Why yes, walleyed, I did read the article about the study by the Stanford scientists but you make it plain that you may have read it but your comprehension was piss poor. But go ahead, it's always amusing to watch one of you scientifically ignorant denier cultists try to critique the research of actual scientists by analyzing the wording of an article about their research.
I'm sure you do!!! Given how extremely ignorant about science and the scientific process you are and your general low level of intelligence, it all must be quite puzzling to you.
The USA only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface so it's not as big a deal as you imagine. And again, I'm sure you find a lot of scientific facts that you can't comprehend very "
amazing" and you must "
wonder" about almost everything that you're too ignorant and dimwitted to understand.
The article makes clear that a substantially lesser amount of food is being produced in many parts of the world than the amount that would have been produced in the absence of global warming and the article (even the bit I quoted) mentions Brazil specifically.
"The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent."
"Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France."
"The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil."
Yep, computer modeling is a fairly ubiquitous scientific technique at this point in time and is used in a great many areas of study including
crop modeling. The reason computer modeling is so widely used is that it works. Computer models have their limitations but they have demonstrated the ability to reflect real world events fairly accurately in many fields of study and application. You anti-science denier cult nitwits sneer at everything in science that you can't understand and so if a computer model is mentioned, you imagine that that is something negative that, by itself, invalidates the the rest of the research. But that is just your insanity and ignorance talking.
"how exactly did they calculate that?"....pretty much sums up your ignorance. You speculate wildly in the absence of any actual facts and without looking at the actual research paper but only going by a news release about the research and then try to imply that because you're so ignorant about how they arrive at their results then the scientists must not be "
legit" scientists and they must have forgotten to consider important factors like "
inflation" (which you know because the word wasn't mentioned in an article about the research...LOL).
"Alluding to Russia and India with their crop losses due to the recent blocking..."????? "
Blocking"??? What are you mumbling about now, walleyedretard? Russia's crop losses last year were partly the result of
wildfires that were directly linked to global warming/climate change. But this study I cited covers a longer period and is looking at trends over years.
"Brazil has indeed seen a decline in food crops BECAUSE THEY ARE PLANTING SUGERCANE FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION. So here we have a blatant case of misinformation."....yeah but, as usual, the blatant attempt at misinformation is yours. Brazil developed its ethanol economy decades ago and is not now currently transferring any significant amount of land from food production to sugar cane production.
Ethanol in Brazil: The World's First Sustainable Biofuels Economy
(excerpt)
Brazilians have never considered sugar a basic food staple, such as rice, wheat or corn, but rather just a food sweetener, so it does not play a key role to combat world hunger. The government, the private sector and the Brazilian press joint position defend sugarcane-based ethanol, claiming their ethanol was not the villain of the story. After the peak of the food vs. fuels debate last April to May, reports (links go directly to PDF reports) from the World Bank, OECD, and even the British NGO Oxfam did not put any blame on sugarcane ethanol for the increase of food prices, or for lack of sustainability. The World Bank report concludes that sugarcane based ethanol has not raised sugar prices significantly, as almost half the sugar cane harvested goes to sugar production and the other half to ethanol, not affecting world supply, as Brazil is the first sugar producer in the world.
