Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

One of the negative effects of climate change is a decrease in crop production, i think it is still whitin the lines of the topic at hand.

I am asking the opposite. What impact does crop production have on climate change?The only large impact I am aware of is the clearing of natural habitats to make room for farms. Natural habitats, like prairies or rainforests, are natural carbon sinks since they bury plant matter. That is the irony of Brazilian ethanol production. Ethanol may be a renewable fuel, but they are clearing massive tracts of rainforest to grow crops for ethanol production and this results in a loss of carbon sinks. They will have to grow corn for decades or even centuries (relative to burning fossil fuels) before they break even with respect to their impact on total carbon in the atmosphere.Growing crops in areas already cleared for urbanization may help a little, but then you run into problems of water usage and economy of scale. The amount of energy used and carbon released in urban farming may actually exceed those on large farms which makes it a wash.

All that is the bad news. The good news is that plants take in CO2 and put out oxygen, and that enough of them, such as form a rainforest, create their own rainfall. Surely it's possible to plan to maximize the good effects and minimize the bad ones. Discouraging meat eating and encouraging plant eating is one place to start.

Im guessing its more then just choping down the lungs of our world, if you irrigate you increase the evaporation rate of water in a region and we irrigate so much some grate rivers dont make it to the see anymore. Apart from water vapour being a greenhouse gas that helps increase the temperature of our planet we are probably also changing rainfall patterns this way.Using weed killers on such a scale that everything around your crops is brown earth decreases the albedo of the planet. Warming it further.And of course transportation, we have a law that any food has to have a declaration of its origin, we get food from all over the world essentially brought to our homes, meaning we burn a lot of fosil fuels to get it there warming our planet even further. Edited by frako, : decreases albedo not increases LOL

Evaporation has a cooling effect.The problems of both weed killers and transportation costs would be decreased if personal gardening got popular.Long term, with the right planning, even rivers and rainforests can be restored.

Yea as in sweat transfers heat from your body to the atmosphere not out in to space, away from the earth.
Think monkey think Sure but not to some high degree. Sure the right planning would be kill of 4 billion humans and the earth will start to heal itself. Sure we could have taken the soft aproach by limiting births per person or even softer taxing those with more children, but we dont have the time to do it now. We have to produce more and more on an exponential scale to meet the demands of so many people, by the time such measures would have the any effect the world would alredy be 2 degrees warmer and still warming do to the fact that we are increasing the "insulation" of earth faster then it can warm up. Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Water vapor only has a 2 week resident time in the atmosphere, so I don't think there are any long term climate changes due to irrigation. Also, the lungs of the Earth are the oceans where marine organisms make most of the oxygen we breathe. For those of us who live in the Great Basin (a high desert region in the western US) that doesn't carry much weight. The land would be brown with or without weed killer. If anything, agriculture has greened the area and reduced its albedo. It's hard to eat food if it is hundreds of miles away. The question is if less efficient small farms burning more fossil fuels is a better option.

Condensation has a heating effect. Weed killers aren't a problem for climate change, and smaller farms would burn more fossil fuels than larger farms per unit of food. Urban farming is even less efficient at food units per acre.Health effects aside, eating lower down in the food web would reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture. There is about 90% energy loss at each ecological level meaning that we only get 10% of the energy from meat that we would have received from eating the plants the animals ate. We could feed a lot more people if we fed those veggies to humans instead of cattle. There is always going to be a struggle between growing food and preserving habitat.

Or in English: 0.5 hectares = 1.24 acres I can tell that 1 ars = 1,000 square meters, but what does "ars" stand for? Did you mean "are", which I've never heard of before just now using Google, but 1 hectare = 100 are, not 10 are, so I'm not sure what you mean.--Percy

your right 100 not 10

I think most climate change deniers fail to realise by how much we have increased our co output just the past 30 years.

As I listen to what's left of Florence thunder down on my roof here in New Hampshire, and keeping in mind that a record typhoon just hit the Philippines with 165 mph winds before moving on the Hong Kong and China, and that a record hurricane just hit Houston last year dropping a national record 60 inches of rain, can there be any doubt that we are in the midst of climate change where storms are wetter and slower moving and more dangerous?Here in New England climate change has already affected our seasons. 30 years ago the trees in our woods would begin turning color at the end of August, now it happens at the end of September. We're wetter now than we used to be, so much so that moss began growing on some parts of my driveway about five years ago. The blueberries that once carpeted the forest floor off our front yard are long gone. Lady Slippers, a harbinger of spring, are becoming more and more rare.The climate change prediction for the New England region is that we would become warmer and wetter. We were warmer this summer than we've ever been. I thought wetter would mean more rain, but it turned out to mean higher humidity - it was a very hot and humid summer. The warmer part also means less snow. We get more rain in the winter now than we used to.--Percy

The only 'doubters' are the people in the Koch brother's pockets.I live in Florida and having chatted with several people who have been here all their lives, even they say they notice it. In Central Florida where I live, people mention that the winters here were much milder in the past and that needing jackets was common. Nowadays, it is pretty much perpetual summer. We might get one or two weeks where there is a marginal cold snap. Cold by our standards would be high 50s, low 60s in the winter.When I lived in California, the climate change is very evident there. There used to be a fire season in California. Now, the state is perpetually on fire. Additionally, when living there in the Bay Area, I noted that very few apartment complexes built in the 60s had air conditioning. It just wasn't needed due to the temperate climate. Now, its a necessity.Finally, in the area of Canada I grew up in, the situation is similar to what you experience in New Hampshire. The summers are much hotter and more humid and fall starts later. Not necessarily the worst thing if you live there I guess. Winters are interesting is that they have actually been a little harsher lately. So its somewhat of a double edged sword.

In Saskatchewan we had one warm evening this past summer. The nights have been downright cold. No thunderstorms to speak of. Our climate seems to be getting less extreme than it used to be.I'm not a climate-change denier by any means but I don't believe in blaming every car accident on climate change. Sometimes a car just runs into a bandwagon.

The data demonstrates that ocean temperatures have risen over the last few decades: https://www.epa.gov/...ge-indicators-sea-surface-temperatureHigher ocean temps means more storms and stronger storms. There is no way around that. I guess people could argue that the increase in temperature isn't man made, that temperature cycles naturally. However, it is getting rather difficult to deny the facts of temperature increases and the impact it has on long term climate trends.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.