• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate Tab

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    it is akin to the notion that the earth was flat , science was settled at the time . of course we progressed but these idiot climate change scammers can't move ahead. of course the climate is changing and only they are stupid enough to think the govt can influence while the scandalous govt laughs all the way to the bank with this new windfall tax that keeps giving , over and over and over and over and over , etc. on the same product , plus GST

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by TOM4CWB View Post
      “…regardless of our best intentions, the mountains are slowly and inexorably eroding away, and will inevitably take all of our infrastructure with them, regardless of how much engineering we do, and what steps we take to combat climate change.”

      ‘Climate Change’ is a means to an end that is a notion that has no standards, unending possibilities of fear, chaos, guilt trips, and endless excuses to spend future generations into poverty.

      The other alternative is to excuse our government’s economic ignorance with a financial economics that “Reset” the global debt of those who now compose the World Economic Forum… at the cost of the rest of humanity that has no voice nor opportunity to object to this perverse view of civilization.

      Everyone farming globally could produce 30% less food.

      30% less crop inputs (Canada’s Federal 2030 commitment) mandated by COP 26 World Economic Forum Club of Rome elite…instituted globally has an end that canceled the food supply for 30% of humanity.

      This insane 30% across the board de-commissioning of Canadian farms, a commitment by the Federal Government of Canada with out consultation with Canadians or a parliamentary majority vote to enforce this mandate … is absurd and dangerous.

      Cheers
      Here is the MNP annalisis

      “ Implications of a Total Emissions Reduction Target on Fertilizer
      Analysis of Potential Direct Financial Impacts on Canadian Farmers’ Fertilizer Use - Macro Analysis
      Prepared for Fertilizer Canada
      SUITE 1200, 242 HARGRAVE STREET, WINNIPEG, MB, R3C 0T8 T: 204.775.4531 F: 204.783.8329 MNP.ca

      Executive Summary
      Under Canada’s Strengthened Climate Plan, the government of Canada is envisioning a 30% reduction in absolute emissions by the year 2030. That would include chemical fertilizer reductions used in crop production by Canadian farmers to achieve their part of those targets. In order to achieve that, one existing measure of the magnitude of actual reduction in agricultural fertilizer use would be the model proposed under the EU Green Deal which cites an actual reduction of 20% in fertilizer use compared to 2020 levels. MNP LLP was engaged by Fertilizer Canada to analyze the direct macro financial impact of lost production and has modeled a 20% rate reduction starting in 2023 and the effect on farmer output until 2030.
      To meet these reductions, there may be adjustments forced on farmers’ practices that will have varying degrees of net impact on farmers. This report is however based on the assumptions of continued farming practices (including crop rotation) as they are today to reflect the possibility of farmers accepting the lower production that lost nutrients would have on the production levels of their crops. The assumptions of this report summarize that effect by simply reducing the crop output and thereby presuming there is a direct correlation between available nutrients and loss in fertilizer use and impact on crop production. The analysis is focused on the effects for corn, canola, and spring wheat in Canada (three major crops that make up a major share of Canadian small grain/oilseed production), and is based on a similar number of acres for the three crops using the 5-year average, a straight-line reduction of fertilizer use starting in the year 2023 along with a straight-line reduction in yield based on industry yield response estimates for each crop, no inflation effects, and no effects of reduced crop supplies on crop prices until 2030.
      A straight-line reduction in fertilizer usage results in increased differences of actual yields versus potential yields if the status quo had been continued. By 2030, yield gaps for the three crops are estimated at 23.6 bushels per acre per year for canola, 67.9 bushels per acre per year for corn, and 36.1 per acre per year bushels per acre for spring wheat. Given constant prices, the total value of lost production grows to 10.4 billion per year by 2030 and across the years 2023 to 2030 is shown for each crop as follows:
      Implications of a Total Emissions Reduction Target on Fertilizer – Analysis of Potential Direct Financial Impacts on Canadian Farmers’ Fertilizer Use 4

      The estimated lost production has significant effects on Canada’s ability to fill domestic processing capacity (e.g., canola crushing facilities) as well as export capacity. Assuming that domestic capacity will be filled first, it is estimated that by 2030 most Canadian exports of canola will not exist (only 750,000 metric tonnes of canola will be theoretically available for export compared to more than 10 million metric tonnes today). The reduction in annual spring wheat exports is estimated to be 4.2 million metric tonnes by 2030. The analysis for the three crops, as well as any potential impacts for other crops, will significantly impact Canada’s ability to reach its targets for domestic sales and exports of agri-food products and thereby have a major detriment to the Canadian agri-food economy. Finally, reducing Canada’s contribution to the global food supply by more than 14 million metric tonnes collectively of wheat and canola per year by 2030 would have a major impact on the global supply of food in the future. There are lots of ways farmers can react to potential economic impacts of reduced fertilizer use, including acceptance of lower productivity. This would be devastating, such that any plan to reduce carbon emissions would need to be done in a way that the future productivity of major crops is maintained.

      Doesn’t that just warm your imagination to the common sense of the Federal Government whom committed our global civilization to this new future for humanity!!!
      X (Times) Canada’s food production by the rest of the planet…

      This unstable food security chaos added to Pandemic thinking… = insane volatility.

      Hang on tight!!!!

      Cheers

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
        Seldomseen, I see the exact same thing happening here too. Except from what I understand the change here occurred in the late 50s, then really got wet again starting 1990. All the big lowland areas here were hayed consistently prior to that then were impassable for decades. Supposedly the roads going through and blocking drainage was part of the cause. But it happened even where there are no roads.
        But all of the big swamps around here have stumps and old dead trees that are 10 times bigger than anything that has attempted to grow back in recent decades. Poplar and spruce before, nothing but stunted tamarack or swamp spruce now.
        I'm doing some digging in peat moss right now, and the evidence of drastic changes including dry periods and massive floods are interspersed throughout the layers as you go down through the peat Moss. You can see how the vegetation has changed throughout the millenia. Can see how it went from lake bottom to trees back to swamp back to lake back to trees over and over again.
        I am also hearing stories like that east of Carrot River where under the willows and moss they can find the remains of spruce and popular!

        Comment


          #19
          Just a question for Chuck

          18 or 20 years that changed all vegetation is that weather or climate?

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by seldomseen View Post
            Just a question for Chuck

            18 or 20 years that changed all vegetation is that weather or climate?
            I seem to recall they found unpetrified trees up north on Baffin Island... a few years ago...

            "A piece of ancient wood found recently in the Canadian Arctic.
            PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY JOEL BARKER
            Mummified Forest Found on Treeless Arctic Island
            Pines, spruces buried in landslide millions of years ago, when area was warmer.
            BYMASON INMANFOR NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC NEWS
            PUBLISHED DECEMBER 19, 2010
            • 4 MIN READ

            An ancient mummified forest, complete with well-preserved logs, leaves, and seedpods, has been discovered deep in the Canadian Arctic, scientists say.

            The dry, frigid site is now surrounded by glaciers and is completely treeless, except for a few bonsai-size dwarf trees. (See Arctic aerial pictures.)

            The forest was discovered recently by a research team who'd heard a surprising story from rangers in Quttinirpaaq National Park. The park is located on Ellesmere Island (see map), one of the world's northernmost landmasses.

            The rangers had come across wood scattered on the ground from much larger trees than the few dwarfs currently in the area, including logs that were several feet long.

            "Walking through the area, they're everywhere," said Joel Barker, an environmental scientist at Ohio State University who's leading a study of the mummified forest. "You'd have trouble not tripping over them."

            Right... actual wood millions of years old....Not petrified ... someone has a time piece that is badly adjusted... Just like 'Climate Change' 1 + 1 isn't 1M.... except if you count like Chairman Powell of the Fed... or are a C02 Climate guru ... then the imagination is the only hinderance to your 'proven facts'.

            Cheers

            Comment


              #21
              The pro climate change types here will argue sure the climate warms and cools naturally but the carbon we spew into the atmosphere is speeding it up and causing drastic changes. You can’t win an argument with them nor conspiracy theorists. There’s a group albeit a shrinking one locally who are against vaccines and running around paranoid as all heck that the government is going to forcibly jab their kids at school. So much to the point they’ve pulled their kids. The one guy was asked to not come on school property. He was out today taking pictures of white vans there saying they’re there for that but really there for maintenance. The educated and uneducated are all duped into the hysteria with accepted science and complete bs. Maybe carbon emissions really are buggering things up but play game theory here. If the proposed cures are worse for humanity than taking measures to adapt to a changing climate, then why? Like I alluded before about the ancients sacrificing people to alleviate a drought. You are limited by your knowledge at hand, and taking drastic measures when the outcome is not known is foolhardy.

              Comment


                #22
                And the bulk of us are , well , just to busy to fight the **** heads on either side

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by caseih View Post
                  And the bulk of us are , well , just to busy to fight the **** heads on either side
                  That’s the issue , and they know it . They have all the time in the world to fill “boards” up with useless talking heads .

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Well it sure looks to like the climate change naysayers spend more time trying to convince themselves they are right than they spend trying to convince the alarmists they are wrong. But hey everyone is entitled to there own opinion even if it is wrong.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Well thanks all, you just destroyed chuck to h*ll! But he will never get it.

                      "2021 has proven to be the wrong year to argue that human caused climate change is not an issue to be concerned about."

                      Nobody could EVER prove humans caused any of this!

                      You are all wrong, every day, all day, go away.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Retired View Post
                        Well it sure looks to like the climate change naysayers spend more time trying to convince themselves they are right than they spend trying to convince the alarmists they are wrong. But hey everyone is entitled to there own opinion even if it is wrong.


                        as has been painfully obvious by the pathetic track record of the alarmists predictions , lol

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Fjlipper says all the science is wrong and Case says the glaciers are not shrinking.

                          And the earth still looks flat from the kitchen window.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by fjlip View Post
                            Well thanks all, you just destroyed chuck to h*ll! But he will never get it.

                            "2021 has proven to be the wrong year to argue that human caused climate change is not an issue to be concerned about."

                            Nobody could EVER prove humans caused any of this!

                            You are all wrong, every day, all day, go away.
                            But the humans in Canada are the only ones who will be taxed into poverty.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by caseih View Post
                              [/COLOR]

                              as has been painfully obvious by the pathetic track record of the alarmists predictions , lol
                              What do you mean by pathetic track record of the alarmists predictions? Haven't you been reading Chucks posts forever, he has correctly predicted every single weather event in hindsight.
                              And not only has he correctly predicted that it would get warmer and colder and drier and wetter and more hurricanes and less hurricanes and more tornadoes and less tornadoes and more forest fires and less forest fires and longer growing seasons and shorter growing seasons, and more snow and less snow and droughts and floods and heat waves and cold snaps, but he has correctly predicted that they would be caused by CO2.

                              With a perfect predictive track record like that, he can probably even tell you who will win last night's hockey game today.
                              Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Dec 3, 2021, 09:15.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                "hindsight."

                                Like with rear end vision, worth sh*t, makes sense.

                                Comment

                                • Reply to this Thread
                                • Return to Topic List
                                Working...
                                X

                                This website uses tracking tools, including cookies. We use these technologies for a variety of reasons, including to recognize new and past website users, to customize your experience, perform analytics and deliver personalized advertising on our sites, apps and newsletters and across the Internet based on your interests.
                                You agree to our and by clicking I agree.