Warmer nights, cereal output may fall

Warmer nights, cereal output may fall

There are 86 comments on the South Asian Media Net story from Apr 12, 2010, titled Warmer nights, cereal output may fall. In it, South Asian Media Net reports that:

NEW DELHI: In an ominous sign of climate change hitting home, India has seen accelerated warming in the past few decades and the temperature-rise pattern is now increasingly in line with global warming trends.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at South Asian Media Net.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#1 Apr 12, 2010
A long term problem with AGW. The warmer nights mean a higher basal metabolism when food is not being produced, leading to less food value stored.

And AGW means warmer nights and winters, NOT higher peak temperatures. Rice harvests were long ago documented to be down 30%. Some adaptations such as lower flooding ( reduces Ch4 emissions too) may help but overall, expect food staples to become more expensive.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#3 Apr 12, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
A long term problem with AGW. The warmer nights mean a higher basal metabolism when food is not being produced, leading to less food value stored.
And AGW means warmer nights and winters, NOT higher peak temperatures. Rice harvests were long ago documented to be down 30%. Some adaptations such as lower flooding ( reduces Ch4 emissions too) may help but overall, expect food staples to become more expensive.
Looks like rice production in India has increased?

http://beta.irri.org/solutions/images/stories...

I don't see the 30% drop off, could you show us where you got your stats.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#4 Apr 12, 2010
Dud Twenties wrote:
so, I suppose this is all our fault so we must send India billions
Guess what--this IS our fault, or, rather, it is ours, our parents' and our grandparents' faults. Who filled the atmosphere with extra carbon over the past 150 years?

Declining crop yields and rising drought are not just India's problem. Australia's crops have been devastated by drought. So have California's and Texas's crops. Canada has just seen its warmest, driest winter yet. We all grow crops in the same atmosphere, and those yields will decline...unless we cooperate to fix this now.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#5 Apr 12, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
Looks like rice production in India has increased?
http://beta.irri.org/solutions/images/stories...
I don't see the 30% drop off, could you show us where you got your stats.
He got them from the same place he gets all his other hairbrained ideas, his over fertile (Sci-Fi) imagination.

Gearless offshore wind generators, location of New Moore island and many more, some of them listed in his own personal thread.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#6 Apr 12, 2010
Northie wrote:
Guess what--this IS our fault, or, rather, it is ours, our parents' and our grandparents' faults. Who filled the atmosphere with extra carbon over the past 150 years?
Yeah, man, we did it all deliberately, just to screw this generation.

Now get off your computer and help save the planet.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#7 Apr 12, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like rice production in India has increased?
http://beta.irri.org/solutions/images/stories...
I don't see the 30% drop off, could you show us where you got your stats.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.full

Rice yeilds drop 30% as shown by science (all else being equal)

And who believes the 'crop statistics' from China or India ( where the losses would be largest)?
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#8 Apr 12, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess what--this IS our fault, or, rather, it is ours, our parents' and our grandparents' faults. Who filled the atmosphere with extra carbon over the past 150 years?
But not necessarily our responsibility. Past practices, where there was no sign of problems, cannot be used to justify punitive fines.

The issue is the decline in food stable in the heavily populated equatorial region. Temperature is pretty well optimum there for the plants that have evolved to stand that level of heat and sun, so changes to that affect the equatorial productivity more than most regions.
http://storybank.stanford.edu/stories/equator...
Northie

Spokane, WA

#9 Apr 12, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
But not necessarily our responsibility. Past practices, where there was no sign of problems, cannot be used to justify punitive fines.
The issue is the decline in food stable in the heavily populated equatorial region. Temperature is pretty well optimum there for the plants that have evolved to stand that level of heat and sun, so changes to that affect the equatorial productivity more than most regions.
http://storybank.stanford.edu/stories/equator...
Punitive fines? No. But the fact that the West is responsible for unknowingly ruining the climate is not lost on emerging nations. That complicates negotiations, no?

Good link.
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#10 Apr 12, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.full
Rice yeilds drop 30% as shown by science (all else being equal)
And who believes the 'crop statistics' from China or India ( where the losses would be largest)?
I think you have a logic problem here. You are jumping to conclusions based on very little information.

The report does not show that crop yields have dropped. It shows that the yield rates drops when all other variables are held constant. It does not account for changing farming techniques, improvements in the plants themselves, better irrigation, longer growing seasons and many other things.

Rice Production in India has increased and the yield rates have improved. I'm realy very sorry that I have to spoil another gloom and doom prophesy of yours.

The world is not ending no matter how much you want it to.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#11 Apr 12, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you have a logic problem here. You are jumping to conclusions based on very little information.
Nope. It is you that is trying to jump to conclusions and not think about the details.
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
The report does not show that crop yields have dropped. It shows that the yield rates drops when all other variables are held constant. It does not account for changing farming techniques, improvements in the plants themselves, better irrigation, longer growing seasons and many other things.
Agreed. All else being equal, crop yields drop. Increased land ,fertiliser, etc all contribute to cancelling out this drop but those have a ceiling while AGW is going to continue to increase.
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
Rice Production in India has increased and the yield rates have improved. I'm realy very sorry that I have to spoil another gloom and doom prophesy of yours.
The world is not ending no matter how much you want it to.
Part of that improvement is in farming practices as I explained in my post. You really should read them instead of jumping around like a decapitated chicken.
YouHelpFixIt

Dundalk, MD

#12 Apr 12, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. It is you that is trying to jump to conclusions and not think about the details.
<quoted text>
Agreed. All else being equal, crop yields drop. Increased land ,fertiliser, etc all contribute to cancelling out this drop but those have a ceiling while AGW is going to continue to increase.
<quoted text>
Part of that improvement is in farming practices as I explained in my post. You really should read them instead of jumping around like a decapitated chicken.
Realy did I jump to the conclusion that rice harvest would decrase or that cereal prices would rise? No that was you in post #1. You realy should read what you write, you might get a good laugh, that is if you had a sense of humor.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#13 Apr 13, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
Realy did I jump to the conclusion that rice harvest would decrase or that cereal prices would rise? No that was you in post #1. You realy should read what you write, you might get a good laugh, that is if you had a sense of humor.
Cereal prices will rise, not becuase of lower yields due to AGW but to the additional costs of fertiliser, seed, etc to COUNTER the decline in basic productivity. Is this too complicated for you or do you have a magical formula that prevents plants from the basic physics and temperature response of respiration?
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#14 Apr 13, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Cereal prices will rise, not becuase of lower yields due to AGW but to the additional costs of fertiliser, seed, etc to COUNTER the decline in basic productivity. Is this too complicated for you or do you have a magical formula that prevents plants from the basic physics and temperature response of respiration?
No magic needed, just increased efficiency and longer growing seasons.

You are telling us that we should ignore that actual production statistics and instead believe your wild predictions that a small change in one or many variables will drive the price of cereals higher. Just like you think that we should ignore actual sea ice measurements so that we can believe that that it will be ice free in (insert your alarmist prediction here) years.

It's obviously ok to ignore real measured increases in production when you a perfectly gloomy conclusion to jump to (while accusing others of the very thing you are guily of).

Thanks for playing, you make this so easy.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#15 Apr 13, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
No magic needed, just increased efficiency and longer growing seasons.
And water. Mustn't forget water:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2009/2009-...

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/drough...
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#16 Apr 13, 2010
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
<quoted text>
No magic needed, just increased efficiency and longer growing seasons.
Ahhh. I seee. Your magic is in the free fertilizer, seed, labor, etc. Just a different form of hand waving..
YouHelpFixIt

Scottsdale, AZ

#17 Apr 13, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhh. I seee. Your magic is in the free fertilizer, seed, labor, etc. Just a different form of hand waving..
Again no magic, just actual measured results!

Why don't you just throw in some feedback to your prophesy and predict that all of the rice in India will be gone in 10 years.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#18 Apr 13, 2010
The key sentence in Peng et al (see above): "Grain yield declined by 10% for each 1°C increase in growing-season minimum temperature in the dry season".

In other words, warming significantly hampers rice growing--even without indirect effects from warming-caused drought.

Will increased fertilization and better farming improve yields enough to compensate? Who knows? Certainly, none of the amateurs on this board know.

What we do know is that true experts on all sides are telling us to expect crop shortages due to warming in coming decades, even as world population continues to grow.

Sounds like we'd better listen to experts rather than to conservative dilettantes from oil and coal towns.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#19 Apr 13, 2010
Northie wrote:
Will increased fertilization and better farming improve yields enough to compensate? Who knows? Certainly, none of the amateurs on this board know.
Up to a point, it can compensate, but the issue is that staple foods in equatorial latitudes will get more expensive. Just where the majority of the populations are.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#22 Apr 14, 2010
"Rice paddies are one of the major sources of global methane emissions."
Greenies will soon be calling for a ban on rice.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#23 Apr 14, 2010
Dud Twenties wrote:
<quoted text>there is NO "extra Carbon" in the atmosphere. There is a small"extra" amount of the gas Carbon Dioxide, and calling this Carbon is as stupid as calling water Hydrogen.
It would not be incorrect to say that there is hydrogen in the ocean or carbon in the atmosphere. Your rebuttal is meaningless and misses the point. The increase in CO2 is the issue, not whether you specify it by carbon or CO2. Many databases specify the carbon emissions, not the CO2. Multiply by 44/12th if you want to convert.
Dud Twenties wrote:
<quoted text>
The extra CO2 is probably due to the hot period of the Middle Ages, as the effects of this show up with an 800 year time lag. India's problems are due to archaic practices.
Irrational gibberish. There were no carbon emissions from the MWP which only affected the North Atlantic(primariliy western Europe) and had a causation that was primarly winds being shifted and thus delivering less 'extra warmth' to Europe. It had no global significance.

OTOH, it is hard to comprehend someone that cannot relize that the fossil fuel exhaust emissions are adding CO2 to the atmsophere. CO2 is a well recognised emission from the carbon content of fossil fuel.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 18 min Unhealthy People 11,543
News Al Gore warns that Trump is ignoring weather ap... 20 min There Should Be Laws 205
2016 year to date (Apr '16) 8 hr Talkin To DaStupid 215
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 8 hr GIGO 2,549
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 9 hr Logic Is Dead 37,412
News Trump's climate pullback opens door to Chinese ... 11 hr C Kersey 27
News US attends meeting on Paris climate accord, sti... 11 hr C Kersey 1
More from around the web