[fooblitzky]

That's not entirely true - if it were, most food would be grown in the tropics. Some climates suit some plants better than others.

You might get some benefits from a suitable climate moving into a fertile area, but equally you could get disastrous impacts from a suitable climate moving away from a fertile area.

You can see the impact of increased intensity of weather events on food availability already, for example, the horseradish crop failure this year means Burger King is out of Zesty Onion Dip until spring: https://dailygreenworld.com/2019/11/22/earth-changes/climate...

[3fe9a03ccd14ca5]

I think it’s important we don’t let confirmation bias muddy the discussion. It’s a trap I see is easily fall into, e.g., some uncommon weather event happens and we point the finger immediately to man-made climate change.

Inclement weather has been destroying crops since before the plow was invented.

[dvdkhlng]

The right way to look at extreme weather events in the climate change context is via Attribtion Science. Stated simplistically this looks at "how often would these kind of extremes happen in a world with normal normal levels of CO2" vs. "how often would they happen at current human-caused CO2 levels". If a certain extreme of heat-wave happens once every 10 years now, but would only happen once every 1000 years without human-contributed athmospheric CO2, than wouldn't that justify calling the extreme weather event in question as likely human-made?

Of course that depends on the availability of accurate climate models for the event in question.

Here is a non-paywalled text on the subject:

https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/extreme_wea...