Congratulations Sask on achieving number 1

[Hamloc]

[QUOTE=dmlfarmer;364711]You are ignoring the impact of increased irrigation in India

And the fact that India has built over 3200 dams (as of 2012) which supply irrigation water to increase production in a hot, and for most of the year, dry country. (Meanwhile farmers here are opposed to a carbon tax which could actually go to a project like dam construction for irrigation)

Dml, I would be very interested to hear where in Canada it has been suggested that carbon tax money would be used for dam construction? In Alberta approx. 1/3 of carbon tax proceeds is earmarked for rebates to Albertan's to help cope with the increased cost. The rest is earmarked for energy efficiency programs, money to be used to research how to lower emissions from large industrial emitters like the oilsands, urban mass transit like the green line in Calgary and the possible necessity of subsidizing electricity rates if they rise above the government set ceiling. I must complement you, your suggestion of dam building did make me laugh very hard :-), you forget the NDP despises us country bumpkins!

[dmlfarmer]

[QUOTE=Hamloc;364729]

Dml, I would be very interested to hear where in Canada it has been suggested that carbon tax money would be used for dam construction? In Alberta approx. 1/3 of carbon tax proceeds is earmarked for rebates to Albertan's to help cope with the increased cost. The rest is earmarked for energy efficiency programs, money to be used to research how to lower emissions from large industrial emitters like the oilsands, urban mass transit like the green line in Calgary and the possible necessity of subsidizing electricity rates if they rise above the government set ceiling. I must complement you, your suggestion of dam building did make me laugh very hard :-), you forget the NDP despises us country bumpkins!

Hamloc: The basic intention of the carbon tax is to reduce C02 production. It is up to the provinces to decide how it is used. You list potential avenues, but those are not the only possible uses. Hydro electric power is green, therefore tax funds could be directed towards it. And water storage also opens up irrigation possibilities. Unfortunately, before even looking at ways a tax could be used positively, people refuse to even consider or think of any potential positives of a tax. We are so stuck in me first thinking that we are losing ground to third world agriculture. India is a great example as is China, Brazil, and even eastern European countries.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The markets timeframe is short term. Most markets price out a year, and long term is 2 or 3 years. They don't reflect climate change, they reflect weather, and supply and demand.

Is that why humanity is hoarding nearly 7 trillion ounces of Gold? The time frame on that investment is decades or centuries if not much longer, Hoarding it against an event which is highly unlikely to ever happen, And has no useful purpose, in a catastrophe. The Indians who refuse to stockpile cheap food are hoarding gold so much that the government is trying to intervene.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You are ignoring the impact of increased irrigation in India[ATTACH]2358[/ATTACH]

And the fact that India has built over 3200 dams (as of 2012) which supply irrigation water to increase production in a hot, and for most of the year, dry country. (Meanwhile farmers here are opposed to a carbon tax which could actually go to a project like dam construction for irrigation)

You are ignoring the mechanization which is happening, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and the commercialization of farms into larger, viable units

You claim they should be stockpiling grain now, yet they do not have the infrastructure to safely store grains in country and protect it from insects, rats, and especially the monsoon season.

And the real reason for the tariff is to protect their farmers from low prices rather than secure cheaper food.

i'm certainly not ignoring the technological progress farmers around the world have made, this is my point, they are using all tools available to increase production, in spite of what should be a decline according to the warmists. They are adapting to "climate change" in all it's forms, regardless of the cause, taking advantage of opportunities to grow more. We had this discussion before, it is easy to adapt to warming, add irrigation, grow longer season crops, maybe add a second or third crop in one year. Adapting to cooling is not so easy, especially if we are programmed to believe it can only warm.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

[QUOTE=Hamloc;364729]

You are ignoring the impact of increased irrigation in India[ATTACH]2358[/ATTACH]

And the fact that India has built over 3200 dams (as of 2012) which supply irrigation water to increase production in a hot, and for most of the year, dry country. (Meanwhile farmers here are opposed to a carbon tax which could actually go to a project like dam construction for irrigation)

Dml, I would be very interested to hear where in Canada it has been suggested that carbon tax money would be used for dam construction? In Alberta approx. 1/3 of carbon tax proceeds is earmarked for rebates to Albertan's to help cope with the increased cost. The rest is earmarked for energy efficiency programs, money to be used to research how to lower emissions from large industrial emitters like the oilsands, urban mass transit like the green line in Calgary and the possible necessity of subsidizing electricity rates if they rise above the government set ceiling. I must complement you, your suggestion of dam building did make me laugh very hard :-), you forget the NDP despises us country bumpkins!

There is a certain green party in the province west of me who might disagree with you that dams are green. They have been opposing site C since the very beginning, claiming it is not renewable and only solar and wind should be used. Funny thing, just today, they apparently quit opposing it, since opposing it now that it has been approved would mean they lose their tenuous hold on the balance of power. Good to know that even greens have such high morals and principles.

[grassfarmer]

....We had this discussion before, it is easy to adapt to warming, add irrigation, grow longer season crops, maybe add a second or third crop in one year....

Well if it's another drought season this summer I'm sure you'll be popular reminding the posters on here of that. No more lamenting crops that are withering away when it's 34C and the wind is howling again - just add irrigation stupid and you'll be able to grow a second crop once the first is harvested.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Well if it's another drought season this summer I'm sure you'll be popular reminding the posters on here of that. No more lamenting crops that are withering away when it's 34C and the wind is howling again - just add irrigation stupid and you'll be able to grow a second crop once the first is harvested.

That depends on which posters. There are a lot of very happy posters here this year, as the weather returned to something closer to what many of us consider normal, since it finally quit flooding them out.

And this is yet another case of the emotional story not reflecting the reality. I was amongst those complaining about the nearly record drought we had here, and I traveled through SE Alberta and Southern Sask this summer, it was for real. But in spite of that, we collectively produced a record canola crop, wheat was only slightly smaller than 2016's monster crop. Not all of the prairies is a desert. Not everyone will be a winner, but collectively, humanity continues to be the winner in our battle against nature to produce food.

History has shown that farming in the desert or borderline desert has not been a sustainable proposition any where on earth. The records indicate thousands of years of failed civilizations throughout the middle east and around the Mediteranean, who flourished for a period of favorable climate, then perished when they ruined/eroded their soils and the climate turned against them. While this is obviously not a popular opinion to state here, farming in the Palliser triangle is not a long term sustainable project. Modern technology has enabled us to prolong that experiment for much longer than would have been possible 80 years ago, regardless of climate, but a return to the historically average rainfall(according to the tree ring and sediment records) will likely be too much for even our technology.

[farmaholic]

There are only so many "Gardens of Eden" on earth. Year to year or cyclical weather extremes will always make the "fringe" areas for crop production precarious.

Also, why doesn't anyone address oneoff's over population theory?

If we all had to live somewhere where it didn't require large amounts of released energy to live, sustain and feed a population. ...how many humans could the world support?

[sumdumguy]

[QUOTE=Hamloc;364729]

You are ignoring the impact of increased irrigation in India[ATTACH]2358[/ATTACH]

And the fact that India has built over 3200 dams (as of 2012) which supply irrigation water to increase production in a hot, and for most of the year, dry country. (Meanwhile farmers here are opposed to a carbon tax which could actually go to a project like dam construction for irrigation)

Dml, I would be very interested to hear where in Canada it has been suggested that carbon tax money would be used for dam construction? In Alberta approx. 1/3 of carbon tax proceeds is earmarked for rebates to Albertan's to help cope with the increased cost. The rest is earmarked for energy efficiency programs, money to be used to research how to lower emissions from large industrial emitters like the oilsands, urban mass transit like the green line in Calgary and the possible necessity of subsidizing electricity rates if they rise above the government set ceiling. I must complement you, your suggestion of dam building did make me laugh very hard :-), you forget the NDP despises us country bumpkins!

Some one in India had vision, bring them here and kick out our dead weight.

[grassfarmer]

History has shown that farming in the desert or borderline desert has not been a sustainable proposition any where on earth. The records indicate thousands of years of failed civilizations throughout the middle east and around the Mediteranean, who flourished for a period of favorable climate, then perished when they ruined/eroded their soils and the climate turned against them. While this is obviously not a popular opinion to state here, farming in the Palliser triangle is not a long term sustainable project. Modern technology has enabled us to prolong that experiment for much longer than would have been possible 80 years ago, regardless of climate, but a return to the historically average rainfall(according to the tree ring and sediment records) will likely be too much for even our technology.

Absolutely, in fact the tree ring data indicates that prairie wide (not just the triangle) experienced a record wet century during the 20th. So how can you claim in all the previous posts that we can overcome any temperature rise with our technology, warmer and drier is better and we want to increase C02 emissions to achieve these goals?
You just cut off that limb you climbed out on.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Absolutely, in fact the tree ring data indicates that prairie wide (not just the triangle) experienced a record wet century during the 20th. So how can you claim in all the previous posts that we can overcome any temperature rise with our technology, warmer and drier is better and we want to increase C02 emissions to achieve these goals?
You just cut off that limb you climbed out on.

Most of the prairies is not in the palliser triangle and is quite productive with less rainfall, as we proved this year. And keep in mind that all of those previous centuries droughts were not caused by anthropogenic CO2, but if they occurred today, would most certainly be blamed on climate change.

Also, I'm not saying that we CAN overcome temperature rise in the hypothetical sense, I'm saying that we ARE, in the right here, right now sense. Have you seen the famous hockey stick graph, according to Micheal Mann, we are already experiencing massive global warming, not just hypothetically in the future,today, yet the world continues to produce record crops. This inconvenient fact is incontrovertible evidence which runs counter to all claims of catastrophic global warming. It is being highly uncooperative in the catastrophic department.

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results Comes to mind. Often attributed to Churchill, but author is unknown.