Or is global warming only responsible for catastrophic events?
I would credit genetically altered foods but it is only because I like to poke fun at technophobes. Warming brings prosperity generally and generally cooling brings famine and starvation. Historically you could make a real case for GW increasing food production IMO.
I have no idea what the cause is. We have 3 potential causes:
1.) warming - the tree ring data assumes that warmers temps mean more tree growth, so it is not unreasonable to assume that warming may see some improvement in crop production
2.) CO2 fertilization - We already know that plants do better with more CO2.
3.) Technology improvements - This is a known. We know technology will improve crop production
But there are other factors. For example, the amount of food produced per person has also been increasing. This cannot continue forever as market concerns will start to take over and lack of demand will lead to reduced production.
As a scientist and a natural skeptic, I am not willing to say that we know that 1 or 2 is actually causing production increases given we know 3 is occurring and there are many other factors involved. There are too many confounding factors to say anything for certain.
But that is my point. There are too many confounding factors to say anything for certain. The major fear with AGW bandied about by warmers is that AGW will impair our ability to produce food. There is simply no justifying that statement. The data in no way supports such a claim.
Not necessarily global warming, but you can sure say that a drought year has lead to a record lever of world food production.
You are right, AGW is responsible only for catastrophic events, most of them in the future.
Of course. The consensus of "scientists" actually made the claim that we wouldn't have beer by now and people would have to resort to cannibalism because of so-called "global warming". But as predicted, their predictions were wrong - again!
Be careful with your source. I like WUWT (Anthony Watts is very good at exposing "climate clowns"), but science has been manipulating food products for several years and you never know the "full" details of the information when anti-Global Warming blogs start getting excited about semi-facts.
Bill Gates just recently invested $26 million into Monsanto to help develop "genetically modified food" (GMOs). These ELITES have no clue. All they do is invest in what they think is "good science" and it really screws up the statistics when the food they produce is "nutritiously worthless" or "nutritiously deficient"!
" ... Here’s a small sampling of the nutritional differences found in this 2012 nutritional analysis:
?Calcium: GMO corn = 14 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 6,130 ppm (437 times more)
?Magnesium: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 113 ppm (56 times more)
?Manganese: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 14 ppm (7 times more)
GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. This is quite significant and well worth remembering.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “safe” level for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm... At 13 ppm, GMO corn contains more than 18 times the “safe” level of glyphosate set by the EPA.
This is truly disturbing when you consider the fact that in countries like Argentina, glyphosate is blamed for the dramatic increase in devastating birth defects as well as cancer. Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. This may be due to its similarity to DDT, which is well-known to cause reproductive problems, among other things.
Another health hazard associated with glyphosate is its effect on gut bacteria. Not only does it promote the growth of more virulent pathogens, it also kills off beneficial bacteria that might keep such pathogens in check―both in the soil, and in the gut of animals or humans that ingest the contaminated crop.
It's important to understand that the glyphosate actually becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. It's inside the plant. And once you eat it, it ends up in your gut where it can wreak total havoc with your health, considering the fact that 80 percent of your immune system resides there and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria.
An additional disturbing piece of information is that GMO corn contained extremely high levels of formaldehyde. According to Dr. Huber, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. GMO corn contains a staggering 200 times that amount! Perhaps it’s no wonder that animals, when given a choice, avoid genetically engineered feed. ... "
No we cannot as the world is not actually warming, we could however give some credit to CO2 fertilization.
no.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/23/newsbytes-world-food-production-at-record-levels/
Or is global warming only responsible for catastrophic events?
