‘morning Chris,

I think what is really “amazing” is that this is nothing new. In 2013 the CSIRO published an assessment of the satellite data confirming increased vegetation.

http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

“Climate change has achieved what Bob Geldof and Live Aid failed to do..”, “greenhouse gases caused rains to return to the region south of the Sahara, from Senegal to Sudan, boosting crop yields The Times, 2 June 2015

With dozens of articles, studies and research papers over the last 20 years covering this same topic, one has to wonder why our MSM has not given this news more prominence?

Alarmists are now even more “alarmed”, mostly because they have to counter yet more reality. Like King Knut on the beach commanding the tide to recede, the failing rhetoric has to be cranked up to try to gain traction.

Most seem to find it difficult to argue against this research and instead offer the “yeh but, ah but, well but”.

Now we have arguments about “relativism”. “The chart provided showed food production but included no comment on food production per capita”. So the research is accepted BUT, if we include natures failure to produce results relative to per capita population, it all goes away? Yeh.

Then we have this; There will be less “02” in “CO2” so we will all suffocate anyway. Or this little gem; “CO2 increases plant growth, but it also increases fungal growth, especially when combined with increased humidity”.

Really? Rainforests anyone?

The real problem for alarmists is that the historical suppression of public debate and outright censorship by MSM, has left a huge backlog of reality that is yet to reach our shores. As it does, the alarmists will have to create more, bigger, newer and different alarmism.

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

“One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived”
Niccolo Machiavelli

Very busy times ahead for alarmists!

spindoc, wheat and other grains don't grow in rainforests.

Are there any other basic science questions you're confused about?

‘morning Craig,

I think you just tried to do a “Minns”

<< spindoc, wheat and other grains don't grow in rainforests. Are there any other basic science questions you're confused about? >>

Well actually Craig, now you come to mention it, I could do with a little help on this.

I was lead to believe that about 80% of the plants we eat began in the world's tropical rainforests. Potatoes, corn, rice, avocadoes, soybeans, palm nuts, oranges, bananas, coffee, citrus, chocolate and hundreds of other foods are rainforest plants. Over 100 species of grain grasses also originate there and just 15% of these feed 90% of the worlds population.

Grain crops do suffer fungal infection and depending upon the region and farming practices, these can account for between 10% to 35% of yields.

Most farmers have a variety of options to deal with these infections but I suspect they would disagree with you that one of these options is to have less rainfall?

But I could be wrong.

Toni Lavis, why, after your sensible post yesterday, are you posting such crap today?

Kelvin got it wrong – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin#Pronouncements_later_proven_to_be_false

But most, if not all, scientists (no matter how eminent) do get things wrong occasionally.

spindoc, I'm very happy to shed more light on the subject.

None of the major grains are rainforest species. None of the major broadleaf crops are rainforest species, although many are tropical or subtropical natives. It's not hard to work out why, if you've ever ventured into a rainforest. There isn't much of anything at all growing on the ground. There are good reasons for that, including poor quality soil leached of nutrients, lack of light and the afore-mentioned fungal threats.

The only place that is disrupted is where there has been a tree fall over (or cut down). Even at the edge of the forest and in the disrupted areas, there isn't much spare ground for grasses to grow, thanks to fast-growing vines and the like. there's a reason that the major carbohydrate-containing crops in PNG (notably a place with a lot of rain forest) are things like sago, taro and kau kau (sweet potato).

In fact, the ancestors of our modern grains (apart from corn) arose in semi-arid conditions and temperate areas. Even corn doesn't like a lot of rain in its modern form, which is quite different from its indigenous ancestors.

As for rain, farmers live in fear of rain at the wrong time. A wet grain crop is a mouldy grain crop and a mouldy grain crop isn't much good for anything at all. If its even to be used for stock feed it has to be properly sterilised.

But none of that is especially relevant to my original comment, which was to do with the combination of high humidity and CO2 fostering fungal attack on grains. As you point out, this is already a serious problem and management with fungicides is extremely costly as well as very complex. There are several different classes of fungicide which have different modes of action and there are extensive guidelines relating to their use in rotation to avoid creating resistant strains.

35% loss may be bearable if it happens only occasionally, but 70% or more is catastrophic.

This statement is incorrect "As shown by the barometer the average weight of the air is 14.9 pounds to the square inch"

Barometers measure air pressure. Air pressure is 14.9lbs/inch

"1 cubic foot of air at standard temperature and pressure assuming average composition weighs approximately 0.0807 lbs." - http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae650.cfm

"1st Baron Kelvin of Largs, a well-established scientist, who really knows his stuff", got the above wrong. What's that say for the rest of his calculations?