏ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Dave Burton

โœ๏ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Dave Burton

@ncdave4life
My preferred pronoun is "harmless data drudge." https://t.co/YTkK6vaHGs Tel: +1 919-481-0098.
Follow on Twitter
Missing some tweets in this thread? Or failed to load images or videos? You can try to .