PSDBAnyone who imagines that with climate change we will simply shift agriculture towards the poles probably does not even have house plants, much less a garden, and certainly knows little or nothing about agriculture or climate change.
In an earlier post I discussed some of the impacts on existing agriculture as Understanding why climate change means global famine”. Now I’d like to discuss a couple of aspects of one of the stock answers “we’ll just move our food production north.”
The reason this will not work is shown very simply with a map.
- source US Dept of Agriculture
Begining with the Southern Hemisphere and the obvious, there is less land area as you move towards the pole. South America narrows rapidly, Africa less rapidly but it still does, and Australia simply ends; there just isn’t the land available to sustain anything close to current levels of food production.
The Northern Hemisphere is only slightly more complicated. Looking at the soils you see that much of the north consists of Gelisols, Entisols and Spodsols.
- Gelisols: “…chemically they are not highly fertile…”
- Entisols “…. most are basically unaltered from their parent material …” ie lacking the organic matter, soil structure, etc that you need for agriculture.
- Spodosols “…are the typical soils of coniferous, or Boreal forests.” ie shallow and acidic. “Most Spodosols are poor soils for agriculture.”
Put simply, these soils are total crap for food production. The entire region where the delusional are hoping to grow all of our food is not good for food production based on soil alone, never mind other factors.
Just to hammer this point home beyond all question here is a soil fertility map.
You can clearly see that we are supposedly talking about moving agriculture from the good to excellent soils to poor and very poor.
Even if there were no other challenges (and there are plenty, as have been and will be discussed) we would have to massively expand the area under cultivation since the land would simply not be as productive.
Such expansion means the cost per unit of production and distribution (ie food price) goes way up, the environmental impact goes way up, and there still isn’t enough land to match current levels of production.
Soil quality is not the only issue by any stretch. Much of Northern Canada is geologically Canadian Shield. A significant part of Northern Europe and Russia are similar. It is the geology that underlies most of the world’s Boreal forest.
This is the land that was covered in ice during the most recent glaciation of approx 10,000 years ago. There simply has not been sufficient time since then for it to form significant soil and here is what it looks like today (below, or do your own image searches).
Is there anything about that landscape that makes you think “Gee, I can just see the potential here, I sure wish I had a plow.” Or is it more along the lines of “How the hell is anyone supposed to farm THAT?”
Personally I favour the second, particularly as I did my MSc studying aspects of the biology of this landscape. Yes there are some decent soils in river valleys and other basins that have collected eroded minerals and organic matter, but for the most part it is like what you see above.
Of course in another 50,000 years or so these regions will have developed deep rich soils. As it is global food reserves are scarcely enough to allow for food production to be interrupted for 50,000 minutes.
Something else to consider, forestry and agriculture are two major greenhouse gas producing activities. Even if it were possible to simply move our agricultural production towards the poles (and it clearly isn’t), consider the implications of the massive deforestation required, and the increased CO2 release that accompanies converting land to agriculture.
The very act of moving our agriculture would cause a huge acceleration of climate change, thereby ensuring that the regions in question would quickly become unsuitable for agriculture. The whole notion is self defeating.
Yes, climate change is already well underway and we will have to shift some of our food production towards the poles. Yes, there is a need for some ‘adaptation’; there is no avoiding it.
However, the notion that we should abandon efforts to slow or stop climate change and simply adapt is ridiculous. Even if the climate of the north allowed for agricultural production (and it won’t – future post) the geology does not. It cannot be done, not on the scale we would need, period.
Climate change is first and foremost about food, and it will mean massive, global famine affecting everyone.
We must curb our CO2 production and we must do it now. Words such as ‘urgent’, ‘crisis’, or ’emergency’ all fail to capture the scale, urgency and severity of the problem.
Having fun yet? This series looking at climate change and food is far from done, and the news does not get any better.
However, hopefully it is helping give people the proper perspective of what we are up against and why we must act now to the absolute limits of what we are capable of, individually and collectively.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 119 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS
North america terrain 2003 map from Wikimedia Commons
Canadian Shield Country by buck82
listening without hearing by Unfurled
Greenfyre's 
Excellent article, Mike. Enlightening – and terrifying, as almost any topic is that expands my knowledge of where we are heading without dramatic change in our consumption and management of this planet.
In the 1800s in central Ontario (Canada) land surveyors came up and saw the huge forests in what now encompasses the Algonquin Provincial Park region. Canada wanted to open the north to settlement and the surveyors thought surely the soil that grows trees like this must be very fertile. They glowingly recommended that settlers come north, clear the land and grow crops. The government gave the land away to any settlers who would clear it and farm it and many made the long journey north to start farms on this wonderfully fertile soil.
As it turns out just because trees grow tall doesn’t mean the soil is particularly fertile. Much of the soil washed away when the trees were gone, rocks in the soil continually broke the ploughs, and the soil nutrients composition wasn’t suited to growing crops. Within a few decades the area was dotted with abandoned farmlands now being reclaimed by the trees, and settlement in the north came to a virtual halt till mining opened up the land.
As Greenfyre points out, anyone thinking you can move food production north will be wrong. They will be committing the same mistake that those early surveyors made and that the settlers paid for.
—-
I always realised that productive area lost was going to be much greater than productive area gained (simple geometry). I had no idea that the fertility problem was that bad.
The picture gets worse and worse.
[…] roughly 4.oF. Our current global warming, without this increase, is driving world desertification. On our current trajectory world wide famine is a certainty. Many agricultural plants cannot take the projected level of heat increase, let alone the […]
[…] roughly 4.oF. Our current global warming, without this increase, is driving world desertification. On our current trajectory world wide famine is a certainty. Many agricultural plants cannot take the projected level of heat increase, let alone the […]
[…] discussion. This biologist has some thoughts on the viability of doing so, but I can’t comment. Climate change and famine: II Soil Greenfyre’s What about the geopolitics? Imagine America’s breadbasket drying up and moving to Canada? How is […]
[…] a population explosion that will almost certainly cause famine. Global warming and ice melt does NOT mean we will have more arable land to farm (that moron Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun seems to think so, no I do NOT want to link to him) – see […]
[…] Climate change and famine: Will agriculture simply shift North? […]
[…] while CO2 may have some beneficial properties for some plants, the situation is ultimately anything but certain. Or in short ‘Too much of a good thing is a bad […]
Well, I do not know if climate change will be good or bad for agriculture, I will point out that this is not the first time that famine was projected.
Malthus’s fore told the same thing in the 1800s. his writings had impact because he had a model of society simple enough for any well-educated person to understand. Because of the law of diminishing returns food production can only grow arithmetically while the on the other hand, the population always expands exponentially. In other words, population expands faster than the food supply, and eventually people will starve. Malthus’ model was simple, powerful, and logical, so it immediately generated predictions about the fate of mankind. Demography became so important that it attracted the attention of scholars and politicians. Economists used the model to show that the more workers there are the lower there wages will be. Charles Darwin made the struggle for food into the centerpiece of his theory of evolution of species. Malthus’s conservative policy prescriptions set the terms of the debate for the entire 19th century. One immediate policy implication was that it was a bad idea for the government to give away food to the poor because poor people would respond by having more children and thus create even more misery.
This was the basis for the English “Poor house” and the other equally bad “Poor laws.” The goal being that if you were living on government help, your lot was so bad that you would want off of it and while there, would not have children.
So, there was a good model, it was logical, science supported it, it was acted on, and what was the result. The lives of millions was made worse, all out of the good intentions of the best people in England.
What really happened? Well, Malthus never heard of nitrates, or a German chemist that wanted to know what plants were made out of. The chemist found that the main ingredient in plants was nitrates, and thus was the beginning of modern agriculture and levels of crop production that was never seen before.
So, what is the moral of this story. Namely that what we know now is not what we can do in the future and so far, all the prophets of doom have been proven wrong. I am not saying to ignore the potential but I also do not see the benefits of doing bad things for a good reason either. I believe that we have people that will work out solutions, that we have never thought of for our problems and I think that history supports this.
Vernon, fertilizers are already operating on diminishing returns. They helped a lot, but due to the Law of the Minimum they can only help until they aren’t the limiting factor. That’s happening in much of the world today, where the limiting factor is water. (Irrigation only lasts so long if you rely on fossil aquifers to fuel it.)
The same argument can be made for peak oil, I might add. The ‘green revolution’ that let us feed our current population is extremely fuel-intensive, so much so that some have defined modern agriculture as the process of transforming petroleum into food. Oil’s a non-renewable resource, and even the normally staid IEA recently revised its peak estimates from “at earliest, 2030” to “at latest, 2020”.
Putting these together, and the crux of Malthus’ argument — that population growth curves outstrip food growth curves — remains, even if the relationship isn’t as simple as geometric-arithmetic.
Finally, “we’ve always figured out a solution in the past” is a weak argument for two major reasons.
The first is that it assumes ingenuity is unlimited. (It may very well be, but consider what you’re defining as “we”. It could just be that we in the first world haven’t failed yet, and those who have failed haven’t lived to tell the tale. Easter Island’s population didn’t innovate out of its deforestation.)
The second is that it assumes people will act on innovation, while at the same time providing a comforting mantra for inaction. Figuring out potential courses of action doesn’t mean squat if people don’t act on them, while continually reassuring yourself that “we always did it in the past” is the perfect excuse for waiting now, and waiting may mean it’s too late. Remember the infamous story of the faithful man in the flood? (Sample mirror here.)
So, I’ll challenge you with the same challenge I give everyone who parrots the Julian Simon innovation line: Where’s your innovation?
Brian,
I did not say what the future solution would be, but I find your position, that it is a weak argument to say that ingenuity is not unlimited because you cannot see the answer now is very unrealistic. All you have to do is look at where we were in the beginning of the 20th century and where we ended. Your view is Malthus’s view.
So I will challenge you show where man has not solved every problem with ingenuity.
You missed my entire point wholesale.
Your argument makes the assumption that ingenuity will solve everything, while providing little to no evidence to support that assumption and defeat the opposite claim. “You can’t prove it isn’t” is poor logic — you’re making the positive claim (that we have unlimited ingenuity and it will solve the problem), the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate this.
Furthermore, the more poignant point is the second one — “Don’t worry, we’ll figure something out” is the perfect mantra for inaction. You can continue saying that at any point in your drive towards the cliff, and even after the cliff, but at some point, without actually implementing some of these plans, “we’ll figure something out” becomes “oops, too late”. (You’ll actually notice a trend on resistance to environmental issues that illustrates this perfectly: “There is no problem” becomes “there is a problem, but [excuses]; we’ll figure something out later”, which becomes “now it’s too late to fix it.”)
Oh, and I already answered your challenge in my initial comment (albiet not with the best example, but one nevertheless). That you missed it is consistent with your ‘missing my point’ angle. Go read Collapse and try again.
I think Diamond’s book Collapse is drivel. Let’s look at one of his examples; Haiti which Diamond claims is one of the most overpopulated countries in the New World. Diamond compares it to the Dominican Republic. Haiti has a population density of 670 and DR was at 460 in his book. Diamond made the claim that the combination of lower rain fall and higher population density was the main factor in the rapid deforestation and loss of soil fertility in Haiti.
Diamond vaguely recognizes the importance of social and political institutions. What can be shown is that Malthusian failure does not happen in civilizations that have the rule of law, that protects private property, that reduces bureaucratic corruption, that nurtures a free press, that permits free markets, that engages in trade, and follows allows democratic politics.
Diamond claims that western societies are parasites living on the 2 percent that are farmers. This view is beyond simplistic and in to the absurd. Modern societies are complex webs of interdependence much more that Diamond seems to understand. There miners who get the raw materials, factory workers that make the tools, textile workers that make the clothes, scientist that develop better crops, and the list goes on.
Sorry, it post when I ment to add more.
I am saying that the doomsayers have been consitantly wrong and using this book as a basis for your position is worse that wrong.
I will stand with “So I will challenge you show where man has not solved every problem with ingenuity.”
—-
“I think Diamond’s book is drivel”.
The rest (quotes and no quotes) is the writing of Ron Bailey in his 2005 review of Diamond’s book in the libertarian magazine Reason — along with extensive cutting and pasting from a wiki site on Malthusianism at an online encyclopedia.
So, I’m not sure how much Vernon actually understands about the critique he is (re)using and its self-styled application of a conservative pseudo-social theory to a libertarian rejection of Diamond’s ecological insights.
More thoughtful critiques suggest that the main fault of the book is that it does not go far enough in issuing a warning about the restructuring of the carbon economy, if we are to avoid collapse.
Cheers.
—-
I fail to see your point. You say my sources are false and I am exposed. Why? Is what I said and quoted not correct. Where is it wrong.? Sorry but saying that I am wrong and proving that I am wrong are two different things.
Why not address what I said in my original post. And yes I think that any of the “we are doomed! doomed!” writers are drivel. It is more of the justification writing on why we should do bad things for good reasons.
My point is that man has though his ingenuity has solved everything that the doom sayers have predicted would destroy us. I find that clinging to neo-Malthusian drivel which Diamond did and Brian relied upon has proven wrong every time. Please point out where once Malthusian theory has been proven correct.
As I stated originally:
Namely that what we know now is not what we can do in the future and so far, all the prophets of doom have been proven wrong. I am not saying to ignore the potential but I also do not see the benefits of doing bad things for a good reason either. I believe that we have people that will work out solutions, that we have never thought of for our problems and I think that history supports this.
The difference in our positions is that I think that everyone should be raised up where is Brian’s position is that everyone needs to be pulled down for the greater good. I think that every problem can be solved. Saying that I must know the solution now is a false argument.
Just a quick remark regarding Diamond, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. It was a while since I read the book, but I recall that Diamond was very explicit about how
the conservation of the forests of the Dominican Republic was a matter of government policy (in particular the dictator Trujillo). In Haiti, such policies were missing.
[…] they are talking about. As for the changing zones of arable land I thought this was interesting. Climate change and famine: II Soil Greenfyre’s Basically while there may be some zones shifting poleward the idea that vast areas of lush fertile […]
Hello,
I think you may have forgotten a few points :
– your pictures : you only have pictures of rocky soils. Of course you cannot have agriculture there (this is impossible in any climate)
– most gelisols are NOT rocky. [1]
– you will see even in the maps above of soil type and fertility, that enormous regions in the northern hemisphere are marked as “highly fertile”. [2]
Soils in Italy, Spain etc are very rocky too, so other types of plants are grown in these places. Agricultural output is still high. [3]
Gelisols are acidic BECAUSE they are frozen, which hinders decomposition and water drainage. Once temperatures rise, gelisols will decrease in surface (because the permafrost is gone). A part of the land will be unusable for industrial farming, and a part of it will be very usable, as everywhere else. [4]
Now suppose you have land, which is NOT rocky, in northern russia. You have plenty of water. Temperatures rise, the permafrost unfreezes. You irrigate the soils (just as you do anywhere else), you fertilise it and do your thing as a farmer.
The only reason this is not done currently is permafrost, NOT rocky underground. (you can easily see this on the maps shown above – not rocky, fertile but currently too cold ==> gelisols, a large parte of which that could be converted for agriculture).[5]
—-
Mike,
Thank you for your response. I find this very interesting.
We agree that :
[1]parts of the permafrost areas are too rocky to use for agriculture, other parts are not.
[3]rocky underground has limited use, i.e. olives, grapes etc.
Where we disagree :
[2]It’s true nothern regions of russia and canada/alaska are currently dry.
(map for rainfall : http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hydrosphere/hot/freshwater/rainfall.html)
Why ? Because of the extremely LOW TEMPERATURES : the atmosphere is too cold to hold a lot of water vapor.
With rising temperatures, these climates will automatically get more wet (which is already accounted for in the climate models).
What’s more, evaporation is a lot smaller in these places (as compared to other currently dry places more to the equator).
So, there will certainly be enough water ! [1]
Conclusion : very large parts of the northern hemisphere will have :
– good underground
– enough water
– enough sunlight (in the summer)
– good temperatures
Maybe only 20% of the land will be usable, but even then : that will create an enormous additional agricultural output.
I.ex., only a small part of the USA is currently used as arable land, and still it’s the greatest exporter of grain products.
Even if crop yields are 20% lower then they are 400 km’s to the equator, this will be perfectly economically viable ! [2]
[4]
a) “they will still be acidic for a very long time.”
>> The acidity is due to the low temperatures and permafrost (hindering water drainage) which does not allow for decomposition.
From the moment temperatures are higher, decomposition will happen rather quickly, removing acidity from the soil.
Even if it takes some years, it will not be decades. (of course, if man interferes this will happen even more rappidly) [3]
b) “The expectation is that current productive land will degrade much faster than new areas will become suitable (as is already happening).”
>> I have heard predictions about soil errosion since my youth. Still, all developed countries seem to produce more and more food. In the EU, the agricultural policy is heavily inclined to long term, sustainable agriculture. Maybe it’s different in Northern America, I don’t know. [4] So I think in the EU we will not lose agricultural output. In the Netherlands where I live, most of the country lies beneath see level (some parts 7 meters). We still have very fertile lands, we are an over-populated but still food-exporting country. If see levels rise some meters, the EU will be perfectly capable to protect important lowel-lying areas like cities with damming projects.
(I agree countries like Bangladesh could be in serious trouble, but technologically speaking, even there a good damming-infrastructure -even much less advanced then that in the Netherlands- could perfectly solve the rising see level problems).
c) “global food reserves are scarcely enough to allow for food production to be interrupted for 50,000 minutes.”
>>I don’t see why this would happen.
I think in the north, additional agriculture will be possible.
I don’t think any of the current production needs to be rebuild.
[5] “Even if the problems in [4] were not true (and they are), then you’re saying so we completely rebuild our entire agricultural infrastructuree”
>>See above : we do not have to rebuild anything (except some large-scale damm-projects as in the netherlands, which are perfectly possible).
Maybe other regions in the world will shift towards sustainable agriculture, like the EU has done.
If we in the EU can do it, in theory all other nations could follow our exemple.
This will be up to political will of course. Maybe global warming will even force retarded political systems to modernize !
—-
Hello,
thanks again for your answer.
[1] THE number one factor hindering precipitation in polar regions is temperature. Of course some regions will not get wetter and some desert areas will remain. But in general, the northern regions (and most other climate regions) will become more wet, that’s for sure. All other factors being equal, this applies for any area where temperature increases. And evaporation is smaller in the north. So possible problems with lack of water can certainly be dealt with. (we agree that parts of the area will not be usable, as anywhere else). [1]
[2] The productivity will depend mainly on 1 factor : TEMPERATURE. This is the major bottleneck for plant life in the north (not sunlight !), far more important then any other factor. So if temperatures will rise only 1 or 2 degrees, it won’t be done. If temperatures rise by 5 degrees (I understand the norhtern regions will have a larger temperature increase), it will be possible for enormous (currently unused) areas. [2]
[3] The cost of “terra-forming” large areas in the north : this can never be anything more then a fraction of the cost we paid in the netherlands (flevoland and other major polder areas). Still, it was economically viable in the netherlands. It’s even viable in places like Israel (with rocky soil and no precipitation at all). I think this will be one of the easier terraforming projects in the history of mankind (if we assume temperatures rise enough, which is what this whole discussion is about !). (changing the PH of soils already is a common practice for all farmers, i really don’t see a problem in this) [3]
[4] World agriculture has always been in “crisis” and will always be, as long as dictators rule in thirld world countries. Countries like Egypt, Irak, India, Jordania, Algeria, Congo, … could all be food exporting countries given a stable and democratic regime. [4]
The EU has since decades been hammering on sustainable development through it’s subsidy system. Europe has every reason to be proud of its agricultural policy, and it will be an example for the whole world to follow.
Don’t mis-understand me : I agree with you that it’s a good thing to lower co2 output and tackle this problem. But that does not change the fact that rising temperatures will have negative AND positif effects.
The economical consequences are not entirely black, and i think it’s a pity this is always left out of doom scenario’s. [5]
—-
Hello,
I think we start turning in circles. To summarise :
– you think humanity cannot cope with the effects from global warming, I think it will be less a challenge then the political challenges.
– we do agree that CO2 levels must be cut : I think any measure that diminishes polution is a good thing.
To discuss your points :
[1] Warm = wetter : that IS true [1]. This is basic physics : given all other factors remain constant, warmer = wetter. I am aware of Hadley Cell circualation; however, taking only latitude into account for desert formation is wrong. You have deserts and wet places at any lattitude. As you stated, this will require more research into the effects of warming on precipitation of specific regions, but the basic principles remain unchallenged. As far as I know, most climate models already incorporate more precipitation in a lot of regions. I don’t have any data on that, it would be interesting to find any.
[2] I suppose there will be enough water and soil, and you haven’t brought up any reason to believe the contrary. Again, we agree a lot (or even : most) land in the north will NOT be usable for agriculture, but a part certainly WILL. Like in any latitude, it depends of a lot of factors ! You think Europe and the USA will lose agricultural output, I don’t think that will be the case : I believe the sustainable policies in the EU are superb and will be taken over in the entire modern world.
[3] a) We all agree global warming will happen slowly. Even if it would be happening extremely fast, political and human factors change a lot faster. Advanced societies will have no problem at all creating damms. Or terra-forming, which will be a lot more easy.
(you suppose societies will be collapsing, I think that is alarmism)
b) the 1,5 billion are in hunger because of POLITICAL problems. This has nothing to do with global warming or food shortages : there is more then enough food for everyone, even in this so unperfect world where so much resources are wasted and remain unused. Remember that only 50 years ago, almost all of humanity was living in abject poverty. You seem to be quite a pessimist; the FACT is that there has never been a period in human history that such a large proportion of people were living in such good conditions. The past if far worse then the present.
My prediction for the future is that the percentage of people living in hunger will keep decreasing. I am aware of doom scenario’s about global food production, these are from all times. The facts don’t lie : agricultural output still increases, and it is all a consequence of good policies, policies that every country knows, but not all want to accept : free trade, democracy, rule of law, etc. ! Look to the EU, the USA will follow i’m certain, they don’t have a choice.
[4] These are predictions, i’d like to stay with the facts. You can read scientific publications about how agriculture will collapse in Europe, USA, etc since, well, since the beginning of scientific publications. You are certainly aware that there are infinitely more publications in the scientific community about improving all kind of technologies in all fields, as well in agriculture. You can’t just ignore human progress and only look at the doom scenarios.
[5] Well you believe in catastrophes, I believe in human ingenuity. I think global warming will only be harmful (and very harmful) to societies that can’t adapt. This will in turn create political conflicts, and THAT will be what we have to prepare for.
We already have it now : massive immigration, due to POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL problems in the third world. Global warming will worsen that trend, but it did not cause it. The real problems (for advanced societies) do not lie in a warmer climate/higher sea level, as said, the cost to cope with that is trivial, as compared to i.e. the current financial crisis.
What WE will have to do, is rethink immigration.
What the popultations in the THIRD WORLD will have to do, is start the fight our forefathers fought in the past : modernising their societies, and getting rid of their medieval political systems. With or without global warming, THAT is their fight !
—-
Jan, did you ever read my response to your fallacies that I made to your similar rantings on Coby’s blog?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.php
Please read what I wrote there and you will see that you don’t really know what you are talking about. Just what do you mean by “terra-forming”? Have you any idea how expensive (if not impossible ) that will be?
Please visit some of the places you think agriculture will migrate in to and you will the see for yourself how impossible it will be.
We are not talking about the small scale movement of sediments and soil that occurred in the Netherlands but massive deforestation, grinding up of bedrock and importation of fertilizers if your “dream” is to be carried out.
In other words, it will be a lot easier and cheaper to cut our use of fossil fuels rather than engage in the “terra-forming” you are advocating. By the way, who do you expect to pay for your outlandish schemes?
No I’m afraid that you are just a typical inactivist and delayer. Not really worthy of serious discourse since you are only out to delay the start of meaningful solutions to fossil fuel created AGW.
@Jan
I haven’t had the time to react.
[1] By that analysis the worlds notoriously hot deserts should be drenched … are you claiming that they are?
This is not what I say, and the fact that you assume that in itself is already simplistic.
All things being equal, rising temperatures will cause more precipitation in tundra, taiga and arctic deserts.
Not a lot more, but more.
Why ? Because the main reason it does not often rain in these regions, is NOT Hadley Cell circulation, but TEMPERATURE.
Hence, … (i’m repeating myself). [1]
This fact, combined with less evaporation, combined with existing technologies for irrigation (not even new ones), will make agriculture perfectly possible, IF temperatures increases enough.
I think it’s dishonest from you to jump to “hot deserts” to compare, this is not even remotely related. [2]
For information, I read all your links; it would be more interesting to come to the point instead of all kinds of blog articles.
The basic principles of climate change are very understandable to any engineer, so no need to link to 100 articles : just explain your thoughts, this should not be difficult if you are an engineer like you claim. [3]
Be assured, I will understand what you say (if it is logical), i’m an engineer too and a very good one in all honesty.
[2] About terra-forming : a said before, the cost of large scale agriculture in northern areas will be insignificant as compared to the cost of delta-works in the Netherlands or similar projects in Israel. Again, IF temperatures rise enough ! [4]
What you have to explain :
1. Why do you say that all areas in the taiga/tundra are rocky ? This is obviously untrue.
2. Now you don’t say that anymore, but you keep insisting on “not enough water”, thereby twisting my words.
3. You call me simplistic, while your own statements do not provinde any hard facts. If you are the smart engineer you think you are, try to understand things before spinning doom scenarios, i don’t think you are up to it (but you can always prove me wrong) [5]
—-
Your photos of the Canadian shield are very misleading. 99% of it is covered in forests or lakes. Plants thrive there and summer days are long. If the growing season was longer, it would be very productive farmland. Why do global warming whackjobs always have to lie and be deceptive? Maybe their case isn’t so strong.
—-
[…] Such expansion means the cost per unit of production and distribution (ie food price) goes way up, the environmental impact goes way up, and there still isn’t enough land to match current levels of production. Climate Change and Famine […]
[…] while CO2 may have some beneficial properties for some plants, the situation is ultimately anything but certain. Or in short ‘Too much of a good thing is a bad […]
[…] wreaking havoc on farmers. Good luck trying to move the agricultural industry Northward where the soils are extremely poor. Famine and mass extinction are the inevitable outcome of industrial civilization's destabilizing […]
[…] executive of some oil company said that if we need to move our food production north, then we will. Here is why that won’t work. Climate change means widespread famine, wars for dwindling resources, […]
Who the hell is Billy bango Peterson? A druggie in essential classes?!!!!
Hey, I know the article is old, but I can’t find the credits for the soil fertility map. Can you tell me? Based on the underline, I think it’s a german book…. Thank you!
Unfortunately my source didn’t adequately source it, as do none of these either:
http://bit.ly/1SVuy0K
As one of them notes it’s a fairly crude map, but approximately correct. For my purposes here the crudeness was fine given I was referring to gross regional difference, and the simplicity made it easy to understand. So for broad pattterns (like here) it’s fine, but for anything more than that you should get a better, finer grained map.