Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Did PBS mention which areas have benefited from climate change? Perhaps some mention of crops that once were unsuitable for a particular location now growing?
Delivering only one perspective of some change is the definition of corruption of character, and certainly antithetical to delivering the news.
|
No.They did not.That's been addressed in SCIENCE and NATURE.And the consensus is,that any regional agricultural benefits are far overshadowed by the global harm that will come from warming.
New weeds typically accompany new crops,which opens a vicious cycle of fertilizers,herbicides,fungicides,pesticides,roden ticides,defoliants,new equipment requirements,precipitation along with the warmth,and then heat stress and paralyzed photosynthesis as temperature reaches 105-F.Invasive species do not guarantee that soil microbes will be present to accommodate growth.Invasive species can bring invasive insects and fungus.There's only so much sunlight in a day,which limits productivity,regardless of warmth and soil fertility.Pollinators are in decline.Current food production has declined.Nutritive content of some cereal grains is declining,requiring increased production just to remain at the same level of nutrition,in a world of increasing population.
Some species see increased growth,which soon plateaus,with no overall increased production.
With loss of mountain glaciers,rivers will eventually die.All civilization which rely on irrigation will perish.This is in the unwritten history of Earth.
What flourishes in a laboratory is not represented in the real world.