SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the too-much-of-a-good-thing-is-not-so-good dept.
At least 1 million acres (405,000 hectares) of U.S. farmland were flooded after the "bomb cyclone" storm left wide swaths of nine major grain producing states under water this month, satellite data analyzed by Gro Intelligence for Reuters showed.
Farms from the Dakotas to Missouri and beyond have been under water for a week or more, possibly impeding planting and damaging soil. The floods, which came just weeks before planting season starts in the Midwest, will likely reduce corn, wheat and soy production this year.
"There's thousands of acres that won't be able to be planted," Ryan Sonderup, 36, of Fullerton, Nebraska, who has been farming for 18 years, said in a recent interview.
"If we had straight sunshine now until May and June, maybe it can be done, but I don't see how that soil gets back with expected rainfall."
Spring floods could yet impact an even bigger area of cropland. The U.S. government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has warned of what could be an "unprecedented flood season" as it forecasts heavy spring rains. Rivers may swell further as a deep snow pack in northern growing areas melts.
[...] The flooded acreage represents less than 1 percent of U.S. land used to grow corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, cotton, sorghum and barley. In 2018, some 240 million total acres of these crops were planted in the United States, USDA data shows.
[...] In Wisconsin more than 1,000 dairy and beef animals were lost during winter storms and 480 agricultural structures collapsed or damaged, according to an email from Sandy Chalmers, executive director of the Wisconsin state office of the USDA's Farm Service Agency.
US Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue tells Fox News Business:
"There may be as many as a million calves lost in Nebraska"
https://agroinsurance.com/en/usa-nebraska-ag-losses-from-flooding-estimated-close-to-1b/:
The Nebraska Farm Bureau president says farm and ranch losses to the devastating flooding could reach $1 billion in the state.
President Steve Nelson estimates $400 million on crop losses because of crops that will be planted late — if at all. He also estimates up to $500 million in livestock losses as the state struggles with swollen rivers and breached or overtopped levees following heavy rain and snowmelt.
Apparently this is a loss of about 1% the total cattle in the US:
All Cattle and Calves
- 94.4 million - 1% increase from 2017 (93.7 million)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:29PM (22 children)
My company is well positioned for global warming. They manage a bunch of tourist properties for state and federal governments. Not a one presently is near sea level. Several of them would have longer tourist seasons as a result of global warming. Yellowstone National Park, where I work, has seen a modest increase in viable weather. There's not much really of the negative effects of climate change that will mess up the park for tourism. Sure, in theory, there's a chance of the cold-adapted animals having a tough time (at least till they migrant 100-200 miles to the north).
I think it strange that I, climate lukewarmist am probably better prepared, such as it is, for climate change, even most of the hysterical stuff, than people who claim to be concerned about climate change.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:49PM (8 children)
Except for there being fewer and fewer tourists with the means to visit.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:38AM (2 children)
You been to Yellowstone during tourist season? It's gotten downright crowded. Way more than when I was a kid -- then you might have minor attractions all to yourself. Not anymore...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday March 31 2019, @10:18AM (1 child)
That's his point -- it's so expensive and crowded that nobody goes there anymore.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday March 31 2019, @02:18PM
Yogi? is that you??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:51AM (4 children)
Except of course, climate change has been happening for a while and people just haven't gotten poorer. Instead, we see huge increases [nationalparked.com] in visitation. For example, in 1960, visitation (1.4 million) was a third what it was in 2016 (4.3 million). The narrative isn't coming close to explaining reality.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday April 02 2019, @09:45PM (3 children)
Nice try. When things get to the point to where people have to start "moving uphill", that will mean there are vast disruptions to the current state of things. There will likely be a great deal of social and economic turmoil, and luxury activities such as tourism will be the first to feel the effects.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 03 2019, @02:55AM (2 children)
Nice victory you should mean. Assertion was made, which has been dramatically false historically.
I disagree that the disruption is vast. Keep in mind the slow time scales. So you have to move your house in a century or two? How many houses will be built on that spot before anyone has to move? I'd say at least two. People don't get how minimally we and our societies are affected by slow changes. That's why I assert that contrary to the concern expressed above, we'll probably never notice the effects of climate change even over a few decades except for some modest geographical effects.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday April 08 2019, @09:13PM (1 child)
You mean the disruption has not been vast yet. You are apparently assuming that things will continue to change at the same slow linear rate as applied from the early 1960's to now, instead of the increasing rate of change which has been occurring, especially since the turn of the century.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 09 2019, @02:01AM
Which isn't much different from said linear rate. How many centuries will we need to wait?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @11:56PM (2 children)
When people don't have money having lost their crop, do they still pay your "well positioned for global warming" company?
Or is the company targeting only the "people who always have money" market segment?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:53AM
They do not. But guess what, the economy is bigger than some farmers in the western side of the Midwest. And those farmers will still have good years, even in the era of climate change.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 31 2019, @06:56AM
To further add to Mr khallows arguement, one million acres is an area of 25 miles by 64 miles. Draw it on a multi-state map and you would have trouble finding it again.
The area will also likely be better for farming after the water goes down, further reducing the impact of a very small crop loss. On a personal level for the farmers involved it may be anywhere from annoying to devastating, and they have my sympathy, but on a society level it amounts to blip.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 31 2019, @04:35AM (9 children)
Why don't you just say you work for Xanterra?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @02:39PM (8 children)
Nobody else says who they work for.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:41PM (7 children)
Nobody else is sufficiently specific about their employer that identification is trivial -- except for Ethanol-Fueled, but then I am skeptical about his employment claims.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @03:45PM (6 children)
I disagree. It's not trivial, if you still have to google it. And I bet other people have done the same over the years. I will continue with my policy of not mentioning my employer's name, because as I noted, it's everyone else's policy as well.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 31 2019, @04:16PM (5 children)
I didn't have to Google it.
Following a stay in Yellowstone a couple of years ago, your employer continues to send emails to me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 31 2019, @08:00PM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday March 31 2019, @10:02PM (3 children)
No need for action, I haven't tried unsubscribing.
It's not a problem. I would like to go back to Yellowstone some time, so the emails really are not an issue, plus gmail dumps them in the "Promotions" bucket.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 03 2019, @03:24AM (2 children)
Going back to the thing, I doubt many people do business like you do with my company so it isn't really that much additional exposure. No direct mention of the company by me, no potential HR drama. That's the theory.
As to the subject of discussion, if you know something bad is going to happen, you can prep for it. I know of at least one Soylentil who thinks sea level rise from climate change is going to accelerate fairly quickly in the near future and yet they still own land near the coast. Sorry, I doubt most of the world would under that scenario (that is, assuming their assumptions are correct) respond in time to protect their assets. They need to do some thinking about the future IMHO.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday April 03 2019, @04:15AM (1 child)
My house is relatively close to the coast, but about 50 ft above sea level. Even in the worst case scenarios, I don't think it is going to be under water until long after I am dead.
I would be more concerned if I owned a house that was merely a few feet above sea level.
Then, we all need to worry about the super-volcano under Yellowstone. Or earthquakes. So many things to worry about.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 03 2019, @04:34AM
The less you have to worry about, the more you have to worry about. ;-)