[an-allen]

A third of humans are fed as a result of the melt of the Himalayan ice sheet. No ice sheet, no runoff, no flooding the rice paddy's, no rice…. famine.

[reeredfdfdf]

The thing is, not all edible plants like higher temps. Then there's the issue of changing weather patterns, more extreme weather, drought. Agriculture is easier when weather stays predictable and pattern.

Also, it's entirely possible Europe will get a new ice age as a result of global warming, as it might cause AMOC to collapse. Thus, it appears global warming is causing more harm than good to food production.

[jibal]

A reliable citation for any of these claims is lacking.

[bamboozled]

What about all the people who say the world will be greener and therefore there will be more plants and food? It's almost like they just made that up to suit their worldview?

[screye]

The world will become unevenly greener. Population density and recent population rise is inversely correlated with places that will get greener.

Polar and Continental regions will get greener at the expense of the tropical and equatorial regions.

Mass migration is the inevitable conclusion of uneven impacts of climate change. Ie. In 2026, Political climate and physical climate are moving in mutually incompatible directions.

[guelo]

The greening is uneven. Canada/Siberia are getting warmer so plants have longer growing seasons there. But it's getting browner in other areas because of increased drought and heat. Overall the predictions are for lower global food production on net.

[timr]

The world will be greener in a high-CO2 environment. There’s no legitimate argument over that fact.

Where you go wrong is in misrepresenting the argument as “more plants and food”. That’s a straw man. Certainly it’s more favorable for growth of plants that make food, but that doesn’t mean that existing patterns of food production will exist unchanged, or that adaptation won’t be required. But we’re also talking about a 100+ year change timeline. People who tell you that this year’s weather are indicative of urgent, rapid change are exaggerating.

You seem to be willing to accept wild extrapolations of doom without evidence, while rejecting scientifically well-founded statements of fact, so I’d challenge you to examine your priors.

[QuantumGood]

That is a very long chain of dependencies (what is a dependency, what is not can be shown differently than below), meaning there are less and less likely to be many people following the entire chain of dependencies. This is sometimes a key part of how a straw man is constructed.

> all

> the people

> who say

> the world will be

> greener

> and therefore there will be

> more plants

> and food

[therealpygon]

I mean, didn’t take more than 15 minutes for one to comment with some talking points designed for those who can’t read a scientific paper.

[tasuki]

Are you saying we need global warming for the melt to increase?

[mort96]

You can't melt snow that's not there.

[gambiting]

Global warming is the likely reason why there is nothing to melt in the first place.