Public opinion shows a split between optimism for sustainable agricultural practices and deep concerns about food security due to climate change. While many express hope for regenerative methods, significant anxiety about crop stability and the adverse effects of climate change prevails.

Farmers

Governments

Agriculture Corporations

Environmental Groups

My family has been farming in Iowa for 150 years. My dad straight up told my 12 year old son that he would see food shortages and famine in his lifetime. 

askalyce

I spoke to an emergency management director close to where I live (Midwest) that is agricultural as far as you can see, and was told that while the term "climate change" can't be mentioned, every single farmer interviewed for a recent hazard mitigation plan said that the weather has been getting wacky for the past few years, and while they could handle another few years, if things didn't start going back to normal, there would be problems.  Every.  Single.  Respondent. 

The temperature in the room went down by 10 degrees when I heard that.  Doesn't matter what you believe or what you want to call it - you may not believe in climate change, but climate change believes in you.  These people aren't stupid.  They see things happening right in front of them.

JHandey2021

I don't mean to derail your post but the article starts off with noting how climate change skeptics latch onto the idea that increased carbon dioxide is always a benefit for the plant and it's not always the case. The extra photosynthesis potentially enabled by increased carbon dioxide could be limited by the available nitrogen. 

Source: [https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/](https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/)

You could potentially get around that by using more nitrogen based fertilizer but what happens when you give certain crops too much nitrogen? Take tomatoes for example: They spend all their time growing into big beautiful plants and then don't yield any fruit. 

Source: [https://www.gardenstead.com/no-tomatoes-whats-nitrogen-got-to-do-with-it/](https://www.gardenstead.com/no-tomatoes-whats-nitrogen-got-to-do-with-it/)

It's just not a given that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will automatically lead to higher yields or bigger fruit or higher quality produce.

[deleted]

My science teacher in 6th grade (1990) mentioned once how rising CO2 levels will be good for plants and they'll grow like crazy....to a point, then it's going to be real bad. That had a profound impact on me obviously. It's been 34 years and I remember him saying it like it was yesterday.

tmac022480

Novel-Suggestion-515

I'm a dairy farmer. Still mostly denial in my community. If there's some acceptance, they're still not making any changes to adapt or to mitigate. Same on /r/farming I like poking them every once in a while to see if there's any more acceptance.

Involutionnn

Fucking farmers saying that carbon dioxide is good for plants, you know what isn't good for them? Drought, hail, wind, flooding, disease, pests – all of which they'll be getting loads of in the near future.

Farmers in the Uk are saying… oi government give us money to compensate!

takesthebiscuit

More than anything crops need stability. You cannot feed the world in an unstable climate. You can put as much NPK mix, warmth, sun etc but 2-3 days of flooding/snow/extreme heat fucks a crop up

Daavok

Yet many will deny that farming is a huge contributor to climate change, especially animal agriculture. Farming needs to change how it uses the land and resources very quickly if it does not want to contribute to its own demise.

pajamakitten

They don't care. Here they protest for use even more harmful chemicals and get more subdivise .

LightBluepono

My take on it it's, there are climate changes, but the farmer comunity it's so dependent on subsidies for their own survival that they just use every excuse and link crop yeild change on climatechange to get more subsidies...

Also we need more farmers, we need more people on the ground actually working in the Fields, learn the litle tricks, and not let agriculture be run mostly by mega corporations that cut costs /maximize profits and use every bureocratic aid from govs to maintain monopoly positions while using modern "slave" work ... the latter will just lead to a huge disaster when you need to feed much more people in the Future.

Hungbunny88

Ya...all I hear from farmers is, "IT'S AN EBIL DEMONCRAT HOAX TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS!".

SquirrelyMcNutz

Thank you for the article! Some of the farmers‘ comments go deep.

Dueco

I'm not a farmer, but my grandpa was before he died, and I've had a large garden (im to 360sqft now) for a few years now in anticipation of future food shortages. Even in the few years I've been tending plants, things have changed dramatically. Last year was wild. My zone has changed, and intense heat and drought destroyed my squash and pumpkins. My tomatoes didn't fruit until the end of August when they should have been in mid June, but they did well when they finally did. My fall potatoes were pathetic, they are a cold weather plant and by the time the weather got cool enough for them to grow they weren't getting enough sunlight and then they got killed off by an early frost before the tubers could grow to a decent size. So far this year I'm having trouble with too much rain and more bugs than I've ever had this time of year eating up my spinach, probably because we barely had a winter to kill them off.

Red-scare90

What happened to this sub, used to be so active and there used to so much more content as well

CountySufficient2586

Larger plants don’t give more nutrition

most farmers and land workers say its bullshit, its mainly polies and young city dwelling uni types who believe it

New_Leadership_324

I'v worked with farmers for a long time (precision agriculture and sensors). Most of them have been working the land for decades and understand the real effects of climate change far more than any person in the city (and by extension, reddit).

holytriplem

why is egypt green as opposed to its neighboors /?

maliko0000

Climate change is a joint Kazakh/Scandinavian/Egyptian/NW USA plot! I'm sure the Kiwis are in on it too.

ThereIsBearCum

neptune_1

Geez, poor Mexico, as if they didn't have enough problems already...

Future variation of precipitation will increase a lot on the microscale (over kilometers, some tens of kilometers), the secondary spread of precipitation will depend on trees and swamps still existing and able to perspirate. Also, wintertime precipitation in the form of rain (instead of snow) will run off quickly and will not help summertime agriculture and might also be detrimental to winter crops.

mediandude

_Nous

India and Bangladesh will face serous problems in feeding their population in the future... 

progressinmotion

Yes, bring me the 2007 stats that I might wallow in sweet and humble 2 deg warming in a century as the worst case scenario and when we still had no idea about clathrates or fracking methane emissions or Arctic ice loss or black US presidents, good times!

knucklepoetry

Not really a surprise that the super dry parts of the world are going to get even more dry really. Sad, but predictable.

chubbyurma

Lifestyle changes and personal sacrifices like veganism are still off-limits even for most climate-aware people

AustinShagwell

Agreed.  We're going to have to get serious about this on all fronts. Animal agriculture is a big part of the problem. It's the 3rd leading cause of climate change, and it's a contributing factor to the 1st and 2nd leading causes (use of fossil fuels and deforestation).

arayofwhat

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, habitat loss and biodiversity loss.  The Amazon rain forest has been burned to graze cattle and to grow soy as farm animal feed.  Brazil is a top exporter of beef and soy.

EpicCurious

**Climate and agriculture scientists set the record straight – emissions from the livestock sector must peak by 2025. By 2036, global emissions from livestock must drop by 61% to align with the goals of the Paris Agreement.** https://animal.law.harvard.edu/news-article/paris-compliant-livestock-report/ 


Livestock production, despite providing only 17% of calories and 38% of protein to the global food system, accounts for approximately 50% of GHG emissions from the food sector and 80% of agricultural land use.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

kizwiz6

The answer is cell culture meat and precision fermentation dairy, it’s a matter of time until these displace 80-90% of field grown cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens.

While it is not a defence for the emissions and incredible inefficiency of animal agriculture in places like the USA in particular (or worse yet the Amazon!!!), it is worth pointing out the following: Methane has always been emitted by ruminants and the methane they emit lasts ~11 years before breaking down. It turns out that 85% of the methane emissions from animal agriculture in the USA was produced by wild ruminants such as Bison, Elk and Deer before Europeans colonised the continent. This means that in the USA, agricultural methane emissions are only really marginally more impactful on the climate than the natural ecosystem was before the continent was converted to modern agricultural land.

While the study in question only focused on the US, there’s little reason why this isn’t likely true for most of the world except for places which were historically free of ruminants like New Zealand.

So once again, while this is no excuse and the agriculture industry has a huge way to go to clean itself up (particularly in terms of nitrous oxide emissions from nitrogen fertilisers), it is important to understand the difference of biogenic emissions that only last 11 years vs digging up and combusting billion year old carbon that’s locked under the ground.

Source: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=historic%2C+pre-European+settlement+and+present+day+contribution+of+wild+ruminants&amp;btnG=

Edit: Also, this is before considering improvements in methanogen inhibitors which are currently in late stage development and have been shown to reduce methane emissions by as much as 30%, which if achievable worldwide, would actually mean that animal agriculture would emit less than wild animals did before we domesticated them. While I recognise that these inhibitors won't be deployed worldwide, there are also other changes which can be made to cows diet such as reducing fibre in the diet or seaweed based supplements which can also reduce methane emissions by 5-30%.

Tricky_Troll

When a people live mostly in poverty, and a path is opened for a better life through deforestation and cattle growing and exporting, it is not surprising that those people take that option. Of course there will be broader consequences for those actions, but odds are those people believe it will be someone else's problems.

A lot of rain drops don't think they are to blame for the flood.

juiceboxheero

I’m more worried about using fossil methane to produce synthetic fertilizers.

I’m surprised we don’t hear more about how the completely new greenhouse gasses from the oil and gas industry absolutely dwarf the net increase in the mostly biological cycles of greenhouse gasses surrounding animal agriculture.

Shamino79

It's surprising it's not taking over. The common objection I hear is we need animal protein. No, we don't. There are plenty of sources of protein and certain vitamins. The only problematic one is B12, which has been synthesized.

zioxusOne

I see a lot of those discussions on here. The thing is most of the solutions debated to address the impacts are immediately non-starters. We have a hard enough time telling people to be mindful of their consumption during peak hours of the day. As difficult as it is to try to get people to agree on changing their behaviors in such a simple way, it’s nearly impossible to get everyone onboard with changing their entire lifestyle.

GorillaP1mp

I'm surprised to see there's not many discussions discussing the impact war has on the climate on here.

Kind_Gate_4577

Because its minimal and taken out of context. Maybe you should study the natural carbon cycle. There is a big difference between the recycling of natural carbon, and the burning of what was sequestered carbon.

StrikeForceOne

&gt;I'm surprised to see there's not many discussions discussing the impact animal agriculture has on the climate on here.   
      
Near the top-right corner of the r\/climatechange front page, you can type the word _animal_, _cattle_, _agriculture_, or a related term in the empty _search_ field and then click the magnifying glass symbol 🔍 to read troves of submissions and comments related to those terms.

Molire

We also need to consider taxing pets out of existence. Dogs and cats have a significant carbon footprint

unclejrbooth

Animals and raising animals is very important to life.

pharrigan7

All these comments in here sound worse than flat earthers. You climate boobs are a weird bunch

Penskerz

NewyBluey

Fibocrypto

Eat more bison.

Yours truly, tatanka\_christ

tatanka_christ

It’s the way we do it, not that we do it. But plant based agriculture does a lot of damage too, the big combines and machines they use, the billions of native animals and insects they kill. Restorative agriculture and permaculture work really well and have completely changed areas of the planet in the places that started reintroducing it. Getting everyone to do it is the problem.

Keep in mind that most animal agricultural land isn’t land that can be used for crops. Which leads into my point above, we can use cattle etc to help rebuild crop land if we were to cycle them through properly.

Additionally let’s put some focus on how horrid concrete cities and suburbs are, especially ones with no good public transportation system that makes people need to have an individual vehicle too. That’s another major factor. Every building needs ac/heat, big electric grids that aren’t producing clean energy for the public and more. It’s a big vicious circle

WhiskeyWilderness

DvNFin

Not sure what planet you’re on but on Earth the only land clearing is for wind farms and solar that does not work. Cows are being eliminated

duncan1961

**Not in dispute**

CO2 absorbs infrared light. Air is mostly blue (it absorbs non-blue light), but it is also complement-of-infrared, in the sense that the CO2 in the air absorbs infrared. You can confirm this with a [cool tabletop experiment involving a candle and an infrared camera](http://j.mp/GSX8sw), cue the BBC. The [Myth Busters have their version too](http://j.mp/GSXoI5).

The Earth surface radiates 390 W/m2 of infrared, while the top of the atmosphere radiates 240 W/m2. The difference is the infrared energy absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2).

You can tell which gas is absorbing the energy by looking at the colors carefully. Water vapor absorbs the most. CO2 absorbs around 30 W/m2. ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVKq1))

The industrial age has brought up the concentration of CO2 concentration by 30%, from 280 parts per million to 390 parts per million. We burned roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon in 150 years. That's enough carbon to raise the atmosphere's concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm, but 110 ppm have been absorbed by the ocean in the biosphere. ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVLds)) We know the carbon is ours because, aside from there being exactly the right amount, its isotope signature exactly matches that of fossil carbon. ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVLds))

------
**Data points with uncomfortably large error bars/Being researched further**

This 30% increase in CO2 (along with increases in other greenhouse gases) have increased the amount of energy captured by the atmosphere by 2.5 W/m2. Other chemicals we have released have generated a cooling effect of 0.9 W/m2. So the net extra amount of energy at the moment is 1.6±1.0 W/m2.

Generally, more energy translates directly into warmer temperatures. But the climate has many positive feedbacks and many negative feedbacks, so the relationship is not that direct. If you add up all the known feedback (positive and negative) you get 0.75°C warmer temperatures for each W/m2 of additional energy (with rather large error bars ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVNSx))). This number is called the climate sensitivity. Since the extra energy at the moment is 1.6±1.0 W/m, if we stopped all emissions today, we should expect 1.2°C of warming. We measure 0.7°C, so another 0.5°C is "in the pipe" even if we stop all emissions now.

We have burnt 500 billion metric tons of carbon so far. How much is there left? If we burn all of it, how high will the CO2 concentration get? Credible numbers range from [450 ppm](http://j.mp/GSVO9h) to [1300 ppm](http://j.mp/GSVRSx). If we are really unlucky, and there is a whole lot of carbon, and the climate sensitivity is super high, how hot does it get? MIT calculated 7°C of warming. ([ref](http://j.mp/OCjOQU))

What are the consequences of 7°C of warming? Warmer air holds more moisture ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVSWo)). At 7°C, the air sucks all the moisture out of the ground and nothing can grow. Food production collapses, and humanity dies. ([ref](http://j.mp/H6C7QJ))

------
**Not settled/Being researched**

* The ocean and the biosphere have absorbed 110 ppm so far. Can they absorb much more?

* Are there big negative feedbacks we haven't discovered yet? This would be great news, and people are looking as hard as they can, but nothing so far. But we are allowed to hope.

* Are there any big positive feedbacks? These would make global warming even more catastrophic than the current predictions. There are many candidates at the moment which are being studied.

* Are there ways to take the carbon out of the atmosphere? Soil carbon sequestration looks promising ([ref](http://j.mp/GSVWFF)).

* Are there ways to increase the 0.9 W/m2 cooling effect caused by our pollutants (most of which are toxic) without poisoning people?

* Which one will come first, peak oil (causing a crisis in transport), peak coal (causing a crisis in energy), population collapse due to climate change, or the deployment of forward-looking practices in commerce, in government, and in our lives, that will give us a chance to avoid all three catastrophes?

*Based on the post [The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps](http://j.mp/GSVUhc), by [Gavin Schmidt, climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York](http://j.mp/GT1RdO) (PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London), and contributor at [realclimate.org](http://j.mp/GSVUO9)*


------
**A Short History of Global Warming Science**

* In **1896** a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. 

* In the **1930s**, the United States and North Atlantic region warmed significantly versus the previous half-century; the amateur G.S. Callendar scientist suggests greenhouse warming might be on the way.

* In **1960**, painstaking measurements confirm the level of the CO2 is in fact rising in the atmosphere, year by year.

* Through **the '60s** we see the appearance of the first quantitative global warming forecast, suggesting that average temperatures would rise a few degrees within the next century.

* Also during **the '60s** smog pollution balances out greenhouse pollution and for a moment the Earth temperature stops rising. Smog is toxic, and smog causing power plants are made illegal by the [Clean Air Act in 1970](http://j.mp/GT5gJD). The smog dissipates, and the world's temperature resume their rise.

* During **the '80s**, readings of the planet's long history reveal that the climate is a chaotic system. Once provoked, it cannot be trusted to return, or stabilize. Policy makers across the world take notice.

* At the UN in **1992**, the work on the Kyoto Protocol begins.

* And on **11 December 1997**, the [Kyoto Protocol](http://j.mp/H6uD03) is signed, confirming the world's commitment to prevent catastrophic climate change, somehow.

*Based on the (fantastic) web book [A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science](http://j.mp/H6uh9H), by the American Institute of Physics*


------

So, yeah, humanity's destruction is in the cards. If we land in the high-end corner of the probability curve, and if our political institutions continue their head-in-sand approach, we're screwed. It's hard to imagine the politico would stay so aloof in the mist of people dying by the billions, so that's two somewhat big ifs.

I would like to add a personal note on how to make sense of all of this.

Let's compare this situation with the threat of total nuclear war. Since the arrival of nuclear weapons, if our politicians insist on being maximally-stupid, we all die. It's not a comfortable place to be. On the other hand, for all their faults, political institutions have not blown us up yet, and they usually do come around to big problems. The [dust bowl](http://j.mp/GSW87U) was addressed. We used to have [rivers on fire](http://j.mp/wvihZ9) and that got fixed too. Nuclear war has been avoided and the Vietnam War got stopped. It sometimes take a lot of popular pressure from the public to help our politicians along, but that's why we're here.

I help out with [350.org](http://j.mp/GSW6gc) and [justandstable.org](http://j.mp/GT1K1Y), and I have re-oriented my career to work in green building. It helps to channel the anxiety into something productive.

gmarceau

For a layman as me, potholer54 series on climate change seems to be a good source of information.

Climate Change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&amp;feature=BFa&amp;list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8&amp;lf=plpp_video

sdeha

Related question: since the Earth is warming, causing higher amounts of water vapor to be stored in the air, does this amount to more violent storms?  If so, then won't cloud cover raise the Earth's albedo?

HughManatee

Two specific points that I'd like help with, if there are any passing scientists:

* Does heating from increased IR absorption account for all of or the majority of warming, or is it a trigger which is amplified by other effects? i.e. if I did a really basic Beer Lambert calculation would the heating from absorption approximately account for the majority of the rise in temperature directly, or would the majority be due to secondary feedback effects.

* Is there a diminishing effect from increased CO2, as it acts to block out a percentage of its IR absorption band approaching 100%, or are we very far from that?

Edit: typo.

JB_UK

&gt; What is the current consensus?

[Scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. 

&gt;  and what data support this consensus?

[This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

tt23

Yes, the issue has become so politicized it's shameful. A OVERWHELMING majority say it is not only occurring but highly likely to be human induced. I ask you to please examine this article from Science which is a metanalysis examining the studies that present the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full. As others have said check out the IPCC...which is HUGELY peer-reviewed. And keep in mind anytime you get thousands of scientists to agree about something...it must have a sound basis. Scientists love to argue minutia and details; I know because I am one. In science, details and precision are everything.  

Deniers cherry pick data or simply have their facts wrong. The worst of their arguments was I believe said by Rick Perry in that "Climate scientists are simply trying to pad their pocketbooks with money...and that they'd lose their funding if the truth came out" (paraphrased). I've heard this same thing repeated on largely conservative talk shows for over *ten* years...and its hogwash. Nothing is farther from the truth. 

Could you imagine how much money a climate scientist would receive if they had strong evidence that the present climate disruption we observe was not exacerbated by humans....TONS! Spurious arguments again and again. 

EDIT: poor grammar.

I think this is one of the best sites to look for information on that topic from NASA.
 [Key Indicators](http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/)
and [The Evidence](http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

also this  [projection](http://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2010/2030-2039wOceanLabels.jpg) look scary

ZackyBeatz

To ride this post a bit, what are some good journal articles on the subject? Seminal papers and other broader papers.

There is a pretty good article by Naomi Oreskes titled, "The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we're not wrong?" addressing climate change. It is a bit old (i.e., around 2007) but still has some good information. It can be read [here](http://www.class.csupomona.edu/ec/aebres/ec435/oreskespaper.pdf). Also, the [Intergovernmental Panel on climate change website](http://www.ipcc.ch/) has some good information in their [Publications and Data/Reports section](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.T3F7_9mCn10). I hope that helps some!

RPTC

[The Science of Climate Change - Questions and Answers](http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange.html) was published by the Australian Academy of Science in August 2010. It may answer some of the questions you have about climate change, though I will admit its content is now almost two years out of date (however, the scientific consensus on the broad strokes of climate change has not changed).

gtlloyd

I've read through several comments, but can't really find an answer to the question.  It seems as if there was a hypothesis (Human's creating CO2 will cause the earth to warm), and a subsequent correlation between those two variables.  It's quite possible I missed a link, can someone share one with me which may show more conclusive evidence?

Someone i argued man made climate change with was pretty adamant that more carbon and other GH gas was released into the atmosphere by volcanic explosions than by man this century. Is there any evidence of this?  

LurkBot9000

I would like to hear a response to this scholarly article: 

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CoolingOfAtmosphere.pdf

Some of the authors' connections seem potentially dubious, yet this is a "peer-reviewed" paper.

Authors:

G. V. CHILINGAR
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V._Chilingar)

L. F. KHILYUK

O. G. SOROKHTIN
(http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html)

dialecticalmonism

Changes in climate patterns have led to unpredictable weather, affecting crop yields and threatening food security across India, prompting discussions on sustainable practices.

Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want