Climate Change And Starvation

US corn production per acre has increased by 300% since the 1950s – when half of India and China were starving to death.

Historical Corn Grain Yields for the U.S. (Purdue University)

Climate experts are impervious to facts, and of course report the exact opposite of what the data actually shows.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Climate Change And Starvation

  1. Cam says:

    Meanwhile, there’s this little bit of inconvenient truth for the doomers…

    Rising temperatures may safeguard crop nutrition as climate changes

    Recent research has shown that rising carbon dioxide levels will likely boost yields, but at the cost of nutrition. A new study in Plant Journal from the University of Illinois, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), and Donald Danforth Plant Science Center suggests that this is an incomplete picture of the complex environmental interactions that will affect crops in the future–and rising temperatures may actually benefit nutrition but at the expense of lower yields.

    Two years of field trials show that increasing temperatures by about 3 degrees Celcius may help preserve seed quality, offsetting the effects of carbon dioxide that make food less nutritious. In soybeans, elevated carbon dioxide levels decreased the amount of iron and zinc in the seed by about 8 to 9 percent, but increased temperatures had the opposite effect. …

    • Rob Manzoni says:

      “…Recent research has shown that rising carbon dioxide levels will likely boost yields, but at the cost of nutrition…”

      This makes no sense. “at the cost of nutrition”…? By what criteria is this claim made? Carbon dioxide is at the heart of photosynthesis; and increasing levels (above 150 ppm) can only be good for plants, as the last twenty years’ greening of the earth demonstrates. Historical levels of 5000 ppm coincide with luxuriant plant growth – where does this “poorer nutrition” angle fit in?

      • Gator says:

        – where does this “poorer nutrition” angle fit in?

        It fits in perfectly with the available grants.

      • spike55 says:

        ““…Recent research has shown that rising carbon dioxide levels will likely boost yields, but at the cost of nutrition…””

        Also totally UNTRUE. It was just bad growing techniques.

        If a controlled crop is growing faster because of raised atmospheric CO2, you obviously need to provide more trace minerals in a usable form. If these are restricted, of course the nutrient percentage is down, even though the total content will be up, as it was in those experiments.

        Greenhouse framers know this, and can produce some of the best quality fruit and vege around.

      • HCR says:

        We need pithy but cogent explanations of why climate change is not significantly human driven. 99% of folks do not have or take the time to understand details about climate science … but most believe “climate change” is human driven. Following is a brief description (that a 12 year old can understand) of why climate change is not significantly driven by humans that I use in discussions with many of those less interested people. I have tested and modified this description based on inputs from others including experts such as Dr. Judith Curry. Please provide any critical comments about how this description should be corrected or otherwise improved. Thanks.
        An inconvenient truth. Evidence (Antarctic ice core analysis) demonstrates that climate change is due to recurring 100 thousand year cycles, not human effects. We are nearing the peak of a warming cycle that has not yet reached previous maximum levels (when humans were not around) … that Earth may be warming, therefore, is not surprising. No evidence exists that human impact is significant. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), the arbitrary factor used in climate models to multiply the very small effect of humans, actually is measured at less than half the level theorized to cause dangerous warming by humans. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) use of an outdated discredited ECS in their models has added to the IPCC’s already undermined credibility from their admitted lying in Climategate and to the IPCC’s written admission that their work is not about science but instead about the socialistic redistribution of wealth. If you think humans are driving calamitous global warming, provide real evidence, clearly and concisely. And, “consensus” is not evidence (the “97%” is actually only 50% anyway; most of the 97% simply did not reject the POSSIBILITY of human-caused global warming). The scientific and academic community once had a consensus that eugenics, acid-caused stomach ulcers and many other now disproven examples were settled science. (If you disagree, skip your silly insults and provide your cold hard counter evidence.)

        • Johansen says:

          HCR… a pretty basic argument (I think) is that at 400ppm, the CO2 is already ‘saturated’ with respect to long wave radiation. Most of the downforcing occurs in the first 20 ppm of CO2. It doesn’t add 3 degrees with every doubling. Another argument is to look at irradiance from the top of the atmosphere. Doubling CO2 to 800 ppm takes away very little from the 14-18 micron band, and actually *adds* a little. Yet another argument is to go further back and look at CO2 levels during the Cambrian, where complex animal forms exploded onto the scene. Another approach is to show people the temperature going back several hundred thousand years to put things in context… in which case it looks pretty obvious we are headed into the deep freeze soon

        • Menicholas says:

          Numerous factual errors in your summary, HCR, since you asked.
          Temperatures are climbing over the past 150 years, yes, but the increases are cyclical and small, and are on net a huge benefit, because the period prior to this modern warming was a disastrously cold time called the Little Ice Age, the coldest temps in over 10,000 years.
          The globe has been in a cyclical cooling trend since the Holocene Climate Optimum, some 8,000 years ago.
          It is difficult to say for sure if the world is any warmer now than during the 1930s…records have been altered, and coverage was sparse back then, but clearly the continent we have the best data on, has cooled since the 1930s.
          Warmer periods have always been known to be hugely beneficial for life and for human endeavors, and there is zero reason to buy the BS than a small amount of warming is anything but good.
          I am fairly certain that the case for even large amounts of warming being beneficial is solid.
          We are unlikely to get it.
          CO2 and temps show little correlation over the past 100 years, and the paleo data demonstrates clearly that CO2 and temps are not correlated on long time scales.
          The ice core data from Antarctica show that CO2 rises and falls as a consequence of changes in temperature, no the other way around.
          The past 20 years have seen a huge increase in CO2 emissions, but except for a couple of el ninos, temps are flat.
          It seems entirely possible we will have a few decades of cooling in the near future.
          Severe weather is not increasing, at all.
          Sea level is rising slowly, the same as it has for the past 150 years.
          Based on that, it seems far-fetched to claim that land ice is melting any more than it has been over that time period.
          The period from the 1950s to the 1970s shows how fast ice can grow when it gets a little cooler.
          The global warming panic mongering is based on false information, fake news.
          From top to bottom…nothing but a pack of lies.
          What is the point of countering warmista nonsense with information that is anything but exactly factual?

    • arn says:

      In general higher temperatures and more co2 increase plant growth as this are the 2 parameters greenhouses are made for.

      More heat=more sun=more evaporation=more plant growth thanks to more energy and water.
      +more heat melts ice and snow away therefore more land is usable for crops.
      +More co2 in the atmosphere increases the altitude plants can grow
      as former sub 180ppm regions where plant can not grow become 200ppm++ regions.

      The best thing is that we even haven’t reached the concentration where plant growth really starts to kick in(500+ppm).

      • R Shearer says:

        Yes, but the main reason for drastically higher crop yields is the use of fertilizers and modern agricultural science, genetics, etc. Nitrogen based fertilizers and mostly derived from the Haber process and natural gas reforming. Fossil fuels eliminate starvation.

        • Johansen says:

          … yes and in addition to that, you can be even more specific and say Roundup, together with genetically modified corn (and soy, etc), has basically eliminated (the need for) famine/hunger

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            True, but modern agriculture did not eliminate “the need” for hunger an famine. The Progressives found a different justification of the need.

    • Warren Welsh says:

      “Anomalies may change slightly as missing or erroneous data is resolved”….. NOAA.

      NOAA annual climate reports, now back on line after the wall standoff, one of the main authorities whose material is used by the IPCC to advise policy makers, have a separate section where they list the twelve hottest years to help enhance a warming trend. In order to demonstrate this they have raised the average annual land and sea temperature anomalies in eight of the last 13 years above what they had originally shown in each particular year’s report going back to 1999 e.g. The anomalies, the amount of warming or cooling above the average twentieth century average of 13.9 C, have been altered upwards in eight of the last thirteen years. 2007 by (0.12 C), 2009 by (0.10 C), 2005 by (0.09 C), 2010 and 2012 by (0.08 C), and 2003, 2013 and 2014 were increased by (0.05 C). NOAA gave the following explanation for the changes….”Anomalies may change slightly as missing or erroneous data is resolved”. You can hardly call these changes “slight” if the world is supposed to be warming at a rate of 0.31 C per decade!
      Below is a comparison of NOAA’S data from its yearly reports which shows no warming between 2001 and 2013. Note that after the alterations ABOVE appear to line up more with NASA 647 temperature data.
      Using the NOAA unaltered original data, the order of the hottest years many of those listed would not even rank.

      2001 0.53 0.52
      2002 0.58 0.56
      2003 0.60 0.56 altered by 0.05
      2005 0.64 0.58 altered by 0.09
      2006 0.61 0.54
      2007 0.62 0.49 altered by 0.12
      2008 0.57 0.49
      2009 0.62 0.54 altered by 0.10
      2010 0.66 0.62 altered by 0.08
      2011 0.60 0.51
      2012 0.64 0.57 altered by 0.08
      2013 0.67 0.62 altered by 0.05
      2014 0.75 0.69 altered by 0.05
      2015 0.84 0.90
      2016 0.94 0.94

  2. John F. Hultquist says:

    I’ll guess the folks writing this stuff have never met a farmer, nor every had a garden.
    Their ignorance is exceeded only by their alarmism (and their desire to control your life).

  3. rah says:

    What the hell do they care about how many people starve? The NY general assembly just passed abortion laws that make everything that Kermit Gosnell did legal! And they stood and applauded and cheered their act for several minutes.

    • arn says:

      And you can be sure the same maniacs who applauded and cheered this laws,will lick the abortion blood from their hands with pleasure
      and then be the first to protest against the execution of a serial killer because it is unhuman.

    • TimA says:

      I saw the movie…people are turning into soulless ghouls…it’s frightening and disgusting!

  4. richard says:

    Add on that the world’s population is increasing a million a week, the biggest increases are in the 3rd world so we can see any so called climate change is actually beneficial.

    The big problem world wide now is obesity- oops-

    We now have the World Obesity Federation whose aim is to-

    “Driving global efforts to reduce, prevent and treat obesity” classic!

  5. David says:

    Unfortunately most of the modern corn strains make me sick as a dog. Corn is also extremely hard to avoid as it and wheat are in everything. Corn starch, corn syrup, corn oil, high fructose corn syrup. I can eat heirloom from a garden but this other deadly.

    • Menicholas says:

      I eat a lot of nuts, fruit, meat, and vegetables. Eggs, chicken, pizza if you make the dough yourself…no corn in any of these things.
      Corn starch, syrup and oil are hardly in everything. There are half a dozen other kinds of cooking oil than corn oil: Canola, peanut, soybean, olive, palm, coconut (although I avoid these last two…and olive oil puts a funny flavor in stuff as well.), etc…although it is easy to eat all day and never need to have anything with cooking oil in it. Butter is great on toast and for cooking.
      Heirloom from a garden all you can eat?
      If you say so.

      Unless you eat processed foods, it is easy to avoid those things you mention: Do not buy them.
      Wheat makes you sick too?
      If you have some rare medical condition, that sucks.
      For the vast majority of the human races, wheat and corn are food, not poison.

  6. winnipeg boy says:

    Off Topic but this gives you a good look at ‘Environmentalists”
    Patrick Moore posted it on Twitter

    It is pure extortion.

    • arn says:

      Wait- a bunch of parasitic people trying to
      get money from others with false claims and fakery .
      That sounds so AGW.

    • Johansen says:

      I’m getting a bit tired of indigenous victim mentality. Around here, at least they’ve learned how to build monster casinos and tie up traffic for miles around. There’s got to be 8-10 Vegas-sized casinos within a 1-hr drive from me

  7. MGJ says:

    Famines in Zimbabwe, Somalia, Vietnam, Ukraine, Cambodia, Russia, North Korea, China etc. were not caused by climate change but by politicians of the sort found in the criminal gang that comprises the UN.

    Sort out your own house first.

  8. Douglas Hoyt says:

    In India so many potatoes and onions have been raised that they are giving them away or letting them rot in the fields.

  9. GW Smith says:

    Data can be a bugger when you have an agenda to follow.

  10. Dave O. says:

    A good share of the increase in the world’s food supply can be attributable to the judicious use of fossil fuels.

  11. GW Smith says:

    Leftist hate is everywhere now, and they’re no longer hiding it. This a new age.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *