The Trump Presidency

[Kittamaru]

But the burden of proof remains on your side, once you make a claim, you have to prove it or will be named, with full justification, a liar.

▲
The definition of irony...?

 

[iceaura]

LOL, Sokal's hoax is also a rightwing US propaganda campaign?

Not by itself.
It's just used by them, exactly in the manner you are using it - a misrepresentation of it employed as a meme.

Why should I care about what you name a campaign?

Dunno - but it's right in front of you and you keep denying it, so it's important.

No. I accepted it as a place, in comparison with other places, were the losses by state robbery are affordable. This does not mean that I accept that robbery as just, or part of some contract.

Yes, it does. You accepted the terms, and moved in.

Maybe. I have not lived in any of them.

Yet you chose Switzerland as your closest libertarian neighborhood. And when I pointed out that many regions with much weaker and less intrusive governments existed, you defended your choice.

I share the reality base with climate change researchers as well as economists.

No, you don't. You explicitly describe their reality base as bias and guesswork and unsupported opinions and dubious extrapolations, when you are even aware of it - which is seldom.

why you have introduced here ecology I don't know.

You have made some of your silliest claims about ecological issues, and dismissed information as propaganda. Remember your post about warmer temps being good for agriculture and other plant growth, using the lush plant growth of the tropical rain forests as your example? Comical, sure, but mainly just very, very, ignorant of the real world.

Hm, are there shithole libertarian societies?

Lots of them. Choose - Africa provides some easy examples. Check out a few of the old time banana republics - small government heaven. In the US we had "company towns" (and these teach us something interesting: sometimes the companies fold, and when they do the societies left are often remarkably free even when miserably poor and in degraded circumstances. So that's what is possible for those able to firmly regulate and restrict and tax corporations, without turning the government on themselves and their neighbors: the freedom, without the poverty and degradation. )

"And you had to compromise heavily - because State governments that don't keep corporate capitalism in check, tax the rich and powerful, and intrude on things like medical care and racial or religious conflict, are mostly governing shitholes."
The "left-libertarian" cry for big government, lol.

Working government, under which great freedom and liberty is available. Doesn't have to be big - diminishing returns set in quickly, with government bureaucracies. But it has to be able to curb industrial corporations and tax the rich, to establish freedom and liberty for individuals.

In fact, it is the other way around.

It's either way, depending on whether the government is libertarian or authoritarian. There is no substitute for good governance, is the point.

If, for whatever reasons, there is big industry somewhere (which is a presupposition for not being a shithole) the state can gain a lot of money from taxing them, thus, will be strong. And the big industry itself likes a lot of regulations to frustrate small competitors.

Living and learning about the company town, the banana republic, the resource paradox.

The thing which is dangerous for the world is the US empire, US world rule

So not nuclear war, then.
Meanwhile, you seem to have overlooked some stuff: asteroid impacts and climate change, the spread of authoritarian rule with industrial backing, surveillance State technology - there are a lot of threats not only bigger and worse but far more likely than US world rule. At "ruling", the US is one of least competent imperial powers ever seen - it can't even dominate Mexico, which is right next door and weakly governed. Armies all over the place, and nobody behaves.

A strong leader, strong like bull, can set out to remedy that.

Such a world rule needs an ideology different from classical fascism. Fascism, as a variant of nationalism, would destroy automatically an essential part of the US power, namely most of its soft power.

What you get when hard power is used instead of soft is not conducive to liberty. Ask the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Cambodians, the Vietnamese.

As those who prefer Republican governance of the US are all too likely to discover.

This is a variant of a quite old argument that communism is more dangerous than fascism because communism has a chance to reach world power, fascism not.

Just different approaches. Fascism has spread farther and faster than communism, and appears to be more durable - it can rule the world, nation by nation, Unless you care how large your local strongman's territory is?

Once it becomes obvious that the US cares only about their own national interests, instead of Western values or so, a lot of soft power simply disappears, vanishes into thin air.

Leaving behind a bunch of armies with nothing to do, and problems with no diplomatic solutions.

Trump will think of something.

 

[Schmelzer]

Usual stupid accusations (as usual without evidence) disposed of. The discussion about "social contract" has now a nice end:

"I accepted it as a place, in comparison with other places, were the losses by state robbery are affordable. This does not mean that I accept that robbery as just, or part of some contract."
"Yes, it does. You accepted the terms, and moved in."

Fine. Once you decided to live in a region where robbers are known to make trouble, robbing you is ok because you accepted it.

Which countries are farther away from libertarian ideals in a world where they all are very far away is irrelevant.

No, you don't. You explicitly describe their reality base as bias and guesswork and unsupported opinions and dubious extrapolations, when you are even aware of it - which is seldom.

I describe it as influenced by political pressure. This does not mean it has no connection with reality. It means some distortion, minimal in the article texts themselves. So, to find it out is hard work.

You have made some of your silliest claims about ecological issues, and dismissed information as propaganda. Remember your post about warmer temps being good for agriculture and other plant growth, using the lush plant growth of the tropical rain forests as your example? Comical, sure, but mainly just very, very, ignorant of the real world.

They are good for agriculture, together with more CO2 and more rain. Of course, you will find exceptions, as usual, if one talks about average trends.

Lots of them. Choose - Africa provides some easy examples. Check out a few of the old time banana republics - small government heaven. In the US we had "company towns" (and these teach us something interesting: sometimes the companies fold, and when they do the societies left are often remarkably free even when miserably poor and in degraded circumstances. So that's what is possible for those able to firmly regulate and restrict and tax corporations, without turning the government on themselves and their neighbors: the freedom, without the poverty and degradation. )

And you think these examples have something to do with libertarian principles? In particular the Non-Aggression-Principle?

Working government, under which great freedom and liberty is available. Doesn't have to be big - diminishing returns set in quickly, with government bureaucracies. But it has to be able to curb industrial corporations and tax the rich, to establish freedom and liberty for individuals.

Thanks for this introduction into left-libertarianism, it appears to be a "tax (rob) the rich"-libertarianism.

So not nuclear war, then.

In the most dangerous thing, MAD in a war with Russia, US is a necessary participant. And it is the US in its empire, globalist version. For a nationalist, fascist US it is simply some other state. Moreover, even with mostly white, Christian population, so there are much more evil countries to make war with if one cannot live without that.

For the globalist US, Russia is the key enemy. Taking Russia, they would have a chance to pressure China into submission and establish the world rule which was already so close around 2000.

Meanwhile, you seem to have overlooked some stuff: asteroid impacts and climate change, the spread of authoritarian rule with industrial backing, surveillance State technology - there are a lot of threats not only bigger and worse but far more likely than US world rule.

You have forgotten alien invasion.

At "ruling", the US is one of least competent imperial powers ever seen - it can't even dominate Mexico, which is right next door and weakly governed. Armies all over the place, and nobody behaves.

Indeed, they appeared incompetent. During the last years. In the past, they were competent. Germany and Japan, enemies during the war, are under control even now.

What you get when hard power is used instead of soft is not conducive to liberty. Ask the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Cambodians, the Vietnamese.

I asked, and it appeared that it failed even against militarily much weaker states. And today they know themselves that they are unable to control large territories with pure military power. They have bases almost everywhere, but these bases are not much if the government around is no longer under control. Trump is at least thinking about taking the troops home as from Syria, as from Korea. The deep state does not allow this, up to now. But the bases cost a lot of money, and don't give much from the point of view of a nationalist/fascist. Remember, classical fascism wanted territory, to colonize it with people from the own nation/race. Actually, the US does not have enough people for this, especially from the race preferred by the fascists. So, they have no point at all of occupying territories.

Just different approaches. Fascism has spread farther and faster than communism, and appears to be more durable - it can rule the world, nation by nation,

Fascism spread farther because the economic system was better. Not really good, far away from a free market, but not the catastrophe of communism. Fascism state by state is much more harmless than a world rule. Don't forget that nationalism started as a movement aimed to unify the whole nation, which was split in parts, into a single big state. Today in Europe nationalism is a separatist movement, they want to get rid of the EU. The direction became the other one. The strongest regimes in fascist tradition now in Europe (with democratic cover) are quite small states - Croatia, the three Baltic states. For Ukraine, it is not clear at all if it survives as a state at all the next years, because there are strong forces toward separation.

 

[iceaura]

I describe it as influenced by political pressure. This does not mean it has no connection with reality

It means you have no connection with the reality involved. You got the direction of any pressure (and any supposed bias) completely wrong, for example.

They are good for agriculture, together with more CO2 and more rain. Of course, you will find exceptions, as usual, if one talks about average trends.

The standard research findings are that they are not, on average, for the near future (next century or so). The exceptions are where they are.
And your illustrations, accompanied with repeatedly posted mistakes (that the tropical rain forests are the hottest areas, that the tropical rain forest areas are the best for agriculture, that there is nowhere on the planet that is at risk of being made useless for agriculture by increasing temperatures, and so forth) are illustrations of your remarkable lack of awareness of just how much you don't know.

Thanks for this introduction into left-libertarianism, it appears to be a "tax (rob) the rich"-libertarianism.

Yep. The alternative being loss of freedom and liberty.

For the globalist US, Russia is the key enemy. Taking Russia, they would have a chance to pressure China into submission and establish the world rule which was already so close around 2000.

For the US globalist, China is probably more important than Russia. Russia only matters because of its oil and gas - like Saudi Arabia. China, on the other hand, is looming large. Unless it falls apart - which it may - and perhaps even then, it is your next worry of world rule.

And you think these examples have something to do with libertarian principles?

More than Switzerland.

Which countries are farther away from libertarian ideals in a world where they all are very far away is irrelevant.

Dude, it was your idea in the first place.

Germany and Japan, enemies during the war, are under control even now.

They are not.

I asked, and it appeared that it failed even against militarily much weaker states

So?
If it is only the success of the world rule ambition (neolib and neocon fantasy) that troubles you, note that its obvious failure has not required taking on the risks of putting a fascist in control of the US military. If you are worried about stuff like war, misery, tyrannical oppression, nuclear exchange, loss of freedom and liberty, etc, then whether or not it "fails" is a minor consideration.

Fascism spread farther because the economic system was better.

Sure. Also, it was a simpler outgrowth of natural bigman governance - easier to scale up than tribal communism. No ideological sophistication required.

Fascism state by state is much more harmless than a world rule

Not to the freedom and liberty of individuals. People live somewhere, not in "the world".

Thing is: fascism, like other mortal sins, induces fascism in others. It pressures its neighbors to militarize, to classify themselves and others by ethnicity and myth. It provides a source of support for the endemic bigman-inclined and the political ambitions of organized criminals. It's always ready to seize opportunity - plague, disaster, poorly chosen leadership - and offers a prepared solution for all troubles. Its betrayal of cooperation and mutual gain strategies induces betrayal in others. It spreads. And therein lies another threat, beyond the military one, from Republican dominance in the US. Canada may be immunized, but Trump might be able to remake Mexican politicians in his image, for example. The Philippines may suffer much more via Trump's influence than otherwise.

 

[Schmelzer]

It means you have no connection with the reality involved. You got the direction of any pressure (and any supposed bias) completely wrong, for example.

You claim I got it wrong. You claim a lot of things.

The standard research findings are that they are not, on average, for the near future (next century or so).

Feel free to provide particular papers. You know, open access papers, because to check the claims I would have to look inside the full text.

Don't tell me fairy tales about more warm, more rain, and more CO2 in the average will not be good for plant growth. A lot of exceptions are imaginable, too hot is easily imaginable. but in the average not. The deserts are usually regions where it is either too dry or too cold.

And your illustrations, accompanied with repeatedly posted mistakes (that the tropical rain forests are the hottest areas, that the tropical rain forest areas are the best for agriculture, that there is nowhere on the planet that is at risk of being made useless for agriculture by increasing temperatures, and so forth) are illustrations of your remarkable lack of awareness of just how much you don't know.

As usually, your fantasy heavily distorts what I write. The temperature peaks one usually gets where you have no clouds, while where it rains, you have clouds, moreover, if there is forest, the temperature on the ground is more moderate because of the forest. Nonetheless, the tropical forests are located in areas which get the most energy by radiation from the Sun - because this is a quite simple function of the latitude. The warming to become essentially stronger than the 1 degree per CO2 doubling needs a lot of more clouds, so in the average, you need more clouds, else there would be no reason to care. Here, of course, large local variants are imaginable. Of course, it is well-known that tropical rainforests have poor soil quality, which is something which can be easily changed using fertilizers - the reason for the poor quality is simply too much plant growth without fertilizers.

For the US globalist, China is probably more important than Russia. Russia only matters because of its oil and gas - like Saudi Arabia.

Of course, China is more important. But Russia matters because of MAD, and because you have no chance against China if it is unified with Russia because the main vulnerability is commodities, in particular, oil and gas.

China, on the other hand, is looming large. Unless it falls apart - which it may - and perhaps even then, it is your next worry of world rule.

It does not aim at world rule.

Dude, it was your idea in the first place.

It remains an illustration for an important aspect of libertarianism - decentralization of power. Among the Europeans, they are quite exceptional for this, with France being the standard example of high centralization.

They are not.

They are far too much. This is an aspect of Trump being popular among some Germans - the hope that Germany goes out of US control.

So? If it is only the success of the world rule ambition (neolib and neocon fantasy) that troubles you, note that its obvious failure has not required taking on the risks of putting a fascist in control of the US military. If you are worried about stuff like war, misery, tyrannical oppression, nuclear exchange, loss of freedom and liberty, etc, then whether or not it "fails" is a minor consideration.

Have they won the Vietnam war or lost? (Ok, the other world power of that time gave a lot of support to Vietnam.) Is Iraq now ruled by pro-American democracy-loving guys or by pro-Iranians?
And, no, the question is important, and the most important one, because if there would be a success, they would continue to do such things. I start not from my dreams, but from reality. And in reality, the first question which matters is if the military actions have given the US what they wanted. Once they haven't, one has some hope that the US may stop this.

Not to the freedom and liberty of individuals. People live somewhere, not in "the world".

Of course, fascism can close the borders and imprison his citizens. But this will be done only in some extremal cases. Without this, there remains the freedom to emigrate if the suppression becomes too strong. Given a world government, you cannot emigrate.

Thing is: fascism, like other mortal sins, induces fascism in others. It pressures its neighbors to militarize, to classify themselves and others by ethnicity and myth. It provides a source of support for the endemic bigman-inclined and the political ambitions of organized criminals. It's always ready to seize opportunity - plague, disaster, poorly chosen leadership - and offers a prepared solution for all troubles. Its betrayal of cooperation and mutual gain strategies induces betrayal in others. It spreads. And therein lies another threat, beyond the military one, from Republican dominance in the US. Canada may be immunized, but Trump might be able to remake Mexican politicians in his image, for example. The Philippines may suffer much more via Trump's influence than otherwise.

Fascism is a nationwide problem, and if not supported from outside (as, because of the anti-Russian elements of the local fascisms, by the US in the Balticum and Ukraine) not that strong. In Europe, they may play a role as anti-EU movements, but the anti-EU movements may as well appear on the left or in left-right cooperations (Greece, Italy). As long as it leads to decentralization, it has even some positive consequences. The Philippines elected their leader in Obama time, no reason to blame Trump here, blame Obama if you think you have to blame somebody.

Of course, fascism will always remain an important danger in every democracy. Fascism is something very natural in connection with majority rule. In some sense, democracy is fascism in disguise. There is not much one can do against this, except more decentralization. The smaller the state, the lower the possibility to create a really dangerous fascist state, which would require autarky and closed borders, it would make emigration out of the fascist state much easier (you would not have to learn a different language and live in a foreign culture after emigration if the fascist state does not cover the whole nation). If the size of the state goes down to a small town or a quarter of a big one, emigration would become a triviality, simply what many people do anyway.

 

[iceaura]

It does not aim at world rule.

China aims at world-scale influence and economic domination. And it is in conflict with the US. Its head of State recently got term limits removed, so he is likely in power for life.

Don't tell me fairy tales about more warm, more rain, and more CO2 in the average will not be good for plant growth.

Over the near term, next fifty-hundred years, in the context of human agriculture, those are not fairy tales. They are the expected, likely realities.

A lot of exceptions are imaginable, too hot is easily imaginable. but in the average not

Your imagination is not informed. It is misleading you about likely averages - remember your claim that the warmest regions and most fertile agricultural areas were in the rainforest tropics?

The deserts are usually regions where it is either too dry or too cold.

The deserts are always where it is too dry, by definition. The highest risk areas for increasing temperatures are places of fairly high humidity, including where millions of people live and agriculture currently flourishes - the lower Yangtze river valley, southern delta rice region, and "Ovens" of China, the most fertile regions in Pakistan and India, etc. Since heat waves increase by multiples of the average temperature rise, and people, animals, and crops, must handle the heat waves rather than the average temperatures, these areas are dangerously close to being rendered very difficult or useless for agriculture. A drop in productivity is all but guaranteed in the near future - outright disaster is easily possible, the odds are not long.

You claim I got it wrong. You claim a lot of things.

And corrected you, with explanations and examples and names of the officials involved and so forth. From which you learned nothing. You still think the US State influence on climate researchers favors exaggeration of climate change and bias toward publicizing the dire possibilities. You still think the IPCC is pushing fear, rather than downplaying the worst risks and trends. That's silly, but you don't know what the physical reality is so you can't see it.

Have they won the Vietnam war or lost? (Ok, the other world power of that time gave a lot of support to Vietnam.) Is Iraq now ruled by pro-American democracy-loving guys or by pro-Iranians?

Either way, the countries were ruined and their populations badly harmed. And those promoting and organizing the wars made out like bandits - huge profits, consolidated power within the US. Why would they care who "won"?

And, no, the question is important, and the most important one, because if there would be a success, they would continue to do such things.

A fascistic ruling cadre will continue to do such things regardless of technical "success", if they gain power and money domestically. The authoritarian corporate capitalist backers of Vietnam and Iraq invasion - the fascistic influence on US foreign policy - made a lot of money and gained a lot of power domestically from the apparent military failures in those two wars, for example. They are currently pushing for war with Iran - which they know the US will likely bog, as in Iraq, but so what?

Of course, fascism can close the borders and imprison his citizens. But this will be done only in some extremal cases. Without this, there remains the freedom to emigrate if the suppression becomes too strong

Fascistic governments frequently make emigration difficult. If there is nowhere to easily emigrate to that is not likewise fascist, that hardly matters.

Fascism is something very natural in connection with majority rule. In some sense, democracy is fascism in disguise.

Corporate capitalism, first. Then the democracy becomes vulnerable.

Fascism is a nationwide problem, and if not supported from outside (as, because of the anti-Russian elements of the local fascisms, by the US in the Balticum and Ukraine) not that strong.

It is quite strong in the US, without external support (barring Putin's recent contributions). It is also strong in Russia, without outside support, but the thread topic would be the Republican Trump's presidency.

 

[Kittamaru]

Usual stupid accusations (as usual without evidence) disposed of.

That reads like a clear admission of defeat to me Schmelzer. Thanks for owning up to it

Don't tell me fairy tales about more warm, more rain, and more CO2 in the average will not be good for plant growth. A lot of exceptions are imaginable, too hot is easily imaginable. but in the average not. The deserts are usually regions where it is either too dry or too cold.

Fairy tail eh?

https://www.southernstates.com/Blog/index.aspx?topic=How-Can-Heavy-Rainfall-Impact-Crop-Production?

While plants need water, of course, excess amounts of rainfall can have a negative impact on yields. How does too much water impact crop production, and what can growers do to prevent problems?

When too much rain falls, one of the primary threats that growers face is nutrient leaching, says Southern States Agronomist Eddie McGriff. Certain nutrients tend to leach more than others. "Nitrogen, potassium, sulfur and boron have a higher tendency to be leached out of the soil," McGriff says. A lack of any of these nutrients can stunt a plant's growth.

Too much water can also leave the soil waterlogged, which may increase risk of compaction. In addition, oxygen in the soil becomes depleted after a few days under water. "Growers need to watch out for waterlogging and oxygen depletion in the soil in high rainfall years," McGriff advises.

Rain can delay planting, which becomes a problem for crops planted early, like corn. "Because corn needs to be planted early, too much rain in the spring that causes delays can negatively affect the corn crop's yield," McGriff says.

With cotton in particular, rain at the end of the season can have harmful effects. Hardlock and boll rot can become more prevalent with excess rain, as cotton needs sunny weather for the bolls to open up before harvest.

And the effect doesn't end at crops, either, as we saw in 2014:
https://southsaskfarmer.com/2014/08/27/a-slow-frustrating-start-to-the-2014-harvest/

Although harvest has begun, it has been fraught with difficulties thus far. Humid, foggy nights and rain have plagued us so far, with over a week’s worth of combining only resulting in a short 750 acres completed. For 3 combines, that is pretty sad.

We began our harvest last Tuesday in winter wheat, the first crop to be mature. It was a difficult decision to combine it at all, considering its stubbornly high moisture content that refused to come down. Generally, we should be harvesting wheat at 13.5% moisture. That is what our buyers want, and that is often what our contracts stipulate. Any higher than that, and we may be on the hook to pay a drying fee, which can become quite costly. Our wheat was coming off between 15 and 17.5% moisture, which is about as high as we can safely store. Normally, we would just wait a couple of days for the moisture to come down. This year, cloudy, cool days with incredibly humid nights and fog persisting well into the morning simply would not let the wheat dry down. Making matters worse was a forecast for substantial rainfall for the coming weekend. We were left with little choice but to harvest it anyway.

and

The rain on Friday was part of a massive system that was advertised to produce substantial rainfall for us. At this time of the year, rain is not welcome. Ripe crops lose their color to washing out from the rain, ripe seeds can sprout, and fields become difficult to move heavy equipment around in. All in all, rains during harvest simply cost money and cause even more stress in an already stressful time of year. Quality losses in crops like durum and lentils can be very costly.

Depending on the field, we received anywhere from 1.5-2 inches of rainfall from Friday to Sunday. While that was ugly for us, I must say that I know other farmers who fared far worse, with some rain totals reaching over 4 inches. It has been quite a few years since we had an event like that on our farm, and I remember it vividly. Long story short, it was not fun, and we had a lot of stuck machinery that year. Harvest was long and miserable.

Two to Four inches of additional rain made harvest time a nightmare for these folks. And that's not the worst of it:

https://southsaskfarmer.com/2014/09/04/why-is-rain-such-a-problem-at-harvest/

• Soggy fields- Combines are exceptionally large and heavy machines. While they are surprisingly capable despite their lumbering look, too much rain will overwhelm their ability to move around in the fields. Worse, the support equipment tends to be less able to manage mud, especially semis. Trucks need to be able to get in and out of our fields without getting stuck, and also need to traverse little, narrow back roads that generally lack gravel. With these roads becoming wetter and wetter, we can lose our ability to get to some of our fields. Even the grain cart, attached to a 550 horsepower tractor with tracks, can be overwhelmed in wet conditions. Ever get a 1300 bushel, 55,000 pound, top-heavy wagon stuck out in the middle of a field? Neither have I! And I don’t want to know what it takes to get it unstuck, either.

• Quality loss- This is arguably the biggest detriment to us in a wet fall. We grow a lot of acres of quality-sensitive crops that are very susceptible to rains when they are mature. Durum in particular quickly loses its glowing amber colour, which is a major factor when it comes to grading. A downgrade from a #1 durum to a #3 can be worth $1 per bushel or more. It’s pretty easy to do the math on that when you grow over 100,000 bushels! Even worse, if the weather stays wet long enough, the crop could become animal feed. Feed wheat right now is worth $3 per bushel less than good quality durum. Ouch! Lentils, green peas and other wheat classes are susceptible as well, and losses can quickly build up in those crops along with the durum.

• Yield loss- Eventually, given enough rain, even tolerant crops like canola can start to lose yield. How does this happen? Quite simply, the rain washes the seed so much and so aggressively that it begins to lose weight. The lighter each seed gets, the fewer tonnes of grain you end up with at the end of the day. Wheat is the most sensitive to this (of the crops we grow on our farm, that is), and can actually lose quite a large amount of yield to this phenomenon.

• Expensive field clean-up: This goes back to the soggy field issue; all those ruts you make with combines, trucks and support equipment must be cleaned up at some point. You’d be amazed how long ruts will hang around if you do nothing with them! This goes right back to basic field tillage, which we usually try to avoid. Tillage burns fuel and uses up iron, and can quickly become a substantial cost.

• Active weather creates more active weather: When we get trapped in these weather patterns, other events can happen, such as hail, big winds (which can blow away canola swaths in a hurry) and even – gulp – snow. Dry airmasses promote quiet, boring weather, which is what we need.

Of course, the above problems are really only the beginning… worst-case scenarios are much grimmer. Enough rain for enough time will cause far more severe damage, such as sprouting, which can quickly make cereal crops feed; flooding, ruining hundreds of acres of crops; delayed maturity, which is all fine and good as long as it stays cloudy- but that first clear night can lead to early frosts, further reducing the quality of the crop. Are we trending into a worst-case scenario right now? It’s hard to say at this point. If our durum and spring wheat are sprouting, we will find out when we start combining again. Right now, we simply don’t know.

Finally, an exceptionally wet fall such as this one can complicate seeding next year’s crop. For example, 2010 was a fall much like this one. September was miserable, with most of our crop sitting in rains for the better part of the month. Fields were soggy, and never had enough time to dry out before winter came. Winter proved to be a wet one, with substantial snowfall burying wet fields for the duration of the season. 2011 is a year we will remember for the rest of our lives- the year we couldn’t seed the crop. The fall previous was a big part of the reason for that disaster. Seeing a fall turn so wet again is concerning. Especially when we have plans to seed 2,000 acres of winter wheat! We always seed it into canola stubble, which has yet to even be harvested yet. We have 2 weeks to seed that crop before it gets too late. That’s not much time, and the concerns I have for next spring increase my anxiety to get the winter wheat in the ground.

Continued:

 

[Kittamaru]

Or:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...burdened-by-catastrophic-rainfall-crop-losses

In South Carolina, catastrophic rainfall is making this a grim year for one of the state's biggest industries: farming. Just when fall crops were ready to harvest, extensive flooding drowned fields and sidelined farm workers.

"Water was absolutely over our heads where we stand right now," says South Carolina lawmaker and farmer Kirkman Finlay III, as he walks through a low-lying field on his 6,000-acre farm in Columbia. About two months ago, he says, record-setting downpours led to such severe flooding that some of his workers used a boat to check on this area.

A boat... they had to use a fucking BOAT to check on their fields!

Farming accounts for one out of every 10 jobs in the state, and this year, many farmers will have the worst crop losses they've ever seen.

Hugh Weathers. "I have seen all parts of this state, except maybe one corner ... severely impacted by the timing and the amount of this rain."


Some of the one-day rain totals were so large that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration initially thought they were fake. Climate scientist Jake Crouch says the massive rainfall was the result of Hurricane Joaquin out in the Atlantic and an inland weather system.

Let me emphasize that some more - the rainfall was so severe that NOAA actually thought they were faked reports. Nope, it was real!

Long says the floods "messed up the quality on the soybeans, and it also pretty much messed up the cotton crop. We're going to come up short this year. I told some folks it's a good thing I like soup and cheese toast, because I'm going to probably be eating a lot of it this winter."

About two hours east, in Turbeville, S.C., Jeremy Cannon is looking at significant losses on every one of his crops.

"There's farmers that's going to quit after this year if we don't find some help. I'm on the list. I've discussed it with my father. He's been doing it his whole life, and I've been doing it my whole life."

But if you can't pay your bills, he says, then there's not much of a choice but to shut down. Cannon is hoping for a federal emergency loan and says he'll decide whether to fold by March.

Guess what Schmelzer - no farmers, no food. Lemme know how well you do feeding your family on right-wing propaganda!

http://www.southwestfarmpress.com/insurance/failed-cotton-claims-growers-encouraged-make-plan

“We’re back to the 2011, 2013 years where the dryland didn’t emerge,” says Don Dixon, vice president of insurance, AgTexas Farm Credit Services, Plainview. “I don’t know of any dryland acres that we don’t have a claim on except maybe in an area around Lockney.”

Dixon reports growers with irrigated cotton acres, including drip, are struggling to establish a viable stand as well. “Claims are up 70 percent from last year but that’s because we had rain in 2017. If anything, guys had trouble with too much moisture a year ago.”

Around Brownfield, Bree Nelson, AgTexas FCS regional vice president of insurance services, says, “It’s going to be a heavy claim year. We knew in April and May, when guys were starting to think about planting and they didn’t plant until the 15th of May — which is not normal for our area, even as far south as we are. All the dryland, with exception to very few patches, is pretty much considered a failure. There are a few isolated spots where it came up, but if we don’t get a rain on it in the next 10 days, it will die.”

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.co...elihood-of-massive-us-crop-failure-74355.aspx

The Met Office used a novel approach to determine the probability of severe water stress in three major corn-producing regions that are responsible for 40% of global production, including the Corn Belt in the US (Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Nebraska, Indiana, and Nebraska). Instead of relying on observed historical data – which the researchers found to seriously underestimate the impact of climate change – the new study used a model focusing on water stress.

“We haven’t seen a major drought in the US and China in the same year in the last 30 years,” said Chris Kent, the lead researcher on the study. “Our simulations indicate that that type of scenario is possible in the current climate.”

In the US, the chance of all six Corn Belt states simultaneously experiencing severe water stress is about 20% per decade. Similar events did conspire in 1988 and 2012, the researchers noted, leading to estimated losses of more than $30 billion worth of crops.

“Because the [crop insurance] program is so successful and so many acres are insured, I don’t think it [a massive crop failure] would be a big problem for the farming community,” Janson said. “2012 would be a good year to point to – it was an absolutely devastating year for much of the crop belt, but most farmers were protected because they purchased the crop insurance. That’s what it’s there for.”

Guess what, as they just said - it's happened before, and is liable to happen again. I know these facts are inconvenient for you Schmelzer, but you can't change facts, no matter how much your orange overlord wishes he cold.

http://www.richmond.com/business/lo...cle_c05c40db-c864-5dd0-beb8-128f06f78dc5.html

Chuck McGhee couldn’t have predicted the 15 inches of rain that fell on his farmland in eastern Hanover County over the past month, but he’s well aware of its impact.

His farm lost about 55 acres of corn that was already knee-high, about 10 percent of his acreage for that crop. Now it’s too late to replant.

Steve Gallmeyer of Gallmeyer Farms in eastern Henrico County closed his pick-your-own strawberry picking operations on June 3 — early for the season — because of the excess water.

“We had nearly 20 inches of rain in a three-week period during peak ripening and production period,” he said. “It pushed too much water into the ripe fruit.”

Though Gallmeyer said the farm usually closes in early to mid-June, the rain throughout May significantly reduced the yields and the time visitors could spend at the pick-your-own strawberry patch.

“People don’t come out and pick in the rain, but fruit doesn’t stop ripening because it’s raining,” he said. “All during the time span that people would’ve been there picking nice ripe berries, fruits were rotting.”

He estimates that the rain has resulted in about an 80 percent loss in sales.

80% loss... not an insignificant number. How would you fare, Schmelzer, if you lost 80% of your income?

[/quote]“Everything was kind of at a standstill for a number of weeks,” said Rodes, whose farm also grows soybeans, wheat, alfalfa and barley. “The main issue is getting into the field. We can’t get the equipment into the field.”[/quote]
And again, that much water makes it difficult, sometimes impossible, to even get the equipment into the fields to plant at all.

 

[Kittamaru]

As you can see, Schmelzer, the only "fairy tale" here is yours... I hope having that little dream-bubble popped doesn't damage you too much.

 

[Quantum Quack]

As you can see, Schmelzer, the only "fairy tale" here is yours... I hope having that little dream-bubble popped doesn't damage you too much.

Like most climate change deniers he might accept that the oceans (70+% of Earths surface) are a couple of degrees hotter but not consider what that means in evaporation/precipitation/humidity. He probably doesn't know that it is not so much the heat that kills people but the humidity when combined with heat.
it is pretty simple really ....
hotter oceans = greater evaporation
hotter oceans = greater evaporation = greater atmospheric mass = bigger storm/weather dynamics. ( drier /wetter/ windier)
hotter oceans = higher wet bulb temps (humidity+heat)
hotter oceans = higher precipitation ( rain/snow/hail etc)
hotter oceans = rising sea levels (Expansion due to heat/ Ice cap melt)
and so on....

Just have to research ocean temp increases to work it out...apply a little logic and go figure...

 

[pjdude1219]

Hm, are there shithole libertarian societies? There is something remembering this. Some oppressive states are simply too weak to enforce their claims, or too corrupt. This can lead in practice to some more real freedom - the government simply does not bother you, or if the bureaucrats bother you, you simply give them some money and nonetheless do what you like. But such governments are usually weak because the economy is weak too. And the de facto freedoms are not secure at all. If such a state could enforce what is in his law, that would be a much more repressive state than what actually happens on the ground, and nobody would even think about naming that somehow libertarian.

all of them. at best libertarianism leads to oligarghy and worst fascism. the lumanaries of libertarianism are closely linked to autocracy and fascism. von mises wanted to restore the austrian hungarian monarchy. the founders of the chicago school were allmost to a man in bed with pinochet. libertarianism is an antifreedom ideology incapable of dealing with the real world consequenses of it beliefs.

 

[Schmelzer]

That reads like a clear admission of defeat to me Schmelzer. Thanks for owning up to it

LOL. I'm simply bored to write all the time the same straightforward response. It's boring for the readers too to read all the time "This is a defamation/fantasy/lie, without any proof, without any quote, quote something supporting your claim or you are a liar/slanderer."

What's your point of mentioning some too heavy rainfalls which cause losses? I can tell you about a region which is not endangered by such heavy rainfalls. It is known as Sahara. I have never heard about crop losses there. More seriously, of course, if the rainfall changes, the farmers have to change too. If there will be regularly such heavy rainfalls that you need a boat to check their fields, they may try this:

There are cultures who love such conditions.

China aims at world-scale influence and economic domination.

It has created a good base for the future and the main problem is to secure what has been reached. This is all the Silk road about - transport in both directions - for commodities as well as products - which cannot be easily broken with a few ships by the US.

Over the near term, next fifty-hundred years, in the context of human agriculture, those are not fairy tales. They are the expected, likely realities.

Over five hundred years ... You don't know anything about the technology in 100 years but speculate about man-made warming in 500 years.

Your imagination is not informed. It is misleading you about likely averages - remember your claim that the warmest regions and most fertile agricultural areas were in the rainforest tropics?

No, I don't, because I know that rainforest usually has poor soil, and would not use "fertility" to describe it. The production of biomass is a different question.

The deserts are always where it is too dry, by definition.

Means more rains - less deserts, not? Of course, not, the rain will be somehow concentrated in small areas where we have only floods, far to much for any agriculture, and the deserts become even greater. But I see, you already have the catastrophic scenarios:

The highest risk areas for increasing temperatures are places of fairly high humidity, including where millions of people live and agriculture currently flourishes - the lower Yangtze river valley, southern delta rice region, and "Ovens" of China, the most fertile regions in Pakistan and India, etc. Since heat waves increase by multiples of the average temperature rise, and people, animals, and crops, must handle the heat waves rather than the average temperatures, these areas are dangerously close to being rendered very difficult or useless for agriculture. A drop in productivity is all but guaranteed in the near future - outright disaster is easily possible, the odds are not long.

In this case, I even believe you, without a link, that you have a reference to this catastrophic scenario.

You still think the IPCC is pushing fear, rather than downplaying the worst risks and trends. That's silly, but you don't know what the physical reality is so you can't see it.

As usual, you lie. It was simple to search "IPCC" with "Schmelzer" as the author, two of five hits were simply quotes of your bs, the remaining three were:

That there will be always some fanatics who are more extreme than the media, thus, see the direction of distortion and political pressure different, is predictable, they are necessary part of any hysteria. You have made sufficiently clear that you are one of such extremists, given that you have presented the IPCC as prejudiced in the other direction. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/holocaust-and-other-forms-of-denial.158929/page-22#post-3452814

And therefore I make no claims about any particular statements made by the IPCC. So, I'm also not denying what the IPCC claims. But, again, I have not discounted any research findings. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/holocaust-and-other-forms-of-denial.158929/page-22#post-3452972

I have no disagreement about this with science or the IPCC or so. I do not question AGW. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/holocaust-and-other-forms-of-denial.158929/page-37#post-3469375

Such evidence would be what you would have to provide, every time you post fantasies about what I think or write.

Like most climate change deniers he might accept that the oceans (70+% of Earths surface) are a couple of degrees hotter but not consider what that means in evaporation/precipitation/humidity.

Do you really think it makes sense to follow Iceaura and speculate freely about what I might think? Do I have to ask you to link evidence, every time you speculate without sources about what I think, too? Reading what I wrote in this thread would help you to understand that I do not doubt at all that AGW leads to more precipitation, more rain and so on.

A fascistic ruling cadre will continue to do such things regardless of technical "success", if they gain power and money domestically.

That's the problem not only with fascists, its a problem with democratic politicians too. Even a greater one, given that they always, because of elections, have a serious risk to lose their power if they don't get support from the people, and unfortunately war delivers such support.

Fascistic governments frequently make emigration difficult. If there is nowhere to easily emigrate to that is not likewise fascist, that hardly matters.

And, following your argument in defense of social contract, once you don't emigrate, you support fascism.

Corporate capitalism, first. Then the democracy becomes vulnerable.

Only in the sense that corporatism is the economic system of fascism. If you reduce fascism to the non-economic elements, then other forms of an economy like socialism with democracy can be even more vulnerable.

all of them. at best libertarianism leads to oligarghy and worst fascism. the lumanaries of libertarianism are closely linked to autocracy and fascism. von mises wanted to restore the austrian hungarian monarchy. the founders of the chicago school were allmost to a man in bed with pinochet. libertarianism is an antifreedom ideology incapable of dealing with the real world consequenses of it beliefs.

The Chicago school guys were economists, who have not cared about anti-fascist ideology. Pinochet was in power, the economy a disaster, and, by the way, some of their former students from Chile played a role in this. The consequence was an improvement of the economic situation. I would guess, that improvement was only rightwing propagandists playing me, and in reality it was an economic disaster, not? But at least in their own propaganda, they cared about the real world consequences and were quite satisfied with them. Do you have a problem if fascist or communist regimes, following recommendations of free market proponents, improve the economy of their countries and make their own people richer?

 

[Bells]

More seriously, of course, if the rainfall changes, the farmers have to change too. If there will be regularly such heavy rainfalls that you need a boat to check their fields, they may try this:

There are cultures who love such conditions.

You do know that too much rain for rice growers, results in drowned crops, yes?

 

[pjdude1219]

The Chicago school guys were economists, who have not cared about anti-fascist ideology.

yes i know the chicago school were economists funnily enough most libertarian lumanaries are economists and not political scientists. thats the point they felt a fascist dictator was the perfect place to implement libertarian ideas.

Pinochet was in power, the economy a disaster, and, by the way, some of their former students from Chile played a role in this. The consequence was an improvement of the economic situation.

could you please parse this better. it reads as you saying they made things worse and better.

I would guess, that improvement was only rightwing propagandists playing me, and in reality it was an economic disaster, not? But at least in their own propaganda, they cared about the real world consequences and were quite satisfied with them. Do you have a problem if fascist or communist regimes, following recommendations of free market proponents, improve the economy of their countries and make their own people richer?

i cant tell if you being willfully ignorant or if your just that obtuse. you really dont care despite your constant whining about fascism your chosen economic and political ideology is so closely asscoiatiated with creating and propping up fascists and autocrats. its like you read something completely different from what was written. i have a problem with a pro fascist ideologies like libertarianism.

 

[Kittamaru]

LOL. I'm simply bored to write all the time the same straightforward response. It's boring for the readers too to read all the time "This is a defamation/fantasy/lie, without any proof, without any quote, quote something supporting your claim or you are a liar/slanderer."

What's your point of mentioning some too heavy rainfalls which cause losses? I can tell you about a region which is not endangered by such heavy rainfalls. It is known as Sahara. I have never heard about crop losses there. More seriously, of course, if the rainfall changes, the farmers have to change too. If there will be regularly such heavy rainfalls that you need a boat to check their fields, they may try this:

There are cultures who love such conditions.

Of course Schmelzer - because the sand of the Sahara is so nutrient rich as to be able to support ample crop growth simply by adding water.

Thank you for demonstrating your complete and utter ignorance when it comes to such things as farming.

As for "farmers changing" - let me ask you - if all the farmers that currently grow corn, wheat, soybeans, strawberries, orchards, etc all changed over to rice paddies... what do you think would happen to the price of rice? Or, for that matter, to the availability of produce in your average supermarket?

Honestly, do you even think at all before you speak?

As Bells mentioned -
http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/d...r/rice-doctor-fact-sheets/item/heavy-rainfall

What it does
When rice fields experience heavy rainfall, freshly seeded fields tend to have poor distribution, germination, and emergence.

Why and where it occurs
The problem happens when heavy rain falls on freshly seeded fields and is worse if the field has been wet direct-seeded. The problem tends to be worse in heavy textured soils.

How to identify
Direct-seeded fields affected by heavy rainfall have poor plant stand, especially if wet direct seeded.

The pattern of damage is usually general across the entire field but may be more obvious in low spots.

Various problems can affect crop planting or establishment. These are cloddy soil, seed too deep, soil too soft at seeding, heavy rainfall at seeding, soil crusting, poor seed quality, poor seed distribution, low seed rate, water stress, muddy water at seeding, clogged seeder and/or pests such as ants, birds and rats that remove seeds at planting.

To confirm the cause of problem, ask the farmer if the field was directly seeded, and when it was seeded relative to the rainfall.

Why is it important
Heavy rainfall during planting or crop establishment is becoming an increasingly important problem as wet direct seeding spreads throughout Asia. Because of the nature of the problem it tends to be seasonal and cannot really be reliably predicted. When it occurs, fields need to be re-plowed and re-seeded.

How to manage
The critical time is during the first two days after sowing. Heavy rainfall is much worse on wet direct-seeded fields. To manage:

• Perform surface seeding.
• Ensure good field drainage.

But, sure, tell us how more rain is "a good thing" Schmelzer. Should be good for a laugh.

 

[iceaura]

Over five hundred years ... You don't know anything about the technology in 100 years but speculate about man-made warming in 500 years

Fifty to one hundred years, as any reader in good faith would know from my description of it as "near term". (And if you honestly read it as fifty hundred, that's five thousand - you couldn't type that, because your "misread" would have been too obvious).
And technology has nothing to do with it.
And the "speculation" was not about future AGW, but the effects of current AGW on agriculture.
You don't read in good faith.

No, I don't, because I know that rainforest usually has poor soil, and would not use "fertility" to describe it. The production of biomass is a different question.

The production of food, not biomass, was the question at hand at the time. That, and your claim that the tropical rain forests were the hottest places on the planet outside of some deserts. You were arguing that increasing warmth would be good for agriculture, because rain forests were the warmest plant-growing regions on earth - which proved to you, because you are some kind of idiot, that no place on the planet with enough water would be harmed for agriculture by becoming hotter.

As usual, you lie. It was simple to search "IPCC" with "Schmelzer" as the author, two of five hits were simply quotes of your bs, the remaining three were:

That's you dissembling, after being called on your posted presumptions of bias in the standard AGW research, after being called on your description of IPCC compiled research as questionable and mere opinion and speculation and so forth (you regarded as established reality only the direct CO2 temperature boost as established by physics, remember? ).
In other words, you are on record as claiming that the political pressure on the IPCC and the research it compiles is exactly as I described you claiming. You claim vaguely to accept the IPCC reports when directly braced, but you specifically deny them in all your other posting, and dismiss them whenever they appear in the media. You claim to correct for their "bias", explicitly, in your arguments, and you get that bias exactly backwards.

And, following your argument in defense of social contract, once you don't emigrate, you support fascism.

Not my argument. My argument was that once you do emigrate, and agree to reside somewhere by choice, you accept the local social contract.

Only in the sense that corporatism is the economic system of fascism. If you reduce fascism to the non-economic elements, then other forms of an economy like socialism with democracy can be even more vulnerable.

If you leave out the corporate capitalism, you don't have fascism any more. Other forms of economic organization can be co-opted in oppression and authoritarian government, but these governments are not fascist.

The Republican Party in the US, with or without Trump, is fascist. That means corporate capitalist, not socialist.

 

[Tiassa]

​

 

[Quantum Quack]

Do you really think it makes sense to follow Iceaura and speculate freely about what I might think? Do I have to ask you to link evidence, every time you speculate without sources about what I think, too? Reading what I wrote in this thread would help you to understand that I do not doubt at all that AGW leads to more precipitation, more rain and so on.

Like I implied, you maybe quite capable of accepting Climate change as being real but as a part of denial fail to attempt to appreciate just what that climate change means... Don't worry, you are not alone in this. The vast majority of the worlds population fails to understand what hotter oceans means. Oceans that are gaining heat as you read this post.

Your posts indicate that while you may be a reasonable thinker you fail to delve far enough or deep enough into the issues, thus rendering your posts vulnerable to being labeled naive and ignorant.

Global agriculture requires above most things, a degree of certainty regarding water. If there is no certainty there is no investment in crops.
No crops = no food = global famine. Famine leads to mass migration of persons looking for food. Food wars further forcing people to leave their homes in search of a solution.
Borders go up and are reinforced with guards and walls. People die en masse.
It's all happening now and will only get worse as time progresses and rather quickly. Why? Because the oceans are getting hotter and the evaporation rate is increasing all the time.

And while Putin and you may predict a better agri future for Russia due to the thawing of much of the Siberian region he fails to understand that by the time the Siberian region has reached a position of agriculture feasibility, the state of the global climate will render any agriculture, any where virtually impossible ( except under reinforced domes/structures)

=====
Trump administrations reluctance to accept the reality of hotter oceans ( global warming) is a significant part of the problem. Certainly not part of the solution.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Snow in the Sahara Jan 2018

 

[Schmelzer]

Fifty to one hundred years, as any reader in good faith would know from my description of it as "near term". (And if you honestly read it as fifty hundred, that's five thousand - you couldn't type that, because your "misread" would have been too obvious).
And technology has nothing to do with it.
And the "speculation" was not about future AGW, but the effects of current AGW on agriculture.

The technology has to do a lot with AGW. If technology becomes able to control thermonuclear synthesis, there will be no energy problem in the near future at all. This is something which can be expected for the next 100 years. Add electro-cars, and there is no longer any straightforward need to burn much coal or gas or so. So, the anthropogenic part of AGW can easily vanish, within a time region much less than your 500 years.

The production of food, not biomass, was the question at hand at the time.

No. If you thought so, this can count as a simple misunderstanding.

That, and your claim that the tropical rain forests were the hottest places on the planet outside of some deserts. You were arguing that increasing warmth would be good for agriculture, because rain forests were the warmest plant-growing regions on earth - which proved to you, because you are some kind of idiot, that no place on the planet with enough water would be harmed for agriculture by becoming hotter.

A lot of lies and invectives. I claim that in the average, the predicted increase in temperature and precipitation will be good for agriculture, on the average. "No place would be harmed" is something I would not say, first of all because I'm not so stupid to think so, then also because I already know that you like to find some minor and unimportant exceptions to reject claims about averages. There are, obviously, large regions where we have essentially no agriculture because it is either too cold or precipitation is missed. There are even larger regions where climate allows only one harvest per year, while in other regions you have two of them. Try to find out where we have regions with two harvests (in the average, of course).

That's you dissembling, after being called on your posted presumptions of bias in the standard AGW research, after being called on your description of IPCC compiled research as questionable and mere opinion and speculation and so forth (you regarded as established reality only the direct CO2 temperature boost as established by physics, remember? ).

Not exactly. The direct CO2 effect is much easier to compute and to predict its consequences. The question if something beyond this is established or not is much harder to find out if you don't simply trust IPCC. Once I have not made the necessary research, I have neither a reason to doubt nor to support the IPCC claims.

You claim vaguely to accept the IPCC reports when directly braced, but you specifically deny them in all your other posting, and dismiss them whenever they appear in the media. You claim to correct for their "bias", explicitly, in your arguments, and you get that bias exactly backwards.

The usual lies. Even after presented with explicit evidence, you continue your lies. And you get it all completely wrong because I do not care much about IPCC claims. What I object to in the media are not particular IPCC claims, but that they present only negative predictions. Even if the IPCC claims would be ideal scientific truths, the media could choose to take only the negative news out of it, and I would object - but not against using some IPCC claims. I also don't dismiss particular claims in the media. What I dismiss is the 100% negative, in a situation where it is straightforward that there will be positive things. The bias toward the presentation of negative results of warming is sufficiently obvious, and I do not correct it but add what is missed - the positive news.

Not my argument. My argument was that once you do emigrate, and agree to reside somewhere by choice, you accept the local social contract.

Ok, in this case, it is worthless for the justification of the social contract theory. Because most people do not emigrate.

Like I implied, you maybe quite capable of accepting Climate change as being real but as a part of denial fail to attempt to appreciate just what that climate change means... Don't worry, you are not alone in this. The vast majority of the worlds population fails to understand what hotter oceans means. Oceans that are gaining heat as you read this post.

I'm horrified. Really???

Your posts indicate that while you may be a reasonable thinker you fail to delve far enough or deep enough into the issues, thus rendering your posts vulnerable to being labeled naive and ignorant.

Why you cannot do without such personal attacks?

Global agriculture requires above most things, a degree of certainty regarding water. If there is no certainty there is no investment in crops.

There are well-known old technologies to handle a lot of the uncertainty regarding water. The most problematic thing is no water at all. But if there is some water, there are a lot of techniques to transform an irregular input of water into a regular, usable amount of water. For example, these:

Don't forget wells - if there is a lot of irregular precipitation, there will be usually normal groundwater levels, so that one can get water using them. Or those used by some quite old civilization faced with a big flood once a year, which made the whole territory useful for agriculture completely unusable some time, and with no rain at all. Nonetheless, they were not only able to survive, they had even time enough to build some pyramids impressive enough even today.

So, I think you make a catastrophic problem out of nothing.

Ok, not completely out of nothing - a climate change, positive or negative, requires certainly some serious investments for adaptation to the new circumstances, and make old investments useless, even negative. So, Germany has invested a lot in making rivers usable for ships, and increasing agricultural areas near the rivers. The consequence is that heavy rain a few days has today more serious consequences than in the past. All the water goes down the river very fast and without losing power on the way. So. adaptation to a new climate is certainly not for free. In case of a really serious climate change, there will be certainly also some, maybe even large, regions where will be serious losses, even regions where the most reasonable reaction would be emigration. This is not because warming is bad, but because change, in general, is costly.

But if the snow in the Sahara would be not an exception, strange enough for people to go out and wonder, and make photos immediately because tomorrow all this will already be gone away, then there would be a good future for agriculture there. A small local dam in such a mountainous area would be not a big investment, and if there would be enough precipitation to fill it, it could easily give profit.