NOAA Says We Will Run Out Of Chocolate!
By Paul Homewood
h/t Patsy Lacey
It did not take long for the first potty climate story of the year to appear in the Mail!
Experts predict the world could run out of chocolate within 40 years because cacao plants are struggling to survive in warmer climates.
The trees can only grow within approximately 20 degrees north and south of the Equator – and they thrive under specific conditions such as high humidity and abundant rain.
But a temperature rise of just 2.1C over the next 30 years caused by global warming is set to wreak havoc for the plants – and in turn the worldwide chocolate industry, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5226083/World-set-run-chocolate-just-30-years.html
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
I’m not sure who is claiming that there will be a temperature rise of 2.1C in the next thirty years. This is away with the fairies stuff.
The Mail goes on to make this ridiculous claim as well:
As the mercury rises and squeezes more water out of soil and plants, scientists believe it is unlikely that rainfall will increase enough to offset the moisture loss.
They might not have noticed, but these equatorial regions are some of the wettest and most humid places in the world. If anything, they will get wetter in a warming world, not drier.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I thought that one of the central tenets of the warmist mantra was that global warming would mean that the atmosphere holds more moisture. Maybe I’m just mixing up climate and weather again.
Do these people not realise how ridiculous they are? Where do they think all the extra moisture in the atmosphere will end up if it doesn’t appear as rain?
Whenever you read the words “experts predict” you know you are probably about to read junk. “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future”.
“Did these people not realise how ridiculous they are”
No.
Not the remotest, tiniest sign of that happening and it doesn’t help at all that even the right wing side of the MSM keep happily printing this type of nonsense.
Yes, it was a rhetorical question, since we all know the answer!! They do not engage their brains (such as they have) before putting pen to paper.
They can’t even get predictions of the past correct so they have to keep “adjusting” the data.
Aw shucks, no choccie if temp rises 2.1C
Let’s console ourselves with the coffee that wasn’t killed off by immediate frosts ameliorated by this wicked global warming:
Far greater chance we will have run out of NOAA in 30 years time
Good news then. Fewer diabetics and obese people.
It’s an ill wind …… etc.
Then there is this from John Innes Centre on trebling Wheat production. https://www.jic.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2017/12/speed-breeding/# You are not allowed to ask where the electricity for the intensive lighting comes from
Another journalist rummaging the cuttings in search of a story to fill the pages.
I’m not an expert in anything but I thought things tend to grow faster when its warmer. Ask anyone with a garden in the south west.
And, don’t forget that we will have drowned after all the ice sheets melt. No coffee, no chocolate… no bovine methane, nothing to eat but weeds between reforested trees… Solar panels and wind turbines everywhere. Sounds great?
Just consider, they can rerun this article on Valentine’s Day.
Chocolate is the new polar bear.
All news now appears to be Fake …. no wonder Trump tweets everything
“Experts & Scientists” have taken over religion from the priests (even the Pope is getting in on the act) and are now the new establishment Witch doctors to steer your train of thought
Yearend 2012 was essentially the same alarm, except coffee rather than cacao. Exposed the deceit in essay Last Cup of Coffee.
Now, forgive me for extrapolating here but if things DO heat up and that means the area of warming around the equator expands, wouldn’t that mean the environment for the growth of cacao plants just moves away from its current location? Too hot in one location on a ball orbiting the sun would mean to move away from that hot point to a cooler one where they would sustain themselves.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
Global warming threatens everything you love…now hand over the cash 😂
Fatuous nonsense. It has been repeated in the local newspaper in Adelaide although the local reporter had visited the 2 local chocolate manufacturers, neither of whom gave any sign of panic. One pointed out that new plantings in tropical Queensland would help supply when they started producing in a few years. The article also claimed shortages in milk, butter, oysters, honey, fish and peanuts.
I only buy the paper on one day a week but I am wondering, not for the first time, why.
NOAA should stick to the oceans and the atmosphere, and stay out of agriculture.
Full disclosure, I am a global warming believer and writer, and even I called this out as fake news.
http://www.catholic.org/news/green/story.php?id=76627
Silly claims like these hurt more than help the quest for truth that is essential should we want to develop wise, informed policy that’s grounded in science, not hyperbole.
If this were true, how are the plants here now? Surely the Earth was slightly warmer in the past than it is now. Why didn’t they all die THEN?
See how stupid these people are? Or how stupid they think WE are?
Earth has been significantly warmer in the past, as much as 73 degrees F on average, compared to the average of 50 degrees today. That was about 55 million years ago or so, just after the end of the dinosaurs by a few million years.
The problem with global warming isn’t the warmth itself, life can adapt as it has in the past. The problem is the speed at which the warming is taking place. Environmental changes are happening so quickly, nature cannot adapt fast enough without suffering mass extinctions.
This has happened before, but by natural means, such as the eruption of a supervolcano complex or an asteroid impact. On this occasion, the data suggests it could be the product of human CO2-induced emissions.
Even under the bleakest global arming scenarios Life will prevail, as will the human species. The question is how much biodiversity will we lose in the process and what impact will that have on civilization as we know it.
60 degrees today, not 50. Typo. 😉
My goodness when I read ignorant claims like this I just shake my head in disgust. Do these jokers not realize that cacao has been cultivated for at least 4,000 years? Most likely the trees are 10,000+ years old and have seen much warmer climates than today’s – during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Holocene Optimum for instance. They are genetically adapted to much warmer temperatures than the present.