[nec4b]

>> It is scientifically proven that every food is grown in some local conditions with local phenomena. Global averages are relevant only how they affect these local conditions.

If on average the Earth is getting greener, this doesn't mean everywhere on Earth is getting greener the same amount. Some places may become less green, some may stay the same and some may become much greener. But on average more places are getting greener than not. Therefore global output is increasing!

>> Unless you have serious research on contrary? How can you be so sure there's not going to be heatwaves, floods, etc. that cause havoc in enough locales to affect world food security?

Historical data shows Earth was greener and had larger animal mass when it was warmer. If you think this time things will be different, you should present evidence confirming your position.

[rini17]

> Historical data shows Earth was greener and had larger animal mass when it was warmer.

Which historical data? For example the hottest period ever was during time of Pangaea supercontinent, which was largely desert.

[nec4b]

>> For example the hottest period ever was during time of Pangaea supercontinent, which was largely desert.

It was almost the hottest period, but not the hottest. Pangaea was dry because of its unique geography which prevented moist air from coasts to move around the continent. You picked up a bad example.

>> Which historical data?

Mostly geological data. Btw. historical temperature data also comes from geological data. You can search Wikipedia for specific information.

[rini17]

Moist air from coasts exists thanks to warm oceanic currents. These currents might change even in current geography so that even despite average temperature rises, the currents move farther from areas suitable for agriculture. Or, on the other hand, the water becomes hotter and produce strong hurricanes/typhoons more regularly.

Neither is good for crops.