Trent hink wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 26, 2020 1:05 am
The scientific evidence suggests that a system with more energy will have more frequent extreme weather events. If your argument is that this will benefit agriculture, perhaps you have not considered the real impacts this might possibly have.
And a system with less energy will have less average rainfall. So here is your lesson in how to propagandize something that is good and make it seem bad.
The most precious agricultural resource on the planet is freshwater. Places where freshwater is available, either from direct rainfall, irrigation via groundwater, or water transportation such as reservoirs and canal systems, can be used for crop production. All three of the water resources above, absolutely require rainfall. Irrigation, whether from relocation of water via reservoirs and canals, and groundwater, starts as rainfall. And groundwater sources are finite, thus they must be replenished with rainfall also.
I grew up in the central US where we have arable land that does not requiring irrigation, land that is highly productive but requires irrigation, and land where no irrigation is available. If average rainfall increases, some of the land where no irrigation is currently available, could be developed into irrigated arable land. And some of the land that required irrigation before, may no longer require irrigation.
But if you decrease the global average rainfall, obviously, the opposite happens. Some of that irrigated arable land, will no longer have a water source available to irrigate it. And that some of the land that does not require irrigation for crop production, will begin to require irrigation for crop production. The net effect of this is that there is less land available for crop production, and more inputs are required with more environmental consequences, such as diverting rivers and streams.
So how do you sell more average rainfall, as a bad thing? Well you mention that it comes down from storms which can obviously be destructive. More lightning, more tornadoes, more hail, and even increased plant production in dry areas which can lead to increase fuel for forest fires. So when you push that side of the narrative to those unwilling or incapable of thinking for themselves, you can get people to think that more rainfall is bad for Humanity.
But if you look past the headline once again, you will realize that all of those things are necessary byproducts of rainfall. LIFE GIVING RAINFALL!!! Which comes in everything from gentle rain, to severe storms to hurricanes and typhoons. These are our source of freshwater on this planet! And while it is true that there are often times crop damaging storms, there is no rainfall without storms, and no crops to be damaged without rainfall. There is also no reliable evidence that the net increase in damage to crops from storm damage will somehow be out of proportion to the increased amount of rainfall and increased amount of arable land on the Earth.
But here's where the environment really comes in, and the reality turns out to be the opposite of what you are being sold with the AGW narrative. There are many examples of water resources that are already overextended, and even Wars taking place over their allocation. Some rivers are so overused that they never actually make it to the ocean. Entire ecosystems have also been irreparably altered or completely destroyed by the overuse of water resources. If the Earth experiences a cooling event, more Rivers and streams will be exploited to the point that they themselves lose there ability to support their own unique ecosystems.
And in the end, desperate exploitation by Humanity always leads to environmental destruction, pollution, and the loss of even wider-ranging ecosystems.
So once again, the AGW narrative paints a picture which is the opposite of what it actually is. It is so very much like a religion, that it is deserving of being criticized as an actual religion. To believe in this AGW narrative, you have to first of all believe that CO2 is bad for plant production, increased rainfall will somehow magically destroy more crops on average than it supports. You also have to believe that local changes, such as some areas becoming dryer, and many areas receive more rainfall, is overall bad.... because it's change.....and the narrative is that change is bad..... which means the last 4 billion years on this planet have all been bad and somehow we are going to stabilize the climate so that it doesn't change anymore.
And here's the news flash! The climate has on regular cycles in the past, changed in a way which would be more devastating to humanity than any nuclear war. And that change was in the form of cooling events. A major cooling event could even mean the extinction of humanity. But a minor cooling event, could also be just as devastating because of things that humanity would do just to survive, especially as we continue to add more people into that problem.