Sam. There is no optimal temperature for crop production except to say that it is a warmer temperature than what we have now. And we must ask ourselves what is the cause of this increased temperature in this fabled scenario? Is this increased temperature here because of extra solar brightness? Or because of increased greenhouse gasses?
The best situation would presumably be a slightly lesser solar brightness and massively more greenhouse. Since it is greenhouse which reduces temperature differentials.
But thats in the realm of fantasy.
What is NOT fantasy, as far as crop-growing is concerned however, is the potential for higher levels of atmospheric-CO2.
Plants that are well-cared for in other ways continue (on average) to gain benefits from higher CO2 levels even if the CO2-levels are 600ppm and rising. That is to say the gains from extra-CO2 don’t even begin to flatten out in the general sense until the CO2 is above this level.
The gains from extra-CO2 for plants somewhat more stressed don’t even begin to flatten out until CO2 levels rise above 1500ppm.
So if you wanted to geo-engineer things in a sort of fantasy thought-experiment it would be about 1500ppm that you were looking at.
Now I don’t think that would have any effect on world temperatures. But still it might do from where I sit. It might stall the next destructive ice age somewhat. It might, at that level mean a slightly higher air pressure or something, that over many hundreds of years, coupled with some tiny amount of greenhouse effect, coupled with serendipity, well its at least possible that it could slow down the cooling trend.
But if you are talking a fantasy scenario for maximum crop-growing what we would want is this 1500ppm coupled with acknowledged overheating.
Because with acknowledged overheating we could then start a voluntary campaign of accumulating these little SO2 missiles. And every time a jumbo took a flight over the equator we could have them shoot this little SO2 missile into the upper stratosphere and explode and have all this SO2 up there. We would explode these things over the open water for maximum effect.
What this would engineer under this fantasy scenario is a more even-temperatured world. Taking that edge off at the equator to stop cumulative warming. And the plants there getting easily enough sunlight as it stands.
Hence the alleged nightmare that the no-evidence-campaign is putting before us is actually our best daydream for crop-growing, if we are so inclined as to daydream about such matters.
I myself am not so inclined and will be happy for any mitigation against the coming cooling as what any potential human effect could have.
And none of us should look the gift-horse of enhanced CO2-levels in the mouth. Since its just narrow-minded and nasty to not be happy about the CO2 enhancing the natural world and helping with crop yields and therefore food prices.
“P.S. I did throw the question out to Raheem & co. – ‘So what if Global Warming is shown to be non-existent (or virtually so) how would this necessarily negate the rest of concerns towards the environment.”
Anti-capitalism is extremely bad for the environment. And this is an anti-capitalist
Although in my version of capitalism there is relentless homesteading, but there are always buffers around newly privately homesteaded properties. And there might be many millionaires getting about trying to patch up the (in my view) mistakes of prior generations by, in many cases, trying to buyback land to put these buffers, also known as nature corridors, back into the scene.
The point was that the environmentalist movement is currently an intensely evil movement. The point wasn’t that there were absolutely no environmental concerns.
Sometimes to understand natural phenomenon its helpful to use personification. Like when Hunter Thompson had this essay on electricity where he described very well how electricity worked by giving it two human characteristics. Electricity is very homesick. But its also very lazy said Hunter.
Well conversely, we can get some sort of working understanding of these HUMAN movements, involving HUMAN persons if we DE-personify the human-movement.
DE-PERSONIFY THE HUMAN MOVEMENT.
If we liken the environmentalist movement to a natural phenomenon, like a Hurricane for example, this might help us get a better working-and-predictive-model of the movement.
So thats what I will do right here. I’ll depersonify the environmentalist movement and treat it, in an extended analogy, as if it were an impersonal natural phenomenon. To be specific an hurricane.
You see you are not taking the same perspective as Professor Reisman. He is looking at this hurricane-most-vile from a vantage point akin to a satelite photo. And in this analogy he has identified that what motivates the air molecules in the calm centre and in that first outer violent circle is the evil human-negating principle of the INTRINSIC VALUE OF NATURE.
But supposing you have a different vantage point. You are not seeing a hurricane from the satelite point of view. And lets jump back to a real hurricane to further this analogy.
And in this story you are a farmer in the far West of the US in the 1870’s. You are in an area that does not yet benefit from the telegraph. Well there is this hurricane on the east coast doing all sorts of damage. But what you are seeing is that your farm, which has been suffering from drought, is now getting plenty of beneficial rain. So you are not going to understand the damage that has been done, and the nasty nature of the centre of the storm.
Likewise if you focus on this repulsively evil environmentalist movement from a different perspective, from a different time-frame, and a different vantage point, you are not necessarily going to perceive the intense evil that is there in the eye of the storm ,and in its activist first-circle.
You might be on the ground away from the storm seeing some businesses cleaning up their act and not making the river dirty. You might be seeing some people getting out there and picking up litter as volunteers. You might be seeing people donate money for some crowd helping a particularly beautiful endangered species of the parrot.
In these instances you are like that Western farmer thinking that the storm is a good thing.
But you need to know about the evil driving the environmentalist movements direction, since you need to be able to predict what it will do.
Had we fully understood the intensely evil nature of this environmentalist movement, we could have predicted where it was going, and we could have at least ATTEMPTED to stop the malaria-bureaucratisation holocaust, as well as this now decades-long energy-deprivation campaign.
We could have had some immunisation against their non-stop lying and spin. And we could have warned the future victims.
There is no going head-on against the Reisman principle. If you want to retrieve anything of value from this movement, that in its totality is clearly evil, then your job is the task of DIFFERENTIATION.
I wish you all luck in retrieving some value from this evil movement in terms of biodiversity heritage. But your first duty is to understand this psychopathic movement, to understand where it is headed, and to warn its future victims.
Its a bit too late to say NEVER AGAIN!!!!
Posted in Uncategorized
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.